Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:25, 26 October 2008 editNug (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,427 edits →User:Beatle Fab Four reported by User:Digwuren (Result: )← Previous edit Revision as of 04:25, 26 October 2008 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,206 edits →User:Beatle Fab Four reported by User:Digwuren (Result: No violation): ResultNext edit →
Line 472: Line 472:
::{{AN3|p}} Two days. Both parties are well-intentioned, but there is not enough Talk discussion. Last entry on the Talk page was October 2. ] (]) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) ::{{AN3|p}} Two days. Both parties are well-intentioned, but there is not enough Talk discussion. Last entry on the Talk page was October 2. ] (]) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


* Page: {{article|May There Always Be Sunshine}} * Page: {{article|May There Always Be Sunshine}}
Line 512: Line 512:


:::I agree with Irpen. Insertion of the info of the humorist persecuted has its merits. The two unexplained erratic moves of the articles do not have reasonable merits and actually are im violation of ] and look very much as baiting. I propose to move protect the article and discuss the better title on a proper ] (if there would be still in interest in article movement). IMHO Digwuren deserved a warning for his violation of ] and Beetle a warning for unneeded combativeness. I would not give blocks at that stage ] (]) 04:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC) :::I agree with Irpen. Insertion of the info of the humorist persecuted has its merits. The two unexplained erratic moves of the articles do not have reasonable merits and actually are im violation of ] and look very much as baiting. I propose to move protect the article and discuss the better title on a proper ] (if there would be still in interest in article movement). IMHO Digwuren deserved a warning for his violation of ] and Beetle a warning for unneeded combativeness. I would not give blocks at that stage ] (]) 04:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|nv}} A group of consecutive edits by the same editor counts as at most one revert. Under this rule there are no more than three reverts altogether by ]. Though the recent editing by both parties has led to a tense situation, it is not too late to have a proper discussion of the remaining issues on Talk. Notice that ] has opened a formal move proposal at ]. All those interested should participate there. Parties are strongly encouraged to wait for the outcome of the move discussion before moving again. ] (]) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


:::*I disagree with Alex or Irpen, I don't think this is a constructive approach. They are both Russian speakers with a history of conflict with Digwuren. I see no point in escalating this as further. The move attempt wasn't "trollish", nonsense or erratic, given the fact that it aligns with the Russian language name , which translates to "Sunny circle". I've made a formal move request in ], and discussion of the name should now take place . As far as I'm concerned this now a content issue and this 3RR report can be now closed. ] (]) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC) :::*I disagree with Alex or Irpen, I don't think this is a constructive approach. They are both Russian speakers with a history of conflict with Digwuren. I see no point in escalating this as further. The move attempt wasn't "trollish", nonsense or erratic, given the fact that it aligns with the Russian language name , which translates to "Sunny circle". I've made a formal move request in ], and discussion of the name should now take place . As far as I'm concerned this now a content issue and this 3RR report can be now closed. ] (]) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:25, 26 October 2008

Template:Moveprotected

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Violations

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


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

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

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son


    ward3001 reported by wontonkok (Result: warned)

    My apologies for being unable to decypher this form, I can't even figure out how to report this abuse any other way.

    Yesterday and now today, Ward3001 has endeavored to engage in an edit-war, repeatedly adding information regardless of WP:NOT and the consensus of multiple users that the information he insists on adding is completely irrelevant.

    Since it was first added on Aug 25, the information in question has been added and deleted numerous times, but until yesterday, it had been present for only 4 days out of the 53 days since its initial creation, or 2 days in the 51 days since it was first deleted.

    He has repeatedly threatened me (see my talk page) with administrative action and has refused every single attempt (I lost count after 10) I have made to resolve the situation in some other manner than being attacked.

    At his insistence, I created an RFC, which so far has come to the consensus that the information in question does not belong, yet he refuses both to abide by the current results and to allow multiple comments to be made, preferring instead to reinitiate another edit-war.

    The informataion in question is completely irrelevant, makes judgments solely on heresay, and is potentially damaging to the reputation of the person it pertains to in the way the information is presented. (I realize that for you or I, being labeled "Republican" is no big deal, but for someone who works in a place where "conservative" is a dirty word, it is indeed damaging.) It is this third reason that I must insist that it stays off the main page until the conflict can be resolved.

    In short, he is bullying, ignoring the rules he bludgeons others with, and his actions border on vandalism.

    I trust an admin's judgment in this situation so I'll keep my comments to a minimum (but I'll respond to any questions). I wanted to acknoweldge that both Wontonkok and I are guilty of incivility, and I'll accept any consequences an admin decides is appropriate. I also wanted to correct some falsehoods and exaggerations by Wontonkok. I did not give him a 3RR warning; that was done by another editor. I have not violated 3RR, and I'll let an admin decide if either or both of us have edit warred. I did not insist that Wontonkok set up an RFC. I did not even ask Wontonkok to do so, although I do not object to his doing it. (Indidentally, the RFC was not set up properly, as it did not show up on the RFCbio list. I'll try to fix it when I have more time, unless someone else prefers to handle that). I have not vandalized or violated WP:BLP. I re-inserted one sentence in the article that is properly sourced and, by most standards, minimally controversial (attending a fundraising dinner for John McCain). It certainly is not "hearsay"; it's in a reputable source. The sentence had been removed several days previously without an edit summary; it was in the article when the RFC was set up. My only goal was to get the article as it was when the RFC was set up and then let the RFC run its course. But I can see clearly that Wontonkok will remove the information at any cost, so I don't care to continue this conflict, and I'll wait for the RFC to finish (after it is set up properly). I'll stop there and let an admin do what needs to be done. I'm happy to answer questions. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Warned – for the record, both users are edit warring. That said, the text that was added is not supported by the reference, as the article says nothing about a donation; so, I understand the claim to the biographies of living persons policy (incorrectly sourced information is still unsourced information) and therefore the exception to the rule; for, unsourced information is better removed from the article than allowed to remain in it. Since there is an ongoing RFC regarding this information, I highly suggest keeping it off of the article until the assertion matches the source; and, then, if there is consensus to add it from the RFC, then do so; if not, then don't. --slakr 04:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    Question: Thanks for your comments. If the statement said that she attended the fundraising event (nothing about donation), is that properly sourced? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    Question: If the item in question is neither notable nor relevant, does it being properly sourced make it notable or relevant enough for inclusion? Wontonkok (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    86.151.125.184 reported by Thegreyanomaly (Result: 24h all round)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1rd revert:
    • 2th revert:
    • 3th revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    This POV vandal editor needs to be censured at minimum. They also need to be educated in WP:CIV. See the attacks s/he made on his/her talk page User talk: 86.151.125.184, User talk:Jehochman's and and my talk User_talk:Thegreyanomaly#POK_term

    All warnings were given in edit summaries. They continually have been making similar edits in several other Kashmir-related articles including Azad Kashmir, Wakhan Corridor. I believe the three above are the ones where 3/+RRs were violated. Give that they are a dynamic IP their vandalism is a little harder to detect.

    Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks you for 24h blocking them, I hope they will learn their lesson, however I would just like to remind you that this user is a dynamic IP. 86.153.131.239, 86.158.239.198, 86.158.234.151, 86.158.177.195, 86.158.177.97, etc. are all him/her too. I believe a range block might be necessary because those other IPs are free for this user to edit under. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    And I hope you do too. 24h. Sorry William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    Admins can clearly see that my edits are not vandalistic i hope the admins are less bias than William who only sees through one lense 86.162.66.35 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Whoffmannm reported by Kman543210 (Result: Blocked 12 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: (gave additional warning after this but continued to revert even after warned and reported)

    User made first edit on October 20 and has been reverted by several different editors for a few different reasons. There was a discussion on the talk page regarding the edits, but the user continues to insert the material against the removal of several users and not discussing on talk page. It looks like after user was warned on talk page, he reverted again without logging in with IP 84.21.34.232 (user acknowledged not logging in) and removed the warnings from his talk page.(Kman543210 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

    Londo06 reported by Tony1 (Result: 31 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I have made three reversions, I plan to make no further additions to that page within a 24-hour period. I had offered the option to come to the talk page which was declined. I plan to make no further ammendments to the page.Londo06 11:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Checked again; still only 3 reversions made by myself.Londo06 11:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Early today, the user announced at CONTEXT talk that s/he had made the change to the style guide, without prior discussion or stated rationale; the changes have been reverted by two users, one of them myself, asking in our edit summaries for discussion at talk. Tony (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    I can still only see three reversions made by myself.Londo06 11:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    SkyWalker reported by PC78 (Result: gets lucky)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Note: Edit war concerns the wikilink to United States in the infobox; this appears to be related to the report immediately above. PC78 (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Obviously in violation, but seems more in need of a Stern Warning than a block William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    ALR reported by Dogue (Result: go read the rules)

    ALR persists in deleting verifiable article sourced from the New York Times saying the NYTimes is speculating.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=DCEETA&oldid=246748310

    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Dogue (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Rejected. Go read the rules William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Inigmatus reported by SkyWriter (result: 72h)

    Inigmatus is continuing an edit war on the same page for which he has been blocked twice already.

    His point is attached to a content dispute in which he is trying to obscure that Messianism is a Christian movement, and that (instead) belief in Jesus and the New Testament is authentic Judaism.


    • 1st revert: (reverting a revert of his tendentious fact tag
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Sigh. This isn't the place for reporting edit warring (no, I don't know what the correct place is). Your report is rejected on the grounds that it only contains 3 reverts. However, I looked at the edit history, which has at least 4, so Ig gets blocked anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Inigmatus reported by SkyWriter

    Inigmatus is continuing an edit war on the same page for which he has been blocked twice already. (An edit war assumes intent to force a POV. As demonstrated here the intent of the "3rd edit" which wasn't even a revert, was an honest mistake assuming that such an edit is a revert - which it is not - and even then the addition not intended as an edit war since inigmatus clearly demonstrated his intent to self-revert the third disputed edit.)

    (1st ban was for actual content dispute, second ban was for misunderstanding between two editors who one thought he was making a disputed change when in fact he was not and the other party was just reverting his edits because she saw his name in the history log and didn't bother reading the edits that were actually being made and assumed he was reverting disputed content. She got banned, and inigmatus got banned for telling the admin not to ban her for the misunderstanding).

    His point is attached to a content dispute in which he is trying to obscure that Messianism is a Christian movement, and that (instead) belief in Jesus and the New Testament is authentic Judaism. (there is no obscuration, since the article fleshes it out already in detail.)

    The 3rd revert was undone by a self-revert carried out by another editor. Please see: and as attempts by Inigmatus to self-revert the change so as not to be in violation of 3RR. Last editor reverted before inigmatus could self-revert; and I personally find SkyWriter's constant harassment of 3RR on Inigmatus over various kinds of edits to change the article lede to be acceptable to all parties, to be willfully wikilawyering a disputed article, and I request that this 3RR warning violation report be removed since all other editors assume good faith, and have reached out even when there are multiple confusing 3RR issues between all editors involved. Currently a WP:MEDCAB has been created by Inigmatus in an attempt to resolve the dispute and Inigmatus's input in resolving the dispute is necessary to move consensus further. inigmatus (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


    • 1st revert: (reverting a revert of his tendentious fact tag
    • 2nd revert: (which clearly requests editors to not remove fact-tag because it is being brought to WP:MEDCAB's attention for resolution.)
    • 3rd revert: (not even a revert, so I am not even sure why this is included. "Jewish" was added because fact-dispute was not desired by other editors, so to be consistent with source the word "Jewish" was added since source says "Jewish/Christian movement." Why this edit is counted as a revert of the fact tag, is not understood and leads me to suspect this is 3RR wikilwayering beyond this point to ban a contributing editor to the article from commenting on the dispute.)
    • And then "3rd revert" is self-reverted anyways: but another editor self-reverted for him, and apparently this fact was ignored by the user reporting this 3RR violation.


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Whenever an admin gets to this -- please look in the history for the actual report. It's getting mangled with unsigned edits from Inigmatus. Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    SkyWriter can you please back off. There was no 3RR violation, and you are making stuff up. Besides, the "3rd" revert you posted change was about to be self-reverted anyways by myself before another editor got to it for me. Please look at your talk page. You refusal to dialog with me is proof of your bad faith concerning me, and proof that you are only here to wikilaywer me to oblivion, and I ask that you please quit your harassment. inigmatus (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Looking at the diff's posted above, and looking directly at history at best there are 2 edits, 2 reverts, and one correction. This also has a MedCab request in place, as well as suggestions for compromise have been ignored by SkyWriter, and apparently NO attempt at dispute resolution by SkyWriter either. Which is in the instructions to be followed prior to using the Administrators Notice Board. I believe "3O" was prematurely pulled as this issue need outside objective review. I have attempted to do so as an editor and have received a purely antagonistic response. NoTsuris (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    WorkerBee74 reported by Wikidemon (Result: 1 week)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    1. 03:53, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* More ACORN workers charged with forgery in new states in 2008 */ new section")- new section but was repeat of earlier proposal, hence reversion of a removal; not necessary to establish b/c editor is at 6RR anyway
    2. 05:21, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */ OK, you wanna just delete stuff and act like a spoiled child?")
      05:24, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */")
      05:25, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */")
    3. 11:54, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */ Stop your partisan whitewashing. Stop your campaign to WP:OWN the article. Declaring me "persona non grata" without community suppport proves you're trying to own it")
      11:56, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */")
    4. 15:20, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "GoodDamon and 300wackerdrive support this version. You do not have consensus for you removal of this well-sourcedd material. Please stop provoking an editwar")
    5. 18:45, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 247223128 by PhGustaf (talk)")
    6. 18:51, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 247224430 by Bali ultimate (talk)")
    • No specific 3RR warning given; however, above are deliberate, tendentious attempts to edit war and not a mere technical violation. Editor is a prolific POV SPA and is well aware of prohibition against edit warring, having been blocked for it already. Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    2008-10-23T19:15:41 SheffieldSteel (Talk | contribs | block) blocked WorkerBee74 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Guido den Broeder reported by RetroS1mone (Result: Blocked )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Guido den Broeder has a history of disruptive editing. Guido is an activist for CFS disease and has a very fringe idea that CFS and ME are separate diseases. When Guido does not agree with some article a tag is placed without discussion and Guido fights to keep the tag even after issues are discussed and consensus reached. RetroS1mone talk 22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:3RR#Exceptions clearly states "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt" whatever he has stated on talk page that it does not - Blocked for escalating time of 1 month. Note: has placed an unblock request, as is of course entitled to, so look to his talk page for any further admin opinions on the block. David Ruben 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    ] reported by ] (Result: Malformed)


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I have been monitoring the discussions behind the article The Syn. Bondegezou seems to have used the defense under Misplaced Pages Policy and banned the user Umbrello. However, if you visit Bondgegou's Web site, you will see his tone and bias. Bondegezou's reporting is one sided, biased, opinion based (specifically to fan related articles). If you need a first hand witness, we can provide that for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.192.90 (talk • contribs)

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. But this is not a case for this board anyways. Rather 24.47.192.90 seems to be User:Umbrellos IP and will be advised / warned, accordingly. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    Lucian Sunday reported by Masem (Result: No action)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This is a policy page; the user added text that was new to the page, and was reverted; he continued to add text, claiming to "Please contribute to talk", but there is no talk page discussion from him/her at all about the change in policy. The reverts back to the former version have all come from different editors, regulars of the page. Given this is a predominate policy page, the WP:BRD cycle needs to be upheld, and this user has not shown that yet. --MASEM 15:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    This editor removed a 3RR warning from his Talk page, with the comment 'My God where do they get these people', which suggests he's not feeling too diplomatic at the moment. I have urged him to reconsider his actions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    I have self reverted as a precautionary measure]. I will comment further in a moment. Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    That comment was based inter alia on an unfounded accusation of Vandalism. Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    "but there is no talk page discussion from him/her at all about the change in policy". Please follow the link at 1st revert and 4th revert above. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, I was mistaken on the no discussion, however, you were told about how changes to pages to work per that discussion, and you did, technically, violate the 3RR rule. You've reverted back, so there's no need for further action unless you continue to make changes before seeking consensus on the talk page. --MASEM
    You have accused me of Vandalism. Do you stand by that? Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    Having read Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts I made this comment on Masem's talk page. I believe he has failed to respond in an appropriate manner. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    No action. Since the editor self-reverted, and has stopped the war, there's no need to take any further admin action on this 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wikitestor/User:Korlzor and his array of IP sockpuppets reported by User:HJensen (Result: Blocks)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert: (now under the Wikitestor account as the Nadal article has been semiprotected)

    Obviously it is the same person operating under different anon IPs. He has even boasted towards an admin about his willingness to do so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Tiptoety#About_me_blocked_for_Nadal.27s_warring

    • Diff of 3RR warning: (not that it will ever be read)

    The user obviously uses dynamic IPs 62.57.XX.XXX. and 81.184.XX.XXX and has alternatively previsouly been blocked as Wikitestor and Korlzor for disruption. In the meantime, he just carries on with his IPs. This will never end, and his behavior is going on all over tennis articles. It is really sad to watch --HJensen, talk 17:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked I did two range blocks 81.184.0.0/16 and 62.57.0.0/16 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours for ‎ (Edit warring: block evasion Kolzor). No opinion on the content or whether other users should have been blocked as well. Fell free to amend or correct this as i am not a rangeblock bwizard, as well as close this report in any way and drivee home the mesagge to the user that he has to stop now as a prerequiste for a review of the situation.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    Looking at The IP diffs, I somehow didn't consider the possibility that Wikitestor might not already be blocked. He has meanwhile been blocked by Tiptoety as sockpuppet.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I just blocked Wikitestor (talk · contribs) as being a sockpuppet of blocked Korlzor (talk · contribs) whom is currently under a 12 day block. I am not opposed to Korlzor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) block being extend to indef though seeing as he has now abused close to 10 IP's and at least one account. Tiptoety 20:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    Update - It appears Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has extended Korlzor's block to 1 month. Tiptoety 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


    user:Ferrylodge (Result: No action)

    user:Ferrylodge has engaged in 3RR several times at the Sarah Palin article. user:Ferrylodge continuously removed a POV tag without consensus to remove, more than twice within a 24 hour period. He has also deleted material added through consensus between himself and a another editor, as a punitive move (against that different editor, or me, it's not clear) when I restored the POV tag. Please see:

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

    See talk for the first the second and third discussion about POV tag.Here's a relevant talk page or two related to deletions and POV: ,,.LamaLoLeshLa (talk).

    The third and fourth diffs are identical. The fifth and sixth diffs show me reverting myself, so they have nothing to do with edit-warring, nor do they remove or insert a POV tag. Also, none of the diffs are from today, so the matter is stale. However, if anyone would like to investigate the article and talk page in question, they will find that LLLL's edits have been very problematic, for a variety of reasons.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    no Declined: Malformed report; two DIFFs are identical; two DIFFs show self-reverts. seicer | talk | contribs 13:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    Rickvaughn reported by JuJube (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    Reverting to add musicians who are officially only touring with Smashing Pumpkins and not members. (Cite the user later added was a Spin article from '07 and lead singer Billy Corgan has since refuted this.) Does not discuss on talk page as advised. JuJube (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    Note – First edit is not a revert, but the other 4 diffs do constitute a violation. Also, both users went over 3RR.--KojiDude 15:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    Page protected Two days. Both parties are well-intentioned, but there is not enough Talk discussion. Last entry on the Talk page was October 2. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    User:Beatle Fab Four reported by User:Digwuren (Result: No violation)


    No "before" version; two of the reverts are partial and two are move reverts.

    • 1st revert: @2008-10-25T14:19:26Z
    • 2nd revert (move): @2008-10-25T17:17:51Z
    • 3rd revert: @2008-10-25T18:15:04Z
    • 4th revert (move): @ 2008-10-25T18:17:40Z

    In addition, there's some botchage with his reverts, leading to and , both of which are partial reverts. All of this -- particularly moving away an article being edited -- is highly disruptive, not to say disturbing :-(


    The user has been blocked for edit warring before.

    ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    Admins please take a look at the history of Digwuren first. His ONE YEAR ban for being VERY DISRUPTIVE EDITOR has just expired. My edits were all constructive, while his edits on a peaceful song's page were provocative. I just restored correct content. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    See User: Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatle Fab Four (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    Please also note that 3RR was not broken by me even formally. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    P.S. To understand the extent of ongoing Digwuren's provocations you may look at his today's edit , where he writes that Russian partisan Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya was "involving sabotage". Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    P.P.S. I absolutely do not understand why Digwuren was so pushy and made so ridiculous edits on an article about Russian song for children. First he adds absolutely unimportant info (he did it twice , ) about six-month prohibition of public performing for Estonian humorist (?!).Then he unreasonably changes capital letters to small ones in the name of the article . Then he claims that this Russian song is not Russian (, ). Then finally suddenly changes English title to another (incorrect) one .

    I have no reasonable explanation for his behavior (inserting deliberately incorrect content) except provocation. Looks like he didn’t learn his lessons. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: While the repeated addition of a piece of trivia about an Estonian humorist being sanctioned for ridiculing this song may even be notable (perhaps more appropriate for an article about the humorist rather than for one of the most popular Russian children songs), the article moving spree initiated by Digwuren fresh from a year-long ArbCom ban was just trolling, plain and simple. He does not bother to say a word at the talk page and just suddenly moves a stable article that existed under the current name for 2.5 years without any discussion into a lower case name , a purely nonsense move. Further, when his move was reverted, Digwuren moved it again to yet another name (!), again without bothering to propose. Trivia about a humorist aside, these moves seem to me nothing but pure trolling. And what else but trolling is the removal of totally uncontroversial information that this is a Russian song, like here? Or is the song's language unimportant for the song article? Beetle clearly made a mistake though, taking a bait and allowing himself to be carried away by Digwuren's provocation. But I am disappointed to see Digwuren immediately resorting to his old disruptive ways for which he was blocked for a year. This is one of the most ridiculous edit wars I've seen. --Irpen 23:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: the attempted move is not unreasonable, since the actual title in Russian is: Солнечный круг, which the new title would have corresponded with.. There was no way of knowing such a move would have been controversial, so it's not reasonable to expect a formal move request. Since this move has obviously been contested, the next step would be to make such a move proposal and this 3RR report should be closed. Martintg (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

    Clarification Titles of songs may differ in different languages. For example ‘Those were the days’ vs ‘Dorogoy Dlinnoyu’. In English speaking world this song (undoubtedly popular around the world) has its own lyrics (by Tom Botting) and is called ‘May There Always Be Sunshine’. Even in Russia its informal name is 'Пусть всегда...' Anyway, it was me who noticed that the name of the song in Russian is Solnechny Krug . But then Digwuren immediately changes the name to the plain translation of the Russian title . Again, smells strange. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    I am not commenting on the merits of the names. My point is that Digwuren's edits was a clear trolling: erratic moves to various names, failure to propose them at talk (no one asks for formal move requests), removing the basic fact that the song is Russian. This is ridiculous especially taking into account that this article is only about an innocent children song about sun, peace, mama and papa. True enough, unlike for simple vandalism, there is no clearly spelled out 3RR exception in the policy that covers reverting clearly trollish entries. Still, enforcing 3RR should not be robotic. Common sense is required. Even though Beatle should have still "played it safe", especially knowing Digwuren's block-shopping habits, and wait for someone else to notice this nonsense, I hope the closing admin would spend some time looking what nonsense this edit conflict is. But I am really sad that Digwuren resumed the exact same behavior which earned him a year-long ArbCom ban immediately upon its expiry. --Irpen 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Irpen. Insertion of the info of the humorist persecuted has its merits. The two unexplained erratic moves of the articles do not have reasonable merits and actually are im violation of WP:MOVE and look very much as baiting. I propose to move protect the article and discuss the better title on a proper WP:RM (if there would be still in interest in article movement). IMHO Digwuren deserved a warning for his violation of WP:MOVE and Beetle a warning for unneeded combativeness. I would not give blocks at that stage Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    No violation A group of consecutive edits by the same editor counts as at most one revert. Under this rule there are no more than three reverts altogether by Beatle Fab Four. Though the recent editing by both parties has led to a tense situation, it is not too late to have a proper discussion of the remaining issues on Talk. Notice that User:Martintg has opened a formal move proposal at Talk:May There Always Be Sunshine. All those interested should participate there. Parties are strongly encouraged to wait for the outcome of the move discussion before moving again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Alex or Irpen, I don't think this is a constructive approach. They are both Russian speakers with a history of conflict with Digwuren. I see no point in escalating this as further. The move attempt wasn't "trollish", nonsense or erratic, given the fact that it aligns with the Russian language name Солнечный круг, which translates to "Sunny circle". I've made a formal move request in Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves#26_October_2008, and discussion of the name should now take place here. As far as I'm concerned this now a content issue and this 3RR report can be now closed. Martintg (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

    User:Crazyaboutlost reported by User:Opinoso (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 12:12, 25 October 2008
    • 2nd revert : 14:57, 25 October 2008
    • 3rd revert: 20:15, 25 October 2008
    • 4th revert: 20:55, 25 October 2008



    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 12:09, 25 October 2008
    • 2nd revert : 14:58, 25 October 2008
    • 3rd revert: 20:16, 25 October 2008



    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 12:05, 25 October 2008
    • 2nd revert : 14:57, 25 October 2008
    • 3rd revert: 20:12, 25 October 2008



    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 12:04, 25 October 2008
    • 2nd revert : 14:57, 25 October 2008
    • 3rd revert: 20:20, 25 October 2008



    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 12:04, 11:52, 25 October 2008
    • 2nd revert : 25 October 2008
    • 3rd revert: 20:45, 25 October 2008


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Notice that all his edits in Misplaced Pages are dedicated to reverte what I wrote. I already reported this user for being chasing my contributions, and he was warned by administrator Tanthalas39 to stop it, but he did not respect him. However, he keep reverting my contributions and he already violated the three-revert rule in 5 articles today.

    Moreover, the user continuously call me a "vandal", which is a personal attack. Opinoso (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


    Opinoso is a well known vandal from portuguese wikipedia. He has been blocked from portuguese wikipedia for three months for disruptive behaviour, ofend people, prejudice and so on. If you take a close look, you will se that my editions are valid.
    • Wheres is the source to claim that snows every year? Acctualy it does not snow every year. (And if I'm not mistake, it shoud be "snow falls").
    • There's a source proving what is said there.
    • That's a opinion. There's no source to prove that.
    • He had erased the source. I put it back
    • Opinoso suppressed that Carmen was portuguese. Some people in Brazil believe that she was brazilian, and do not handle well with the fact she wasn't...

    Crazyaboutlost (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    Stop posting here please guys. Let an admin deal with it now rather flying insults back and forth. Scarian 21:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    EvilAvatar reported by Commandar (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Evil_Avatar&action=history

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User is the owner of the site this article is covering and has been continuously reverting all changes made to the article for the past several weeks, regardless of content. He has been repeatedly asked to take the discussion to the article's talk page before making major changes, but has ignored these requests as well as revert war and conflict of interest warnings made on his user talk page. I am somewhat confused as to whether this is the proper venue to pursue this problem, and apologize if this is the wrong place. Commandar (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    Rebecca reported by Damiens.rf (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    In the 4th rv, Rebecca also removed a complete section of the article (I would be ok with discussing this removal, but the point is that in the same edit, she also made her 4th revert (that may appear disguised)).

    I have tried to communicate with Rebecca throughout the whole process, since her first revert, but she seems convinced that I'm incapable of helping the article. See talk here: User_talk:Rebecca#Grammar. --Damiens.rf 00:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

    Saulores reported by 72.75.110.31 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This editor repeated removed the {{Db-band}} from the article that they created ... it has been tagged by multiple editors ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) 01:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

    Categories: