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 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) at 03:47, 11 June 2008 (background). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:47, 11 June 2008 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) (background)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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:Andyvphil reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Stale. )

    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)

    Yes, I'm sure your reverts were good reverts and my reverts were bad reverts. In your mind.

    Noroton has for several weeks vigorously pursued the dispute resolution process and has been tireless in refuting the bogus arguments of Scjessey and others that it is somehow inappropriate to clearly describe Ayers in "Obama's" article. There is little reason for me to duplicate his thankless and unrewarded effort, though I have chimed in where I have had something to add.

    To repeat, as I've pointed out, since Scjessey offered seven options for treating Ayers in the Early Life section of Barack Obama (which was not how the subject came to be discussed, contrary to Scjessey's implication) both the mention there and the mention in the Presidential Campaign sections have been removed by the hagigraphic clique which "owns" the article with no regard for the ongoing discussion of how to treat the subject, which discussion has decisively rejected Scjessey's preferred option of deleting all mention of Ayers. I's been six months since the clique first deleted my contribution to the article of the information, cited to the NYTimes, that Obama's pastor and church were Afrocentric and highly political (this was before the videos hit and brought the significance of those facts to national attention) and I've had plenty of time to conclude that AGF-based effort is wasted on the likes of Scjessey. I'm obliged by the rules of Misplaced Pages not to say what I really think of them, but I'm not obliged to conceed their ownership of the page. Andyvphil (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    If nobody plans on doing anything here, I'm going to suggest closing it as moot, since 24 hours has passed and neither party has edited the article. --B (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have every intention of restoring mention of Ayers name to Barack Obama, in accord with NPOV. Not mentioning Ayers has only minority support, but I would not be dissuaded even if the local claque of Obama campaign volunteers mustered a local majority. "Rough consensus" is determined after examaining the qualty of the arguments, and theirs are indefensible. Andyvphil (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well I don't think I've ever seen such an emphatic declaration of the intent to edit war before. Incredible arrogance. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    You're in the minority, Scjessey. You cannot claim consensus. Furthermore, Anonymous Dissident (an admin) has clearly stated that the material can be included without violating WP:BLP if neutrally written and reliably sourced. Since you wrote Options No. 2 through No. 6 on Ayers, I think you'll concede that they're neutrally written and there is abundant RS material out there. The only problem is deciding which of the multitude of reliable sources should be cited, and taking care of edit warring POV pushers like you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    This is stale unless someone wishes to submit a new report with fresh diffs. And, guys, please take the discussion elsewhere. Scarian 16:26, 8 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)

    There is NO evidence he had a checkered past. A gag order was instituted on Freer during the Gizmondo investigation by the court appointed liquidators. Therefore the articles cited were created without any way for Freer to pursue justice and keep them fair. The 2 journalists in the articles you cite are under indictment and awaiting trial for slander. This is NOT sufficient material to warrant publication of for you (the editors of Wiki) to assess him as having a "checkered" past. I will contact Freer and urge him to pursue a legal action against Wiki for slander if these false entries are not removed instantly. Truthmaker1 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Truthmaker1

    User:Yahel Guhan reported by User:Bless_sins (Result: No action )


    Please note the user reverted the same material 4 times in 24 hours and 43 minutes.
    In each revert, the user adds the following material:

    This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims. Freedom House showed on its website, on a page tiled "Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia", a picture of a sign showing Muslim-only and non-Muslim roads.

    First of all, I never violated the 3rr rule, as my edits are not within a 24 hour period. Second, you are an equally active member in the dispute, as you alone have reverted the inclusion each time I added it ever since the first time I added it. Not to mention you recently got away with 2 3rr violations without being blocked. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    In the last 40 hours I've made 3 reverts to the article while you've made 4 in just over 24 hours. Secondly, I'm giving you a chance to correct yourself. If I was given the chance to do so, I would only be too glad to self-revert.Bless sins (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    NO. I made 3 reverts, not 4 in 24 hours, and so have you. You are probably just waiting for me to be blocked, or an hour to pass before you revert me agian. Instead you make more false allegations of a non-real 3rr violation. Conviently just one day after your incorrect stalking report. This is simple math; it is 3, not 4. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Note to admins, Bless Sins appears to be forum shopping for a block of Yahel Guhan. See also: Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Re: blocking: I've stated 3 times now that I will retract this report if Yahel self-reverts. Had I wanted to see the user get blocked I wouldn't have have warned him twice (, ) before coming here.Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    You want your way in the article, and am willing to make up allegations of a falsified 3rr report in order to get it. You want that clause deleted inspite of it being well sourced and within wiki policies. Warnings are a required step in making 3rr reports, and even though you did the math incorrectly, you know a warning is required before a block is ever made. I love how you attempt to hide your real intentions. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    You are well aware of the 3 revert rule, and have been blocked for it in the past. Hence no warning is necessary. ITAQALLAH 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Note to other admins - YahelGuhan, despite being just outside of the 24 hour limit (40 or so minutes doesn't count, as that's gaming the system), has violated 3RR. Both users, in fact, are edit warring, but I am unsure of how to proceed. I would suggest a block for both. Thoughts? Scarian 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Since Yahel Guhan's last revert I've not made any reversions (though I could have). The edits you see that I made after Yahel Guhan (in the history) are uncontroversial improvements to the article.Bless sins (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    You are probably just biding your time. Afraid you are going to get blocked, you are trying to temporarily depict yourself as a better editor. I doubt it will last, as your editing shows you do still want that paragraph removed, and you have a history of edit warring to get your way. Second, my intention was not to game the system. I didn't plan to be reverting 40 minutes after the block expired. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm inclined to leave it be, unless and until we see more disruption. — Werdna talk 08:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Seems reasonable --B (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree. Both editors are urged to discuss on the talk page instead of reverting. Trebor (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:62.178.118.77 and other IP-numbers reported by User:WaldiR (Result: No vio)

    • Previous version reverted to: 08:21, 23 September 2007 Then repeatedly inserting incorrect "Jewish" nationality to replace correct "Austrian". Article includes Category: Jewish Scolar already.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: No warning. How? 1st: Anonymous (in contrast to almost all other editors of this article), 2nd: changing ip-numbers, 3rd: editing anonymously for the sole purpose of this one edit. Clearly knowing that he/she is doing wrong.

    I ask for permanent article protection against logged-out-edits. (Of all 41 editors of this article, only the troublemaker and three others were not logged in. Judging from the stubbornness, morosity and the long time endurance of the editor, peace will not be found otherwise. Excuse my righteous anger :-) WaldiR (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    No violation Stale, and it needs to be more than three reverts in 24 hours. --Selket 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, just found the correct place for my request. --WaldiR (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:Dvaaeg reported by User:Aramgar (Result: 24 hour block; suspected sockpuppet)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • The edit summary provided on this diff indicates that this is an established user who prefers to engage in Plague-style edit-warring under a series of disposabe SPAs.

    The user has not been active after the 3RR notification, therefore it is reasonable to assume s/he has been offline and unable to become aware of the warning. If they persist, please make a new report and make an explicit reference to this one. --Gutza 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    P.S. If my assessment is incorrect, please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to review and/or reopen this issue. --Gutza 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Result: I have blocked the user for 24 hours as a holding action since I believe that this may be a new sock of a sockpuppeteer who I blocked a while ago (namely Aegeanhawk (talk · contribs)). I suggest that the best way to establish this would be to take the matter to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser. An admin with checkuser privileges would be better able than I to determine whether this is, as suspected, a sockpuppet. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    For the record, I defer to that judgement, my original assessment has been based on taking facts at face value. --Gutza 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I support the 24-hour block. There are not quite enough edits to show that Dvaaeg is a sock, from behavioral evidence alone (he has only 7 contributions). An initial impression is that he wants to deny any recognition to the Republic of Macedonia (which WP no longer requires to be denoted as FYROM), or to allow Slavic names to be included in the articles on Greek towns like Florina. This was also the pattern of edits of Aegeanhawk. I don't see any proof yet that they are the same person, but we should keep an open mind. If checkuser finds this person to be the same editor, then an indefinite block of Dvaaeg would be indicated. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Chenyangw reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: 24 hours)


    This user has been previously blocked for edit warring on this article in attempting to revert it to this same diff. 3 different editors in 48 hours have reverted this back to a neutral nonbiased version but this editor has continued to revert back after his 4th edit is more than 24 hours old. This is the only article this user edits and this is the only edit this user makes. Discussion on the talk page has proved unproductive with this editor being unwilling to engage in dialogue about neutral phrasing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR is not an entitlement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:NuclearVacuum reported by User:24.77.204.120 (Result:24 for both)

    NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gliese_581_c&action=history

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • 9th revert:
    • 10th revert:


    User:Olahus reported by User:Xasha (Result: Reverted, protected)


    User explicitely refused to abide by the 3 reverts rule (see the edit summary of the 4th revision). Note also the personal attacks against me and the false claim of neutrality (he considers "neutral" calling 'stalinist' a language mentioned since the 17th century) in the same l4th revision. Moreover, the version he is reverting to is the same put by User:Ourscrazy2009, a blocked sock of banned User:Bonaparte (edit which I reverted, per Misplaced Pages:Banned#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits andMisplaced Pages:3RR#Other_exceptions ).Xasha (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    I have protected the article for 36 hours, so you (Xasha) can file a request for checkuser or suspected sockpuppet report. If the inquiry comes back positive, I'll remove the protection (or it might just expire) and further reinstatements of the edit by Olahus could lead to a block. If the inquiry comes back negative, I'll revert back to Olahus's version (as it was the latest version) and see where things go. If an edit war continues in that situation, the article will probably be protected (or one of both of you may be blocked for violating the 3RR). -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    I already filled one yesterday, but due to wrong formatting, I think it was ignored by admins. Now I've repeaired it and I hope someone will be able to handle it.Xasha (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    Has Xasha just got a permit to continue the revert war? I fail to understand... AdrianTM (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:TragedyStriker reported by User:Kww (Result: 24 hour block )


    TragedyStriker is virtually an SPA promoting Zachary Jaydon. After attempting unsuccessfully to put include him as a mouseketeer, he has recently come up with some fairly obscure paper sources to justify the inclusion. Consensus among other editors is that the change can only be included after someone other than TragedyStriker has verified the information. TragedyStriker seems quite unwilling to accept this. Kww (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    TragedyStriker is me, and a Wiki editor interested in Zachary Jaydon. I am not a SPA, and not an artist at all. The sources are not obscure at all, but Disney Channel Magazines; official sources from the very television station that broadcasted the show. There are also a NUMBER of online sources that have been deleted by 3 editors, one of whom maintains a hate website on the subject. I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information. It seems ludacris that I am being told that an "uninterested" editor has to reinclude this information, when it goes completely against the spirit and policies of Wiki. Assuming good faith is the very backbone of Wiki, and it's very discouraging to run into editors like this. I have provided everything that this select few have asked for and at this point, all of it has been pushed aside. If I am taking the initiative to research the sources to create a more informative and more accurate article, I don't think it's too much to ask for other editors to take a small amount of time to look at the same sources provided if they have any questions. Please advise.

    Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    For those watching: the "hate website" that TragedyStriker mentions is real: this article is an example page. I don't know if I would characterize it as a "hate" website, but I can see why he objects to it. I believe that is published by User:thegingerone (based on this statement by her), but she has not edited the article during this recent dispute.
    I also have a hard time reading I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information. as being anything but a threat to use meatpuppets to bypass blocks. If he has scanned the articles, why doesn't he send them to one of the editors that is insisting on validating the sources?
    Kww (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    I just want to say that I support the result. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Strongbrow reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: user warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 9 June 2008 All reverts are variation son this theme. Although each is worded slightly differently, they all revert the article's stating that Jerusalem is the capital into some for of a claim that it is disputed, or that Tel Aviv is the capital.


    Similar edit warring on Tel Aviv, with 3 reverts so far ;

    I'd be quite inclined to block (if it wasn't stale) as Strongbow is clearly edit warring. Scarian 12:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:The_C_of_E‎ reported by User:The_Gnome (Result: Stale/No vio )


    Result - Not exactly being a recent 3RR violation (he was blocked for it before), this report should perhaps be filed at WP:ANI if he's still edit warring over it. Scarian 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Cazique reported by User:UtherSRG (Result: 72 hour block )


    Thylacoleonidae:

    Marsupial Lion:

    User:75.207.XX.XXX reported by User:Bdushaw (Result: Protected )


    and also (on a different article)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Given in edit summary: 05:22, 9 June 2008 (the whack-a-mole syndrome with DHCP IP addresses...)

    User 75.207.XX.XXX is editing three articles: Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy, Cyril_H._Wecht, and Mary_Beth_Buchanan and wants to include a very lengthy addition in each of these articles. User 75.207.XX.XXX refuses to talk. 75.207.XX.XXX's IP address keeps changing, so there is difficulty reaching the person. The edits have the hallmark of a novice and someone on a mission; but the lengthy addition is copied verbatim from Cyril_H._Wecht and is to the detriment of both Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy and Mary_Beth_Buchanan articles. Bdushaw (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    I can't block because the IP hasn't made 4 reverts in 24 hours but I have prot'd the article for 48 hours. Scarian 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:152.131.10.133 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hours)

    Jim Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Bov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 17:31, 9 June 2008 (edit summary: "reverting to "bov" version")
    2. 21:23, 9 June 2008 (edit summary: "reverted top paragraphs to last version before AR") (same version, except he left the {{911tm}} near where I put it)
    3. 22:03, 9 June 2008 (edit summary: "I think this version is pretty clear") (revert to 21:27)
    4. 22:22, 9 June 2008 (edit summary: "when you take the time to do even a single search you can add your "cite" tag that no one else requires") (Deleted {{fact}} tag, as have all his other reverts)
    • Diff of warning: 00:52, May 20, 2008 (Note: Subject to 1RR per week under discretionary 9/11 sanctions)
    • Only one diff in a set of consecutive edits by the same person is included.
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I see four reverts in 24 hours by 152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs), which clearly breaks a 1RR rule. Arthur Rubin made at most three reverts in 24 hours so far as I can tell. This block also restricts Bov (talk · contribs) from editing for the same length of time, since 3RR applies to editors not accounts. Here is the pointer to the 9/11 restriction that affects this IP. Thatcher has identified him as Bov by checkuser data. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    >>Arthur Rubin made at most three reverts in 24 hours so far as I can tell. If there's no possible consequence for his reverts, why mention them? If there is a consequence, does it require 4 reverts? I thought it was 3RR. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    Arthur Rubin needs to obey 3RR just like anyone else. If you think our rules are not sufficiently clear, you are welcome to propose a change to the wording over at WT:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Life.temp reported by User:Fovean Author (Result: No violation)

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs)

    I can only see one actual revert in a 24-hour period, although even that was hard to spot in this completely malformed report. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Fixed up the report... But I did notice that edits 2 and 4 are the same edit and 2 and 3 are consecutive edits. I only see three edits by Life.temp on June 9 and only two of those are not consecutive. --Bobblehead 01:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for fixing up the report - I don't get as much practice at this as scjessey. You'll note that it doesn't take 3rr's to be guilty of edit warring. You just have to be engaged in the practice, which he clearly is Fovean Author (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    While it is true that it doesn't take three reverts to make someone guilty of 3RR, I point you towards WP:BRD. One also needs to have a history of edit warring before an administrator will take action. Making a bold edit, then reverting back to it, then starting a discussion about it is pretty standard fare. The problem is when you repeatedly revert back to the change without discussing. --Bobblehead 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    No violation There are not enough reverts by Life.temp to violate 3RR, or even give an impression of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Molobo reported by User:Sciurinæ (Result: )

    Notes
    Summary

    Molobo resumed revert warring once his latest block ended again: (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev). Sciurinæ (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    This is indeed a 3RR violation, if the revert from the IP is included. Please take this to WP:RFCU first. Khoikhoi 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:WorkerBee74 reported by LotLE×talk (Result: )

    Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 18:11, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Restoring earlier version of Rezko paragraphs that were gutted without consensus. Please see Talk page.")
    2. 18:16, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")
    3. 22:46, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 218467926 by Quartermaster (talk) You were right the first time")
    4. 01:31, 11 June 2008 (edit summary: "Estoring Last version before massive POV push (in violation of WP:DE and WP:TE by Scjessey, Loonymonkey and Johnpseudo. As K4T suggests, read WP:YESPOV.")

    Long time edit warring by probable sockpuppet of user previously blocked multiple times for same behavior on same article: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. Kossack4Truth makes several identical edits during the same time frame:

    1. 01:19, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "Let's try not to forget the two counts of bribery")
    2. 11:14, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Restored bribery charges for the sake of accuracy (with AFP reference)")
    3. 00:07, 11 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 218504857 by Scjessey rv per WP:NPOV requiring proportionate article space for all non-fringe POVs")

    I just noticed a discussion of possible relevance: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_editing_by_User:Andyvphil. In this discussion, admins seem near consensus to issue a topic ban on K4T (all indicated edits are after K4T began commenting on this at ANI.

    —LotLE×talk 03:04, 11 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: