Template:Moveprotected

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR Update this page This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

Could anyone, pls, help prevent this dispute [1] degenerating into an edit war. Sorry for not putting this request through the proper channels, they are very slow in reacting. Hopefully, this very conspecous place would help get some of you interested to help us. Thank you very much. Dc76\^talk 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Melody Amber chess tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GijsvdL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [2] (not sure what exactly is meant here by 'previous')

• 1st revert: 09:27, 14 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 12:04, 14 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 21:59, 14 April 2008
• 4th revert: 06:19, 15 April 2008

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See also Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anybody may visit NL.wiki IRC to verify. GijsvdL (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IRC is not a part of nl:Wikipedia. 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:Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^{Call me Pat!} 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have clashed with Guido before (on the English Wikipedia), so I will not take any actions here. I just want to say that he does have a mentor on the Dutch Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dutch law is irrelevant here, I have checked the Dutch WikipediaThe 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Fram: You missed the Arbcom procedure where this so-called mentorship is contested. nl:Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

• Discussion should not be taking place on this page. Please use a talkpage. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have accepted user:Scarian's offer to mediate. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• User has refused Scarian's offer. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • 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^Brievenbus 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no such habit, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't? A short selection: [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]? And the userfied, previously AFD'd User:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging, about the organization you co-founded, where you list yourself in the references no less than three times? And what about your consistent edit warring to remove information that doesn't conform to your personal opinion? See for instance nl:Myalgische encefalomyelitis and nl:Ongedifferentieerde somatoforme stoornis. Add to that the ridiculous accusations of vandalism and personal attacks. And what about this edit, where you told an editor you were editwarring with "I will see you soon." Can you not see how that can be felt as threatening? You weren't placed under mentorship for nothing, were you? There are no less than four threads about you over at nl:Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina voor moderatoren/RegBlok at the moment, and somehow this is everyone's fault but yours? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please strike out your comments. They are unrelated to this page and I find them offensive. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would appreciate a ruling since user insists on further escalation. [8] Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We don't like escalation, we just felt responsible to warn EN.wiki community about Guido. If EN.wiki enjoys his behaviour, no problem, please keep him here. GijsvdL (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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^Brievenbus 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A ruling has already been given by Scarian: [9]. 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)[reply]

Anyone with a spare half hour, the long running war over UEFA Cup related articles is ongoing, see UEFA Cup records and statistics. Protections such as that by 'B' at Valencia CF have had no effect, nor a short ban for User:Ultracanalla (more than this one user are involved, but he appears to be asking for an admin to become involved judging by his edit summaries) MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, here are some links to the above-mentioned: article UEFA Cup records and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and article Valencia CF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and user Ultracanalla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A correct report would have filled a whole page, since nothing was done after the editors resumed warring following an 8hr block by your own hand, following the first correct filing. If anyone is interested in another incorrect filing: admin User:Oldelpaso must have either acted on this filing anyway, or saw the capital letter e/s tirades in recent changes, and has warned two editors since, [here] and [here], of which Ultracanella broke tonight [10], and Fadiga09 reverted [11] with the e/s if i get blocked, so do you. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No violation (non-admin opinion). Although there's editwarring going on, I don't see 4 reverts within a 24-hour period on either of the two pages whose links I've listed above. I encourage all involved to discuss things calmly on the talk page rather than reverting repeatedly. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure edit warring within the technical limit is supposed to be actionable. Do you see any evidence that the users will discuss on the talk page, despite having been warned? Plenty of talk has happened with no result, now they just seem determined to take each other down, meanwhile the article gets reverted continually without a technical violation. And be aware, this is being done at other articles too. There comes a point where the technical interpretation of the policy and the correct use of filing template has to be put aside for the good of an article. If it goes on much further, I and I presume other non-admins will just unwatch it and let them get on with it. MickMacNee (talk)

I issued the warnings as a result of seeing edit warring on UEFA Cup on my watchlist. I hadn't realised it had spread to Valencia CF too. The prolonged nature of the edit warring means I wouldn't oppose a block even if 3RR was not technically breached, as both have continued to edit war despite receiving previous warnings and short blocks for it. By now they should both be aware that 3RR is not an entitlement. Lets see whether B's actions change anything. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fadiga09 blocked 48 hours, Dustihowe warned, rollback removed, Ultracanalla warned. The cross-article edit warring is ridiculous. Protecting the article for a week didn't seem to do the trick. I have removed the rollback privilege from Dustihowe (talk · contribs), who was using it to revert war on Valencia CF. I have blocked Fadiga09 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. He appears to be the only one to have violated 3RR of late. I left warnings on the talk pages of the other two. --B (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Xan Yae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gavin.collins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 07:51, April 15, 2008

• 1st revert: 08:23, April 15, 2008
• 2nd revert: 11:14, April 15, 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:53, April 15, 2008
• 4th revert: 13:22, April 15, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gavin.collins/Archive_4#Beware_3RR

Edit warring over clean-up tags. Basically an episodes-and-characters dispute. 71.107.160.155 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No violation Removal of the templates was vandalism, and Gavin was reverting it. A fluctuating set of four different single-purpose IPs was on the other side of Gavin during this dispute. User:Jeske Couriano, an administrator, is one of those who restored the templates. User:Tiptoety has now semi-protected the page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong, removal of incorrect templates is not vandalism. Gavin should be blocked. Also, Jeske Couriano is also a deletionist, so he is biased in this instance. The administrator who protected the page obviously didn't look at the revisions.

You *are* aware that those on the other side turn out invariably to be Grawp socks, right, Ed? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those reverts weren't 3RR-exempt. But I probably wouldn't have blocked anyway. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Never Forget (Musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Light Defender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 9:01, 16 April 2008

• 1st revert: Revision as of 09:01, 16 April 2008
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 09:04, 16 April 2008
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 09:07, 16 April 2008
• 4th revert: Revision as of 09:09, 16 April 2008
• 5 th revert: Revision as of 09:31, 16 April 2008
• 6 th revert: Revision as of 09:34, 16 April 2008
• 7 th revert: Revision as of 09:36, 16 April 2008
• 8 th revert: Current revision (09:53, 16 April 2008)
• Diff of 3RR warning: Current revision (09:47, 16 April 2008)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disruptive editing of Talk:Deaths in 2008, removing contributions of other editors when it doesn't suit him, reverting to present his view of history. Breach of 3RR when other editors attempt to restore contributions.

1. (cur) (last) 14:53, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu
2. (cur) (last) 11:28, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu
3. (cur) (last) 10:57, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu
4. (cur) (last) 09:01, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu

This person is a disgrace to wikipedia 62.64.200.158 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. You could also try discussion, if you see it from someone else's perspective, it can help. Rudget 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information: This anon IP is a suspected sockpuppet of Smurfmeister (talk · contribs)--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Deaths in 2008 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Deaths in 2008|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 08:06, 16 April 2008

• 1st revert: 09:01, 16 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:57, 16 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:28, 16 April 2008
• 4th revert: 14:53, 16 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: (User is an administrator, therefore presumably aware of 3RR.)

This is the same incident as reported in the malformed report above. Rodhullandemu removed a comment from an article talk page four times, essentially the same comment each time. The comment is addressed to Rodhullandemu. Smurfmeister posted the original message; the message was restored 4 times by 3 similar IP accounts. Rodhullandemu alleges that the comment is vandalism and that an IP account restoring it is a sockpuppet of Smurfmeister. Smurfmeister is not a banned user, so I don't think it's a valid 3RR exception even if they're sockpuppets. I didn't find any suspected sockpuppet report. If the IP accounts are sockpuppets of each other, they've also violated 3RR.

The reverts by the IP accounts are as follows:

• 10:55, 16 April 2008 62.64.201.155
• 11:02, 16 April 2008 62.64.201.155
• 14:50, 16 April 2008 62.64.213.157
• 17:39, 16 April 2008 62.64.200.158 (This last one is the one which posted the above report, and

which Rodhullandemu alleges to be a sockpuppet of Smurfmeister.)

☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The start of it all: Talk:Mark_Speight#Death
2. Notification of problem: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive138#Revert_war_at_Mark_Speight
3. Support for my actions: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Update:_WP:POINT_disruption_at_Talk:Deaths_in_2008_-_Block_review_please
4. The locus in quo:Talk:Deaths_in_2008#Mark_Speight
5. Proposal by third party to block IP for disruption: Wikipedia:AN#Proposed_blocking_of_an_IP_user_.2862.64.200.158.29
6. IP is blocked by User:seicer: [12]
7. Relevant policies/guidelines:

Wikipedia:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages

Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

• If this is an improper 3RR violation, I am a banana. And I note the editor in question has not taken up my suggestion to open an WP:RFC in relation to this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note While the reverts were not strictly exempted from 3RR, I am minded to take no action on this because the IP and poster were making posts which bordered on personal attacks.  Deferred RFC. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Right to bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 20:33, 11 April 2008

• 1st revert: 17:33, 17 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:40, 17 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:49, 17 April 2008
• 4th revert: 18:45, 17 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:38, 5 April 2008

Editor is continuously edit warring with other editors, attempting to WP:OWN this and other articles on the topic of firearms and is a well known tendentious and POV edit warrior on Wikipedia. He attempts to WP:OWN all articles which he patrols, while adding very little content. See the mediation to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article itself, the Gun politics in the United States article, the mediation to Hunting weapon, WorldNetDaily, ad nauseum histories. Also, see RFPP request.Yaf (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours for clear violation. User has been blocked before for edit warring on the same article. There also seems to be numerous editors reverting him/her. Obvious consensus against their changes? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Right to bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anastrophe. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm reporting myself in the interest of fairness per the block immediately preceding this, as believe i'm guilty of violating 3RR in response to User:Saltyboatr's reverts. Anastrophe (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nej, at most you did 3 reverts apparently in line with consensus. No violation. (And don't let you conscience fool you into feeling guilty ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. less about guilt than about being fair, and above-board. Anastrophe (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Deaths in 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.18.63.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 19:41, 17 April 2008 (23:41 UTC)

• 1st revert: 19:42, 17 April 2008 (23:42 UTC)
• 2nd revert: 19:45, 17 April 2008 (23:45 UTC)
• 3rd revert: 19:49, 17 April 2008 (23:49 UTC)
• 4th revert: 19:55, 17 April 2008 (23:55 UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:51, 17 April 2008 (23:51 UTC)

The user's last revert was only four minutes after receiving the 3RR warning. It seems possible that the user stopped reverting when the user saw the warning. (Non-admin opinion) I've added UTC times to the above report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now blocked this user for a further 3RR breach after this report has been filed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 15:08 April 17 - User:71.100.164.179 appeared for the first time today at the Analog hole article and added an external link to a "how-to" site.
• 17:05 - I deleted the link simply because it was a "how-to"; I didn't want the article to become a linkfarm.
• 17:57 - User:71.100.164.179 came back and restored the link.
• 17:59 - User:71.100.164.179 vandalized my user page.
• 18:22 - User:71.100.12.251 appeared and made a small change to the link's wording.
• 18:36 - I deleted the small change without examining it closely, I thought I was deleting the whole link.
• 18:39 - User:71.100.12.251 returned to restore the newer link text.
• 18:40 - I returned to delete the anon IP "how-to" link.
• 18:42 - I examined the remaining links more closely, evaluating them for their relevance. I found one that linked to a software application solution which appeared to fail WP:EL so I deleted it.
• 19:00 - User:71.100.12.251 returned to restore his own link.
• 19:07 - User:71.100.12.251 left a note on my Talk page including an accusation of WP:POV and a threat to spread my user name around.
• 19:09 - User:71.100.12.251 returned to restore the software solution link.
• 19:19 - I replied to my Talk page saying the links fail WP:EL
• 19:40 - I deleted both links again.
• 19:41 - User:71.100.12.251 came back to restore both links.
• 19:53 - I reverted both links
• 19:53 - I called for discussion on Talk:Analog hole#External links
• 19:54 - I went to User talk:71.100.12.251 and asked him to take it to Talk:Analog hole.
• 20:11 - User:71.100.0.75 appeared at the Village pump to complain about my POV pushing.
• 20:13 - User:71.100.0.75 restored both links
• 20:34 - I responded at Village Pump
• 20:40 - I responded further at Village Pump
• 20:44 - I deleted just the link to the software solution, awaiting discussion regarding the "how-to" link.
• 20:48 - User:71.100.171.52 appeared and restored the link to the software solution.
• 20:48 - User:71.100.171.52 tweaked the wording on the "how-to" link
• 22:33 - User:71.100.173.105 appeared and responded at Village Pump
• 23:19 - User:71.100.173.105 responded further at Village Pump
• 23:39 - User:71.100.173.105 responded further at Village Pump

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.

• 3RR warning: Sole entry on Talk page

• Three-revert rule violation on Analog hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.100.171.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Analog hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 17:05, 17 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:36, 17 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:40, 17 April 2008
• 4th revert: 19:40, 17 April 2008
• 5th revert: 19:53, 17 April 2008
• 6th revert: 20:44, 17 April 2008
• 7th revert: 03:41, 18 April 2008

• 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia doesn't want to be associated with that. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Analog hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.100.174.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 15:08, 17 April 2008

• 1st revert: 17:57, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.164.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2nd revert: 19:00, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.12.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3rd revert: 19:41, 17 April 2008 (same IP as above)
• 4th revert: 20:13, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.0.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5th revert: 21:48, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.171.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 6th revert: 05:16, 18 April 2008 using 71.100.174.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 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)[reply]

Blocked all of them for 24 hours for edit warring and spamming (Mainly spamming). Thanks for your reports Coppertwig. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Westfield Doncaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 123.2.251.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [13]

• 1st revert: 05:27, 12 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2nd revert: 10:00, 12 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3rd revert: 23:10, 12 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 4th revert: 11:39, 13 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims - he saw a Fitness First Koisk - but does not provide useable sources
• 5th revert: 06:16, 17 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attacking another user
• 6th revert: 06:34, 17 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attacking another user
• 7th revert: 06:42, 17 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatly changing carpark spaces
• 8th revert: 11:56, 17 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) source added but unaccesible to users outside of Melbourne
• 9th revert: 06:28, 18 April 2008 using 123.2.251.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) changing carpark spaces using I.P.
• 10th revert: 07:24, 18 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 11th revert: 03:47, 19 April 2008 using 123.2.251.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:18, 19 April 2008

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 ^{(Push my button)} 05:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Cerberus Capital Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 79.35.107.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Sp4rt4n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 06:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: 08:15, 17 April 2008 - Sp4rt4n
• 2nd revert: 06:41, 18 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 3rd revert: 06:58, 18 April 2008 - Sp4rt4n
• 4th revert: 13:02, 18 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 5th revert: 21:16, 18 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 6th revert: 05:24, 19 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 7th revert: 06:21, 19 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 8th revert: 06:22, 19 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7

• Previous version reverted to: 06:41, 18 April 2008

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)[reply]

I've modified this report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP and account for 24 hours and prot'd the disputed article. Clear WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPAM. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on 32 County Sovereignty Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.248.59.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 01:44, 3 April 2008

• 1st revert: 08:04, 19 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 08:42, 19 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:01, 19 April 2008
• 4th revert: 09:22, 19 April 2008 Edit summary: (Undid revision 206658440 by Domer48 (talk), Reverting Domer's violation of 3RR.)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [15] (via edit summary)
• Diff of 3RR warning on user talk page (actually version link; first post to talk page): 09:37, 19 April 2008 ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• User indicates knowledge of 3RR rule in edit summary of 4th revert (see in list of reverts).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^{Call me Pat!} 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Order of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

• 1st revert: 14:40, 15 April 2008 -- revert to 00:57, 15 April 2008)

• 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)

• 3rd revert: 17:46, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 16:06, 15 April 2008

• 4th revert: 19:10, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 16:06, 15 April 2008 again.

• 5th revert: 19:37, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 16:58, 7 August 2007

• 6th revert: 20:00, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 12:23, 12 April 2008, for deletion of note about appointments on April 11, 2008.

• 7th revert: a succession of edits that made several reverts, as detailed below.
  • 21:21, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 19:41, 16 April 2008, for deletion of "Media:Example.ogg", and to 01:39, 20 January 2006, for deletion of "...in conversation with Adrienne Clarkson and John Ralston Saul." from the reference on Beatty in the paragraph beginning "The badge..."
  • 21:36, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 20:03, 16 April 2008, for changing the image-size back
  • 21:47, 16 April 2008
    • revert to 07:15, 1 July 2007], for deletion of periods in the postnomials, for example "C.C." --> "CC". (The periods were last put in by the three edits immediately following the given version. There's been earlier back-and-forth over this style, from time to time.)
    • revert to 06:41, 12 February 2007, for deletion of "On February 20, 2007, Rideau Hall announced that Richard Drouin, Joseph Gosnell, and Ron Southern had been promoted to the rank of Companion.^[1]" (or revert to 00:46, 1 September 2005, for deletion of the basic sentence, which has been changed annually according to the year's appointments.)
  • 01:11, 17 April 2008 -- revert to 04:57, 14 July 2005, for deletion of the passage: "In the case of Ahenakew, ... to take away his honour."
  • 01:13, 17 April 2008 -- revert to 04:57, 14 July 2005, and in part to earlier versions, for major deletion

• 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Afghanistan (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Afghanistan|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 18:04, 16 April 2008

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).

• 1st revert: 19:01, 16 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 19:59, 16 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:23, 16 April 2008
• 4th revert: 20:42, 16 April 2008
• 5th revert: 04:44, 17 April 2008
• 6th revert: 16:42, 17 April 2008
• 7th revert: 16:47, 17 April 2008
• 8th revert: 16:51, 17 April 2008
• 9th revert: 17:05, 17 April 2008
• 10th revert: 17:21, 17 April 2008
• 11th revert: 17:29, 17 April 2008
• 12th revert: 14:06, 18 April 2008
• 13th revert: 18 April 2008
• 14th revert: 21:30, 18 April 2008
• 15th revert: 05:57, 19 April 2008

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- 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 Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

• Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide
• 3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.