Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:13, 25 March 2008 view sourceEditor5435 (talk | contribs)1,031 edits →User:Editor5435 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )← Previous edit Revision as of 00:24, 25 March 2008 view source Coppertwig (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,281 edits →User:Traditional unionist reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: ): Congratulations for filling out the report correctly!!!Next edit →
Line 543: Line 543:


Edit warring seemingly based on the misapprehension that because someone who was born in the ] now lives in ] they magically become ], or even British based on the discussion on the talk page. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Edit warring seemingly based on the misapprehension that because someone who was born in the ] now lives in ] they magically become ], or even British based on the discussion on the talk page. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks and congratulations to One Night In Hackney for filling out the 3RR report correctly and completely -- the first one I've seen, I think! I'm not kidding: at least the last ten previous reports have been missing information. Thanks to One Night In Hackney, Traditional unionist and Belacqua Shuah for using the article talk page to discuss the content issue. Traditional unionist has been informed of the existence of the 3RR rule from in least one . The four reverts listed above are all adding the word "Northern" to the first sentence of the article. {{3RRV|Belacqua Shuah}} has also removed the word "Northern" from the first sentence five times in the period 17:27 to 20:47 24 March, counting as at least four reverts. (Non-admin opinion.) --] (]) 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


== Example == == Example ==

Revision as of 00:24, 25 March 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Violations

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


    User:Karaku reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: Editor blocked 1 month per ANI discussion )

    This user's last 3RR block was for this and another article. The same incivilty and revert warring continues from his last block. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Except that you're baiting them by blanket reverting their changes across at least two articles, it seems. Takes two to tango. I'm inclined to block either or both of you, if this continues, but neither of you at this particular time. Will see where it goes from there. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    It's not baiting when it's behavior he hasn't learned from. He knows what 3RR is and has been blocked for it several times. He simply doesn't believe the rules apply to him. You've seen his responses on his talk page. He has no interest in working collaboratively. He just believes he's right. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    Also note his behavior on the WP:ANI board. He removes comments which match up with everything he's been told thus far as unhelpful. This user's attitude defeats collaboration, which is why 3RR is the only venue which effectively makes him stop. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    As you say, this may be resolved elsewhere, rendering this particular thread moot. I'm currently reluctant to block under 3RR alone, but this is an ongoing incident and not a done deal, yet. He's got a chance to sink or swim, at this point. Will keep watching. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    That's a reasonable request. I'll leave this alone and see how it goes with the ANI thread. Still, as I've shown with the talk page link, he is liable to become more and more belligerent with every response, all the while reverting under the beilef that 3RR will never apply to him. This is common behavior. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Unindent. Yeah, he's not stopping. 5th revert now. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Since Karaku has been blocked until 20 April for edit warring and incivility, according to the WP:ANI thread, this 3RR case might as well be closed without further study. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Shannon Rose reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    She keeps engaging in an edit war with Orlady (talk · contribs) GreenJoe 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Shannon Rose has been blocked for 24 hours by Nat at 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC). --Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Note that over the same time period, Orlady also violated 3RR. However, that's now over 24 hours ago. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:65.7.144.194 reported by User:Casliber (Result: 48 hour block)

    • Previous version reverted to:



    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Anon IP repeatedly removing material critical of infant formula. Little other activityCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours - the IP isn't dynamic to my knowledge and due to the many reverts which have been carried out. Rudget. 14:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


    User:HAl reported by User:Kilz (Result: Stale, no action)

    A short explanation of the incident. Kilz (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Hal has used and abused the 3RR rule. He now only makes 3 reverts when he knows the other party cant undo his edits. They harm the page. He is removing {{fact}} tags. Evidence of his gaming the system can be found here In which he did 3 reverts then stopped to the same section of the same page. On the same page he and I were banned for edit warning. He knows the rule and is using reverts as an edit tool, only making 3 a day. This is disruptive as long discussions have tried to work this out. and here The 3RR states

    The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks.

    Hal is clearly Gaming the system. Kilz (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC) A 4th revert has been added it is the removal of a part of referenced quote added by me. Kilz (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    I've added information to the this report, e.g. UTC times. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Around the same time, User Kilz made 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, or 4 reverts in just over 25 hours, replacing fact tags:
    --Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    There is a suspected sockpuppet report on Kilz with perhaps somewhat ambiguous checkuser results. None of the suspected sockpuppets listed on that report has edited this article since March 6. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Stale, not blocked - the edit war in question has died down for now. It's been nearly a day since the page was edited so there is nothing to prevent with a block. (Obviously, the incident was NOT stale when the report was filed, but it has sat here for 24 hours and if nobody has seen fit to make a block in that time, making one now would not be helpful and would only inflame the situation.)--B (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    Let me get this strait, Hal can break rules, enforce his edits by reverting, and because the admins didnt do anything that day he gets off the hook? That is insane. What you are doing is insane! Kilz (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    Blocks are not used for punishment. See Blocking policy. As long as the revert wars stop, the job is done as far as this noticeboard is concerned, whether they stop because of a block, because of page protection, in response to a warning, or for some other reason. Sometimes just posting a report here is enough to convince someone to stop. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    The problem is that HAL will keep doing exactly what he was doing before. Misplaced Pages will be worse off because of it. Reverting anyone he has a difference of opinion with. He has attacked new users and scared away everyone with a difference of opinion thatn him from the OOXML article. To the point that it is heavily Microsoft biased. Once he scares them away he starts removing their edits. He needs to be shown that there are rules and consequences. But he must have a friend someplace around here, because he is getting away with murder.
    You say this page is to stop problems, well there is still going to be a big one on the ooxml page , because no one is willing to do anything about it. Kilz (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    If edit warring continues, eventually something will be done about it. When you file a report, try to make it very complete, correct and timely. Note the changes I made to the above report; if that information had been there when the report was originally filed, it's possible something would have been done earlier. Perhaps incomplete or wrongly formatted reports tend to be ignored here, and by the time I fixed it up it was already pretty much stale. If you file another report about the same user here or elsewhere, I'd suggest including a link back to this report and any other relevant reports about the user, to establish ongoing problems. Administrators are volunteers and there is no roster: they pay attention to this noticeboard when they have time, so there's an element of chance involved in how long it takes for something to be addressed. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:86.148.189.191 reported by User:MickMacNee (blocked)

    Can someone please look at List of Geordies where the IP has made 5 reverts in the last couple of hours. This is a reopening of a long running dispute, with the look of a sock of User:Molag Bal. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    excuse me there is no evidence to prove I am Molag Bal, I am removing useless inaccurate material on that page which is offending me and was added by a banned user who was sockpuppeting, plus you are reverting too so it doesn't help. 86.148.189.191 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    The IP is BT, which is what Molag Bal uses, but then so do I. Does Molag have a history on Geordie stuff like this? Moreschi (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    He's just using it as an excuse to get the upper hand in the edit war! this has been ongoing for months and the user above MickMacNee, is carrying on the reverting methods of the banned user "Gregs the baker" who was also blocked for edit warring on this controversial topic. 86.148.189.191 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, I'd forgot, Molag's from Sunderland. Well, regardless of whether this IP is Molag Bal, which I can't prove for certain, he evidently knows Misplaced Pages policy very well, therefore 5RR is not really on. Blocked 48 hours. Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, MB has a number of confirmed socks all making the same arguments on that article. I'm very open to new arguments, but his repetition is just getting tedious. MickMacNee (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    One of them amusingly User:Zogonthetyne. MickMacNee (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    P.S. Can we have the article restored to the version prior to his reverts? MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    This noticeboard is for enforcing 3RR, not for making decisions on content disputes. The content of the article has to be decided among editors such as yourself. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Irishguy reported by User:Dobs7 (Result: Not blocked)


    A short explanation of the incident. Dobs7 (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC) I'm very new to Misplaced Pages...trying to learn, so please forgive my ignorance on how to do this correctly. Bear with me here. Thanks~

    Being a writer, I've tried my hand at coming on here and elaborating on a page I found with a group that I know of called NLT, specifically on V Sevani's page. On there I noticed a performer's name, Lissa Lauria who apparently has been on the V Sevani page for months. I felt that it was of interest, so I added her and links and references realizing that it would be interesting to follow it through from one page to the other. Someone suggested deleting Lissa Lauria. I discovered that I could reply in a very kindly manner and others chimed in. But what has happened since then is that I believe, IrishGuy keeps editing V Sevani's page...many, many times in the past few hours so that Lissa Lauria's name no longer appears there and therefore it would not be necessary to add her to Misplaced Pages. I've changed it back and explained why I did that, to keep everything the same until the dispute is finalized, but he keeps editing it over and over again. All I wanted was to put it back to the way it was on V Sevani's page, mentioning Lissa Lauria, so that everyone could clearly see why she should be added and not deleted. This is very frustrating to me. I really want to become a valuable part of Misplaced Pages, but this is turning into an edit war that I want no part of. Please, could someone take care of this? Thank you so much. All of this info. is on Lissa Lauria.Dobs7 (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    Incomplete report, and no 3RR violation. (Non-admin opinion.) The last 3 edits to the page by Irishguy were at 17:57, 20 March 2008, 18:26, 21 March 2008 and 23:20, 21 March 2008, spanning more than 24 hours. In the first of these 3 edits, Irishguy said in the edit summary, "rm unsourced". This means that the material you want to add, Dobs7, is not supported by a reference to a reliable source. According to the verifiability policy, material has to be supportable by references. The thing to do, then, is to find a reference for the information and add it to the article; then you will probably be able to keep that sentence in. Good luck, and I hope you enjoy editing Misplaced Pages. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    User: 72.0.180.2 reported by Andyvphil (talk) (Result: 31 hours)

    Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.0.180.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    The link is to a diff, to highlight the material (stating that Jeremiah Wright had been both a US Marine and a Navy "corpsman") 72.0.180.2 repeatedly (8 times, the first not being a revert, obviously) inserted in the article, being reverted out six times by at least two editors. I was unaware of this exchange when I first looked at the article, but I noticed that the (Medical?) "corpsman" business was unsupported by either cite, so I left only the "Marine" business, assuming that since Obama had known Wright for 23 yearsd he was probably right to say Wright was a Marine, while the article writer that said he was in the Navy (and didn't mention his being a Marine) had probably misinterpreted some comment about Wright being aboard ship. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. The point is that 72.etc reverted other editors' deletions seven times.


    Again, in diff form highlighting the change 72.etc reverted three times. This had been the subject of a "third opinion" request a month ago, which had gone badly for 72.etc. (, and the following three sections or subsections) but I noticed that he had nonetheless restored the weasel-word version that had been rejected then. Also see .

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

    1. 22:32, 20 March 2008 (edit summary: "/* Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor */ revert until sorted out")
    2. 01:35, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "revert to consensus format until talk page shows consensus for new format...")
    3. 01:40, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "/* Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor */ add wright bio details for improved NPOV")
    4. 03:10, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "/* Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor */ add bio farther down (if you say less notable, I say ok, but still put it somewhere)")
    5. 03:33, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 199752278 by Paisan30well how about here then- it will be somewhere because to present Wright one-sided, is a BLP vio. too")
    6. 04:05, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "/* Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor */ I think it is least pov in second spot, pls see talk, remember this IS a blp issue")
    7. 04:42, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "/* Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor */ now with 2 cites including one calling wright's statements anti-american. can you possibly accept this?")
    8. 19:41, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 199801193 by Andyvphil (talk)rv BLP vio- andy you ARE NOT ALLOWED to re-add BLP text without using talk")
    9. 21:33, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 199918153 by Andyvphil (talk) you have yet to respond to the BLP vio, which is a new issue")
    10. 21:57, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 199924314 by Andyvphil you still are making no response to the current BLP problems on talk- BLP requires conservative editing- reported-")
    • Diff of promise to self-report, claiming BLP exemption from 3RR: here
    • Diff of withdrawal of promise to self-report:

    —Andyvphil (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:ViperNerd reported by User:CobraGeek (Result: Deferred to sock investigation)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-01-21T03:14:53
    • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, userspace vandalism, and general incivility.

    A short explanation of the incident. User committed three reverts under User:ViperNerd, then immediately logged off and used IP 65.188.38.31 to commit the fourth revert. This user was recently blocked for edit warring/3RR, and should probably get a progressively more severe block this time. User is a known sock-puppeteer.

    User is logging out to evade 3RR. Sock removes 3RR warning from ViperNerd's talk page. 65.188.38.31 is a static address used by ViperNerd before that user registered an account. edg ☺ ☭ 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    Please do an IP comparison check of User:CobraGeek and User:Blowout 63-17!!! as well as the user who is making this report. Sockpuppetry can be effected by making new accounts as well as using anon IPs. Also, it is my belief that this new user User:Blowout 63-17!!! was created to bait people into a violation of 3RR (this is why I logged out), as this article has been peacefully resolved for a month now, and there have been no recent developments in the story. Then suddenly on the same day, a new account shows up to revert contentious edits, and anon IPs are continuously blanking the page of the Clemson University football recruiting scandal article. If any blocks are handed out, hand them out all around, but some serious disruption of Wiki is taking place here, and it wasn't instigated on my end. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, fine. I've blocked 63-17 Blowout!!! (talk · contribs) indefinitely, and will request CU to find out who that was: ViperNerd (talk · contribs) is blocked for 48 hours, if only on account of sheer folly on his behalf. Logging out to edit-war...I mean, really....Moreschi (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked User:ViperNerd is using another one of his socks to continue to vandalize and harass editors. The sock policy suggests that the block clock should be restarted or extended, would that be appropriate here? He was blocked yesterday, but the block essentially doesn't exist because of his use of these other IPs. Edgarde has already initiated a Sock investigation, and I added the new IP to the list of suspected socks. Any additional help here would be appreciated. --CobraGeek (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Closing, nothing else to do here. You guys seriously need to get over this nonsense. We have plenty of fans from rival schools that have somehow managed to get along on Misplaced Pages - the Clemson-USC nonsense is really getting old. --B (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    The postscript to this one can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/CobraGeek. ViperNerd was quite right: I've blocked CobraGeek for 72 hours. Moreschi (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Changchub reported by User:Sacerdote (Result: Page protected, no block)



    Note: , and See John Kerry history for evidence of WP:STALK edits following meSacerdote (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    This isn't a technical violation, as the reverts took place over more than 24 hours. Both parties are relatively new and essentially single issue editors, but the reporter is by far the newer and IMO the reportee is the wronged party here. The reporter is adopting disruptive tactics to promote a POV, for example forking the article and then nominating the original on AfD when it was obvious that a move request would have failed (the move was later proposed and does appear likely to fail). Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have actually protected the aricle due to what seems to be a considerably editing dispute. At this point I don't think it is neccessary to block anyone - including the reported, as the article currently under full protection so both sides will need to work things out on the talk page and perhaps start a mediation request. Signature 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Agree. Andrewa (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kapnisma reported by User:JdeJ (Result: 12 hours)


    User User:Kapnisma has been deleting content, somtimes sourced content, from multiple pages regarding the Macedonian minority in Greece. Edit history suggests using Misplaced Pages to push his own POV, but here reported because of 3RR-violation. JdeJ (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    The four reverts above are all removing the same map, which had been added 14:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC). During the same time period as the above reverts, JdeJ made exactly 3 reverts to re-add the map. I've added UTC times and a version link for a previous version reverted to (i.e. without the map). --Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    checkY Blocked 12 hours --B (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Marc KJH reported by User:Mikkalai (Result: 6 hours)

    (Same reverts in format originally supplied by Mikkalai:)

    • (cur) (last) 22:07, March 22, 2008 Marc KJH (Talk | contribs | block) (19,970 bytes) (Undid revision 200113033 by 24.18.223.175 (talk)) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 22:37, March 22, 2008 Marc KJH (Talk | contribs | block) (19,970 bytes) (Undid revision 200119230 by Buffer v2 (talk)rv border vandalism) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 21:07, March 23, 2008 Marc KJH (Talk | contribs | block) (18,775 bytes) (Undid revision 200328186 by Mikkalai (talk)) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 21:11, March 23, 2008 Marc KJH (Talk | contribs | block) (18,775 bytes) (version looks awfully oldish) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 21:15, March 23, 2008 Marc KJH (Talk | contribs | block) (18,775 bytes) (Undid revision 200329690 by Mikkalai (talk)you can't convince me with your awfully oldish version) (rollback | undo)
    User:Mikkalai has never contributed to the article, never contributed on talk page with ideas, opinions etc. The versions are almost the same, but he reverted to an awfully oldish version. Marc KJH (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Whether Mikkalai has contributed to the article in the past or not isn't a justification to edit war to get your preferred version, but I would also point out that this appears to be a relatively new account, and no warning was given about the 3 revert rule prior to the report here. --Onorem♠Dil 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    The account is new but this is not a new user. It is very well familiar with[REDACTED] rules. and ways. `'Míkka>t 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Marc KJH has demonstrated awareness of the 3RR rule by posting a 3RR warning to Mikkalai's talk page one minute after the user's last revert. (I provided the diff above). --Coppertwig (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec)I've reformatted the diffs supplied by Mikkalai and added the previous version reverted to and the diff of 3RR warning. During approximately the same 24-hour period, Mikkalai has done 3 reverts, plus a series of edits between 17:46 and 17:53 23 March (UTC) which do not appear to me to be reverts although it's always hard to be completely sure. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Diplomacy rule reported by User:Fireproeng (Result:24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Revert of opinion, after removal by several editors. No discussion. Fireproeng (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    Open-and-shut case. 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Wait! – I think maybe you opened and shut it a little fast. Have a look at the dates. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    The first 3 reverts were about a week ago. The last 3 reverts span just over a 24-hour period. (I inserted the UTC times into the above list of diffs.) --Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    The block notice at User talk:Diplomacy rule cites "edit warring", not 3RR, so perhaps Heimstern Läufer was aware of the dates after all. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Heimstern Läufer has replied on the user's talk page, concluding "...So I think it's not unreasonable to continue the block, but will have no objection if it is lifted, either." There are only about 4 hours left in the 24-hour block, anyway. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Suckitlosers reported by User:Baegis (Result: Blocked for vandalism)

    Probable ripened sock of banned editor. Block here and sort out sockpuppeting after disruption is over. Baegis (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    Already blocked --B (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


    User AnishShah19 for 3RR violation Reported by IAF (Result: No action)

    Please look into the 3RR violation on article Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Anishshah19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 23rd March. Indian_Air_Force (IAF)

    Though User:Anishshah19 and User:IAF have been edit-warring on this article,
    • Anishshah19 does not have four edits within a 24-hour period so I believe there is no 3RR violation
    • Since these two are the only participants in the edit war, it is likely that any sanctions issued would have to fall on both parties
    • There was no 3RR warning issued, at least no recent warning
    • User:IAF has a lengthy block record for edit-warring, disruption and sock puppetry. One of the articles for which he was cited was this very article, Indian religions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    (I modified the links and wording in the first line of this report.) --Coppertwig (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Rudget. 15:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:70.129.197.15 reported by User:Tool2Die4 (Result: No action)

    New information added. New list of diffs, and see also list of reverts by Tool2Die4 further below.

    *Previous version reverted to:

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

    IP is engaged in edit-warring. Is unable to bring an unbiased view to the situation. Crux of the matter is the use of Mythical National Championship in the opening paragraph. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    What you have listed as the "1st revert" is not a revert; that is the IP's 1st edit. Although the IP has made 4 edits, he/she has made only 3 reverts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I put a new list of diffs near the top of this report, striking out the links provided by Tool2Die4. 70.129.197.15 did 5 edits between 13:55 and 20:26 on 24 March. All 5 edits produced identically the same version of the article, therefore the last 4 are reverts. I've also provided a list of reverts by Tool2Die4, below. I count 4 definite reverts by Tool2Die4 as well. Tool2Die4 also did an edit at 16:57 on the same date (between the 2nd and 3rd reverts below) which could be argued to be a revert as well, since it causes the word "Mythical" to appear again in the article, and all of 70.129.197.15's edits have the effect of hiding the word "Mythical" inside a piped link so the word doesn't display, in the phrase Mythical National Championship. Neither editor is making use of the talk page at all. There isn't a single post to the talk page since November 2007! Editors should discuss the reasons for their edits on the article talk page and make an effort to work out a mutually acceptable solution there. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    Reverts by Tool2Die4:

    Previous version reverted to: 13:15, 24 March 2008

    User:Editor5435 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

    Previous version reverted to: See the previous version reverted to listed beside each revert, except for the last few which share the same previous version.

    *1st revert: 05:18, 23 March 2008

    Editor5435 continues to threaten to revert any edit that he doesn't like, labeling such edits "vandalism" . See ANI]. Ronz (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    No Ronz, I asked Spot to join the consensus on establishing a new article structure before making any significant edits. Why do you continue to spread these lies about me?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    1) There is no consensus on new structure. 2) My edit didn't change the structure, it improved the content and references. Spot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Spot, you aren't exactly telling the truth here, numerous editors support restructuring the article, its all there for everyone to read in the discussion page.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    There should also be an entry for Spot's violations. Putting a notice for Editor5435's violations up without doing the same for spot's shows a bias in the application of justice. -- Which is even more dangerous than the violations. Kevin Baas 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Looks like Spot was the one doing the edit-warring. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Spot is at 3 reverts by my count, so I didn't report him. He's been warned. Meanwhile, Editor5435 is at 12 reverts. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    That only suggest to me that your bias is so deep that it's affecting your ability to count. Kevin Baas 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Kevin Baas 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Please follow WP:TALK. There are 12 diffs above. Each is a revert by Editor5435. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Amazing, Ronz included all of my editing activities under patents and other areas in the same complaint about my reverts of Spot's edits. Ronz is engaged in an all out assault against me, what exactly is going on here?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ronz open your eyes, I cleaned up the patent section and other areas yesterday, what are you talking about? You clearly are not acting in good faith here!--Editor5435 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    @Tool2Die4, can you explain yourself? I made 3 reverts, which is allowed. Editor5435 has made many more which is not. Editor5435 reverted first. How do you conclude that it was me and not him? Have you read the relevant discussion page? Spot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Spot, you made controversial edits, the correct procedure is to revert to the previous version while disagreements are resolved in the discussion page.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ronz, you are ignoring the fact Spot was acting independently of a consensus to improve the structure of the fractal compression article. His edit attempts only make the original problem worse. I asked him repeatably to settle this matter on the discussion page before making significant edits to the article. He ignored these requests and refused to cooperate with other editors who are all working on a solution.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Two wrongs don't make a right (and that goes for spot, as well) Kevin Baas 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    There is no consensus to improve the structure. The structure isn't the problem, the content and references are the problem, and that's what my edit addressed. A draft of it was vetted on the discussion page before I put it into the article. I didn't change the structure anyway. Spot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've modified the list of diffs to try to make it conform to the required format for these reports. I may be adding information soon about reverts by other users on the same page.19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC) --Coppertwig (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      Ronz has not edited the page for about 21 hours, and I have the impression that Ronz' edits were generally not reverts. Spot has edited 4 times recently. The last three of these are clearly reverts, but the first one has edit summary "replace first section with draft text from talk page" and therefore does not seem to me to be a revert. So no other editor seems to have violated 3RR recently on that page. (non-admin opinion.) --Coppertwig (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Tgcowbell reported by PerfectPolly (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    Tgcowbell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at article Jodie Kidd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Keeps reverting article Jodie Kidd to introduce POV violations and remove well established facts that do not suit him or her. It looks as though he/she has been going it for days PerfectPolly (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    No 3RR violation, but editwarring by Tgcowbell. (non-admin opinion.) Tgcowbell made only two groups of edits in the last couple of days. A group of consecutive edits by one editor usually count as one edit for 3RR. Tgcowbell has been making edits to the article with zero explanation in either the edit summary or on the article talk page, and at least 3 other editors have been reverting Tgcowbell's edits, also with little or no explanation. The talk page has not been edited since December! I encourage all editors to use the talk page, explain the reasons behind your edits, and try to come to an agreement on a version of the article. Please discuss on the talk page instead of editwarring. If Tgcowbell's edits are opposed by several other editors then Tgcowbell probably should not be continuing to make those edits -- though without explanations of the reasons for the edits it's hard to tell! By the way, this is a BLP. Note that editors can be blocked for editwarring even if the 3RR rule is not violated. Thank you for bringing this situation to this noticeboard, PerfectPolly, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I've posted a warning on Tgcowbell's talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:ScienceApologist reported by User:The Tutor (Result: Page protected for 1 week)


    SA has not helped with this page but has constantly reverted attempts to make it more coincidental with the citations. He also appears to have found my edit of a speller on a far distant page and reverted that see . The Tutor (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    This isn't a matter of who's right and who's wrong. You have been involved in the edit war as well; neither of you has accomplished anything by reverting the other. Therefore, I'll protect Mpemba effect for 1 week. Please resolve your conflict on the talk page, and remember WP:COOL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Pawatch reported by User:Montco (Result: Blocked for 3 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User has continued to edit State Rep. page to the Representatives official biography located at One other user has done the same thing in the past and another user has deleted without explanation information in the article. Montco (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    Reverse Report of User Montco by Pawatch! Montco has intentionally reverted content of this public servant with a grammatically and factually incorrect biography. This information can cause undue harm and libel upon said party.

    He further tried to intimidate me as a new user in the talk section and attempted to use his superior knowledge of the Misplaced Pages environment to continue his proliferation of opinion and intimidation.

    Please research Montco to see if he has had volatile conversations with other Wiki users. In our limited research we have noticed that other users have asked, “why are you being so mean”, Montco replied, “ because I can be.” I do not think Wiki should support such deviant behavior and disrespect of its users.

    I asked that Montco be blocked from altering this page in the future.

    Comment The material in the original version was sourced properly from major local news outlets. Your (Pawatch's) version does not follow WP:NPOV or WP:MOS guidelines. Please familiarize yourself with these policies and guidelines. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie 23:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Traditional unionist reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: )


    Edit warring seemingly based on the misapprehension that because someone who was born in the Republic of Ireland now lives in Northern Ireland they magically become Northern Irish, or even British based on the discussion on the talk page. One Night In Hackney303 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks and congratulations to One Night In Hackney for filling out the 3RR report correctly and completely -- the first one I've seen, I think! I'm not kidding: at least the last ten previous reports have been missing information. Thanks to One Night In Hackney, Traditional unionist and Belacqua Shuah for using the article talk page to discuss the content issue. Traditional unionist has been informed of the existence of the 3RR rule from in least one previous situation. The four reverts listed above are all adding the word "Northern" to the first sentence of the article. Belacqua Shuah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also removed the word "Northern" from the first sentence five times in the period 17:27 to 20:47 24 March, counting as at least four reverts. (Non-admin opinion.) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- 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.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic