Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Violations: - added new report
Line 625: Line 625:
Jsn9333 is a disruptive SPA who has already been blocked once for sock/meatpuppetry on [[Fox News Channel]], and his sock/meatpuppet ({{user|Unc 2002}} was blocked indefinitely following a SSP case and checkuser. This is Jsn9333's second violation of the 3RR, but as I am involved in the FNC discussion, I cannot place the block myself. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#0000cd">auburn</font><font color="#EF6521">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Jsn9333 is a disruptive SPA who has already been blocked once for sock/meatpuppetry on [[Fox News Channel]], and his sock/meatpuppet ({{user|Unc 2002}} was blocked indefinitely following a SSP case and checkuser. This is Jsn9333's second violation of the 3RR, but as I am involved in the FNC discussion, I cannot place the block myself. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#0000cd">auburn</font><font color="#EF6521">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:I am not altogether convinced that #1 is a revert, as it does not match the version reverted back to. Bearing in mind that the page was protected for 4 days and the edit war began again when the page was unprotected, {{AN3|p}} This one's indefinite, though. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:I am not altogether convinced that #1 is a revert, as it does not match the version reverted back to. Bearing in mind that the page was protected for 4 days and the edit war began again when the page was unprotected, {{AN3|p}} This one's indefinite, though. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
::From [[WP:3RR]] "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, '''deleting content''' or restoring deleted content...". Jsn removed the same version of the intro 4 times in 24 hours. However, I suppose protection is the second best thing. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#0000cd">auburn</font><font color="#EF6521">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:VeritasAgent]] reported by [[User:Grsz11]] (Result: 24 hours ) ==
== [[User:VeritasAgent]] reported by [[User:Grsz11]] (Result: 24 hours ) ==

Revision as of 17:23, 15 April 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    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

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Croix 129 reported by User:Louis88

    Even after being pleased on his User page to stop it, Croix 129 continues entering the (wrong) Pavillon royal () as national flag of royal France instead of the correct one I restore everytime, the Drapeau blanc (File:Flag of the Kingdom of France.png), especially in the articles First French Empire, Bourbon Restoration and July Monarchy. Louis88 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:J.R._Hercules reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result: )


    He keeps singling out Hitler as one opposed to trade unions and thus possibly trying to sneak in Reductio ad Hitlerum. -- Vision Thing -- 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've posted a message at J.R. Hercules' talk page informing the user of the 3RR rule and of this report, and inviting the user to self-revert. The user has not edited for over 24 hours.(11:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    J.R. Hercules has been editing Wikipedia for two and a half years so I believe that he is acquainted with the 3RR. Also, he was active after Coppertwig left him a message at his talk page but he refused to make self-revert, which indicates that he believes that revert warring is a legitimate way of resolving disputes. Other user tried to discuss this issue on article talk page, but except comment in which he accused him of having political agenda and being intellectual dishonest, Hercules failed to provide any explanation for his reverts. -- Vision Thing -- 09:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The rabbit in the suitcase reported by User:Urzatron (Result: 24 hour block )


    User The rabbit in the suitcase is determined to make the Absout Vodka page about blogger Michelle Malkin. He is determined to revert as many times as he wishes to "own" the page. People have attempted to reach consensus with him, but he does not reciprocate. Urzatron (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently no violation. (non-admin opinion). I see only three reverts. It takes four reverts in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR. The two edits at 02:07 and 02:11 are consecutive, so they count as one edit. That edit added "led by", apparently for the first time, so it was apparently not a revert. The following three also added "led by", so they are reverts. No proper "previous version reverted to" has been supplied. Dates as well as times should be stated. Urzatron's account has only 24 edits. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I struck out some of my words. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "previous version reverted to" isn't done correctly? My mistake.Urzatron (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attempted to rectify by changing the "previous version reverted to." The words aren't exactly the same, but you'll see the intent is to make the entry "led by Michelle Malkin" or "bloggers connected with Michelle Malkin began" ... to revert this meaning repeatedly.Urzatron (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also neglected to realize that two of the user's edits were back-to-back; therefore I've removed one of the claimed "reverts" from this log, as you're obviously correct -- two edits back-to-back certainly aren't two reverts. Your advice is appreciated. :) Urzatron (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point now. The version of 13:45 10 April 2008, although it did not contain the words "led by", contained essentially the same or a very similar idea, "bloggers connected with Mexican immigration critic Michelle Malkin". This idea of M. Malkin being central to or connected with all of the bloggers mentioned was softened and removed in the two subsequent edits: "Various bloggers, including those connected with ... Michelle Malkin," (Ulzatron, 14:40, 10 April 2008; then "Various ... bloggers, including ... Michelle Malkin", by Orangemike at 14:44, 10 April 2008, completely eliminating the idea that the bloggers were "connected" with M. Malkin. Therefore, logically, if not literally, inserting "led by" is a revert, and if this argument is accepted then there are four reverts within 24 hours.
    I've added dates to the above report.
    Here is The rabbit in the suitcase's response to the 3RR warning. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheRealFennShysa reported by User:A Raider Like Indiana (Result: No violation)


    Before we discussed it in a talk page; which is not going to well, I changed a the Star Wars episodes in the template in order and this user came and reverted my edit in all 6 Star Wars Articles, not just this one. We reverted 5 to 6 times, it doesn't seem stop or go anywhere. I feel she or he is following me around Wikipedia and reverting my edits, and I dont want to break the 3RR rule and revert my edits back. This user does not clearly know the 3RR rule. // A Raider Like Indiana 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

    No violation (non-admin opinion). Looking at the edit histories, I see only three edits in April on each page by TheRealFennShysa. It takes four reverts to violate the 3RR. The report is not formulated properly: diffs must be given, not version links; there are duplicates in the list; not all versions listed are by the reportee; and no proper "previous version reverted to" has been given. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As per Coppertwig (again ;-), no violation here. These are also stale, and unless they're reverting today then no action will take place as blocks are not punitive. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Report by User:203.173.156.182 (Result: Page protected)

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx

    The preceding was posted by User:203.173.156.182 at 20:20, 12 April 2008.

    I replaced the above to a link to where the content appears at the National Post. I doubt that Lawrence Solomon intended to release the content under the GFDL; therefore it violates our internal copyright rules, even though it likely qualifies as fair use by US law. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I collapsed this because, although it's talking about a revert war, it's not in the appropriate format for this noticeboard. I also looked at Naomi Oreskes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and see that KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only 3 edits on April 11, and none the day before or after, so there is no 3RR violation on that page. (non-admin opinion.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The page Naomi Oreskes has been protected until April 26 by Rjd0060. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Actually, the page had already been protected at 14:53, 12 April 2008 before the above was posted, but whatever.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JTMcDonald reported by User:Collectonian (Result: 24 hour block x2 )


    A new user, JTMcDonald, came to the article and some excessive details and ad like copy to the NaturallySpeaking article. I removed it, and finally began tackling some of the issues it was tagged for, including reading like an ad, needing clean up, being unreferenced, etc. I removed quite a bit of software-manual and ad-like material,and fixed the layout and section ordering to be more inline with what is appropriate for a software package. JTMcDonald keeps reverting this clean up, usually with some variant of the edit summary "Restoring this article to prior condition as of March 27 2008 with updates for new versions of DNS 9.1 & 9.5.". The first time, I left a note in the edit summary as to why it was cleaned out. The second time, I left an NPOV welcome[1]. The third, I left a note on his talk page asking him to stop, explaining why, and trying to invite him to discuss it[2]. When he undid the clean up again, I left a warning about unsourced material and reverted as vandalism as his reverts are also removing maintenance tags.[3] He reverted again, so I left a 3RR warning. He has answered no messages and again just keeps reverting without any discussion or response to my messages and reasons for clean up. I'm not bothering undoing his revert again until the results of this report, as I have now, of course, also gone over 3RR in trying to deal with this issue.

    Note, another editor reverted JTMcDonald's last undoing of the clean up, and JTMcDonald reverted again. In the last he claims to have kept my "updates" which is false, as it is a pure revert with all tags removed, none of the reordering kept, etc. Collectonian (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's clear that both users were edit warring. I have blocked them both for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sroy1947 reported by User:Ragib (Result: 24 hour block )


    Other reverts in the last 24 hours

    This user has been blanking valid references regarding Rabindranath Tagore ancestry from Tagore's biography. The user has several times blanked references. User knows about 3RR, and has been threatening others with 3RR violation warnings (as shown above) since yesterday. Made 5 reverts in 24 hours to this article. (on a separate note, that a new user is showing such behavior makes me think this is a sockpuppet account). Ragib (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is my first (preliminary) objection to User:Ragib's charge. This objection is formal, till such time as I provide a detailed rebuttal if called upon to do so. This matter is also being discussed NOW on the talk page of the impugned article between Ragib and myself. It is noteworthy that Admin Ragib, deliberately removed (twice) a DISPUTE tag I had placed without logging any TALK (either on the TALK discussion I had previously initiated and which was ongoing with other editors, or on my Talk page). In any case I am not a vandal, but a serious editor raising serious disputes for a Featured Article.Sroy1947 (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning the sockpuppetry charge, I am here under my easily searchable for RL identity, and there is no reason why I would vandalise my family page. Sroy1947 (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning the "threatening" charge, I clarify that I was "cautioning" User:DwipaiyanC. Admin:Ragib would be well advised to recall what "weasel words" are. Sroy1947 (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that, the user has, on several occasions (linked in 1st and 2nd rv diffs) , blanked references from a reputed biography of Tagore. Either way, the diffs are all provided above, and the user is well aware of 3RR even from the start of his "new" Wikipedia edits. 5 reverts have been made by this user in the last 24 hours, in full knowledge of 3RR. I rest my case. --Ragib (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:RAGIB: is well aware that what was supposedly "blanked" is from dubious literary biographies cited, whereas what hesimilarly deleted (without discussion) was my citation from an ENCYCLOPEDIA which he has often cited from himself. He has Also passed dubious uncalled for remarks hinting that I am ignorant of who Krisha Kripalani is. I also dispute the way he is counting reverts, since it the letter AND spirit of 3RR which is important, and my "Compromise" edits placing DISPUTE tags must not be included.Sroy1947 (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, my admin hat is not on my head in this case, and in no way did I suggest, hint, claim, message, imply that my being an admin has anything to do here. So, the user sroy1947 is kindly requested not to make any misrepresentation regarding this. As for the rest of your comments, the talk page of the article in question is the appropriate venue to discuss them, which is precisely what I have been doing at this moment. User:Sroy1947 has made several reverts which have been diffed above, according to the requirements of this page. 5 reverts by blanking sourced information have been linked to in the above diffs. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked User:Sroy1947 for 24 hours for edit warring. Please could I request that all parties involved stop reverting and use discussion to achieve progress. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Redking7 reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: 8 hours)


    Redking7 (talk · contribs) is on mission to remove the phrase "Republic of Ireland" as a name for the state whose territory is 26 of the 32 counties of the island of Ireland (i.e. excluding the six counties of Northern Ireland, which remain part of the United Kingdom). The official name of the state is "Ireland", but since 1948 the state's official description has been "Republic of Ireland". There have been numerous proposals at Talk:Republic of Ireland to rename that article to "Ireland (state)" or some such disambiguated name, most recently last month, but none has achieved consensus.

    Nonethless, some editors have sought to remove the phrase "Republic of Ireland" from other articles, even when this might introduce ambiguity, and that is the issue in dispute wrt the article The Troubles (see Talk:The_Troubles#.22Disambig.22).

    The article The Troubles and related articles are subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. There is a notice to this effect at the top of Talk:The Troubles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 8 hours for edit warring and advised of WP:SANCTION. CIreland (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why BHG reported this instance, when shes been so block happy in the recent past.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF please. As I had already explained to TU at Talk:The Troubles#.22Disambig.22, I reported this one because I might be perceived as having a COI in this case. BTW, the block you refer to was upheld when appealed. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The appeals "process" is a greater farce than the whimsical discretion of admins to administer blocks in the first place, that proves nothing. The COI and "involved" admin principles are also close to meaningless.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm very impressed.
    My admin actions have been criticised before, but this is the first time that I have been the subject of a repeated complaint for seeking third-party involvement to avoid any possible COI. Maybe you should also lodge a complaint that I have not been edit-warring or sock-puppeteering? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Biophys reported by User:Krawndawg (Result:No action )


