Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 338: Line 338:
::::This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confederation&diff=227729875&oldid=227706384] diff reflects the edit where I added the material that PhilLiberty subsequently deleted. This diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confederation&diff=227706384&oldid=227701368] came right before and was the one in which I removed material restored by Phil in the same edit that he deleted the material I added. [[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] ([[User talk:North Shoreman|talk]]) 19:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confederation&diff=227729875&oldid=227706384] diff reflects the edit where I added the material that PhilLiberty subsequently deleted. This diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confederation&diff=227706384&oldid=227701368] came right before and was the one in which I removed material restored by Phil in the same edit that he deleted the material I added. [[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] ([[User talk:North Shoreman|talk]]) 19:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I need an oldid, not a diff. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I need an oldid, not a diff. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the 4th diff, that is apparently the issue, the section AFTER Phil's revert read:

Historical importance

The Articles are historically important for two major reasons: i) they were the first constitution or governing document for the United States of America and ii) they legally established an alliance ("union") of the thirteen founding states. One legal view holds the Articles (and later Constitution) to be a contract or compact between the states and the union, thus if the union violates the contract states may rightfully secede.[16] This position was held by, among others, Thomas Jefferson[17] and John C. Calhoun. A later interpretation was that the states permanently surrendered the right to secede. This view was used by Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln to justify engaging in a war against secession, the American Civil War,[18] but was stated as early as 1832 by Andrew Jackson during the Nullification Crisis.[19] Law professor Daniel Farber argues that there was no clear consensus on the permanence of the Union or the issue of secession by the Founders. [20]

The section BEFORE Phil’s revert read (major deleted material in boldface):

Historical importance

The Articles are historically important for two major reasons: i) they were the first constitution or governing document for the United States of America and ii) they legally established a union of the thirteen founding states. '''In 1786 Thomas Jefferson wrote concerning the nature of government under the Articles:'''
'''It has been often said that the decisions of Congress are impotent because the Confederation provides no compulsory power. But when two or more nations enter into compact, it is not usual for them to say what shall be done to the party who infringes it. Decency forbids this, and it is as unnecessary asindecent, because the right of compulsion naturally results to the party injured by the breach. When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compell them to obedience.[16]
'''Political scientist David C. Hendrickson writes that two prominent political leaders in the Confederation, John Jay of New York and Thomas Burke of North Carolina believed that "the authority of the congress rested on the prior acts of the several states, to which the states gave their voluntary consent, and until those obligations were fulfilled, neither nullification of the authority of congress, exercising its due powers, nor secession from the compact itself was consistent with the terms of their original pledges."[17]'''
A different legal view holds the Articles (and later Constitution) to be a compact between the states and the union, thus if the union violates the terms of the compact, states may rightfully secede.[citation needed] This position was held by, among others, Thomas Jefferson[dubious – discuss][18] and John C. Calhoun. '''This view motivated discussions of secession within a minority of states at the Hartford Convention, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and the Nullification Crisis.[19][20][21]''' A competing view, promoted by Daniel Webster and later by Abraham Lincoln, was that the Articles established a permanent union of the thirteen founding states and that the Constitution, being a "more perfect union", continued this perpetuity.[22] [[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] ([[User talk:North Shoreman|talk]]) 11:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:Écrasez l'infâme]] reported by [[User:Blanchardb]] (Result: 31 hours) ==
== [[User:Écrasez l'infâme]] reported by [[User:Blanchardb]] (Result: 31 hours) ==

Revision as of 11:47, 27 July 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

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


    User:InternetHero reported by User:DigitalC (Result: Page protected, user blocked)

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

    Time reported: 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2] 22:03 22 July
    • 2nd revert: [3] 02:11 23 July
    • 3rd revert: [4] 04:55 23 July
    • 4th revert: [5] 17:47 23 July



    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours, In strong consideration of his other 3 3RR blocks in the past, it is clear to me that this particular user is familiar with when and how the 3RR is enforced and how it is violated by reverts. Although the warning here was placed before a day or so before he actually violated the 3RR, I shall carry less leniency since, as before, he should know the course of action and procedure involved; he violated it less than 4 days ago on another article. The extension of the block period was inline with policy as described here. The page has also been protected for 5 days and all changes must be formed by consensus on the talk page. Rudget 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raymond Cruise reported by User:Mr Wesker (Result: Decline )

    Raymond Cruise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [[8]]
    • 1st revert: [9] 12:05 22 July
    • 2nd revert: [10] 18:13 23 July
    • 3rd revert: [11] 10:05 24 July
    • This is my first 3RR report, so hopefully it is formatted correctly. Please note that I am involved, as I have reverted one of his edits. - (12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC))
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Rudget 12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hillock65 reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 48 hour block and warn )

    Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


    Sure, ban me, if I violated anything, but please also look at --Kuban Cossack's edit warring in two different articles[12][13] and that is less than a month that he got banned for edit warring[14]. Why is it that a persistent edit warrior with one of the longest record of offences gets away with continuous edit warring for so long?! --Hillock65 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GreenEcho reported by User:Emilyzilch (Result: 24 hours)

    GreenEcho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [15]

    There are intermediate version, but the reverts are rolled back to User:GreenEcho's added statement. A related conflict by the same user (at the time, an IP only) led to the locking of Druze, which remains locked after a month of his continued refusal to participate. User will not discuss or compromise and simply reverts. He is well aware of Wikipedia, using complex syntax, user and talk pages, (inappropriate) use of user warning templates and user-conflict administrative pages (he has personal conflict with another user, User:Hiram111).

    Note The last revert was 3 minutes off from being a violation. No diff of a 3RR Warning has been given. [16]--KojiDude (C) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. GreenEcho's first edit was 30 June but there are signs that this is an experienced editor. He showed up at WP:ANI on his second day of editing. His user page suggests he has been an IP before. Both Emilyzilch and GreenEcho seem to have a lot of technical knowledge, but GreenEcho and the IPs he used previously have been very combative on more than one article. I am notifying him of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispute is related to Druze which is awaiting RFC. Please, look at the edits before talking about 3RR. Emilyzilch has been removing sourced edits, reverting his/her edits is enforcing Wikipedia policy. GreenEcho (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GreenEcho has reverted the page again. Your sourced edits are inappropriately added to the introduction and you routinely suppress other points of view - which you will note I have not, rather reserving controversy to the body of the articles. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:206.186.8.130 reported by User:Ptrt (Result: 2 months)

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

    Time reported: 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


    Editor is well aware of WP:3RR, made yesterday two reports himself - [17] (same article, BTW), [18]. Looking at his talk page history, it seems that he could very well be User:RJ CG, who has been blocked numerous times for edit warring, there's one old checkuser confirming this too. Both article choice and editing style are extremely similar.

    Note, 206.186.8.130 is also edit warring Estonian War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

    1. 18:46, 24 July 2008
    2. 19:00, 24 July 2008
    3. 21:25, 24 July 2008
    4. 21:31, 24 July 2008
    and Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
    1. 20:31, 23 July 2008
    2. 15:41, 24 July 2008
    3. 18:36, 24 July 2008
    4. 20:05, 24 July 2008
    206.186.8.130 is confirmed IP sock of RJ_CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Martintg (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, perhaps placing a long {{anonblock}} would be most appropriate here, given that the IP address appears to be an IP of the Toronto Transit Commission, a Canadian transportation company. Martintg (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. This is a clear 3RR violation. The IP is edit-warring across multiple articles, so it's hardly a borderline case or a momentary lapse of judgment. I suggest, since User:RJ_CG was last blocked for one month, a two-month block on him and a block of the same length on 206.186.8.130 (talk · contribs) (anon only). I'll wait for comments on this proposed action, or let another 3RR closer resolve the matter in any way they think appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this action is fair, User:RJ_CG is a notorious edit warrior previously cited for his disruptive behaviour in a recent Arbcom case. --Martintg (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 2 months Both the IP and RJ CG. As part of the Digwuren case (October 2007) Arbcom found that User:RJ CG "has engaged in sustained edit-warring ([68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]) as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([74])." EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yankees10 reported by User:Certified.Gangsta (Result: No violation)

    Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: --Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment

    I didnt revert the last time, you undid the entire thing, and got rid of good edits

    Note Reported user has been blocked twice for 3RR [23]. Most recent block was April 27, 2008.--KojiDude (C) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.248.41.122 reported by Dr.K. (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (Result: 12 hours each)

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

    Time reported: 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

    User refuses to cite and does not engage in dialogue on the talk page of the article.

    Comment None of the other names in the article have citations; why is he being pressured for one?--KojiDude (C) 05:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My comment is just for the record: The bogus greek version of "Jasper" introduced by the anonymous IP is completely unattested. All other names in the relevant list give ample results when googled. The fact that the supposed Greek form of Jasper does not appear in any google result whatsoever, most certainly merits a proper citation.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment In reply to KojiDude's comment, if anyone bothered to see my ill fated attempt at communication on the talk page of the article they would see the reason. I warned the IP that Google yielded 0 (zero) hits for its edit. Do I have to explain what zero Google hits mean regarding the notability of the IP's edit? So here is the picture: An anonymous IP vandalizes the article with demonstrably unverifiable rubbish despite multiple warnings by more than one editor on its user talk page and the article talk page as well and the longstanding editor without prior record of blocks and a stellar mainpage editing record and civil behaviour in all of his edits with long-running vandalism fighting credentials to boot, does not even get the courtesy of even a warning. We have administrators for a reason. The reason is that they have logic and discretion and they can apply the rules according to the principles of Fairness and logic. Otherwise we would have robots to mindlessly enforce the myriad of Wikipedia's regulations. In this case Fairnes, logic and editor prior history were not considered. Maybe it's time to polish up the software to take on the task of meting Wikipedia law. Dr.K. (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Myominane reported by User:58.165.119.85 (Result: warning)

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

    Time reported: 08:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


    Warned Stifle (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Kossack4Truth (Result: No violation )

    Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 13:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [24]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: LotLE is fully aware of the 3RR rule and all of its components. He/she has successfully had other editors blocked under this rule, not for four reverts in a 24-hour period, but for violating the spirit of the rule.

    He/she is attempting to remove any mention of controversial Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, and a photo of Obama with Gen. David Petraeus.

    This is low-level edit warring coupled with low-level provocation. Please notice the edit summaries. He/she directs other users to the article Talk page where there is nothing to support him/her. He/she accuses one user of being a "contentious SPA," and notes that another has an "interesting focus" (user's focus appears to be gay rights). See also this diff [25] on the article Talk page, where he/she encourages others to "start ignoring the provocations and sophistry of the SPA."

    LotLE has a long and turbulent history of combative and provocative behavior that resulted in several blocks and countless warnings that he/she has deleted from his/her User Talk page. This is gaming the system. Both Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama are already semi-protected, and the article is on the verge of community probation at WP:ANI, due to such edit warring and continued provocation. LotLE is a significant part of the problem. Please take action, since it is necessary here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It's more than 'stale' - there is no violation, there are 48 hours and 16 minutes between the first and the fourth diff. Considering the history of this dispute, the fact that User:Kossack4Truth is topic banned[26] from the article in question, and the fact that there is clearly no violation here casts a doubt over the good faith of this report--Cailil talk 14:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: Kossack4Truth is NOT topic banned from the article in question. This is low-level edit warring coupled with low-level provocation. At the very least, a warning to this user from an uninvolved administrator is in order, given the history of that article and the history of the user. Notice also that after a 3RR report, other users have been blocked despite the fact that there were fewer than four reverts in a 24-hour period.[27] The block is for edit warring, not for any technical violation of 3RR. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. seicer | talk | contribs 14:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I just noticed this, but want to add a comment before it is archived, since I think K4T will cite this in the future. The above diffs, apart from occupying more than 24 hours, also concern two completely unrelated editing issues. They are not simply reverts either, but vary somewhat. In any case, two of the diffs concern the handling of mentions of Michael Pfleger, and two of them concern images that include David Petreus. Moreover, the types of article concerns that motivated the two sets of edits are completely distinct as well. There is not common "issue" or "dispute" that involves both Pfleger and Petreus (at least none I've ever heard of). It merely consists of K4T grabbing a few random edits I've made in a relatively small time interval, and filing a misleading report. LotLE×talk 00:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to LotLE's comment, and fearing that this 3RR complaint might be cited in the future, I note that the 'random edits' cited above are *all* reverts and they all count toward a single total. The fact they are not all on the same topic makes no difference under WP:3RR. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. There are four reverts here. This case fails to be actionable only due to the wide time interval. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is not correct, EdJohnston (it takes a careful look, or knowledge of page changes to see it, I understand). What actually happened was that a neutral editor added two images of Petreus. I removed one, and explained both in the edit comment and on the talk page why two images was undue emphasis (the adding editor agreed). A different editor restored the two images as a revert, and I indeed reverted that change with similar explanation and expansion of talk page comment. So one revert related to images. On the Pfleger description, one of my edits was a revert, but the other was trying a slightly different phrasing that I hoped would meet consensus. So there were a total of two actual reverts in the period of 48+ hours (of the four edits reported as such, and only one related to each topic). Perhaps two is still too many, but I want anyone looking at this in the future to pay attention to the actual edits. LotLE×talk 05:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pietervhuis reported by User:LokiiT (Result: Both blocked)

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

    Time reported: 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [He informed me of what 3RR was and on his talk page it looks like he's been blocked a bunch of times already for 3RR]

    I didn't want to have to take measures like this, but this guy is trying really hard to push his "pro-Chechen" point of view (which he made abundantly clear in the second Chechen war talk page) by removing reliable sources then adding different ones that say something completely different. You can see the sentence he changed, instead of getting "brutalized and killed by Chechen militants", he "may have been thrown out or fell out of a window trying to escape"..This is the same terrorist group who took a school hostage and killed hundreds of children. And obviously he has no consensus to make a change like that, he didn't even bring it up in talk after a bunch of reverts. LokiiT (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked LokiiT blocked for 24 hours, and as Pietervhuis has quite a history of 3RR blocks, he gets 10 days. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.141.155.99 reported by User:Enigmaman (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Time reported: 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

    IP has actually been edit-warring over two different things in the article. Also this and ensuing reverts. Enigma message 16:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PhilLiberty reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: No Violation)

    Articles of Confederation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PhilLiberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [28]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]

    The editor has been engaging in similar types of edit warring on four articles -- Articles of Confederation, United States Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, and American Revolutionary War. He actually went over 3 reverts last night, but an additional warning was given. Recently three different editors -- me, User:JimWae, and User:Bkonrad have been involved in reversing PhilLiberty’s edits. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The last link is not a revert.--KojiDude (C) 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm missing something -- the last link removed material that I added and restored material that PhilLiberty had previously added. How is this not a revert? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was a revert, then there is a previous version of the page that is the same as the version after that edit. Can you please specify that previous version? Stifle (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This [34] diff reflects the edit where I added the material that PhilLiberty subsequently deleted. This diff [35] came right before and was the one in which I removed material restored by Phil in the same edit that he deleted the material I added. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I need an oldid, not a diff. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Going back to the 4th diff, that is apparently the issue, the section AFTER Phil's revert read:

    Historical importance

    The Articles are historically important for two major reasons: i) they were the first constitution or governing document for the United States of America and ii) they legally established an alliance ("union") of the thirteen founding states. One legal view holds the Articles (and later Constitution) to be a contract or compact between the states and the union, thus if the union violates the contract states may rightfully secede.[16] This position was held by, among others, Thomas Jefferson[17] and John C. Calhoun. A later interpretation was that the states permanently surrendered the right to secede. This view was used by Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln to justify engaging in a war against secession, the American Civil War,[18] but was stated as early as 1832 by Andrew Jackson during the Nullification Crisis.[19] Law professor Daniel Farber argues that there was no clear consensus on the permanence of the Union or the issue of secession by the Founders. [20]

    The section BEFORE Phil’s revert read (major deleted material in boldface):

    Historical importance

    The Articles are historically important for two major reasons: i) they were the first constitution or governing document for the United States of America and ii) they legally established a union of the thirteen founding states. In 1786 Thomas Jefferson wrote concerning the nature of government under the Articles: It has been often said that the decisions of Congress are impotent because the Confederation provides no compulsory power. But when two or more nations enter into compact, it is not usual for them to say what shall be done to the party who infringes it. Decency forbids this, and it is as unnecessary asindecent, because the right of compulsion naturally results to the party injured by the breach. When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compell them to obedience.[16] Political scientist David C. Hendrickson writes that two prominent political leaders in the Confederation, John Jay of New York and Thomas Burke of North Carolina believed that "the authority of the congress rested on the prior acts of the several states, to which the states gave their voluntary consent, and until those obligations were fulfilled, neither nullification of the authority of congress, exercising its due powers, nor secession from the compact itself was consistent with the terms of their original pledges."[17] A different legal view holds the Articles (and later Constitution) to be a compact between the states and the union, thus if the union violates the terms of the compact, states may rightfully secede.[citation needed] This position was held by, among others, Thomas Jefferson[dubious – discuss][18] and John C. Calhoun. This view motivated discussions of secession within a minority of states at the Hartford Convention, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and the Nullification Crisis.[19][20][21] A competing view, promoted by Daniel Webster and later by Abraham Lincoln, was that the Articles established a permanent union of the thirteen founding states and that the Constitution, being a "more perfect union", continued this perpetuity.[22] Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Écrasez l'infâme reported by User:Blanchardb (Result: 31 hours)

    Écrasez l'infâme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [36]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [44]
    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours – It's pretty obvious that consensus has been repeatedly against the changes introduced by the user, as multiple editors repeatedly reverted the user's changes; yet, the user persisted in introducing those changes over time, which is edit warring and/or disruptive. --slakr\ talk / 06:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pabopa reported by User:Manacpowers (Result: No violation proven)

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

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

    Time reported: 08:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]

    Kowtow

    Taekwondo

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [53]

    Possibly he is a sock of 210.231.12.98. (exactly same behavior of User:Pabopa). if he is a sock, then he violated 3rr rules more.

    evidence

    No violation. There are only three reverts shown for Kowtow (four are required to constitute a violation) and there is no previous version reverted to shown for Taekwondo, so no evidence that the first edit is a revert. You can list a request for checkuser type E if you think that the IP is the same editor as Pabopa. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request for review: I've watched their edit waring, but their edit wars were so fast. Manac misformatted the diffs on Taekwondo, so I do it. The article is currently in mediation (not formal though), so every sources are under scrutiny. I also agree that Pabopa seems like 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs)[57], a sock of blocked for personal attacks yesterday. It is highly unlikely the Badopa and the IP user are not the same one given the identical edit and appearances. If they are the same user, Badopa is evading his block sanction. Regardless, Babopa indeed violated 3RR twice with his or account.

    --Caspian blue (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Stifle (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Manacpowers reported by User:Pabopa (Result: Page protected)

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

    Time reported: 08:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Diff of 3RR warning:[63]

    Taekwondo, Samjeondo Monument‎,Seoul National University He does stalking of me,and revert.--Pabopa (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)--Pabopa (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    what are you talking about? you violated 3rr rule. after you created new accounts and violated 3rr rule more. many user revert your edit, but your have a disruptive behavior, and revert revert.... again.

    here is the evidence. [64][65][66][67][68] Manacpowers (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Stifle (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pabopa reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: Declined)

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

    Time reported: 13:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Third violation of 3RR within 14 hours by Pabopa. One of the three articles Pabopa violated is now protected, the other is still waiting for review, the latest one is this one. I don't think the user willing to regard with 3RR policy and consensus and discussion. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined The first edit is not a revert, so there are only three in total. Nonetheless, User:Pabopa has reverted three times in one day on each of three different articles. He may be blocked for edit warring if this behavior continues. It is possible he is the reincarnation of an IP who had been previously warring on the same articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, I've thought that adding or deleting a material first is regarded "revert" if somebody oppose and revert the addition or deletion. Although he did not violate 3RR on this Samjeondo article by your review, he really "revert" 4th time on Taekwondo. I also believe that the previous IPs are him, given the time and identical edit. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.166.196.75 reported by User:Barryob (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Time reported: 15:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [72]


    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This may be a single-purpose IP that was created expressly to edit-war on the names of parties in Scotland. I'm warning User:Barryob as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cooljuno411 reported by User:Ludwigs2 (Result: Declined)

    Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [73]
    • There was also my attempt at a compromise edit, here which was rejected


    My involvement in this begins here, with this compromise edit


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [97]


    COMMENT - this is a slow edit war (everyone is being careful to stick to the literal 3rr rules), but it's an obvious attempt to impose a non-standard set of categories on the template, without allowing discussion. I've asked Cooljuno to take the debate over to Sexual Orientation, reach a consensus there, and then come back when the matter is established - instead, he created a POV-fork at Heterosexual-homosexual_continuum - [98] - and tried to use it as support for his position. further, I think he's aware of what he's doing: Skoojal removed the sidebar from sexual orientation, but Cooljuno edited it back in almost immediately, here [99]. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aviousours76 reported by User:malljaja (Result: 1 week)

    Aviousours76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


    The user in question is involved in edit warring on several other entries (see here); in fact it appears that the account has been created for the sole purpose of engaging in disputes revolving around the same issue. He/she has received a 3RR warning (by a different user) 17:33, 17 July 2008 here, but has removed it subsequently. I have contacted the user on their talk page here, but so far without avail (reverts similar the ones by this user now are made by anon IPs). I hope this can be resolved with your help. Many thanks! Malljaja (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 1 week This editor's main activity since the account was created on June 12 is to revert national identities across a range of articles, for example, 'British' to 'English.' During that period, 37 out of his 40 article edits were reverts. I think it's fair to describe that as POV edit-warring, which falls under 'tendentious editing.' Anyone who is familiar with recent sock cases is invited to check if this is a known sock, because there are nationalist edit-warriors who fit this description. In addition, there was a 3RR violation on John Lydon. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    == [[User:<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->]] reported by [[User:<!-- Your NAME -->]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. 

{{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 

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 from BEFORE all the reverting started. -->

<!-- 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]

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=228175954"