Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 759: Line 759:
*'''Comment''' <u>Any admin who review these three consecutive reports, please block the both users</u> in dispute for the 3RR violations and continued disruptions. (they all violate 3RR)--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' <u>Any admin who review these three consecutive reports, please block the both users</u> in dispute for the 3RR violations and continued disruptions. (they all violate 3RR)--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|24 hours}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|24 hours}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Misessus]] reported by [[User:Gregalton]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Inflation}}
* User: {{userlinks|Misessus}}

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=236601487&oldid=236590576]
* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=prev&oldid=235597913]

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=236614961&oldid=236601487]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=236727963&oldid=236717551]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=next&oldid=236730689]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=236685731&oldid=236671123]

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=prev&oldid=236730689]

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
Unreported case with same editor, same page, can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=233935846&oldid=233911764 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=233943222&oldid=233935871 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=233956878&oldid=233951236 here]. Also warned at that time in edit line.--[[User:Gregalton|Gregalton]] ([[User talk:Gregalton|talk]]) 21:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:56, 6 September 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Violations

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


    User: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: [1]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

    24.93.236.98 reported by Jclemens (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [6]


    Please see this user's user talk page for discussion of additional issues, such as deliberate factual errors and original research. User was previously blocked for 12h for this same behavior.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [11]

    This user has not discussed a signle edit, nor has s/he responded to a single message on the IP talk page. Multiple other editors, like User:Zythe and User:Paul730 have also reverted this user's repeated edits against consensus as well. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Simon Bar Sinister reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [12]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [16]

    User is tendentiously editing an article despite clear consensus on how the article (a child article to the main Walt Disney World Resort article) should be laid out. Further, no citation has been provided in any of the edits to back up his claims. User appears to have already been warned and was blocked while this was being prepared, so this may be a moot point.

    McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked by another admin for 24 hours. Incidentally, though, you (the reporter) are actually at 4RR right now. I'm not going to do anything at this point, but you could well have both ended up blocked. Take it to dispute resolution next time, before you hit your 4th revert. MastCell Talk 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also a previous 3RR report about the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.20.235.102 reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours)




    This fella has been edit-warring for days now over this text, which is opposed by a consensus of other editors. He's turned down invitations to the talk page and now is just rapidly reverting. MastCell Talk 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours--SmashvilleBONK! 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Kober reported by User:cityvalyu (Result:No violation) 06:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)))

    • Warning

    There is no requirement to warn this user who is highly experienced..anyway he reverted his own user page twice to erase the 3rr warnings (he erased the warning not once but twice: contempt at 3rr?}..even after that he reverted a (3+2+1) sixth time(see attention diverting tactic explained below)

    the user has used REVERT OPTION atleast four times within 24 HOUR time frame in the same article..please see proof of each of his 4 reverts within 24 hours

    Revert 1

    revert1:please compare similarities between [20] and | this ..both his versions differ from intermediate edits which are better referenced, neutral, balanced and rearranged into appropriate sections(most of content retained but rearranged logically)..see to know better

    1. 04:56, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (83,882 bytes) (rv mass destruction of the intro. Guy, learn to use talk page!) (undo)
    1. (cur) (last) 04:22, 4 September 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (79,404 bytes) (ref added.. rearrange) (undo)

    Revert 2

    revert2 please note the bytes as an easy guide PROOF:

    1. 08:46, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (75,810 bytes) (such gross changes should be discussed on talk. Deal with it!) (undo)
    1. 08:45, 4 September 2008 117.193.37.23--(cityvalyu dynamic server number without registering) (Talk) (79,402 bytes) (restored clean up) (undo)
    1. 06:04, 4 September 2008 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) (75,810 bytes)

    Revert 3

    please note the bytes as easy guide:revert3 PROOF :

    1. 08:59, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (75,824 bytes) (please don't destroy the article) (undo)
    1. 08:55, 4 September 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (79,416 bytes) (Undid revision 236198029 by Kober (talk) you too can use talk to develop consensus on MASSIVELY reverting twice..see edit summaries) (undo)
    1. 08:50, 4 September 2008 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (75,824 bytes) (semi) (undo)

    Warning

    Warning deleted by user:Kober after 3rd revert with disdain repeatedly: proof:

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [21]
    • DIFF OF 3RR WARNING DELETION: [22]

    Revert 4

    • 4th revert even after warning ; obvious motive: to feign good behaviour..

    please note the bytes as easy guide:revert4 PROOF :

