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 John Smith's (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 13 September 2007 (→Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:28, 13 September 2007 by John Smith's (talk | contribs) (→Response)(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:24.127.156.41 reported by User:dsol (Result: warned)

    The eXile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.127.156.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: warning inssued by another anon ip in this edit summary, as well as multiple warnings on the 3RR violator's talk page, the article talk page, and the WP:BLP noticeboard. Violator continues to revert, without engaging in consensus building discussion. Contentious material has two sources already, recognized as valid by other editors at the BLP noticeboard, where two additional reliable sources were also added. Violator has pledged to continue reverting regardless of discussion outcome. Dsol 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'm only seeing a fairly vague mention of '3rr' in that edit summary - no other explicit warnings to a new user. I've left a specific one on the editor's talk page for now. Post here if he reverts again. Kuru 00:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Matcarpenter06 reported by User:WhisperToMe (Result: indef block)

    Check the edit summary - He is reverting Perverted-Justice with little explanation - He seems to be new. WhisperToMe 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Appears to have been indef blocked by Swatjester as a vandal only account. Kuru 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


    User:Asams10 reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: )

    Jimi Hendrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asams10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Bueller? ➪HiDrNick! 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:ThreeE reported by — BQZip01 —  (Result: both blocked 12 hours)

    Fightin' Texas Aggie Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ThreeE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not exactly sure how to report this. It appears to be an edit war, but I'm not sure where else to report this. This user continues to make changes to the article in question and refuses to discuss on the talk page and come to a consensus first. Seeing as this is Today's featured article, I humbly request that this be expedited ASAP — BQZip01 —  05:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    You were reverting his edits, and he was reverting yours. I'm blocking both of you for 12 hours. Resurgent insurgent 05:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Italiavivi reported by User:Ryan Postlethwaite (Result:48 hours )

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Italiavivi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Italiavivi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:46, 11 September 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.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 07.32.
    • Comment about the IPs he's insistent on removing - same IP range and same pages edited. Quacking much? A checkuser isn't needed if you've got enough evidence already. Will 08:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:76.104.22.182 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 24 hrs)

    Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.104.22.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


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

    Anon is back with a different IP inserting essentially the same material into the article

    ornis (t) 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Moe_Epsilon reported by User:Cowboycaleb1 (Result: Article protected )

    World_Wrestling_Entertainment_roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:Moe_Epsilon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:30, 11 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.

    This report is mostly unintelligible, but the history of the article shows a multi-user edit war going back a few days. Article locked up for 48 hours. Moreschi 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Truthseeker81 reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 24 hours)

    Buddhism and Hinduism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Truthseeker81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    I decided to tag the original material and move on, but he removed the tag:

    Then I removed the original material, and he then reverted it back:

    Two days ago the user was simply vandalizing the article, removing material sourced to reliable sources. When he was stopped by myself and another editor, he began to pick facts from websites and provide intepretations of them in this article to suit his ideas. I indicated in edit summaries that this was original material but he did not stop. Arrow740 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 19:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.89.104 (Result: Page Protected)

    Istrian exodus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: -04:16, 10 September 2007 151.33.89.217 (Talk) (15,245 bytes)-
    • 1st revert: -08:15, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,461 bytes)-
    • 2nd revert: -16:41, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,529 bytes) (Your city of "Zadar-Zara" does not exist. The exact person on the photo is irrelevant for the article, the big picture is.)-
    • 3rd revert: -17:09, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,461 bytes) ("Italians", in the 20th century! slavs)-
    • 4th revert: -17:46, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,461 bytes)-
    • 5th revert: -17:56, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,588 bytes) (PIO, please discuss. We are two intelligent men, I am confident we can reach a consensus...)-
    • 6th revert: -18:36, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,568 bytes) (Please stop. This is a controversial atricle, you must DISCUSS before making such edits.)-

    Note: 151.33.89.104 is User:PIO (, claiming 'logged out due to technical problem'). Also implicated in using several other IPs in the 151.33.*.* range, all registered to Italia Online. Under 151.33.89.84, PIO also violated 3RR on Istrian exodus. Michaelbusch 16:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Page protected by Riana. ---Haemo 19:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Abtract reported by User:DCGeist (Result: 24 hours)

    United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    The above was after this 3RR report was originally filed, and after he was warned by User:DCGeist at 21:02 here. --G2bambino 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Already blocked. --Haemo 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Carlstar3 reported by User:Ripe (Result: No violation)

    Sanjay Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carlstar3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    I warned user multiple times on user's talk page not to blank content. I previously reported user here. User persistently deletes a particular piece of sourced information on Sanjay Gupta. User appears to be a single purpose account for this purpose (contribs).

    I was the other party reverting user's edits as I regard user's behavior as vandalism rather than a content dispute due to lack of good faith participation in talk page on why the sourced information should not be included, empty edit summaries, and uncivil behavior. The page was locked due to the edit war. I then attempted to engage in discussion on the Talk:Sanjay_Gupta#Controversy talk page. No sources were provided by Carlstar3 in response to the three that I had provided and did not provide reasons why my cited info was invalid. Carlstar3 continued to be uncivil. Protection on the article expired and user resumed edit warring/vandalism with no edit summary and no further comment on the talk page with this edit:

    No violation. --Haemo 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Skatewalk reported by User:Zerida (Result:)

    Egyptian Arabic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skatewalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    A diff of 3RR warning:

    • Comment: Part of a wider mess . The page move problems have been fixed. No consensus for changes. Attempts at discussion have failed either because talk pages are used as soapbox forums without focusing on the contents of the articles, or they include personal attacks . — Zerida 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Ehgow reported by User:LWF (Result: 24 hours )

    FN P90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ehgow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:39, 12 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.

    Blocked for 24 hours. --Haemo 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Jrhmdtraum reported by User:justinm1978 (Result: Page Protected)

    Alpha Phi Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jrhmdtraum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    We've been trying to discuss this on the talk page, and watch/revert is not effective. Would like to still hash this out on the talk page, but it's starting to degenerate.

    Update: Jrhmdtraum has become belligerent on the talk page toward other editors, refuses to yield to consensus. This is going beyond 3RR and is becoming disruptive. I know if my report is not properly done, it will be ignored. How do I know if I have properly done this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinm1978 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: No previous 3RR warning issued, other than note on article talk page saying that he was entering into 3RR territory.

    Report Vandilism by justinm1978 on Alpha phi Omega site. Justin continues to ignore wiki rules on ref for eyewitness and trys to whitewash history of apo by "undo" of ref comment. I have asked repeatedly for mediation or suggestion how to write such that he will agree. He refuses. The problem is that I was part of "history" of this organization and as such eyewitness. There are few living such now, althought I have tried to contact them without success for verification. Jrhmdtraum 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    Page protected. There's no way I'm handing out like 4 blocks to every user. --Haemo 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Kingdom of crash and spyro reported by User:Digby Tantrum (Result: Page Protected )

    Crash Bandicoot (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kingdom of crash and spyro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:11, 12 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.

    Note: This user is not the only one who's gone over three reverts in this particular situation; however, I understand he's reinserting an image which has licensing difficulties, in case that makes a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digby Tantrum (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    Page protected, image deleted as being wildly improper in its licensing. --Haemo 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:CWO5thGroupVet reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result: )

    5th Special Forces Group (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CWO5thGroupVet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:11, 13 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:
    Note:I just realized that I had a fourth revert in there, a couple of reverts earlier, when the user was still editing under an IP, which does in fact look like I'm in violation too, for which I apologize. However, the conversation on the user's talk page should show that I was trying to do the right thing, though I'm not sure my last reversion falls under the copyright violation exception of the 3RR. But that's up to the blocking admin to decide. I did not realize that I had made 4 reversion till now, though, and if I had known at the time that there had been three already, and not two, then I would not have reverted. Gscshoyru 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Gscshoyru reported by User:CWO5thGroupVet (Result: Page Protected)

    5th Special Forces Group (United States). Gscshoyru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:21, 13 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: Revision as of 23:53, September 12, 2007
    This is malformed, but it looks like a copyvio dispute. Page protected until it's solved. --Haemo 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Hardyplants reported by User:Ttiotsw (Result:User warned)

    The God Delusion. Hardyplants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    The edits in question are, My (Ttiotsw) original edit on 9th September -

    • 1st revert on 12th September 11:58. NOTE I claim this is disruption by WP:STALK as user has never edited The God Delusion before and simply pick out just my one edit out of the dozen others done by other editors between the 9th and 12th on The God Delusion article. Why just my edit ?
    • 2nd revert 12th Sept 15:33 of another editors changes
    • 3rd revert 13th Sep 04:23
    • 4th revert 13th Sep 05:11 reverting large amounts which was then self-reverted

    Then my (Ttiotsw) edit here 13th Sep 05:44 to remove text that does not appear in the sources, . I reworded my edit from the 9th to see if that could fit better.

    • 5th revert 13th Sept 05:51 simply reverting my edit .

    User is NOT a new user and should be well aware of 3RR.

    Regardless of how new the user is, a warning should be given to the user to make it abundantly clear that they will be blocked for 3RR. I'll go ahead and warn the user. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    User warning was filed actually... at 8:29.
    Which edit was that reverting? I don't believe it was a revert. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:24.127.156.41 reported by User:dsol (Result: No violation)

    The eXile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.127.156.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Quite possibly a just removal of a BLP violation. BLP extends to articles that discuss living people, not just biographies. The IP was simply removing unsourced statements that talked about living people. I'd say no violation. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with Ryan's deduction. Anthøny ん 16:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Pardon my frustration, but how can you say the material was unsourced? The material on Michael Wines had two valid sources when removed (NY post and media life magazine), and two more were offered on the BLP noticeboard page (salon.com and the NZ student paper Critic). In addition to photos which have been seen by the author of the Salon source, the claim has been public for years and has never been denied by anyone. One source names a specific contact at the NYT who confirmed the report.
    Would you please consult the extensive discussion on this subject at WP:BLPN and consider revising your decision? So far the material has been reinserted by 3 users: myself, user:the Evil Spartan, and user:149.159.217.161. Only the user I am reporting here has removed it. The reported user was also already warned for 3RR by the admin user:Kuru for the same thing two days ago, and another user (and admin) user:Brighterorange has chimed in at BLPN as well. The reported user is not engaging in any real discussion, and continues to revert without adressing the extensive sources and arguments offered by others. Dsol 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    I did see that a couple of other admins had a different take on this, however I agree with the IP that this could be considered a BLP violation. Specifically because there no is need to mention the incident involving Anna Kournikova - by stating the incident it automatically defames here because it talks of an incident that is not true. The other statement talking of Spy's bancruptcy, although not of a living person, still has similar implications of that of unsourced BLPs, hence why I do not believe is justified in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:PONDHEEPANKAR reported by User:Gnanapiti (Result:48 hours)

    Kongu Nadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PONDHEEPANKAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


    • Note - In all the four reverts, he has removed legitimate tags added by other editors instead of addressing the issues. He has removed {{inline}}, when there is absolutely NO inline citations in the entire article. Furthermore he is threatening other editors of waging edit wars here and here.

    However he has removed the warning from his talk page. So, he is not interested on improving himself, when cautioned.

    The warning was given out quite a few hours after the last revert and the user hasn't reverted past this as yet, therefore a block is punitive at this time. Please re-report if further reverts are made. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please note: The 4th and 5th reverts were made after the warning was given. He has even removed the warning from his talk page, as shown in a diff above. Thanks, - KNM 15:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Per the threats of further disruption, and my misreading of the diffs, I've blocked for 48 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    71.243.172.80 reported by Docta247 (Result: )

    Thrill_Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.243.172.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 15:10


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

    User:70.190.202.194 reported by User:B (Result: )

    John McCain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.190.202.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Reversion #1 from 70.190.202.194 (again, done over 3 edits, last at 19:35, 12 September 2007)
    • Reversion #2 from 70.190.202.194 (22:08, 12 September 2007)
    • Reversion #3 from 70.190.202.194 (22:47, 12 September 2007)
    • Reversion #4 from Knivesout8 (2 edits, last at 18:13, 13 September 2007)
    • 3RR policy notification given to 70.190.202.194 (22:18, 12 September 2007)

    Other:

    • Trolling on my talk page:
    • Vandalism on Strategery:

    In addition to violating 3RR, reversion #2 and #3, which characterize his wife as a "former drug addict" without any context are at best deceiving and at worst libel.

    I have submitted a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knivesout8 to confirm that the user and IP are the same person, although from their edits, it seems almost certain. --B 20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    John Smith's reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result: )

    Mao:The Unknown Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and {{Bruce_Cumings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


    • User reverted earlier, a total of 6 times if we look beyond simply the 24 hour electric fence. He self reverted after violating 3RR and then reverted again, after waiting right after 24 hours, making a total of 7 reverts. User edit wars as a means an editing style as seen over a wide range of related China/Asia articles. These include Han Dynasty, Shang Dynasty, Xia Dynasty, and has numerious warning to to edit war on his talk page by other users. I include this other article, below, with 6 more reversions a little over 24 hours to illustrate this chonic edit warring and gaming of the system. I think a block will be instructive since he doesn't seem to get the point yet by other means.
    • Some of this users many warnings:
    • Also note his block log, at least 6 blocks for violating the 3RR rule, including the very article above with the 3 RR violation (he started again after protection ended).

    Bruce_Cumings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The above is an example of gaming the system, technically out of 24 hours but shows pattern of edit waring. I also show this article (there are others), that user wikistalks for purposes of continuining to edit war.Giovanni33 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Response

    This is a false report made by someone who is trying to create ways to get me banned because of disputes we are having - we are currently trying to discuss mediation, but Giovanni seems to be more interested in reverting my changes rather than taking part in dispute resolution. He complains he is too busy yet finds time for this.

    For the first article, the first two edits were the same reversions. However after that I left the point alone and moved on to a different version to reach consensus. On the 4th "revert" Giovanni lists I self-reverted here because I wanted to propose a different version later on in the day.

    For the second article, the idea that I was gaming the system is a complete joke. First of all the four edits are way outside of 24 hours. Second, the first edit is not even a revert - I made changes as I saw needed to be made. In the third and fourth edits I attempted to address Giovanni's points by making various changes - instead he just blanket-reverted, which is not surprising given his block-list (including a recent community ban) and the number of edit-wars he has become involved with. However I notice that I did remove a piece of text in the later edits, so even though they were well outside of 24 hours I restored it.

    As to previous blocks, I have not been blocked for editing either of the pages in question, have only received 4 blocks (the last was overruled as Deskana had already actioned the 3RR report) and not had any for the last several months. The allegation of wikistalking is not true, as the person in question (Jon Cumings) was being discussed on the Korean War talk page, so of course I would take an interest on the article of the guy we were discussing. Giovanni always cries wolf when it comes to wikistalking to try to gain sympathy as he knows the people he is in dispute with haven't actually broken the rules.

    This is a ridiculous report, and I hope will be closed post-haste. John Smith's 22:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    I think a block will be instructive since he doesn't seem to get the point yet by other means. Blocks are not punitive or "instructive" - read Misplaced Pages policy. By the way you are continuing to revert (on the first page) so can't really lecture me on the rules. John Smith's 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Maybe if you didn't appear to be stalking the guy, Giovanni, I might concede you had a point here. HalfShadow 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not. I edit that article and check on it regularly, esp. since John Smith has tried to remove that external link (that I placed there many months ago), before but met with too much opposition and couldnt get it removed. Now, it appears he is in a edit waring mode to re-ignite many of his old edit wars. This actually serves to support my general and accurate points above regarding this user needing to get a block for preventive/instructive purposes concerning editing waring.Giovanni33 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes you are stalking me. You haven't edited that article for ages. You're clutching at straws when you accuse me of trying to "reignite" edit wars. As I said on the edit summary, the link's broken! Get a working one. John Smith's 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    No, I check to make sure you don't take that link out again, and its one of the article I regularly check, and contributed to. Btw, don't lie, the link is not broken. Your reaons for removal are POV as you clearly admitted to last time you were edit waring over it: ,Btw, even then you reverted over 5 times edit warring over that working link, even without making any arguments on talk. You only stopped because too many other editors opposed you. The timing for you to start that edit war again, is indicative of the reason why you are being reported here: widespread edit waring over many articles, and yet you want to expand this to your old edit wars. Time for a coling off period, I think.Giovanni33 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    You were stalking me, admit it. You're now making edits to try to cover up for your lack of activity on that page. And the link IS broken - every time I click on it I get an error message. John Smith's 23:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Funny that when I click on it, it opens just fine. Also interesting is that you were edit waring over removing that link before, and your reasons were pov (not that it was broken). But, its not broken; the link works fine from my pc. Just don' keep revering everyone you disagree with so much, and never go more than 3 reverts within 24 hours on an article, as you have done above. Its not that hard to follow that basic rule, is it? And, undoing any edit of another editor counts.Giovanni33 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Sure, accuse me of lying. The evidence is here.
    You can talk! You revert anyone you disagree with - the community ban shows that. I haven't reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours on either of those articles. I made my own edits - you've been undoing mine, not the other way around. John Smith's 23:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    That is not the link, this is:http://monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm You are simply wrong. Also, community ban? Nonsense. No such thing ever occured. I usually limit myself to one or two reverts at most, and you would be wise to do the same. The fact is that you went over 3rr and reverted about 6 times within 2 days, on almost every article you find yourself in a dispute. You will either learn the easy way or the hard way, i.e. with a block.Giovanni33 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes it was the link! It's exactly the same - look at the image file. Though it seems to be fine now, so I don't know why it wasn't working.
    I checked and you didn't receive a community ban, though you were blocked for two weeks in August (lowered to three days). You were condemned by a senior admin of gaming the system here and he was the guy that lowered your block. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your behaviour. John Smith's 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    The issue here is you. I learned my lesson. But, glad you agree. I endore a 2 week block, but would be fine to lower to 3 days for your edit waring. I hope you come out of that a changed editor.Giovanni33 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Giovanni, you haven't learnt anything as can be seen by your blanket reversions and insistence that you can veto anything you don't like when talking about "consensus". I don't see you obtaining consensus for your edits on Great Leap Forward, yet you use that for reverting my attempts at compromise on Mao: the unknown story. So I guess it's one rule for me and one rule for you. John Smith's 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    User:Puark reported by User:Tazmaniacs (Result: )

    Roger Holeindre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Puark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:21, 13 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 -->
    Categories: