Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 206.186.8.130 (talk) at 21:17, 22 July 2008 (→User:62.65.239.189 reported by User:206.186.8.130 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:17, 22 July 2008 by 206.186.8.130 (talk) (→User:62.65.239.189 reported by User:206.186.8.130 (Result: ))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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:Nouse4aname reported by User:MinYinChao (page protected)

    Note, the dispute is over whether or not the page should be decapitalized, like iPhone is. Since "britic" has been marketed in lower-case, like the iPhone, with, in fact, the use of a capital 'B' in the spelling of "britic" going against the very definition of the britic spelling system itself, it was decided on the request for page moves before that it would use the decapitalization template. User:Nouse4aname however kept removing this, and refused to listen to explanations or warnings.

    Time reported: 9:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    The user appears to have a history of edit warring, and has been blocked for it before. I fear that a perhaps longer block may be needed to deter the user in future. MinYinChao (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    No mention of any previous agreement was provided to me regarding an agreement to place the page using lowercase. I realise I exceeded 3RR and have not changed the page since. My "history" of edit warring is only when previously dealing with the disruptive editor User:USEDfan and his socks. I have requested an explanation as to why the page should be in lowercase here as I can see no reason in the English language as to why lowercase is used. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Furthermore, the first diff above is not a revert. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you. MinYinChao (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Mitigating circumstances aside, it is a pretty straightforward 3rr violation by a user who was blocked for 3rr about a month ago. I would have opted for a block. El_C 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Oh yes, that's right, I have a couple of blocks (one which was over-turned), and so I must be only interested in disrupting the encyclopedia and have nothing to contribute, so why not block me, right? How about a little WP:AGF? I assume that the other user would also have been blocked considering they also broke WP:3RR.... Oh, and again, the first diff provided above was not a revert Nouse4aname (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wikisurfer61 Result: no block

    reported by User:Ward3001 (Result: on hold) ==

    Wikisurfer61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


    Resolution of this matter is underway. Chergles (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    I have discussed it with the user and the user now understands 3RR. I have also discussed with administrator Cailil who writes in his own talk page that blocking is inappropriate...writing "Having looked over this a bit I have to say that a block in this case now would be punitive and that's not what blocking is for - we don't block as punishment for infractions of the rules, we block to prevent further disruption. If Wikisurfer61 edit wars again report them to WP:AN3 and note the warning you gave them in this instance, but I think it best to AGF that this user has got the message"
    So to those wanting block, I discussed it with the user, I asked an admin to block but the admin said it was not appropriate. I close this as a clerk. Chergles (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:218.186.65.34 reported by User:L0b0t (Result: 72 hours)

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

    Time reported: 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    This IP is a sock of blocked User:Yasis, he has been IP hopping to evade his block and stalking me to Talk:Water memory, Lemon Bay High School, Gump Roast, and other articles. Yasis was blocked for 3rr here and has since been on an IP hopping spree, see also Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Yasis. He is also trying to contact the user referred to here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive449#IP-hopping_.22cultural_references.22_edit_warrior, as this diff shows . I have no desire to edit war with Yasis, he is just being pedantic and needs to stop. Perhaps a range block is in order. He is also at 3rr 4rr on Lemon Bay High School where he keeps changing the section header "References" to "External links" or "Notes" saying that that is the way wikipedia likes it.

    "Notes" is the common proper usage. That is true. Grow up. 218.186.65.34 (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kurfürst reported by User:Bzuk (Result: Already blocked)

    Kurfürst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).
    • 1st revert: Admonished to "take it to the talk page."
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: User claimed he was reverting due to "Revisionist attempth thwarted again (sic)."
    • 5th revert: User now claiming "Revisionist attack on article integrity thwarted."
    • 6th revert: User now claiming "Vandalism reverted." Although comments are made on the talk page, the user continues to edit war with another user and does not refer to the talk page as advised. Comment made on the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-19 Aircraft of the Battle of Britain mediation page and on the WP:Aircraft Project Group Page. .

