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 18:57, 21 April 2008 view sourceGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers495,375 edits →User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result: Stale ): Scratched out posting. Made recommendation at G2 & Lonewolf's respetice pages← Previous edit Revision as of 19:15, 21 April 2008 view source Wisdombuddha (talk | contribs)380 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 637: Line 637:
The user will not listen to reason, and only wants to push his POV and original research into these articles. The user also my user page. He was then by ] to stop, but immediately went on to ]'s user page. The user will not listen to reason, and only wants to push his POV and original research into these articles. The user also my user page. He was then by ] to stop, but immediately went on to ]'s user page.
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) :{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] ==

*] violation on {{Article|Dorje Shugden}}. {{3RRV|Kt66}}: Time reported: 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:

Of the 5 or more editors of this page, this user continually undoes dozens of changes at a time. It is almost impossible to edit this article without approval of this one person who is exteremly biased in this issue.


== Example == == Example ==

Revision as of 19:15, 21 April 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
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)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    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:GijsvdL reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: See result)


    • Previous version reverted to: (not sure what exactly is meant here by 'previous')

    Editor keeps removing references that are in full accordance with WP:COS, despite ample explanation on the talk page and several warnings. User is not disputing relevance (the other books in the series are kept) but insists that my name is not allowed to appear on the internet. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    Please note Guido den Broeder is notorious on the Dutch wikipedia for selfpromotion and related problems. He's under strict supervision of a mentor, and currently blocked for two weeks. See here his track record on blocks. Regards, JacobH (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (sysop on Dutch wikipedia)
    User:JacobH is a single-purpose account, taking part in the same edit war. Enough said. As explained already in 30 other places: I have no mentor, block is random by another mob member and is being dealt with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_3RR.3F about this case. A EN.wiki sysop already states my reverts are valid. Note also that JacobH is not a single-purpose account. JacobH is a NL.wiki sysop. As an addition: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for the same behaviour. He's also blocked at NL.wiki at the moment. GijsvdL (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    No such measures have been taken. Since user keeps repeating this lie (check with nl:Arbcom, note that the previous random block was lifted by the Arbcom), can something further be done? Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Anybody may visit NL.wiki IRC to verify. GijsvdL (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    The IRC is not a part of nl:Misplaced Pages. The Arbcom is.
    Meanwhile, it has been confirmed (village pump) that these actions are also a violation of en:copyright, and I will treat them so. There are already Arbcom procedures at nl:Misplaced Pages against this mob for similar violations (note, however, that the cases are incessantly vandalized by same users, so again check with nl:Arbcom). I will add no more and await your decision. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    At IRC there are sufficient sysops online to verify that Guido is lying about the NL.wiki arbcom-decision. GijsvdL (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    I've decided to try something different today: I won't block you if both of you just stop editing chess articles and use discussion to work out your disagreements. Both of you are not allowed to edit a chess article (Except to remove blatantly obvious vandalism/libel) until some progress is made between you. If you wish, I can help mediate the discussion. Scarian 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    I have clashed with Guido before (on the English Misplaced Pages), so I will not take any actions here. I just want to say that he does have a mentor on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, appointed by the Dutch ArbCom. Guido doesn't accept the mentoring, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The main reason for his problems on the Dutch Misplaced Pages is self-promotion, just like here. And checking the VPP discussion started by Guido indicates that it has not been confirmed that the removal of these links (books written by Guido and published by his own company) is a copyright violation at all. My suggestion would be to warn GijsvdL to be more careful about the 3RR (it is unclear to me whether he was aware of this policy), and to strongly warn Guido den Broeder against inserting any form of reference or link to his own work or work of his company, to avoid running in the same trouble here as he has on the Dutch Misplaced Pages. Fram (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Again, please check with nl:Arbcom, also read up on Dutch law, and yes, GijsvdL was aware, he was warned several times and was already active on this page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Dutch law is irrelevant here, I have checked the Dutch Misplaced PagesThe same arbcom page that undid your second-to-last block, only four days ago, also confirmed the mentoring], and could you point me to the place were GijsvdL was informed about our WP:3RR policy? It's unclear to me what you mean by "this page", but if you mean this page, then he hasn't edited it before your report here.Fram (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have been informed about 3RR as follows: It is not currently 3RR (currently at 3) and if it was taken to 3RR I wouldn't block anyway, because it is clearly removing self-promotion. Those aren't references, they're just adverts for the books. Black Kite 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) - GijsvdL (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    @Fram: You missed the Arbcom procedure where this so-called mentorship is contested. nl:Misplaced Pages falls under Dutch law, which says that a mentor can only be appointed if the pupil requests it. There is plenty of jurisprudence. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Why do you think nl: falls under Dutch law? It's hosted in the same way as all the other Wikimedia projects. The fact that it uses the Dutch language is entirely irrelevant for the jurisdiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I have given the link where Dutch Arbcom, four days ago, confirmed the mentoring. You contest it, but I have seen no posts from either ArbCom or the mentor that contest it, so for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, the mentoring is still valid. As for Dutch law: that is completely irrelevant here. A website can have its own rules of participation. Dutch law also forbids the silencing (blocking) of people, but that does not apply to a private website. But you have accused GijsvdL of lying (see above), while he has done no such thing. You are blocked and a mentor has been appointed by the arbcom (which recently confirmed this). You can contest these measures, but to deny them and to accuse another user of lying for pointing them out is way out of line. Fram (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Allow me to say this in Dutch: waar in godsnaam gaat deze ruzie over? Jullie zijn aan het stoeien als twee kleuters in een zandbak. Hij begon, nee hij, nee hij, nee hij, ik vind je stom, jij bent stom, nee jij bent stom. Zien jullie zelf niet dat jullie van een mug een olifant aan het maken zijn? Als je bloeddruk zo hoog oploopt dat je je niet meer normaal kan gedragen, zorg dan dat je iets anders gaat doen. Ga de afwas doen, boodschappen, een spelletje, wat dan ook, alles behalve Misplaced Pages. Translated in English per a message left on my talk page: What the hell is this dispute about? You are fighting like two babies in a sandbox. "He started it, no he did, no he did, no he did, I don't like you, I don't like you." Can't you see that you're making a mountain out of a molehill? If your blood pressures rises to the point you can't behave properly, make sure you're gonna do something else. The dishes, groceries, a game, anything, but Misplaced Pages. Aecis 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • To clarify, my previous comment in Dutch was a stern reprimande wrt the behaviour of both editors. I do think GijsvdL has a point though. Guido den Broeder has a habit, both here and on nl:, of inserting his own, self-published books as further readings. Those books are probably relevant and authoritative, so he probably remains inches within WP:COI. GijsvdL has objected to this. The merits of this objection should be assessed on the relevant talk pages, which appears to be taking place. But the response can never be to edit war to get the books in or out of the article, which is what both sides have done here. Aecis 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have raised this issue on the conflict of interest noticeboard. This is more appropriate, since the dispute revolves around the allegation that Guido has violated WP:COI, and Guido's denial that he has done so. Any mediation and dispute resolution is most likely to come from that direction. This discussion has sunk to the level of flaming, so I recommend closing it. Aecis 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • A ruling has already been given by Scarian: . Therefore, this discussion is already closed. Furthermore, the page has been protected by AGK (expires 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC))). Please stop posting to this thread. If you have things to discuss, please find an appropriate place to discuss them. This page is not for discussion. Every post here takes up space on administrators' watchlists. If more 3RR violations occur, please list diffs according to the standard format. By the way, "previous" means "before", "earlier". In order to prove that something is a revert, you need to show that there was a version at an earlier time that's the same as (or similar to) what the person is changing it to. Otherwise, it might not be a revert but just an edit that puts in new information. The time on the "previous version reverted to" should be an earlier time than the times of the versions being compared in the diffs. That doesn't matter now for this report because Scarian has already ruled on it. (Edit conflict; non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    I do want to say something in defence of Guido den Broeder. Guido den Broeder has received a very unwelcome welcome on the Dutch Misplaced Pages. In fact I do think that he was not treated according to the policy Welcome the newcomer and that has influenced the relationship from the beginning. What is really disturbing that the fight is taken to this wiki. Guido den Broeder is not an easy one, but I do want to ask the Dutch to stick to the Dutch Misplaced Pages for fighting. It almost feels like an obsession how obsessed people are with Guido den Broeder. Londenp (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Light Defender reported by IP Editor 87.XXX (Result: Page protected)


    This is only one example, the editor is trying to systematically remove any evidence that a musical is not endorsed by the band take that - he is removing material sourced to the times (a reliable source) from multiple articles. (I am a dynamic ip which is why I'm listed as 87.xxx.xxx 87.114.150.200 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    PhilKnight has protected the article (expires 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)). Netsnipe has also protected article Gary Barlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), (expires 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC))). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:71.100.12.251 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Malformed)

    Multiple reversions by anon IP user with multiple IP addresses editing the article Analog hole.

    Clearly, I myself am in violation of 3RR. I am willing to take whatever punishment is deemed suitable. What I would like most in this case is for the system to come up with a way to tame this anon user who is leapfrogging from IP to IP without ever having to answer to his wrongdoings such as his vandalism of user pages, immediate accusations of POV and his threatening attitude. Having multiple IP addresses insulates this user from warnings and 3RR. This user appears to feel that the rules are best applied to others.

    Comment: Because of the dynamic IP, it seemed possible to me that the user had not seen the 3RR warning, so I posted information about 3RR to the article talk page at 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) and in an edit summary in the article history at 00:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC). (non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Binksternet reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: Protected. )

    • Diff of 3RR warning: User is aware of 3RR, having submitted the next report above this one at 00:29, 18 April 2008 (before the last revert).

    Dynamic IP user 71.100.x.x is adding an external link to a site that tells how to use an analog hole to circumvent copyright protection software (or something along those lines). Binksternet is removing this link on the grounds that Misplaced Pages is not a "linkfarm" but without citing policy to support that position, as far as I noticed. It's not obvious to me that one version or the other is definitely supported by Misplaced Pages policy; I think this needs to be worked out as a content dispute. Note also the report below this one, which is the other person reverting on the same page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    I've prot'd the article. I don't wanna block the user because he is removing a potentially illegal link. Circumventing DRM is certainly illegal and I'm sure Misplaced Pages doesn't want to be associated with that. Scarian 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:71.100.x.x reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: 24 hour blocks )

    • Diff of 3RR warning: User is now aware of the 3RR (e.g. this message on my talk page at 06:41, 18 April 2008) but it isn't completely clear to me whether the user was aware at the time of the last revert. There was a 3RR warning at 22:39, 17 April 2008, which the user may not have received due to using a dynamic IP, and I put a message about 3RR into the edit history of the article, which the user acknowledges seeing in the aforementioned message on my talk page, though possibly might not have seen it until after reverting.

    This is related to the report in the section immediately above. This person using a dynamic IP is inserting a how-to link and Binksternet is deleting it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked all of them for 24 hours for edit warring and spamming (Mainly spamming). Thanks for your reports Coppertwig. Scarian 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Thfrang and User:123.2.251.149 reported by User:Fattyjwoods (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to:

    Possibilty of sock-puppetry as the user clearly uses two accounts (ip and account) for edit warring. Many incidents of personal attacks in edit summaries as well as personal attacks on user talk pages. Has been warned several times - sick and tired of having to revert his edits as he does not provide reliable sources for his claims. Fattyjwoods 05:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Diffs span more than 24 hours. 8th revert does not appear to me to be a revert, (adding a ref and changing a number which the same user had put there), so there is no 24-hour period with 4 reverts, therefore no 3RR violation. I encourage both users to make more use of the article talk page. (non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: I think the users are aware of the 3RR rule and is purposely avoiding the 24hr mark and then edit warring again on the next day. Fattyjwoods 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:79.35.107.7 & User:Sp4rt4n reported by User:WikiDon (Result: 24 block x2 + Prot )

    • Previous version reverted to:

    All of the following reverts are by 79.35.107.7. Each revert inserts the same link.

    1. 13:02, 18 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    2. 21:16, 18 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    3. 05:24, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    4. 06:21, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    5. 06:22, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    6. 06:53, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    7. 06:56, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 00:13, 19 April 2008 (This is the first post to the talk page, so only a version link and no diff is available.)

