Supergreenred (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 569: | Line 569: | ||
:First of all, when you next report a suspected 3RR violation, please use the correct format as listed below. Secondly, please brush up on the 3RR rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." One of the four reverts you have listed here occurred in February and another occurred three days ago. Only two of the reverts occurred in the last 24 hours. In fact, you have committed more reverts in the last 25 hours (3) than he has (2). Because of this, I have declined this report as '''no violation'''. [[User:Metros|Metros]] ([[User talk:Metros|talk]]) 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
:First of all, when you next report a suspected 3RR violation, please use the correct format as listed below. Secondly, please brush up on the 3RR rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." One of the four reverts you have listed here occurred in February and another occurred three days ago. Only two of the reverts occurred in the last 24 hours. In fact, you have committed more reverts in the last 25 hours (3) than he has (2). Because of this, I have declined this report as '''no violation'''. [[User:Metros|Metros]] ([[User talk:Metros|talk]]) 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Dance With The Devil]] reported by [[User:SuperGreenRed]] (Result:no violation) == |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki}}. {{3RRV|Dance With The Devil}}: Time reported: [[User:Supergreenred|Supergreenred]] ([[User talk:Supergreenred|talk]]) |
|||
*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=198533934&oldid=198508741] <!-- 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.--> |
|||
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. --> |
|||
*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=198533934&oldid=198532620] |
|||
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=198534637&oldid=198534319] |
|||
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=198535011&oldid=198534810] |
|||
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=198535224&oldid=198535105] |
|||
*I recommend blocking both editors. Both have violated 3RRV but Dance With The Devil who often reverts for user UltraMarine does not participate on the talk page. This is clearly a content dispute. No excuse for edit warring.[[User:Supergreenred|Supergreenred]] ([[User talk:Supergreenred|talk]]) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Example == |
== Example == |
Revision as of 01:58, 16 March 2008
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
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 You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
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. |
|
Violations
- Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.
User:Astanhope reported by User:Queerudite (result: novio)
- Three-revert rule violation across multiple articles. Astanhope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blanking placeholder images repeatedly after multiple warnings.
- See diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. And related discussion.
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr\ talk / 09:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Equazcion reported by User:rachel63 (Result: protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on Anti-Americanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: [1]
- 2nd revert: [2]
- 3rd revert: [3]
- 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Americanism&diff=197682336&oldid=197682124
I hope I'm doing this right. I don't know what DIFFTIME means. He did all these edits today then said I was a sockpuppet. I think he's an admin, but the rules should be the same for everybody.
- Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
A short explanation of the incident. Rachel63 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Halibutt reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Republic of Central Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [4]
- 1st revert: 2008-03-11T16:44:45 Keep changing place names
- 2nd revert: 2008-03-11T17:13:13Keep changing place names
- 3rd revert: 2008-03-11T18:46:26 Keep changing place names
- 4th revert: 2008-03-12T06:29:19 Keep changing place names
- 5th revert: 2008-03-12T10:12:10 Keep changing place names
- Diff of 3RR warning: Contributor several times was blocked due to 3RR [5], so he knows the rules
This is becoming really disruptive, contributor user:Halibutt is involved in prolonged campaign of names changes and variuos distortions. Recently he was informed by neutral administrator that similar campaigns are violations of WP:POINT [6], he was also informed that he violated WP:3RR on the different article and was suggested that further similar disruption will prompt sanctions. It is clear that contributor is following 3RR campaign again and that gentle information to stick on 3RR policy is not working on him. I hope that in this time administrators will take proper actions to stop further campaigns by this contributor. And let me stress that An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Thank you, M.K. (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 10:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)\
User:Grinsandfun reported by User:Hu12 (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Streaming media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grinsandfun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Streaming_media&oldid=197481388
- 1st revert: 22:01, 11 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 16:58, 11 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 14:59, 12 March 2008
- 4th revert: 15:14, 12 March 2008
- 5th revert: 15:17, 12 March 2008
- 6th revert: 15:58, 12 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 15:21, 12 March 2008
repeatedly re adding redlinks to Streaming media--Hu12 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Even though there is a slight lack of many warnings which is usual in 3RR cases, it does appear that Grinsandfun (talk · contribs) has broke the 3RR, even after the warning implemented by Hu12 at 15:21. Rudget. 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Johnnie390 reported by User:Jkatzen (Result: novio)
- Three-revert rule violation on Gare de Lyon-Part-Dieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Johnnie390 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 12:51, 8 March 2008
- 1st revert: 12:51, 8 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 05:28, 9 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 12:22, 10 March 2008
- 4th revert: 03:57, 11 March 2008
Johnnie309 continually works to change American English forms to British English forms in article about a railway station in Lyon, France without explanation. The language variant policy has been explained on his talk page with no response or let-up in the reverts. Jkatzen (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Article has been reverted to the original form of English (American) and editor has been warned about changing it. —Travistalk 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Republic of Central Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [7]
- 1st revert: 2008-03-11T18:09:23
- 2nd revert: 2008-03-11T19:26:04
- 3rd revert: 2008-03-12T07:52:08
- 4th revert: 2008-03-12T17:07:05
- Diff of 3RR warning: contributor was already blocked by admin due to violation of 3RR [8]
This is really disrupting. Another contributor involved in edit warring, that is most troubling in this case that particular contributor not even changing article version which is contested, but also trying to distort cited publications consistently; despite many pleas to stop. M.K. (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Update another article is affected Simonas Daukantas [9]. Wondering how long this edit warring by particular contributor will lasts? M.K. (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed your decision was revoked by User:Zscout370. You can see User talk:Zscout370 for the details. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Tortugadillo reported by User:Redrocket (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Hoofer Sailing Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tortugadillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 23:11, 11 March 2008
- 1st revert: 00:16, 12 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 2:40, 12 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 2:54, 12 March 2008
- 4th revert: 14:34, 12 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 0:31, 12 March 2008
This editor was informed of WP:3RR twice, once here [10] (which was actually premature, and apologized for here [11]), and then here about continued edit warring [12]. In addition, this editor has continually referred to any other edits that remove his own as "vandalism," and reverted them as minor edits. Redrocket (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE:
- 5th revert: 16:08, 12 March 2008
- 6th revert: 16:21, 12 March 2008
- 7th revert: 17:08, 12 March 2008
Not all of these are the exact same revert, but they do revert whatever corrections another editor tries to make to his edits.
User:Uconnstud reported by User:Jaysweet (Result:Blocked for 24 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on Talk:David Paterson (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David Paterson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Uconnstud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:24, 12 March 2008
- 1st revert: 20:50, 12 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 21:22, 12 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 21:25, 12 March 2008
- 4th revert: 21:50, 12 March 2008
- 5th revert: 21:59, 12 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 21:56, 12 March 2008
I'm not sure if Talk pages count, but this is very annoying. Uconnstud continues to add a link to a comedy video that he thinks will calm everyone down, despite explanations that it is not relevant to the talk page.
- Blocked for both the 3RR violations and the inappropriate linking to copyrighted content. Metros (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
you'll notice that on this "reversion" [13] I had included 9 links as well as a question that was summarily deleted. User:Jaysweet even stated he didn't read my talk page comment [14] after I asked him [15]. he simply deleted them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uconnstud (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jaysweet User:Colfer2 reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:malformed report, no action)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since Uconnstud was already blocked for this edit war against two separate editors to insert material violating copyright, this seems to be a waste of everybody's time. It is stale anyway.
- Three-revert rule violation on Talk:David Paterson (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David Paterson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Colfer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jaysweet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [16]
- 1st revert: [17]
- 2nd revert: [18]
- 3rd revert: [19]
- 4th revert: [20]
- 5th revert: [21]
- 6th revert: [22]
- Diff of 3RR warning: See below comment
There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [23] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [24] and [25] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [26] and working together Uconnstud (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
you'll notice that on this "reversion" [27] I had included 9 links as well as a question that was summarily deleted. User:Jaysweet even stated he didn't read my talk page comment [28] after I asked him [29]. he simply deleted them Uconnstud (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The reversions I made were all for vandalism After the video had first been removed (not by me, but correctly), Uconnstud added the video + random links, which were just copied from the article itself & Google. So my reversions were all for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colfer2 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- In response to Jaysweet adding the 3RR warning to his page, Uconnstud added it to my Talk page and to Jaysweet's Talk page. So he is just joking around. Colfer2 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I will take no action on this report as it is severely malformed. Please submit a report for each user instead of two editors in one report. Also, follow the directions of the sample report and include times of reverts. Thanks, Metros (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:WalterGR reported by User:Kilz (Result: malformed)
- Three-revert rule violation on Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WalterGR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- Link to proof he know the rules: [32]
A short explanation of the incident. The Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML has been a battleground. Over the last week me and another editor have been banned for edit waring. I have learned my lesson. Rather than take matters into my own hands I am reporting the actions here. Admin Scarian has taught me that the 3rr rule is about edit warring. Deleting things to enforce your own opinions. While WalterGR hasnt done multiple reverts, the diffs show he has removed multiple things without discussion on a very contested article.
- He has removed the Ars Technica reference, even though it is a news site as well as FanaticAttack without any discussion with other editors.
- He has replaced content Admin Scarian removed without any discussion or references.
He is well aware that this rule is about edit warring as he has issued a report on this page.Kilz (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm a bit confused by all of this. I had no idea I was making "acts of war," given that there was already significant discussion on the article's talk page, as you can see here. It was decided that blogs are not acceptable sources. Admin Scarian was involved in this discussion. He posted his comments in this edit.
- Regarding the first edit Kilz mentions, my changes were consistent with what we had already discussed on the talk page: that blogs are not to be allowed. I also went ahead and removed some references to open wikis, as per WP:SPS:
- The Ars Technica reference just quoted Groklaw. Groklaw is a blog.
- FanaticAttack's "About" page invites users to submit "blog entries".
- GrokDoc is an open wiki. You can sign up for an account here.
- Regarding the second edit, where I replaced content that Scarian removed: yup, I did do that. In good faith. Rather than removing the content entirely, I put a {{fact}} by it, to give other editors a chance to find a good reference.
- Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 04:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- There was no discussion of any of the sites you removed, all of them from one point of view. Groklaw is not a blog, that Ars Technica links to it does not make Ars Technica unusable but strengthens Groklaws use. But the Issue isnt that Groklaw was used but Ars Technica, which isnt Groklaw.
- Ars Technica without argument is a news site. zdnet also quotes Groklaw isnt some articles. That doesnt make it unusable.
- FanaticAttack's page asks for Blogs so that they can be looked at for story ideas. "You can send your ideas (or blog entries) to tips “AT” fanaticattack “DOT” com." It is not asking for you to make blog entries on its site.
- An example of an open wiki is Wikipedia that allows Anonymous editors to use it. That you must create an account and people are removed proves it isnt open.
- That still doesnt make removing them on a contested article without discussion correct. Kilz (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- There was no discussion of any of the sites you removed, all of them from one point of view. Groklaw is not a blog, that Ars Technica links to it does not make Ars Technica unusable but strengthens Groklaws use. But the Issue isnt that Groklaw was used but Ars Technica, which isnt Groklaw.
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 12:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Gni reported by User:68.23.8.245 (Result: 8 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:01, 11 March 2008
- 1st revert: 14:19, 12 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 20:04, 12 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 20:33, 12 March 2008
- 4th revert: 00:47, 13 March 2008
- 5th revert: 03:59, 13 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 21:48, 12 March 2008
User:Gni has been reverting out different portions of the article which he appears to disagree with (though 4 reversions of the same material within a 24 hour period are provided in the diff's above). Different editors have put the page back, and different sources have been used to try to address his complaints. The discussion has moved to the article's talk page; however, reversion of material has continued. 68.23.8.245 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- User Gni appears to be a single purpose account edit warring here and on other articles, promoting the CAMERA POV, deleting sourced info that doesnt conform to that POV, etc. Reported here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- There was another single purpose account involved in reversion, but Gni's edit history reflects work on multiple articles (despite the fact that most of his recent edits are indeed to this one article). The main point I think Boodles and I agree on is the excessive amount of reversions from User:Gni. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 12:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Colombiano200 reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: 8 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Natalie Glebova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Colombiano200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 23:11, 11 March 2008
- 1st revert: 18:12, 12 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 23:25, 12 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 01:39, 13 March 2008
- 4th revert: 02:38, 13 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 02:08, 13 March 2008
WP:BLP Issue regarding height of Natalie Glebova. User claims she is 5'8.5" and keeps reverting to this but there is a reliable sources that shows she's 5'11". PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 12:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Dmcm2008 reported by User:Jza84 (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Huyton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dmcm2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 19:43, 1 March 2008
- 1st revert: 22:45, 12 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 10:05, 13 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 14:19, 13 March 2008
- 4th revert: 16:01, 13 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 14:20, 13 March 2008
Fairly new editor who appears to wish an unsourced, unpopular, technically inaccurate and non-consensual phrase included on articles stating that certain towns outside of the City of Liverpool (in North West England) are suburbs of that city. A consensus exists against Dmcm2008's point of view (see here). Huyton isn't the only article involved (there are several), on a cursory glance it was Huyton and Netherton, Sefton that has over 3 reverts. User also threatened to keep editting regardless of feedback.
Simillarly, I'm concerned about Dmcm2008's understanding of civility surrounding this issue. After this post, he recieved this reply. I've also shared that his approach of "truth" and "local knowledge" isn't the right way forwards ([33]) for various reasons.
I would also add that two additional users have witnessed this conflict with Dmcm2008, stating that "they disagree with his edits, "his comments show that he does not wish to find common ground", and that Jza84 is offering constructive dialogue..... and that you (Dmcm2008) should remain civil, and apologise to Jza84 for making imprudent remarks. A short block may be the most appropriate --Jza84 | Talk 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jagz reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 24 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jagz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 12:09, 14 March 2008
- 1st revert: 12:40, 14 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 13:00, 14 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 13:06, 14 March 2008
- 4th revert: 13:24, 14 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 19:22, 27 February 2008
Four complete reverts.Ultramarine (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jaysweet reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:no action)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retaliatory report by editor justly blocked for edit warring, meritless and stale anyway.
- Three-revert rule violation on Talk:David Paterson (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David Paterson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jaysweet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [34]
1st revert: 20:29, 12 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 21:23, 12 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 21:56, 12 March 2008
- 4th revert: 15:39, 13 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 21:57, 12 March 2008
There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [35] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [36] and [37] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [38] and working together. In all, Jaye did in fact violate a 3rr. Previous report was made [39] but it was stated taht it was severly malformed and must be resubmitted. As a result, I am resubmitting it. Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am one of the parties mentioned.
- Note, this is about Talk:David Paterson not the article David Paterson. The article was receiving heavy edits due to a breaking news story, that due to N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer's sudden resignation, Paterson will be the next governor. The Talk page was an important venue for making collaborative decisions quickly. Overall, it was a successful joint effort on a high-visiblity site, for an obscure person thrown into the national spotlight.
- The link to my User Talk:Colfer2 is wrong, no material was deleted. The diffs linked are for User talk:Jaysweet.
- Jaysweet owns his Talk and can delete.
- The reverts made by Jaysweet and me on Talk:David Paterson were for Copyvio, so 3RR does not apply.
- The reverts may have been for obvious vandalism. After the first add of the Chapelle video, Uconnstud put it back in with a list of random links on the article subject and no substantive comments.
- Jaysweet then filed a 3RR report on Uconnstud. Uconnstud retaliated by filing one on Jaysweet and me.
- I do not know Jaysweet and as far as I recall I have not edited the same pages as him.
- Uconnstud was then banned for 24 hours.
- An anonymous I.P. was then used to make his edits again to the Talk:David Paterson page. [40] I tagged that I.P. as a suspected Sockpuppet of Uconnstud: User talk:199.3.218.137
- The Sockpuppet tag on 199.3.218.137 was then removed by another I.P., 74.66.11.10, whose edits, such as Talk:St. John's University (Jamaica, NY) (scene of a longstanding edit war over the name) show a similar interest to Uconnstud. So I tagged it as a Sockpuppet: User Talk: 74.66.11.10
- As I noted there, Uconnstud is interested in the boundaries of Wikipedia policies, see archived Uconnstud User Talk, and also interested in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.
- Uconnstud's current talk page ends with "Waiting Patiently... going to ride this one out..." and some ideas for new articles.
- In summary, this 3RR report is not constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colfer2 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever seen a 3RR report on an article talk page, with accusations of sockpuppetry as icing on the cake.
- First, this report is stale by almost 24 hours. The reverting has stopped, so no action is required on our part here. Blocks are preventative, not punitive.
- Stop editing/deleting/moving/tagging each other's comments on article talk pages. If you don't like someone's comments, respond to them, discuss them, walk away, fly a kite, do something else – but stop deleting comments by other editors. If it happens again and we find out, any or all of you can and probably will be blocked. This is nonsense.
- Editors can remove comments and warnings on their own user talk pages as they see fit. Once upon a long time ago it was verboten, but it is now allowed. - KrakatoaKatie 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever seen a 3RR report on an article talk page, with accusations of sockpuppetry as icing on the cake.
- If you scroll above there has been blocks that were over 2 days old and over 24 hours. So why is this ignored?
- I was told by an admin to resubmit it If you look at the link on the report.
- Had I resubmitted it earlier I would've been circumventing the block.
- Why is it that I was blocked and the other users if you scroll a bit higher not blocked for reverting a talk page of an article [41]
- There have been bad faith edits and bad faith accusation and bad faith warnings. [42] Uconnstud (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
User:12.144.110.131 reported by User:Mysteryquest (Result:24 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on Argosy University. 12.144.110.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [43]
- 1st revert: 12:57, 14 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 13:02, 14 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 13:07, 14 March 2008
- 4th revert: 14:29, 14 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 13:07, 14 March 2008
This editor has reverted the article four or five times despite a warning and a request that they engage in talk. The reverts have all been the same.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jalalabadi reported by User:McTools (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Beh-nam (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Beh-nam|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jalalabadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [44]
The vandal reverting is desperately attempting to avoid checkuser being filed on him and his different ips. If you may please revert its last edits.McTools (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Para reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: No action)
- Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:External links (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:External links |talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Para (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
Para has been repeatedly trying to amend this guideline without achieving consensus support. There have been massive discussions on the talk page over more than a month and eventually Para achieved agreement of 3 out of 4 remaining participants for a change. Two of the 4 participants want further input, but Para prefers to edit way than to check whether there is a consensus other than amongst those left standing.
Note that while the revision log shows multiple reverts today by me, one of those was a mistaken revert of the wrong edit, and I self-reverted that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. If this report doesn't qualify as tendentious, I don't know what does. The page is already protected, and blocks are preventative, not punitive. This is ridiculous. How is that fourth diff a revert? It's a post on the talk page. He has made 3 reverts today. You have also made 3 reverts today, I notice. Just as bad as each other. Moreschi (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reconsider per disruption, its a slow war on guideline page....
- 1st revert: 09:22, 11 February 2008
- 2nd revert: 08:45, 23 February 2008
- 3rd revert: 10:00, 23 February 2008
- 4th revert: 02:34, 11 March 2008
- 5th revert: 19:39, 11 March 2008
- 6th revert: 15:42, 14 March 2008
- 7th revert: 16:37, 14 March 2008
- 8th revert: 16:51, 14 March 2008
- In this case this is obvious Gamming and edit warring which is disruption to a guideline page. Even if this user did not revert more than three times per day, 3RR should not be discounted as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy. (I'm not advocating others behavior in this case)--Hu12 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, but in a goodly number of those diffs you've just listed it's still Para and BHG edit-warring away. Either we block both parties (which there is certainly a good case for doing), or we block neither. I see no cause just to block one. Take your pick (and see also here). Moreschi (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Hu12. AS noted here, Para started by unilaterally changing the guidelines, and has persisted in trying again and again and again to find a group of people, however small, will support his change. Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus_in_practice is clear that repeatedly pushing the same point does not amount to a consensus.
- Moreschi, if you check back, you will see tat other editors have reverted Para's insertion of a new item in the guideline, and it is not solely me. Can anyone suggest a way of persuading Para to actually seek a consensus per Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus_in_practice? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see Moreschi's point BHG. This is one of those reports that gets everyone blocked. right or wrong, It still doesn't confer a license to war even if it's true. There has to be a better way to resolve this, and blocking won't help. --Hu12 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see Moreschi's point, too. Any suggestions on what that better way might be? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:RFC? For the guideline, not user conduct. As far as I can see the main problem is confusion about where consensus lies - who holds what opinion. RFC should settle that problem. Frankly, I can make neither heads nor tails of what's being fought over, so if you do go for RFC please make the issues very plain. Moreschi (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, but in a goodly number of those diffs you've just listed it's still Para and BHG edit-warring away. Either we block both parties (which there is certainly a good case for doing), or we block neither. I see no cause just to block one. Take your pick (and see also here). Moreschi (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reconsider per disruption, its a slow war on guideline page....
User:Colfer2 reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:Reporter warned for personal attacks)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retaliatory report, requester now blocked again for disruption.
- Three-revert rule violation on Talk:David Paterson (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David Paterson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jaysweet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [55]
- 1rd revert: 22:09, 12 March 2008
- 2th revert: 20:54, 21:41, 12 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 21:57, 12 March 2008
There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [56] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [57] and [58] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [59] and working together. In all, Jaye did in fact violate a 3rr. Previous report was made [60] but it was stated taht it was severly malformed and must be resubmitted. As a result, I am resubmitting it. Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I only see two reverts here and each revert is done by a different editor. Metros (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- or perhaps you're following me around. I think the latter considering my last two edits you were right behind me. Look above " Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day." Uconnstud (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- My response is above. There are numerous reasons why this was not 3RR besides the factual inaccuracy of the report. Also it is stale! Have a good weekend everybody. - Colfer2 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks renoved by Metros (talk) at 21:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Uconnstud (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion - I don't believe any 3RR violation has occured although I am going to warn Uconnstud for personl attacks. ScarianCall me Pat 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am from Manhattan, this isn't a personal attack. Guys don't ask guys they don't know out for a drink of beer unless they are trying to go out with them (date) I gave user Colfer2 a decline after he asked me out Uconnstud (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's some serious stereotyping right there. It doesn't matter now; I've found no evidence of 3RR violation or edit warring. Please take heed of what other editors are saying about your additions. Any admin can feel free to reverse my decision (if they notify me first, of course). ScarianCall me Pat 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- You don't need to remove any personal attacks against me, I don't care. I'm more concerned that the resolution was "WARNED", as I think you mean you warned the reporter. Anyway, there is one more matter to clear up, this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.66.11.10&oldid=198280020 I would appreciate it someone would edit it for me. The other page in question is User talk:199.3.218.137 but it seems fine now. Thanks! - Colfer2 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Mike Babic reported by User:Rjecina (Result: 24 hrs)
- Three-revert rule violation on Serbs of Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mike Babic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: --Rjecina (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [61]
For original version I have his last version before 3RR
This nationalistic SPA account has been warned on talk page about 3RR rule and it has been warned by administrator about POV edits. It is possible to see small difference in wording between 1/2 and 3/4 revert but 1 thing has never changed. Editor has always reverted original article (before he has started to edit on wikipedia) deleting words:Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term Vlach was used for Ortodox Vlachs and Serbs.....
Because of that he has broken 3RR rule with deleting of this 2 lines. On other side I have demanded checkuser because he has made 5th revert from IP address. When this will become official he will be blocked. --Rjecina (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
User:RucasHost reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: 48 hour block )
- Three-revert rule violation on Go Daddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RucasHost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [66]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [71]
A request for comments was started over the nodaddy link and he still reinserts it. GreenJoe 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusion - I have blocked the user for 48 hours. ScarianCall me Pat 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Guinness2702 reported by User:John Anderson (Result:no violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on A1 Team Great Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guinness2702 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [72] (I don't know if I am filling this our right)
- Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME I warned Guinness2702 yesterday, both on the article's talkpage and on Guinness2702's own talkpage.
A short explanation of the incident: Guinness2702 has erased information because he/she personally finds it irrelevant. At first, Guinness2702 did not even discuss it on the article's talkpage. Now Guinness2702 does talk about it, but is stubbornly refusing to see the relevance in the information and keeps erasing the information even if the discussion is not over yet. John Anderson 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, when you next report a suspected 3RR violation, please use the correct format as listed below. Secondly, please brush up on the 3RR rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." One of the four reverts you have listed here occurred in February and another occurred three days ago. Only two of the reverts occurred in the last 24 hours. In fact, you have committed more reverts in the last 25 hours (3) than he has (2). Because of this, I have declined this report as no violation. Metros (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Dance With The Devil reported by User:SuperGreenRed (Result:no violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on Template:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dance With The Devil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Supergreenred (talk)
- Previous version reverted to: [77]
- I recommend blocking both editors. Both have violated 3RRV but Dance With The Devil who often reverts for user UltraMarine does not participate on the talk page. This is clearly a content dispute. No excuse for edit warring.Supergreenred (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Example
<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE --> == [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) == *[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~ *Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- 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.--> <!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. --> *1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~ <!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
See also
- Help:Diff
- 3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.