Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LeaveSleaves (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 21 September 2008 (Reverted edits by 903M to last version by Nard the Bard (HG)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

    24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

    Gutza reported by Xasha (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [6]
    • 1st revert: 20:27
    • Previous version reverted to: [7]
    • 2nd revert: 21:30
    • 3rd revert: 21:43
    • 4th revert: 22:11
    • Diff of 3RR warning: User is admin, so I suppose warning is not needed.
    Gutza tries to impose his POV on readers through a non-sequitur, by mixing facts that, while individually factual, presented in the fashion he does direct the reader to a certain interpretation not supported by sources (i.e. a violation of WP:SYNTH). His last revert was of a template that requested external input on the subject. He contends he is supported by a source, but this is not the case, as you can see in his message on my talk page [8].Xasha (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected Both editors seem well-intentioned, but they are revert-warring. Protected two days. I don't see any discussion of the contested issue on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see User talk:Xasha#Romania foreign relations section. --Gutza T T+ 07:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dodo bird reported by DanielEng (Result: Page protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [9]


    • 1st revert: [10]
    • 2nd revert: [11]
    • 3rd revert: [12]
    • 4th revert: [13]
    • 5th revert: [14] (after warning)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [15]

    Repeatedly reverting and adding unsourced information/BLP vio to article, despite being warned and alerted to specific concerns. Simply blanked 3RR warning with a snarky comment. DanielEng (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not altogether convinced that the material constitutes a BLP violation — non-English sources are acceptable — but I've protected the page to de-escalate the edit war. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mokele reported by Papa Lima Whiskey (Result: 8 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [16]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [21]
    • Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:77.101.64.48 reported by User:Ipinkbear (Result: article protected )


    • Previous version reverted to: [22]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [28]

    Hi.

    I'm taking care about FIFA 09 article and i have a problem with anonymous user 77.101.64.48, who make edits to the article.

    He changes the Italian football league name, which is not correct and that's why:

    • Full league name is "Lega Calcio Serie A TIM", while it has a page name Serie A in Wiki and this name is also used everywhere in the world.
    • When he changes the league name - it breaks the link to the Serie A article.
    • There is no need to use "Serie A Italia", because we use flags in the article to identify the coutry.

    I'm also offended by the way of dicussion this user hold. He does not respond to my warnings on his talk page, while use offensive language the article. Ipinkbear (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article was protected in the interim. Locking thisoffensive ip out of the article is a better outcome anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 05:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Onelifefreak2007 and OLTL2002 reported by TAnthony (Result: Both Blocked)

    • I believe the first change was here, and the info was reverted back and forth numerous times over several days.


    The most recent (last 24 hours):

    • 1st revert (OLTL2002): [29]
    • 1st revert (Onelifefreak2007): [30]
    • 2nd revert (OLTL2002): [31]
    • 2nd revert: (Onelifefreak2007): [32]
    • 3rd revert (OLTL2002): [33]
    • 3rd revert: (Onelifefreak2007): [34]

    More warring after this report:

    • 4th revert (OLTL2002): [35]
    • 4th revert: (Onelifefreak2007): [36]
    • 5th revert (OLTL2002): [37]
    • 5th revert: (Onelifefreak2007):
    • Diff of previous 3RR warning (to each individual): [38] and [39]


    These two users have been involved in a slow edit war in One Life to Live for a while now over this same small fact; I am not sure who started it or who is "correct," but the bulk of recent changes to the article (spanning days) involve this item. They have had similar disagreements on similar articles, and Onelifefreak2007 was even blocked for edit-warring with OLTL2002 here and here. As a longtime observer of this rivalry, in my opinion OLTL2002 edits in good faith and has a better understanding of policy and convention, but allows him/herself to get caught up in these "battles." Not quite a new editor any longer, Onelifefreak2007 remains slow to acknowledge advice, warnings and policy, often flatly refusing to follow rules. — TAnthonyTalk 18:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • As you say, slow edit war. Breeching the spirit of the 3RR if not the actual word. I think a coiple of the reverts are outside 24 hours but the intetent to disrupt wikipedia by edit warring is there and clearly they both need a firm message. I have left Onelifefreak2007 a fairly stark warning about the future. Spartaz Humbug! 05:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:|]] reported by [[User:|]] (Result: Malformed report)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


    There is someone who keeps putting erroneous information about the site, a lawsuit and other information that is not neutral in any way. For instance, the case was dismissed the second time, but the person who keeps changing the page wants to make people believe it was not. There is an order from a judge concerning this dismissal. I'd like the editors to look at this one for the neutrality, and erroneous information.

    Whenever the information is corrected, the person at IP - 209.213.203.235 keeps reverting it back and posting the same erroneous information. If it's going to be an editing war, then the information should simply be deleted.

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Sign your comments. We can't tell who you are or what article you're trying to report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Astutescholar reported by Nomoskedasticity (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [40]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [45]

    Newbie is likely a sockpuppet of User:PigeonPiece or User:Obscuredata and likely knows how this is supposed to work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 3RR on Oxford Round Table, COI editing, possible sock. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    121.135.161.242 reported by Michael Friedrich (Result: Warned all editors)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [50]

    S/he keeps making vandalism too. S/he cannot be a proper wikipedian.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    malformed report. and, technically, it is not a 3rr rule violation, It is a atricle development. anyone can fix article many times. i'm not revert same edit again and again. however, YOU revert same edit gain and again. 121.135.161.242 (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is a place for a quarrel, but I never reverted the same edit... (see [51]) 121.135.161.242 seems not to have even read my edit.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Result. I had previously blocked the IP cited here 24 hours for edit warring on a different article. If an admin believes that other participants in the dispute should be blocked as well, please add your decision here. Protection might be the best option for this article, but it is undergoing an AfD discussion, so that's unwise. I'll leave a warning on the article Talk that further violations of 3RR will lead to admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Friedrich reported by 121.135.161.242 (Result: Closed with no action per agreement)


    • Previous version reverted to: [52](This is a diff. 121.135.161.242 doen't understand the rule. And this edit is very reasonable, removing youtube link and added information from a more reliable source (Weekly Shincho). This edit cannot be any reason for me to be accused of anything.)


    • 1st revert: [53] (actually a normal edit--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • 2nd revert: [54] (actually a normal edit--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • 3rd revert: [55] (actually not a revert as you can see from this diff [56]. I only modified some strange words used by 121.135.161.242, such as "a one company" and added some words.)
    • 4th revert: [57] (This is a revert but this was because 121.135.161.242's edit was too strange. He removed sourced information and made the article ungrammartical[58].--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • 5th revert: [59] (Who calls this edit a revert..????--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [60]

    He is a POV user. S/he keeps making vandalism too. S/he cannot be a proper wikipedian.121.135.161.242 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like 121.135.161.242 does not understand what 3rr is. This one is not a revert but a normal edit. This one is not a revert either but a normal edit. This one isn't either. This one is a revert but I reverted vandalism. You can see that if you read it carefully. [[61] This one] is not a revert at all. Information I added is sourced and information 121.135.161.242 is not sourced. 121.135.161.242 is only imitating me without the knowledge of the rules of wikipedia.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Even if you explain your edits on the talk page, Michael Friedrich is quick to revert them, claiming that there are either vandalism and that there is no consensus - please block as this user who apparently does not understand how content disputes are resolved, that is by discussion on the talk page and not by reverting. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You did the same act(quick to revert),too.[62] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propastop (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do I have to be blocked by discussion on talk page? BlueSalo talks as if opposing to him is vandalism. This is a "content dispute," not vandalism. Every piece of the information listed in the article was sourced. I call removing it without consensus is vandalism. Reverting your edit cannot be the reason for blocking.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blue Salo cannot accuse me of reverting because his/her edit was too big. I think s/he went a bit too far to removing the whole list without consensus[63]. S/he says s/he did it per the discussion on the talk page, but it was only 24 hours since s/he posted his idea. It cannot be said there was consensus. S/he talks as if the information on the list were not sourced, but actually they are. S/he talks as if I edited the article, ignoring the discussion on the talk page, but the discussion was started by him/her and closed by him/her within a day. Reverting his/her edit cannot be the reason for blocking me. The discussion page cannot be the reason for blocking me either. I did no vandalism or no 3rr violation.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, however there is no consensus to keep the list either. Actually, if the article is cleaned up, well, the article would not be accused for WP:SYNTHESIS like this. You reverted 4 times along with the anon but BlueSalo did two times (his first edit is regarded a revert based on the article history). The anon and BlueSalo's removals are content dispute, not vandalism. I'm just saying about fairness and equality since the one side is blocked.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a malformed 3RR report, and the anon obviously does not understand 3RR policy. Michael should've added <small> not to make admins confused when they read the report. However, well, the anon and Michale both violated 3RR and here is the report. Even if the reverts are not identical, Micheal reverted 4 times, so I think both are responsible for the edit warring.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous version reverted to [64]

    This is an arbitary interpretation. The 1st edit the 2nd edit are not the same and I made the article grammartical. The 3rd and the 4th are the same but different from the 1st and the 2nd. The 3rd and 4th are made because the whole list was removed. They are actually like this.

    I am not violating 3rr.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I don't have all day to study the edit history of this article and figure out who is right. I've offered not to block Michael Friedrich if he'll voluntarily abstain from editing this article for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I will.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No action. Closed by agreement, without any sanction. This is already the second 3RR case about this article. If the general edit war keeps up, full protection may have to be imposed in spite of the current AfD discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Well, EdJOhnston, Michael clearly violated 3RR, and even his edit summary states "RV". However, the anon seem to violate 3RR over two articles, so I have to respect your judgment.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you a complainer? You often go to the talk page of Administrator and protest it.stop this act--Propastop (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange. How do you magically know that I often go to the talk page of admin and protect it? Because you're newbie with just one edit contributions before the AFD was open. Your first edit is also to give 3RR warning to somebody whom you did not encounter. Very interesting. Why don't you stop your behaviors first? Here is for 3RR report and the anon and Michael are reported for their 3RR violation. So admins should look at the report and that is no business of you.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Prophaniti reported by Ibaranoff24 (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [65]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [71]

    User has repeatedly added inaccurate genre terms and removed text from this article. Will not listen to reasoning and insists that there is no sourcing for the genres he removed when he never looked at said sources, which are clearly listed in article. User also removed notice that advised against editing genre-related elements of the article without discussion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Comment: Prophaniti has done 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. It takes 4 reverts in a 24-hour period to violate the 3RR rule. I posted a message with a link to the 3RR rule to Prophaniti's talk page at 00:26, 20 September 2008. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation Per Coppertwig, there are not four reverts. I don't perceive any consensus on the Talk page as to how to describe the band's genre. I suggest that the two editors ask for a WP:Third opinion. Whether MusicMight is the final word on genres is a legitimate question; aren't they just one of many criticism sites? Need to get input from more editors. Consider asking for comments at WT:WikiProject Rock music. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Striking my previous close, since two hours after that comment, Prophaniti added his fourth revert. The issue of this editor gaming 3RR across a range of articles was noted at WP:ANI#User:Prophaniti. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YMB29 reported by User:Biophys (Result: 48 h )

    YMB29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 21:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [72]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [73]

    This user fights against a consensus of several users who can agree with each other and gradually improve this article. YMB29 does nothing but reverts during the entire month (see his edit history)

    • A possible sockpuppet. Some investigation is needed because he was awarded a barnstar and was aided in his warier efforts by User:Kostan1 who was blocked as a puppet of notorious banned User:M.V.E.i.. Perhaps he is M.V.E.i. himself - I do not know. This IP might be also him.
    • Incivility. He was warned for incivility [74]; also see here
      • Blocked for 48h. Will investigate the possible socking. Moreschi (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sardonicone reported by Magioladitis (Result: No violation)

    • Previous version reverted to: [75]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    User denies to make creative edits to improve an article about a fictional character even after I gave him specific parts of the Manual of Style (Writing of Fiction). Magioladitis (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I posted a 3RR warning to Sardonicone on 22:58 19 September 2008. I also reverted the page to Magioladitis' version. Sardonicone has done 3 reverts. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support to this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation Sardonicone has reverted three times, while four is required for a violation. Consider pursuing WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Roadahead reported by Goingoveredge (Result: Both editors blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [79]


    • 1st revert: [80]- 15:25, 19 September 2008 (partial revert to version trying to discredit peer reviewed source
    • 2nd revert: [81]- 21:17, 19 September 2008
    • 3rd revert: [82] - 22:06, 19 September 2008
    • 4th revert: [83] - 22:46, 19 September 2008
    • 5th revert: [84] - 03:35, 20 September 2008 vandalism (removal of tag that was put)
    • 6th revert: [85] - 04:00, 20 September 2008 same as fifth revert
    • 7th revert: [86] - 04:10, 20 September 2008 same as fifth revert
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [87] 22:34, 19 September 2008

    User:Roadahead and ideological meatpuppet User:Princhest have been blocked for edit-warring in tandem and against consensus on this article before. The ideological goal is Khalistani theocratic and sectarian historical revisionism (negationism) from Non Resident Indian Sikh militants (Air India Flight 182 and Gurmit Singh Aulakh). Article talk page is pepperred with failed mediation, consensus violation, racist hate-speech, incitement to violence against Hindus, promotional of holocaust denial websites, and liberal amounts of inflammatory Godwinning by the Khalistani trolls.Goingoveredge (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The first revert (at 15:25) can be considered a revert because it deletes ", an Indian Christian named", and because it deletes the word "defamatory" from a sentence that had been added. Counting that, Roadahead did 4 reverts within a 24-hour period, violating 3RR; the last revert was 12 minutes after the warning. Goingoveredge did 3 reverts in the same time period. (I added the time of the warning above.) (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Khalistani trolling has extended to other articles, including the main one Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (a key Khalistani Bête noire, which, to date, has been thankfully been kept free of Khalistani trolls), and other revisionist claims made (without any support) here [88].Goingoveredge (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    user:Goingoveredge's conduct is absolutely outrageous. This 3RR report is not the first place where he is violating wikipedia policies but he has been himself stubbornly reverting and deleting content even after repetitive requests of discussion. Please note RFC on Goingoveredge for more information. Here in 3RR he mentions another user Princhest being blocked just to create negativism against others while he smartly hides that user:Goingoveredge was himself blocked from editing and the admin blocked user:Goingoveredge for longer duration. Here again user:Goingoveredge is involving in personal attacks by calling me and other editor as bombers of Air India Flight 182, militant, sectarian and what not. He even goes on assuming me and other editor as Non Resident Indians without having any information at all. Just like always, Goingoveredge has again gone by leaps and bound picking words from wikipedia and using them unwarantedly against me and Princhest to create prejudice. It is expected that the admins spend little more time understanding the issue at hand and user:Goingoveredge's approach so far. A little research by any admin will clearly show that user:Goingoveredge was repetitively requested to take part in civil discussion but he not only avoided that and kept reverting, but also deleted the discussions of other editors from the article talkpages. Its really obnoxious that he has repetitively deleted content from talkpages not letting any discussion to take place, while he puts his own views on the talkpages of the articles. He even deleted messages left on his talkpage without responding. Please see [RFC on Goingoveredge] for a glimpse of his activities. He has made impossible for any civil discussion to take place. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also look at this post by established admin User:utcursch regarding the racist and incitement-trolling of the Khalistani revisionists [89]. Also, this response when the Khalistani militant trolls engaged in ad-hominem personal attacks against User:utcursch [90] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goingoveredge (talk • contribs) 03:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentThe substance of the original report looks on target thus far, but the conduct on this page suggests a two way edit war with a dispute thats gone personal.--Tznkai (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours looks like a nasty two person edit war. Also recommending both of them consider WP:DR.--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the edit-warring is all on User:Roadahead's part. WP:3RR states that 3rr rule does not apply when reverting vandalism. In this case, the vandalism is the removal of OR tags without discussion.Goingoveredge (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The OR tags is a content dispute, not vandalism. It is neither the technical definition, nor does it fit the spirit of WP:3RR. This is not a court of law where we argue about definitions of specific lines. It is immediately obvious from a glance at the article history that you are in an intense content dispute, and are edit warring over it.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GreekParadise reported by Kelly (Result: Substantiated but determined block would be punitive)

    • Reversions in last 24 hours:
    1. [91]
    2. [92]
    3. [93]
    4. [94]
    5. [95]
    6. [96]
    • Previous version reverted to: [97]

    Reported by Kelly hi! 00:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The user just made another revert 01:16, 20 September 2008 marked explicitly as "undo" in edit summary. Could go into a long list here but instead I just say that this user's activity is completely unfair to all the other editors who play by the rules (not just 3RR). Hobartimus (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction the above is already listed in the original report as revert 6, sorry(I was confused by the timestamps the additional revert I added was 01:16, the report submission dated to 00:48 seems it was amended). Other part of my comment stands. Hobartimus (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are other editors engaged, as well as possible tag teaming. I will provide diffs in a a minute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. 00:51, 19 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Federal funding */ earmarks iterated everywhere? seems POV at his point")
    2. 14:11, 19 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Political positions */ corrects "abstinence only" self contradiction")
    3. 21:16, 19 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* "Bridge to Nowhere" */ restoring title which was not changed by any consensus")
    4. 21:38, 19 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* "Bridge to Nowhere" */ Dicsussion is under way -- do NOT revert again")
    5. 22:56, 19 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Bridge controversy */ editorializing in caption")
    6. 22:58, 19 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Bridge controversy */ reverting is turning into vandalism by readding non-consensus material previously deleted")


    1. 22:09, 19 September 2008 (edit summary: "no consensus for this")
    2. 22:45, 19 September 2008 (edit summary: "once again, no consensus for this, take to talk")

    So... a revert war while there is an open RFC.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If other editors besides Greek Paradise violated 3RR, then they ought to get the hammer too, because this is a very high-profile article that does not need the abuse. That said, I only see two diffs for Kelly, and no warning for Collect.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I count six non-consecutive reversions by Kelly in the 7 hours from 00:39, 15 September 2008 to 14:03, 14 September 2008, including a comment by Dstern1 asking her not to get in an edit war. I count eleven non-consecutive reversion by Kelly in the 24 hours preceding 22:32, 13 September 2008.

    On Kelly's talk page, I have made her an offer: "no edits to the main article by me in the next 24 hours; no further insults by you of me or me of you (and I will keep this from now until eternity if you don't insult me again); withdrawal of your complaint; and I won't file mine against you or Hobartimus."

    For this reason, I have yet to file a complaint against Kelly while I await her response.GreekParadise (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As Kelly has rejected my proposed compromise, I will proceed to file a 3RR complaint against her for her 18 reversions in 48 hours. I'm very sorry, Kelly, you chose war over my peace offer. Very sorry. I consider this a tremendous waste of time, but so be it.GreekParadise (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC) :Greek, you have 1 hr to file your report before you are blocked for 31 Hours, for incivility and nasty fighting, for example: [reply]

    "(and I will keep this from now until eternity if you don't insult me again)"
    No more. 3RR is going to be enforced to the letter and the spirit on Sarah Palin.--Tznkai (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn: deferring to Doug.--Tznkai (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned - Substantiated 3RR violation but user had taken action to undo a reversion and may have misunderstood what constitutes a reversion (even though previously blocked, but for a clearer violation), user has refrained from editing articles since the report. For this reason, a block would be punitive and should not be implemented. However, I requested the user to review WP:3RR in detail and apply 0RR until the policy is clearly understood. Also warned user that an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again. Insufficient diffs to properly investigate nominator and related parties. No prejudice against a 3RR complaint against those parties by GP or another user if warranted.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Flatterworld reported by User:CENSEI (Result: protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: [98]


    Strait forward enough violation, but I would add that all four content reverts took place within an hour. CENSEI (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, no - The third and the fourth are a single revert. This is not the first false 3RR report this editor has filed in support of his content position.Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected – multiple editor content dispute. --slakr\ talk / 18:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ludwigs2 reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:1 week)

    • Previous version reverted to: [99]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: User is aware of 3RR, and has been blocked in the past for edit warring.

    Skinwalker (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe one of those was removing a BLP violation and the final was done with the support of talk page consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Levine2112 has not explained which revert he thinks is a BLP violation. I do not see any BLP violation and there was no consensus to violate NPOV policy. All his reverts were wrongly marked as minor. QuackGuru 22:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one seems to me to be removing a BLP violation, and the 4th is correcting a typo. The last revert (after #4, but to a different revision) was per consensus, although it would have been better if someone else had done it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The firsr revert was marked as minor and never mentioned any BLP problem. The last edit reverted to an old version that went against NPOV. Ludwigs2 has not explained why he removed the well sourced text and references. QuackGuru 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I had blocked Ludwigs2 for a week prir to seeing this report. His edits to a contentious page were rather disruptive. The edit summary of one revert was marked minor and was complaining about the previous editor's marking the removal of a comma as minor. Vsmith (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dead-or-Red reported by User:IronDuke (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [104]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [105] 18:13, 20 September 2008

    User:Dead-or-Red has been unilaterally removing all material that refers to Lauren Booth's appeareance in a maket in Gaza. Every edit removes a link to the incident or a description of it. IronDuke 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has not made any further reverts since the warning, lets wait it out and see. Tiptoety talk 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I added the time of the warning, above. Dead-or-Red has been previously blocked for 3RR, so the warning seems clear enough. Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 3RR violation, following an earlier block in June for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CadenS reported by §hep • ¡Talk to me! (Result: )

    David Beckham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CadenS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 21:22, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 239860927 by SpartanSWAT10 (talk)")
    2. 21:31, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 239863013 by SpartanSWAT10 (talk)")
    3. 22:07, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted. Don't be a goof and don't piss me off!")
    4. 22:39, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted. I don't give a rat's ass what you think. Quit pissing me off!")
    5. 22:47, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 239877517 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)")
    6. 23:19, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 239880870 by Beve (talk)")

    —§hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Are you sure that there were reverts after the warning? Even if so, I don't think a ban serves any purpose here. The edit war has stopped and he has apologised on his talk page. Also, edit #1 above is not the same as the others. Beve (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply A revert is a revert, how does #1 not apply? It is a reversion, yes? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: as Beve mentions above, the user stopped reverting after being warned about the 3-revert rule. last revert: 23:19, 20 September 2008, warning: 23:23, 20 September 2008. -kotra (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    903M reported by ThuranX (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [106]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [122] Note that others also warned him today with templates, I gave him a distinctly direct, non-templated notice, per 'don't template the regulars'.
    • [123]

    Please examine the page hsitory to observe other instances of 3RR on the same page. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions specifically notes that 3RR exempts reverting copyrighted material. Currently there is a report of the copyright violation. 3 users have noted the inappropriate use of non-free use. To resolve the matter, I have been extremely polite and have submitted the copyright violation report in hopes of resolving this matter once and for all. Several people have noted that ThuranX is hostile and he has violated 3RR, if not by the letter, in spirit. He has also removed the copyright violation tag in spite of CLEAR instructions not to remove it until it is resolved. So if anyone is blocked, it must be ThuranX. 903M (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=239925086"