Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
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.
User:122.49.175.210 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result: 36 hours to Jun kakeko, 24 hours to IP )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Dir en grey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 122.49.175.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 09:24, September 23, 2007
- 1st revert: 16:12, September 23, 2007
- 2nd revert: 16:44, September 23, 2007
- 3rd revert: 17:17, September 23, 2007
- 4th revert: 20:43, September 23, 2007
- 5th revert: 21:33, September 23, 2007
- 6th revert: 01:39, September 24, 2007
- 7th revert: 02:54, September 24, 2007
- 8th revert: 03:30, September 24, 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 17:38, September 23, 2007
Repeated reinsertion of information that several other editors either deemed improperly sourced or irrelevant to the article. Other (properly cited) content was removed in the process. - Cyrus XIII 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I took a very quick look at it and my thoughts are this: Issue at hand is the fact that while the English source does provide the band's name directly, the Sankei link (in Japanese) doesn't mention the group at all. Anyone else want to sort this out? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's right, the English source mentions the band, but only in connection with the fraudulent orders ("for producing promotional videos for such artists as "Dir en grey,""). Yet the IP based editor has repeatedly reinserted the information, that the fundings illegally obtained through these orders were particularly used to cover overhead costs of aforementioned band, which is inaccurate and thus unacceptable per WP:BLP. - Cyrus XIII 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This user has also been edit warring elsewhere (before the warning) inserting the same information on other pages: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I would be less concerned if this was just an edit war, but it seems to be something more. Denaar 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Free-Will (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 122.49.175.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 07:45, September 23, 2007
- 1st revert: 07:48, September 23, 2007
- 2nd revert: 16:15, September 23, 2007
- 3rd revert: 21:02, September 23, 2007
- 4th revert: 21:32, September 23, 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: see above
As data provided by WHOIS, as well as certain behavior patterns seem to match, could the reviewing administrator take a look at these previous 3RR violations and determine whether there is a genuine scope for relation? [7] [8] [9] [10] This would imply at least six 3RR violations from the same person. - Cyrus XIII 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- The editor has since identified himself as user Jun kaneko (talk · contribs).[11] - Cyrus XIII 01:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Sciencewatcher reported by User:Taroaldo (Result: Protected.)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sciencewatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [12]
- 1st revert: [13]
- 2nd revert: [14]
- 3rd revert: [15]
- 4th revert: [16]
- 5th revert: [17]
- 6th revert: [18]
- 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: [19]
(Not a new user, but warning was placed. Can see the response on my Talk page.)
Sciencewatcher has continued to revert the removal of a controversial sentence which has had a citation request tag on it since May. Editors have attempted to engage this user on the article's talk page, but have not had success. Taroaldo 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it was Taroaldo who reverted the information 3 times. I reverted it twice because he gave an invalid reason. The third time I added a citation, thinking this would satisfy him. When it didn't, I tried to discuss it with him on his talk page and the article's talk page, but he is being unreasonable and is now accusing me of breaking the 3RR rule, which I didn't do (in fact he broke the 3RR rule before he even put the 3RR warning on my talk page).
- I would suggest you look at the CFS page as there are 2 edit wars going on. Taroaldo and another user are bullying me in order to try to keep their POV and no others on the page. --Sciencewatcher 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Barateiro reported by User:Videmus Omnia (Result: already blocked)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Monica Bellucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Barateiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Edit-warring over infobox photo on Monica Bellucci.
- Diff of 3RR warning: diff
Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Ghirlandajo and User:Dbachmann reported by User:Moosh88 (Result: 24 hours to Moosh88 )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Hurrians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Armenia (name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Armenian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Proto-Armenian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Graeco-Aryan language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [20]
- 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: [25]
The information I have added on the above article has been removed for no reason by the two stated editors. One of the editors, User:Ghirlandajo has been blocked before for inciting a 3RR edit war, which is what I believe he is trying to do now. And User:Dbachmann is not holding himself to the higher standards of an administrator, nor is he neautral, nor does he cite the reasons why he reverted Moosh88 21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I personally don't see any violation of 3RR on part of either User:Ghirlandajo or User:Dbachmann, however the actions of User:Moosh88 are clearly covered by this ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: [26] Within just the last couple of days Moosh88 was engaged in massive canvassing, edit warring across multiple pages and incivility. I believe this requires the attention of admins. Grandmaster 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- bogus report. Moosh88 has been warned about canvassing before. --dab (𒁳) 07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Before you file, remember that both sides will be looked at. While you could say that Dbachmann and Ghirl both might be gaming the system, you made four different
reverts here to this revision, so you're getting blocked for 24 hours. No actions to Ghirlandajo and Dbachmann at this time. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- we are not "gaming the system". We are merely rolling back offtopic, unreliably sourced or unsourced additions. That the burden of defending these on talk is on Moosh88 is perfectly straightforward Wikipedia-as-usual. This is at best a content dispute, blending into fringe-warrior territory. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Peter Isotalo reported by User:Naacats (Result: Page Protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Naacats 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope I did this right. This user is preventing any editing or discussion of the article. I placed a discussion and he deleted it. I requested citations, he removed them. He removed the neutral point of view tag I placed as well. While the 3 revisions didn't happen in 24 hours, he's been consistantly doing it, not only to me, but to anyone who tries to improve the article (which he originally wrote) I also see he's been reported for this before, in this very same article, and been banned for it.
- Page Protected by Animum. You guys need to sort this out on talk page. Note that COI issues may be present. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd just like to point out that Naacats is a pro-smoking activist who promotes his own website NAACATS (North American Association of Cigarette and Tobacco Smokers) and the article Smokers Rights in smoking articles across the board and has consistently removed links and slanted information that is deemed be too unfavorable to (tobacco) smoking. There's even been an appeal on the NAACATS website to assist in removing allegedly biased information about the health hazards of smoking. Peter Isotalo 09:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:141.161.98.98 reported by User:Mike.lifeguard (Result: No violation )
- Three-revert rule violation on
RMS Lusitania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 141.161.98.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:16, 24 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.
- Diff of 3RR warning: [30]
The line was removed by Miguel1626 with a note on the talk page [31]. This IP has repeatedly re-added the line despite warnings and suggestions to discuss changes on the talk page. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- 3 reverts only. No violation. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Street20 reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result: 24h )
- Three-revert rule violation on
John Smoltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Street20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 21:59, September 23, 2007
- 1st revert: 19:44, September 23, 2007
- 2nd revert: 20:41, September 23, 2007
- 3rd revert: 21:48, September 23, 2007
- 4th revert: 21:55, September 23, 2007
- 5th revert: 21:59, September 23, 2007
User:Street20 keeps undoing a correct edit on John Smoltz, replacing the player's years with the organization with the years he was healthy, which is not how it is traditionally done. So not only has user violated 3RR, his edit is incorrect. User has been engaged in discussion on talk page but has yet to respond. He maintains his edit is common but has not backed this up - because it is a false claim.►Chris Nelson 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're both blocked 24 hours, since I rather suspect I know who that IP who conveniently intervened was. Prodego talk 02:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Request a checkuser, that's not me. I'm not the only one that's reverted him, his edit is wrong and most people know it.►Chris Nelson 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I did not want to be blocked for 3RR when I did not revert four times.►Chris Nelson 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Page protected. Discussion needed. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Quelt42 reported by User:Percy Snoodle (Result: 24 h block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Settlers of Catan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Quelt42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 02:29, 21 September 2007
Reverts within 24-hour period:
- 1st revert: 00:11, 23 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 05:01, 23 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 10:56, 23 September 2007
- 4th revert: 20:51, 23 September 2007
Warnings:
- Diff of 1st 3RR warning (after 2nd revert): 10:29, 23 September 2007
- Diff of 2nd 3RR warning (after 3rd revert): 11:15, 23 September 2007
User:Quelt42 added an external link to a Java implementation of Settlers of Catan, which was removed in line with WP:EL. He has reverted that and all subsequent attempts to remove the link. Listed reversions are not the only ones, but are the four that have come within a 24-hour period despite warnings. Percy Snoodle 09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- User was clearly and repeatedly warned, and is directly in violation of WP:EL as well as 3RR. I'll block for 24 hours; it'll be longer next time. WaltonOne 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Estgeorge reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: No vio on Estgeorge, GreenJoe warned)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Ontario Health Insurance Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Estgeorge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 10:23, 24 September 2007
- 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: [36]
He continues to inject his own POV, unreferenced opinion into the article. GreenJoe 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- No violation by Estgeorge. GreenJoe on the other hand has 4 reverts. Since he's not warned, I will warn instead of block. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Giovanni Giove (Result: 24h to DIREKTOR, 72h to Giovanni)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Mauro Orbini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
A short explanation of the incident.
I've tried different versions and I've tried an agreement (see history). All my edits in all the articles are regulary reverted by user Direktor, acting toghehter other users.. He refuse all the compromises, just imposing his POV as it is. Giovanni Giove 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- This editor is very "POV" and has also violated the 3RR, as is evident in the History page of the article. He has NOT tried discussing and persists in making completely incorrect (and offensive) edits. He has been confronted by several editors (User:Zenanarh, User:Zmaj and myself) but refuses to stop pushing his POV. DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- DIREKTOR blocked 24h for edit-warring. Giovanni blocked for 72h due to past history. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:85.74.44.243 reported by User:El_Greco (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Athens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.74.44.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 13:33 Sept 21, 2007
- 1st revert: 5:42 Sept 24, 2007
- 2nd revert: 15:55 Sept 24, 2007
- 3rd revert: 16:11 Sept 24, 2007
- 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: 16:12
85.74.44.243 continues to revert changed made through a discussion on the talk page about limiting the number of images on the Athens article. See also the above discussion: 85.74.151.103 The user not only continues to spam the article with images, the user now revert text, which has been spell checked and edited. The user continues to ignore that, and has done so before:85.74.252.219 back on Aug 31, 2007 He has also started on Thessaloniki See: Before Sept 21 After Sept 21 El Greco (talk · contribs) 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Navou (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked the user for a period of 24 hours for his/her disruption at Athens. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Arcayne reported by User:Viriditas (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on
User:Operation Spooner (edit | [[Talk:User:Operation Spooner|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 23:46, 24 September 2007
- 1st revert: 23:53, 24 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 00:34, 25 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 00:48, 25 September 2007
- 4th revert: 00:54, 25 September 2007
Arcayne is involved in a long term content dispute with User:Operation Spooner on Ronald Reagan and has been harassing him on his user and talk pages with multiple reverts in Operation Spooner's user space. Arcayne insists he is removing personal attacks, but according to WP:NPA this does not appear to be the case. The content in question appears to be a personal essay by Operation Spooner concerning ownership issues/strategies that neither mentions user names or points fingers. I made an attempt to rewrite the User content to satisfy Arcayne's concerns, who is convinced that the essay is about him, but I was reverted. My compromise attempt consisted of removing ambiguous wording and helping the User focus on addressing his own personal experience with WP:OWN, which is what his user page appeared to suggest (Please see my efforts). Having direct experience with writing portions of WP:OWN some time ago, and focusing on specific aspects that User:Operation Spooner describes, this task greatly appealed to me. As his block log shows, Arcayne is very familiar with 3RR. —Viriditas | Talk 01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, let's put this into its proper perspective. Operation Spooner has been adding personal attacks on his user page for over a month, and has been advised of the NPA violations they constitute. Instead of removing them as requested by no less than three admins, he has actually expanded upon these personal attacks. I was removing them, as these updates occurred every time his edits in the Ronald Reagan article occurred.
- Now, Viriditas, who I have had extensive personal conflicts with over the past year, and who I have ried very much to avoid as one of those people who make Wikipedia suck to edit. Yesterday, he began revising my edits in WP:Lead, and then began attacking my edits in both SPAM and San Francisco burrito, using uncivil language and personal attacks. He then accused me of wikistalking and harrassment and being a bad editor, and apparently just raining on his parade or whatever.
- Magically, he shows up in the OperationSpooner user page and begins reverting my edits, calling himself a "diosnterested" and "neutral" third party. Clearly, he is not - and I was pursuing filing an RfC in regards to his long-term abusive and threatening behavior, but I am currently at work, and filing such is a fairly slow matter.
- I contend that removing personal attacks is not subject to 3RR, and that I clearly explained my removal of the sections in question in the edit summaries. I am allowed to protect myself from personal attacks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As well, i would note that I have revert my changes to Spooner's page (it took some time, as the database kept locking while the servers caught up), and wait for an admin to weigh in. This is to avoid appearing to edit war over what I still feel are personal attacks, and Viriditas' non-neutral wikistalking. I am too close to this to act neutrally myself, and am removing myself from the issue. Hopefully, an nautral admin will be better able to address the situation. As for Viriditas, I will address the wikistalking nad harrassm,ent through another noticeboard. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please show evidence of Spooner's personal attacks that you removed, with quotes. Also, please show how my revision of Spooner's admittedly bizarre essay consisted of "personal attacks". These are Spooner's personal beliefs about his experience on Wikipedia, and you had no right to remove them. —Viriditas | Talk 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive me, but I have nothing to say to you outside of an RfC, Viriditas. You are cynically using this matter to wikistalk. I could name 6 other editors and admins who have counseled you about your behavior, and every time you ignore them. You have more in common with Spooner than you know. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing an example of your WP:NPA. Now, please show where Spooner has made them, particularly in my revision of his essay which focuses on ownership issues, not individual editors. —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh, anyone taking a look at his user contributions would clearly be able to see that he would make an edit to the Ronald Reagan article, (usually get reverted) and then go about making a revision to his warnings for new users subject. As a great many were directed at me or User:Happyme22, I took them as personal attacks. At least three admins pointed out to him that these were personal attacks. Spooner promptly ignored them. Anyone looking at Viriditas' edit history will show that he showed up for the first time where I was editing to revet my edits after another clash on San Francisco burrito. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing the evidence of the personal attacks you claim to have reverted on Operation Spooner's user page. Can you please present them here? All I see is someone involved in a content dispute harassing a user in their user space and hiding under the "NPA" policy to bully and intimidate another user. Please present the personal attacks you claim Spooner made on his user page that forced you to violate the 3RR. —Viriditas | Talk 02:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh, anyone taking a look at his user contributions would clearly be able to see that he would make an edit to the Ronald Reagan article, (usually get reverted) and then go about making a revision to his warnings for new users subject. As a great many were directed at me or User:Happyme22, I took them as personal attacks. At least three admins pointed out to him that these were personal attacks. Spooner promptly ignored them. Anyone looking at Viriditas' edit history will show that he showed up for the first time where I was editing to revet my edits after another clash on San Francisco burrito. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing an example of your WP:NPA. Now, please show where Spooner has made them, particularly in my revision of his essay which focuses on ownership issues, not individual editors. —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have just learned that WP:RPA as a valid method for defending against personal attacks was rejected a little over a week ago after lengthy discussion. Unfortunately, I am at work at this time and cannot put together the diffs that would clearly show the relationship between Spooner's edits being turned down in the Reagan article and his updating of his section on warnings for new editors. As well, had I the time, i would be able to deomonstrate the correlation between Viriditas' wiki-stalking and subsequent insertion into the Spooner issue and clearly demonstrate that Viriditas was not acting as a "neutral party" but was in fact engaged in a pattern of harrassment. I won't spend too much time on the latter here, as this isn't the place for it (RfO or RfC is a better venue, I think), instead providing the background to indicate that Viriditas is not acting neutrally here, and in fact is as guity of breaking 3RR as he accuses me of being:
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to comment about the Ronald Reagan article, which has prompted all of this. The lead was in decent shape about two weeks before becoming a FA on August 25, until Spooner added a highly detailed outline of Reagan's economic policies. Eventually, he and I whittled it down to an extra sentence, something we were both okay with. After passing the FAC, Arcayne and a few others joined the "team" of editors, and one of Arcayne's first edits was redoing much of lead, which included generalizing even what Spooner and I worked out and adding some more about his presidency. Eventually, Spooner readded in that lot about his economic philosphy, so the editors (including User:Info999, User:Rise Above The Vile, User:Brian Pearson, User:Stanselmdoc, User:Paul.h, Arcayne, and myself) came to a concensus saying that the material Spooner wanted is true, but was too detailed for the lead section per WP:LEAD, which says the lead should provide a general overview of the subject and not focus too much on one topic. Well, to say it frankly, Spooner rejected the entire concept of concensus, saying his version should stay in because he and I agreed on it before (see Talk:Ronald Reagan). An admin tried to explain to him that concensus was always changing, but I don't know what came of that. Arcayne even took the liberty of adding it into the Governor section to try and solve this problem! Anyway, we eventually compromised with Spooner, but he apparently seems to be going against that compromise and changing it again. Arcayne and many other editors have asked him to please explain why his material should go in the lead on the talk page, but the conversation usually warps into how someone is personally attacking someone else, and the "your wrong, and I'm right!" crap. Anyway, I don't know of this helps, but here's the story. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best, Happyme22 05:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Tromaintern reported by User:Bignole (Result: 24 hours for sockpuppetry)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Slither (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tromaintern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [41] - This version was a version agreed upon in a discussion that took place on the talk page. Tromaintern did not like the consensus and has decided to revert to their preferred version, even after being warned at 23:30, September 24, 2007 for reaching their 3 reverts for the 24 hour period.
- 1st revert: 21:55, September 24, 2007
- 2nd revert: 22:32, September 24, 2007
- 3rd revert: 23:27, September 24, 2007
- 4th revert: 23:37, September 24, 2007
- It may need to be noted that Tromaintern has been reported as a possible sock puppet of User:Ogabadaga, who was indefinitely blocked.
- Blocked for 24 hours by Cuchullain for sockpuppetry. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
User:MattJanovic reported by User:Proper tea is theft (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
David Vitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MattJanovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 03:44, 25 September 2007
- 1st revert: 19:40, 24 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 02:34, 25 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 02:55, 25 September 2007
- 4th revert: 03:44, 25 September 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 02:59, 25 September 2007
New user continues to post lengthy, speculative text derived from from a site called yardbird.com into the lead. At least three editors have reverted the addition of this text, and two have expressed opposition to the addtion of this text on the talk page.
--Proper tea is theft 04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Clear cut. Blocked for 24h. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Bearcat reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result:Both users wanred )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Rick Mercer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bearcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 23:31, 24 September -- rv to version of 20:30, 22 September, wrt the section concerned (but adding a reference)
- 2nd revert: 00:10, 25 September -- rv to version of 23:31, 24 September
- 3rd revert: 00:39&00:47, 25 September -- rv to version of 00:10, 25 September, wrt use of "gay" rather than "homosexual"
- 4th revert: 00:58, 25 September -- rv to version of 00:47, 25 September
No warning given, but Bearcat is an admin and so should know better
A few days ago, in accordance with WP:BLP, I deleted unreferenced claims that Mercer is homosexual. Bearcat restored them once w/o a reference (outside the 3rr window), then again with a reference (1st revert, above), then reverted trimming of the material, and details of its wording. -- Lonewolf BC 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Lonwolf BC, you've also borken the 3RR rule, I've given you both a warning - please don't edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not that I can see. I'd be grateful if you pointed out what you see as a fourth revert on my part. (Here or my talkpage; it's all the same to me.) -- Lonewolf BC 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
User:82.29.19.133 reported by User:Court Jester (Result:24 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Bourbon whiskey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.29.19.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: 10:54, September 23, 2007 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 16:39, September 24, 2007 (UTC)
- 3rd revert: 18:47, September 24, 2007 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 21:50, September 24, 2007 (UTC)
- 5th revert: 08:50, September 25, 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.
- Diff of 3RR warning: 22:31, September 24, 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous user determined to place phonemic pronunciation guides, against relative guidelines, on a number of pages including Bourbon whiskey, Bourbon biscuit, Ciabatta, Johann Sebastian Bach, and other pages. Jester 10:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked by allen3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
User:RolandR reported by User:ILuvJajah (Result:48 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Jajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 09:56, 6 September 2007
- 1st revert: 14:48, 24 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 17:17, 24 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 19:57, 24 September 2007
- 4th revert: 13:00, 25 September 2007
RolnadR has been blocked for 3Rr 3 times before.
- Blocked for 48 hours due to previous blocks for edit warring. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
User:71.72.130.221 reported by User:Andrew c (Result:24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Misogyny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.72.130.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 14:35, 23 September 2007
- 1st revert: 15:52, 24 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 16:31, 24 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 10:27, 25 September 2007
- 4th revert: 10:40, 25 September 2007
- 5th revert: 10:47, 25 September 2007
- 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: 10:40, 25 September 2007
The user has repetitively been inserting commentary into quoted text. I have tried to explain why this is problematic, and warned for 3RR. I am an admin, but because I was involved in the undoing, I am not going to use the tools myself to block, and would like an uninvolved admin to review the case. The last edit seems to be trying to accommodate my concerns, however all the user did was remove the quotes so it was no longer inserting the commentary into quoted text (however, removing the quotes is an issue in itself due to copyvio/plagiarism concerns, which is another issue entirely). Needless to say, the last diff still is inserting the same basic text.Andrew c [talk] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- IP blocked for 24 hours, Andrew C warned. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Digwuren reported by User:Anonimu (Result:2 wks)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Denial of Soviet occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 13:59, 25 September 2007
- 1st revert: 20:32, 25 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 21:19, 25 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 21:54, 25 September 2007
- 4th revert: 22:21, 25 September 2007
- Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
- User blocked for 3RR before, so he was aware of it.
Looks like User:Digwuren thinks he owns the article. He rejected any tag, and added references that don't cover the text they supposedly reference. I tried to put a version supported by sources (one of them being supported by Digwuren's proposed DYK) and to ask for further references to support Digwuren's claim, but I was reverted every time.Anonimu 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, clearly edit warring after repeated blocks. Blocked for two weeks. As Digwuren is involved in an Arbcom case, there may need to be some arrangement for him to be unblocked for participation in this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, weird. There are two reverts on two different edits. First is clear antivandalism as somebody is removing sources inappropriately. And adding CN's. Even though they are not actually not even needed there. I don't know about the second topic. I don't think it was good idea to block. But what do I know, I guess 2RR goes against vandalism aswell. I would personally have requested page protection myself, as some editors just have grudge about the editor and wanted to remove the GA status from the article by using random tagging and starting editwar. It's sad to see that Digwuren fell a victim of the provocations. Suva Чего? 20:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any vandal reverts here. Also, even with fewer than four reverts, I'd have probably blocked since the user should know by now not to edit war after the many blocks he's received. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's true that the first one is a bit questionable: while he removes the OR tag added by Irpen, he does also add a citation, so perhaps it's not best to count it as a revert. But this does not change the fact that he is edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- So was Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His latest contributions to other related articles follow the same pattern. Also check his block log. That is the problem with those editors. They like plain template tagging to discredit articles (in this time to successfully remove the GA status) instead of trying to find consensus or actually add sources themself. Other article was editprotected until consensus is found. I think this kind of approach would have been better in this case aswell instead of doubtable one sided block. But as said before I am not the one to decide. Suva Чего? 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's true that the first one is a bit questionable: while he removes the OR tag added by Irpen, he does also add a citation, so perhaps it's not best to count it as a revert. But this does not change the fact that he is edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any vandal reverts here. Also, even with fewer than four reverts, I'd have probably blocked since the user should know by now not to edit war after the many blocks he's received. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, weird. There are two reverts on two different edits. First is clear antivandalism as somebody is removing sources inappropriately. And adding CN's. Even though they are not actually not even needed there. I don't know about the second topic. I don't think it was good idea to block. But what do I know, I guess 2RR goes against vandalism aswell. I would personally have requested page protection myself, as some editors just have grudge about the editor and wanted to remove the GA status from the article by using random tagging and starting editwar. It's sad to see that Digwuren fell a victim of the provocations. Suva Чего? 20:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Digwuren's reverts (times in GMT)
- removal of recently added OR tag at 06:39, September 25, 2007
- same again at 10:59
- same again 17:32
- Same again 18:19
- Same again 18:54 with abusive vandalism summary
- Same again 19:51 again with abusive vandalism summary
OR tags were explained at talk and added by three different editors but Digwuren just ran a sterile revert war. It is 6RR not even a 3RR. --Irpen 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
User:74.77.222.188 reported by User:callmebc (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Talk:Killian_documents. 74.77.222.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 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: 20:32
A short explanation of the incident. Callmebc 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess it depends on your viewpoint -- I'm either: 1) engaged in an edit war with a few anonymous IP addresses, possibly a sockpuppet or two, most especially a hothead at 74.77.222.18 who doesn't seem to think WP:BLP, WP:NPA WP:TPG and WP:CIV (for starters) have any bearing on Talk page "discussions"; 2) dealing with right wing vandals who don't want any updates made to certain articles near and dear to them; or 3) just having a lively Wiki discussion. Perhaps if I indicate what 74.77.222.18 keeps reverting, that might help: [42].
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] <!--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: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *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: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~ <!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
User JerryGraf violation
JerryGraf did 4 reverts in a 24 hour period [43], after adding what is ment to be a negative statement about the biography of a living person, after i removed it he keeps reverting it back. Not to mention the comment should actually be on a different page as well. I did 3 in the 24 hour period. But he just did his 4th. And apparently has no plans on stoppingRogue Gremlin 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)