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
Expertfp1 (talk | contribs)
332 edits
→Reports: added 3rr
Expertfp1 (talk | contribs)
332 edits
Line 884: Line 884:
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidemon#3rr_warning]
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidemon#3rr_warning]


Wikidemon modified the heading of my comment several times on the talk page,even after I reverted it and asked him to stop. He made uncivil comments accusing me of edit warring, then closed and archived the section, and placed a warning on my user page. He appears to be trying pass himself off as an administrator as well. [[User:Expertfp1|NDM]] ([[User talk:Expertfp1|talk]]) 11:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon modified the heading of my comment several times on the talk page,even after I reverted it and asked him to stop. He made uncivil comments accusing me of edit warring, then closed and archived the section, and placed a warning on my user page. He appears to be trying pass himself off as an administrator as well, by telling me I am on "probation" on my talk page. [[User:Expertfp1|NDM]] ([[User talk:Expertfp1|talk]]) 11:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:55, 9 March 2009

    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

    Reports

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


    User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]
    • 6th revert: [7]
    • 7th revert: [8]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [9]


    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)


    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

    Whiteroll reported by Ahonc (Result: warned 24h)

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

    1. 18:53, 1 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 273582563 by DDima (talk)")
    2. 18:59, 1 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274205590 by Ahonc (talk)")
    3. 22:48, 2 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274343973 by DDima (talk)")
    4. 16:42, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274587417 by Ahonc (talk)")
    5. 16:53, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274714703 by Nick UA (talk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahonc At the foot!")
    6. 17:02, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274717169 by Ahonc (talk)")

    —Anatoliy (Talk) 17:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Noob, no warning, so I'll do what you should have done William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what template I should use.--Anatoliy (Talk) 19:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahonc, replacing Ukrainian names with Russian names is not considered to meet the definition of vandalism here; because of this edit, where you incorrectly labeled Whiteroll's edit "vandalism", I must ask you to read WP:VANDALISM#NOT. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is continueing of wars for Kharkiv/Kharkov, Kiev/Kyiv (such edit wars also were on Commons last year).--Anatoliy (Talk) 20:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Kharkiv University‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Whiteroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 18:56, 1 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 273583964 by DDima (talk)")
    2. 22:48, 2 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274343997 by DDima (talk)")
    3. 16:54, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274715200 by Nick UA (talk)")
    4. 21:38, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274767904 by Nick UA (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Oh well, 24h then William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User continues warring: [12], [13]

    Yes, both were at it again. 48 to Whiteroll for another vio, and 12 to Ahonc for consistent blind reverting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User is continuing reverting [14].--Anatoliy (Talk) 14:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Prathambhu reported by Rajithmohan (Result: prot)


    • Previous version reverted to: [15]




    1. 19:02, 1 March 2009
    2. 19:11, 1 March 2009
    3. 13:10, 2 March 2009
    4. 01:37, 3 March 2009
    5. 10:03, 3 March 2009
    6. 12:50, 3 March 2009
    7. 16:30, 3 March 2009


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

    -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone - or probably both of you - can consider yourselves lucky: Hiberniantears (talk | contribs | block) m (53,513 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Kochi, India": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I resisted a gut reaction to hand out a round of blocks for edit warring, and opted to lock the page up for a week in the hope that this can be discussed either on the article talk page, or in an RfC. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    201.29.135.202 and 201.19.242.28 reported by Dr.K. (Result: semi)


    • Previous version reverted to: [21]



    • Diff of 3RR warning to User: 201.29.135.202 : [33]
    • User:201.19.242.28 knows of the WP:3RR rule as their edit summary here attests:[34]

    They were invited to participate multiple times here and here but they simply keep reverting and removing maintenace tags from the article without discussion. Now they changed the IP as well. Dr.K. logos 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is anyone here? This guy is a very prolific edit warrior. This is vandalism and it damages the maintenance tag system by allowing anonymous IPs and possible sockpuppets to add any garbage they see fit and defeat any tags that could possibly protect the reader from shock due to the ridiculous content. However I will not revert any longer because this makes an absolute mockery of discusssion and consensus as well as the core values of Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 05:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, we're all asleep :-). But I've semi protected the article in my dreams William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your intervention must be a dream. When do I wake up? Regardless, I will thank you very much as always. Take care William. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 09:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    User:Tommylotto reported by MehTsag (talk) (Result: prot)

    Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tommylotto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    —MehTsag (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tommylotto is clearly aware of the 3RR rule in regards to edit warring, he even warned another editor # 01:53, 6 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Education section is incorrect. */") potentially trying to game the system and frighten off the other editor so Tommylotto could win the edit war. MehTsag (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The original edit and 1st revert as identified above concerned a different topic (the subject's last semester in college). The 2nd revert as identified above was actually the original edit on a totally different subject (the identity of the school attended). Then I made only two reverts (identified as 3rd and 4th above) and stopped and after another editor started an edit war. I left the article with the version that I disagreed with and continued to seek consensus on the discussion page. The warning that I gave to the other editor (being used as evidence against me) was actually issue after my second revert had been undone (by WindyCityRider's 3rd revert) and after I had left the article with the version that I disagreed with. The warning that I issued was not an effort to intimidate the other editor (as I was temporarily conseeding to his version) but was actually coupled with an invitation to discuss the matter on the discussion page to seek consensus rather than pursuing an unproductive edit war. I think this report is totally unwarranted, was not adequately investigated by MehTsag, and was not proceeded by any warning whatsoever. I suspect content bias.Tommylotto (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) m (37,303 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Keith Olbermann": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    White adept reported by Spidern (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [35]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [41] (see my edit summary)

    The editor classified my bold edits as "vandalism", "page blanking", "petty misrepresentation", and even "sneaky vandalism". While every attempt was made to justify my edits, he continued to perform mass reverts of all edits which I made to the article without addressing individual edits. The person's attitude of ownership is getting in the way of progress on the article, and the user seems to be unwilling to collaborate. ←Spidern→ 07:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish to point out that there has been large scale vandalism on this and related pages. The edits of spidern which I reverted can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=275325161&oldid=275318803. If such large scale removal of very well sourced information ( this blanking, kindly note, is in addition to the several paragraphs that had been either completely distorted or deleted out in his earlier edits) with no apparent reason (other than specious claims of "bold" editing) to a contentious topic doesn't constitute vandalism I wonder what does. Note that all his edit summaries are misleading - none direct or clear as what changes he had done to the page - neither was any of these changes discussed on talk. Another reason I intervened with the blanking was that what had been blanked were all very well sourced material added through painstaking hours of work to the article.
    In response to the allegation of me taking an "attitude of ownership" - I wish to point out that this is not true. I had encouraged the above user's edits even when other editors derided them - assuming they were made in good faith. This was despite me noticing that were a lot of distortions introduced by his edits - some of which I point out in my recent edit on the article's talk. Allowing his recent edits ran the risk of a significant amount of very well sourced information being lost from the article - which would again require several hours of work to restore. This loss would be harder to fix given the constant barrage of vandalism on the page from newly registered users and IPs. My reverts were driven by this fear or concern - that later on the losses suffered, in terms of academic information and sources lost, would be much harder to fix - especially if other editors contribute on top of this version from which he had removed very well sourced and centrally relevant content.
    White adept (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Spidern, I wish to point out that this claim of yours that I reverted 5 times- automatically implies ( given that only me and you were involved ) that you have reverted at least 4 times today. That is, your claim of me violating the rule by reverting 5 times is equivalent, if arithmetic holds, to claiming that you yourself have violated the 3RR rule by reverting four times.
    White adept (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. A revert is any action which reverses the actions of other editors. I only made 2 reverts to the article within this time frame, seen here and here. You reverted my initial changes, then both of my reversions, and then reverted all subsequent changes I made (1, 2). You then went ahead and performed four reversions (1, 2, 3, 4) representing a number of edits which you didn't agree with, describing them in one edit summary as "intentional distortion". By the time this was all said and done, you had performed 9 8 reversions to the page within the last six and a half hours. ←Spidern→ 12:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    9 revisions?! You mean to say that me working on my own revision also counts as an additional revision?? Also what I referred to as an a "distortion" of a Times article in that particular edit summary - I have discussed in detail on talk.
    White adept (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at it again, I noticed that your last edit is re-adding a source, which may not be considered a reversion. However, once again, the prior 3 reversions are effectively undoing changes made by other editors, totaling a 10KB addition of content. ←Spidern→ 14:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd recommend closing this for now. White adept, please heed Jehocman's comment on your user talk page. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that with the revert below, which seems to have introduced material in violation of present arbcom remedies and which is not even listed in Spidern's evidence above, user:White adept stands at 5RR within less than 7 hours by my reckoning (not counting consecutive edits). Jayen466 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note two yet unanswered BLPN threads opened on the subject by myself [42] and Jayen466 [43], which have yet not received a response. ←Spidern→ 16:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sai Baba article needs some attention from admin staff. There have been two separate postings to BLP/N in the last few days (by Spidern and myself), which have remained without significant response. As for reverts, I did not agree with this revert by White adept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inasmuch as it went back to describing four assailants, aged 25 to 40 according to a press article, as "boys" murdered in Sai Baba's ashram. The four men were armed with knives and were killed by police after they had stabbed four of Sai Baba's attendants, killing two and injuring two others. I am also inclined to think that Spidern's edits undone by WA in that particular revert were justified by WP:DUE. user:White adept was recently advised by Jehochman, following an AE thread, not to introduce poorly sourced material in violation of the arbcom remedies and to avoid edit-warring. Jayen466 14:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point out on talk - am willing to fix this issue. I knew I was missing something thats why I asked immediately on talk to point out any perceived issues with "sources" after reinstating the deleted content. What I intended to restore was only well sourced material from a BBC documentary which had essentially been blanked in a series of edits. By the way it is Home Secretary of the State, VPB Nair, who in the BBC documentary refers to the assailants as "boys."( if I remember right ) We can fix these issues, including issues with sources, if you point them out on talk. But blanking all these info is not a constructive modality of editing. Also, I have put forward a proposal of branching the section to address BLP concerns. Also I assure you that I will pay particular attention to sources I use - and refrain from self published sources ( I had previously made the mistake of using Priddy's writings ) - and request that other editors please patiently point out if I accidently fail to do so in my edits.
    White adept (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    White adept, in this revert, after just having been advised to abide by the arbcom remedies, you reintroduced material cited to ex-followers' personal accounts (the "Findings") again. I had only deleted these parts two days ago, and explained on the talk page and in the edit summary why I deleted them, directly referring and linking to the arbcom findings. Were you aware you were reintroducing material in this revert that violates the arbcom remedies? Or are you of the opinion that the Findings document does not fall under "critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him"? Jayen466 16:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. S cautionned re edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deucalionite reported by Fut.Perf (Result: 3months)

    • Version reverted to: various; crucial contested point is the reinstatement of "Greek" and the omission of any link to Albanians in the lead sentence [44]
    • Reverts:
    1. 6 March, 18:03
    2. 6 March, 18:48
    3. 6 March, 19:00
    4. 6 March, 19:34
    5. 6 March, 20:04
    6. 6 March, 20:09

    This is the fifth 3RR violation of this user since January alone. He was blocked in a escalating sequence of 48hrs, 1 week and 10 days on 5 January, 21 January and 2 February respectively; a further 3RR violation on 16 February was met not with a block but with page protection (see ANI discussion). Prior to this, he already had 9 distinct blocks between 2006 and 2008; his total block time so far is 70 days. All revert-warring conflicts are related to nationalist POV-pushing and tendentious OR editing in favour of a exaggerated view of Greek national continuity, either in its prehistory or (like here) in its interaction with neighbouring ethnicities. Two of the prior blocks were over issues near-identical to the present one.

    This has gone on since 2006. I've been asking for some decisive sanctions under WP:ARBMAC for this editor for a while. There is no hope for improvement in this editor's behaviour. It's time for a long-term topic ban, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: now a fifth and sixth revert. His opponent, Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs), is now beyond 3RR too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fut, I just had an edit-conflict with you, cause I was reporting myself.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no knowledge of this field. But I see that whenever you (Future) report somebody to here, you are deeply involved in the edit warring and reverted 3 times of disputed articles. That does not look very good...--Caspian blue 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple: If I were not myself involved, I wouldn't report people but deal with the situation myself, wouldn't I? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this has spiralled totally out of control. I've lost count how often the two have reverted now in their mad meltdown. I've tried to bring it to a halt by reverting to a somewhat middle-ground version we had earlier, even though I may have crossed 3RR with that myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest reverting to the middle ground version and locking the page down while we sort out the parameters of a ban. I'd be happy to lock the page as an uninvolved admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Page locked for 24 hrs, and reverted to the middle ground version. Any admin may feel free to reverse my action. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiberniantears, let me start by saying I think you did what you felt was best so do not take this the wrong way, but, I am not sure it is your place once you took administrative action to revert to a version that you thought was neutral. That being, the only way to decided what is truly neutral is though consensus and talk page discussion. Personally, I feel blocks would have been a better route to have taken here but we each have our own ways of dealing with disputes. Tiptoety talk 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed... That said, I've found some success with this tactic in articles that involve some form of nationalist editing. Socking is often an issue, so I've found blocking to be somewhat ineffective against someone determined to change the world through Wikipedia. In this case, I also happen to have faith in Fut. Perfect's ability to discern a more NPOV version (which I did compare to the other versions, and it clearly has a middle ground tone).Hiberniantears (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked into this particular article, but I have felt that there are times when an Administrator should not just lock a page and then walk away taking no responsibility for the version that was locked. This particularly applies to nationalist editing. dougweller (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that too. My presence indicates that I'm still here, and another admin blocked the editors. So I did not walk away from it. The version I reverted to was a stable version that existed prior to the edit war (and it clearly states a compromise wording). Further, it was just a 24 hour protect meant to give breathing room to an admin with a demonstrated track record of dealing with such disputes. Beyond that, I indicated that anyone who felt the protection was unwarranted could reverse my action. I'm happy to take more responsibility for the version I reverted to, but I definitely wasn't going to leave the page protected on the last version by the guy who was causing the problem in the first place. Outside or hard range blocks, blocking nationalists is essentially an exercise in futility. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you didn't think I was criticising you, I was supporting your actions. dougweller (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops... I misread that! Time to call it a day... Hiberniantears (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that's what I call a block log. There's no reason we should put up with this. 3 months, and the next time will be indef. yandman 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Balkanian`s word reported by myself (Result: 8h)

    I am reporting myself for breaking 3RR rule on Souliotes. WP:BEBOLD cannot work every time. Just block me.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, that was a shame. Next time, just be a bit more patient: don't worry, you're not the only one looking after Wikipedia... I'm giving you the same length as your "opponent"'s 1st block. yandman 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, just block me, a minor wiki-adiction-break:-).Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Northdeutsch reported by Lucas (Result: indef as sock)

    4 reverts in ~10 hours and in only 1 article:

    ...At the same time, the war in other articles. 99% all edits by this user is reverts (in many articles) [50].

    24h for 3RR, but indef'd as a presumed sock of someone, I don't know who William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wayiran reported by Bestofmed (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: here


    The third revert was done by another account (Nepaheshgar) which is probably a sock puppet:

    The reverts removed a complete whole content supported mostly by inline-citations without explanation in edit summary nor talk page (silent revert) with the exception of the late account.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: here

    Bestofmed (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bad accusation and I have been established user for a long time. The user made a big change to the article without discussing it and getting a concensus. I have used the talkpage to indicate where I agree and my revert to wayIran was followed by subsequent edits.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a 3RR vio even if N is a sock; and you've presented no evidence for that, let alone a convincing case. You and they have a minor edit war going, which needs to be resolved by discussion on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was concerned with the edit war as Wayiran kept reverting without explanation. Anyway, I started a discussion with Nepaheshgar to resolve the issue. Thank you. Bestofmed (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Kraxler reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [51]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [55]

    In discussions with this user on my talk page, he has been extremely hostile and has resorted to threats. His conduct is not appropriate, as he is demonstrating a lack of civility, while not assuming good faith, demanding that he has ownership of the template, and not taking time to disengage and calm down. I'm seeking a third opinion as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Um. Well it doesn't *look* like 3RR to me... K only has 3 reverts. Just like you, though you didn't mark the 3rd as a revert. So, OK, if you think 3R is worth a block... William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    69.214.11.178, 70.229.32.97 and 69.212.200.165 reported by A-Kartoffel (Result: semi)


    • Previous version reverted to: link



    Both User:69.214.11.178 and User:70.229.32.97 are the same user. 69.212.200.165 appears to be the same as well. A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Following on from an RFPP on Nobody's Fault but Mine I have semi protected the article. I also blocked 69.214.11.178 (talk · contribs), someone else blocked 70.229.32.97 (talk · contribs) and the other IP only has 2 edits. Mfield (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An IP check with 69.212.200.165 reveals it's originating from Grand Rapids, the same as the two other blocked accounts. A-Kartoffel (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Azturkk reported by User:Vacio (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: link



    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    The list of belligerent parties in the infobox reflects this discussion in the talkpage. --Vacio (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm deeply unimpressed by the utter lack of use of the talk page in the recent edit war. Nonetheless,24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chaldean reported by KALMANI (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [60]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66]


    user:Chaldean keeps reverting back to something that he believes in that is not fact & according to the source they do not say anything about assyrian but in all actuality they refer only to Chaldeans. No where is there a mention about assyrians but user:Chaldean insists on reverting to the wrong information. Please help with this matter. As this will not end in user:Chaldean eyes, as he will start an edit war, revert, & bullying people. Thank You! KALMANI (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Contiguous edits count as one, so this is 1R, not 5. You beat Chaldean in that you can spell vandalism, but overall you lose by SHOUTING which is REALLY ANNOYING. Stop reverting each other and use the article talk page to discuss your dispute as though you were civilised human beings William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SpongeSebastian reported by User:The Cool Kat (Result: semi)

    User:SpongeSebastian and his IP adress 87.19.82.32 has started an edit-war claiming that Who Bob What Pants! is a season 5 episode. I don't know if he's confusing it with Pest of the West! or if he/she is simply a troll i'll assume good faith, but this has been going on for days. When i gained rolback rights i promised i wouldn't use them for edit-warring so i'm not i'm going to get revert his/her edits. The Cool Kat (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, this is one area of arcane knowledge I don't ccare to venture into. But I've semi'd the article for a week, maybe that will help. WP:RFCU is... over there William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    72.208.118.127 reported by Haftorang (Result: n/a)

    • Previous version reverted to: [[67]]
    • This is really getting old. Haftorang 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

    85.72.90.42 reported by Mikaey (Result: Article prot'd )


    • Previous version reverted to: [69]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [74]

    Matt (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jcmenal reported by 69.158.150.169 (Result: Blocked both 24+48 )


    • Previous version reverted to: [75]


    Notice of warning: [80]

    Long history of edit warring on this and other Mexico-related articles. Continues to restore sentence fragment, despite edit comments pointing this out, and reverts without discussion or edit comment. Doesn't seem fluent in English, and belligerent. Behaviour at other article listed is similar. Was previously blocked for edit warring on the very article, with similar pattern (see here) Given this, a longer block than usual may be warranted. 69.158.150.169 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - I've blocked Jcmenal for 48 hours for edit warring and then the IP for 24 hours for also edit warring (despite knowing that he has an account somewhere. Log in after the block expires, please). 69.158.X: Thanks for reporting but you know you where a bad boy for reverting too. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unionsoap reported by User:ProperlyRaised (Result: No vio)


    I have continually edited this page to remove public relations materials (specifically a "pink press" article) as well as unsubstantiated discussions of a former career. I would actually suggest that this page be removed entirely, as this person is of little or no significance. However, the party who continually reverts appears to be a relative of this individual. This person did a warning on me, which was completely absurd. I have not given her a warning, but I will if it is necessary.

    Definitely in violation of the 3RR.

    I believe that the page should be deleted entirely. It adds nothing to Wikipedia.

    • Result - What's the big deal in getting it deleted? Go to WP:AfD if you're that worried. Anyway, there's a no vio here as UnionSoap is actually doing a good job against a bunch of sock IPs. ProperlyRaised, please maked sure you log in and stop edit warring too. Thank you. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    74.248.178.84 reported by TastyPoutine (Result: Blocked IP for 24hrs )


    • Previous version reverted to: [81]


    Notice of warning: [86]

    User User:Rvbaxley uploaded a number of personal photos across several articles - which are at best low quality and irrelevant. The photos were removed by User:Icarus3 earlier. Reverts were done by 74.248.178.84 this evening.

    TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 06:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See Scampi history, too. As Rvbaxley and 74.248.178.84, this individual has done the same edit 5 times in 24 hours, including after being warned about 3RR. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lordvader2009 reported by Aktsu (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [87]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [92]

    The notice he's removing is required by MOS:FLAG to explain the flags are not representing nationality but sporting nationality, i.e. the country the participants are representing. --aktsu (t / c) 08:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's also removing information from the article (e.g. that Fernandes recived a yellow card, and that the doctor stoppage was due to a cut). I can only imagine he's doing it to have the page conform to his strict view of how a "result" section should look (i.e. without "excessive" information) - with the result that it's impossible to expand the section. --aktsu (t / c) 08:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably also add he's known for not responding to any inquiries and was previously blocked for not listening to people asking him to stop uploading images without free-use rationales (see block log). I mention it because I see little point in attempting to discuss the issue with him. --aktsu (t / c) 08:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He continues to remove (this time specifically sourced in case that was his problem) content (diff) --aktsu (t / c) 09:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A distressing lack of talk; but you could set him an example by using the article talk page to discuss this yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right, I'll do so in the future - though I somewhat doubt (and doubted) anything would come out of it going by experience... --aktsu (t / c) 09:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shshshsh and reported by Ultramegasuperstar (Result: Both blocked for 31 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: link



    I reverted due to my view of vandalism according WP:3RR rules. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The same applies to the user who reports this incident. Please look. I think I'm experienced enough to know when I can and cannot revert something. I was reverting this user's sneaky vandalism. The user violated both the consensus policy and the three revert rule. The article was even semiprotected because one anon was defying this consensus. He makes the same edits as the anon. An issue that was thoroughly discussed on the talk page, with sources being added. Ultramegasuperstar (talk · contribs) reverted everything despite not being a part of the discussion. I discussed it, cited sources and he still claims in the edit summary there are no sources, which is his sneaky vandalism and devious way of pushing his POV. What he says about me and how he presents the situation, it is all exactly the opposite, I reverted him because I considered his edits vandalism (and there is a reason, no?). I can cite even book sources, and he was also warned, but it didn't help. He called the newspapers I cited biased and that it's all lies. I also reported him and I suspect he is a sock puppet, which will be checked tomorrow. I ask admins to check this very well before clicking the block button. Shahid • Talk2me 13:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: 31 hours (talk · contribs).. In the span of only six hours, both editors reverted each other six or seven times. Regardless of the fact that each editor was labelling the other's edits as "vandalism," this is a textbook example of edit warring in a content dispute. Additionally as Shshshsh used rollback inappropriately in this content dispute, I have removed his rollbacker status. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Grant.Alpaugh reported by Knepflerle (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [93]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [98] - previous edit-warring blocks of 24, 24, 48, 55 and 72 hours - and the last less than a month ago.

    Clear consensus for material addition on Talk:UEFA_Europa_League_2009–10#Listing_teams (seven editors adding or supporting, only Grant removing the text) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#UEFA_Europa_League_2009; incorrectly labelling addition as "vandalism". Knepflerle (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Syjytg (reporter blocked)

    3RR violation and edit warring at :[99]by : Syjytg

    Syjytg was banned just a few days ago for doing exactly the same thing, but is continuing to disregard the rules.

    --Johny Foxy (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporter indef'd as a sock, S warned for edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TomCat4680

    He keeps merging Toon Disney artticle to Disney XD, and when I reverted those he kept reverting. To not keep reverting I placed a merge tag but then he reverted that too. I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this though. --Gman124 talk 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Him and his friends are vandalizing my user page and talk page. They are also impersonating administrators and sending me fake warnings. I stopped re-merging the articles and agreed to wait for a consensus.TomCat4680 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't vandalis your page, the above section (at top of this page) says that tell the user you are reporting about the fact that you have reported him/her here. So you consider leaving that message impersonating admins. --Gman124 talk 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't vandalize your page i gave you a warning for violating WP:3RR. Also i am not impersonating administrators by giving you a warning. Anybody can give warnings. Powergate92Talk 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Syjytg

    3RR violation at :[102]by : Syjytg

    Avrumelmakis1 reported by Ronz (Result: Blocked )

    To make it worse, he's edit-warring over a link to a promotional website that he's stated is his own site [103]. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's now blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keepcalmandcarryon reported by unomi (Result: )




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    Hi Sorry, I am new here and not really sure how to give an 3RR warning.. Basically I was gamed by Keepcalmandcarryon in collusion with user Tom Harrison. I was adding some notable and relevant direct quotes that they took exception to, I opened a section on the discussion page and invited them to discuss so we might find a solution but they kept reverting my edits without any comments. I asked for their reasoning on the discussion page repeatedly and 'naturally' undid their vandalistic deletions. The end result is that just as I navigated here to seek help I was notified that I was under 3RR warning. Tom Harrison had not previously done any editing on the topic, did not seem to be able to read the source and did not see fit to justify why he deleted my quotes. 2 minutes after I undid his deletion I received the 3RR warning.

    Please help us sort this out, thanks. Unomi (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an inappropriate use of this noticeboard. There is no 3RR, you are make serious bad faith accusations to two other editors, and you are using this noticeboard for resolving your issues. You need to stop. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Realist2 reported by 79.74.116.72 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [104]


    • 1st revert: [105]
      • I was following policy per WP:LEAD, leads don't need sourcing when the information is sourced elsewhere in the article body (which it was).
    • 2nd revert: [106]
      • Although I did not need to source the lead, I added the source, per your persistent request for a citation (that was not needed).
    • 3rd revert: [107]
      • You removed the source because you did not understand what it was (surely asking me would have been better), I reinserted the source and explained to you in the edit summary what it was.
    • 4th revert: [108]
      • Your comment on my talk page indicated that your removed the citation (that you had demanded), because you did not like the way it was formatted, even though the reference was formatted correctly and used in numerous other featured articles (see examples of these featured articles below).
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [109]
      • You did not warn me that there was an alleged/potential edit war, all you did was inform me that you were reporting me over this joke. At no point during these edits did you suggest there was an edit war, to me there didn't seem to be one. I thought you were simply a newbie who did not understand WP:LEAD or citation formatting conventions. Rather, you are an experienced account holder, signing out to cause mischief.

    Realist2 has something of a history of arbitrary reverting on any article pages related to Michael Jackson. When a "citation needed" tag was added today to one of the pages (for dubious worldwide sales of an album), he has repeatedly removed the tag, insisting that something he read in a book was a sufficient source for the information (which it is not as it fails WP:RS and WP:POV). Looking back through his edit history, it seems that his involvement is somewhat obsessional, often treating the Jackson article pages as his own property, and he tends to revert the work of others without discussion. It appears he has been banned for breaching the 3RR rule on various occasions before. 79.74.116.72 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll currently in discussion with 2 administrators trying to resolve the issue, hopefully we can get some sense out of this, so please bare with me. The book in question is used on a multitude of featured articles (Michael Jackson and Thriller (album)), so I'm not sure why he's moaning about WP:RS and WP:POV all of a sudden. It seems quite obvious also, that this is a registered user (I have a reasonable idea who it is) signed out to cause trouble. — R2 00:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, do not disrupt the format of the 3RR report as you have done above. If you have anything to say in your defence, then state it at the end of the report. Secondly, do not attempt to throw the blame onto me or any other user. You have clearly breached 3RR regardless of your so-called reasons for doing so. I am not signed in at present because I am not at home, but I will not allow you to use that as a smokescreen to deflect what you've done. Now kindly wait for an administrator to deal with this matter and discuss it further with him/her after they have investigated if you wish.79.74.116.72 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (this comment was sent by a different IP)[reply]
    How on earth is the "second revert" a revert? I specifically inserted the (apparently offending) citation (for the first time), like you requested. Am I banned for adding citations when they are requested? How does that count as a revert? I no numbers are not strictly relevant, but hopefully the assistance of the administrators will bring this issue to an amicable ending. I've certainly never seen citations rejected because an editor disagrees with how they are formatted. Having a notes section for the page number and a reference section for the specifics of the book is common practice on featured articles. — R2 02:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Technically, no 3RR violation here: [110][111] and [112] are reverts, but replacing the fact tag with a citation was not. Realist's formatting of the citation isn't my favorite, either, but I have seen it used on other articles, and refusing to accept it and stamping a "fact" tag over it doesn't seem particularly appropriate.—Kww(talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the method I was taught when getting Michael Jackson featured, I was actively encouraged to do it. The Beatles Wiki project seems to love it as well, numerous GA's are formatted in that manner. Rejecting a reference (that I didn't even need to give per WP:LEAD), because it was not formatted in a particular way, is rather odd to say the least. I've tried my best, I sourced the lead, even though it goes against my writing style, I sort the opinion of 2 admins (now 3), unfortunately they were busy. At no point did it ever occur to me that this was an edit war, rather someone who didn't understand the writing convention used. First it was one issue (sourcing the lead), then the problem seems to be the formatting of the reference itself. — R2 04:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - the way the reference was cited is somewhat problematic, but that alone is not the central issue. The claim that this album sold a certain amount of copies was not directly backed up by any source either in the opening lead or in the main body of the article (by directly, I mean a source ref added immediately after the claim). It would appear that the IP user above then added a fact tag, which is fair enough. Realist2 insisted (perhaps mistakenly) that the information was adequately sourced and thus began the edit war. In the end, the claim was backed up by some vague reference to a Michael Jackson biography that cannot be immediately fact-checked nor verified for its own factual accuracy (since it isn't any kind of recording industry publication). This is made all the more questionable when the actual worldwide sales certifications on the article page itself do not seem to come anywhere near the amount that is claimed. Looking through the history, it appears that this was discussed to some extent on Realist2's talk page prior to the 3RR, but s/he still went ahead and reverted the other user anyway so there is an undeniable breach of 3RR. As for the disputed information itself, I can't say if it is right or wrong, but I would find a more reliable source.GoldCoaster (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alekboyd reported by JRSP (Result: 24h)




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [119]


    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wells Fargo Bank reported by Marek69 (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [120]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [125]

    User Wells Fargo Bank is also warning other users with 3RR templates [126] -- Marek.69 talk 02:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Noob; no reverts since warning William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.34.161.230 and User:174.34.161.16 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: delete)


    • Previous version reverted to: [127]


    [133] [134] [135]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [136]


    Reverting back in a lot of puffery and a whole slew of mostly irrelevant or duplicative external links. Hipocrite (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Akradecki (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Cal Orey" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (restore) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coa$ter reported by 68.89.169.63 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [137]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [142]

    The problem is obvious upon examination. 68.89.169.63 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    99.229.36.15 reported by Lucek (Result: )

    100% all edits by this IP is reverts editions by 5 users [150], [151].

    User:wikidemon reported by User:Expertfp1 (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [152]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [157]

    Wikidemon modified the heading of my comment several times on the talk page,even after I reverted it and asked him to stop. He made uncivil comments accusing me of edit warring, then closed and archived the section, and placed a warning on my user page. He appears to be trying pass himself off as an administrator as well, by telling me I am on "probation" on my talk page. NDM (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=276016639"