    This series of 3R reverts has escalated what was a simple content issue into a very heated set of attacks. User:Dapi89 and User:Minorhistorian are both experienced and well-regarded editors in the WP:Aviation Project Group and I was acting as a kind of surrogate peacekeeper but it wasn't working. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

    Already blocked by User:Chetblong. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:Ronjohn reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Time reported: 18:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: (+ others)

    User repeatedly inserts Wikinews-style material into Barack Obama article, despite warning and reverts from numerous editors. Initial insertion is clearly good faith by new editors; however, editor has also left belligerent comments on user talk pages or each reverter and declined to read guidelines for inclusion of material. LotLE×talk 18:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:InternetHero reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: Both blocked 24 h for edit warring)

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

    Time reported: 22:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    (Note user not logged in in the 4th example but he's admitted it was him: 'friend's IP'- but it's obvious from context anyway.)

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both were edit warring.  Sandstein  07:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:Unidare reported by User:Guliolopez (Result: indef block)

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

    Time reported: 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


    Blocked indefinitely for doing nothing but edit warring; this account can safely be assumed to be involved with the subject.  Sandstein  07:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:89.138.145.123/User:217.132.92.118 reported by User:Themightyquill (Result: article semiprotected)

    89.138.145.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    217.132.92.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 01:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected This involves changing IPs; a brief semiprotection is appropriate.  Sandstein  08:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:Badagnani reported by User:Jerem43 (Result: Protection)

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

    Time reported: 04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


    Related:

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Problematic user with a history of 3RR/Edit warring violations, at least 6 blocks in the past for such violations

    Extended discussion
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    There was no consensus for this merge, as seen at this discussion. Reporting user has a personal vendetta against me, and has often attempted to make my life difficult, despite my always editing in good faith and being a long-time and highly productive editor at Misplaced Pages. The right thing to do on the reporting editor's part was not to revert, over, and over again, insisting on this merge without discussion nor consensus, but in fact to discuss and develop consensus first. Badagnani (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    There is no personal vendetta, when he is right, I acknowledge it; when he is wrong I point it out and when I am wrong I accept it. While I have tussled with him in the past, he does make good contributions when he follows the rules, the problem is when he doesn't. This is another case of him going loose cannon. I understand that he does get overzealous and forgets what to behave according to the roles set forth by WP, I simply want to know that others and I will not tolerate his mis behavior. Please look at his block log and you will see what I mean.

    Also, he has a habit of using verbiage and wording that attempts to deflect his behaviors onto other, of which I am one of.

    I was reasonable and quite correct in asking for discussion and consensus prior to (not after) the significant idea of a merge in this case. This request should have been accepted after the first revert (the request for discussion and consensus was made from the very start); instead it was escalated by the reporting editor into many reverts on his part, showing an impetuous character that is quite opposite the thoughtful, considered, collaborative, and collegial manner we should aspire to at Misplaced Pages. Badagnani (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I looked for the discussion on the issue of the merge, but I could find neither Badagnani's rationale of his initial revert or Jerem43's rationale for his re-revert. It would be very helpful if one of you could provide me with a link to where you have been discussing since I am clearly looking in the wrong places (i.e. template and user talk pages.) CIreland (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    There was no discussion. I made the edits per WP:Bold, Badgnani disagreed with my edits and just began reverting them instead of asking me why I was making them or starting a discussion on the template talk page, on my talk page or the general WP:F&D page. When I asked him, on his talk page, not to revert the changes I had made and ask for an RFC if he disagreed with my changes, he did not respond. I also asked him not to revert in my edit summaries and ask for an RFC if he did not agree. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    The discussion does indeed exist, and is linked in my first response to this report. Such discussion (and consensus) is needed before such a significant merge, and, as mentioned above, was requested from the very first revert. A thoughtful, considered, collaborative, and collegial Wikipedian would likely have agreed to such a reasonable request rather than choose to revert again and again in an effort to get his ("bold") way. The request still stands (as well as the request to not report other users he does not like, on what are essentially content issues that are not germane to this page). Our fundamental cornerstone of discussion and consensus should be utilized in such cases, before (not after) such major edits are made. Thank you for your consideration.
    Regarding the message on my talk page, it was made in an intimidating and somewhat threatening manner, something that the reporting editor has unfortunately become known for.
    I see that the reporting editor, just after reporting me, in fact reverted yet again, to his preferred (merged) versions, again showing the lack of collegial manner this editor has unfortunately become known for. It's not too late to revert yourself and actually discuss and seek consensus, as requested from the very beginning. Badagnani (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    The point being: somewhere in middle of the revert war, one of you could have (by which I mean should have) started a discussion since it was clear their opinion was contested. No-one has made a fourth revert yet but I would normally block an editor for edit-warring without any discussion regardless of the three-revert-rule. Start an RFC, ask at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Food and drink, get a Third opinion or maybe even just discuss amongst yourselves but please make some concrete attempt to resolve the dispute that doesn't involve seeing who can get who blocked first (Answer:It would be a tie). CIreland (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Hi CIreland, the discussion you seek is indeed linked in the first comment I made at this report, just above. It is a bluelink and says "this discussion." As it's clear that the reporting editor has chosen to use "brute force," indeed reverting yet again just after making this report, do you agree that it's best to revert the templates to their original versions pending discussion and consensus? Badagnani (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    That is all I am asking for, for a discussion before the whole sale issue of reverting several hours of work. My main problem was that Badagnani just starting hitting the Undo button, which I asked not to do. I will gladly accept this suggestion. The reason for my report is because of past dealings with him and his refusal to accept the requests and suggestions of others in those cases. I was afraid that he would follow the pattern of behavior that he has displayed before on this template (here) and other articles (here). --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you as well; as the reporting editor has reverted yet again, just after making this report, do you agree that it's best to revert the templates to their original versions pending discussion and consensus for the merge? Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Page protected Good, I'll watchlist the discussion page. I dropped a note on Jerem43's talk page, since the location of the discussion is quite obscure. I'll also drop a note on the main WikiProject talk page. I'm going to protect the templates until such time as a consensus is reached. CIreland (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    I thank you for this; however, I see that you've protected the templates in the merged versions I had objected to, as the merge took place by "brute force." As the reporting editor reverted yet again, just after making this report, do you agree that it's best to revert the templates, in their protected versions, to their original versions pending discussion and consensus for the merge? I don't think that's too much to ask; otherwise it sends a strong message to the reporting editor that such "brute force," significant non-consensus merges may indeed be conducted without utilizing our project's fundamentally collaborative manner of editing, but may be imposed through insistent, repeated reverting prior to actual discussion and consensus. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to user talk pages and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Herbs and Spices task force. CIreland (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:Eplgleplcl and User:Vria reported by Ohconfucius (talk) (Result: No violation)

    Eplgleplcl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Single purpose accounts Eplgleplcl and Vria have been persisting in disrupting the article and associated talk page in concert, with flagrant attacks against people living or dead, and in violation of WP:A, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:Coatrack.

    Time reported: 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    Related talk page vandalism

    Related vandalism by suspected sockpuppet User:Vria

    Related talk page vandalism

    Ohconfucius (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Reply: with all due respect, I feel that you are apply the letter of the rule, rather than its spirit. the relevant section within WP:3RR states: "Edit warring is disruptive, and attempts to avoid this rule are even more disruptive. Trying to avoid breaching this rule by only making two reverts per day over an extended period, for example, is "gaming the system" and can also lead to administrative action. Rules such as this exist as guidelines for action, but are not set standards. Editors should remember that edit warring is not helpful to building an encyclopedia, and adhere to the spirit of the rules rather than the letter." Ohconfucius (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    BLP problem. I took a look at the article. Vria and Eplgleplcl are adding unsourced defamatory material about specific teachers who work at the school. They keep putting in a section called Unpopular staff with questionable conduct and inadequate academic background. I have left admin warnings for both of these editors and urge that they be blocked if they restore this material again. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:86.83.155.44 reported by User:Wammes Waggel (Result: IP 86.83.155.44 blocked for a month )

    Unfortunately I do not have the time to make a full report, but similar events (user adding reference to his own book) occurred on Light rail and HTM Personenvervoer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wammes Waggel (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

    Time reported: 10:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    → That kind of cases were recently withdrawn from meta-wiki, because your only purpose is "inadmissible stalking" by repeated reverting against me with 3 à 4 persons. This ref. was already there from September last Year without any objections at all. As usual with most regards: ing. D.A. Borgdorff - PEng. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC) For the last s.c. Diff, see but e.g. the following excuses from user:SarekOfVulcan (Talk | contribs) = about an apparently mistaken warning. D.A. Borgdorff - MASc EE by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC) - Details here please, just as my complaints regarded, lodged to WMF.
    Stale If the user resumes edit warring, he'll be blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    A couple of minutes ago. --Brownout 11:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    And again: , , . - Erik Baas (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Meanwhile taking over this "ref. deleting" - the well-known Dutch co-stalkers: Baas & Robotje from said mr. "Waggel" cum suis. I know my nagging onions. D.A. Borgdorff speaking on behalf of co-writer: Dr. H.D. Ploeger LL.M. (ed.) 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC) PS: a significant proof of this behavior is the efficient reversal of cause and effect by a reverted statement of Robotje about something else: of the record. Supposedly he is replacing it again and again all the time. D.A. Borgdorff as above 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    And here again a new case of violating WP:3RR. Besides that violation it is also obvious he is ignoring WP:COI even after I pointed him to that on my talk page. He read it and after his reply on my talk page he keeps reinserting references to his work mentioning his name in several articles these edit wars are about. For similar self promotion (usually in combination with related edit wars) he has recently been blocked for a month or longer on several language versions of Misplaced Pages:
    • 1 year on bg
    • 1 year on de
    • 1 month on el
    • 3 months on fr
    • 1 month on it
    • 6 months on pl
    • 1 year on sv
    • "indefinite" on tr
    Since these edit wars are going on on several articles, protecting all of them against editing doesn't seem a logic solution so blocking this anonymous user seems to be the only way to stop this. - Robotje (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    I have blocked the IP 86.83.155.44 for a month, due to disruptive editing, pushing reference (without attempting to achieve consensus with involved editors) etc. --Dirk Beetstra 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:93.107.137.177 reported by User:Bastun (Result: blocked )

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

    Time reported: 21:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


    User is edit warring over inclusion of a sentence in River Shannon saying its the longest river in the British Isles. One editor agrees with him/her, several others don't. But while there is discussion on the talk page, s/he is not engaging. From the last edit summary, its clear this isn't a new editor. Bastun 21:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    Edited to add: No action needed User has since been blocked for block evasion. Bastun 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked For block evasion. No need for further action here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:Vexorg reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Time reported: 23:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: June 30 2008 (note next revision has me inserting the figures).
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 15:46, July 20, 2008 (Vexorg warns me, indicating he is aware of the policy - also see other warnings from the past on Vexorg's talk page).

    This is indeed a complex case (see recent page history), but it involves Vexorg has continually edit warred on these figures, and has been edit warring against several other people (see talk). Please note that, despite consensus to the contrary, and much discussion on the talk page, this is still edit warring (which this user has a history of), and it will continue if this user continues to think edit warring will be ignored. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:Christo jones reported by User:Travelling Tragition (Result: Both users blocked 24 hours)

    Christo jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

    User is removing a band from the list - T.Rex - despite a source which meets the requirements of WP:V, as well as adding another artist to it - Whitney Houston - without a reliable source, and instead using a Last.fm biography, a Wiki which is written by its users. — Travelling Tragition 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    Both editors blocked for 24 hours. Both users have violated the three-revert-rule and, whilst Travelling Tragition (talk · contribs) may have a point about sourcing to a wiki, that is no excuse for edit-warring - especially when the article's talk page has not even been used to discuss the issue. CIreland (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    I have discussed this issue directly with Travelling Tragition at his talk-page, I even asked for the opinions of others at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard after he continuously insisted on his source being reliable, but they didn't think of the source as reliable or acceptable, however, Travelling Tragition chose to continue to abuse List of best-selling music artists--Harout72 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:89.242.104.114 reported by User:Angr (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Time reported: 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert: 18:24, 21 July 2008 (The first time, he reverted my removal of sources that don't say what he claims they do.)
    • 2nd revert: 19:56, 21 July 2008 (The second time is the same as the first.)
    • 3rd revert: 20:32, 21 July 2008 (Rather than revert him a second time, I instead added tags indicating that the sources had failed verification and don't show that linguists support this view; only non-linguists do. However, he reverted that too.)
    • 4th revert: 21:06, 21 July 2008 (The fourth time is the same as the third.)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 18:29, 21 July 2008 (This is him warning me about the 3RR, even though I had only reverted him once at that point. Still, it shows he's aware of the rule.)
    • note I came here to report the same user, he has also violated 3RR on the article Maltese language. The language he uses also leaves a lot to desired, he has been attacking at least four other users only today. JdeJ (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    Language I use leaves a lot to be desired? I have used one word of stress - "hell" - hardly a profanity. And I removed the tags due to the fact that they are not correct. If you actually cared to read them, it would be helpful. Also, reverting all my edits of today is Wiki-stalking, harrassment, and vandalism, considering that the other edits were undoubtedly correct, even if you are to consider the removal of the tags as not so. I also note that User:Angr was not given a 3RR warning for doing the exact same as I did? Hmm? 89.242.104.114 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    You removed tags without explaining why and without using the talk page. Even if your reasons would be valid, you still violated 3RR. As for "Wiki-stalking", it is hardly unusual for users to check the actions of a user who during his first day of edits gets into edit wars and personal conflicts on multiple pages. JdeJ (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    Are you actually telling me you have the cheek to suggest I did not use the talk page?! Waves this around, aghast. And no, but it is unusual for them to remove valid contributions:
    89.242.104.114 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    As if the above weren't bad enough, this anonymous IP is constantly posting "warnings" on my talk page, which I keep removing. I've told him to stay off my talk page several times, but he continues on regardless , , . He has also made numerous personal attacks, accusing users of "hypocrisy", "POV pushing" and the kicker, "making unacceptable edits".--Tsourkpk (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    Tsourkpk, you do not have the right to tell other users to stay off your page, and that is actually what helped contribute to some of your warnings. And those are not personal attacks. Deary me. You are the one that has been warned by multiple different users, and been blocked - I am the one who is correct. Now run along. ;) 89.242.104.114 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:89.242.104.114 reported by User:JdeJ (Result: already blocked )

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

    Time reported: 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


    User:InternetHero reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: no violation)

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

    Time reported: - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

    User has returned from ban, the previous report is still on this page, and within some hours has started reverting/edit warring again. (FWIW: I didn't do the intermediate revert- User:UB65 did so, completely unprompted from me, either on or off wiki.)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    (Note User was suspended for 24 hours, which explains the gap, and note that user was not logged in in the 5th example but he's admitted it was him: 'friend's IP'- but it's obvious from context anyway.)

    User:CrazyCats60201 reported by User:Madcoverboy (Result: No violation)

    CrazyCats60201‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • CrazyCats60201 repeatedly reverts existing and new images to: Northwestern Universty Rock.jpg
    • I subsequently uploaded a new image (University Hall and the Rock.jpg) created by myself in good faith attempt to improve upon previous image (Northwestern-Rock.JPG). This new image was likewise reverted by CrazyCats60201.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 21:54, 21 July 2008
    • No violation The first quoted revert is not actually a revert because it introduces new content. The new image was uploaded three minutes before that edit. A revert constitutes undoing the edits of other users — making a new edit does not count. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

    92.12.76.4 reported by Bzuk (Result: 1 month)

    Time reported: 14:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Note that this appears to be Harvey Carter, a previously banned editor who, despite some good intentions expressed on the user talk page, has continued to editwar with a number of editors and has now extended the 3R into more reverts and is still at it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC).
    Blocked – for a period of 1 month See User talk:92.12.76.4 where this IP editor admits he is a sock of a banned user, most likely User:HarveyCarter. See also an earlier SSP and a checkuser from 2007. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:87.198.252.66 reported by User:Domer48 (Result: )

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

    Time reported: 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


    Editor has previously been blocked for disruption on this same issue before, see 87.198.141.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 89.100.137.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Domer48'fenian' 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:93.107.64.86 reported by User:CarterBar (Result: )

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

    Time reported: 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    IP is banned User:Gold heart. Can an IP range block be applied. He can change his IP within the range 93.107 at will.

    User:Badagnani reported by User:Magioladitis (Result: )

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

    Time reported: 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • Comment - This was an undoing on my part of a mistaken category removal. The individual Tan Kai was born ca. 1973, but the year and date of birth is unknown. Thus, the category was quite correct.
    After each of my restorations of the proper cat, I wrote to the editor who had removed it and left clear edit summaries stating that it was a properly placed category and should not be removed; however, that editor chose to engage, aggressively and without response, in reverting my correct restoration of the proper cat each time. Thus, the report is illogical 1) because the editor's edits were admittedly incorrect, and 2) because the reporting editor reverted his/her mistaken edits the same number of times, even after having been informed at least five times that his/her edits were mistakes (i.e., the removal of an accurately placed category). Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

    User:62.65.239.189 reported by User:206.186.8.130 (Result: )

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

    Time reported: 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


    User:62.65.239.189 reported by User:206.186.8.130 (Result: )

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

    Time reported: 206.186.8.130 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


    Example

    == ] 
reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. 
{{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 
Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be from BEFORE all the reverting started. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning:

    See also

    Categories: