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 09:19, 16 August 2007 editKsy92003 (talk | contribs)10,990 editsm →[] reported by [] (Result: Not handled)← Previous edit Revision as of 09:21, 16 August 2007 edit undoSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,772 edits →[] reported by [] (Result: Not handled): no actionNext edit →
Line 535: Line 535:
:Neither of these requests were handled properly, going to see if they can work it out before they both get blocked ]<small><font color="#000000"><sup>]</sup></font></small> 06:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC) :Neither of these requests were handled properly, going to see if they can work it out before they both get blocked ]<small><font color="#000000"><sup>]</sup></font></small> 06:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result: Not handled)=== ===] reported by ] (Result: No Action)===
*] violation on *] violation on
{{Article|Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson}}. {{3RRV|Jmfangio}}: Time reported: 09:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC) {{Article|Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson}}. {{3RRV|Jmfangio}}: Time reported: 09:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 556: Line 556:


:::And I seem to remember last night, Chrisjnelson left a comment here, but then deleted it because he wanted to. You restored it, and do you remember what your edit summary was? "This needs to be seen." Whether you said something and retracted it or not, you still said it, and I still responded to it. I did the same thing to your comment that you did to Chrisjnelson's comment, which was perfectly acceptable by your standards. Now, when it's done to one of your comments, it's illegal? ''']'''<small>]</small> 09:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC) :::And I seem to remember last night, Chrisjnelson left a comment here, but then deleted it because he wanted to. You restored it, and do you remember what your edit summary was? "This needs to be seen." Whether you said something and retracted it or not, you still said it, and I still responded to it. I did the same thing to your comment that you did to Chrisjnelson's comment, which was perfectly acceptable by your standards. Now, when it's done to one of your comments, it's illegal? ''']'''<small>]</small> 09:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

* No action. Seriously guys does it really matter? Just leave the page at whatever state it is in now and go and find something useful to do. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


== Example == == Example ==

Revision as of 09:21, 16 August 2007


Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.

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.


    User:Beh-nam reported by User:Khampalak (Result:no action)

    Mohammed_Zahir_Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Several editors have tried engaging User:Beh-nam with regards to controversial edits that the user continues to make. Our edits have been reverted time and time again, despite efforts to engage the user. The user's activities go far beyond this article and are becoming extremely problematic for the vast majority of editors working on this and related articles.

    Article Discussion Page: User:Beh-nam Talk Page:

    Entering another piece for my argument. This is a comment left on my talk page by the user in question. It should help paint a picture of the motivations behind what I and others see as inappropriate behavior if not vandalism.

    My Talk:


    This user was repeatedly removing sourced material and I told him several times to stop removing sourced material. Removing sourced material is strictly considered vandalism and vandalism may be removed without the 3RR violation. So this 3RR violation is not valid since it was removing repeated vandalism. --Behnam 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Also, user:Khampalak has been removing this source repeadtly. Take a look at these 4 reverts from him. If a user is removing sourced info it is vandalism and leaves others no choice but to rv it again until they understand that sourced info cannot be removed. Here are his reverts of sourced material:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    --Behnam 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:Brickoceanmonth reported by User:Rjecina (Result: Indefinite - sockpuppet)

    Demographic history of Bačka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brickoceanmonth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    Reverts:

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

    4 times today he has deleted statement in article which is confirmed with internet source without any known reasons. In all his reverts he has deleted statement: "In 1948, after Yugoslav/Serbian ethnic cleansing Yugoslav Bačka had a population of 807,122, including". This user is without question somebody sockpuppet because he has become "new" member of wiki only today and in this 13 hours he has started 3 revert wars. During this short time he has broken 3RR rule in another article (Vlach language in Central Serbia)

    User:Brickoceanmonth reported by User:TodorBozhinov (Result:blocked sock)

    Template:Ethnic groups in Bulgaria (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brickoceanmonth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    Wait WP:RCU and stop with your accusations please.--Brickoceanmonth 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:218.133.184.93 reported by User:Arthur_Rubin (Result:48 hours)

    Copeland–Erdős constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 218.133.184.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    • (I can't find the exact version; but all of these are to the same version; even if the first one isn't a revert, the rest are)
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    Comment
    There have been at least 4 more reverts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:Str1977 reported by User:MichaelCPrice (Result:No Violation)

    Ebionites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Reverts:

    User insists on using misleading modern descriptions, and deletes others passages in entirety, despite talk page dialogue. Removes all references to Ebionite schism with "Pauline Christianity", which defined Ebionite movement, rendering article meaningless.

    • Comment It should be noted that the History section of the Ebionites article is being reworked by several editors in an attempt to make it more concise and remove some editorial commentary. Several of these supposed reverts were done in the normal course of editing for clarity, rather than the tit-for-tat dispute that is being implied. The complainer has a history of trying to provoke other editors into 3RR, and he is trying to get payback for a recent 3RR block on another article. Ovadyah 03:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment:Let me weigh in on the reverts reported. I can see only three actual reverts:
      • the 1st, 4th and 6th revert who all refer to the same passage revolving around the appropriateness of the terms "Pauline Christianity" and "Catholic Church".
      • However the 5th does not refer to that passage (as implied by the reporting editor) but to another passage that also include the word "Pauline Christianity". It is no revert at all but a content edit independent of any previous edits by another.
      • the 2nd and the 3rd are content edits too and as far as they concern totally different passages to the above should not be counted separately
      • Regarding the 2nd one should also take into account that it was partially self-reverted a few moments later by this edit
      • Finally, I am a bit confused about the times given above. My Misplaced Pages gives different dates for all these edits. Can anyone explain? Str1977 09:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I did not imply the 5th revert was from the same passage as the 1st, 4th and 6th -- quite the reverse since only the 1st, 4th and 6th were identified as the same. But the 3RR applies to all changes to an article, so this is irrelevant, hence the inclusion of the 2nd and 3rd as well. I agree the 2nd revert was partially reverted - but only partially. As for the times, they look fine to me, but my PC is on UK summer time, not GMT -- are the display times off by an hour? If so it should only be a relative shift and not affect any 3RR claim. --Michael C. Price 09:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, one hour. I did not say that they affect the issue, just that I was confused about this. You should adjust your settings.
    IMHO my edits are not reverts but pretty standard (though heated) edits in a conflicted article (I will not count the "reverts" on Michael's parts) - true, reverts are not restricted to one part of the article but if one revert and another concern unrelated passages they are usually considered one revert. Str1977 10:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:RookZERO reported by User:Exactends (Result:page protected / 48-hour block)

    Eurabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    Exactends 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    • comment, I must say this is a gross miscarriage of justice. While not officially proven just yet, Rook, like a lot us today, spent a great deal of time fighting rolling ip socks of permabanned User:His excellency. Given that you are allowed to infinitely revert banned users and their ip socks, I advocate for Rooks release from exile until The ip's are identified. Prester John 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Rook was blocked for 4RR and WP:NPA on a completely different subject today. Got on him for reporting Exactends though. Misou 07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:BIGCANDICEFAN reported by User:Bastun (Result:Final Warning)

    Dave_Finlay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BIGCANDICEFAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 22:59
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 00:03 (BIGCANDICEFAN then removed it).

    User continually removing Dave Finlay's ring nicknmaes - claims they don't exist. I gave him a link to google searches demonstrating how common they were. Another user also restored and inserted references to their use. These were also reverted. Yet another user also stated they were common knowledge. BIGCANDICEFAN denies this. He then stated "No those links are as useless as those nicknames and those nicknames are not on WWE.COM I practicly live there so no it's not on there." on the talk page. I gave him a direct link on the talk page to their use on WWE - he reverted again. Bastun 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:W. Frank reported by User:Domer48 (Result:12 hours)

    Gerry Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)



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

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

    User:220.253.45.202 reported by User:LuckyLouie (Result: Not handled)

    Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 220.253.45.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert (possible sockpuppet):
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Notice of possible 3RR:

    User:Misou reported by User:Foobaz and User:AndroidCat (Result: Not handled)

    Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

    Hi. The so-called reverts up there are - no surprise to me though, knowing the two guys reporting me - fake, as they do not cover the same area, same topic nor same content. BTW, on this earlier story it was me reporting RookZERO for 4RR and WP:NPA violations (got blocked 48hrs), see here.
    Anyway, see talk page. We went in "negotiations" of the controversial changes and left the revert game. The sockpuppet lie is regularly used to get unbriefed Admins to shoot me. If you really want to dive into this subject, check this here. Misou 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    "…no surprise to me though, knowing the two guys reporting me"?! Way to violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA in one fell swoop. I'm reporting you because you went far beyond your allowed 3 reverts and are preventing attempts to improve the article, not because i have some personal vendetta. I have stuck up for you before, and look forward to doing the same in the future. The catch is, you have to make edits that i and your other peers can work with. Foobaz·o< 20:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Listen, if I am making edits and someone comes along and reverts them without comment, refusing to use the talk page and then calling my edits "cult" edits, I am not ok with this. You have not shown any impartiality in the last months - to the contrary - and I have not seen you taking a stand against WP:NPAs against Scientologists. So I don't really care what you have to say to justify your behavior. The reverts you listed are a) not on the same subject, b) not on the same part of the article and c) reverts of pure POV pushing. That is what you support. I am not out for "fight" or some nonsense like this. I want neutral and correct encyclopedic articles. Show me that we are on the same page and we can stop wasting time here. Misou 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    According to Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule, "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." In many edit wars, including this one, both sides are convinced that their version is the right version. You don't get a free pass to violate WP:3RR because you disagree with the content of people's edits. None of the other editors involved broke three reverts. Foobaz·o< 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    Cool, you are trying to apply Misplaced Pages policy. Keep it that way, this is great! Misou 05:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    PS, RookZERO was blocked for 48hrs, keep looking. Misou 05:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:212.182.158.110 reported by User:Dynaflow (Result: Not handled)

    Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.182.158.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 14:34, 12 August 2007 (1st revert was a scaled down version of the change added with the last edit here, which was reverted by another user per the discussion on the Talk page. After the first revert, I could AGF, but the rest of the reversions blew that away. If necessary, consider the first revert as the initial version. This is not a strict 24h 3RR, but should be blockable as a disruption from a user who has shown a willingness to edit war.)
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: (poss. meat- or sockpuppet)
    • 5th revert:
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reported by User:Tbeatty (Result:2 weeks)

    Now normally this wouldn't be a technical violation yet here User:Giovanni33 acknowledges he understands 3RR policy, that he is edit warring, and that he was recruiting for more editors to continue his edit warring reversions so that he is not in technical violation. . This is blatant Gaming the System violation of 3RR. --Tbeatty 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


    Also, he's gamed the system before according to his extensive block log . Most recently, gaming it on June 28, 2007 with a 24 hour, 30 minute revert. --Tbeatty 03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:Flavius Belisarius reported by User:Vonones (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flavius Belisarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Comment - The personal attacks are to be noted too. --Vonones 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:DigiFilmMaker reported by User:Girolamo Savonarola (Result: Not handled)

    Red Digital Cinema Camera Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DigiFilmMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

      • Several {{spam}} warnings were placed on the user page and blanked by the user. (See user talk page history.)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: made by an anonymous editor

    Also suspected sock-puppet account: James8445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    Account behavior between two accounts is very contemporaneous, edits are nearly identical, as are edit summaries. No other substantial edits by either account. Girolamo Savonarola 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    Addressed above. Girolamo Savonarola 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:VitasV reported by User:Dr.Who (Result: 24 hours)

    Doctor Who story chronology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VitasV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    Even though other users have repeatedly told User:VitasV that he is making an incorrect change to the title of the Doctor Who movie, he just keeps changing it to the wrong name.

    • Not a brand new user. This user has been getting warnings since March about civility, edit warring, and blanking content, particularly with regard to that same webpage, but deletes warnings from talk page.

    Immediately after a specific 3RR warning, User:VitasV reverted again:

    Reported by Dr.Who.

    User:Dilip rajeev reported by User:PCPP (Result: Not handled)

    Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:

    Dilip has repeatedly reverted Ohconfucius's and my edits on Falun Gong and Persecution of Falun Gong, reverting entire pages and notices over a few disputed words within two days. He also called me a vandal, and a sock of User:Samuel Luo and threatened me with a user check . He has previously violated 3RR a little over a year ago --PCPP 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


    ==User:Art 281 reported User:AquariusBoy01 Milena Roucka, Art 281 keeps changing notable answers, like needs. So please block him, i do not know what to do.

    User:AquariusBoy01 reported by User:Art_281 (Result: appears to have been resolved)

    This user made created the following article Milena Roucka in which his version of the article had run-on sentences, fragments and no references. So I edited with more detailed stuff and with references but he keeps on reverting it saying that he "OWNS THE ARTICLE". I told him that I just added more detailed stuff with references and the article looks better with references and detailed parts, but he keeps on reverting it. I do not know what to do, I am doing what I am supposed to do and please warn him or something. Thanks!

    Milena Roucka (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AquariusBoy01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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

    • We worked it out.

    User:BigDunc reported by User:Conypiece (Result:Page protected)

    Birmingham pub bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Comment BigDunc is not a new user. He seems to be well aware of Wiki guidelines. However he has become too attached to the article in question. He has edited/reverted 3 individual editors contributions to the article in the last 12 hours. He has previously been warned from edit warring.


    User:Cz mike reported by User:Isarig (Result:24 hours)

    Coastal Road massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cz mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User is involved in a additional edit wars and additional 3RR violations at Dalal Mughrabi and at Baruch Goldstein.

    I was just about to report this user myself. They are edit-warring over a number of related entries, and while they are a new user, a warning was issued. Tewfik 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Please note the user continues to revert, the last 2 reverts (5 & 6) coming after the 3RR was filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)
    Also coming to alert that the disruption is ongoing, and so any action should be taken sooner rather than later. Tewfik 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:209.171.84.178 reported by User:TerriersFan (Result: 24 hours)

    TAXI (advertising agency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.171.84.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

    Blocked for 24 hours. If other IP's become a problem, let me know or go to WP:RFPP for semi-protection. MastCell 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:Burgas00 reported by User:Isarig (Result: 48 hours)

    Battle of Jenin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burgas00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:

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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 20:16, 15 August 2007 not a new user, but warned nonetheless, and responded by denying he violated 3RR, and removing the warning.
    Comment The user in question had this as a response to a uw-test warning I gave him after the second revert Kyaa the Catlord 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Egyegy (Result: Not handled)

    Middle East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Funkynusayri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 21:41
    • Not the first time that this user breaks 3rr or the first time he has been warned by an admin and other users about this particular deletion. Also keeps calling other editors names, even though they've never insulted him. Egyegy 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:Nospam3333 reported by User:Oli Filth (Result: Blocked 24 Hours)

    Clyde N. Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nospam3333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:Art 281 reported by User:AquariusBoy01

    He keeps reverting that Torrie Wilson's moves section taking away ":*Running tornado DDT (2003-04)

    I am not reverting it, I haven't revert it, I have been to the "Edit this page" I have never revert it, see the history. Art 281 00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:AquariusBoy01 reported by User:Art_281 (Result: No action)

    He keeps on putting on her article "Tornado DDT" and that move hasn't been used since 3 years ago, and even though it has the time in it, it's too old to put the move.

    Torrie Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AquariusBoy01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

    Neither of these requests were handled properly, going to see if they can work it out before they both get blocked CitiCat 06:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

    User:Jmfangio reported by User:Ksy92003 (Result: No Action)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jmfangio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

    • This user has previously violated WP:3RR and been blocked for WP:3RR twice in the past week (Friday and Tuesday)
    You need to realize, Jmfangio, that I typed my comment in response to your comment. Whether you removed it or not, my comment was still in response to yours. The value of my comment was lessened due to the removal of yours. Because I posted my comment, it needs to be visible what the reason for me leaving that comment was. By removing your comment, my comment doesn't make as much sense. I even came up with a compromise, striking out your comment, perfectly acceptable per WP:TPG, and that didn't satisfy you either. The comment that I was replying to needs to be visible so people reading that discussion can see why I said it.
    And I seem to remember last night, Chrisjnelson left a comment here, but then deleted it because he wanted to. You restored it, and do you remember what your edit summary was? "This needs to be seen." Whether you said something and retracted it or not, you still said it, and I still responded to it. I did the same thing to your comment that you did to Chrisjnelson's comment, which was perfectly acceptable by your standards. Now, when it's done to one of your comments, it's illegal? Ksy92003(talk) 09:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No action. Seriously guys does it really matter? Just leave the page at whatever state it is in now and go and find something useful to do. Spartaz 09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

    Example

    <!-- copy from _below_ this line -->
===] reported by ] (Result: Not handled)===
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to: 
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Categories: