Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GDonato (talk | contribs) at 12:04, 20 July 2007 (→[[User:Pascack]] reported by [[User:Mghabmw]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by GDonato in topic Violations
Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365
    366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193
    1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
    351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
    Other links

    Violations

    Latest comment: 18 years ago182 comments100 people in discussion

    Please place new reports at the bottom.



    Reply to Benimerin's statement

    This user avoided on purpose to sign to identify himself as Joanot. He decided to register just because the article was to be semi-protected. He didn't register by his free will untill last time. (see Talk page section on semi-protection of the article). If it was not able to use his account because of e-mail problems, he could have very well signed without wikilink (i.e. --"Maurice27") --Maurice27 09:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Message to admins

    May I indicate to admins that User:Benimerin has erased the reverts described as 5th and 6th, and changed dates & hours reported by me as seen here, completely changing my report and that he is using the room of the report to answer, making it much less clear to understand.

    The revision made by me (before Benimerin changing it), is this one.

    In addition to the 3 (with a 4th in another article) 3RR rule breakings made by this user in less than and week, I want to report his, proved here above, modification of my statement and explanations in order to mislead the admins --Maurice27 12:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Links aren't changed nor erased, I think it clarifies that it's not about the same version, but several versions made by different users. Are you bored?. May I remember your own suggestion that there are no 3RR breaking as there aren't more than trhee reversions in 24h and, adding more, there are reversions with a lot of explanations and detailed reasons that you are simply ignoring these?.
    I also would like to suggest admins to remove this request as a arbitration request is ongoing, and where he's also implied. There are also a user trying a dispute resolution in Talk:Flag of Valencia. I think it is not a problem of 3RR, because there are no reasons technically, and because the problem aren't the reversions but an edit-warring of Maurice27 against every Catalonian or Valencian users as me. Cheers. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) PD: Please, can you show us where I've deleted anything?. Are you here to make me personal war or what?. Your last update is a false report.Reply

    Stu ’Bout ye! reported by User:Domer48 (Result:12h)

    Tom Williams (Irish Republican) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    • 1st revert: [1]
    • 2nd revert: [2]
    • 3rd revert: [3]
    • 4th revert: [4]

    User:Domer48 and User:Brixton Busters have been changing Category:Northern Irish Roman Catholics to Category:Irish Roman Catholics. Their contention is that Northern Ireland is not a state, country or nationality. See Talk:Tom Williams (Irish Republican) for the reason why they are incorrect in doing this. All UK biography articles follow a style for categorisation. I have told them that if they disagree with this then they should go to WP:CFD, which is the correct procedure. However they are ignoring this. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Mzaca reported by User:Ezeu (Result:24h)

    Bantu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mzaca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • I've blocked this user for 24 hours. Has been edit warring since the 11th, with his last 4 reverts yesterday at 07:22 and 12:02 and today at 05:58 and 07:48. Four reverts in 24 hours and 26 minutes is close enough for me. Kafziel Talk 14:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:David Lyons reported by User:Sparkzilla (Result: Protected (BLP))

    Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). David Lyons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User is an {SPA]] with an undeclared COI as a member of Baker's support group. User is attempting to remove primary source court documents that point to Baker's guilt. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    This is a bogus 3RR claim to draw away attention from the fact the user Sparkzilla is trying to introduce an unreliable source into this BLP. Unreliable sources should be removed immediately, especially in the case of a BLP. Sparkzilla, despite requests, has been unable to show as the above diffs will show that his sources are reliable. He has also been told not to edit this page further due to his CoI.David Lyons 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Please just look at the diffs and the user's posting history. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Someone appears to be trying to introduce a third-party personal website as a source, which is a violation of BLP, so I've protected the page until I can work out what's going on. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    SV, the document that is being introduced was originally on the justicefornickbaker site (and was linked to that site from the WP article since January). When justicefornickbaker's contents were removed a month or so ago, I copied the court documents to my own homepage. I have opened an RFC for the inclusion of these court documents on the article talk page. If it helps, I will shortly ask the editor of my magazine to add it to the sources for this article, which will give it independent provenance. Thank you for understanding. -- Sparkzilla talk! 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Minutes to Rise and User:87.167.226.119 reported by User:TheLetterM (Result:24hrs for TheLetterM and 87.167.226.119, sprotected)

    Post-hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    • User has been disruptive in forcing "Heavy Metal" as a stylistic influence on Post-Hardcore and has refused to comply with anything resembling civil discourse or discussion, opting instead for all-capped, rude comments on my talk page.
    • User editing from one Username and an IP, both suspected sockpuppets of a previously banned sockpuppeter, see here. TheLetterM 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Joie de Vivre reported by User:Jayjg (Result:24hrs)

    Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joie de Vivre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Editor has been continually reverting in the sentence The frenulum may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy. in the lead paragraph. Was asked to revert himself by two different editors [6] [7] but has refused to do so. Not a new editor, has been editing since September 2006. Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Marketingsupport reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result:24 hours)

    Biscayne Landing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marketingsupport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: 14:42 (EDT) (blanked page)

    3RR warning given at 15:28 by User:Satori Son -- there has been more reverting to different versions after this point.

    Note that NoMoBS seems to be a sockpuppet of this account, and has been making many of the same edits.

    He is continuing to revert:

    User:Bennie Noakes reported by User:Dreadstar (Result:)

    What the Bleep Do We Know!? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bennie Noakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.

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

    Note that revert number four is the same information, just moved to a different spot in the same section, separated from it's original, former sentence. (hopefully that's clear!)- Dreadstar † 06:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Also please note that the information User:Bennie Noakes is trying to keep in the article by edit-warring is OR/Synthesis and unsourced information. I've clearly outlined the reasons this material should not to be added to the article on the article's talk page. User insists on adding unsourced OR to the article. Dreadstar † 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    It is a bit concerning that Bennie Noakes seemed to indicate that he may continue to edit war to keep his OR in the article, although he would "rather not have to". [8] Dreadstar † 04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    As user indicated, he continues to revert war to keep his OR/Synthesis in the article, as well as removing fact/citation request tags:

    The article has been protected due to the edit-warring, so the warring has stopped for now. I am concerned that it may start again once the article is unprotected. If not a block for this, then at least a strong warning from someone besides myself would be appropriate. Dreadstar † 09:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Lear 21 reported by User:Parsecboy (Result:No violation)

    List of countries and outlying territories by total area:

    • Revert 1: 1 00:48, 14 July 2007
    • Revert 2: 2 01:18, 14 July 2007
    • Revert 3: 3 01:40, 14 July 2007
    • Revert 4: 4 12:32, 14 July 2007
    The edits differ from each other. The second party reverting, user:polaron, could be accused violating 3RRR as well. No need to block this account. Lear 21 13:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    They are not different; they are continued reverting to include the EU where no consensus exists to do so.Parsecboy 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    List of countries by population:

    • Revert 1: 1 01:11, 14 July 2007
    • Revert 2: 2 01:21, 14 July 2007
    • Revert 3: 3 01:54, 14 July 2007
    • Revert 4: 4 02:10, 14 July 2007

    Diff for 3RR warning: here. Parsecboy 13:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    The first edit is not a revert, but the establishment of new content. No sign of 3RRR Lear 21 13:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    You made the same edit 4 times in less than an hour. If that does not constitute 3RR violation, I don't know what does. Parsecboy 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    The user reverted three times in both cases. He has not violated the 3RR rule. Perspicacite 10:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Nordic Crusader reported by User:Muntuwandi (Result:Warned)

    Negroid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nordic Crusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.

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

    User:Muntuwandi openly participated in an edit war, reverting what I thought were good, helpful edits with no explanation. It wasn't until after ceasefire I was warned, or even made aware of this rule. If I edit the article again, not sure if I want to after this, I'll seek admin assistance rather than reverting. --Nordic Crusader 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Muntuwandi waited until after NC broke the rule to warn him. NC is a new user. Muntuwandi then reverted NC's edit leaving no recourse for NC to self-revert thus a block would be unfair. Perspicacite 10:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    NC has reverted again, and his reverts are either vandalism or bordering on vandalism. I am requesting some intervention.Muntuwandi 11:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Furthermore though it appears that NC is a new user, the level of experience that is apparent is far too advanced to be a new user. Muntuwandi 11:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:88.101.76.122 reported by User:Angr (Result:)

    Non-native pronunciations of English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 88.101.76.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Note: User has now registered as User:Errorneous.

    User:Angr reported by User:Errorneous (Result: No block)

    Non-native pronunciations of English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Angr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: [10]
    The second and third of those reverts were made by other users, not me. My two reverts are spaced over 38 hours apart. —Angr 14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    They were made by one user with dynamic IP. I bet it was your sockpupeting to lure me to break 3-revert rule.Errorneous 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Gee, you're off to a great start at Wikipedia. First you edit war to restore a policy violation into an article, then you accuse an administrator of suckpuppetry. —Angr 16:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    No block - as Angr says, the reverts are too far apart. Will (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Maurice27 reported by User:Benimerin (formerly: User:Joanot) (Result: No violation)

    Flag of Valencia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maurice27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: 11:26, 15 July 2007. No previous version stable, this user reverts and avoids any change made by me in every restoration I make.

    NOTE A: Maurice27 have accused me previously about violating 3RR on the same article (see).

    NOTE B: Maurice27 have been already blocked several times because violating 3RR (see), and he's implied in a request for arbitration (see).

    • 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.

    Reply by Maurice27

    May this user be reminded by admins that this rule only applies if reverting 4 times in a 24 hour period and not 2 times one day and 2 times 48 hours later? --Maurice27 13:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    OK, yes William M. Connolley 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Do you mean that you will joke us reverting only twice every day? Technically you can avoid 3RR violation, but your objetive here is the same of those persons who violates this rule: to disrupt wikipedia, in this case, because of your very personal and ideological feelings. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 09:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Please, recheck this possible violation. There are three reversions within 24 hrs., since 14:16 of 15 July to 12:37 of 16 July made by Maurice27. Thanks. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 17:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I don't understand. If you're saying that there are "three reversions within 24 hrs", then you're saying there is no violation.
    Though, of course, editors are discouraged from "gaming the system" and constantly racking up precisely 3 reverts in an attempt to avoid being blocked, 3 reverts is still, technically, not a violation. If you think a person is persistently edit-warring, outside of 3RR, then you may wish to consider the administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN), or specifically their incidents subpage (WP:AN/I). Of course, I'm sure people here will still be willing to look at cases of precisely 3 reverts, but appealing to them to reconsider in cases where there wasn't a technical violation isn't likely to succeed. (As that would require one admin overriding the decision of another) Bladestorm 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, thank you for your response. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Zerida (Result: warned)

    Comment: This appears to have all started when User:Funkynusayri made a deletion on the article Middle East, which was reverted [11]. User then went on to make similar edits on other articles, including Egyptians, which s/he contends "shouldn't exist" [12]. It was this comment that made me suspicious due to recent activity on articles of a similar topic by users like this and this. S/he then suggested that two articles, which are traditionally kept separate for every country, be merged. S/he also accuses me of having a "mute sock puppet" [13]. My comments to User:Funkynusayri can be found here and a content comment is here. I'd like him/her to cool off, refrain from making changes to articles when her/his edits are challenged by multiple users, and be a little more civil. — Zerida 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I have warned the user. Tom Harrison Talk 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result:)

    British monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    and then: 17:12-17:13
    (Second revert broken up to show its two-fold character, but is one revert because there were no intervening edits. As regards the second part, compare with older versions, as here.)

    The other party to the edit-war, TharkunColl, is likewise in breach of 3rr. See the page history. This is part of a long-raging edit war (or wars) on this article, lately the cause of An/I reports (see "British monarchy edit war", "British monarchy edit war, part II" and "G2bambino" in Archive 270), and with several recent past violations of 3rr and many warnings on both sides, and a block to G2bambino, though for "Edit warring", not for an actual 3rr violation. (I was myself blocked at the same time, for the same span, and for the same given reason as Gbambino. I mention this so that none can say I've been uncandid, here, but it is really beside the point, I think.) -- Lonewolf BC 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I warned both G2bambino and TharkunColl of 3RR. --Son 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I also warned G2bambino earlier but he deleted the warning from his talk page. I didn't think I was in breach of 3RR (the edits were to two separate parts of the article and not connected with each other), but I could be wrong I suppose. My purpose was to restore the consensus so recently thrashed out. TharkunColl 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Gaimhreadhan reported by User:Domer48 (Result: blocked elsewise)

    Previous version reverted to - 00:26, 15 July [14]

    1 - 01:04, 15 July [15]

    2 - 01:17, 15 July [16]

    3 - 20:19, 15 July [17]

    4 - 20:33, 15 July [18]

    And although blocked for another matter [19]

    • 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.

    Will warn William M. Connolley 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Theblog reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result:12h)

    Christopher Landsea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Theblog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: all are clearly marked as reverts; but [20] will do if you like
    • 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: has been warned before and understood: [21]

    Note that all edits remove the "roger pielke" text with a spurious BLP excuse for whitewashing William M. Connolley 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    REPLY by theblog

    Please note that I believe it is a WP:BLP violation, and it is using WP:OR and a blog post meant to show the article subject in a negative light, as I have discussed on the talk page with anyone who will bother to respond. No whitewashing is taking place. --Theblog 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Maniac20 reported by User:Falcon9x5 (Result: 3h)

    Assassin's Creed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maniac20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Given quite late, but user continued to make edits afterwards, and was given prior warnings.

    I myself broke the 3RR while trying to revert Maniac20's edits. Myself [22] [23] and another user [24] [25] have left repeated warnings on the user's talk page, and in edit summaries. User has consistently ignored both. Also made several[26] other[27] disruptive[28] edits[29]. Fin©™ 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    3h. Next time, *please* warn earlier and bring here earlier William M. Connolley 09:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:74.62.149.66 reported by User:Fyslee (Result: 8h)

    Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.62.149.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) -- Fyslee/talkReply

    8h William M. Connolley 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:CrystalB4 reported by User:gscshoyru (Result: 24h)

    Wonder Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CrystalB4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • 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.

    24h William M. Connolley 08:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Complete Truth reported by User:Pablothegreat85 (Result: 24h)

    Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Complete Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Steven E. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Complete Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    24h William M. Connolley 08:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Zephead999 reported by User:Zazaban (Result:)

    My Chemical Romance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zephead999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: [40]
    • 1st revert: [41]
    • 2nd revert: [42]
    • 3rd revert: [43]
    • 4th revert: [44]
    • 5th revert [45]
    • 6th revert [46]
    • 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: [47]

    User:Eurocopter tigre reported by User:Polaron (Result:)

    List of countries and territories by total area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eurocopter tigre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:21, 16 July 2007

    • Previous version reverted to: [48]
    • 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: [54]
    • User's reply to warning trying to argue that, because the reverts were not exactly the same, he did not revert more than three times: [55]

    After the third revert, I tried to rewrite the sentence so that would be acceptable for the other users. I insisted on that because they refused to discuss the subject on the talk page. The 4th and 5th edits were not reverts. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I suggest you all to continue discussing this for 1 hour at the talk page. Eurocopter tiger, I don't mean to take sides, but I think they have a point there with "controlling territory" and "having soveregnty". Maybe an additional remark after the list, or something like that can be made about EU.
    Polaron, again, I don't mean to take sides, but I think you have a prity strong case in the talk page. You can do better than blocking Eurocopter tiger, you can convince him. Strictly speaking, Eurocopter, did not do always the same edit. But that's detail, b/c again, I think you can convice him, you have a stong case. Leave me a message if you need help convincing.
    (obviously this is just my personal impression, feel free to just quarel if you like that more :P ):Dc76 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    However, they are still reverts, according to WP:3RR#What_is_a_revert.3F, whether they be exactly the same or with minor differences, they are still reverts made in an edit conflict. My goal is not to get Eurocopter blocked, but rules are rules, and if we don't enforce them, what good are they? Parsecboy 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Again Parsecboy, rewritting a sentence is not a revert. Dc76 also confirmed that. --Eurocopter tigre 05:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:DIREKTOR reported by [User:151.33.88.197]

    Foibe massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: -17:24, 14 July 2007 151.33.91.112 (Talk) (22,437 bytes) (→Video) (undo)-
    • 1st revert: -18:03, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Stop vandalising the article, you cannot speak english and aren't even registered fascist!) (undo)-
    • 2nd revert: -22:46, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144656344 by 151.33.91.112 (talk)) (undo)-
    • 3rd revert: -08:35, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144759834 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
    • 4th revert: -08:45, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144760730 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
    • 5th revert: -13:08, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144781469 by 151.33.91.166 (talk)) (undo)-
    You're missing the point. A revert in partial or in whole is still counted as a revert. You may have included more text with what was the point of contention (the inclusion of the EU in the table), but it's still a revert. On a related note, I ask that you look at the proposal put forward by Polaron (an edit on the article itself, not on the talk) and see if you'll agree to that. That is, of course, if you're around. I think you said something about a short vacation. Parsecboy 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:DreamGuy reported by User:Anubis3 (Result:page protected)

    Transylvanian hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Werewolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: [56]
    this is not a previous version reverted to, this is a later version (Revision as of 17:59, July 16, 2007), extremely deceptive claimDreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    not a revert at all, this was my first edit, not reverting in any way, shape or form DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Different article entirely DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    first actual revert -- this is the edit the guy listed above falsely as "previous version reverted to", so he's listed it twice DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    different article DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    second actual revert' DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    different article DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    This is a completely false report filed by someone acting in bad faith. The person combined preliminary edits (not reverts) as well as reverts from more than one article to try to come up with as many "reverts" as possible, and he left a false warning on my talk page that I had already violated 3RR after only one revert. The guy is extremely aggressive editor using bullying tactics and multiple false warnings to try to scare me off from edits he doesn't like. He created a fork file that pushes a POV on a topic of which we already have another, better article and refuses to accept that the article he created cannot stay. Furthermore, he tries to claim that his content cannot be removed and that it MUST be merged but that he wasn't going to do it so the fork article has to say. And the "remain reverted ... to avoid edit war" is just false, because he had gone in and reverted to his version yet again, and he IS the guy who made the edit war. The way things are going he'll violate 3RR before I would, not that I will. DreamGuy 12:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Furthermore the "including a block this month" is also false, as the block this month had nothing to do with 3RR and was not even a proper block, as other admins came in and undid it and gave the admin in question warnings not to make such bad decisions in the future. This Anubis3 who filed this report is either incredibly ignorant about 3RR and other policies here while aggressively claiming people violated them while they didn't or else he is knowingly lying in the hopes that he can trick people into blocking me for things I never did. DreamGuy 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Unfortunately, the "history" of these edits will prove otherwise. I have been nothing but NPOV and kind when it has comes to our discussions (here), even though you insist of blanking your talk page. Please do not try to compromise the entry of this noticeboard. This above information is for administrators to consider. Anubis3 12:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Funny, you made that claim while at the same time removing my labels on the report above proving that you were lying about the edits and portraying them as reverts when they weren't. I put the information back. Assuming good faith might mean that you were just clueless about what reverts mean when you filed the report (as I see you filed it after revert number 1), but removing the information showing that you are wrong is clear bad faith attempt to mislead admins. DreamGuy 13:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I have protected the page. If there is no further disruption elsewhere that should be all that is needed. Tom Harrison Talk 13:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks. It would help also if you explained to Anubis3 that either (if you still think there's room for good faith) he needs to actually read the 3RR policy before filing reports or (if the evidence is enough to show his bad faith) give him a block to not pull this kind of false report in the future. DreamGuy 13:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Please note: this was a legitimate entry and violation of the 3RR. I really don't know where the bad faith came from. Are you saying that every entry in AN3RR made in bad faith??? Furthermore, your history also suggests that this is not your first time violating this rule. Please be open to constructive criticism and do not try to compromise the integrity of other people's entries. I hope the situation will be resolved peacefully. Anubis3 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:61.231.8.50 reported by User:MichaelLinnear (Result:)

    Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 61.231.8.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

    User: 70.189.74.49 reported by User:Ursasapien (Result: this case)

    Thematic motifs of Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.189.74.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply


    • 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.

    Comment: This editor has edited this article almost exclusively. This seems to be a SPA. Ursasapien (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I realize this has turned into a major edit war, of which I have been an active part. However, I see no remediation outside of admin intervention. This anon user flatly refuses to participate in discussion. If there is a better forum to solve this, please let me know. Ursasapien (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Blnguyen reported by User:Rambutan (Result:no action taken per WP:BAN)

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Blnguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: 07:21

    User:Kuntan is banned. Those IPs are TOR proxies being used by Kuntan. Banned users are not allowed to edit, and reverting them is not a violation of WP:3RR. This includes, removing content posted by banned users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    But you have no proof. Sorry. Until you get proof, let another admin who sees the thread at the noticeboard deal with it.--Rambutan (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Declined. You're both edit-warring over this. You both should know better. Knock it off and go talk about it on his talk page or something.--Chaser - T 07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I endorse this no-action, as noted by the fact that Rambutan has been blocked for proxying for a banned user. Daniel 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    not for nothing that you got mail from Blnguyen, Danny.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.121.24.68 (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Kwork reported by User:PinchasC (Result:24h)

    Chabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kwork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply




    This user is adding a npov template to the Chabad article, despite being reverted by 3 different editors. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Giovanni33 reported by User:MONGO (Result:No block)

    Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: [61] 07:45, July 17, 2007
    • 1st revert: [62] 07:56, July 17, 2007
    • 2nd revert: [63] 08:11, July 17, 2007
    • 3rd revert: [64] 08:20, July 17, 2007 changes to using my name to "with one editor who insists on being unamed here"
    • 4th revert: [65] 08:56, July 17, 2007 again to "with one editor who insists on being unamed here"

    Giovanni33 knows that 3RR isn't an entitlement so I didn't bother to warn him. I asked him four times (here, here, here and here) to not put my name in the talkpage discussion heading and he repeatedly put it back and then added the silly "with one editor who insists on being unamed here" just to be childish. This guy edit wars constantly all the way up to 3RR and has been blocked by more than a dozen administrators including one as recently as June 29th, albeit he was soon unblocked since the page was protected. He was almost blocked again on July 12th and was given a reprieve since he self reverted.[66]. I feel that I had a right to not have him post my name repeatedly in the heading, especially after I had asked him numerous times (ie...argue about the message, not the messenger) to not put my name there. He is also currently sitting on the line on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article with an initial installment and three reverts again.[67], [68], [69], [70]. This is par for the course. Giovanni33 sees the 3RR rule as an entitlement, he has been blocked and counseled repeatedly yet he doesn't seem to get it.--MONGO 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Perhaps a 24 hour block for both of them would do, MONGO seems to be doing his fair share of reverting as well, which I wouldn't be surprised is disrupting the talk page there. [71][72][73][74]--SevenOfDiamonds 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    And article edits: [75][76][77] Geez. Talk about throwing stones in glass houses. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    There may or may not be violations here by one or both parties, but I am not blocking anyone for this. It's a childish situation that has gotten way out of hand and I suggest you both take it somewhere else. Kafziel Talk 12:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Green108 reported by User:Bksimonb 24h

    Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Sam ov the blue sand reported by User:BlueShrek

    Deidara. Sam ov the blue sand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • note: he was in a edit war as well

    User:Pascack reported by User:Mghabmw no vio

    Joe Girardi
    Pascack has a history of anti-Yankee biased. I've tried to use the discussion page. I've changed the page to neutral colors. He is using suspected sockpuppet User:joeidaho as well. I realize I'm guilty of violating the 3RR as well.

    no specific vio. GDonato (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Mghabmw reported by User:Jpers36 (Result:)

    Joe Girardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mghabmw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Both of these users (User:Pascack and User:Mghabmw) have engaged in an edit war, along with IP 192.234.99.1 (which may or may not be one of the above) and IP 208.168.252.236 (which is user:Mghabmw). The situation may be settled now, and I would recommend holding off on any blocks for the time being, but I'll leave it to another admin to make the final decision. CitiCat ♫ 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Update - while User:Pascack appears to have stopped, User:Mghabmw reverted once more[78]. CitiCat ♫ 03:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:SalvoCalcio reported by User:Bridgeplayer (Result:24 hours)

    Scarborough Athletic F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SalvoCalcio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • 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.

    There are numerous earlier reversions, contrary to the talk page consensus, but this is the first time he has actually done four in one day. He also calls edits vandalism and has something against Americans (see edit summary 3rd revert).

    User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.88.197 {Result: No violation)

    Foibe massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: -17:24, 14 July 2007 151.33.91.112 (Talk) (22,437 bytes) (→Video) (undo)-
    • 1st revert: -18:03, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Stop vandalising the article, you cannot speak english and aren't even registered fascist!) (undo)-
    • 2nd revert: -22:46, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144656344 by 151.33.91.112 (talk)) (undo)-
    • 3rd revert: -08:35, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144759834 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
    • 4th revert: -08:45, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144760730 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
    • 5th revert: -13:08, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144781469 by 151.33.91.166 (talk)) (undo)-
    Blocking is not punitive; article has not been edited in days. While I agree that DIREKTOR's comments and reversions were not in keeping with our policies on dealing with new users, he hasn't edit warred any more than you have so I am not blocking for 3RR at this time. Kafziel Talk 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Lear21 reported by User:Polaron (Result:1 week)

    List of countries by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lear21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: [79]
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    Blocked for one week. Kafziel Talk 12:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:BloodRunsCold1996 reported by User:Strothra (Result:24 hours)

    Sean Morley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: no username detected (help).: Time reported: 03:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Snowhite1985 reported by User:Dúnadan (Result: Warned)

    Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Snowhite1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply


    First, he reverted 7 times as 190.16.20.42 until the article was semi-protected. Then he logged in as User:Snowhite1985 and reverted 4 additional times. The identity of 190.16.20.42 as Snowhite1985 was suspected by administrator User:Pablo-flores and confirmed by User:Tangerines after Snowhite1985, not logged in, [inadvertently] signed as himself at User_talk:190.16.20.42. While he might be violating WP:SOCK, and his 11 reverts (all summed together) are a clear violation of WP:3RR (and were classified as WP:Vandalism by Tangerines), I will only present the 4 edits of Snowhite1985. It is up to the administrators to decide whether to take a more drastic measure given the clear evidence above, or to simply deal with this 3RR violations for the time being.

    • 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.

    Comment: Those diffs are not 3RR warnings. They are requests for the user to sign his posts. Kafziel Talk 12:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    First, Snowhite is not a new user. Secondly, the warnings advised him to stop his reiterated reversions (as well as asking him to sign). Please review the warnings thoroughly. I will quote what Tangerines wrote on the second warning:
    "If you wish to mame [sic] major changes to the article, please provide and edit summary as any edits made without an edit summary are likely to be reverted as they appear to be vandalism. In this instance it is quite clear that this needs to be discussed on the talk page. Will you please therefore discuss this rather than keep adding the same edit as it will only be reverted again until this has been discussed on the articles talk page."
    --the Dúnadan 01:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    And after Tangerines said that, SnowWhite stopped reverting. He is a new user (certainly new enough to still need a proper 3RR warning), and he hasn't touched the article since the first warning came in. I'm not saying he definitely shouldn't be blocked, but I do think he's new enough to need a warning and he didn't do anything wrong after he got one. I'll leave this report open and another admin can offer a second opinion. Kafziel Talk 01:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Please review the dates: he did revert after the first warning came in!
    • The anon was warned at 00.13; Snowhite was warned at 00.36, The third and fourth reversions occurred at 00.46 and 03:03 respectively: both occurred after the second warning came in. More recently he reverted yet again at 06:49 ([80]), which would make the 5th revert in less than 24 hours, and the 3rd after being warned.
    • Snowhite1985 registered on March 2007; he is been here almost 4 months; enough to know that he should not engage in WP:Vandalism, enough to stop editing after being warned not to do so, and enough to have discussed the issue civilly at the Talk Page.
    --the Dúnadan 01:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I'm going to have to agree with Kafziel. The user was not warned of the 3-revert rule, but given a general caution about reverting. We need to be specific; it's best to use the {{subst:3rr}} template, because otherwise 3 reverts seems kind of arbitrary. I've placed the warning on his page. He has not edited for a couple of days; if the message has not gotten through, let me know or come back here and he will be blocked, but I'm not going to do it now. MastCell Talk 03:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:SoxrockProjects reported by User:Pats1 (Result:24 Hours)

    Garrett Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SoxrockProjects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • WHAT ARE YOU DOING?: YOU ARE TRYING TO RUIN MY FREAKING DAY! YOU KNOW THIS DOESN'T NEED CONSENSUS, AND NOW YOUR TRYING TO GET ME BLOCKED. THANKS A WHOLE FREAKING LOT! Soxrock 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • This user made no more reverts after the time that he was warned of 3RR. His last revert was at 15:21, the warning he received was at 15:30. He shouldn't be blocked because he was never warned fairly. Ksy92003(talk) 17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:BlueShrek reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: Blocked, 24h)

    Spider-Man: Friend or Foe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I just want to say that this user has been picking on me since yesterday and he is trying to get me banned for no real reason. Nobody can put a reliable source on the page and he kept reverting me. I was just following talk page consensus.BlueShrek 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Blocked BlueShrek and Sesshomaru for 24 hours. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Bremskraft reported by User:DickClarkMises (Result: No violation)

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bremskraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: [81], [82]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [83]
    I see no reverts after the warning. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:206.47.252.66 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:Blocked 24 hours)

    Naturopathic medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 206.47.252.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    Blocked for 24 hours by User:Kafziel CitiCat ♫ 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:70.189.74.49 reported by User:Qwerty7412369 (Result:Article semi-protected and user blocked 24hr)

    Thematic_motifs_of_Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.189.74.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: [84]
    • 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.

    COMMENT - As you can see, User:70.189.74.49 has made 14 reverts to the same article in less than three days (at one point making 8 reverts in a single 24-hour period), delibertly disregarding the Three Revert Rule and ignoring the numerous WP:3RR warnings posted by various editors on User:70.189.74.49's Talk Page. However this is not the only problem I and other users have experienced with User:70.189.74.49. They have been quite obsessive over the past few days in their deletion of my and other user's entries despite the requests from numerous editors that they desist, and until a only few hours ago has refused to justify their position on either the Discussion Page or to me directly on My Talk Page, which has both initiated and inflamed an edit war over this article. Now that this user has finally entered the the discussion, they have been growing less Civil with every post (See Here as well as Here) and does not seem to be interested in reaching any consensus with other editors, nor will they engage in any discussion beyond the most basic assertions that they alone are 100% correct and I and other users are 100% wrong. I would also like to note that this user appears to be a Single Purpose Account and I suspect it to be a Sock Puppet.

    I simply ask that the Administrators take these chronic violations of Wikipedia's rules and policies by User:70.189.74.49 into consideration when revewing this case.

    Thank you, --Qwerty7412369 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    No argument here. Kafziel Talk 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:XAndreWx reported by User:Sprigot (Result: 48 hours)

    Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). XAndreWx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply



    • 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.


    XAndreWx was originally blocked for the 3RR rule by User:Irishguy for this article over here:

    22:41, 15 July 2007

    This block was overturned by User:Evilclown93, also known as User:Maxim, on the request of XAndreWx's adoptor User:Giggy, with the comment of "Giggy has asked me to remove it, and I trust you've cooled off by now." here:

    01:48, 16 July 2007

    Even though XAndreWx was unblocked he again repeatedly violated the 3RR rule - in fact violating it at least six times since he was unblocked just two days ago.

    I also believe that he then resorted to sock puppeteering to continue the revisions (three more identical revisions were made) - I have also created a sock puppet complaint which documents the evidence I have gathered in this matter.

    Those diffs are not necessarily all reverts, but there are four clear reverts in a 24-hour span in there. To make matters worse, he was blocked recently for another 3RR-violation, and was released on a promise of good behavior. MastCell Talk 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Cgoodell reported by User:Ilya1166 (Result: User warned)

    Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cgoodell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User has not been warned. I have done so. MastCell Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Mmtrmm reported by User:Poindexter_Propellerhead (Result: Awaiting further diffs)

    IQ and the Wealth of Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mmtrmm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Here are 7 reverts in a 27 hour period.

    Aargh, I'm such a noob.  :-/ No 3RR warning until 08:04, 19 July 2007,[89] when I noticed the warning rule. Please leave this on hold for 12 hours if possible, and I'll add any new reverts by that time. If that's not possible, feel free to kill this request, and I'll resubmit it when the problem recurs. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I'd like to withdraw this report, as Mmtrmm seems to have taken the day off from editing. I have a sockpuppet case proceeding also, which is awaiting final Checkuser confirmation, so it's probably safe to just let that run its course. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Mehicdino reported by User:Boadrummer (Result: User warned)

    Avenged Sevenfold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mehicdino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Non admin comment: Please provide diffs. Rlest 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    The user has not been warned. I issued a warning; any further reverts will result in a block. MastCell Talk 02:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.95.105 (Result: User warned; see below)

    Istrian exodus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Previous version reverted to: -02:13, 18 July 2007 (edit) 4.231.202.71 (Talk)-
    • 1st revert: -07:03, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (You are the son of a refugee, and you call me a fanatic! :D ,hilarious, you are POV lay off or I'll have this article blocked as well)-
    • 2nd revert: -18:06, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (Undid revision 145479162 by 151.33.88.157 (talk)-
    • 3rd revert: -18:15, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (I sware... Stop this before I have to bother the Admins again)-
    • 4th revert: -18:28, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (Undid revision 145482427 by 209.215.160.114 (talk)-
    • 5th revert: -18:45, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (Undid revision 145485467 by 209.215.160.114 (talk)-
    User:Isotope23 is on the case here as an admin, and he saw this as a case of IP disruption which DIREKTOR was responding to. Isotope semi-protected the page and blocked the IP edit-warring with DIREKTOR, so I'm going to leave things with a warning to DIREKTOR to seek admin assistance earlier in the course. I don't think a block is warranted for DIREKTOR, as it appears (in the judgement of Isotope23) that he was responding to disruption by IP's. MastCell Talk 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Discostu333 reported by User:M0RHI (Result: 24 hours)

    University of St Andrews Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Discostu333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Blocked for 24 hours. I see 3 reverts in which he redirected the page, and one in which he removed fact tags restored by M0RHI, in 24 hours. In the future, please provide diffs in the report - instructions on how to do so are at WP:DIFF. MastCell Talk 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:Mghabmw reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 31 hours)

    Reggie Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mghabmw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • I hate to be lazy, but there are literally dozens of reversions. Just take a look at the page history and you will see exactly the problem: mass spa'ing, etc. I count 21 reversions in the last 24 hours. The Evil Spartan 22:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    This user's really pissing me off. I have a sneaking supcision he's a sock of User:Yankees10 (apparently a sock of another user), and has socked elsewhere. He clearly knows the rules (he reported someone above), and is mass revert warring in order to get his version of the page before it's locked - and like I said, I think there's some mass sockpuppetry going on. He's at like 15RR. The Evil Spartan 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Blocked for 31 hours by another admin. MastCell Talk 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    User:NCdave reported by User:MastCell (Result:1 week)

    Steven Milloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NCdave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    This is aggravated by the fact that NCdave is well aware there is consensus against his proposed edits, as exemplified by reams of talk page discussion. He responded to the 3RR warning by describing everyone else as "revert-warriors" and voicing an intention to tag-bomb the article instead ([92]). MastCell Talk 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Also, note that NCDave has a history of this kind of thing at Terry Schiavo [[93]]. A lengthy ban is in order here. JQ 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
    1 week. yandman 08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

    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]

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
*1st revert: [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]

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=145897166"