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.
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.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] and [11]
Comments:
" To revert is to undo the action of another editor." The three revert rule was never breached. In other words, no reversions of *another editor* crossed the line of three. The user User:Sigersson has only been here for 5 days. Is this the conduct one would expect from a newbie? I'm not saying s/he is a sock-puppet but others will make their own judgments. Spem Reduxit (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an new user is familiar with how Wikipedia works, does not necessarily make them a sock. See WP:BRANDNEW and WP:NOTSOCK. Before I registered an account, I use to edit frequently as an IP. I merely joined as I started to become more active. The same may be the case here. So don't be so quick to accuse socks. Wes WolfTalk20:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spem_Reduxit also "found" their way to an article I have been working on recently - Moorgate tube crash - to remove an image there on spurious grounds. This is an odd action, particularly as he has subsequently accused me (with absolutely no evidence) of being a former banned user, which I have never been. - Sigersson (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record Ks0stm, I deem the reverted Moorgate tube crash content, depicted here at right, Train stop equipment to be both inappropriate and unreferenced, and potentially dangerous. I am surprised that the Tube have no policies on employee-generated photographs, but to each his own. I leave it up to your discretion whether the content should remain on public view, which it is right now as I have no wish to become involved again with the user who initiated this unsuccessful admin process. Spem Reduxit (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern, Ks0stm. As I have repeatedly remarked on several talk pages, the BBC article was entitled "London attack: PM's condemnation of tech firms criticised", and I thought it best to place the information in a paragraph dedicated to the PM's condemnation, rather than in a section about attacker IDs. I defer to your wisdom. Spem Reduxit (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The impugned sentence
It was reported that one of the attackers had been radicalised by watching YouTube videos by the American hate preacher Ahmad Musa Jibril and had been reported by friends, but the authorities had apparently taken no action.
@Spem Reduxit: So long as you follow BRD, I've got no problem leaving you unblocked. If you keep up the pace of reverts, however, I'm liable to block you for edit warring, since single reverts of many different edits are just as disruptive as many reverts of a single edit. Given that, I would recommend you be more selective about your reverts and when in doubt, discuss before reverting. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)20:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Ks0stm: considering you advised SR about following WP:BRD, they appear to have ignored your advice and manually reinserted the dispute between both users. I thought I would bring this to your attention. I also find this edit somewhat antagonistic - the edit summary doesn't exactly annotate their editing action. Wes WolfTalk23:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The "many moons ago" quote is taken out of context. The editor with whom I was engaged had, by virtue of the "segs on fingers" comment (which I found decidedly unfriendly) placed the conversation on a jocular level. I responded in kind with "moons ago". I find widefox to have decontextualised this event and abused me with it. I care not for this style of treatment and if this is what WP means as civil or polite discourse then perhaps I have come to the wrong place for enjoyment. The "complex for me" is a similar story, perhaps I erred in my judgment on that one sentence. But why would I ask nicely for help if I knew that it would bring me such grief as at this instant juncture? As I said, I needed help to move an article which, in the end *24 hours later* to resolve wider orphan namespace issues, I did with no help from widefox. That he abuses me for it seems odd. I note with thanks that he has finally (on day 3) showed me how to "move" an article but only since I did so myself the only way I knew how, in a manual fashion, and only when he combined it with a "block" threat. In the process he flew off the handle and brought it to the attention of this forum. Is this type of behaviour that can be expected here on WP? In closing, I would appreciate if widefox were disallowed from the vote of my censure because he is too involved and may lack the objectivity this forum needs here. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]
Comments:
This is a long-running content dispute. Despite my attempts to get User:LibStar to discuss his or her mass-blankings on the article talk page (e.g. here), or to engage him/her on more fundamental issues with his/her approach via a conversation conducted across user talk pages (e.g. here), User:LibStar has failed to engage on the article talk page and has now refused to continue the conversation on user talk pages (here). If I am in breach of 3RR, I am happy to take whatever is regarded as the appropriate consequences. However, the substantive point is that User:LibStar should engage substantively on content rather than continually mass-deleting. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that User:PalaceGuard008 could be blocked for making four reverts on June 6, thus breaking the WP:3RR rule. There may still be time for them to avoid a block if they agree to stop warring and wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had repeatedly suggested to LibStar that consensus is sought by discussion, and I repeatedly reverted because LibStar reverted instead of engaging. So of course I appreciate the importance of seeking and obtaining consensus, and I do recognise that in the circumstances the more appropriate thing for me to have done was not to repeatedly revert, but to try other avenues to get LibStar to the discussion. I should also add that there is no active discussion on the article talk page becuase LibStar has stopped engaging. In the mean time I have made a couple of edits to the article to try to fix some of the referencing issues that LibStar relied on as justification for blanking. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User has for quite some months been removing "{{nowrap}}" from various Big Brother articles, They've been given various warnings (as can be seen on their talkpage) and even taken to DRN[21] but to no avail, They did discuss back in April [22] however they made 4 edits so there wasn't much effort in terms of discussing, They've also been blocked for edit warring in Sep 2016 [23],
Myself and VietPride10 have reverted here and there and I assumed they were discussing but since the last discussion in April 2017 they've not discussed anything so here we are, Thanks –Davey2010Talk15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs range from around 20th May - 6th June too so it's not a constant thing as such however it still is edit warring nonetheless, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk15:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – 1 week. This is a dispute about usage of the 'nowrap' template in tables. The disagreement was taken to DRN, but it was closed there in favor of an RfC which was opened on May 7 at Talk:Big Brother Canada (season 5)#RfC on Wrapping. Three other editors have participated in the RfC but Bgc7676 has not joined in. Instead they just continue to revert. Any admin may lift this block if Bgc7676 will agree to wait for consensus on 'nowrap' before editing Big Brother articles again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May I clarify, was that vandalism, and was I edit warring? because they had a source (albeit deprecated) I am not sure it is blatant vandalism. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3X1 (talk • contribs)
14:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC) "If a person has a well-known common hypocorism used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks" (while MOS:NICKNAME does not support that. The supplied example shows the exact use.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Same editor has been making the same edits at other articles including Pat Finucane, Terry Wogan, and Terry Pratchett, for example, where following the edits and clicking on a link to go those pages, you wouldn't know you were on an article about Pat Finucane, Terry Wogan or Terry Wogan by reading the lede paragraph, you'd have to notice the person's common name in the infobox. This is very contrarian and pedantic reading of MOS:NICKNAME. Explained to the editor that depending on jurisdiction, the name a person commonly goes by is their legal name, but still got reverted again to entirely remove the person's common name from the lede. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!15:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a block for making large-scale changes without consensus, along with edit warring pretty hard. — JJBers15:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's actually quite clear as can be seen from the example:
If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of a given name, that is not a common hypocorism (diminutive) of their name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Bunny Berigan, which has Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan. The quotation marks are not put in bold. If a person has a well-known common hypocorism used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has just Thomas Edward Hopper.<ref group=note name=CommHypo>As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the [[Hypocorism#English]] subsections "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "Addition of a diminutive suffix..."; consider treating names listed in the in "A short form that differs significantly from the name" subsection as non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case (a few short forms that differ significantly from the name are well known common hypocorisms, such as "Bob" for "Robert", but most are not). Consider assuming that most non-English hypocorisms are not familiar to readers of this English Wikipedia, even if well known in their native culture.</ref> Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, better known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable.
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Additionally, I'd advise everyone to take the issue to the talk page instead of constantly reverting (consider WT:MOS if clarification is necessary). Regardless, enforcing the MOS (or a particular interpretation of it) is no excuse for edit warring. clpo13(talk)15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
14:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Flashmanianus: Read the MoS yourself: "it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Bunny Berigan, which has Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan". (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I discussed on the editor's talk page, but editor simply reverted and tried to bully preferred version (which was wrong the first two times, per the MoS, and is probably still wrong per the MoS now). I am at 3RR and should not have gone there. Flashmanianus is past 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk section
Comments:
This report relates to edit-warring behaviour which does not violate the 1RR/3RR rule.
This report relates to a dispute on this page that has been ongoing for more than six months by now, and was the subject of the two earlier edit-warring reports I link to above. The latter of them resulted in short blocks for both users with a warning to refrain from further edit-warring behaviour, which is why I am filing this report rather than reverting the content.
In short, in the six-month dispute, I initiated an RFC which was now recently closed, establishing finally a consensus version of the text. Debresser, to my surprise, began actively editing the newly established consensus text, to the extent of undoing my revert of his change, where in my edit summary I advised him to obtain consensus before restoring his version again, which he did not heed but made another revert, further threatening me on the talkpage to not undo his changes to the brand-new consensus text. I advised him to self-revert to the closed version of the text, which he didn't do, rather he made a facetious comment in response (Sand isn't used as a source in the material), further his facetious comment did not respond to the arguments I made in my immediately preceding comment, wherefore Debresser has ceased to engage concerning the substance on the talkpage.
Since Debresser was warned with a 31-hour block in the earlier case, and he has now chosen to continue exactly the same behaviour that led to the earlier block, I suggest he be given a longer block or topic ban.
That completes my report, the following is to pre-empt arguments Debresser is likely to make to accuse me of sinister behaviour: the closed version linked to as "ORIGINAL" above is verbatim the version suggested by DonFB in the RFC, which the closer stated is the new consensus. While DonFB wrote in the RFC a different qualifier might be used, he also said that would invite more debate and, crucially, another qualifier was not used in the text between quotation marks. "Leading" was used. Secondly, the closer allowed for tweaks to the text. Of course, such tweaks would need consensus and be in-line with sources and policy. The closer did not state that Debresser may re-write the text at will.--Dailycare (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Edit: This IP edit from December 2016 first changed the consensus version, six months ago. --Dailycare (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with the fact that my first and second edits are not to the same words at all, so are actually only one revert. Also notice that in my so-called third revert, which is actually only my second, I accepted part of Dailycare's edit.
Secondly, and equally important, is the fact that the first of my edits is from June 3, the other from June 4, almost 24 hours later, and the third from June 6. So there was no violation of WP:3RR. I am aware that is not the same as saying there is no edit war, but I still think it is important to stress this fact.
I am also reporting Dailycare for edit warring: his original edit, revert 1, revert 2. These last two edits are straight reverts, so Dailycare has made just as many reverts as I have. WP:BOOMERANG comes to mind.
Add to that his recent 31 hour block for edit warring on this very same page,[28] which he conveniently and sneakily forgot to mention, and a pattern becomes evident.
Please also notice that I explained my edits with detailed edit summaries and talkpage explanations, in which I explained to Dailycare that he has no leg to stand on, and Dailycare's WP:OWN issues become evident.
I also fail to understand why Dailycare talks about a "six-month dispute", since his first edit to the consensus version was made on March 4, precisely 3 months and two days ago.
The proposal on the Rc that was accepted read in part: A different or added qualifier for "historians/scholars" could be one of the following: 'some/several/many/most'. So my edit is completely within the limits of that proposal. Add to that the fact that the Rfc clearly stated: This close does not preclude wording tweaks, further refining, or other improvements that may be necessary or helpful., and it becomes clear that my edits are problematic only to the one editor who wants his version to be accepted verbatim.
In short, a problematic and not very serious editor is trying to report me for making solid edits. I ask the community to explain in no uncertain terms to Dailycare that he should stop pushing his point of view and harassing other editors. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Are you recommending that I move this report to ANI? I read what you suggested, but this report is not related to the current ANI issue! It is a new, different, separate report. Thank you!——StephenTS42 (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]
Comments:
Kellymoat refuses to engage in meaningful discussion on this issue, claims that the issue had been discussed and a consensus has been reached, yet flatly refuses to provide any evidence for these assertions. When I provided a number of examples of similar articles that were inconsistent with her editing and consistent with mine, she edited one of the articles to change that: [42] This can be seen at the [[43]] Cjhard (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Per previous consensus, I reverted your edits. And sent you a warning. Ironic, how your next move after receiving the warning was to bring it here. The only article I changed was the one that was also involved with the consensus.
I don't need to agree with consensus, I just need to enforce it. And you don't have to agree with consensus, you just need to abide by it.
Sadly, as mentioned in the talk page discussion, you are trying to actively discuss an issue while also trying to actively post your edits. You can't have it both ways. Kellymoat (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
[48]Comments:
As you can see, there is an ongoing struggle between the old rabbi and members of the synagogue, in which the old rabbi has repeatedly written inflammatory and and libelous comments and reverted or changed edits taking them down. I have tried to post on the talk page asking for mediation. It wasn't answered. I need an unbiased admin to review the situation and act according to their judgement.66.65.34.135 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked - User:PalaceGuard008 didn't follow my suggestion and promise to stop warring, so I'm going ahead with the block for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Warned. Neither editors breached 1RR, but clearly there a recurrence of the previous edit warring for which the restrictions were added. Settle it on the talk page before making new changes. Consider the Consensus required provision to be in effect, if that helps. El_C 05:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Declined This is at WP:ANI. StephenTS42, see WP:FORUMSHOP NeilN talk to me 06:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)