Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:06, 11 May 2008 view sourceCoppertwig (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,281 edits →User:AnotherObserver reported by User:Boooooom: Adding information to the report and commenting← Previous edit Revision as of 17:58, 11 May 2008 view source Matthead (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers21,271 edits →ExampleNext edit →
Line 477: Line 477:


:'''Comment:''' There are only three reverts, and it takes four reverts to violate the three-revert rule. The warning comes after all of the reverts and also after the threat to continue reverting. I've added times (in italics) and a valid previous version reverted to to the above and placed a welcome template on AnotherObserver's talk page since the user has only 10 edits. If further reverts happen, you can add them to this report. (non-admin opinion) <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:1.3em;">☺</span> ] (]) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC) :'''Comment:''' There are only three reverts, and it takes four reverts to violate the three-revert rule. The warning comes after all of the reverts and also after the threat to continue reverting. I've added times (in italics) and a valid previous version reverted to to the above and placed a welcome template on AnotherObserver's talk page since the user has only 10 edits. If further reverts happen, you can add them to this report. (non-admin opinion) <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:1.3em;">☺</span> ] (]) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

*Suspected ] violation on {{Article|Drang nach Osten}}. {{3RRV|Space Cadet}}: Time reported: 17:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The user was added to ] on and is thus under Arbcom edit restriction. He was blocked since:

* 23:38, 3 March 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Space Cadet (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Violation of civility supervision)

Now to the suspected 3RR violation:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert: 1 letter changed
*4th revert:

Previous versions reverted to had both been edited by ] who is called by Space Cadet:
*
*

*Diff of 3RR warning:

Technically it was 5 minutes over the 24h limit. This might be considered ], especially since the user was blocked for 3RR for his 7th time only weeks ago on April 20:
* 04:58, 20 April 2008 EdJohnston (Talk | contribs) blocked "Space Cadet (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: 3RR on Christoph Hartknoch. This editor is under an Arbcom restriction)



== Example == == Example ==

Revision as of 17:58, 11 May 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Violations

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


    User:ThomHImself reported by OrangeMarlin 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC) (Result: 48 hours)

    Robert J. Marks II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ThomHImself (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 07:52, 5 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Be honest with readers; see talk")
    2. 08:52, 5 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Perakh's web-published opinion about Marks' writing is now unsourced, thus no longer a reliable source")
    3. 09:47, 5 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210283206 by Orangemarlin (talk) Read the talk page, engage in consensus building")
    4. 04:24, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Note was incorrect; URL given as existence "proof" of another URL has died")
    5. 04:28, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Marks creationist presentation has disappeared; removing everything depending on it per WP:BLP")
    6. 04:46, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210500640 by Orangemarlin (talk) READ, READ, READ. Source for a DIFFERENT topic has vanished. WP:BLP")
    7. 04:48, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Marks' biosketch vanished; replacing with another - or is this COI?")
    8. 05:14, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210503267 by Hrafn (talk) BOTH links in ref are DEAD, not just original; replacing intervening edits per WP:BLP")
    9. 05:52, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Marks publication list now says a paper is in press; no details of proceedings or journal, so unverifiable")
    10. 05:54, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210509708 by ThomHImself (talk) undoing my own change")
    11. 05:56, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210508734 by FCYTravis (talk) Reversion of deletions mandated by WP:BLP unjustified; see talk about links")
    12. 06:14, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210511271 by FCYTravis (talk) No excuse to replace content disallowed by WP:BLP; I will restore idiotic ref")
    13. 06:18, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Restored the ref with TWO broken links; all other changes are compliance with WP:BLP")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —OrangeMarlin 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    There are so many intermixed edits, I needed to place all of the reverts or edits. They are essentially variations of the same theme. OrangeMarlin 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    He has since reverted several more times. Very disruptive here. Baegis (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Second violation of 3RR in two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:YMB29 reported by Kermanshahi (talk) (result: Stale)

    1. 14:35, 5 May 2008
    2. 01:43, 6 May 2008
    3. 10:50, 6 May 2008
    4. 14:08, 6 May 2008
    5. 14:51, 6 May 2008
    • Diff of warning: here

    -Kermanshahi (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    --

    Kermanshahi did it four times also: 17:45, 5 May 2008, 11:25, 6 May 2008, 11:29, 6 May 2008, 14:28, 6 May 2008

    He also called me a vandal and keeps on putting unverified statistics and details into many articles concerning war aviation to satisfy his personal bias. I mean just look at this article, which he defends from edits.

