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
Rlevse (talk | contribs)
93,195 edits
archive a bunch
Moldopodo (talk | contribs)
2,113 edits
Line 721: Line 721:
:--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


===[[User:Moldopodo]] reported by [[User:Moldorubo]] (Result: )===
===[[User:Anittas]] reported by [[User:Moldopodo]] (Result: )===
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|Moldova}}. {{3RRV|Moldopodo}}: Time reported: 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
{{Article|Moldova}}. {{3RRV|Anittas}}: Time reported: 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
Line 732: Line 732:
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->


*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=prev&oldid=168319410 ]
*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&oldid=168345085]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=prev&oldid=168373363]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&oldid=168479180]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=prev&oldid=168374200]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&oldid=168481124]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=prev&oldid=168478974]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&oldid=168483087]

*5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=prev&oldid=168480539]
⚫
He was warned before. [[User:Moldopodo|Moldopodo]] 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
*6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=prev&oldid=168482064]
*7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=prev&oldid=168543291]


⚫
He was warned before. [[User:Moldorubo|Moldorubo]] 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
== Example ==
== Example ==
<pre>
<pre>

Revision as of 18:11, 1 November 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be actioned if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly

    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:Gscshoyru reported by User:AstroVetro (Result: No Violation)

    User talk:Mr.Z-man (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Mr.Z-man|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gscshoyru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Time reported: 19:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC) This user has moved four requests for help on an another users page within a 24 hour period (actually within a 20 minute period). The majority of the users edits are reverts (he abuses WP:TW and was once blocked for being considered a vandalism only account). User was warned[1] but persisted and continues to revert many articles over Wikipedia in general.[reply]

    • Mr Z-man is an admin and quite capable of dealing with disruption on their own user page. The reverted edits appear to be from a sockpuppet of a blocked user editing in contravention of their block. That's allowed under the 3RR and no violation has therefore taken place. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.232.93.130 reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: page protected )

    Steam (content delivery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.232.93.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    User has been removing disputed tags and adding unsourced content, all while being openly hostile in the talk section. I just started paying attention on this page (I saw it listed on 3O) but the two users are in a heavy debate. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected. KrakatoaKatie 10:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:207.69.137.7 reported by User:MalikCarr (Result: page protected)

    MSN-02 Zeong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.69.137.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Etc...

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Anonymous IP address has emerged and begun systematic revert campaign of questionable merit. 3RR warning issued and ignored. MalikCarr 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: As the current edit war is spreading, may I recommend reverting to the last accepted version (as indicated here) and protecting the page once again? It worked well last time - no edit war for almost a month. MalikCarr 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User:207.69.137.42 appears to be the same as the above noted IP address judging on activities on the article in question. Jtrainor 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected by Anonymous Dissident. KrakatoaKatie 12:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Good friend100 reported by User:Komdori (Result: 5 day block, sent to ANI)

    • 1RR parole violation on

    Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Currently unblocked from his indef block, on 1RR parole per agreement to conditions so he could participate in an open arbitration case (which is now closed). Fresh off a weeklong block for violating the 1RR before. I don't know exactly what he and the anon are revert warring about, but it's troubling that after so many warnings he continues to keep hitting "undo" with no discussion.
    • That's precisely;y why its so important to leave a comment when you have dealt with a report. When I checked the user's talk you hadn't left a note there either. Have you now done this? I didn't see 2 reverts. Have I made a mistake or are they different? If a block is appropriate please make it an indef one. Spartaz Humbug! 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I've already apologised for not leaving a comment - we all do it once in a while, thanks very much. Incidentally, I had left a comment: see here; the reason I did not make the block indefinite is that the 1RR is no longer in place (although it was at the time of the offence), in that the RfArb has been closed. Anthøny 10:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have given more detail perhaps. I think there are two different reverts here (on the same article), but that it still broke the 1RR (per the line on the 3RR page that says, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." It might be "different material," but he was reverting another user's edit, and didn't even try to find a middle ground, not even leaving a comment as to why it was evidently unacceptable to him. As for the arbitration, that ended days ago. It was my impression that the 1RR would last beyond the end of that--since it was a courtesy to edit during the arbitration, I suppose someone could just reinstate the block when it was done, but that seems a bit harsh if the editor was editing according to norms. Unfortunately, as this is the second incident (the previous one where he was blocked last week was much worse), this doesn't seem to be the case. --Cheers, Komdori 13:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the question boils down to, should we allow the user to re-edit, or should be fully re-instate the indef. block, which was only lifted for a now-complete RfArb? Personally, I think the latter is in order - I don't see any constructive contributions to date, and even if the single reverts were permitted, they don't exactly convey a perfect attitude, do they? However, I think we should bring Spartaz back in on this one... Anthøny 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need wider consensus on this. The 1RR was still extant in my mind and had I considered that Good friend had breached it, I would have indef myself. However, there seems to have been some doubt about whether the 1RR still applied and all in all, I think that we should run this past ANI. I also agree that this user seems incapable of learning to comply with our editing standards. Spartaz Humbug! 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dicklyon reported by User:Geoeg (Result: 24 hours for Dicklyon and 48 hours for Geoeg )

