Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 08:15, 3 September 2007 (→[] reported by [] (Result: ): no action). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:15, 3 September 2007 by Daniel (talk | contribs) (→[] reported by [] (Result: ): no action)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.

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.

    User:24.13.244.119 reported by User:Ronnotel (Result: 24 hours)

    Virginia Tech massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.13.244.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

    What's the procedure when a user returns from a 3RR block only to revert the exact same content, when the topic has already been addressed? That is what has happened in this case. -- Sfmammamia 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Brendan.lloyd reported by User:Prester John (Result: Page protected)

    David Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brendan.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

    All reverts are the same

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Brendan Lloyd breaks 3RR to continually reinsert his POV replacement "lead" in a long established article and doesn't seem to acknowledge arguments on the talk page.

    • I've protected the page. I see only 3 reverts here by User:Brendan.lloyd; interestingly, I see 4 reverts in the past 24 hours by the reporter, User:Prester John. However, rather than blocking either party, I've protected the page to cool off the edit war and encourage discussion. If edit-warring resumes after the protection is lifted, I'd likely have a lower threshold for handing out blocks to all involved parties. MastCell 19:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:DIREKTOR and User:Zenanarh reported by User:Giovanni Giove (Result: no violation)

    Zadar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). {{User:DIREKTOR and User:Zenanarh}}: Time reported: 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

    Insertion by :

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    The two users act together in several articles imposing POV with edit wars.--Giovanni Giove 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

    Moderator involved in the problem Isotope23 (he can confirm the accuse, the 2 user play together)--Giovanni Giove 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    Completely untrue, I edited, not merely reverted. The user Giovanni Giove attempted (unsuccessfully) to provoke two other users into violating the rule. He himself made no less than seven reverts on a previous occasion (see the report above). Now he presumes to judge others in upholding this rule. DIREKTOR 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:75.183.174.149 reported by User:Chrishomingtang (Result: 31 hours)

    Chinese Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.183.174.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    User:Gantuya eng reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 48 hrs)

    China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gantuya eng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)



    User:Hungrywolf reported by User:Blackbeard2K7 (Result:no action)

    Field Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hungrywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


    I dont understand how this user has sweet talked his way out of a perfectly legitimate block. The user clearly violated 3RR and has been causing disruption for weeks. This is not the first time he has done it, and he has also resorted to personal attacks and false accusations all over the place against me, I can't even keep track anymore, reverting my edits on my own talk page with comments like "let everyone see what u are" and "Why are you shy of showing people what a person u r". He has never responded to any of the questions asked of him. All he ever does is cry wolf and repeat his false accusations over and over, in several different pages. He should be reprimanded for his actions since he is a repeat offender. See. Additionally, if you look at Hungrywolf (talk · contribs) his contributions even after the block was lifted, he is now claiming that he has personal information about me that he is willing to offer other users, and is continuing to "admin shop" and make petitions against me.Blackbeard2k7 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    • As both sides are edit warring, I'm not willing to block only one. As for the personal information: this is a more serious issue, but without some diffs, I can't really verify if this is the case (also more appropriate for WP:ANI, anyway). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Watchdogb reported by User:Snowolfd4 (Result:article protected)

    Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Watchdogb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    Some if not all of content in question is common knowledge to anyone from sri lanka and watchdogb upheld these facts. Since this accuser had claimed this stuff is fake, I have added reputable citations dismissing these claims. I don't think anyone can claim the stuff is uncited now. Sinhala freedom 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    Also the page has been protected. Sinhala freedom 14:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, so no blocks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Dreaded Walrus reported by User:Aladdin Zane (Result: No action)

    User violated the 3RR on the page in a period of less than an hour. Over a few different edits i had made.Aladdin Zane 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah... See my response here. As I said there, I haven't broken 3RR. I don't understand why you decided to bring it here anyway. I assume you read the guidelines on 3RR? --Dreaded Walrus 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    I see 3 reverts, not more than three. And next time please follow the correct format for 3RR reports. Thanks. --Tango 20:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:24h, 1 week for reporter)

    Mark Lane (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    • User is gaming the 3RR by making 4 reverts in just over 25 hours. User is a likely sockpupet of an unidentified IP who was involved in an arbcom case, and is well aware of the 3RR rule, and is clearly manipulating it here.

    User:AlexCovarrubias reported by User:67.71.251.74 (Result: 2 Blocks, 1 month and 24 hours)

    Subregion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:02 1 Sep/07

    The offending user added gibberish to this article, not making much sense. After my duly labeled corrections, this editor afterward reverted four times in the span of minutes, each time labeling edits as 'rvv' despite my summaries to the contrary (see 2nd dif). Apparently, this editor has a lengthy history of edit warring and blocking. This warrants some punishment for both parties, since I also had to revert his reverts. 67.71.251.74 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    BTW: I was reported by this editor as a vandal, only to be dismissed for similar reasons. 67.71.251.74 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Can you two not work this out? I mean, you claim his material is "gibberish" when it's clearly not, and he claims yours is vandalism, when it's clearly not. At least try to discuss this before edit warring. --Haemo 06:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you. However, please note that erasing valid and verifiable information is vandalism, or maybe I'm wrong, last time I checked it was considered vandalism, especially from an "anonimous IP" user. AlexCovarrubias 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    You are rather out of line: if you didn't read the above vandal report, even the admin that dismissed it thought that the reverted "edits consisted of rewording confusingly phrased and misspelled content." Read: gibberish. I do not edit to help others with their English. 67.71.251.74 16:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    I might add that anonimously erasing valid and verifiable content is vandalism. Also, sadly, the "anonimous IP user" seem to be in reality another user (sockpuppetry), or how an anon user learnt so fast about WP policies and even how to "report 3RR" violations? Why don't he just login with his main account and report? He says he "deserves" to be blocked... on an anon IP address? This fact only proves to be a registered user trying to avoid scrutinity from admins when he admits that "he does not help other with their english". The user in question is avoiding another of his multiple blocks for edit-warring and/or use of profanity and uncivil manners (as you can read in the above messages left by him). It is easy to notice when sockpuppetry is going on. I first thought it was just a vandal, but then I realized it was not. This "anon user" is obviously passionately interested in the topic of subregions and geographical arrangements. Please take a look at Talk:Metropolis. I suspect he is User:Corticopia (please check his contrib. and block list). I beg for the attention of an admin. regarding Corticopia and his multiple accounts (and IP anon accounts). I have been following the case very closely since 2006, as he edits in almost every article I edit and I have detected the trend. I can provide with the proofs and the investigation I have made. Thank you. AlexCovarrubias 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    Vandalism has to be malicious. The edits you reverted were clearly not malicious, so were not vandalism. This is a content dispute, and the 3RR applies. Seeing as you have already been blocked repeatedly for 3RR violations, and should therefore know better, I am blocking you for a month. I am also blocking the IP address for 24 hours, since your edits were also not vandalism. --Tango 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:68.49.28.218 reported by User:Strothra (Result: 24 hours)

    Princeton University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.49.28.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


    False information was added to the article, and I removed it. An edit war ensued, and so I created a section on the talk page for the article with an explanation of my revision in the hopes of reaching a consensus. No one has made any comments there. Instead, User:Strothra constantly reverts my correction without any explanation on the talk page. I'm following good wiki procedure. User:Strothra should have the warning, not me.68.49.28.218 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    Please read WP:3RR. A lack of responses on the talk page is not carte blanche to flout the rules. dcandeto 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please read WP:DR. I've tried to start discussion on the talk page and have offered reasons for my revert. You have given no input or support for your revert, and I have offered reasons why it is inaccurate. I'm the only one following the rules here. 68.49.28.218 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    dcandeto 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    Done. Kuru 00:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the attention! :). --Strothra 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:219.90.223.197 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result: 24 hrs)

    Skin (Japanese band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.90.223.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    Edit:

    WilliamSpencer (talk · contribs · logs) reported by Anynobody (Result: No action)

    His contributions make think this might be a sock, but I'll WP:AGF on that for now. However of four edits, three have been reverts so far. Anynobody 05:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    You say yourself, he has only reverted 3 times. And next time, use the correct format for reports. --Tango 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    Yes I did, which is why I was warning him/her not to go past that point as one more would put them over the line. It seems to have worked because the editor backed off for a while. Sorry you wasted your time on this, I had planned to take it down once the 24 hours passed but forgot. Anynobody 07:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:68.84.10.219 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)

    Survivor: China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.84.10.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    (Edit by User:Maxamegalon2000:

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Improper report: please provide diffs, not revisions. Note that diffs cannot be 'wiped out'. Crum375 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This was an obvious case of 3rr violation but I will not block because the IP has stopped editing for several hours now. If anyone else comes along and starts reverting again then we have a strong case for sockpuppetry, but until then there is no reason to block. ugen64 04:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    The editor apparently returned and was subsequently blocked by another admin. Kuru 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Blueshirts reported by User:Hornplease (Result: 48 hrs)

    Radhabinod Pal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Blueshirts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


    Not a new user. I wouldn't normally report it, as I am guilty on this occasion of a revert with the edit summary "yes it is", which is embarrassing, but a look at his userpage indicates that he has just been blocked. When warned that he was violating 3RR, he replied that he didn't care, as it was blatant vandalism. That is, I think, unacceptable. Hornplease 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    this user removed a sourced section with absolutely no discussion on the talk page and I reverted it. Then we had a discussion during which the user kept on erasing the section, and then accusing me of 3RR? Blueshirts 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    It was explained at length on two talkpages how this was a misrepresentation. The reference was retained, the misrepresentation removed. I did not violate 3RR, and never have; regardless of my beliefs about edits, I would have reverted if I had. Contempt for the concern, as demonstrated on the user's talkpage, is what is worrying. I have nothing further to add, as this page is cluttered already.Hornplease 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Mpublius reported by User:Famspear (Result:18h)

    Tom Cryer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mpublius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Famspear 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    User talk:Majorly reported by User:Hankwang (Result: No action)

    User talk:Mdebow (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Majorly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: n/a - I don't want to be part of this edit war

    Majorly is an admin: certainly well aware of the 3RR. The reverts consist of replacement of a user talk page full of warnings and an indefblock with a welcome template, with the argument that these warnings are biting the newcomer. The user was warned for spamming, first as an IP, who then created an account in order to continue spamming. Han-Kwang (t) 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    I will certainly have a word with Majorly about this, but I don't think it warrants any action. The warnings issued were over the top - the article(s) he created don't look like spam to me, so removing the unnecessary warnings does seem appropriate. Edit warring over it is inappropriate though, by both sides. --Tango 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:John Foxe reported by User:74s181 (Result: No action)

    First Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    Diff of the article from John Foxe's last edit (10:52, 31 August 2007) before I began editing yesterday evening, and his last edit (15:13, 1 September 2007) after reverting today. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    Diff of the article from my last edit (14:34, 1 September 2007) this afternoon, and John Foxe's last edit (15:13, 1 September 2007) after reverting today. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    Note that if John Foxe had used a revert tool to do a full revert, this would have only been one revert. He's been reported before, so now he games the system by doing incremental reverts. However, in this particular case each edit represents a revert of a particular section. That is, I made multiple edits to multiple sections, he reverted each section, one at a time, all within a 30 minute time period. I'm identifying the revert of each individual section as a separate revert. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    The next one is a bit more complicated, I was still editing when John Foxe began reverting my previous edits. Although I don't like it, one of John Foxe's edits is actually a good edit, but the one following it is another revert. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    John Foxe is not a new user, and these reverts were over and done with before I even knew what was happening. However, John Foxe has previously been reported for 3rr violation with warnings on his talk page (14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC), 23:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)), with the result that the article was protected twice. More recently, I posted informal warnings on his talk page for inappropriate reverts (08:54, 21 August 2007, 20:24, 24 August 2007), John Foxe deleted them. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    • These are not reverts. If you edit sequentially, and keep making changes, uninterrupted by someone else, all your edits are counted as a single edit for 3RR purposes. No action. Crum375 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Freecyprus reported by User:Calton (Result: 24 hour block)