    -YMB29 (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    Stale. The last revert was on 6 May. If the two main editors still disagree as to what sources are usable, I suggest that you ask for advice at WT:MILHIST. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Eblackwood reported by User:Marcus22 (Result: 24 hour block )

    I'm trying to report this, on this article, but I really don't know how to fill all this stuff in about versionlinks and versiontimes and so forth. How do I proceed? I dont want to keep reverting the article myself. Marcus22 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    I've added the diffs below. As pointed out on your talk page, however, no warning was given. Also, both, to the time I'm posting this, have reverted 9 times in less than 24 hours. I've placed a warning on both user talk pages. Faith (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • 1st revert Eblackwood: 22:45, 6 May 2008
    • 1st revert Marcus22:
    • 2nd revert Eblackwood:
    • 2nd revert Marcus22:
    • 3rd revert Eblackwood:
    • 3rd revert Marcus22:
    • 4th revert Eblackwood:
    • 4th revert Marcus22:
    • 5th revert Eblackwood:
    • 5th revert Marcus22:
    • 6th revert Eblackwood:
    • 6th revert Marcus22:
    • 7th revert Eblackwood:
    • 7th revert Marcus22:
    • 1st Nonsense edit Eblackwood:
    • 2nd Nonsense edit Eblackwood:
    • 1st Revert of nonsense, not a violation as it removed obvious vandalism; reverted by Marcus22:
    • 2nd Revert of nonsense, might be in violation as it removed vandalism, but may be considered a change to a preferred version, 8th revert Marcus22:
    • 8th Revert Eblackwood:
    • 9th Revert Marcus22:
    • 9th Revert Eblackwood: Current revision 22:25, 7 May 2008
    • Diff of 3RR warning: Eblackwood (no diff because only post on his talk page); Marcus22
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Enigma 16:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:PiCo reported by User:FaithF (Result: Stale. Both warned. )

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

    This appears to be a case of WP:OWN where PiCo keeps reverting away from the fuller context and meaning of the source material. The Vatican directly referred to exegesis in the source text, which PiCo keeps reverting to a minor clause of "if not the findings" speaking of results, rather than method, not found in the source. When I asked him/her to stop reverting, leaving the warning, a snarky comment was left on my talk, along with the fourth revert to the article, attempting to now claim my edit was "potentially controversial", despite the multiple evidence of PiCo saying our edits said the same thing: "says exactly what yours says, but less verbosely", "you're taking a lot more words to say exactly what was there already", "The two sentences actually say exactly the same thing"..." why, if the two sentences are saying the same thing". Obviously I disagree, and stated as much in Talk. If I am stating the same thing, then his/her continued reverts are obviously disruptive. If my edits are now considered (after I gave the 3RR warning) to be "potentially controversial", he/she will need to show why in talk, rather than the disruptive reverts, something which still hasn't been shown. Faith (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    Seriously guys. Stop it. You can see that it's getting no where. Since it's from the 7th I can't do anything but warn you again. Meanwhile, I'm watchlisting the article... Scarian 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Alekishere reported by User:Sthenel (Result: 24 hour block)

    Wow. A lot of fighting going on over there. Blocked for 24 hours; clear 3RR vio. Scarian 16:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:128.138.82.195 reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hour block )

    Clear 3RR vio. Blocked for 24 hours. Scarian 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mountainsarehigh reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: 24 hour block )

    Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. In this report I am treating WP:SPA user's first insertion/deletion as an undo of previous consensus content, followed by three reverts to user's preferred version, totalling four. However, on the policy clause quoted, user may also be blocked even if this constitutes only three reverts. Further, I warned user informally prior to Orangemike's template warning. My first report; please advise if this is not a block on either ground ("4 reverts" or "clearly disruptive"), thanks. User clearly is not new and is aware of 3RR policy, and user's protests about 3RR on Talk:Ron Paul may or may not be indicative of intent to come just up to the line without crossing it.

    The new text "squarely in the second tier" appears in each of the four reverts, and "'surprisingly strong'" was reverted in all four.

    Clearly edit warring. Blocked for 24 hours. Scarian 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Rividian reported by User:Simonxag (Result: Warned both editors)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    Closing. User:Simonxag and User:Rividian will both be blocked if they continue to edit war. I left the appropriate warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:San anjelo & User:124.217.41.50 reported by User:Tiggerjay (Result: semiprotected)

    By IP Sockpuppet

    By San angelo

    User:Mrshaba reported by User:199.125.109.57 (Result: Stale)

    Their response was "I am familiar with the rules of style and the 3RR rule." Apparently not. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    • events documented were over a day ago. Reopen this if the edit warring resumes and we can take this into account then. I'll leave a warning. Spartaz 09:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    As Mrshaba is an SPA with no regard for other considerations I can pretty much guarantee that this will resume. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Knowhands enjoykeep reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 48 hours )


    User:Knowhands enjoykeep has previously been reported for a 3RR breach on this article and was subsequently blocked for 24 hours. Shortly after the block ended he reverted to his pre-block version of the article. Since then he has reverted twice more. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Muscovite99 reported by User:Cfeet77 (Result: Stale. )

    This user has been already blocked once for violating 3RR (diff).

    In the quoted reverts he constantly re-inserts the same biographic material about a living person that other editors considered poorly sourced, defamatory and dubious as per talk page. Cfeet77 (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    Stale. Scarian 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Muscovite99 reported by User:Krawndawg (Result: 48 hour block)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: I warned this user two days ago for 3rr here and he was just reported by another user. This user has also been blocked before for 3rr:(diff).

    This user is continually removing well sourced statistics (from the associated press), violating WP:V by saying that they're "wrong" because he doesn't understand how economics work. This user also continually accuses good faith editors of "vandalizing" pages, even though he's been warned about that, and is more often than not uncivil in discussion, making derogatory comments towards editors. Krawndawg (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    And he continues to remove an entire section from the article for the 3rd time without consensus, and calls its data "wrong" as well when everything is clearly and reliably sourced. Krawndawg (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 48 hours. Looks like he's done this before. Scarian 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Krawndawg reported by User:Biophys (Result: Stale. )

    • Previous version reverted to:

    Please pay attention at the segment that begins from "During his eight years in office, the economy bounced back from crisis seeing nominal GDP increase six-fold..." in first reverts.

    This user conducts RR warring simultaneously with many users. He reported about RR violations by two other users at this noticeboard (see above; both blocked). He conducted RR war with both of them.Biophys (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    That one is just about stale. Please report again if the user(s) persists (Do not revert again, please). Scarian 21:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    I do not really understand this. He reported two other users, and they were blocked. He violated 3RR rule himself, and there is no action. He has been previously blocked and repeatedly warned about RR warring at his talk page, although he deleted all the warnings from the talk page.Biophys (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    Many of those reverts by the way are in accordance to WP:V. A user was trying to remove statistical information because he claimed it was wrong, even though it was clearly and reliably sourced. He was blocked, I restored the correct version, then Biophys continued the edit war. Krawndawg (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:87.80.128.218 reported by User:Daytona2 (Result: Protected. )


    Despite discussion and concensus on the talk page, editor refuses to accept Misplaced Pages:NOT#CENSORED. Similar revert wars with varying participants have been occurring for at least the last year. Editor has launched a personal attack on me which I would like dealt with. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    Essentially it's stale. But I have prot'd the article anyway. Can't remember for how long though... :-S Scarian 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:98.197.207.69 reported by User:WLU (Result: Stale. )

    • Previous version reverted to: 19:01, May 9, 2008 - variations, always reverting to provide the statement that Moby has used the alias Pippy Baliunas
    Stale; report again please if anything else happens in the future. Scarian 06:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Aee1980 reported by User:Kafka Liz (Result: 72 hours )


    Single-purpose account repeatedly removes sourced information about an ethnic minority in a Greek town. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours This editor has been warring on the same point (wishing to exclude the city's Turkish name from the lead) since March 22. Discussion on Talk shows there is a balanced way of handling such mentions that's used in several parallel articles, but this editor will have none of it. His point gains no support on Talk, but he keeps on reverting regardless, month after month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Zodiiak reported by User:bender235 (Result: Warned both editors )


    No violation of 3RR, only 3 reverts have been made. Tiptoety 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


    User:WWGB reported by User:LahoreKid (Result: Stale. )

    I already warned him days ago on his talk page, but he decided to ignore the warnings and continued to vandalize the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LahoreKid (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 00:47


    1) It's stale. 2) It's not vandalism; it's clearly a content dispute. Scarian 19:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Palomaris reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )

    Both User:Palomaris and User:222.105.69.68 (the same editor) are Single-purpose accounts repeatedly removing sourced, vetted, established text from Food irradiation and replacing it with copy-and-paste text taken from www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/Irradfact.cfm WHAT'S WRONG WITH FOOD IRRADIATION (revised 2001). When taken together, the two user accounts add up to four reverts in one day.

    User:Happyme22

    User:Happyme22 has violated WP:3RR at Ronald Reagan. Also, he appears to have some serious WP:OWN issues. Below are the particular entries at the article that violate 3RR.

    • 00:25, 11 May 2008
    • 23:04, 10 May 2008
    • 19:33, 10 May 2008
    • 19:11, 10 May 2008

    Cryptographic hash (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

    It appears that some of the reverts made by User:Happyme22 reverted content added by a blocked/sock abusing user, not really sure 3RR has been violated here. Tiptoety 02:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed. Also, this appears to be somewhat of a revenge posting, given the reporting users prior interactions with Happyme22 over the Jeremiah Wright article... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    Note: User:Cryptographic hash has been warned for disruptive editing. Tiptoety 03:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


    User:AnotherObserver reported by User:Boooooom



    There is a threat to keep reverting here 07:39, 11 May 2008

    Comment: There are only three reverts, and it takes four reverts to violate the three-revert rule. The warning comes after all of the reverts and also after the threat to continue reverting. I've added times (in italics) and a valid previous version reverted to to the above and placed a welcome template on AnotherObserver's talk page since the user has only 10 edits. If further reverts happen, you can add them to this report. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

    The user was added to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren on 12:21, 28 January 2008 and is thus under Arbcom edit restriction. He was blocked since:

    • 23:38, 3 March 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Space Cadet (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Violation of civility supervision)

    Now to the suspected 3RR violation:

    Previous versions reverted to had both been edited by User:Molobo who is called "my brother" by Space Cadet:

    Technically it was 5 minutes over the 24h limit. This might be considered Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system, especially since the user was blocked for 3RR for his 7th time only weeks ago on April 20:

    • 04:58, 20 April 2008 EdJohnston (Talk | contribs) blocked "Space Cadet (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: 3RR on Christoph Hartknoch. This editor is under an Arbcom restriction)


    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic