Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:05, 29 May 2011

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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.

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:BelloWello (Result: 1 week)

Page: User talk:BelloWello (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

Comment: there are many more, on my talk page, these are just the simplest ones since he actually hit revert, if I included the others, I would assume the number comes close to twenty. bW 18:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't I have the right to remove my signature?Fountainviewkid 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Page: Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert: - not really a revert, but was done to mitigate previous edit.
• 3rd revert:

Has previously been blocked for 3RR, is well aware of 1RR sanctions on the page. I also gave him an opportunity to self revert which he removed from his page and then left a demand to stay off his page on my page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: all over talk page.

Comments:

• Comment - I'd be happy to go through dispute resolution, but first, I believe there is the matter of edit warring my talk page and violating 3RR on it, as well as violating 1RR on SAU. bW 18:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

3rr guidelines say "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). As for SAU, you've violated the 1RR. That's pretty clear. Fountainviewkid 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then file a report buddy, get your difs together. I did NOT violate 1RR. bW 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Really Bello? Then how do you explain all those edits adding "fundamentalist" and other changes and then re-adding them? Are you seriously denying you did not violate 1 RR at SAU article? If so the facts beg to differ. Fountainviewkid 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then POST THEM! I did NOT violate 1RR on the article. I added an additional sources. bW 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. You were allowed 1 RR. Here's the first one . Then you made this revert against the wording that had been agreed to , There was also this revert (addition) of a controversial description . That was before I did my 1 RR. After I did mine you did then did , and . Fountainviewkid 19:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

1st one was not within 24 hours. 2nd one was not a revert, it was new wording and there was no discussion on the wording. 3rd one was novel content, that source was brand new as was that paragraph. 4th was definitely a revert (that was my 1RR). 5th was not a revert, it was just saving a reference which you (accidentally, I assume) deleted while deleting something in the infobox during your second revert of the day. Unfortunately, that citation was used in a later paragraph, so I went and reattached it to that section. bW 19:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The new wording was a revert. You changed it to make it sound more positive towards Cottrell and Gladson. As for "novel content", additions of controversial descriptions, especially while being discussed is not exactly following the policies of WP. You reverted for more than once in the 24 hour period. Your addition of "historic Adventist" as a description is also controversial . This was also a revert . I think that makes something like 7 RR in 24 hours. Fountainviewkid 19:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversial does not make a 1RR violation. The new wording was NOT a revert as it was novel content. The addition of "conservative" to the infobox was novel, and had never been done before. It is also supported by numerous sources in the article. The final one was consecutive with the previous revert. As you know, consecutive reverts count as one. bW 19:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a 1 RR violation. You had previously tried to add "historic Adventist" at an earlier time. It was removed. You then just recently "reverted" by re-adding it in. Additionally you've been engaging in quite a bit of wikilawyering. Fountainviewkid 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a dif to where I previously added "historic" in parenthesis to the infobox. I certainly do NOT remember that. bW 19:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The edits at 15:53 and 16:19 on Southern Adventist University are clear reverts, no grey at all. The display on BW's talk page is simply appalling behavior for both parties. I have blocked FVW for a week. I think it is time to stop playing games. Kuru (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome reported by User:129.33.19.254 (Result: )

Page: Isbisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 01:51, 27 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 429440836 by 129.33.19.254 (talk)")
2. 12:24, 27 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431131357 by 108.69.80.43 (talk)")
3. 16:34, 27 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431188255 by 129.33.19.254 (talk)")

This user is a habitual edit warrior, and I have had numerous problems with him before, reverting without discussing. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

—129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Omar2788 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24h)

Page: Berber people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omar2788 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has been edit warring against multiple editors for over a week. O Fenian (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Editor continues to revert against consensus, and with uncitable images of statues and unidentified people. Has finally engaged in discussion, which will hopefully end the reverts. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 01:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Erikeltic reported by User:Jake Fuersturm (Result: No violation)

Page: Spock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Erikeltic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: and

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (slight difference from the first three, as I had edited the formatting in-between in an attempt to reach a compromise, otherwise the content is identical)
• 5th revert:

1. Note: reversion nos. 1 and 2 were posted by a different editor, however the content of reversions nos. 3 and 4 posted by Erikeltic are the same as nos. 1 and 2, and therefore is a continuation of the same edit war, pushing it into a 4th reversion overall
2. Note: reversion no. 5 is an unrelated reversion to the same article as per "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and

Here's the links to the full discussions diff'd above: and

Comments:

1. Erikeltic insists that it's not an edit war just because multiple editors "oppose the inclusion of these edits" .
2. Erikeltic is a habitual edit warrior, as evidenced by two previous blocks for violations of WP:3R here (a scant two weeks ago) and here

-- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• No violation You seem to be claiming that another editor's reverts count against him? That's a fairly innovative position. The last revert also contains a copyright dispute claim, which is generally given a wide berth until the claim is settled. Kuru (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree - it's quite clear that the identical reversion has been made, and given the short time span between the first pair of reversions and the second pair of reversion it is reasonable to link them even if not posted by the same editor. It's tantamount to gaming the system to avoid going offside on WP:3R. The two previous blocks have also established a pattern of behaviour. Furthermore, I did discuss the issue of "tag-teaming" already . Respectfully, I request that you reconsider your decision, which was reached in barely five minutes. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the copyright dispute claim, it would have made more sense to go directly to an AfD on the image in question, rather than posting an additional reversion to the article itself. He only posted the {{db-filecopyvio}} when I suggested the alternative course of action. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're confused. If you're claiming they are the same editor, then please take your report to WP:SPI. If you're claiming that the two editor's edits should count as a "group 3RR" violation, then no. It's not gaming the system, it appears to be two people that disagree with one other one who is pretty close to a 3RR violation himself. Kuru (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my TWO reversions (i.e. restorations) is in any way close to the FOUR required to put me offside. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

23:54 is a partial revert (restoring a ref removed in the previous edit), 21:20 and 19:40 are two simple reverts and labeled as such, 19:23 removed the extra verbiage added by Mattbuck in the previous edit. That's four in about four hours. Do you understand the nature of the problem and will you avoid editing the article for the next 24 hours, or is preventative action needed? Kuru (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't agree that 23:54 is a partial revert, because the deletion in the previous edit caused a claim that was left intact in the article to be UNSOURCED, which I believe Misplaced Pages tends to discourage
2. I also don't agree that 19:23 is a revert, as the edit did not seek to restore a previous reversion, but instead made a tangential change.
3. By my count, I am at TWO - if you're saying that I'm at FOUR, then NO, I don't understand the nature of the problem
4. If you are suggesting I be blocked from editing the Spock article for 24 hours, I would contend that it is unnecessary as a further reversion of the two edits in question really WOULD put me into numbers 3 and 4, respectively. Furthermore, it would be grossly unreasonable as my edits are no more tendentious that Erik's, and in fact I was the one who tried to bring the dispute to an end by initiating a talk page discussion. FURTHERMORE, Erik insisted on posting a revert a full TWO HOURS AFTER that discussion had already been initiated!! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading this as you will refrain from further reverts. I assure you that the other two edits revert the actions of other editors. I remain concerned that your understanding of the edit warring policy is flawed, and it is likely that you will need to slow the pace of your editing to avoid a re-appearance at this notice board. You may also note that it is indeed possible to discuss issues without using blod, all-caps, and red fonts to sound important; it just makes you look fervent when you do that and does little to build credibility. Kuru (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at the time stamps; I posted the {{db-filecopyvio}} before I even read your suggestion, which I found highly amusing. Erikeltic 05:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The time stamps are both as of 23:23, 28 May 2011 and , so you definitely didn't post before me. What IS amusing is that your reversion took place 36 minutes earlier. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this staight:

1. You think another editor's revert should count against me for a 3RR.

2. The time index is IDENTICAL, but claim I only did nominated your file because you suggested it to me in the first place.

3. An old block from 2009 and another 24 hour block from a couple of weeks ago is evidence of me being an "edit warrior".

4. I should not be permitted to have an opinion in Spock because I--and others--have not felt the need to change its content until after your recent edits.

Does that about sum up your issues tonight? Erikeltic 05:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

1. That should be obvious. Yes. Because you were well aware of a potential edit war brewing, and chose to involve yourself in the same edit anyways.
2. My suggestion definitely didn't come afterwards.
3. A reasonable editor would have learned after the first violation.
4. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but since you're so fond of quoting WP:BRD, then why is it that I'm the one who had to initiate "D" after your multiple reverts? AND, you still insisted on posting a revert a full TWO HOURS AFTER the discussion had already been initiated!! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted twice. Are you suggesting that Mike and I are "in cahoots" or something? What about David? It would seem from where I'm sitting that consensus is against your position and you are unhappy about it due to your clear

What about David??? He hasn't posted any recent edits, why are you dragging his name into this?

Anwyays, you reverted twice, but you were well aware of the two previous reverts which were the same as the ones you made. I'm not suggesting cahoots, but rather a gross disregard for the edit history (but given that you seem to show so much deference to Mike .... we'll let the other editors decide ....).

Also, as per the guidelines clearly stated above "If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and warnings." I only looked into your history because it was required of me. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of WP:OWN, what do you call this comment of yours? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm. Erikeltic 11:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm's not terribly civil -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Guys, please do not continue a dispute here. An admin's already given a result; if you disagree with it, please take it up with the closing admin. Continue your dispute with each other at the relevant talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The closing admin is well aware of my disagreement (see thread above) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:BelloWello reported by User:Lionelt (Result: )

Page: Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: n/a - this article subject to 1RR
• 4th revert: n/a - this article subject to 1RR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• As stated by MtKing, this is a content dispute, not subject to WP:BLP. BLP is for contentious material. This attribution issue does not rise to the level of a WP:BLP revert. Per WP:3RRNO he should've gone to the WP:BLPN noticeboard. Bello was advised not to rely on BLP in this case, and he did so anyway. Lionel (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring