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
Megaman89 (talk | contribs)
59 edits
Megaman89 (talk | contribs)
59 edits
Line 205: Line 205:


He also has been abusive and racist towards me in edit summaries and article/username talkpages. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
He also has been abusive and racist towards me in edit summaries and article/username talkpages. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
* You have reverted four times as well and refused to come to the talk page and talked me and I have not been racist at all I don't even know what race you are [[User:Megaman89|Megaman89]] 05:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You have reverted four times as well and refused to come to the talk page and stalked me and I have not been racist at all I don't even know what race you are [[User:Megaman89|Megaman89]] 05:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


== Example ==
== Example ==

Revision as of 05:26, 7 August 2007


Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

    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:Worldatlas1989 reported by User:Algie The Pig (Result: No violation)

    Pokémon Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Worldatlas1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:34, 1 August 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.

    Where are the diffs? Report will not be considered until it is presented in proper form. Raymond Arritt 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence, no violation. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Taharqa reported by User:Egyegy (Result: Protected)

    Appearance of the ancient Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Taharqa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]

    One of these is by an IP that he admits is his. Could someone also tell him to stop making racial comments and attacks like these [2] [3]. This is not the first time that he was blocked [4] for making very offensive attacks [5]. Egyegy 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, excuse me to whom ever this my concern, but that last so-called revert wasn't a revert at all, it was a contribution of my own, I didn't revert him in anyway. I can assure you that if you check the history of the page this person has never ever contributed to the article and his abuse in trying to undermine every single edit I make I'd consider wikistalking and harassment. He's followed me from page to page, reverting me on articles he's never ever dealt with before and is trying to intimidate me and cause me stress by doing this, and then making false reports such as this. I strongly feel that I don't deserve a block due to the situation and the fact that I didn't revert but made a contribution.. This is exactly what the person wants, "for me to be blocked".. The last edit was an addition, a contribution, I never knew that after reverting someone, you weren't allowed to make anymore contributions/good-faith edits for the rest of the day..Taharqa 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now he is reverting thru a sock/meatpuppet [6] [7] that hasn't been used since his case was opened [8]. Egyegy 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    What are you talking about (we've been thru that nonsense!)? See this is what I mean, the person has an issue that I think would be better resolved with dispute resolution so he doesn't have to pursue so many outlandish claims. I reiterate, the fact that I know about the 3rr and noted that the said IP address was mine and I just wasn't logged in, should be a tell-tale sign that I was not reverting and intended on adhering to the policy... The first couple was reverting original research/POV, Jeeny also reverted the person. Yet this person here saw that and decided to join in the edit dispute. I did not revert him and only contributed a passage that reflects another source. That's it, I don't understand why this person would report me for that, unless he just WANTS me blocked. Not holding the person in bad-faith, but I do suspect harassment as he's been following me and reverting every edit I make. I seriously suggest dispute resolution as an alternative so that the person can stop following me around. Not trying to rant, so excuse me.. Taharqa 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm talking about you. The concern that this is your sockpuppet has been expressed by different users, it's hardly "outlandish". You also give yourself too much credit when you say that I'm "following" you or out to "harass" you. I always edit articles about Egypt. You only show up at these same articles to cause trouble and have apologized for it once [9]. But a short time after that you made those racial attacks on all Egyptian users. That's what harassment is. Egyegy 23:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ^Expressed by different users? Please. Even tho that isn't the issue, it was once expressed by Urthogie and due to your conflict disputes with me, you felt a need to submit to that preposterous conclusion which I won't entertain. Anyways, I stand by what I've stated above. Also please keep in mind that I've been on this article from the start and this person just showed up today, lead there from other article's i've edited where he's followed me.Taharqa 00:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to take this discussion to WP:RFCU. This is not the place. Perspicacite 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The page was protected a week ago. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:Qaka (Result: Qaka blocked as sock)

    List of islands in the South China Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Response
    Qaka is a sockpuppet of permanently banned user Instantnood. I'm free to revert him a thousand times a day. SchmuckyTheCat
    Well I'd have preferred he be blocked right off the bat, rather than you having to follow him about making all these reverts. But yes, you are correct that your reverts of him were acceptable. Picaroon (t) 02:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jmfangio reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result:No block, for now)

    Michael Vick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jmfangio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been warned by an admin about violating 3RR before (see: User talk:Jmfangio/1#3RR, though clearly fails to understand how it works as he still denied he had. Further evidence that he does not understand 3RR is that he has twice reported me for it, including once today, yet both times I had not as indication by the history of the articles.►Chris Nelson 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fix the difs please, right now what I see are three reverts each, watchlisted and who ever reverts after, block. Jaranda wat's sup 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My bad about the diffs. You can clearly see by the history he made four identical reverts within a two-hour period though.►Chris Nelson 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still needs to be fixed, from what I see, first edit isn't a revert Jaranda wat's sup 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reported by User:Melsaran (Result:No violation)

    User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I raised a concern regarding a semi-protection of his, because I thought that it was perhaps not entirely appropriate.

    • 1st revert: 23:21, 6 August 2007 he decided to remove my comment as "trolling"
    • 2nd revert: 23:24, 6 August 2007 I was shocked, and reinstated the comment, asking why he thought I was a troll, but he reverted me (using admin rollback)
    • 3rd revert: 23:25, 6 August 2007 I politely asked him not to use admin rollback in such a case, and to reply to my concern; he reverted it again, without a comment.
    • 4th revert: 23:37, 6 August 2007 Because he did apparently not want to talk to me, I filed a Wikiquette Alert. The instructions on this page say that you must notify the person whom the WQA concerns on their talk page, so I did. Again, he removed my message without a comment.
    This person (Melsaran (talk · contribs)) has been trolling my talk page and adding me as many notice boards as possible. I've asked Melsaran to take a break and not leave me any further messages if s/he is unable to conduct conversation in a civil manner, and I don't think this is too much to ask. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Trolling? I just raised a concern, is that trolling? You shouldn't use admin rollback for this, and it's considered polite when you respond to my message. And this is not "as many noticeboards as possible", I didn't intend to report you here. When I filed a WQA, I assumed that you wouldn't remove the notice, as WQA requires that I leave you one. And the unprotection request was because I felt that the page protection was inappropriate, and you didn't reply to my concern. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation – WP:3RR does not reply for one's own user talk page. Nevertheless, I'd encourage both users to disengage for a while, before coming together for civil discussion; this behaviour really isn't benefiting the encyclopedia ~ Anthøny 22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tim Osman reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result:Month)

    Joseph C. Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tim Osman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not a new user; Osman has been blocked before for 3RR warring on the same page, and has been warned both on his talk page and on the article talk page to stop the disruptive edits. csloat 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked for a month, what I didn't like is coming back from a one week block just to revert war again, he's lucky it's not indef Jaranda wat's sup 22:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bsharvy reported by User:GTADOC (Result: Protected; Bsharvy blocked for 24 hours)

    Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bsharvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a new user, this user was warned by myself and another editor for 3RR, edit warring, personal attacks, and generally being disruptive. This user responded by vandalizing talk pages and more personal attacks, edit warring, and another reversion. Gtadoc 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been protected by Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). -- tariqabjotu 02:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Southern Texas reported by User:JCO312 (Result: Protected)

    Speaker of the United States House of Representatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Southern Texas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Protected the article, as there has clearly been intermittent edit warring in the past week. -- tariqabjotu 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Opinoso reported by User:Dalillama (Result: No violation)

    Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Opinoso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Four reverts, not three, make a three-revert rule violation. -- tariqabjotu 02:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:3RR, user need not actually break the rule to be blocked. He has been blocked once before, warned twice of three reverts in a 24hr period and has, for exampled, labeled his reverts as "rv vandalism" when there was a content dispute but no vandalism. I would consider this repeated disruptive behavior, even if he held short of the 4th revert--Dali-Llama 02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really convinced. The near-protection gives me the sense that Opinoso is not the only problematic editor. -- tariqabjotu 03:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Megaman89 reported by User:Kuralyov

    The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    He also has been abusive and racist towards me in edit summaries and article/username talkpages. Kuralyov 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You have reverted four times as well and refused to come to the talk page and stalked me and I have not been racist at all I don't even know what race you are Megaman89 05:22, 7 August 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]

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

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=149706483"