    • Diff of 3RR warning: User is a regular and has many warnings on talk (removed lots of them)

    He keeps reverting changes I made with no legit explanation at all (saying no consensus, all the while he makes those huge changes with no consensus), and continues to make huge POV pushing edits that aren't warranted and are highly controversial. This user is a massive POV pusher and has been warned about baised editing by admins, as well as for wiki-stalking (me and others). He is constantly edit warring and trying to push his conspiracy theories without consensus, giving them undue weight and using logical fallacies to justify the changes. - "If this theory is wrong, then where's a book that says it's wrong?" *revert* - That sort of thing, absolutely ridiculous. Krawndawg (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact I made only one revert. As one can see from this article talk page and edit history, I tried to accomodate the criticism of another side. He challenged views about Putin's involvement in the murder as "fringe theory" [4]. So, I had to provide much more supporting sources, and that is exactly what I did. In reply, my opponent told that he is not going to cooperate [5]. However, I am ready to apologize if you think I am still at fault.Biophys (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC) O'K, I made a self-revert. I guess we need more opinions on this subject.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't challenge your sources, I challenged the fact that they are views worthy of a 4000 word section, which they are not. I said that twice in discussion. The claims are politically motivated, all made by dissenters and defectors, and have no evidence to back them up. Additionally, you reverted my original changes a total of 4 times as you can see above. I also find it amusing how you just reverted yourself saying "we need more opinions" after I had to do this. Why didn't we need more opinions before when I told you that in the first place? Krawndawg (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this is great. Now we can go through the whole thing all over again in a few days and Biophys gets away with breaking rules and POV pushing yet again. Krawndawg (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, it was you, User:Krawndawg, who started undoing edits by several users and broke the 3RR rule:

    1st revert
    2nd revert,
    3rd revert
    4th revert.

    Biophys (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And the solution to your problem was so simple, to get your friend to do the reverting for you! Man I wonder why more people don't do that..
    Like I said yesterday, it starts all over again. This user refuses to cooperate in discussion and reverts changes with no explanation whatsoever. The word consensus means nothing. I'm done. I just don't care. As long as wikipedia is full of people like Biophys and as long as they're allowed to run rampant, it will always be a joke and will always be a propaganda tool more than anything else. Krawndawg (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, that is why you just made fifth revert? It was not me who you have reverted three times in this article. It was not me who gave you this warning. Biophys (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, I'm not going to bother with trying to improve the article but don't expect the tags to go away. Krawndawg (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.11.146.196 reported by User:Bzuk (Result: No Violation )

    • Previous version reverted to: [6]


    1. [7] Diff 18:04, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stewart (actor)‎ (Undid revision 204220254 by Bzuk (talk))
    2. [8] Diff 18:44, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stewart (actor)‎ (Undid revision 205372274 by Bzuk (talk))
    3. [9] Diff 19:19, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stewart (actor)‎ (Undid revision 205385095 by Bzuk (talk)The talk page is locked) (top)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [10]


    The editor [11] also appears to be recently using another Ip address:

    1. (cur) (last) 14:32, 8 April 2008 Bzuk (Talk | contribs) (79,173 bytes) (it appears that this article will again require protection) (undo)
    2. (cur) (last) 14:31, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (79,267 bytes) (→Politics) (undo)
    3. (cur) (last) 14:30, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (79,123 bytes) (→Politics) (undo)
    4. (cur) (last) 12:57, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (78,803 bytes) (Undid revision 204200420 by Bzuk (talk)Not contentious at all, Stewart was a racist just like his friends.) (undo)
    5. (cur) (last) 12:37, 8 April 2008 Bzuk (Talk | contribs) (79,173 bytes) (This is a contentious issue that was previously discussed on the talk page, introduce it there) (undo)
    6. (cur) (last) 11:50, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (78,803 bytes) (Undid revision 203503326 by CDChen (talk)) (undo)

    It may be editor Harvey Carter who has previously used the exact same terminology and wording. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HarveyCarter (6th) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation I fixed the header of this report so that the IP links work. The second set of edits listed, those from April 8, are by a different IP editor, 92.10.220.95 (talk · contribs). Since we have two different IPs, there can't be any question of using checkuser to show they are the same editor. The April 8 edits are stale for 3RR purposes. So I don't think this can be considered a valid 3RR complaint, even if you throw in a potential RFCU. Meanwhile, back at the article, User:Rodhullandemu has full-protected the article until editors can work out a consensus whether allegations of racism are well enough proven to stay in the article. If consensus is that the allegations are not verified or undue weight, then you could maybe have a case for semi-protection against these IP-hopping attacks. Why not work on that. Meanwhile I'm marking this as No Violation for purpose of this noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox reported by User: 66.6.120.69 (Result: Page protected )

    23:26 yday 23:42 yday 23:53 yday

    • Diff of 3RR warning: User has the experience to know better, and a history of similar behaviour on this article.

    POV warrior and some quite inappropriate goading aimed towards editors.

    Reasons included for reverts: “sock” (unfounded), “rm trollinmg from an editor whose exampl;es have been demosnstrated as falase how dare you add material that is demonstrably unsoutrced oyyur opinionj ion talk”, and “please stop promoting the [ped view” as in “pedophile”. 66.6.120.69 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Littlebutterfly reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: Protected)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been 3RR'd in the past and has reported another user's 3RR before. This user should have known better that he would be 3RR'd for hisactions.

    Littlebutterfly has been constantly doing harm to this page and has continuously reverted anything that went against his views Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Stifle (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LifeStroke420 reported by User:RobJ1981 (Result: 24 hours )


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [19]

    LifeStroke's been reverting the page for over a day now. Originally he was saying "check the archives for proof", then the later reverts were just plain and simple reverts with no reasoning. I don't think he replied to the warning either. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Supergreenred reported by User:John Smith's (Result: 48 hour block)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    10:03, 13 April 2008 (first revert) 10:18, 13 April 2008 (reverts 2-4)

    Supergreenred has been edit-warring on the above article. He was temporarily blocked for tendacious editing, which was then lifted. However, even though I had warned him about edit-warring, the first thing he did after the block was lifted was to start reverting again. He also removed my warning and subsequent requests to calm down from his talk page.

    Clearly the user does not believe the rules apply to him. He is an experienced user - he admits he has long edited as an anon-IP and seems to know the rules, even if he doesn't follow them. He should not be treated as a newbie. Although he has not quite reverted four times in 24 hours, he has broken the spirit of the rules by reverting four times within 26 hours, especially when he had just been released from a prior block. John Smith's (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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) 12:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, with all due respect I have seen many cases where editors have been blocked for four reversions outside of 24 hours. Sure it can't be too great, but I think four reverts within 26 hours is quite similar. If you want to say that the period was not large enough, ok. But you are not being correct when you say there must be 4 reverts in 24 hours. John Smith's (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy with my decision; another admin can feel free to review. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange, I was blocked for edit waring with less than 4 in a 24 hour period, I thought 3RR stated that just 3 was the maximum and you may be blocked for less. Also I think that waiting till the 24 hours is up, then making another revert is considering gaming wikipedia, and is most certainly not within the spirit of the rules, a block would be highly suitable for this particular case. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I already closed this case.[20] Somehow my notes disappeared. In any event, this user was on notice about edit warring, and just came off a block. They immediately gamed the system to do four reverts in just slightly more than 24 hours. That's a clear violation that we do not allow. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    JEH's disappearing notes are actually below, in the second complaint about Supergreenred (from a different submitter). Both reports are now properly closed, and with the same answer. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darkmage Rector reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: blocked 12h)


    Continued insertion of the same nonsense. User has been told to stop many times, but refuses to do so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 12 hours. CIreland (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zencv reported by User:Kelly (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [21]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [26]

    Warring to include a link to a non-notable YouTube film parody. Kelly hi! 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AgntOrange reported by User:Peteforsyth (Result: 31 hours )

    Each revert deletes "[Oregon] Agricultural College" from the sentence "he attended ..." and/or from the sentence "Pauling entered...".

    AgntOrange has made a number of edits today, all related to Oregon State University; I believe every edit, or nearly every one, has met with opposition from a variety of editors. He/she was warned about 3RR on the Oregon State University article, violated 3RR, and the remedy was protecting the page. Now he/she has violated it at Linus Pauling, also with attempts to discuss the situation on the talk page by more than one established editor. This is becoming a big distraction from encyclopedia writing. The string of casual accusations of vandalism, sock puppetry etc. doesn't help. Pete (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've modified (by striking out) and added to the above report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Novidmarana reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 31 hours )


    Editor keeps deleting the words "fending off protestors" in the intro. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has already been blocked. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:HongQiGong reported by User:Dassiebtekreuz (Result: No vio)


    Actually see above, as the complainant above has also violated the 3RR rule. Editor User:HongQiGong keeps removing content that is sourced and has a citation, keeps adding "defending the Olympic torch against a protestor who....", although this is what the source is exactly saying, and keeps adding a disclaimer on a reliable source, in the form of "According to Geoffrey York", although source is a reliable source according to WP:RS. Same applies for User:Helloterran.

    Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure I see where the 3RR violation is. The first two diffs are different edits from the last two diffs. But if you can point out the 3RR violation, I'd be glad to self-revert. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see 2 or 3 reverts looking through the articles history but I can't see any violation. A little bit of WP:OWN perhaps, but nothing too auspicious. No violation. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Helloterran reported by User:Dassiebtekreuz (Result: 31 hours)


    Once again, see above, as the complainant above has also violated the 3RR rule. Editor Helloterran keeps removing content that is sourced and has a citation, keeps adding "defending the Olympic torch against a protestor who....", although this is what the source is exactly saying, and keeps adding a disclaimer on a reliable source, in the form of "According to Geoffrey York", although source is a reliable source according to WP:RS.Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already been blocked. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GijsvdL reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: See result)


    • Previous version reverted to: [27] (not sure what exactly is meant here by 'previous')

    Editor keeps removing references that are in full accordance with WP:COS, despite ample explanation on the talk page and several warnings. User is not disputing relevance (the other books in the series are kept) but insists that my name is not allowed to appear on the internet. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note Guido den Broeder is notorious on the Dutch wikipedia for selfpromotion and related problems. He's under strict supervision of a mentor, and currently blocked for two weeks. See here his track record on blocks. Regards, JacobH (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (sysop on Dutch wikipedia)[reply]
    User:JacobH is a single-purpose account, taking part in the same edit war. Enough said. As explained already in 30 other places: I have no mentor, block is random by another mob member and is being dealt with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_3RR.3F about this case. A EN.wiki sysop already states my reverts are valid. Note also that JacobH is not a single-purpose account. JacobH is a NL.wiki sysop. As an addition: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for the same behaviour. He's also blocked at NL.wiki at the moment. GijsvdL (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No such measures have been taken. Since user keeps repeating this lie (check with nl:Arbcom, note that the previous random block was lifted by the Arbcom), can something further be done? Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody may visit NL.wiki IRC to verify. GijsvdL (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The IRC is not a part of nl:Wikipedia. The Arbcom is.
    Meanwhile, it has been confirmed (village pump) that these actions are also a violation of en:copyright, and I will treat them so. There are already Arbcom procedures at nl:Wikipedia against this mob for similar violations (note, however, that the cases are incessantly vandalized by same users, so again check with nl:Arbcom). I will add no more and await your decision. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At IRC there are sufficient sysops online to verify that Guido is lying about the NL.wiki arbcom-decision. GijsvdL (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've decided to try something different today: I won't block you if both of you just stop editing chess articles and use discussion to work out your disagreements. Both of you are not allowed to edit a chess article (Except to remove blatantly obvious vandalism/libel) until some progress is made between you. If you wish, I can help mediate the discussion. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have clashed with Guido before (on the English Wikipedia), so I will not take any actions here. I just want to say that he does have a mentor on the Dutch Wikipedia, appointed by the Dutch ArbCom. Guido doesn't accept the mentoring, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The main reason for his problems on the Dutch Wikipedia is self-promotion, just like here. And checking the VPP discussion started by Guido indicates that it has not been confirmed that the removal of these links (books written by Guido and published by his own company) is a copyright violation at all. My suggestion would be to warn GijsvdL to be more careful about the 3RR (it is unclear to me whether he was aware of this policy), and to strongly warn Guido den Broeder against inserting any form of reference or link to his own work or work of his company, to avoid running in the same trouble here as he has on the Dutch Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, please check with nl:Arbcom, also read up on Dutch law, and yes, GijsvdL was aware, he was warned several times and was already active on this page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dutch law is irrelevant here, I have checked the Dutch WikipediaThe same arbcom page that undid your second-to-last block, only four days ago, also confirmed the mentoring], and could you point me to the place were GijsvdL was informed about our WP:3RR policy? It's unclear to me what you mean by "this page", but if you mean this page, then he hasn't edited it before your report here.Fram (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been informed about 3RR as follows: It is not currently 3RR (currently at 3) and if it was taken to 3RR I wouldn't block anyway, because it is clearly removing self-promotion. Those aren't references, they're just adverts for the books. Black Kite 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) - GijsvdL (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram: You missed the Arbcom procedure where this so-called mentorship is contested. nl:Wikipedia falls under Dutch law, which says that a mentor can only be appointed if the pupil requests it. There is plenty of jurisprudence. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think nl: falls under Dutch law? It's hosted in the same way as all the other Wikimedia projects. The fact that it uses the Dutch language is entirely irrelevant for the jurisdiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I have given the link where Dutch Arbcom, four days ago, confirmed the mentoring. You contest it, but I have seen no posts from either ArbCom or the mentor that contest it, so for the purposes of Wikipedia, the mentoring is still valid. As for Dutch law: that is completely irrelevant here. A website can have its own rules of participation. Dutch law also forbids the silencing (blocking) of people, but that does not apply to a private website. But you have accused GijsvdL of lying (see above), while he has done no such thing. You are blocked and a mentor has been appointed by the arbcom (which recently confirmed this). You can contest these measures, but to deny them and to accuse another user of lying for pointing them out is way out of line. Fram (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Supergreenred reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 48 hours, repeat offense, WP:GAME)

    • Diff of 3RR warning. The first action of the account in Wikipedia was a 3RR report so he knows the rule: 01:58, 16 March 2008 Also warned later about the rule on his talk page: [28]

    Attempt to violate the spirit of the rule by waiting 9 minutes before making his fourth revert.Ultramarine (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. This editor has persisted in edit-warring, even when asked not to/warned about it. He was let off with the last report because he reverted four times in 26 hours. This time he has reverted four times in 24 hours 9 minutes. Other editors have been blocked for doing this, so I do not see why this guy should be any different. He admits that he is an experienced user who edited as a series of IPs in the past - he may have been blocked then as well for edit-warring, as he has not disclosed any of the IPs he used in the past, even after he was asked. John Smith's (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours. Jehochman Talk 14:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jsn9333 reported by User:AuburnPilot (Result: Protected)


    Jsn9333 is a disruptive SPA who has already been blocked once for sock/meatpuppetry on Fox News Channel, and his sock/meatpuppet (Unc 2002 (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely following a SSP case and checkuser. This is Jsn9333's second violation of the 3RR, but as I am involved in the FNC discussion, I cannot place the block myself. - auburnpilot talk 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not altogether convinced that #1 is a revert, as it does not match the version reverted back to. Bearing in mind that the page was protected for 4 days and the edit war began again when the page was unprotected, Page protected This one's indefinite, though. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:3RR "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content...". Jsn removed the same version of the intro 4 times in 24 hours. However, I suppose protection is the second best thing. - auburnpilot talk 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VeritasAgent reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [29]


    Keeps trying to push his POV into the article, so trying to edit war it in. Grsz11 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andyvphil reported by User:Scjessey (Result: )

    User has been warned for three-revert violations on multiple occasions and has been blocked twice before, yet continues to edit war on Barack Obama in order to push POV. Reversions often take place despite pleas for talk page discussion and consensus-building. The users performed a self-revert to avoid 3RR issues (diff), but then immediately cancelled it (diff). In the interests of disclosure, I should point out that this user has previously reported me for violations of 3RR, but these have not resulted in a block. Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (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] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or 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]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    The editors of Florida State Seminoles are in an edit war with Badagnani hand has been asked by three users including myself to stop with his edits. the item has been brought to talk, and he refuses to yield to the majority even with the offer of a compromise. Please enforce the 3 revert/edit rule and warn/ban Badagnani from the page--UkrNole 485 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=205827449"