    1. 09:57, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (75,856 bytes)
    1. 09:49, 4 September 2008 Raphaelhui (Talk | contribs) (75,978 bytes)
    1. 09:33, 4 September 2008 Treybien (Talk | contribs) m (75,856 bytes)


    • Comment

    the user does not read edit summaries before reverting to his favourable version..blatantly violating 3rr in this article alone..although i tried to revert his reverts, i didnt want to violate 3rr and hence stopped short of reverting thrice ..but once i realised that he is rampant reverter (see also his reverts in international recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the same date of sept 4, 2008) i am forwarding him here for he deserves a big ban..may be he hates the edits because of user hatred..since all my edits were made with citations and step by step so that anyone can understand that article was cleaned up to a better wp:point and rectified wp:unbalanced wp:undue clauses..irrespective of the edit conflicts , he has violated and deserves punishment since he is an EXPERIENCED user.. i hope admin will take appropriate actionCityvalyu (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh! It seems to me Cityvalyu has attributed all edits done today to me. This is ridiculous. I did not violate 3RR. I twice reverted an apparent destruction of the article, one by an IP [23], and the other by Cityvalyu [24] (sockpuppetry?). Even after that, I reverted myself.[25] --KoberTalk 10:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Kober has reverted himself, I do not see violations here. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User didnt revert the first 3 edits..he intentionally made and reverted the fourth edit to score brownie points to divert attention from previous 3 reverts..see the time when he deleted the warning messages and compare with the diversionary fourth reversion..Cityvalyu (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, your report is very hard to follow, Cityvalyu. Please use the link "Click here to add a new report" at the top and bottom of this page which provides a convenient template. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I HAVE rearranged..hope you are not saying this to act blind and be lenient with him..(i am not blaming you of racist slant as of now as i am assuming good faith)Cityvalyu (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still trying to wade through the report to determine exactly what's gone on, but in the meantime, Cityvalyu, (i) users can remove warnings from their talk page if they wish, as it's a prima facie indication that they've read them, (ii) to then repost the warning constitutes disruption, (iii) don't template the regulars, (iv) you're hardly an innocent party in the on-going edit war, and (v) "I am not blaming you of racist slant as of now as I am assuming good faith" doesn't bode very well should the result of this report go against your views. GbT/c 12:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    what all this hoopla!!! this guy has used revert option more than 4 times in this particular article alone within 24 hours(even without considering other reverts done in tha same time frame)..yet you guys want to find fault with me!!! i need to think a lot about wikipedia's application of moral standards...Cityvalyu (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not particularly difficult to find fault with you, since you're clearing edit warring against consensus, and continue to do so. I don't think that there's been a breach of WP:3RR by Kober (talk · contribs), but am pretty certain that your edits constitute a breach, so consider yourself warned accordingly. Take it to the talk page - any more edit warring and blocks will almost certainly be on the cards. GbT/c 12:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    kober is georgian..everyone knows about double standards of western nationals..so, compare previous bans and this exemption..well, the handling of iraq invasion and handling of kosovo with respect to russia speaks a lot for these 'stooges"' dubious motives...that explains why the four reverts this guy made within 24 hours is not even condemned..no wonder the reporting party gets harassed..And as expected of "stooges", kober carries on...i suggest you guys award an appreciation to kober for reverting more than 4 times within 24 hours since he is georgian vandalising abkhazian pages..117.193.33.157 (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    you say "I don't think that there's been a breach of WP:3RR by Kober (talk · contribs), "shall i assume that such behaviour will be tolerated if i experiment with similar 4 reverting (with 3 massive reverts) within 24 hours..are you setting a precedent here?? you have not stated the reasons too (may i point to you that your integrity is questionable!!)..you have not found fault with the indisputable proof on display too..please judge your own conscience before coming here to exempt blatant violators for ?? motives...117.193.33.157 (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fipplet reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 hours)

    (Original report by RolandR 11:33 4 September 2008)

    Previous version reverted to: 13:38 3 September 2008


    This is about the capital city as displayed in the infobox. Fipplet's reverts are replacing "Jerusalem (claimed), Ramallah (de facto)" with just "Ramallah" and a briefer footnote. There is ongoing discussion on the talk page and Fipplet has some good points; however, please work things out via discussion, compromise and use of WP:NPOV and reliable sources, not with repeated reverting of the article. This article is under the Arbcom sanction on Palestine-Israel articles. Fipplet is the sole editor reverting to that version, opposing four established editors reverting in the other direction. I've added information to this report, replacing the list of "reverts" with essentially the same list in a different format. I left off the first revert in order to make the "previous version reverted to" more obviously similar to the reverts. I'm an involved editor on this page. Coppertwig (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And I have just added today's seventh (or eighth, depending on how you count) revert. Someone please take actoion against this disruptive editor. RolandR (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am an uninvolved editor. I warned Fipplet about the ArbCom sanctions (logging my notification) and he was subsequently warned about the reverts (on user page and Talk). Though he's a newbie, I would recommend a block at this juncture. HG | Talk 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Although Fipplet's ideas about the status of Jerusalem should be carefully listened to on the article Talk page, he is clearly edit-warring to force his view into the article. He has reverted the same phrases back into the article over and over again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pulsifer reported by Mike R (Result: No violation)

    • Previous version reverted to: [35] (This is the article after the first instance of Pulsifer adding this info, which I am not counting as a revert.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

    Technically he added the info once, and then reverted 3 times, so there is no 4th revert yet, but at least one of those reverts happened after he was warned. And content similar to that he originally added had previously been removed by various editors. Mike R (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation As you said yourself, there is no 4th revert. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reconsider per User talk:Mike R#Your report and User talk:Coppertwig#Re: Your_suggestion. Mike R (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. The purpose of a 3RR block is to prevent an edit war from continuing. Since the page is protected, it is not possible for the edit war to continue. Blocking Pulsifer would serve no useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After the protection is lifted, if Pulsifer inserts the material on the Alaskan Independence Party yet again, without finding support to do so on Talk, I suggest that Mike R should file a new 3RR report at that time and mention this one as evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    115.130.2.169 reported by FisherQueen (Result: Handled)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [44]

    Technically I could do this block, but I'm not comfortable blocking him since I've been reverting him, so I'm submitting it here instead. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked by Exploding Boy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:115.130.2.169 (also editing as User:115.130.14.75) reported by User:Exploding Boy (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [45]



    This is a single-issue editor apparently using 2 IPs. He shows no signs of backing down. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He's gone far beyond 9 reverts at this point. Despite repeated warnings. I'm going to block him even though I edit that page, and will post on WP:AN for review. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that he/she seems to have taken on a user ID - WesternPacific (talk · contribs) - and has continued the revert-war. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WesternPacific has already been blocked 48 hours by FisherQueen, for evasion of the previous block on 115.130. I think that semi-protection of this article should be considered, due to the high volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. (This is not exactly a normal BLP issue, but it does involve blanket criticism of entire groups in society based on poor sources). EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scjessey reported by User:CENSEI (Result: 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [58]


    Article is under probation, Scjessey has been cited before for edit warring on this topic. [59] CENSEI (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours (had been previously blocked in April) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a bad block and a bad faith wikigaming report. Will contact blocking admin directly. Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, looking at evidence, there is no evidence of edit warring. This is a bad block request. Brothejr (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is under probation for a reason: editors like Wikidemon and Scjessey edit war and revert any other editor who makes an unauthorized contribution to it. Scjessey has been warned about this before. No one owns articles around here, and they should stop acting like they do. CENSEI (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, this isn't a forum. I'm just providing a pointer that we can discuss this bad block elsewhere. Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.210.87.84 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result:24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [60]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66]


    This user is persistently making edits against the consensus established on the talk page and has broken the three-revert rule despite prior warnings. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --SmashvilleBONK! 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.15.88.28 reported by John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC) (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [67]


    • 1st revert: [68]
    • 2nd revert: [link]
    • 3rd revert: [link]
    • 4th revert: [link]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    This may look like a good faith edit to someone unfamiliar with the subject. But it's vandalism. John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:189.87.58.52 reported by ThuranX 03:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)(Result:24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [69]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: Multiple, see talk. [77]

    this was refused as not being tendentious editing, vandalism, or anything else. ThuranX (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Kevin (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kuebie reported by User:Michael Friedrich (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Time reported: 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Dojang

    • Previous version reverted to: [78]

    Korean swordsmanship

    • Previous version reverted to: [84]

    Gaya confederacy

    • Previous version reverted to: [89]

    Tribute

    • Previous version reverted to: [95]

    He was warned of 3RR violation in August[100]. But he kept reverting edits without replying to anyone no matter how many times we try to talk to him. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclaimer, This is a malpresented 3RR report by Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs). I've watched the edit warring between Bentecbye (talk · contribs) and Kuebie (talk · contribs), and it is true that Kuebie violated 3RR at Dojang. However, Michael Friedrich deliberately included the above several cases as if Kubie violated 3RR over all articles. That is not so true. Although edit warring over multiple articles is disruptive, Michael Friedrich should have not reported the case like this manner. Bentecbye (talk · contribs) is as much guilty as Kuebie, because he reverted 3 times over all mentioned articles. Bentecbye has only kept edit warring with other editors, I'm wonder how the report omits the fact. Anyway, Kuebie violated 3RR on dojang, so he gets what he has to get. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.143.159.186 reported by User:Orpheus (Result: 12 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [101]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [106]

