Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:53, 6 June 2008 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →User:Truthmaker1 reported by User:Damiens.rf (Result: Declined, request review): Comment← Previous edit Revision as of 16:58, 6 June 2008 edit undoCaspian blue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,434 edits →Example: +Next edit →
Line 410: Line 410:
:{{AN3|declined}} The user in question is reverting away from a version of the article that has a clear negative slant and in which undue weight in this short article is given to criticism of the subject. Consequently, his reverts are exempt from the 3-revert-rule. See ] and ]. However, this is not a cut-and-dried case and I invite further review. ] (]) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC) :{{AN3|declined}} The user in question is reverting away from a version of the article that has a clear negative slant and in which undue weight in this short article is given to criticism of the subject. Consequently, his reverts are exempt from the 3-revert-rule. See ] and ]. However, this is not a cut-and-dried case and I invite further review. ] (]) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
::'''Comment.''' This article has been controversial for BLP reasons, but I don't see Truthmaker1's repeated removal of the reference to the Times article as having a BLP justification. The forgery charge is supported by that article. Reliable sources do indicate that this man has had a checkered history. The version to which Truthmaker1 reverted appears sanitized. Due to the complexity of Freer's dealings, it is possible that the details of his past troubles are still not exactly correct in the article. But deleting the Times reference can't be a reasonable step to take in fixing that. ] (]) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC) ::'''Comment.''' This article has been controversial for BLP reasons, but I don't see Truthmaker1's repeated removal of the reference to the Times article as having a BLP justification. The forgery charge is supported by that article. Reliable sources do indicate that this man has had a checkered history. The version to which Truthmaker1 reverted appears sanitized. Due to the complexity of Freer's dealings, it is possible that the details of his past troubles are still not exactly correct in the article. But deleting the Times reference can't be a reasonable step to take in fixing that. ] (]) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

*] violation on {{Article|Blade of the Phantom Master}}. {{3RRV|Jazz81089}}: Time reported: 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to:

*1st revert:
*2nd revert: {{user|61.119.133.163}}
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:

*Diff of 3RR warning:

I happened to know the article due to repeated vandalism on ] by ] who also vandalised the page of Blade of the Phantom Master as blanking the nationality of the artists. The main dispute is that it is only ], Japanese comics, or ]. However, the two are translated into Japanese / Korean cartoon, so I presented a compromised version like ''" the work is a cartoon and an animationion series created by Korean manhwa artist..., specializing as Japanese manga published by a Japanese publisher"....However, the anon removed all Korean mention and manhwa. I think this disruption is unfair, but have tried to resolve the dispute enough, as opened a discussion at the talk page, left message at Japanese ] ISP anon(s) for discussion several times, even filed RFC and went ], ]. But nothing returned from the other, and the anon keeps ignoring all ] methods and removed Korean mention which originally addressed on the article. However, too obvious sock account (return after his/her 8 month break and under 15 edits in total). There is no other participant in dispute, the anon is highly likely Jazz81089. I went to ], but due to his total edits made Checkuser to judge anything. ]

Besides, I believe that this case is related to a banned user who did the same thing on the article in question, and the anon/Jazz81089 also already violated 3RR rules.

*lst revert by 220.104.47.22 (ocn)
*2nd revert by 61.119.129.25 (ocn)
*3rd revert by Jazz81089
*4th revert by 61.119.133.163 (ocn)
*5th revert by Jazz81089

I don't see he do have any intention to cooperate with the opponent (me) and regard consensus. Judging by the circumstance evidence, the dynamic anon could be none but Jazz81089. He violated 3RR rules twice, so I think he needs a lesson on his violations. --] (]) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


== Example == == Example ==

Revision as of 16:58, 6 June 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:DHeyward reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result: Page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    User knows the rules and was warned that he was breaking 3RR here: Other editor attempted to discuss with him the conflict but user simply reverted the message.

    There are many other reverts going back over the past couple days. There are only 4 reverts within the last 24 hours, violating the 3RR which is an electronic fence not to be crossed, besides his edit warring in general, and I note lack of the use of the talk page to discuss the content dispute.

    Conflict is about adding the information about the article's POV on the abortion issue, and his wanting to take a capital case.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


    These are BLP violations and oversighted reverts in the list (notice back to back edits by me with no differences, as well as on my talk page). Please check with User:Fred Bauder of oversight before taking action as he is the oversight person who I've worked with on those edits. Also please note that Giovanni33 was looking to bait me with a single unexplained revert. Not cool and I even told him on his talk page that these were oversighted edits. Please ask to stop wikistalking me and supporting those that harass me. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    There were a couple of edits which were inappropriate (a stale dispute revisited). What remains visible now (pro-life) and (capital case) is unobjectionable. Fred Talk 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I see no BLP concerns here. DHeyward is not assuming good faith either with his unfounded accusation that I was trying to "bait him." That is absurd just like his other accusations here. I even left a message on the talk page asking him to discuss his concern instead of just edit-warring. I also left one on his talk page. If there was some BLP issue then the offending editor would have been warned, or blocked. Instead we just have DHeyward edit-warring on his own, over the course of several days.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Of course you don't see it. It's been oversighted. A user would have been blocked but this is a low-level of activity IP editor so we just deal with it using rollback and other edits. The IP editor is aka Kek15 and her edits were discussed over a month ago. --DHeyward (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think you are mixing up and confusing that with this issue. I see nothing related to the user Kek15 here, and nothing about BLP or privacy. The issue is public information that you are reverting, specifically his view on Abortion (relevant given the case), and his being rejected for a Capital Case, based on inexperience according to the judge. What is the privacy concern, here?Giovanni33 (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I see that you have not been involved in this article so that is why you do not know anything. Isnerting yourself was a bad idea since it was only to bait me.. --DHeyward (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    I've reverted myself pending other input but please address the wikistalking and baiting that User:Giovanni33 is engaged in. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    I am formerly Kek15 and my issue with this article and Dheyward had nothing to do with this content. I was attempting to add the term Christian Terrorirst and this is well documented on the article talk page. Dheyard is confusing 2 issues here. The content that he is attempting to remove now has been in the article for a long time without objection from him or anyone else. I (and others) are pleading with Dheyard to please use the article talk page to present his rationale for removing this content at this time. It is sourced, it is public information, and has been in the article for a long time. DHeyward is an experienced editor who does know the rules. He has violated the 3RR and I have left him 2 warnings on his talk page. He really does know better. Why does he refuse to discuss this? Why the edit war? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    "Terrorist" is hardly a term that should be tossed around lightly, and it's inexplicable that you think such a thing ever belongs in a NPOV article. Even the article on Osama bin Laden only mentions that word in the context of direct quotes and references (such as saying he's on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list), rather than using it directly as a description of the person. Now, "stalking" and "harassing" are also terms that shouldn't be tossed around nearly as much as they are, and it's disappointing that DHeyward uses them in the context of an editing dispute. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    The term Christian terrorist was not being tossed around lightly and has nothing to do with this current edit war (that other issue was over a month ago). The term applied to one of Scarborough's clients, but sufficient sourcing was not found for it to appear in the article as opposed to the article on Eric Rudolph where the sourcing and consensus does provide for its inclusion. I agree that DHeyward is a more experienced editor than some of his comments here would indicate. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    If OBL is not a terrorist - who is? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Currently waiting on DHeyward to propose alternative wording that is to his satisfaction in order that article can be unprotected. See Joe Scarborough talk page. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected by User:Viridae. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Locke Cole reported by User:SQL (Result: Two users blocked.)

    Explanation, Locke Cole (talk · contribs), has a very long history of edit warring on WP:BOTS ( ) and WP:BAG ( ) , and, has been blocked multiple times for edit warring (in fact, just recently). At this point, it appears the system is being gamed, by running right up to 3RR, with his preferred version, even though multiple other users are reverting it to the version that describes the current practice. He is clearly aware of the Three Revert Rule, and, generally chooses to ignore it, it seems. Anyhow, it appears, he's back, trying to kick up the same old problems. SQL 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    " Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. — Werdna talk 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Clarification: Both Locke Cole and Betacommand. — Werdna talk 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    User:Betacommand2 remains unblocked. What's the procedure in cases of multiple accounts? Leithp 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    It remains unblocked until he uses it to circumvent the block. If he does circumvent the block, then it will be extended . But he wouldn't be stupid enough to do that. Scarian 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:UtherSRG reported by User:Mark t young (Result: Two editors 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • This is an edit war over what page Marsupial lion links to. The pages as is, current makes little sense, and is being discussed at: . At the moment there is no consensus as there is two editors on both side of the arguement.
    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Both UtherSRG and Cazique. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Thsebajabum reported by User:Montco (Result: Already blocked 31 hours)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Including the four reverts since the warning was issued. Montco (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    Already blocked 31 hours by Doczilla. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mosesconfuser reported by User:Appletrees (Result: 24 hours)

    The edit waring originally started by Mosesconfuser (talk · contribs) on May 31th over whether some part of history could be interpreted as a legend or regarded written history on multiple articles related to Korea, but there is no discussion on the controversial subject except this mockery.

    Regardless of the 3RR waring and my advice to participate in a discussion to the both party, unlike Kubie, Mosesconfuser ignored and reverted to his preferred version twice. Besides, meanwhile, he also added another previously reverted contents. Judging by his POV pushing and writing habits, I don't think Mosesconfuser is a newbie, so he needs a lesson from his violation. --Appletrees (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:I am a jedi reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hours )



    Result - I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Scarian 08:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Redman19 reported by User:Icykip2005 (Result: Article protected)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: (this is an old edit-war & 3rr warning to the same user. The user had been in edit wars on other articles. Hence, there isn't a new warning about Galatasaray article.)
    • here I explained my edition in details but the user keeps calling that vandalism.
    Page protected Both these editors seem well-intentioned, and they participate on Talk, though not always courteously. They are not the first sports fans to take all details extremely seriously. Protected two days. If the revert war starts up again after two days, blocks will be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    The two editors left extremely lengthy comments here, which I have moved to Talk:Galatasaray S.K.. Please continue the debate there. Since the alternative is to immediately block both editors, please show some patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good work, Ed. Scarian 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    OK this is my last comment here. I still don't understand how did the user with 3rr violation twice get away with no punishment. This certainly will make the user think he was right about 3rr vioaltions and will encourage him for new edit wars. --Icykip2005 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    (Undent) If he does edit war again, then report him here again. Ed made the right decision, in my opinion. Scarian 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    I dont get it why are you thinking im vandalising things Icykip2005? I made the Galatasaray page look nice with the right info but you seem to have missed my point when you are reverting your edits are deleting some precious info ! please take a look at it by yourself and you will see what I mean I was never banned or blocked, Im just a user thats tries to add useful info at pages and clean up vandalism

    Redman19 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Andyvphil reported by 76.168.6.152 (talk) (Result: No vio )

    Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 11:27, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ restore material")
    2. 11:34, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Better description than "fundraiser".")
    3. 11:48, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Part of what "radical activist" means.")
    4. 13:09, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "restoration; improve cite for TUCC resignation")
    5. 23:25, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Restore section, specify meaning of "several".")
    6. 14:32, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ bit more specificity")
    7. 15:54, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Equating bombing with radicalism is offensive

    to radicals, such as myself.")

    User:Andyvphil has resumed edit warring over exact same topic (slightly different wording) as blocked users (possible socks) User:Kossack4Truth and User:Fovean Author. A long discussion on article talk reached (rough) consensus on minimal encyclopedic language to use in mentioned "disreputable associates" of bio subject, in a WP:SUMMARY article. Andyvphil has resumed inserting identical long digresssions about these third persons; probably hoping to sneak them in during the recently accelerated editing by previously uninvolved editors (in unrelated article areas, the completed nomination race drew lots of editor interest).

    —76.168.6.152 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    Only 2 reverts on the 4th of June that I can see. If you believe them to be socks then take it to WP:SSP or WP:RfCU. I've blocked those guys before so no doubt they'll be back again. No vio. Scarian 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think Andyvphil is a sock of K4T. Sorry if the wording was unclear. I meant K4T/FA as socks of each other. There's a request for check at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. You're right that Andyvphil has only reverted to the edit-warring stuff twice (so far) today. 76.168.6.152 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    No worries, Mr.IP. Thanks for being so vigilant. Scarian 20:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Only 2 reverts on the 4th of June that I can see. Sic! Scarian, if you are going to enforce 3RR you need to count more carefully. Mr. Anonymous IP's undigested listing of all my edits shows a total of two edits on 6/4, and the first is... a revert? To what version? He deserves censure for filing a ridiculously false report, not thanks. Andyvphil (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    ...and speaking of sockpuppets, an editor whose third edit is a posting of this report is a likely candidate. Whom are you better known as, Mr. Anonymous IP? Andyvphil (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:PelleSmith reported by — Dzonatas (Result: no vio)

    Natural theology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PelleSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 21:32, 4 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "undo - please bring the quote to the talk page ... natural theology is not theology "on nature" ... you seem to have that reversed")
    2. 23:51, 4 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "google it or search your local library ... this is clearly and undisputably a notable concept ...")
    3. 00:56, 5 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "you are pushing it here ... see the body of the entry and all the various notable people engaged in "natural theology"")
    • PelleSmith continues to not provided substantial material to satisfy citations. He seems to use the reverts in order to avoid WP:BURDEN on natural theology. PelleSmith's first revert actually removed a citation from the lead that can be used to verify it, so I tagged it for him to satisfy the needed citations, and you can see his replies above in the reverts. It is also suspicious that he used the wikiprojects to draw attention to an AfD on astrotheology. (which now someone else has made the 4th revert -- reverting citation tags without providing any refs???)

    —— Dzonatas 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    For reference, PelleSmith's WikiProject request is looks like this. He contacted the Religion, Christianity, and Philosophy projects. Also, I have further reverted this user, because it seemed to me that the tagging is very pointy. How can something like natural theology not be notable? The user seems frustrated. Merzul (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    It is not clear why he stated "pointy." I asked on Merzul's talk page to clarify. PelleSmith's reason to revert my change is merely based on the question that *I* made the change. PelleSmith didn't question the content of the change at all. See the talk page. If you notice in AN/I, it shows how he also reverted the lead in astrotheology. He seems to support that "astrotheology is natural theology" in order to get it merged into natural theology, even though I have shown many times that astrotheology is not based on teleology like natural theology's original principle. The citation I added explains that, he deleted it. Even if citations for other parts of the lead can be given, this one obviously deserves more merit than to outright delete it (and further request tags) — Dzonatas 02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    No violation There are only three reverts listed in this report. You need four to violate 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Reezy reported by User:Mosmof (Result: 8 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: 22:43, May 29, 2008 - user continues to insert obvious copyvio image.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 00:36, June 5, 2008
    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 8 hours Both images are available under free licenses so there is no copyright issue, and both the reporter and the reportee have made four reverts. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    Cumulus Clouds reported by Malcolm Schosha (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 3RR warning:
    • 4th revert:
    • This user has the same 4 reverts on the article. Their warning was made in the middle of my own fourth revert, which I apologize for. All parties have been warned and I expect the edit war will cease. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Malformed report. Anyway, both users blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. Scarian 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Marburg72 reported by User:Grey Wanderer (Result: Declined)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User has been around for a while, he should probably know better than this. Of note also are several accusations of racism that an admin may want to take into account.

    Declined Whilst the editor has been around for about 10 months, he has made less than 100 edits in that time and thus I would not regard him as experienced. Since he has not performed a revert since he was warned of the 3-revert-rule, I would not be prepared to block unless he made a further reversion. CIreland (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


    209.142.181.172 reported by user:Loonymonkey (Result: 24 hours)


    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    Johan Rachmaninov‎ reported by Alex 101 (Result: both users blocked, 10 hours)

    Bad Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Johan Rachmaninov‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 03:22, 4 June 2008
    2. 18:31, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216998019 by Alex 101 (talk) Someone needs to read the policy on OR")
    3. 22:27, 4 June 2008
    4. 23:27, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217176589 by Alex 101 (talk) No OR")
    5. 02:33, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217196176 by Alex 101 (talk)")
    6. 02:33, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/Undid revision 217196176 by Alex 101 (talk)")
    7. 22:47, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217335707 by Alex 101 (talk)")
    8. 22:49, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk) Undid per WP:NORN")
    9. 23:24, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217420991 by Alex 101 (talk) No")
    10. 00:08, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217427324 by Alex 101 (talk) How is vandalism if i have a source?")
    11. 00:19, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217429778 by Alex 101 (talk) it Dosn't matter what you think. Again, read WP:NORN")
    12. 00:55, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
    13. 00:55, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
    14. 01:12, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
    15. 01:13, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")

    Johan Rachmaninov‎ has repeatedly been edit warring with me on the Bad Religion page by changing the band's genre. He keeps changing their genre hardcore punk to pop punk. Bad Religion is actually a hardcore punk band, not a pop punk band and they are not Blink-182, Good Charlotte, Green Day, Sum 41 and Yellowcard, who all use that genre. He's been doing this for two days and he won't stop. I've really had enough of it. Earlier today, I already sent a request to block it in a way to stop this argument. So please, ban this guy without delay; he has a bad habit of not listening to me when I ask him to stop what he's doing.

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 10 hours CIreland (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Andyvphil reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Poss. article ban )

    Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 12:56, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ revert "bold" deletion of Ayers")
    2. 23:24, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Claim that there is consensus to omit Ayers from this article is bogus.")
    3. 13:06, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "undo deletions performed by edit warring hagiographers")

    Although not strictly a violation of 3RR (the editor in question waited 24 hours and 10 minutes before performing the same revert again), this is still a clear case of edit warring (the reason for 3RR in the first place), and for exactly the same material as he was previously blocked for a week. These particular edits are both contentious and tendentious, and violate WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    Actually, the third revert wouldn't have violated 3RR even if were within 24 hours of the first. Takes four to do that, so there was no reason for me to "wait". I just happpen to get in from work about the same time every day. Anyway, if you look at the talk page you will find that Scjessey offered seven alternatives for the treatment of Bill Ayers in Barack Obama and got virtually no support for his preferred option (#1) of no mention at all of the former Weatherman in Obama's bio. Despite the ongoing discussion and majority opposition to his course of action (even Scjessey had given up on #1 in favor of an excessively anodyne #3) Shem decided it was time to initiate WP:BRD by deleting all mention of Ayers from the page.. BRD of course allows for "R" (my first edit above) as well as "B" and is supposed to be followed by "D", not immediate repetition of "B" until it sticks. Both Kossak4Truth and I have restored Ayers to the page, and the minority of editors (the poll was quite clear in it's result -- "no mention" got maybe two votes out of about 20) who want no mention of Ayers have edit warred it off. And as I speak, it is still off, since I won't violate 3RR (and indeed have not violated 2RR) to restore it. A sockpuppet IP reported me for "violating 3RR" a bit further up this page on the basis of one revert, and now Scjessey wants me blocked for three (not four) in 25. He has himself made three reverts in the last 17 hours. He is clearly engaging in knowing abuse of process...as can be seen by examining Scjessey's own edits:
    1. 00:00, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "rm original research")
    2. 20:08, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Campaign */ - restored original section title of "U.S. Senate campaign" - weird that it should've been changed in the first place")
    3. 20:13, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217381741 by The Rogue Penguin - restore image order (can't have people's backs facing text, looks weird)")
    4. 02:18, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */ rm absolutely ludicrous categories")
    5. 10:29, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217474873 by Foxcloud (talk) - rv category insanity")
    Andyvphil (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    I think an article ban would be better than blocking. Andyvphil, you haven't had one single edit that lasted. You've been reverted by numerous users. Do you think it's time to quit (editing that article, I don't mean Misplaced Pages)? There must be something wrong with your edits if you're being reverted all the time. Not everyone is a vandal or an edit warrer, do you realise this? No violation by either but I think a voluntary article ban for both user's would save them from being blocked. Scarian 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but even a cursory glance at the edit summaries of my edits above will see there is no edit warring on my part. Two of those edits concern minor formatting issues, and the other two concern miscategorizations. Furthermore, you will see from the article's talk page that I am engaged in a lengthy consensus-building exercise, which I initiated, and in which Andyvphil has taken almost no part it. I filed this report because Andyvphil was obstructing the consensus-building process with identical contentious edits concerning the material being discussed, rather than revert any of those edits myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Truthmaker1 reported by User:Damiens.rf (Result: Declined, request review)


    Declined The user in question is reverting away from a version of the article that has a clear negative slant and in which undue weight in this short article is given to criticism of the subject. Consequently, his reverts are exempt from the 3-revert-rule. See WP:BLP and WP:3RR. However, this is not a cut-and-dried case and I invite further review. CIreland (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. This article has been controversial for BLP reasons, but I don't see Truthmaker1's repeated removal of the reference to the Times article as having a BLP justification. The forgery charge is supported by that article. Reliable sources do indicate that this man has had a checkered history. The version to which Truthmaker1 reverted appears sanitized. Due to the complexity of Freer's dealings, it is possible that the details of his past troubles are still not exactly correct in the article. But deleting the Times reference can't be a reasonable step to take in fixing that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Jazz81089 reported by User:Appletrees (Result: )

    I happened to know the article due to repeated vandalism on manhwa by OCN ISP anon who also vandalised the page of Blade of the Phantom Master as blanking the nationality of the artists. The main dispute is that it is only manga, Japanese comics, or manhwa. However, the two are translated into Japanese / Korean cartoon, so I presented a compromised version like " the work is a cartoon and an animationion series created by Korean manhwa artist..., specializing as Japanese manga published by a Japanese publisher"....However, the anon removed all Korean mention and manhwa. I think this disruption is unfair, but have tried to resolve the dispute enough, as opened a discussion at the talk page, left message at Japanese OCN ISP anon(s) for discussion several times, even filed RFC and went WP:AIV, WP:RFP. But nothing returned from the other, and the anon keeps ignoring all WP:DR methods and removed Korean mention which originally addressed on the article. However, too obvious sock account (return after his/her 8 month break and under 15 edits in total). There is no other participant in dispute, the anon is highly likely Jazz81089. I went to WP:RFCU, but due to his total edits made Checkuser to judge anything. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou

    Besides, I believe that this case is related to a banned user who did the same thing on the article in question, and the anon/Jazz81089 also already violated 3RR rules.

    I don't see he do have any intention to cooperate with the opponent (me) and regard consensus. Judging by the circumstance evidence, the dynamic anon could be none but Jazz81089. He violated 3RR rules twice, so I think he needs a lesson on his violations. --Appletrees (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories: