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:Eplgleplcl and User:Vria reported by Ohconfucius (talk) (Result: No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on Hoi Ping Chamber of Commerce Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Eplgleplcl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Single purpose accounts Eplgleplcl and Vria have been persisting in disrupting the article and associated talk page in concert, with flagrant attacks against people living or dead, and in violation of WP:A, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:Coatrack.
Time reported: 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 12:50, 20 July 2008
- Previous version reverted to: 14:22, 20 July 2008
- 1st revert: 00:36, 2 July 2008
- 2nd revert: 12:02, 19 July 2008
- 3rd revert: 01:57, 20 July 2008
- Related talk page vandalism
- 1st occurrence: 01:58, 20 July 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 12:17, 19 July 2008
Related vandalism by suspected sockpuppet User:Vria
- 1st revert: 7 June 2008
- 2nd revert: 00:13, 8 June 2008
- 3rd revert: 12:11, 14 June 2008
- 4th revert:12:54, 18 June 2008
- 5th revert:07:44, 7 July 2008
- 6th revert: 11:28, 15 July 2008
- Related talk page vandalism
- 1st occurrence: 12:12, 14 June 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 12:49, 15 July 2008
Ohconfucius (talk) 07:22, 20 July 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. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: with all due respect, I feel that you are apply the letter of the rule, rather than its spirit. the relevant section within WP:3RR states: "Edit warring is disruptive, and attempts to avoid this rule are even more disruptive. Trying to avoid breaching this rule by only making two reverts per day over an extended period, for example, is "gaming the system" and can also lead to administrative action. Rules such as this exist as guidelines for action, but are not set standards. Editors should remember that edit warring is not helpful to building an encyclopedia, and adhere to the spirit of the rules rather than the letter." Ohconfucius (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- BLP problem. I took a look at the article. Vria and Eplgleplcl are adding unsourced defamatory material about specific teachers who work at the school. They keep putting in a section called Unpopular staff with questionable conduct and inadequate academic background. I have left admin warnings for both of these editors and urge that they be blocked if they restore this material again. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: with all due respect, I feel that you are apply the letter of the rule, rather than its spirit. the relevant section within WP:3RR states: "Edit warring is disruptive, and attempts to avoid this rule are even more disruptive. Trying to avoid breaching this rule by only making two reverts per day over an extended period, for example, is "gaming the system" and can also lead to administrative action. Rules such as this exist as guidelines for action, but are not set standards. Editors should remember that edit warring is not helpful to building an encyclopedia, and adhere to the spirit of the rules rather than the letter." Ohconfucius (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- These are several reverts over the course of a month. If there were, say, five reverts in 30 hours I might make a different decision. This noticeboard is specifically for violations of the 3RR — if there are long-term vandalism or other editor problems, consider dispute resolution, requesting protection, or reporting to the admin noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
User:86.83.155.44 reported by User:Wammes Waggel (Result: IP 86.83.155.44 blocked for a month )
- Three-revert rule violation on History of Trams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Unfortunately I do not have the time to make a full report, but similar events (user adding reference to his own book) occurred on Light rail and HTM Personenvervoer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wammes Waggel (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
86.83.155.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 10:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [1]
- 1st revert: 18:10, 19 July 2008
- 2nd revert: 21:55, 19 July 2008
- 3rd revert: 23:35, 19 July 2008
- 4th revert: 23:47, 19 July 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 14:24, 2 July 2008
- → That kind of cases were recently withdrawn from meta-wiki, because your only purpose is "inadmissible stalking" by repeated reverting against me with 3 à 4 persons. This ref. was already there from September last Year without any objections at all. As usual with most regards: ing. D.A. Borgdorff - PEng. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC) For the last s.c. Diff, see but e.g. the following excuses from user:SarekOfVulcan (Talk | contribs) = about an apparently mistaken warning. D.A. Borgdorff - MASc EE by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC) - Details here please, just as my complaints regarded, lodged to WMF.
- Stale If the user resumes edit warring, he'll be blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Meanwhile taking over this "ref. deleting" - the well-known Dutch co-stalkers: Baas & Robotje from said mr. "Waggel" cum suis. I know my nagging onions. D.A. Borgdorff speaking on behalf of co-writer: Dr. H.D. Ploeger LL.M. (ed.) 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC) PS: a significant proof of this behavior is the efficient reversal of cause and effect by a reverted statement of Robotje about something else: of the record. Supposedly he is replacing it again and again all the time. D.A. Borgdorff as above 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- And here again a new case of violating WP:3RR. Besides that violation it is also obvious he is ignoring WP:COI even after I pointed him to that on my talk page. He read it and after his reply on my talk page he keeps reinserting references to his work mentioning his name in several articles these edit wars are about. For similar self promotion (usually in combination with related edit wars) he has recently been blocked for a month or longer on several language versions of Wikipedia:
- Since these edit wars are going on on several articles, protecting all of them against editing doesn't seem a logic solution so blocking this anonymous user seems to be the only way to stop this. - Robotje (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP 86.83.155.44 for a month, due to disruptive editing, pushing reference (without attempting to achieve consensus with involved editors) etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Christo jones reported by User:Travelling Tragition (Result: Both users blocked 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on List of best-selling music artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Christo jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [5]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [10]
User is removing a band from the list - T.Rex - despite a source which meets the requirements of WP:V, as well as adding another artist to it - Whitney Houston - without a reliable source, and instead using a Last.fm biography, a Wiki which is written by its users. — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked for 24 hours. Both users have violated the three-revert-rule and, whilst Travelling Tragition (talk · contribs) may have a point about sourcing to a wiki, that is no excuse for edit-warring - especially when the article's talk page has not even been used to discuss the issue. CIreland (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have discussed this issue directly with Travelling Tragition at his talk-page, I even asked for the opinions of others at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard after he continuously insisted on his source being reliable, but they didn't think of the source as reliable or acceptable, however, Travelling Tragition chose to continue to abuse List of best-selling music artists--Harout72 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
User:89.242.104.114 reported by User:Angr (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Mixed language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
89.242.104.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [11]
- 1st revert: 18:24, 21 July 2008 (The first time, he reverted my removal of sources that don't say what he claims they do.)
- 2nd revert: 19:56, 21 July 2008 (The second time is the same as the first.)
- 3rd revert: 20:32, 21 July 2008 (Rather than revert him a second time, I instead added tags indicating that the sources had failed verification and don't show that linguists support this view; only non-linguists do. However, he reverted that too.)
- 4th revert: 21:06, 21 July 2008 (The fourth time is the same as the third.)
- Diff of 3RR warning: 18:29, 21 July 2008 (This is him warning me about the 3RR, even though I had only reverted him once at that point. Still, it shows he's aware of the rule.)
- note I came here to report the same user, he has also violated 3RR on the article Maltese language. The language he uses also leaves a lot to desired, he has been attacking at least four other users only today. JdeJ (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Language I use leaves a lot to be desired? I have used one word of stress - "hell" - hardly a profanity. And I removed the tags due to the fact that they are not correct. If you actually cared to read them, it would be helpful. Also, reverting all my edits of today is Wiki-stalking, harrassment, and vandalism, considering that the other edits were undoubtedly correct, even if you are to consider the removal of the tags as not so. I also note that User:Angr was not given a 3RR warning for doing the exact same as I did? Hmm? 89.242.104.114 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- You removed tags without explaining why and without using the talk page. Even if your reasons would be valid, you still violated 3RR. As for "Wiki-stalking", it is hardly unusual for users to check the actions of a user who during his first day of edits gets into edit wars and personal conflicts on multiple pages. JdeJ (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you actually telling me you have the cheek to suggest I did not use the talk page?! Waves this around, aghast. And no, but it is unusual for them to remove valid contributions:
- [12]
- [13]
- [14]
- 89.242.104.114 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- As if the above weren't bad enough, this anonymous IP is constantly posting "warnings" on my talk page, which I keep removing. I've told him to stay off my talk page several times, but he continues on regardless [15], [16], [17]. He has also made numerous personal attacks, accusing users of "hypocrisy", "POV pushing" and the kicker, "making unacceptable edits".--Tsourkpk (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Tsourkpk, you do not have the right to tell other users to stay off your page, and that is actually what helped contribute to some of your warnings. And those are not personal attacks. Deary me. You are the one that has been warned by multiple different users, and been blocked - I am the one who is correct. Now run along. ;) 89.242.104.114 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
User:89.242.104.114 reported by User:JdeJ (Result: already blocked )
- Three-revert rule violation on Maltese language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
89.242.104.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 11.08 21 July 2008
- 1st revert: 15.58 21 July 2008
- 2nd revert: 16.22 21 July 2008
- 3rd revert: 16.48 21 July 2008
- 4th revert: 17.31 21 July 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 17.28 21 July 2008
User:InternetHero reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: ?)
- Three-revert rule violation on Internal combustion engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
InternetHero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
User has returned from ban, the previous report is still on this page, and within some hours has started reverting/edit warring again. (FWIW: I didn't do the intermediate revert- User:UB65 did so[18], completely unprompted from me, either on or off wiki.)
- Previous version reverted to:
- 1st revert: 2008-07-21T18:39:40
- 2nd revert: 2008-07-19T22:41:38
- 3rd revert: 2008-07-19T19:09:01
- 4th revert: 2008-07-19T04:11:05
- 5th revert: 2008-07-18T23:16:23
(Note User was suspended for 24 hours, which explains the gap, and note that user was not logged in in the 5th example but he's admitted it was him: [20] 'friend's IP'- but it's obvious from context anyway.)
- Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-07-01T15:55:34
- 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. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: - There were 4 reverts from the 18th at 23:16 to the 19th at 22:41. This is 4 reverts within a 24 hour period. However, this is complaint is now stale. DigitalC (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:CrazyCats60201 reported by User:Madcoverboy (Result: No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on Northwestern University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
CrazyCats60201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [21]
- CrazyCats60201 repeatedly reverts existing and new images to: Northwestern Universty Rock.jpg
- I subsequently uploaded a new image (University Hall and the Rock.jpg) created by myself in good faith attempt to improve upon previous image (Northwestern-Rock.JPG). This new image was likewise reverted by CrazyCats60201.
- 1st revert: 17:08, 21 July 2008 (Uploads Northwestern Universty Rock.jpg)
- 2nd revert: 17:28, 21 July 2008 (Reverts again to Northwestern Universty Rock.jpg)
- 3rd revert: 18:21, 21 July 2008 (Reverts new image - University Hall and the Rock.jpg - introduced by me to Northwestern Universty Rock.jpg)
- 4th revert: 22:43, 21 July 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 21:54, 21 July 2008
- No violation The first quoted revert is not actually a revert because it introduces new content. The new image was uploaded three minutes before that edit. A revert constitutes undoing the edits of other users — making a new edit does not count. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken. Nevertheless, there have since been 3 reversions since then, including after a warning. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
92.12.76.4 reported by Bzuk (Result: 1 month)
- Three-revert rule violation on Marlon Brando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by 92.12.76.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 14:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [22]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [27]
- Note that this appears to be Harvey Carter, a previously banned editor who, despite some good intentions expressed on the user talk page, has continued to editwar with a number of editors and has now extended the 3R into more reverts and is still at it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC).
- Blocked – for a period of 1 month See User talk:92.12.76.4 where this IP editor admits he is a sock of a banned user, most likely User:HarveyCarter. See also an earlier SSP and a checkuser from 2007. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
User:87.198.252.66 reported by User:Domer48 (Result: 72 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Kevin Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
87.198.252.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 14:30, 15 May 2008
- 1st revert: 19:40, 22 July 2008
- 2nd revert: 19:46, 22 July 2008
- 3rd revert: 19:53, 22 July 2008
- 4th revert: 20:00, 22 July 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 19:58, 22 July 2008
Editor has previously been blocked for disruption on this same issue before, see 87.198.141.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 89.100.137.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Domer48'fenian' 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Three IPs who are probably the same person have all violated policy on Kevin Barry. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:93.107.64.86 reported by User:CarterBar (Result: IP Range Blocked for Six Months)
- Three-revert rule violation on Insular G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
93.107.64.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [28]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [34]
IP is banned User:Gold heart. Can an IP range block be applied. He can change his IP within the range 93.107 at will.
- Range block the whole of Ireland over 2 words? 93.107.64.86 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- This banned user is disrupting numerous articles and talkpages. TharkunColl (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- If WP wants to rangeblock the whole of Ireland over two words, it might be interesting to some people. 93.107.134.96 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. As said previously, by CheckUsers, the rangeblock is the whole of Gold heart, not of Ireland.) SirFozzie (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- If WP wants to rangeblock the whole of Ireland over two words, it might be interesting to some people. 93.107.134.96 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- over one policy, Gold heart. WP:BAN SirFozzie (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- This banned user is disrupting numerous articles and talkpages. TharkunColl (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, when does this range block take effect? Gold heart is now vandalizing User:TharkunColl's page. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Badagnani reported by User:Magioladitis (Result: 72 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Tan Kai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME
- Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
- Comment - This was an undoing on my part of a mistaken category removal. The individual Tan Kai was born ca. 1973, but the year and date of birth is unknown. Thus, the category was quite correct.
- After each of my restorations of the proper cat, I wrote to the editor who had removed it and left clear edit summaries stating that it was a properly placed category and should not be removed; however, that editor chose to engage, aggressively and without response, in reverting my correct restoration of the proper cat each time. Thus, the report is illogical 1) because the editor's edits were admittedly incorrect, and 2) because the reporting editor reverted his/her mistaken edits the same number of times, even after having been informed at least five times that his/her edits were mistakes (i.e., the removal of an accurately placed category). Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Decision: The reported user was clearly edit warring although they have only reverted 3 times. I have blocked for 72 hours due to their fairly extensive history of blocks for edit warring, including two recent ones (the first of these two recent blocks was eventually reverted due to staleness of the request, but not due to an apparent lack of edit warring). TigerShark (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
User:62.65.239.189 reported by User:206.186.8.130 (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Estonian War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
62.65.239.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 18:15, 22 July 2008
- 2nd revert: 18:27, 22 July 2008
- 3rd revert: 18:30, 22 July 2008
- 4th revert: 20:06, 22 July 2008
- 5th revert: 20:39, 22 July 2008
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:62.65.239.189 reported by User:206.186.8.130 (Result: Already blocked)
- Three-revert rule violation on Alexander Dyukov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
62.65.239.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 206.186.8.130 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 18:19, 22 July 2008
- 2nd revert: 18:27, 22 July 2008
- 3rd revert: 20:09, 22 July 2008
- 4th revert: 20:40, 22 July 2008
- Already blocked EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Birthplace of Marco Polo (Result: Malformed report)
I don't know if this is the proper place, because this is not a classic 3RR violation. I was adding edits to Birthplace of Marco Polo, but two Croatian users revert my edits. Despite I'm new in English wiki, I was already present in the Italian wiki, and I've alredy read En. wiki. so I had the chance to know about user:DIREKTOR and User:Zenanarh. This two problematic users often act together when a 3d revert is necessary, as in the present case. I am open to discussion in the talkpage. I'm sure I did errors! But the two allied users can't revert me, to force me to explain even evident things. I've asked them to re-correct my edits to point out the disputed claims, but they refused. They refuse to tell me where I am wrong! They just revert me! I ask the restoration of my version. I will give to the two user the time to correct just the disputed claim of my version. That seems me a correct agreement.
Marco Pagot (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- 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. We would expect to see a much more thorough discussion at Talk:Birthplace of Marco Polo before we would review this as a case of edit warring. Your only contribution to the talk page so far is a personal attack on the other editors. When we see contentious editing on pages about Italian/Croatian issues by brand-new editors, we do keep in mind a previous sockpuppet case. Please consider giving a pointer to your Italian Wikipedia username on your user page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Ausonia reported by User:Troy 07 (Result: No Action )
- Three-revert rule violation on Roman Catholic Suburbicarian Diocese of Albano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Ausonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: ~ Troy (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Diff of 3RR warning: [45]
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.--KojiDude (C) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- But it's a sockpuppet. Take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3. It was trying to continue yesterday's revert-warring using a different identity—first as an IP, then Italicus, and now this. What now? ~ Troy (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Report the sockpuppeting to a different board (WP:ANI) or request a checkuser. There may be a blockable offense, but not for 3RR. You'll have to find the apporpriate place to report, or personally contact an admin.--KojiDude (C) 00:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: 4 days)
- Three-revert rule violation on Far right in Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Krzyzowiec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [46]
- 1st revert: 01:29, 23 July 2008.
- 2nd revert: 02:26, 23 July 2008
- 3rd revert: 02:29, 23 July 2008
- 4th revert: 02:35, 23 July 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: [47].
This user was blocked for disruptive edit warring before [48], so he knows the rules. Some history of related incidents [49],[50]. --- M0RD00R (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 4 days Due to this violation, in the light of a lengthy block history. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Troy 07 reported by User:Ausonia (Result: Protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on Roman Catholic Suburbicarian Diocese of Albano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Troy 07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: Ausonia (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [51]
Ausonia (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Page protected Three days. Any sockpuppet charges should be filed at WP:SSP. Editors who continue to revert after protection expires may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Troy 07 reported by User:Ausonia (Result: Protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on Odoardo Farnese (cardinal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Troy 07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: Ausonia (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [56]
Ausonia (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Page protected Three days. Editors who continue to revert after protection expires may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Bedford reported by User:Doncram (Result: Declined)
- Three-revert rule violation on Crawford-Gilpin House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bedford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 04:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [65]
I have not reported 3RR violation before so am not sure i have done this right. Above, last, i am providing the last version that Bedford reverted to. I would prefer the article left at this version, which shows the cleanup tag that he disputes and which disqualifies it from DYK listing, which he had nominated it for, contrary to discussion of informal guidelines for very experienced editors of DYK articles. doncram (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Doncram has been harassing me for a month now, trying to torpedo my DYK noms. His adding that tag is done solely to vandalism it, so it'll be passed over for DYK consideration, as its his form of a temper tantrum as I am not catering to his whims. He has tried similar measures to torpedo other noms I've made this month, but so far he has not succeeded. This is the furthest he has gone. Some have requested that he no longer evaluates my submissions, but he has ignored them. Aside a token edit or two, the large majority of his edits to the Template Talk page for DYK have been to torpedo me. I can no longer AGF as far as Doncram is concerned; he's even driven me from the NRHP Wikiproject, as I am tired of his childishness.--Bedford Pray 04:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bedford misrepresents. There was one mild suggestion by Daniel Case that i not review his DYK nominations, which i discussed openly at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#DYK is rotten, drop the bad NRHP articles, and to date no one else has commented as Bedford suggests. Other comments there and elsewhere, in since-deleted discussions of individual DYK nominations at DYK, have been more against Bedford's churlish and abusive behavior. I have let many of Bedford's DYK noms go by, but the display of these on the front page of Wikipedia, with him claiming credit on his DYK medals page, offends me, when he discards reasonable feedback. It is fair to say that his articles are plagiarized -- defined as giving less than adequate credit for the author(s) of the main source, the NRHP nomination, that he often relies upon. They do not reflect well for Wikipedia on the mainpage. doncram (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Bedford is an admin and should know this stuff. I left a note for User:Bedford that he is over 3RR; I recommend that he self-revert. His vandalism defence does not work; read WP:3RR for where the removal of tags is discussed. Since I have no more time today to wait for an answer, I'm leaving this issue for the next 3RR closer to deal with. Normally there would be a block, but an RFC/U could be a more logical place to air out the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined While Bedford has violated 3RR (only reverts of simple and obvious vandalism are exempt, and saying something is vandalism doesn't make it so), I think this report is made in bad faith, mainly based on the diff where Doncram added the tag to start with. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:InternetHero reported by User:DigitalC (Result: Page protected, user blocked)
- Three-revert rule violation on Telescope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
InternetHero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [66]
- 1st revert: [67] 22:03 22 July
- 2nd revert: [68] 02:11 23 July
- 3rd revert: [69] 04:55 23 July
- 4th revert: [70] 17:47 23 July
- Previous block within last week for edit warring: [71]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [72]
- Previous 3RR report since his recent block
- This is my first 3RR report, so hopefully it is formatted correctly. Please note that I am involved, as I have reverted one of his edits. - DigitalC (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours, In strong consideration of his other 3 3RR blocks in the past, it is clear to me that this particular user is familiar with when and how the 3RR is enforced and how it is violated by reverts. Although the warning here was placed before a day or so before he actually violated the 3RR, I shall carry less leniency since, as before, he should know the course of action and procedure involved; he violated it less than 4 days ago on another article. The extension of the block period was inline with policy as described here. The page has also been protected for 5 days and all changes must be formed by consensus on the talk page. Rudget 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Raymond Cruise reported by User:Mr Wesker (Result: Decline )
- Three-revert rule violation on Málaga CF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Raymond Cruise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [[73]]
- This is my first 3RR report, so hopefully it is formatted correctly. Please note that I am involved, as I have reverted one of his edits. - (12:21, 24 July 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. Rudget 12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Hillock65 reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 48 hour block and warn )
- Three-revert rule violation on Ukrainians in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 03:13, 24 June 2008
- 1st revert: 16:39, 23 July 2008
- 2nd revert: 14:02, 24 July 2008
- 3rd revert: 14:09, 24 July 2008
- 4th revert: 14:43, 24 July 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: User well aware of 3rr, previously blocked for it, also please note of the uncivil and rude comments in the reverts. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, ban me, if I violated anything, but please also look at --Kuban Cossack's edit warring in two different articles[77][78] and that is less than a month that he got banned for edit warring[79]. Why is it that a persistent edit warrior with one of the longest record of offences gets away with continuous edit warring for so long?! --Hillock65 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Result - I have blocked Hillock for 48 hours and warned Kuban. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
User:GreenEcho reported by User:Emilyzilch (Result: 24 hours)
- WP:3RR vio on Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah
GreenEcho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [80]
There are intermediate version, but the reverts are rolled back to User:GreenEcho's added statement. A related conflict by the same user (at the time, an IP only) led to the locking of Druze, which remains locked after a month of his continued refusal to participate. User will not discuss or compromise and simply reverts. He is well aware of Wikipedia, using complex syntax, user and talk pages, (inappropriate) use of user warning templates and user-conflict administrative pages (he has personal conflict with another user, User:Hiram111).
- 1st revert: 13:57, 2008 July 23
- 2nd revert: 19:16, 2008 July 23
- 3rd revert: 11:14, 2008 July 24
- 4th revert: 14:00, 2008 July 24
Note The last revert was 3 minutes off from being a violation. No diff of a 3RR Warning has been given. [81]--KojiDude (C) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. GreenEcho's first edit was 30 June but there are signs that this is an experienced editor. He showed up at WP:ANI on his second day of editing. His user page suggests he has been an IP before. Both Emilyzilch and GreenEcho seem to have a lot of technical knowledge, but GreenEcho and the IPs he used previously have been very combative on more than one article. I am notifying him of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
User:GreenEcho has reverted the page again. Your sourced edits are inappropriately added to the introduction and you routinely suppress other points of view - which you will note I have not, rather reserving controversy to the body of the articles. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
User:206.186.8.130 reported by User:Ptrt (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on Alexander_Dyukov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
206.186.8.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:23, 22 July 2008
- 1st revert: 13:18, 24 July 2008
- 2nd revert: 14:37, 24 July 2008
- 3rd revert: 14:52, 24 July 2008
- 4th revert: 21:39, 24 July 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 21:56, 24 July 2008
Editor is well aware of WP:3RR, made yesterday two reports himself - [82] (same article, BTW), [83]. Looking at his talk page history, it seems that he could very well be User:RJ CG, who has been blocked numerous times for edit warring, there's one old checkuser confirming this too. Both article choice and editing style are extremely similar.
Note, 206.186.8.130 is also edit warring Estonian War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
- and Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
- 206.186.8.130 is confirmed IP sock of RJ_CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Martintg (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Yankees10 reported by User:Certified.Gangsta (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on David Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: --Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- 1st revert: [84]
- 2nd revert: [85]
- 3rd revert: [86]
- 4th revert: [87]--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
I didnt revert the last time, you undid the entire thing, and got rid of good edits
Note Reported user has been blocked twice for 3RR [88]. Most recent block was April 27, 2008.--KojiDude (C) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Example
== [[User:<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->]] reported by [[User:<!-- Your NAME -->]] (Result: ) == *[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. {{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 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. The previous version reverted to must be from BEFORE all the reverting started. --> <!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide 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]
See also
- Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide
- 3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.