    Least-squares spectral analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    This user engages in edit wars, sets block traps while misusing WP regulations, is ignorant in the article subject matter (my article has been featured on WP main page) and has a history of edit wars with many editors. He keeps pushing his POV on "sinusoids" being the keyword for the article I wrote, but he can not back it up with scientific references on the article method. On the other hand, I stated two references on the method that use more general "trigonometric functions" instead of sinusoids, but he keeps replacing them with references related to a completely different method (Fourier analysis). Note his 3RR violations also happened with other parts of the article but I am just filing one report. Please see my Talk for the complete list of all of his violations (bolded items at the bottom, separate section). Geoeg 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davkal reported by User:Baegis (Result: page protected)

    List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [3]

    There has been an ongoing discussion on this page between a group of users. 3 editors were contending that a book that has long since been used for this particular list. Davkal kept re-adding irrelevant commentary about one topic after it was established on the talk page that the commentary wasn't relevant in regards to the list. After his 2nd revert, he was warned by OrangeMarlin that he was approaching the 3RR limit. He deleted the warning and then accused me of being a sockpuppet of ScienceApologist on OrangeMarlin's user page [4]. He then began to insert a disputed tag onto the article, which I reverted twice. With regards to the 5th edit, a user who had only once visited the page came in and undid my revision, possibly to try to save Davkal from an obvious 3RR. Davkal has an extensive history of 3RR and has also been quite uncivil during the entire talk page discussion. Baegis 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected for two weeks – the diffs aren't technically a 3RR violation, but it's clear the article is a free-for-all right now. KrakatoaKatie 11:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:DreamStar05 reported by User:Nikki311 (Result: 31 hours )

    WWE Diva Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DreamStar05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    This user originally created an article at both Brooke Gilbertsen and Brooke Gilbertson, both of which I tagged for speedy deletion as they did not establish notability and have already been deleted several times for that reason. WP:PW has already decided that being in the Search alone is not enough to establish notability. After removing the tag from one, despite being the original author, I left a message on their talk page explaining about the hang on tag. In response, they added all the information about Gilbertson to WWE Diva Search, even though the article is about the Search itself, and not about the contestants (none of the other contestants have short bios). I left the warning about 3RR after the third revert, and they reverted twice after that. Nikki311 00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DreamStar05 blocked for 31 hours. KrakatoaKatie 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DemolitionMan reported by User:Josquius (Result:1 week)

    Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DemolitionMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    DemolitionMan is determined to push a Hindu nationalist POV on this article against all attempts to establish NPOV- which he insists is a British POV. The aim of his constant reverts is the infobox where he insisted on calling the Indian rebels freedom fighters and calling the war the Indian war of independance. After exact rules detailing freedom fighter being unacceptable language were shown to him he decided he was compromising by saying patriot instead despite the meaning being very similar and even more inaccurate to the subject matter.
    Dispute resolution has been tried- but when the mediator leaned my way he decided to ignore it.
    This isn't the first time he's broke the 3RR recently, just the first I've reported it, earlier incidents can be spotted easily over the past week. Additionally he was kicked for using a sock to break the rule earlier in the month and is consistanly rude to those who disagree with him. Josquius 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has history of persistent POV pushing including use of sock puppets. Ronnotel 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M5891 reported by User:DCGeist (Result: No action)

    United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M5891 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [5]

    User has edit warred on this topic on several occasions in the past. User never provides edit summaries and has not participated in Talk section recently initiated to address matter (Talk:United States#Demographics section).DCGeist 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no evidence that the user was previously warned for 3RR, or that they have continued to revert after the warning was given. I'll certainly block if I see continued reversion. --John 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bmg916 reported by User:SpeedyC1 (Result:page protected )

    World Wrestling Entertainment roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bmg916 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Time reported: 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)).[reply]


    This user has vandalizing the World Wrestling Entertainment roster page frequently.5 times in 3 hours. Above are the edits that the user has made to the World Wrestling Entertainment roster page.SpeedyC1 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that Speedy has also violated the 3 revert rule,and refuses to compromise and is repeatedly inserting wrong information. All the Wrestling Websites out there (as well as her official website have confirmed Kristal Marshall's release and Speedy is refusing to acknowledge this. While I admit to violating the 3RR and regret doing so, I would like the reviewing admin to please take note of these facts. I also don't appreciate Speedy calling my good faith edits vandalism. Thank you. Bmg916Speak 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please not also tha kristal does't have an official websit. It is just some fan claiming that he knows her.SpeedyC1 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Read the legal disclaimer, it's her official site... Bmg916Speak 18:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:156.34.221.137 reported by User:E tac (Result:24 hours and see E tac below)

    User is stepping out of bounds, claiming something is a concensus, which it clearly is not as I have cjecked the template talk page and tried directing the user to it and he is not responding. E tac 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Edits are to maintain the formatting as it is clearly shown in the Mariah Carey example which appears on the Template:Infobox musical artist page. A clea edit summary pointing to this has been given with each edit. E tac (talk · contribs), however has not provided any valid reason for reversion... other than to simply revert for his own pleasure. Mr. E Tac has violated 3RR on numerous article in the past hour. 156.34.221.137 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No I never went over 3 reverts, so you are wrong there. Also I pointed you to the talk page on the template, there is very little disscusion on the topic and NONE OF IT supports what you are claiming to be the concensus. I am not doing it for my editing pleasue but because it makes the infobox much neater and easier to read. Perhaps it is you doing it for pleasure as your claim that it is a growing concensus is ridiculous. Growing amongst who? you? Where is your proof that this in concensus, the template talk page shows quite the contrary.--E tac 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I find it funny you posting a warning on my talk page saying I have violated policy and need to use the talk page. I never went over 3 reverts and I added a comment on the topic to what little was on the talk page for the template you keep citing, where is your disscusion by the way since you seem to feel that you need to warn me? You made more reverts then me, not to mention you already were reported for this same thing earlier today.--E tac 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not the one claiming it is "concensus" and changing it on every article I can despite the fact that it looks like garbage so don't tell me to knock it off because I'm not the one instigating it and trying to pass it off as policy.--E tac 21:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You didn't knock it off. Bad move, that's 24 hours for both E tac and 156.34.221.137. I am confident that all the 156.34s that edit heavy metal groups are the same user or group of users and the revert limit should apply to them all. Sam Blacketer 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:172.163.240.204 reported by User:Chubbles (Result:No violation)

    The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.163.240.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 17:31PM


    User posted some information about the band's charity work, along with this comment: One Middleburg man who went to Middleburg High School with Ronnie Winter, Michael Flamino, is trying to gain publicity by starting a "F**k Ronnie" slogan with his fledgling band, despite the Red Jumpsuit Apparatus' good works in fundraising for above said causes. I reverted wholesale. User restored, and I did a partial revert, keeping the bit about the charity work but removing the axegrinding. Two more reverts and here we are. Chubbles 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Naiseroder reported by User:Atari400 (Result:Warned)

    Arabization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Naiseroder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User Naiseroder continues to revert to an earlier version of this article without discussion. This earlier version of that article contains an image uploaded and inserted into the article by User Naiseroder. That image itself is very unencyclopedic in nature and a POV violation in content. In the process of trying to maintain the image's place within the article, User Naiseroder violated 3rr by committing 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. Atari400 08:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Naiseroder is a very new user, appears to be editing in good faith and was not warned or informed about the three revert rule. I will give a warning; can you please try to communicate to users and engage them in discussion rather than reporting here as your first stop? Sam Blacketer 10:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your rationale, even though I do question how new this user is. After all, how many new users commit there very first edit with an image creation and upload? Atari400 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:E tac reported by User:142.166.239.237 (Result:24 hours concurrent)

    Comment User User was issued a warning for edit warring but later blanked the warning from his/her talk page. 142.166.239.237 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:E tac reported by User:142.166.239.237 (Result:24 hours concurrent)

    Comment User User was issued a warning for edit warring but later blanked the warning from his/her talk page. 142.166.239.237 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:207.219.255.27 reported by User:Edgarde (Result: Resolved elsewhere)


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    IP user is revert warring to add anti-abortion page to External links. Talk page discussion considers link a POV smear site (defamatory in a bio article, albeit not a living person). 207.219.255.27 prefers to make points via ad hominem attacks. edg ☺ ★ 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is resolved thru other admin intervention. / edg ☺ ★ 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Travb and User:129.71.73.248 reported by LotLE×talk (Result:24 for both)

    Guenter Lewy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 129.71.73.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [6]

    Users Travb and 129.71.73.248 have engaged in a slow, but constant revert war at Guenter Lewy over a rather trivial matter of choice of section titles. Apparently, these two users of a history of edit conflicts, and at this point, the reversions are simple one-upsmanship rather than representing any actual content disagreement at all.

    The last two dozen edits have consisted primarily of this trivial dispute. I asked the parties to discuss the matter on the article talk page, and they both carried it over to my user talk page (for no obvious reason). Both parties are engaging in this reversion just slowly enough to escape the letter of 3RR (i.e. ending at exactly 3 reversions each day), but doing the same thing every day in obvious violation of the spirit of the rule. LotLE×talk 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blech on a stick. Well, I can only admire your diligence in making such a long report. I've blocked both for 24 hours for clear edit warring. 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts per day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Warren reported by User:Tqbf (Result: Resolved amicably)

    Mac OS X v10.5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Warren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [31]


    I agree with User:Warren's POV on these edits, regarding critiques of the OS X Leopard operating system in the press. I made a good faith effort to rewrite the section to reflect Warren's view of the critiques, which I share, and which is probably the majority view. Warren has decided that any critique that involves a "third party" or a "forum post" of any sort cannot remain in the article. These are drastic edits, and are rejecting solid work by other editors in favor of no alternative content. --- tqbf 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These are not reverts of the same thing. Besides, Warren is reverting unsourced, unverified, and often unreliable sources. In any case, different reverts of different POV edits. This is a ridiculous ANI. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if they are reverts of the same thing, 3RR specifically states "whether involving the same or different material each time." As far as reverting unsourced, etc., that exception to 3RR only applies to BLP. I can see where he's coming from, and agree with some of what he is doing, but he is clearly violating 3RR; he also just did a 5th revert over 3 posts [36]. V-train 01:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not my read of WP:3RR, which states "whether involving the same or different material each time", and makes an exception for "unsourced" material only for WP:BLP, not for POV disputes on inanimate objects. But if I'm wrong, I'll have learned something from this, so thanks! --- tqbf 01:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently in my 10,000 or so edits I somehow forgot to read these things. Damn. I guess I'm a noob. Sorry, but Warren is an outstanding editor. His reverts are of various, unsourced POV edits. That's allowed. Give me a break lecturing me ever again about what is said in Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both myself and V-train have said repeatedly that we agree with the substance of Warren's problem. Please don't refer to me as a "POV-warrior". WP:AGF. Reverts weren't the right way to accomplish Warren's objective; he's essentially reverting NEWS.COM out an article on an OS. --- tqbf 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, once again you're trying to teaching me Wiki-lawyering. Cool, because apparently in 10,000 edits, a few GA's and FA', tons of vandal fighting, I somehow forgot how to read. I guess my BS, MBA, MS and MD degrees were purchased online. You got me there bud. Oh, one more thing. Usually the person who feigns being violated by AGF is the one whose usually violates AGF. Just thought you should know. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please try to be civil? V-train 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to whomever, the issue's been resolved via talk pages, and editing is moving forwards. -/- Warren 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If, after I spent 45 minutes dredging up cites from 9 major trade press venues, my edits are not reverted by this user, I'll agree, noting that I perceive that the 3RR noticeboard posting helped end the edit war. --- tqbf 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this filing had absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that you stopped trying to use sources that are unsuitable for Wikipedia made all the difference. -/- Warren 07:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ssbohio reported by User:SqueakBox (Result: Page Protected)

    Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ssbohio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [37]


    A user of 2 years experience and many edits so he clearly knows about 3rr, SqueakBox 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) My record speaks for itself. I do not use the revert function lightly or indiscriminately. This was not editing the article, this was replacing the article with a redirect. SqueakBox attempted to delete this article at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex|AFD]], then challenged the result at DRV, where he did not prevail. Undeterred, he did some more forum shopping, held an artificially short discussion, and deleted the article, replacing it with a redirect as he originally wanted to.
    My normal procedure is to use the one-revert rule, but, in this case, an experienced editor was deleting content that the community had determined (a few days before) there was no consensus to delete. I placed a notice at the administrators' noticeboard and reverted to preserve content where there was no consensus to delete demonstrated. He's tried to delete the article [38], [39] or replace it with a redirect [40], [41], [42], [43] multiple times. In this situation, SqueakBox deleted the article as shown above, then reverted my restoration once & twice, then Thebainer came in for the third deletion. The page finally required protection. If there's no consensus to delete the page, and that lack of consensus is confirmed by a deletion review, then gaming the system by blanking the page and putting up a redirect is no more supported by consensus than deletion was. --Ssbohio 06:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This case is messy... Article was AFD'd (no consensus defaulting to keep), followed by a DRV (endorse the keep), and then was redirected less than 24 hours since a merge call was asked on the talk page. I've page-protected this for a week so discussions can take place. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 06:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Haleth reported by User:Aladdin_Zane (Result:Warned)

    Stacy Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Haleth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [44]

    Haleth kept inserting material that was uncited me, and Nikki311 told him not to do it. During this he went to my talk page and used severe vulgarity towards me. Since this time he has also been reported as a sock puppet. By me and Nikki311 she mentioned on Stacy Carter talk page for him to be reported so I did. [45] with plenty of evidence gathered. Another of the sock puppets was used on Stacy carter page today to partially revert what was being disputed yesterday, now making 5 reverts in 24 hours.Aladdin Zane 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually he has editted in the past 24 hours, He was just using a sock puppet as noted here [46]Aladdin Zane 17:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is unproved as yet. Sam Blacketer 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I know it is still waiting review, there are a few other ahead of it. But once you go over the evidence there is no doubt it is the same person. BTW I'm not disagreeing with the warning, as he hasn't had one before. Just pointing out that he progressed to Sock puppetry after I warned him, instead of using Haleth a 5th time. Thanks for checking into thingsAladdin Zane 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.116.31.203 reported by User:Ultraexactzz (Result:24 hours)

    Salamander Sam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.116.31.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 10:10


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 10:11

    Anon user began to place CSD tags on multiple webcomic articles, including Salamander Sam, Shonen Punk!, Pandect, Dresden Codak, and at least two dozen others. The claimed CSD reasoning was WP:CSD#A7, which claims no assertion of notability. The tag was reverted. , as Salamander Sam does indeed claim notability. The user repeatedly reverted the removal, rather than initiating an Afd process or discussing the issue on the article's talk page. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also see [47],[48], and [49] Spryde 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious as how salamander sam claims notability? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    not the issue. This is a violation of process, not a content based conflict. --Martin Wisse 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also up to 4 reverts on Perfect Storm (comic). [50] [51] [52] [53]. Ariel♥Gold 14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, Salamander Sam does not claim notability as such, and I struck that part of my report. However, per WP:CSD: Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this; a creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add "hangon" to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page. An article where the CSD tag is removed may still be nominated for deletion via AFD. The procedural violations here are the repeated reversion of the disputed CSD tag. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dbachmann reported by User:Taharqa (Result: 24h)

    Race of ancient Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [54]

    First of an initial series of edits/reverts that disrupted the page at the expense of consensus, moving around the format, subsequent edits reworded and changed material, but this was the initial revert.

    ^^Same, simply reverting back to his revision

    ^^Same

    • 4th revert:

    13:42, 31 October 2007

    ^^Same


    The main problem I have is that this user was just recently reported for this exact same violation, yet it was ignored and he continues to violate and edit war with everybody.[55]

    ^These are clear violations, though curiously, other have been blocked for much less concerning that page as it is a very very contentious page. Several users have complained about him and his lack of professionalism as a supposed senior member. He continues to edit war, and then takes it to people's talk pages to personally attack[56], while imposing his pov and unjustifiably threatening sanction because no one agrees with it. Beyond abusive and immature. He has also been warned on his talk page,[57] and there are other misallaneous complaint about his abusive behavior as well. In any event, this all boils down to this one case that I'm reporting though which demonstrates that h's clearly violated policy ad 3RR..Taharqa 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rimerimea reported by User:SparsityProblem (Result:24 hours)

    Atefah Sahaaleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rimerimea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    User reverted edits to article multiple times, and has been given ample warning. I explained that YouTube was not a reliable source, but user continues to restore some dubious claims with a YouTube link as the only source, despite being reverted by the bot that reverts such links. SparsityProblem 01:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Clear case; reverting many times, not just to add the problem YouTube link, and after being warned and given helpful advice. This user, although new, was being disruptive and so I have blocked for 24 hours. Sam Blacketer 09:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:219.90.242.174 reported by User:Irishguy (Result:Page protected; 31 hours)

    Serge Gainsbourg‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.90.242.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also using 122.49.166.14. Harassing other editors while edit warring. IrishGuy talk 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Irishguy vandalised that article repeatedly, and refused to answer questions as to why, or use the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.167.51 (talk • contribs)

    User:Gscshoyru reported by User:219.90.167.51 (Result:No violation)

    Serge Gainsbourg‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gscshoyru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The reverts are removing information that has a valid source. Refusing to provide a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.167.51 (talk • contribs)

    You have not provided diffs, so this report is malformed. But, I have only made three, so am not in violation of the rule, and you, on the other hand, have -- see above report. Gscshoyru 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GB-UK-BI reported by User:TheGerm (Result:Indefinite)

    Aero L-159 Alca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GB-UK-BI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 19:10

    It looks like User:GB-UK-BI is changing ID often and has been blocked on other IP addresses... Read comments from User:Noclador on User talk:GB-UK-BI Germ 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sfacets reported by User:Will Beback (Result:No action)

    Sahaja Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the edits mentionned. Feel free to mention if I missed any and I will fix them. Thx. Sfacets 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    According to this current/diff [60] there are still added materials that you reverted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocks under the three revert rule are preventive, to prevent disruption. Even if there are individual sentences in the article which may not be present (I don't have the time to check in detail), the fact that Sfacets has self-reverted and is clearly aware of the need to avoid disruption, is a substantial argument against a block. All concerned are encouraged to engage in civil discourse on the article talk page. Sam Blacketer 10:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Steve Dufour reported by User:Anynobody (Result:No action)

    Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Steve Dufour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Dufour has a history of trying to minimize this article. Lately he has been insisiting that the article be written his way despite previous conversations on the articles talk page already explaining the rationale behind the information he doesn't like. Anynobody 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This concerns negative material with the intention to attack a living person. On the Usenet site alt.religion.scientology there has been a long-going campaign of harassment against Barbara Schwarz, the subject of the article, with the intention of driving her to commit suicide. This is the reason I feel so strongly about this article. I would prefer not to edit it anymore myself; but if no one else will work to keep it an encyclopedia article, not an attack, I will continue until I am kicked off of Wikipedia. Steve Dufour 06:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, this is not alt.religion.scientology though and the article didn't say anything that wasn't in a WP:RS. Anynobody 06:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If the article remains on a respectful level toward its subject I will not object. Steve Dufour 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Except that your idea of respect ignores reliable sources and favors your personal preferences. I really hate having to point this out, but you're essentially saying you have no intention of abdidng by policies, guidelines and even consensus to do what you think is "right"... I will continue until I am kicked off of Wikipedia. Anynobody 06:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • If the claimed WP:BLP exemption is disregarded, then there would be a technical three revert rule violation. The application of BLP is difficult and questionable but because Steve Dufour is clearly acting in good faith in believing it is applicable, to block him for disruption would be wrong. Hence I do not propose to take any action about the 3RR report. Further work should be taken to make sure the article complies with BLP policy because this is a controversial biography subject who has antagonised one group of people while being perceived as a crank by others; such a situation means that both groups start off with some reason to include questionable material. Sam Blacketer 11:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Sam. I will take a break from editing the article for a while and see what happens with it. Steve Dufour 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Steven Andrew Miller reported by User:Eleemosynary (Result:24 hours)

    Michael Mukasey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Steven Andrew Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [61]

    User:Steven Andrew Miller is conducting an edit war on the Mukasey page, similar to one he is also conducting on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page. (Please see his earlier 3RR violation report, by another user, above.) He has been warned about edit warring in the past, but has deleted the warnings as "spam," here. He's also been blocked for 3RR[62], so he's well aware of the policy. --Eleemosynary 09:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Simon D M reported by User:Sfacets (Result:protected)

    Sahaja Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Simon D M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [63]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [64]

    User has reverted more than 3 4 5 times over 24 hours, despite a warning being given. Note that the submitter also inadvertently transgressed, however self-reverted after warning.Sfacets 11:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, as the note explains^. Sfacets 13:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected the page for 48 hours. I don't care about good intentions/bad intentions here, too many reverts recently. More discussion required. Protection will, hopefully, force it. Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Piotrus reported by User:M0RD00R (Result:warning)

    For some time user:Piotrus engages in edit war by reverting full or parts of text, while 3RR rule clearly states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. So violation is obvious. M0RD00R 16:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This particular list of edits doesn't look like a violation to me, except in the most legalistic reading. I left Piotrus a note reminding him about 3RR; that should be sufficient. Mangojuicetalk 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3 times referenced info was removed, 5th revert is removal of the reference that was added upon request. So nothing legalistic but pure edit warring case and a breach of 3RR IMO. M0RD00R 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1st revert is not a revert - it is a normal edit; MORDOOR claims it was a revert to this revision which is obviously not true. I have simply removed a dubious claim that as discussion at related talk pages show is not supported by reliable source, a claim that has not been ever challenged since it was added a few weeks ago to the article (which, accidentally, I expanded to the GA-level).
    Reverts 3rd and 4th are one revert - I could have just as well made one edit instead of two and removed both the dubious claim and the tag in a single edit; I did two to provide a better WP:SUMMARY in my edits. To claim that hence I broke the 3RR is obviously wikilawyering.
    I would also point out that MORDOOR has not contributed to this article in the past; his revert warring there at present - which seems to be his only contribution in the past day or so - borders on WP:STALKing my person. Further, MOORDOR revert warring is a violation of WP:V and WP:RS - he is removing a proper attribution to Zhylenko, instead replacing it with some non-English and less reliable website. Such disruptive behavior certainly should warrant a warning.
    -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anittas reported by User:Moldopodo (Result: )

    Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anittas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    He was warned before. Moldopodo 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    <!-- copy from _below_ this line -->

===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: )===
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff 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]

*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~



<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=168551129"