    Orpheus (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CalendarWatcher reported by 98.222.196.27(Result: malformed request )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    • 1st revert: [link]
    • 2nd revert: [link]
    • 3rd revert: [link]
    • 4th revert: [link]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
    Comment: Actually, CalendarWatcher didn't violated 3RR, but 98.222.196.27 did. FisherQueen has blocked 98.222.196.27 for 24 hours for editwarring on this page. 98.222.196.27 was repeatedly inserting an "in modern literature" trivia section, ignoring requests to discuss it on the talk page first. (involved editor) Coppertwig (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:134.241.28.252 reported by User:Dp76764 (Result: Both blocked)

    User keeps adding contentious material and ignoring the discussion on the Talk Page.

    Dp76764 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Blocked Tiptoety talk 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bentecbye reported by Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours)

    Comment: The five reverts listed are all reverts, in my opinion. Each revert removes the words "is widely rejected even in Japan" and inserts a lot of other words. I had noticed earlier today that Bentecbye had violated 3RR, but I figured that Bentecbye had stopped reverting on receiving the warning. Apparently not: Bentecbye has done a fifth revert, after the warning. Bentecbye, I don't understand why you're saying you didn't violate 3RR. Look at the five diffs listed above. Discussing on the talk page is good, but you are still not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. You give diffs for some other edits. They make no difference. Even if you also did other edits, you're not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. If you remove words that someone else had put in, that's a revert, even if you change some other things too. I've changed the "previous version reverted to" in this report. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Energiie reported by Miquonranger03 (Result:Page deleted)




    This user reverted three times further past what is on this report. The speedy delete tag is currently on, rolled back by me. Miquonranger03 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tiptoety has removed the page per the speedy delete tag for reason A7, however, this doesn't change the fact that the user has committed a policy violation. Miquonranger03 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Since the page no longer exists, there is no need to do anything to prevent editwarring on it. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of this, I simply reported this because this is evidence of a user who aggressively edit wars on their pages to the point of seven reverts, and the fact that it was a speedy delete template being removed makes it all the worse. I added the report under Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption as edit warring is grounds for a block. However, I value the opinions others on the same level as my own, and there is always a large chance that my actions are incorrect. Miquonranger03 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC) :D[reply]
    Closing with no action per Coppertwig. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    70.74.213.1 reported by Miquonranger03 (Result:blocked for vand)




    This is being echoed across a few different pages, including Miley's own, in addition to the entire Walt Disney Co. article being blanked and replaced by it. A Google search for "miley cyrus death" turns up nothing of significance, but I truly hope that this isn't another Benoit scenario. Miquonranger03 (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked 31 hours for vandalism, which this appears to have been. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Boodlesthecat reported by Tymek (Result: No action)

    • Previous version reverted to: see below
    • 1st revert: 23:09, September 3, 2008 (Boodlesthecat removes info about prisoners and Piotrowski's reference)
    • rewriting the article: [120] Boodlesthecat rewrites the lead, this edits includes weaseling of Piotrowski'ref, this version will be reverted to)
    • 2nd revert: 13:39, September 4, 2008 (restoring older lead version seen in his rewritten version and weaseling of Piotrowski)
    • 3rd revert: 13:51, September 4, 2008 (removing a para referenced to Piotrowski)
    • 4th revert: 16:38, September 4, 2008 (removing ref claim that "more Poles than Jews have died" and restoring unnecessary weaseling/attribution of Piotrowski)
    • 5th revert: 01:06, September 5, 2008 removing information about Poles being killed in the event, restoring alleged info about Polish officers
    • Diff of 3RR warning: user blocked for 3RR previously several times, familiar with policy

    This is a 3RR violation, or two - with first four or last four, depending on time frame. This user has violated 3RR before, and it is really difficult to edit the article with him reverting this or that all the time. He should know better, shouldn't he? Tymek (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can somebody explain to Tymek the difference between edits and reverts so he will be more careful not to use this forum for harassment in the future. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pure WP:BURO case. Since when removing false information such as "more Poles than Jews have died" (this was finally acknowledged by original contributor of this incorrect fact [121]) is an offence? Correction of the mistakes makes Wikipedia better, not worse. And it is a part of the editing process, which was very intensive at this article. Boodles contributed significantly to this article, which was expanded more than 5-folds during the last couple of days. M0RD00R (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not convinced those are reverts. Also stale. Another admin can feel free to review but no block from me. I'll be watching the page though and expect protection is there is more edit warring. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Timeshift9 reported by Rudykruger (Result: Page Protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: [122]

    On September 5, it was widely reported that Peter Garrett rejected Waratah Coal's $5.3billion project in QLD, Australia - a project that the QLD government itself recognized and declared to be "Australia's largest coal project" on July 15, 2008[1]. Timeshift9 felt this was an uncited edit, and despite subsequently adding a Marketwire link to this event, the user repeatedly reverted the edit on the basis that he disputes this. If rejection of a $5.3billion investment in QLD is not a significant event here, what is?


    Page protected Well, this request was done improperly, and investigation proved a two person reversion war. Page protected for two hours, or until participants settle down. Could someone clean up my formatting here? I'm not sure on the new procedures. --Tznkai (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done: added the AN3 template to the beginning of your message. Coppertwig (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I left a note for both parties, since they are both on the edge of a violation if they continue to make similar edits after the protection expires. I hope there will be a proper discussion on the article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to you both.--Tznkai (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Manacpowers reported by User:Michael Friedrich (Result: No violation)

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

    Time reported: 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [123]

    Comments

    He never replys to me no matter how many times I try to talk to him. He just keeps reverting edits. He reverts edits which he dislikes, saying that there's no source, even when they are actually sourced. He sometimes even remove {{FACT}}s and call my edit an original research even though he's removing {{FACT}}s without showing any sources[125]. It does not make any sense at all.
    He has no intention of avoiding edit war at all. He has been blocked three times already for edit wars[126] and keeps doing it again and again. I don't think only-24-hour block will do. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, but Michael Friedrich edit is also inappropriate.
    1. you redirected article title without any consensus.[127] also your reason of article move is "Wrong". you still do not said, any justifiable reason. [128]
    編修 is not only means "Compilation". don't make dictionary by your own convenience.
    2. My change is a revert of banned user version edit.[129]
    Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user[130] Manacpowers (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mispresented 3RR report by Michael Fridreich again There is no 3RR violation on the article at this time, and Michael Fridreich knows it too well per his 3RR warning.[131]. However, Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs) intentionally omitted the very important time records and the actual descriptions on this file because it is quite obvious that Michael Fridrich has been rather gaming the system to block anyone with whom he has been disputing on other multiple disputes. Michale Frideich also reported a malformed 3RR file on another editor yesterday as if the user violated 3RR multiple times, but that is totally wrong. This kind behaviors from bad faith are disruptive, and he is also not a saint either to quote others' history per his block[132] and continued edit warrings within Wikipedia. Of course, Manacpower should behave properly, but Michael Fridreich should not be gaming the 3RR policy. This place is not to report Wikietiqutte.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Manacpowers reported by User:Michael Friedrich (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Time reported:Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [133]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [138]

    Comments Befor this 3rr, he reverted the page 8 times. If I had not shown up to make a compromise[139], his last revert would have been 12th revert.

    He's already blocked for 3times and he sure has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, you also 'hide' Time and Date, too. it is not violate 3rr rule within 24 hrs. malformed 3RR report.
    My change is a revert of banned user version edit.
    Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user[148]
    this is bad faith report. no doubt about it. duplicated report, possibly personal attack. Manacpowers (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, No, Manacowers, you're wrong on this although Michael Frideirch reported wrong reports previously. You violated 3RR on the article at this time. The user of whom you're accusing is not "banned", just said to be "likely a sock" per CU. Either self-reverting and apologizing to Bentecbye or getting blocked. By the way, Michael Friedrich, you're also responsible for the continued edit warring with him and another over multiple articles.Kumdo, Club for Editing of Korean History, Baekje, Dojang, Second Manchu invasion of Korea. I think it would be better for the two to have a nice break for the continued edit warring. (Of course, a longer one for Manac).--Caspian blue (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He(Michael Friedrich)'s has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do. many user opposed his edit.[149][150][151][152] but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.Manacpowers (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Friedrich reported by Manacpowers (Result: 24 hours)

    Kumdo

    Club for Editing of Korean History

    He(Michael Friedrich)'s has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do. many user opposed his edit.[153][154][155][156] but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.Manacpowers (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Misessus reported by User:Gregalton (Result: )

    [157]

    • Previous version reverted to: [158]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [163]

    Unreported case with same editor, same page, can be seen here, here, and here. Also warned at that time in edit line.--Gregalton (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ [164]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=236734053"