Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MercuryBot (talk | contribs)
326 edits
m Archiving 7 thread(s) (older than 72h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive63.
Xcstar (talk | contribs)
297 edits
→Example: Alansohn
Line 417: Line 417:
**Guys, this is an edit war worthy of [[WP:LAME]]. Alan, as personal attacks go, that one is pretty tame. Justin, that comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of an encyclopedia article and off-topic talk page comments can be removed on demand, particularly when they are addressed at one editor in particular and no response is needed. But either way, this is about as lame as a thing to argue over. Please stop. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
**Guys, this is an edit war worthy of [[WP:LAME]]. Alan, as personal attacks go, that one is pretty tame. Justin, that comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of an encyclopedia article and off-topic talk page comments can be removed on demand, particularly when they are addressed at one editor in particular and no response is needed. But either way, this is about as lame as a thing to argue over. Please stop. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:Alansohn]] reported by [[User:Xcstar]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|L'Arche}}. {{3RRV|User:Alansohn}}: Time reported: 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=L%27Arche&oldid=182591783] <!-- 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 if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=L%27Arche&oldid=182758321]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=L%27Arche&oldid=182760736]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=L%27Arche&oldid=182755094http]


*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alansohn&oldid=182763068]

Alansohn does not want to engage in collegial editing. Instead he has been rather arbitrary in reverting my contributions and those of others. Apparently he has engaged in heated battles with other editors, eg, [[User_talk:Alansohn#Whatever]]. [[User:Xcstar|Xcstar]] ([[User talk:Xcstar|talk]]) 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
= Example =
= Example =
<pre>
<pre>

Revision as of 17:25, 7 January 2008

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

    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:Charles reported by User:Piotrus (Result: page protected )

    Duchies of Silesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Charles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Edit warring. User familiar with 3RR, having been blocked before; should know better.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification. This dispute is about the naming of a Duchy formerly located in the now Czech city of Opava, formerly Austrian and Sudeten German Troppau, called Opawa in Polish. It is not about any of the places called Oppau in German, of which a minor one is also called Opawa in Polish. Yet, the incorrect OR-ish term "Herzogtum Oppau" was

    Thus, Piotrus, a Polish editor and administrator on English Wikipedia, introduced and defended the non-existing German name "Herzogtum Oppau", which due to his persistence may annoy and then offend persons knowing about the history of Troppau. Then, he brought both of his opponents to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, resulting in me getting listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, the article getting protected with the non-existing German term, and Charles barely escaping, as I understand. -- Matthead  DisOuß   12:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I really dislike seeing edit wars where no-one involved is using the talk page. Please do not discuss disputed edits in edit summaries. Seek consensus on the talk page. Since the last edit was some hours ago I'm going to protect the article for 7 days to allow a consensus to be reached. If there is further edit warring on this article blocks will ensue quite liberally. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you that I do not seek edit wars and avoid them at all costs. Contrary to the belief that I have not learnt a single thing while editing, I have actively participated and initiated discussion on a great number of topics in order to seek resolution. That I hadn't in this instance I apologize to the administrators who have had to spend time on this issue. A general note though, I respond best if notified of these things, I believe it is standard, or at least courteous, practise to do so. Charles 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure, from my observations about the conduct of User Charles, that he practically seeks edit wars, and is involved in such relatively often. Henq (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know how this user navigated here other than following edits, etc. It should be noted that this users observations should specifically include unanswered notices on his talk page and discussions on the disputed pages, where he was adding unsourced material and original research that was not NPOV. Charles 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, and sorry that there wasn't even a notice of centralized discussion (truth be told, it's all over the place and if that's going to be the case, it should be mentioned everywhere where it applies). Kind of a mess really, there are a few move discussions concurrently and old, related discussions across several articles. Good night! Charles 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my... Well, all I can really say is to look at this user's comments on talk pages relating to the duchies, specifically naming requested moves as in bad faith when they were not. And yes, I was blocked for 3RR in the past but if Piotrus feels the need to bring up something that didn't involve him I feel inclined to mention that he, in the past, has been party to many, many disputes, which he seems to cause or share fault in. That I find myself linked to this page is disheartening really, but not surprising given the circumstances. Charles 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly I couldn't care less. The point was that you were all revert warring with each other and you personally did breach the 3RR and you all know better. Ad homs do not help your cause - comment on edits not editors. Please have a discussion - I'm sure you all have better things to do with your time then to end up being blocked over petty arguments that frankly don't reflect well on anyone involved. I was reasonably generous not blocking you - use the chance to do something constructive. Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not feel that anything other than a generally fair course of action was taken, which is totally and completely fine (and in fact, best desired). As such, I don't feel that there is generosity in saying that I wasn't blocked because, again, I think this would be recommended to discussion or mediation by any administrator. 3RR violations have always been followed by a block as far as I've observed. Looking back, I didn't violate it, although I and other editors came close, sadly. Charles 22:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like to split hairs, particularly when I think the admin ultimately made the right decision, but I am a fan of clarification. Upon analysis of the differences in question, I note that there are four identical versions by me in less than 24 hours, but no more than that. 3RR is broken after the fourth revert to the previous version in less than 24 hours. As I understand that, that is a version reverted to with four reverts all within 24 hours. That it came close to that for all parties is enough to warrant the restriction on the article, but to be scolded for it after when the lesson has been learnt before is not appreciated. Charles 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite possible that, after experience curve of a year or so apparently, User Charles has learnt how to go close to 3RR without precisely breaking it. However, it looks to me like he broke it this time. Having seen User Charles' temperament in work, frankly, my opinion is that each occasion he breaks 3RR, the block could well be one week. Another good idea would be that for User Charles, RR block will be given after 2RR. After all, if he really has something valuable to add to an article (and not deleting contributions of others), one edit will suffice for inserting it. Such policy would pacify royalty and nobility articles nicely. Henq (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, by all means, state all of your grievances in a new report and link it from here, if you must. I will be more than happy to address all of your questions and concerns and will back them up. Note also that you ignored messages on your own talk page and you are now (what I would say is) stalking because process does not agree with your edits to Saxon duchy related articles. Indeed, articles you aren't even involved in are now immediately of your concern because I have edited in them. That's okay, I'm not the king of Wikipedia and can't tell people not to edit, but it speaks to the veracity of the claims against me by you. Charles 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Case in point, finding this after my last reply here. I am done dealing with Henq's intrusion in this matter and advise him to file a report at WP:AN/I or any other appropriate venue if he has grievances with me. If necessary, I welcome anyone to post on my talk page if they feel they need to clear something up with me. Civility works if exercised. Charles 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kindly observe gist of the text on the greenish-bluish background. One cannot help a feeling that if so many editors find conduct of one editor as disruptive and problematic, possibly even detestable, as the text gives us to understand, there unavoidably lies a grave inherent problem in the very conduct of that one editor. Henq (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have refactored my previous comment here, it was not very civil and the discussion should stay closed. My apologies if anybody was offended by it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:XLR8TION reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: 1 week)

    Dominican Day Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). XLR8TION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: UnclePaco (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Not a new user. Has been blocked multiple times [1] for personal attacks as well as 3rr violation.

    Removal of sources. It was discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Day_Parade&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade

    Both parties are in violation, but are now discussing it on the talk page, blocking would serve no purpose unless it starts back up. --B (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've really been trying. User Xlr8tion has been speaking to me in a demeaning manner and using personal attacks. [2] UnclePaco (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for review re:XLR8TION

    I previously closed this request by issuing a warning to both users, both of whom appeared to have violated 3RR, but, at the time, were talking it out on the talk page. I felt that a block would not be helpful since the edit war appeared to have stopped. (I had never interacted with either user nor edited any of the involved articles prior to that time. ) Since that time, XLR8TION has continued to edit war in less than constructive ways and, though I feel I would be justified in issuing the block myself, I wanted to relist it here to allow an admin who has not yet taken an action in this matter to make the decision.

    Since the time I declined the block and left this warning with XLR8TION, he has repeatedly added a post from a white power message board to Puerto Rican Day Parade. (The only edits to that article in the last two days have been XLR8TION readding the link to the white power message board and others removing it.) He has also resumed reverting Dominican Day Parade, which was the original article for which this 3RR request was made.

    Again, while I would feel completely justified in making the block for edit warring (3RR is not a license to revert exactly 3 times per 24 hour period) and for adding inappropriate external links, since I myself have removed the white power message board, I wish to maintain transparency and ask another admin to reconsider this request. Thank you. --B (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewed. I have blocked XLR8TION for one week for edit warring, incivility and personal attacks. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This was the website he posted. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/puerto-ricans-133236p6.html . Innapropriate. UnclePaco (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:UnclePaco appears to be editing in bad faith. See this edit. [3] He has been attempting to characterize the Dominican Day Parade as a mostly criminal activity through inappropriate photos, weasel words, and wikilawyering. I will appeal XLR8TION's ban. Zenwhat (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Zenwhat appears to be editing in bad faith (Meatpuppet and utilizing WP:Stalk 67.101.248.187 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please cite diffs to substantiate those allegations. Zenwhat (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guettarda reported by User:TableManners (Result: No violation)

    D._James_Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [4]

    Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [5], [6], [7], [8]. The last edit suggests bad faith, incorrectly characterizes a fact tag (the fact tag was to a sentence that never had its own citation). I don't think this is good form on the part of Guettarda, but thought I'd submit for others to look at. Guettarda is well liked no doubt so disinterested admins only please. TableManners U·T·C 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see no 3RR violation here. Without going too much further into the issue (as arguments should not be continued on this page), the first two diffs you listed are sequential and the second one is unrelated to the other three. It's an edit war, and an unquestionably bad decision on Guettarda's part, but I don't think a block is warranted in this case. Kafziel Talk 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I did not intend to request a block. Just some other eyes on the issue. Thanks Kafziel, you may withdraw this if this is a place to request a block. TableManners U·T·C 06:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this noticeboard is for block requests (it looks like the editor who recommended you come here assumed that the four diffs were the same). I dropped Guettarda a warning and requested that he go through dispute resolution if need be. I think that's sufficient, and I'll go ahead and close this case. Kafziel Talk 06:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverts do not have to be related to be a violation of 3RR. Any full or partial reverts - even if you aren't reverting back to the same version - in excess of three is a violation. That said, as you correctly pointed out, two of the diffs were in sequence, so Guettarda reverted EXACTLY three times, not in excess of three times. I would close this as no violation, but because I am involved, I cannot. (Never mind the last sentence, after I typed this, I see you already did close it.) --B (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chemical Euphoria reported by User:Splette (Result: User warned )

    Attribution of recent climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chemical Euphoria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    This is my first 3RR report ever. So, please excuse in case I made any formal mistakes filing it. The global warming articles like this one seem to be a popular target for vandals, who do not agree with scientific consensus. Quite a number of sockpuppets have been 'retired' during the history of these articles. But new ones appear constantly. The user User:Chemical Euphoria appears to be one of them. The account was used for nothing else than reverting global warming articles[13]. In the case of Attribution of recent climate change the user constantly reverted a certain phrase as can be seen in the diffs, without engaging in any discussion on the talk page. This is why I file this report. Splette :) How's my driving? 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a brand new account and no warning had been given prior to the diffs given above ... HOWEVER, Raymond Arritt has tagged the user as being a suspected sock of a banned user (seems rather likely) so this may all be moot. --B (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I realize, that the user should have been tagged first. However, I also thought that this is a rather clear case and therefore went ahead and reported it. --Splette :) How's my driving? 07:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has now been warned and any further disruption will result in a block. please reopen this report by removing the result if they make any further reverts. Cheers. If this is a sock, there are mechanisms to deal with it elsewhere Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thanks! --Splette :) How's my driving? 07:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Betacommand reported by User:Yukichigai (Result: No violation)

    List of Metalocalypse characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Betacommand has been insistent that all non-free images be cleared out of the List of Metalocalypse characters article, claiming that WP:NFC says that lists are "prohibited" from using them. Both myself and another editor have taken issue with that interpretation of WP:NFC and have attempted to discuss the matter with Betacommand, who has elected not to participate. He has in the last hour attempted to restore his preferred version of the article (the part about the images, anyway), claiming that the enforcement of WP:NFC exempts him from 3RR. I find this hard to believe to say the least, and thus I am reporting the incident here. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation, copyvio removal is indeed exempt from 3RR, and character lists are not permitted to contain nonfree images. However, I would encourage Betacommand to seek input from other editors rather than reverting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm... where does policy say that? The only thing anyone can show me is an essay written by Durin. I know there's a specific prohibition on decorative images in grid-type lists, but this article is a list only in the name of the article. It's a merged collection of several stubs, essentially, with paragraphs and all that jazz. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a simple list, though. Rather than just being a table listing character names, and descriptions, this article has a good deal of content and I don't believe could be considered a blatant violation of the non-free content policy. I'm not inclined to block BC, though, because certainly he believes it is a violation, even if it isn't, and acted in good faith. --B (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Can I at least ask for a warning to be issued, lest some other, less-ballsy editor be run over roughshod because Betacommand doesn't realize he doesn't have carte blanche? -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've protected the article to stop the revert war and left a note on the talk page expressing a concern that this may not be a flagrant violation. Please discuss the issue there and feel free to open a request for comment to ask others to be involved or ask at a suitable location like WT:FAIR. --B (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lswhitten reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Page protected 24 hours... BLP issue)

    Jake Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lswhitten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [14]


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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [19]

    This user has been deleting the same piece of information for the past five days with no explanation. I was concerned that it was unsourced, so I made sure a source was added. It has been removed several times since then, with an explanation finally coming that the subject of the article probably wouldn't want the information in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a BLP issue with the information being added coming from what doesn't look like a mainstream source. I have suggested that the user contact Wikipedia via the address on Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). I'm more inclined to remove it and temporarily protect the article until m:OTRS can handle it than anything else. Controversial information about a living person should not be added unless it is well-sourced ... and this isn't it. --B (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree... I protected the page for 24 hours as a MyClient account is not sufficeintly reliable, even if it is the subjects own pageBalloonman (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zonbalance reported by User:Twerges (Result: page protected)

    Primal therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zonbalance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [20]


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

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

    Zonbalance continually reverts edits which remove a 'Discover' magazine editorial from the 'peer-reviewed journals' section (note that the Discover article is still referenced in the 'criticism' section). Zonbalance has refused at least 5 attempts at communication, on his talk page and on the discussion page, from me and from other users. Zonbalance has been informed of 3rr twice. Zonbalance usually leaves the comment blank for his reversions and does not attempt communication.Twerges (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors seemed to have violated 3RR three days ago, and have continued to revert, so I felt it was best to fully protect the page, so a discussion can hopefully take place. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alice reported by User:Perspicacite (Result: 24 Hours for both editors )

    Neal Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that is correct, User:Perspicacite.

    1. restore the citation you removed by your sixth revert in November 2007 and
    2. to move the incorrectly named (and wikilinked) statement "He also worked on the successful Gubernatorial campaign of Utah Governor John Huntsman." from the "See also" section

    I also made stylistic changes but they are more difficult to judge objectively.

    • My second edit today after you reverted my first edit above, restored the citation removed without explanation again and wikilinked "Gubernatorial" to Governor#United States. I suppose you could stretch a point and call it a "first revert" if you wished to edit war, but I regard it as a bona fide, good faith edit helpful to our readers in providing a useful wikilink for those (non-Americans?) unfamiliar with the American gubernatorial system.
    • My third edit today after you made a simple revert for the ninth time (removing the citation for the eighth time) provided a more exact link to a sub-section of one of our articles Angolan Civil War#1980s - in case that was the reason you were using simple reverts so often.

    I know you often edit from the north eastern USA, so was this your edit too, User:Perspicacite/Jose João as an IP because you forgot to logon?

    I know that you habitually revert other good faith editors yourself (rather than progressively improve and build upon their edits) but this vexatious attempt to again get me banned is really beyond the pale. Why, exactly, do you continue to remove this:

    "In 1984 and 1988 he was a member of The Council for National Policy.<ref name="cnp">{{cite web|author=|year=|url=http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.be.htm#blair|title=CNP Member Biographies|publisher=|accessdate=2007-12-07}}</ref>"

    (the link to Neal Blair's biography) by simple and successive reverts?
    Would it not be better to use the discussion page or the edit summary to tell me what exactly is unsatisfactory about my edits? Alice✉ 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    Alice, I know you prefer not to address the issues raised, but to instead spam every talkpage to confuse the other editors, but it would be really helpful if you would just not follow me to another page. Could you try improving articles? Jose João (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes it difficult "to address the issues raised" if you remove all unfavourable comments from your own talk page or play games on mine in an attempt to drown out more cordial editors wishing me the compliments of the season.
    What you call "spam" others call Wikipedia policy. Do you really think this: Hahaha is an appropriate response to serious questions posed about the effect of your reversions or do you really think my edits are worthless and that I am not making a good "try" at "improving articles"? Alice✉ 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It takes two to edit war. Alice has broken the 3RR and has been blocked for 24 hours. Perspicacite should know better given the number of times they have been blocked for 3RR violations have failed to discuss the edits as well. 24 hours for them too. Spartaz Humbug! 10:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Ray andrew reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: 24 hours)

    File:HighDefShare.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Ray andrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    User is trying to avoid having a chart updated given well sourced and documented news today. User was warned. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It appears four different editors have tried to update this pie chart graphic and each time Ray has reverted it unilaterally and against consensus. I've added a 6th revert diff. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.240.94.64 reported by User:69.74.29.2 (Result: both blocked 24 hours, article protected)

    St. John's University (New York City)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.240.94.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    With this IP address a quick view of the history makes diffs unnecessary.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.240.94.64


    • Not a new user.

    Looks to be a sock. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=St._John%27s_University_%28New_York_City%29&diff=182473225&oldid=182031122 . Looking at history page was taken off full protection. It seems it may be necessary to place it back on protection.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TiconderogaCCB 

    69.74.29.2 (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Please remember, though, that a user logged out is not a sock - there is no prohibition on editing while logged out. Both of you have violated 3RR and both are blocked for 24 hours. When the block expires, please discuss the issue on the talk page. --B (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yuan.C.Lee reported by User:Appletrees (Result: Yuan.C.Lee blocked 24 hours)

    SNU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yuan.C.Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Yuan.C.Lee has tried not to give priority to Korea on the disambiguous page for 5 month with his unilateral pushes. Among the three university, Seoul National University is the most famous and alphabetically meets to the conventional order but he denied to put the Korean educational institution at first by his anti-Korean sentiment per his contribution history. According to WP:3RR,

    a revert means means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.

    Per this description, User:Yuan.C.Lee violated 3RR by his POV. He even tagged a "fake" protection template on the page which only allows to administrators. He even does the same behavior on East Sea. I believe he should learn a lesson by suitable sanction. Thanks --Appletrees (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I(Yuan.C.Lee) should tell some. Appletrees revised the disambiguity page SNU with sort by alphabet without the agreement.

    Before this rivising, I had shown the evidences of popularity of the items. And none has been against me. it means my opinion was implicitly accepted.

    Suddenly IP User 128.2.17.19 reviced it. I just revised it. and the next Appletrees revised it. so I invited Appletrees to the talkpage. Though, he didn't leave any messages. He is the breaker at the wikipedia editing.

    • History:
    • [29] I revised the version of IP User 128.2.17.19 with the message See the note! ( I thought Sort by Popularity is accepted. )
    • [30] Appletrees revised it with Sort by Alphabet without agreement.
    • [31] I revised SNU with the message:Not handy. The convention is that the acronym links to the most popular one(though some words lack). I thought sort by pouplarity is handy.

    (I had left some evidences that the order of the popularity at SNU talk page)

    • [32] He revised it without agreement. so I revised it with the message: Appletrees had better leave any comments on the talk page, before editting. No one has claimed at the talk page.)
    • [33] though he left 'No message at talk page, and revised it.
    • At the talk page, I have given him a chance to choose which rule is favoured, sort by alphabets or sort by popularity before I final-changed SNU with sort by popularity.
    • He revised SNU. it means he chose sort by alphabets. I stopped the editing of the ordering by the popularity of my favour.
    • I followed his rule that items should be sorted by alphabets in disambiguity page.
    • [34] I changed East Sea, following the rule he taught me: Sort by alphabets.
    • [35] though he revised East Sea.
    • 1.) He revised SNU without leaving any messages at talk page of SNU.
    • 2.) He insisted me to follow sort by alphabet at a page SNU, and sort by popurality at another page East Sea.
    • 3.) Though, Wikipedia rule is this!!

    Totally he insisted me to use the wrong rule and lead me to the wrong way. I cannot accept his behavior, as a wikipedian.

    Should I accept a penalty in reason of his report? No way! --Yuan.C.Lee (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    you totally insist on keeping your "own rule". And you reverted 5 times on SNU and 3 times on East Sea by your unilateral POV. You didn't wait any time for me to answer your request. Before I commented my thought on my talk page or the relevant talk page, you just simply lied and insulted me and reverted so quickly. Even receiving my waring as to your 3RR, you just reverted without any intention to gather a consensus between us. Your disruptions are not only on 3RR violation but also on adding the fake template as if you were an admin. --Appletrees (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I count four reverts by Appletrees, one of which was removing the {{protected}} template added by a non-administrator. Excluding that one, he is only at three and to be perfectly honest, Yuan.C.Lee, edits there and on East Sea have been rather disruptive. I would normally block both users in a case like this, but the de-alphabetizing of a dab page under the claim that the more well-known institution should be at the top and the supposedly more well-known institution is Southern Nazarene University, which nobody has ever heard of and the supposedly lesser known university is Seoul National University ... well, I find that Appletrees edits were undoing disruption. Another admin may reverse me and block both users if you feel so inclined, but I really think we need to be more understanding when a user removes flagrant POV or undoes disruption, even if WP:3RR may not technically list that particular exception. Anyway, rant off. --B (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Justinm1978 reported by User:Alan.ca (Result: Warned both users)

    Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Justinm1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    During a content debate about inclusion of a source of information an anonymous user posted a personal attack against me. I removed the personal attack, but subsequently Justinm1978 insists on reverting the removal of this anonymous comment. I have also posted on the wikipedia etiquette page to get an outside perspective. 2008-01-06T10:09:30. Alan.ca (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Guys, this is an edit war worthy of WP:LAME. Alan, as personal attacks go, that one is pretty tame. Justin, that comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of an encyclopedia article and off-topic talk page comments can be removed on demand, particularly when they are addressed at one editor in particular and no response is needed. But either way, this is about as lame as a thing to argue over. Please stop. --B (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alansohn reported by User:Xcstar (Result: )

    L'Arche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [36]



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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [40]

    Alansohn does not want to engage in collegial editing. Instead he has been rather arbitrary in reverting my contributions and those of others. Apparently he has engaged in heated battles with other editors, eg, User_talk:Alansohn#Whatever. Xcstar (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

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

== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=182763983"