    List of Greek companies‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Freecyprus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    • User bound and determined to flood List of Greek companies‎ with red links, including those of articles which have already been speedy deleted (see history. Has been blocked once already for edit-warring over flooding the list with spam and external links, and unblocked under a promise to stop, but this is essentially more of the same. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    Technically, he has not violated the 3 revert rule since he was unblocked (he was blocked for violating the 3 revert rule and the relevant edits were made less than 24 hours ago, so if you ignore the block he has violated the 3 revert rule anyway - but I am being generous here). However, the reason he was unblocked is because he was supposedly discussing his edits, yet his pattern of editing has not changed since that unblock. Either way I believe this case falls under the "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive" clause. ugen64 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:219.90.148.152 reported by User:Kaypoh (Result: page protected)

    Skin (Japanese band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.90.148.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Brendan.lloyd reported by User:Prester John (Result: 24 hours)

    John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brendan.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    All reverts are the same....

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Despite being reverted by multiple admins, user insists on claiming a false consensus to add totally slanderous material about the article subjects father.

    24 hours. Seraphimblade 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:IPSOS reported by User:Melsaran (Result:No violation)

    Misplaced Pages:Hatnote (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    Note that he has said that he will continue reverting because he views me as a "vandal":

    Note that that comment is not about this, but about the removal of useful hatnotes on specific articles. This is clearly a bad faith report. The first edit reported is simply not a revert. It is the implementation of a clear consensus on the talk page, one that Melsaran is against and for which he is willing to edit war against consensus and misuse the 3RR policy to attempt to override that consensus. IPSOS (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    Removals of content are by definition reverts, your first edit was clearly a revert. And if you say that I'm a vandal and that you will continue reverting me, I assume that you will also do so on other pages we disagree about. And I don't "misuse" 3RR to override consensus, I even agreed to a compromise (adding exceptions), which you blatantly reverted as well. Melsaran (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    See also ; I don't think that there is a consensus, so discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring. Melsaran (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    I don't believe an editor's first edit to a page, which is claimed as reverting to an article state from 20 months ago, is considered a revert within the meaning of 3RR. Hence, no violation, or even if it were considered a technical violation, not one requiring any action. I see that there is now discussion and a content RfC on the talkpage, which obviously is preferable to continued reverting by either side. Please also avoid name-calling; for example, a good-faith disagreement over whether a hatnote should or should not be included in an article is not "vandalism" by either side. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Kiwisoup reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hours)

    Picross DS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kiwisoup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    24 hours. Seraphimblade 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Nomadent reported by User:Rrburke (Result: 24 hours)

    Santa Cruz, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nomadent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


    New user attempting to insert spam links about self and related organization. Persists in spite of warnings. --Rrburke 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Dev920 reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result:Page protected )

    Jake Gyllenhaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dev920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    The issue here is a phrase in the lead "gay cowboy (movie)". A number of editor have pointed out that that characterization is a poor one, albeit having been used in the press (hence Dev920's desire for ambiguous scare quotes). After a number of minor revisions of a compromise phrase a week ago, Dev920 decided yesterday to enter into an edit war to insert his/her favorite "cute phrase" in the lead.

    After every such reversion, I or other editors discussed mentioning that phrase later in the article, with proper citation to sources. I then added such during the editing. But Dev920 only wants that phrase in lead, and her/his edits to this article are exclusively for that purpose. Btw, the previous version indicated is itself one of Dev920's several edits of exactly the same thing from last week; back then s/he also made this change a number of times.

    Btw. I myself have not violated 3RR on this. I made 3—but not 4—changes to the compromise language, and always with intervening talk page discussion (either on article, or Dev920's talk, or my talk). LotLE×talk 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    No block. There's a heck of a load of parties edit warring, and instead of blocking them all (many seem to be forgetting that 3RR is not a license to three reverts, and I could block a large number of people including the filer of this request), I've protected the page for a month and directed all parties to the talk page and dispute resolution. By protecting the page, I'm preventing the edit warring. By preventing the edit warring, blocking Dev920 only would be punitive, not preventative (see WP:BLOCK). I'm sure all people involved would agree that protecting the page for a month is a much easier, less stressful and generally more beneficial way to stop the reverting than blocking half-a-dozen established Wikipedians. Daniel 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:RookZERO reported by User:Justanother (Result: 1 week)

    Dianazene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    RookZERO is reverting to reinsert this text and this reference.
    Dianazene also plays a large role in the Narconon program, where it is similarly claimed that the large quantities of niacin in the compound, combined with the heat in a sauna, can "purify" the body by allowing it to "handle radiation" <ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/detoxbookpt2.htm | title = What is the Narconon programme? - The New Life Detoxification Program Picture Book | author = Narconon Exposed}}</ref>

    RookZERO is once again reverting well-cited and correct material to POV-push the insertion of incorrect and poorly-cited material. He has five previous blocks for similar activity (the block for "Abusing multiple accounts" was mislabeled - it was for 3RR). He is 4RR in the Dianazene article and is also edit-warring and reverting in Church of Scientology (3RR update, 4RR against multiple editors) and L. Ron Hubbard (3RR against multiple editors). --Justanother 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    I've blocked him for one week to prevent further warring; several previous blocks and multiple warnings led me to extend the block to the week long duration. Welcome review for this action. Kuru 00:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result: no violation)

    Economy of Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hardouin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    I'm confused, "recent member" User:Keizuko has been editing for almost a year, including several edits to that same article. Unless you can be a little more specific in your accusation, I'm not seeing a specific 3rr here. Kuru 02:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    Odd, isn't it? That same user has made a few minor edits to the article, even including edits that counter User:Hardouin's trademark agenda. Yet what are the chances of a contributor making a to-the-letter revert - to another contributor's version - only hours after that other contributor began reverting to a former version, and this after weeks of inactivity? This was a result of either order or instruction - Meatpuppetry is akin to sockpuppetry in Misplaced Pages's books, and even then, it's a disruptive "gaming of the system" to the extreme. THEPROMENADER 06:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:76.116.99.168 reported by User:Metros (Result: Note to user)

    Talk:Vanessa Anne Hudgens (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). 76.116.99.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Comment. This was very strange: an edit war on the article's talk page... I left the IP user another note to let them know how to proceed without violating either WP:BLP or WP:3RR. If this continues though, a block should be applied. Sancho 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:210.56.80.46 reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result: 24 hours)

    Morocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 210.56.80.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Warned at 23:30. Reverted for the fourth time at 23:34. Seems pretty clear cut; 24 hours. Daniel 07:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:`Abd al-Ghafur reported by User:nadav1 (Result: )

    Omar Bakri Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). `Abd al-Ghafur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 10:53, 1 September 2007
    • Perhaps hasn't violated the letter of 3rr this time, but account continues to be used for reverts only without any explanations. Has been blocked twice but still refuses to discuss edits. No other contributions. nadav (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Justanother reported by User:Anynobody (Result: No action)

    Dianazene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    I happened to notice Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:RookZERO reported by User:Justanother (Result: 1 week) earlier when I was warning another editor with this thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#WilliamSpencer (talk • contribs • logs) reported by Anynobody (Result: No action). Since I've had experiences with this editor before and had commented on a dispute regarding WP:RS on the WP:RSN he is involved in with on another article I was curious to see if his following of the 3RR was a studious for himself as it was for RookZERO. It was not,

    Added:29 Aug 03:28,
    Rem:Revision as of 13:06, 29 August 2007 Revert #1

    Added:Revision as of 17:14, 29 August 2007
    Rem:Revision as of 17:17, 29 August 2007 Revert #2

    Added:Revision as of 20:35, 29 August 2007
    Rem:Revision as of 20:43, 29 August 2007 Revert #3, removed source he had also removed with prior revert of entire paragraph.

    Same diff:Added:Revision as of 20:30, 29 August 2007
    Rem:Revision as of 20:34, 29 August 2007     Revert #4 entire paragraph again. Anynobody 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    Most certainly no action. Blocking now, five days after the event, would be a text-book definition of "punitive, not preventative" (WP:BLOCK). Daniel 08:15, 3 September 2007 (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: 
<!--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.-->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->

    Headline text

    Categories: