Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sm1969 (talk | contribs) at 04:04, 21 March 2007 (→[[User:Smee]] reported by [[User:Sm1969]] (Result:)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

    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.

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:DHowell (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on WEAR-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A Man In Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: This is an admin, who should know better, but seems to believe he is exempt from one policy because he is attempting to enforce another. His interpretation of fair use policy is not consensus and has repeatedly been disputed. See, e.g. Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries.

    This is copyvio content, not a content dispute. DHowell doesn't feel that it's copyvio, but hasn't yet had any success (after many months) making any impact on policy. In the meantime, policy hasn't changed, and I've had to clean up copyvio non-free images. It's probably my mistake for not just deleting them on sight, but instead leaving them orphaned for people to write encyclopedic commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with AMIB's position -- this is a bad-faith report that should be disregarded. I've witness reporting user Dhowell attempt to misrepresent policy to further his position, and obviously making inappropriate noticeboard complaints. /Blaxthos 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CrystalizedAngels reported by User:Ttguy (Result:Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Rudi Giuliani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CrystalizedAngels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Ttguy 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments

    This user did not get a 3RR warning because it is fairly certain that this user already knows about the policy. this posting to Wasted Time R is warning Wasted Time R about 3RR. The posting is by 129.132.239.8 whom is suspected of being CrystalizedAngels. A checkuser has been requested to confirm this.Ttguy 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page is fully protected now. Seems there is no point in blocking CrystalizedAngels at the moment, since blocking the user would just result in a delay of discussion at the talk page. Nishkid64 19:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser confirms that CrystalizedAngels is 129.132.239.8 Ttguy 11:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SamEV reported by User:SqueakBox (Result: Already blocked)

    Three-revert rule violation on Spanish language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SamEV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Sam has reverted a further 3 times. A new user User:Ferreterrera has also been reverting more than 3 times and I have just warned him not to do so again, SqueakBox 20:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Users engaged in the edit war have already been blocked. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox reported by User:DXRAW (Result: No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Gary_Glitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Possibly using a Sock to bypass the 3RR Greatgallsoffire is a SPA which has only being used for inserting the NPOV tag which is what User:SqueakBox is doing. DXRAW 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:El_Cubano reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:Warning )

    Three-revert rule violation on Sternberg_peer_review_controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). El_Cubano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    While not particularly complex reverts, these are not purly simple reverts either; each revert was to the same passage and shows the same attempt to remove altogether or substantially weaken or discredit the comments of critics of article's subject.

    Comments

    El Cubano has been editing since October 2005 and so is aware of 3RR policy.

    Four reverts are not within 24 hours of each other, user cautioned to cease edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why just a warning? Guettarda fixed the times and it's clearly a violation. 151.151.73.169 21:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.254.29.248 reported by User:Kntrabssi (Result:Blocked)

    Three-revert rule violation on Leandro Barbosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.254.29.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]
    Comments

    I have tried very hard not to report this user, for his edit warring and for his personal attacks against me, which can be read on my user page. The user even warned me for deleting content on his user page, after I ADDED a response to his reply on my page.

    Additional comment — Even though Kntrabssi (talk · contribs · count) attempted to explain why the anon editor's contributions could be construed as non-NPOV, the anon editor continued to revert/re-edit their views into the article. The anon editor also deleted several warnings from their talk page. Hopefully, the {{3RR}} warning was sufficient to dissuade the anon editor from pushing the issue further. Caknuck 05:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brushcome reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on University of California, Riverside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brushcome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:Smith2006 reported by User:Andrew c (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mass (liturgy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smith2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    User:Eupator reported by User:Atabek (Result: No violation)

    User has violated the 1RR injunction issued in the ArbCom case [7], attempting to forward the Khachkar destruction article to Khachkar destruction within Nakhichevan twice, reverting to the version by User:Artaxiad, who tried moving the article to Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan. "Within" and "in" are the same, despite being a crafty method of making different RVs and avoiding injunctions:

    Not only that it was done only once.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Any forwarding is considered a revert, and you had two of those to the article with the same name. Moreover, you also removed the big portion of text without discussion and consensus on the page, and also reverted in one of your edits to MarshalBagramyan's version [8]. Atabek 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not, it was moved to something new; hence, not a revert. Second, there was only one move along with one consecutive edit. Where is the second one? If there was a second one than it would have been the first revert which still would not justify this extremely disruptive, desperate and bad faith report.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Move of the page [9] is your first revert, as you practically reverted it to Artaxiad’s version, [10] and deletion of the section on Armenia is your second rv, as it repeats the same attempt by User:MarshallBagramyan [11] or User:Aivazovsky [12] Grandmaster 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Practically is not the same as exactly. I haven't checked what others have moved it to. I know that what I moved to was a brand new name so once again it was no a revert. It was my first edit of the article and cannot be considered a revert, nor was it like anything done before especially your diff. The move and the removal of the section were one after another. It's one, not two.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They both know that very well.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation here. He might have gone against consensus by moving the article, but that is not considered a revert. The second edit is not technically a revert, as I don't see that entire section being added on its own by another editor recently. It just seems like a deletion of material. Nishkid64 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He moved the page to Khachkar destruction within Nakhichevan, and it was previously moved to Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan, so in my opinion it is a revert to the same version. And deletion of a section is also not a first time action, it was deleted before, so it should count as an rv as well. Grandmaster 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit summary after the move stated "Do not move until AfD is complete". The AfD was complete when Eupator made the move. Was there some consensus on the talk page about the page title, and did the user know about the page move situation? Nishkid64 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There were 2 AfD’s on this article, both resulted with keep. [13] [14] This user took part in both of them. And my edit summary was: “The AfD was to keep the article, not to move it”, because no consensus was reached on AfD. The issue is currently being discussed, so the page should not be moved until a consensus is reached. Grandmaster 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Akradecki reported by User:Akradecki (Result: No action)

    I'd like to report myself for an inadvertent violation of 3RR, [15] [16] [17] [18]. At issue is an editor who keeps changing the lead paragraph of this article. The text of the lead was decided on by draft/discussion/consensus a while ago. Because of the concerns he's brought up, that consensus is being rediscussed in detail on the talk page. Rather than waiting for consensus to be reached, he keeps adding the material back in (in violation of the earlier consensus), and I've been reverting. My 4th edit missed the 24 hr period by about 3 hours, so I'm in violation, and thought it best to report myself. I have also directly reported this to an admin, at User talk:Chrislk02, and he is currently involved. Akradecki 18:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have looked at this. The final revert was inadvertantly over the WP:3RR. In this situation, being it was inadvertant, a block is unecessary. Should another admin disagree with me, please feel free to over-turn my decision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No action taken. Please read up on the rule, and more importantly focus on the policy behind it, so there are no further problems. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the future, please use the appropriate format for reporting 3RR violations. Nishkid64 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lordknowle reported by User:Elonka (Result: no violation)

    Three-revert rule violation on Knights Templar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lordknowle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    Over the last three weeks, Lordknowle (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting a link to his own website.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Consensus on the talkpage has confirmed that this is inappropriate, but he persists, and is now rapidly reverting other users who attempt to remove the link. A block for violating 3RR is requested. --Elonka 21:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours. The 1st and 2nd revert link is considered as one revert only, so therefore, there have only been 3 total reverts. Nishkid64 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Elonka reported by User:Lordknowle (Result: No report)

    Comments
    Elonka (talk · contribs) has been posting messages on my Talk page threatening me with suspension over the 3RR issue when she clearly has no authority to do so. She is arbitrarily removing links and edits on the Knights Templar articles and then claiming concensus of the Talk page when none actually exists. The three people who have concurred with her arguments are users who are clearly friends of hers, as they have all contributed to her personal self-glorification Wiki entry, which is my opinion as to what it actually is. She has reverted the link on several occasions now, and claims to have Wiki authority to do so in both her comments and follow-ups to the Talk pages. In addition she has labelled my account with the SPA tag in Talk pages (I've since removed it as defamatory and childish), when I have clearly been contributing over the last 14 months to different articles - this is a clear breach of Wikipedia policy on defamatory SPA tagging. In all, she tries to make out that she is some type of super-user with these constant threats, which I understand is in breach of Wikipedia's rules impersonating Sysops.

    A suspension for violating 3RR, SPA and Sysop policy is requested. Lord Knowle 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the 3RR noticeboard, if you'd like to make a general request for admin intervention, you may post at WP:ANI. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Woogie10w reported by User:Ksyrie (Result: Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on World War II casualties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Woogie10w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments

    I provide the verifiable sources for the chines casualities,and the User:Woogie10w even didn't want to give a reasonable talk for her or his revert.--Ksyrie 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if the third edit is a revert (which is questionable), that would only make one edit and three reverts. However, both editors are encouraged to engage in discussion or dispute resolution rather than an edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sir james paul reported by User:Sam Blacketer (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sir james paul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 22:43, 19 March 2007: NB the start: "the theory of evolution".
    • 1st revert: 22:25, 20 March 2007: Inserts "the theory of".
    • 2nd revert: 22:37, 20 March 2007: Inserts "the theory of".
    • 3rd revert: 22:50, 20 March 2007: Inserts "Some people consider evolution to be just a theory and some say that it is not true."
    • 4th revert: 23:02, 20 March 2007: Inserts "Some people consider evolution to be just a theory and some say that it is not true. There are also some who believe it is fact. The topic of evolution is a controversy."
    • 5th revert: 23:12, 20 March 2007: Inserts "the theory of".
    Comments
    A complex report but the user seems determined to add the remark that evolution is a theory somewhere. Sam Blacketer 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours, user's obviously been around long enough to know the 3RR and specifically states intent to violate it anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Smee reported by User:Sm1969 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Landmark_Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Here is the block log for User:Smeelgova (now User:Smee) showing the prior blocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Smeelgova


    These are five (5) diffs showing changes away from the word "states" to "claims" or "asserts" both of which are synonyms. This is a violation of the spirit of the 3RR policy, but not the letter. User:Smee was known as User:Smeelgova until about a month ago and has an exensive 3RR blocking history for edit warring on this article (Landmark Educaiton) and immediately related articles as shown in the block log for User:Smeelgova.

    06:18 on 20-Mar-07 (states to claims) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116468851&oldid=116468657

    06:34 on 20-Mar-07 (states to claims) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116470720&oldid=116469833

    18:00 on 20-Mar-07 (states to asserts) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116575310&oldid=116540378

    19:03 on 20-Mar-07 (states to asserts) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116589921&oldid=116589733

    21:05 on 20-Mar-07 (states to asserts) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116619491&oldid=116619292

    • This is a non-issue. User:AJackl and I had discussed this on the talk page, and I changed it to what he had requested. After that, I don't believe I had changed it back. If so, it is a miscommunication between myself and AJackl, nothing more, and I will voluntarily change back - I have no problem utilizing the word "states" in that particular section. Smee 03:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • In fact, you will note that in my last version, DIFF, the word "claims" is not used within that section, but "asserts", which is the same as "states" - I was complying with AJackl's request in that respect. Smee 03:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • DISAGREE! Both "claims" and "asserts" are statements that cast doubt. "States" is neutral language. This was an intentional effort on your behalf to avoid 3RR. If this was not a 3RR, you could simply leave the language alone without changing five times (5) within 24 hours. You should be held to account for the edit warring. You have done many of the after-the-fact courtesy reverts when other editors take the time to file the 3RR report. Sm1969 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the DIFF where I was trying to compromise and implement AJackl's suggestion, changing "claims" to "asserts". You will note that my edit summary stated: Charter, change "claims" to "asserts" ... - This was a good faith effort here, well before this 3RR was filed. After that, I did not change it back again, and was not intending to do so. The issue was already over at this point and the conflict with that point had ceased, this was a done deal, I would even have been fine with "states", I had thought that "asserts", was stronger language for AJackl actually, and I was trying to assume good faith here and implement Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. Smee 03:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • DISAGREE! Your issue is not just with Ajackl, but all the other editors on this page. "states" is the neutral language of an encyclopedia, but your personal POV insists on changing "states" to "claims" or "asserts" both of which cast doubt. Three of your reversions were after your "good faith" compromise. Sm1969 04:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sample violation report to copy

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

[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=116704729"