    User 79.35.107.7 / Sp4rt4n is trying to post his own POV Blog that is poorly written and slanders a corporate entity with unsubstantiated and unverifiable bias. posted by WikiDon at 06:39 19 April. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    I've modified this report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have blocked the IP and account for 24 hours and prot'd the disputed article. Clear WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPAM. Scarian 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:69.248.59.67 reported by User:Domer48 (Result: No action)



    They are edit warring over the addition of this cat, Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations. Through edit summaries, and talk page, I have attempted to reduce tension, and allow the editor to self revert. posted by Domer48 at 10:18 and 10:23 19 April 2008. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    I've added information (mostly in italics) to this report. Domer48 has done 3 reverts (non-admin opinion). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Neither of them made 4 reverts so I'm a little hesitant to block. Although I have prot'd the article for a week. Solve disputes on talk pages please. Scarian 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    There is obviously 4 reverts there, I have shown them clearly. That Cat has been reverted 4 times, could you possibly show me how it is only 3. --Domer48 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    • No sufficient 3RR warning given. A 3RR warning in an edit summary does not count, and the only warning given on the talk page was after the fourth revert, a "revert or I will report you" warning. There's no indication that this user properly understood 3RR, and he has not reverted (or even edited) since the "warning". Talk it out, guys. Request denied. - Revolving Bugbear 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    No sufficient 3RR warning givenWhat was this here, in addition to the edit summary warning? In addition, the User indicates knowledge of 3RR rule in edit summary of 4th revert, as mentioned by another Editor above? So you have one admin who can't count, and one who dreams up another excuse for this editor. Ha you have to laugh sometimes. --Domer48 (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    Just in case there is any doubt left, that the editor was well aware of 3RR see here, (check the time) and still made the 4th revert (check the time). "There's no indication that this user properly understood 3RR,(Oh yes there is) and he has not reverted (or even edited) since the "warning". Now why would he edit, having breached 3rr, had the page protected on their version. The he indicates something to me, I just don't know what? --Domer48 (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result: Stale )

    • Previous version reverted to: varies; see below. Note that the first two reverts do not form part of the 3rr breach, but are given to show the whole pattern.
    • 2nd revert: 15:19, 15 April 2008 -- revert to 00:57, 15 April 2008 again (leaving aside the further edits made at the same time; mismatched paragraphs make revert, to lead, not readily seen)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: not needed; violator has had many past warnings and blocks

    This is another instance of G2bambino edit-warring when edits of his are less than fully accepted by another editor or editors (in this case, by myself). Here, he has actually broken 3rr as a result (although some of the reverts contributing to the breach were not "edit-war reverts", but plain reverts of work by various editors).
    The fact that there is an actual 3rr breach in this particular case is, I think, far less important that the offender's continual use of edit-warring to impose changes he wishes to make to an article, in the face of opposition. In February he was blocked for two weeks for such behavior. He complained his way into being unblocked on the condition that he keep to "1rr" for the duration of the two weeks, but he then broke that restriction and afterward mendaciously denied having done so.
    See also, for the depth of this ongoing problem, the history of G2bambino as Gbambino and Gbambino06. (The account name was changed, leaving the block log and the older "Gbambino" talkpage obscure. G2bambino is the editor's separate, newer account.) G2bambino has been behaving in this way on Misplaced Pages for years, ever joining the project. The consequences to him for doing so, so far, seem not to have dissuaded him at all. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    That's very stale. Please could all parties involved use discussion to resolve differences please. Scarian 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Stale is quite right; another pathetic example of Lonewolf resorting to a search back through months or even years of edits to find some similar previous version in order to vilify good-faith edits. This is completely disruptive behaviour and an abuse of the spirit of 3rr policy, which he's been called out on and reprimanded for before. --G2bambino (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    In regard to G2bambino's remarks:
    Firstly, this was a breach of 3rr even if only reverts of edits made this month are counted. (I've bolded them, above, to make this plainer to see.)
    Secondly, so far as I am aware there is no need for reverts to be of recent edits in order to form part of a 3rr breach. If there is such a limitation, I would be grateful to be informed of it. Granted, when the version reverted to is from longer ago, there may be some doubt about whether a reverting edit was intentionally a revert -- some question of mens rea. However, deletions from an article are necessarily reverts, as G2bambino should know. Yet, after running up his reverts by edit-warring, he went ahead with a number of deletions, some of long-standing material, some of recent additions.
    Thirdly, G2's claim that I have been "called out on and reprimanded" is an unmitigated lie. No one in authority (and, to the best of my recollection, no one other than G2) has ever faulted the contents of any of the 3rr-breach reports I have made on account of his continual edit-warring.
    -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    That my be how you wish to see it, but I think you know full well that 3rr exists to prevent edit warring, not editing; one need not go back through every single previous edit in order to see if the one they wish to make will undo one made back in 2005. I reverted your unfounded edits three times (). Your other two "examples," however, are simply bogus as reverts in the context of 3rr. I think you full well know this, but will ignore it in order to smear me and get me blocked; an abuse of the process if ever there was one.
    As for previous attempts to manipulate the system, I draw attention to the block imposed on LW in January of this year, and the blocking admin's further comment: "He reported another for 3RR, yet had basically done the same thing himself - he was trying to game the system. He violated the spirit of the policy." I believe that says it all. --G2bambino (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    In regard to G2's further remarks:
    Yes, 3rr is meant to prevent edit-warring. In the case at hand, G2 was edit-warring, and that edit-warring resulted in his breaching 3rr. Not every one of the reverts totalling over three edit needs to be part of an edit-war, nor need they be the same revert.
    Yes, I was blocked in January but, contrary to what G2 claimed, this had nothing to do with any supposed flaw in the 3rr report that occasioned it. G2 had broken 3rr. I reported it and the admin involved blocked me, too, even though I was within 3rr and G2 was not. The admin's move was unusual, from what I have observed, and I disagree with it and think he quite misunderstands the concept of "gaming the system". (Consistently running up to 3 reverts a day in a dispute is a form of "gaming the system; running up to three in a particular instance, and reporting another's 4th is not. People fairly often report another's 4th revert under those circumstances, and are not ordinarily blocked for their part.) However, I took my lumps and did not complain. But again, this had nothing to do with any supposed flaw in the contents of the 3rr report. On the contrary, the admin confirmed G2's 3rr breach, even while G2 vainly argued about it.
    G2's underlying point, here, seems to be that his persistent 3rr breaches are not a problem for the WP project, but that my reporting of those persistent breaches somehow is a problem for the project. His outlook on that is a sadly and seriously wrong-headed, as scarcely needs saying.
    -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you're in La-La-Land; edit warring did not result in a 3rr breach; the edits you claim did take me over the limit were only coincidentally reverts of edits made weeks, months, and even years before! Unless you do expect one to search back through every edit made to an article, its obvious these +3 "reverts" were just good faith edits; you're just turning them into something else to achieve your desired end. The very fact that you had to search back to 2005 to find a version of the article I "reverted" to shows an almost pathological obsession with getting me busted; this behaviour, repeated time and time again, plus your aloof retention of any reasoning for reverting my edits, is what made me earlier question whether or not your actions constituted harassment. You clearly seem to believe you have a mandated right to police individuals according to your own personal variations of editing policies. The distanced arrogance might actually be amusing if it wasn't so disruptive to the project. --G2bambino (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    ::::::Perhaps it's best, the both of you depart the article-in-question & move on. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Carl.bunderson reported (Result: Stale/no vio)

    A poll was done on this talk page. This user did not like the results and crossed out the poll and made his own poll and later voted in it. He was told to stop crossing out polls by several users (on ANI, link) but does not stop. He is not admin so he has no right to cross out polls. He is already aware of 3RR. Also, while edit warring he engages in name calling such as calling people "blind" and "idiot" (link, and link).


    The above was posted by 65.93.210.190 22:24 19 April 2008. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: The diffs above span more than 24 hours. I think Carl.bunderson had more than 3 reverts on April 17. There is an allegation of ban-evading socks, so possibly Carl.bunderson's reverts might be exempt from 3RR for that reason. Carl.bunderson is crossing out a poll which begins with arguments in favour of one side, and replacing it with a balanced poll; and it appears to me that Carl.bunderson's version is accepted by at least two other users. The user posting the above report has only 15 edits. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive403#user removing poll results (non-admin, not previously involved opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    Erm... This is stale. He's only made one edit on the 19th (It's now the 20th GMT). Remember, we don't issue blocks to punish users; only to protect articles (or in this case talk pages). Scarian 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Besides, the page has been semi-protected at 07:36, 19 April 2008, which may be why the revert war went away -- the other side was all (or almost all) anon-IP's. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:72.200.173.153 reported by User:Niteshift36 (Result: 24+48 hour blocks )

    • Previous version reverted to:

    I have asked the editor to discuss this issue. I've shown multiple examples of where this was used in the mainstream media on the talk page and reminded him of the 3R. Although the warning was in the edit comments, the editor saw it and resonded that he didn't care about the 3R. The editor refuses to discuss the issue and makes reverts.


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    I have blocked the user for 48 hours and the IP for 24. Both of them were edit warring regardless. Scarian 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Space Cadet reported by User:Matthead (Result: 48 hours)


    Space Cadet is a very experienced editor regarding pro-Polish and anti-German POV. Here (and in many other articles, eg. ), he tries to squeeze in "Królewiec", the Polish name of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad), even though this town never was Polish, nor "share a history between Germany and Poland". It is a revenge act for, and abuse of, the Danzig/Gdansk double naming as decided in Talk:Gdansk/Vote.

    In addition, he edit-wars over the title of Hartknoch's book Altes und Neues Preussen, written and titled in German, claiming it is called Old and New Prussia (It IS the original title in English.) .


    Due to Space Cadet never-changing anti-German habits, it was proposed to ban User:Space Cadet from German-Polish-related topics: Misplaced Pages:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive13#Proposal_to_ban_User:Space_Cadet_from_German-Polish-related_topics

    I suggest that Space Cadet at least be banned from adding "Królewiec" to Königsberg/Kaliningrad, or adding any other Polish name to places that never were part of Poland.

    Space Cadet recently also accused User:Sciurinæ as sockpuppeteer: Serafin, get a life! Or are you just Sciurinæ's sockpuppet? You guys are always together.... I have no idea what he wrote in Polish at User talk:LUCPOL , but he recently proposed a Non-aggression Pact to LUCPOL.-- Matthead  Discuß   01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    Since when is proposing a Non-aggression Pact something bad? And take a look at those:, , , , . As you can see I'm pretty experienced in German POV as well. And the 4th revert was already corrected. Typo. Space Cadet (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I did not accuse anybody of anything. It was only a well justified observation. And I did revert Serafin. Space Cadet (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: I see no evidence that the 4th revert is a revert. The first 3 reverts add "(Królewiec)" to the sentence with "ducal capital of...". This is also in the "previous version reverted to," so the first 3 reverts are reverts. The 4th revert adds "Old and New Prussia" to the sentence with "... in his book ...". In the "previous version reverted to", those words appear but not in that sentence; only in the section "Work", where they also already appeared before the 4th "revert". So the 4th revert doesn't seem to be a revert. The 5th revert re-adds the same information as the 4th revert, so it is a revert, making 4 reverts within a 24-hour period. (non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Whatever - I guess Space Cadet himself just removed all doubts with a 6th revert, see amended list above. And he did a self-rev now . -- Matthead  Discuß   02:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked 48 hours, since #1, 2, 3 and 5 are genuine reverts. This is his only 3RR violation so far this year, but the result should be more than the nominal block because of the Arbcom restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Carl.bunderson reported by User:65.93.210.190 (Result:Stale-Already determined)

    A poll was done on this talk page. This user did not like the results and crossed out the poll and made his own poll and later voted in it. He was told to stop crossing out polls by several users (on ANI, link) but does not stop. He is not admin so he has no right to cross out polls. He is already aware of 3RR. Also, while edit warring he engages in name calling such as calling people "blind" and "idiot" (link, and link).


    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.190 (talk • contribs) 02:09 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    • If the above report was stale, this is even more so, and appropriate remedies have been applied to the article in question. Repeated reports tend to appear more as WP:POINT violations than protecting the encyclopedia from harm. If a remedy is really required, it lies elsewhere, but attempted relitigation when this board is functus officio is unlikely to be received with equanimity. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


    Man I'm sick of this: admins doing absolutely nothing about this Carl.bunderson who is out of control while the have banned other users indef for the samething! What's the reason? Is it because he says he's a Christian on his user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.190 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    If you intend to participate often on hotly-contested issues, it would be to your advantage to create an account. Please remember to sign your comments. Personal attacks against other editors don't make your views more persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:12.227.159.219 reported by User:Urzatron (Result: 24 hours)

    User is edit warring several editors, determined to change Star Wars entry out of production order and into "in-universe" order for film chronology. Understood warning clearly; reverted a seventh time anyway.


    • Blocked for 24 hours. I have told him that I will lift the block if he agrees to stop reverting and discuss the matter civilly on the talk page. Walton 09:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Nukes4Tots reported by User:Ling.Nut (Result:Premature)

    Grrr. He'd 'a been 3RR if I had been stupid enough to revert again. Admins are supposed to... you know... do something helpful. But whatever. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not suggesting there is NO remedy, just that we cannot act pre-emptively on 3RR. I assume you have already warned him of 3RR? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    As it says in this thread, immedaitaely above: Yes. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Then I can only assume the warning had its intended effect. Case solved. At least he can't deny awareness hereafter. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    (undent). Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Elampon and User:כתר reported by Fut.Perf. (Result:both blocked)

    • Three-revert rule violation and harassment on my user talk page by two users in tandem.

    Elampon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    Previous version: 20 April 16:14

    1. 16:21, 20 April 2008
    2. 16:33, 20 April 2008
    3. 16:47, 20 April 2008
    4. 16:58, 20 April 2008
    • Diff of warning: here

    כתר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Previous version: 19 April, 21:09

    1. 21:31, 19 April 2008 (as 85.75.93.132)
    2. 16:31, 20 April 2008
    3. 16:49, 20 April 2008
    4. 17:03, 20 April 2008

    Warning: 16:51

    Elampon is a new disruptive editor who was also edit-warring and violating 3RR in article space(on Ancient Macedonian language); כתר is an obvious reincarnation or bad-hand sock of some experienced user who created this account only in order to harass me. —Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    Well, FPaS, if you're paranoid that's your problem, not mine or WP's. I, politely, asked you to clarify to me whose user I'm a sock of. You never did. You just kept silently reverting every comment I made without replying. ktr (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Elampon blocked for 100 hours, the other one blocked indefinitely. Requiescat in pace. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:71.193.176.236 reported by V-train (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    The Harry Potter Lexicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.193.176.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


    1. 05:46, 20 April 2008
    2. 05:50, 20 April 2008
    3. 00:10, 21 April 2008
    4. 00:11, 21 April 2008
    5. 00:35, 21 April 2008
    • Diff of warning: here
    Blocked for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Dual Freq reported by User:Redrocket (Result: Stale)

    User warned, but refuses to stop and join in discussion to talk page. Redrocket (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    Note: I'm reposting this, I originally posted it more than 24h ago, but for some reason it never drew an admins attention. Feel free to disregard if a decision has already been made. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Stale - the purpose of blocking or protecting in response to an edit war is to stop the edit war, rather than to penalize or punish a user. As the edit war is no longer in progress, there is nothing to do here. I don't know what happened to your previous report, though. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Robinepowell reported by User:Collectonian (Result: Page protected)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 01:27, 21 April 2008 (accidentally left one edit early due to her first clearing the page completely)

    Editor continues removing content from a featured list, under the claim it doesn't "belong" and that it is wrong. She has been asked not to remove this content by two different editors who have explained repeatedly on her talk page, my talk page, User:Matthewedwards's talk page, and on the list's talk page that the content she is removing is wholly appropriate and a necessary component of a high quality episode list. We've also asked her for evidence to back up her claims that the Canadian release dates are wrong, in all of the same places, but she is ignoring those requests and just keep removing the content.

    Note: as all of her edits were to remove content from the article for no other reason that because she thinks the dates are wrong, and her first edit was to completely remove everythign but the lead, her edits have all been reverted as vandalism - removing content. Collectonian (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    I also reported this user to WP:AIV but was redirected here. Robin has also changed the DVD release dates at the individual season articles of Degrassi: The Next Generation, despite references to Reliable Sources going against what she is putting. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 08:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Page protected Stifle (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:122.104.185.247 reported by User:Michellecrisp (Result: Both blocked)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    This is also spam. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    I've unblocked Michellecrisp as she was removing spam. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Deacon of Pndapetzim reported by User:Wotapalaver (Result: 12 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME No 3RR warning given as the editor reverted twice after I had gone offline.
    • The user has been around long enough to know about the 3RR. Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:77.78.198.147 reported by User:Frvernchanezzz (Result: 24 hours)


    User has a dynamic IP, but has been blocked before about this, and has been warned multiple times (see Talk:Bosniaks and Talk:Slavic peoples). The user will not listen to reason, and only wants to push his POV and original research into these articles. The user also vandalized my user page. He was then warned by Daniel J. Leivick to stop, but immediately went on to vandalize Osli73's user page.

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kt66 reported by User:WisdomBuddha

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

    Of the 5 or more editors of this page, this user continually undoes dozens of changes at a time. It is almost impossible to edit this article without approval of this one person who is exteremly biased in this issue.

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: 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 a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
<!-- 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: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    1. Governor General Announces New Appointments to the Order of Canada
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic