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
No edit summary
Line 769: Line 769:


Persistent renaming of article, breaking links to other pages etc. despite warnings, introduction to the talk page and general offers of assistance. This user will not give up! [[User:Cloudz679|Cloudz679]] ([[User talk:Cloudz679|talk]]) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Persistent renaming of article, breaking links to other pages etc. despite warnings, introduction to the talk page and general offers of assistance. This user will not give up! [[User:Cloudz679|Cloudz679]] ([[User talk:Cloudz679|talk]]) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:86.130.11.251]] reported by [[User:SiobhanHansa]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Shaftesbury}}. {{3RRV|86.130.11.251}}: Time reported: 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaftesbury&oldid=195374367 15:07, March 2, 2008] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaftesbury&diff=196170071&oldid=195452716 20:23, March 5, 2008]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaftesbury&diff=196253788&oldid=196235872 06:11, March 6, 2008]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaftesbury&diff=next&oldid=196260354 13:18, March 6, 2008]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaftesbury&diff=next&oldid=196326407 19:45, March 6, 2008]
*5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaftesbury&diff=next&oldid=196410732 19:59, March 6, 2008]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A86.130.11.251&diff=196411025&oldid=196336407 19:54, March 6, 2008]

Editor continually readding external link. [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


== Example ==
== Example ==

Revision as of 01:19, 7 March 2008

Template:Moveprotected

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 dealt with 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. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Betimsa reported by User:sethie (Result:No block)

    NEWBORN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Betimsa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    1. 1 [[1]]
    1. 2 [[2]]
    1. 3 [[3]]

    Attempts at discussion [[4]] [[5]] have produced no results and his/her reverting continues. Sethie (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really think this is a new user? His fourth edit was to upload an image, his fifth edit was creating a page with an infobox? I don't think so.
    Still no response from him, and now an anon IP has taken up the cause, sans discussion also. Sethie (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semi-protected the all-caps page to prevent anon reverts. We'll see how that goes. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TiconderogaCCB reported by 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (Result: )


    • 1st revert: [6]
    • 2nd revert: [7]
    • 3rd revert: [8]
    • 4th revert: [9]
    • 5th revert: [10]

    Has been edit warring for a few days and at least 3 3rr violations in the past few days. Has resulted in the creating of two articles [11] and [12] dues to his behavior. 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TiconderogaCCB is attempting to correct the article, while the above reporter is vandalizing it. This user has been demonstrating the same conduct of reverting, and is now sockpuppeting by using an IP instead of his user name, User:Uconnstud. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    At no point did I use a sockpuppet via IP. Even if I did use an IP i could have easily been logged off which I didn't. TiconderogaCCB always uses IP edits and changes them in right afterwards [13]. In addition TiconderogaCCB, Keeps deleting opinions that are contrary to his opinion in an attempt to build a consensus. It can be seen here [14] where this opinion was deleted "J.Delany agreed to this verions [15] - I agree to this verion as well [16] 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)" his reason was vandalism and he says discussion was deleted when it was simply moved from the top to the bottom to go in chronological order(after he moved it). Also he asked for an opinion on which version is better [17] to which i was notified [18] and so was he [19] . When the third opinion came in [20] he simply ignored what the third opinion was and simply reverted the page [21]. I thought we had a compromise and would listen to the 3rd opinion, but now i'm really starting to wonder if there can be any compromise with him. Uconnstud (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    J.delanoy did not agree to either version, and offered critique of both. There is now an opprotunity for other editors to vote on the option they prefer, and I think it is best to see where that leads us. This editor just will not quit, and even other editors comments recognize that he is attempting to vandalize, not improve the article. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So because you didn't agree with J.Delanoy you simply reverted the whole article. So why ask for a 3rd opinion? What if I had done the same? You're the editor who won't quit! That other editor.. that was you! Uconnstud (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We obtained another opinion, but it was ambiguous, and now I am seeking input from other editors, which scares you. Also, please stop undoing the archive, it was recommended by Wikipedia. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC
    3rd opinion by J.Delanoy scared you. That's you you ignored it. He gave a very thorough opinion which you ignored! Uconnstud (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not offer any alterations to the article either. It was a good opinion, but vague. The editors input will be more appropriate to deal with this issue. You should also not be saying that he "preferred" your article, because that was by no means his conclusion. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    With respect to the parties involved, the entire point of a third opinion is to discuss it and come to some sort of compromise, or for one of the parties to acknowledge that the other's version is acceptable after all. The absolute wrong thing to do is to receive a third opinion and immediately revert again. If the opinion was ambiguous on some points, then open a dialogue on those points. Both TiconderogaCCB and Uconnstud were very specifically warned not to revert to either version before discussing the matter on the talk page, and that is exactly what ended up happening - which explains in part why the article has now been protected again. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:kborer at socialized medicine (No violation)

    Same version introduced by user above three times in 25 hours. Was warned on this same subject on 17 February for a similar group of edits. This is not the first time the same editor has violated the spirit of 3RR, usually on this same article. Note that despite the claim that wholesale (highly biased changes) would be explained on talk page, this did not happen. Note the version in question - introduced by kborer - is inflammatory and highly POV: "Socialized medicine' is any health care system that embodies the fundamental principle of socialism,[1] [2] namely reduced individual liberty in favor of increased centralized control."--Gregalton (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One more revert since then, i.e. four times in appr 30 hours. Please note the original edit in this period was essentially a revert to a version from February 16 [22]. The more recent reverts are at the history page here. Note that kborer has been warned before, but cleans his talk page history to remove these notices.--Gregalton (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is purely a content dispute. Last reverts by Kborer were to a different compromise version that does not mention reduced individual liberty. Gregalton has stated on the talk page of the article that he is encouraging to revert instead of having a discussion on the talk page. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misrepresentation. Changing one or two words to a so-called "compromise" version (which several editors had objected to and is by no means a compromise version) is still violating the spirit of 3RR.--Gregalton (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was the spirit of 3RR that concerned you, then this would not be an issue. I have never tried to use technicalities against other editors of this article, even though some openly admit to breaking the guidelines. The point is not to "win", but to improve the article. It is easier for this to happen when the community around an article can cooperate, and this kind of pointless attack on someone who opposes your viewpoints does little to improve our community. Kborer (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation - I see two back-to-back edits with no intervening users (ie, counts as one revert) and so at no point were there four reverts in 24 hours. Also, as he hasn't edited the article in nearly 24 hours, there is little need for a preventative block. This is not an invitation to game the system - if you make 4 reverts in 24.5 hours, you will probably be blocked. If any additional activity occurs here that warrants attention, please submit future reports using the standard form (see the bottom for an example) - that way reviewing admins don't have to guess at what the issue is. Thank you. --B (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for not using the form properly. Note that I am not contesting the decision. For the record, here is the record of relevant changes (in addition to the one above):
    1. 23:08 March 1
    2. 20:24 March 2
    3. 00:04 March 3
    4. 06:31 March 3.
    These are essentially the same versions, introduced four times in a 30 hour period.--Gregalton (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wasted Time R reported by User:Mr.grantevans2 (Result: No action)


    The content in question was removed by concensus. Wasted Time has worked hard on the article and seems to feel he has ownership of its content because he rewrote and reinserted the same "polarizing" categorization of the subject of the BLP without first passing it by the numerous commentors who opposed the polarizing label for the subject of the BLP. I have asked him to get consensus before reincluding the polarizing section and his response has been to break the 3RR rule. As an experienced (very) user he must be well aware of the rule. Normally I would not report this but I fear that the User's attention to this and other articles he is trying to move into FAC is becoming a bit obsessive so perhaps a small reprimand by authority would snap him out of it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would WELCOME administrators looking at this, the more the better. Please read my explanation of the situation at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Process discussion for MrGrantEvans2, and the section above that Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Queries for MrGrantEvans2, both of which MrGrantEvans2 has been non-responsive to, instead just repeatedly deleting the material in question. I have polled the previous objectors to the previous version of the material, although they'll have a hard time judging the revised material since MrGrantEvans2 keeps deleting it. I would also welcome administrators judging my record of contributions to Wikipedia versus MrGrantEvans2, on this article or any other article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that MrGrantEvans2's first removal of the entire section occurred before all of the above, with this edit marked "section is non-encyclopedic", which was reverted two minutes later by admin User:Stephan Schulz with this edit marked "Sure is ...". So I'm not the only reverter. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading through the talk page, I see no clear consensus for the complete deletion of the section as the reporting user would suggest... Edit-warring has occurred on both sides with, in my opinion, both sides liable to blocking if it continues. I think the reporting user intentionally used 3RR to try to lure Wasted Time into committing a 3RR breach in a purposeful attempt to game the system so I will not block for now... although I would suggest both sides stop, wait for some more opinion to filter in through the talk pages before anyone does anything else. No block for now. Other admins are free to disagree but I think this is the sensible thing to do. Sasquatch t|c 07:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: No block, and a waring to both editors. If edit-warring continues, both will get dinged. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Realist2 reported by User:MassassiUK (Result: 24 hours)


    This is my second report in the past couple of hours. The User:Realist2 has been engaging in edit warring on at least two different pages (see the "Thriller" complaint above) and continues to do so. Despite warnings, he/she has now broken the 3RR on both of these pages in the past few hours alone. The Thriller page has even been semi-protected by an administrator, but this has not stopped User:Realist2. The account should therefore be suspended from further editing. MassassiUK (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you noticed ive already ended the issue although you heve definately been engaged in either sock puppetry or tag teaming. I have ended the issue coming to a compromise on it.Realist2 (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to "make nice" now are we? It's too late. You have flouted the rules of Wikipedia consistently and will be held accountable. And I am not interested in your lame accusations. MassassiUK (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No I care about the articles and your actions here constitute either puppetry or tag teaming. hereherehere--Realist2 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You dont care about the articles at all, you only care about hyping your idol by quoting outrageous sales figures that cannot be definitively proven. And it's not "tag-teaming" just because more than one person agrees that your edits (and reverts) are just plain wrong. MassassiUK (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both you editors work on the same articles yourself if you arent the same ppl so tag teaming is defo their. I do care about that article and am working on it and its improved dramatically , if been working almost soley on it and Thriller 25.--Realist2 (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    your coming across as some1 who hates jackson or his supports. you edited the article to make it look like he made up that figure which is pov. Realist2 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good god, listen to yourself! Possessive and territorial much? Firstly, let me just say that you do not own the Michael Jackson and Thriller pages, no matter how much you work on them. If other people can add reliably CITED information to them, then you cannot stop it just because you don't want your pop idol to be diminished in any way. Secondly, I do not hate Jackson at all. I simply do not believe that Thriller has sold 104 million copies. If you look at the certifications for countries around the world, it just isn't possible....no matter what he claims himself. All of the sources you have cited merely repeat what he said himself at the 2006 World Music Awards - but that doesn't make it a fact. Therefore you you have to allow other "cited" sources so people can make up their own minds. The fact that you are obviously such a die-hard MJ fan means that you are not impartial enough to edit the articles responsibly and your behaviour today has shown that.MassassiUK (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guys, just as a reminder, at the top of this page it says "Do not continue a dispute on this page." This page is for WP:3RR violations only, and you've both given the admins plenty of information to work with. Please continue the argument on the appropriate page. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xasha reported by User:Dpotop (Result: No prior warning given, user not blocked)


    A short explanation of the incident. Dpotop (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no warning prior to last revert. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor do I. I will leave a warning at the user's talk page. Please open a new request if the revert warring continues. Thank you. --B (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shearwater63 reported by User:Vary (Result: 24 hours)

    Editor is an employee (per this comment on my talk page) of Affinion, formerly known Trilegiant and a whole string of other names. Affinion is trying to distance itself from the many complaints and lawsuits filed against it under its past names, and to that end, the editor is attempting to remove references to those problems from the article. Vary | Talk 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Pax Arcane reported by User:triplejumper (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [23]


    This editor insists on returning the Religious Implicaitons section to the article repeatedly when many editors have a problem with the relevance of this section and have pointed out that the citations of that the section do not support what is written. Pax Arcane’s comments on the article's talk page have resulted in being warned repeatedly about WP:CIVILITY and WP:PA by both admins and other editors. Rather than address the issues that other editors have with the section, He has reverted 5 different times with in 24 hours. This person has been warned about the 3RR rule in the past.

    24 hours. --B (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:71.217.206.152 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hours for both.)


    A short explanation of the incident. The anon feels that copyright violations may be summarily removed, and that reinserting them is vandalism. Maybe so, but the copyright here is undertermined; the image MAY be public domain, and a fair use rationale has been added. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur, you violated the 3RR yourself; the anon was blocked for 24 hours already for a different reason, so essentially the action was already taken. 24 hours all around. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rune Thandy reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result:48 hours )


    Repeated addition of a fair use image into a living person's article. Ignores all attempts at communication, just keeps adding the image back. Looking at the editor's history, there's a long history of this in relation to this article, seems to be a single purpose accont. One Night In Hackney303 13:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours by Blueboy96. One Night In Hackney303 13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dwrayosrfour reported by User:Jpers36 (Result: 24 hour block )


    Dwrayosrfour has removed any reference to "Christian" rock from the genre list multiple times. The current setup -- a mention in the genre list, with a reference to a sourced explanation in the article proper -- was agreed upon through mediation, and should not be reverted against consensus. Dwrayosrfour's claim that "Wiki policy prohibits opinions and original research being in the article" is specious, as no OR is included and Wiki's policy prohibits POV, not the unbiased and sourced reporting of opinions. In addition, Dwrayosrfour has blanked his talk page which details his history of contention, both with Anberlin's page and at other articles. User:Pbroks13 initially dealt with this 3RR, but did not report it here for unknown reasons. Jpers36 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - User has been blocked for 24 hours. May I recommend that all parties engage in discussion rather than reverting? ScarianCall me Pat 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hwgunner reported by User:MrMarmite (Result: No violation)


    editor is repeatedly removing section without discussing . MrMarmite (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The three-revert rule prohibits more than three reverts in any 24-hour period. You have provided just three, so there is no violation here. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hwgunner has done five reverts without discussing in 24 hours : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&action=history

    Wedineinheck (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Ijanderson977 reported by User:Camptown (Result: 24 hour block )


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [29]

    Editor is repeatedly removing an illustrative map (image) because he finds it "POV". Does not respond to questions about his specific opinion, except that the opponent is POV. Camptown (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: - I've blocked the contributor in question for 24 hours. Could all parties please use discussion instead of reverting. ScarianCall me Pat 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hwgunner reported by User:Wedineinheck

    I wish to correct Stifle's conclusion regarding User:MrMarmite's previous report on this user. Hwgunner has done five reverts without discussing in 24 hours : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&action=history This is a definite violation. Wedineinheck (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say that he is edit warring, sure, but "only" three similar edits. Some of his edits have actually been constructive and he inserted relevant information that some anonymous IPs had deleted. That far, his contributions were constructive. Unfortunately, he has then turned to some unconstructive removals. Definitely wrong, and I've reverted him myself, but I'm not sure he has violated 3RR. Borderline case, I leave it to an admin :) JdeJ (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he definitely isn't behaving constructively, as he deliberately wants to suppress information. Wedineinheck (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We agree on that. He could have been reported for vandalism as well, since the removal of sourced information usually equals vandalism. Especially as he isn't discussing any of his contributions. JdeJ (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that he just likes Marion Cotillard and wants to edit out potentially embarrassing info. Quite a stupid thing to do, IMHO, since this is factual, NPOV and widely reported in the media. Wedineinheck (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. I like her acting myself and would very much have wanted her never to say those things, but it's a fact that she did and it's well sourced. Deleting it, as the user is doing, is not the right way to deal it. JdeJ (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:T-rex (Result:article protected)

    The same content was added by several different editors ([30], [31], [32], and [33]) and was removed each time by user, sometimes under the guise of removing vandalism, but without any prior discussion on the talk page. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    while I guess I had to fix that article four times in a bit over 23 hours. I disagree with the rest of what is written here. There was discussion, repeated reinsertion of bad content is vandalism, and I was not the only editor removing it. --T-rex 00:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reporter is perfectly correct, T-rex. You have edit warred and have broken 3RR. The edits you reverted were most certainly not vandalism. You say "repeated reinsertion of bad content is vandalism". Who decides what counts as bad content? Unless it's something obvious, like repeated insertion of the word "POOP" or of pictures of genitalia, you do not get to call it vandalism and get free reverts this way.
    Because the edit war has been between several parties, I've fully protected the article. But please understand that a block would have been completely justified in this case, and I am only not doing so because, with the article protected, it would be purely punitive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, non-blatant vandalism is still vandalism. --T-rex 01:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded to T-rex on his talk, and would ask that any further dialogue on this issue take place there (or somewhere besides here, as this noticeboard is not for discussion). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nocandu1976 reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: Page protected )

    • Previous version reverted to: [34]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

    He keeps adding propaganda to the article, and won't stop to talk about it. GreenJoe 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see editwarring from both sides. Page protected for 5 days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.205.142.74 reported by User:Thisisborin9 (Result:24h for vandalism)


    t*4th revert: 20:54, 4 March 2008

    This person keeps adding total nonsense and vandalism to the article. Thisisborin9talk|contribs 05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is simple vandalism, not really an edit war in the usual sense. I've blocked 24 hours for vandalism. In the future, you're likely to get a quicker response here (but only use it when it is indeed obvious vandalism). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Thanks! Thisisborin9talk|contribs 05:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.36.78.99 reported by User:Cro0016 (Result:31 hours)


    I've been monitoring this page on my watchlist. I also warned them that they were violating 3RR, yet they continued undoing other peoples edits. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User blocked. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Komelbar reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: Warned, notified of article probation)


    Edit warring at Homeopathy. Several editors are reverting this editors edits to the last stable version. There is agreement that major changes will be discussed first. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Technically I don't see the first one as a revert - while a sweeping and counter-consensus edit, it did not undue a recently preceding edit that I can see (correct me if I'm wrong). Since this is a new editor, I've decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and warn. I've also notified them of the homeopathy article probation; further reverts or edit-warring should result in either a block or probation-type sanctions (e.g. 0RR/1RR). MastCell Talk 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dbachmann reported by User:Camptown (Result: Page protected)


    User:Dbachmann has during the last couple of weeks made a long series of unilateral and destructive revisions of Kosovo - a topic that most people understand is a virtual mine field. However, on his personal initiative, he recently split the article, a move that was widely rejected in a vote. Although he lost the vote, he persued to tag the article for split. When he wasn't successful, he started to remove the state-infobox from the article (sometimes he removed it, and sometimes he moved it to the bottom of the article), ignoring questions about that. When he couldn't get rid of the infobox, he started to tag the article as POV. The most recent question why POV-tagging should be necessary has been ignored. His recent edits appear like tit-for-tat. Instead of replying to questions about his action, he now threatens me of being blocked using his own admin credentials. Camptown (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first diff does not appear to be a "revert", but a novel edit. The third diff, inserting the NPOV tag for the first time, also does not appear to be a "revert", because it inserts a new tag rather than reverting the removal of an old one. Given that, I'm not inclined to take action against Dbachmann. However, I am going to protect the page temporarily since there are several edit wars ongoing. MastCell Talk 19:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Camptown reported by User:Ijanderson977 (Result: Stale)

    • Previous version reverted to: ???


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

    This user kept on uploading a map, which contained his and other users POV, instead of using an existing map that was NPOV.
    I tried discussing it with the user. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Pakistan)
    However he insisted on using his own map with his own POV in it and reverted it whenever I tried using the existing map, which was NPOV. This then resulted with him starting an editing war. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of placing reports here is to de-escalate an edit war. Posting a report a day after the edit war isn't really relevant. Also, you didn't include the mandatory section on the previous version reverted to, nor did you leave a warning on his talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Realist2 reported by Kookoo Star (Result: Incomplete)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: see below

    Editor "Realist2" has reverted at least 4 edits in less than 24 hours. He has already received a 24 hour ban for breaking the 3RR only 2 days ago, and the first thing he did once the ban was over was begin edit warring again on both the Michael Jackson and Thriller pages again. The user is something of an obsessive fan and has a history of edit warring (there is a warning for edit warring on his TALK page from only last week) and since he has been blocked as recently as two days ago, perhaps sterner measures are required. Kookoo Star (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can actually see all these edits were variations and we (as you can see on the Thriller talk page) were trying to come to a compromise in the issue in which the specific wording of the section was very key to the problem. Non, or those edits were exactly the same , rather alterations and some of the edits arent even related to each other. I reverted the inclusion of the 29 x platinum thing which had NOTHING to do with any of the other edits. I wasnt even given a warning that i was approaching an alleged 3rr and he never even informed me that i was reported. Many of my edits were reverts back to a neutral edit made by an admin.

    • In the second allegged revert all i did was remove the word "reported" as i wanted to maintain a npov. Their ALL reported, but if you specify that on one and not the other it implies 1 is more valid than the other.
    • The third alleged revert was the removal of the eagles statement. It has NOTHING to do with the previous issue and was UNSOURCED.
    • In the fourth alledged revert I removed the words "Very dramatic" , its removal of pov wording, whats very dramatic to 1 person is not so dramatic to another.
    • Many other editor not just me reverted his pov assertions as you can see from the edit history on the Michael Jackson page.
    • Additionally BEFORE i was aware of this report (so i did it of my own accord) at approx 9.30pm i reinserted the word "vary" seen Here therefore my fourth alleged revert was not that i removed the phrase "vary dramatically" rather that when looking at it as a whole i only removed the pov slanted word "dramatically". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is rubbish, i never broke 3rr, i was never informed of the alledged approaching event and i was never told of the report. He has alleged that i have a pro Michael Jackson stance so my edits are invalid, im the one removing the pov, he has the anti jackson bias and dislikes Jackson fans.

    Also it looks like i WAS right about the tag teaming 2 days ago, they have both reported me in 2 days. Yes i know i did wrong the first time and i went about it the wrong way, but this today is a joke.

    I have learnt from my block a few days ago and have strived to maintain neutrality on the issue, reverting back to edits made and advised by admins. Realist2 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No warning here was necessary because you have once again shown yourself to be edit warring less than 2 days after your recent 24 hour ban for 3RR was over. You know full well what you are doing and you know it is wrong. Trying to shift the blame away from yourself by implying that I hate Jackson and his fans and accusing me of tag-teaming is not going to work. You have reverted at least four of my own edits on the Michael Jackson page on 5 March - even ones which had relevant citations - whether by using "undo" or by simply copying and pasting to restore to previous versions written by yourself. You have shown yourself to be far too biased to contribute to Wikipedia articles and your obsessive (and possessive) stance over the Jackson articles proves this. Considering your behaviour over the past couple of days alone, it is clear that you are also a liar and a troublemaker. You have also misquoted or misrepresented much of the evidence you have written in your defence above. Kookoo Star (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not include the previous version reverted to, therefore it is impossible to determine that the first diff you gave is actually a revert. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As you never even bothered to inform be of my report its blatantly clear you knew that if i had the chance to defend myself i would probable win. Also hello 1 of those alleged reverts was the removal of something unrelated and UNSOURCED. you must source info.

    I made over 150 edits in a 24 hour period yesterday. I cant remember what edits i made where. You must warn ppl if they are close to an ALLEGED 3rr or how are they ment to know. especially when you start counting untrlated issues that are unsourced suck as the 29 x platinum thing. My issue on that if whenever i see something unsourced i delete it in a heatbeat. Looking at your previous edits, its unlike you not to source anything. I have a suspicion you set that their deliberately knowing I would delete it so you could include it on your vague tally of reverts. Realist2 (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally this was reported 24 hours ago, all editing on the issue has since ended so the usage of a block is of less purpose now. Is there not a time frame when an alligation becomes stale? Realist2 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The previous version for the first revert has now been added. As you can see, it is a clear revert to the version before my own. The other three reverts listed are for items in the same article but not necessarily the same sentences. Would you like me to include "previous version" links to all of the reverts as opposed to just the first one? Kookoo Star (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ilgiz reported by User:Sbw01f (Result: Warning)

    • Previous version reverted to:[49]


    User is continually reverting and removing legit info, generally being unconstructive and making the article extremely hard to edit properly. Page is littered with reverts and unexplained/unwarranted removal of content by this user.Sbw01f (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user was not warned until after this report. Please warn users first and report them only if they break the 3RR after the warning, or if they are experienced enough that they should not require a warning. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on Anti-Americanism (no violation)

    Trying this again; I think my first complaint got lost. There is edit-warring on the anti-Americanism article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism. Certain editors won't let anybody put any warning tags on this very controversial topic which has a lot problems about neutrality. Every time any warningh templates are put on the page, somebody immediately deletes ALL of them. Rachel63 (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an edit-war of using warning templates in the article on anti-Americanism. Some editors won't let anybody put any warning template about neutrality or whether its encyclopedic on the article. They just blank all the warnings every time. Rachel63 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've moved your original comment as it was lost due to its placement, and added a heading to this one. --WebHamster 14:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that we've got your report here perhaps you should be aware of the fact that this board is for reporting violations of the WP:3RR rule. Unfortunately your generic complaint has only highlighted to the one person who has violated 3RR, which, unfortunately is Rachel63 (talk · contribs), ie you. diff1 diff2 diff3--WebHamster 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the other administrator's page says if there is edit warring come here, so I came here. If this is not the place to report edit warring then the incidents page shouldn't send you here for edit warring. And you are not being fair. I didn't violate the 3RR rule. Rachel63 (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • As mentioned, this is for reports of violations of the 3RR (only). No violation recorded. Please report non-3RR issues elsewhere (e.g. WP:ANI), and if reporting a 3RR issue use the template at the bottom of this page. This report is closed. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fiesta bowl reported by User:Baegis (Result: Already blocked)

    Ohio State Buckeyes football

    2003 Fiesta Bowl

    Editor keeps inserting opinion piece from former SI writer Rick Reilly into the articles (both related). While the merits of the opinion piece can be discussed on the talk page, this editor is in clear violation of the 3rr rule on two different articles. Editor also appears to lack civility, as evidenced by this tirade after a warning from an uninvolved administrator. Baegis (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.185.13.172 reported by User:Atlantics88 (Result: 1 week)

    • Previous version reverted to: [50]


    User keeps on reverting info about HouseGuest doing pornography. Information is there to keep with consistency of other present and former Big Brother HouseGuests doing pornography. Atlantics88 (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Power2084 reported by User:Burzum (Result: 12 hours)

    Previous similar edits:

    • 07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[55]
    • 13:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[56]

    Edits that violate 3RR:


    User:Power2084 has been asked 5 times (two times on User_talk:Power2084 and three times in edit summaries) to discuss edits on Talk:nuclear meltdown but has yet to do so. User:Power2084 has also been informed of the 3RR policy three times.

    In response to 2nd formal 3RR warning, User:Power2084 removed all warnings on User_talk:Power2084 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC) and proceeded to immediately reverting for a 5th time in 24 hours.[reply]

    Recommend a block and a restoration of warnings on User_talk:Power2084. Burzum (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EBDCM reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: protected)

    Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EBDCM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous version:[57][58]
    Previous version:[59][60]
    Previous version:[63][64]

    Previous version:[66]

    Previous version:[68]
    Previous version:[69]

    EBDCM has confirmed he is the 208 anon but has denied he has another registered account.

    The Talk:Chiropractic article is under homeopathy probation and the editor was previously notified. Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wcfirm reported by User:Redrocket (Result: Already blocked)

    User has repeatedly added their site to the main space of the article, in a very unencyclopedic fashion. User has also added this site numerous other times over the past few weeks, showing their pattern of behavior, as seen here [70] [71]. I attempted to get the user to discuss things on talk pages, but only received a reply saying their site was official and that they would willfully disregard wikipedia rules [72] [73] [74].

    When considering this 3RR report, please be aware of an earlier 3RR warning to the same editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fr4zer reported by User:Craw-daddy (Result: 31 hours)


    Also, there's a violation of 3RR on another page.

    Continual insertion of vandalism on these pages (and others, see, e.g. Osmosis). --Craw-daddy | T | 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Vsmith got there first with a 31-hour vandalism block. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tausor reported by User:Countrypaula (Result:blocked indef)

    • Previous version reverted to: [75]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [76]

    A short explanation of the incident.This is the same user that was blocked in December for doing the same thing.He engages in edit warring. He edits without any explaination,and has gotten uncivil in his summaries if we undo his edits.I noted on last edit that I was reporting this.The sources he is citing are gossip news sites, not reliable source. Countrypaula (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This report is improperly formatted (and after looking into it myself there is no 3RR violation today) but I have blocked the user indefinitely after looking through his disruptive SPA contribs. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kendobs reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: 23:26


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 15:05

    Persistent renaming of article, breaking links to other pages etc. despite warnings, introduction to the talk page and general offers of assistance. This user will not give up! Cloudz679 (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.130.11.251 reported by User:SiobhanHansa (Result: )

    Editor continually readding external link. SiobhanHansa 01:19, 7 March 2008 (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]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    1. ^ "FIRM info page".
    2. ^ "Socialized Medicine in a Wealthy Country by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr".
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=196429018"