Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 322: Line 322:


:::[[User:UnclePaco]] appears to be editing in bad faith. See this edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Day_Parade&oldid=182030593] He has been attempted to characterized the Dominican Day Parade as a mostly criminal activity through inappropriate photos, weasel words, and wikilawyering. I will appeal XLR8TION's ban. [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:::[[User:UnclePaco]] appears to be editing in bad faith. See this edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Day_Parade&oldid=182030593] He has been attempted to characterized the Dominican Day Parade as a mostly criminal activity through inappropriate photos, weasel words, and wikilawyering. I will appeal XLR8TION's ban. [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Zenwhat appears to be editing in bad faith ([[Meatpuppet]] and utilizing [[WP:Stalk]] [[Special:Contributions/67.101.248.187|67.101.248.187]] ([[User talk:67.101.248.187|talk]]) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:201.218.79.62 ]] reported by [[User:Dúnadan]] (Result: 24 hours) ==
== [[User:201.218.79.62 ]] reported by [[User:Dúnadan]] (Result: 24 hours) ==

Revision as of 17:31, 4 January 2008

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:Zenwhat reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result: Not a violation, user warned)

    Debt-based_monetary_system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zenwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since he has given this edit summary on one of his reverts it is obvious he knows about 3RR. Also, given his edit history and comments on the talk, he is now signed in 69.138.16.202 who has been warned about 3RR before and who has been revert warring for a while on this article (11 reverts in article's 50 revision history). -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to expess my support and agreement for this notification. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a violation. One of those reverts was reverting an antivandalism bot, which could not be described as edit warring. I will leave a warning on the user's talk page. --B (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR does not apply to vandalism. Since they're going to make this an issue, I will open an arbitration case. Please see the discussion on the talkpage. [1] I reported the actions of the above users for violating WP:FRINGE and openly acknowledged the fact that I have reverted more than three times on the fringe theories noticeboard. [2]. Per WP:IAR, I will defend my actions. To start off, the article Debt-based monetary system was a POV fork of Fractional-reserve banking created and primarily maintained by Karmaisking[3], a confirmed sockpuppeteer. [4] This vandal has continued to violate WP:FRINGE, with support from Sm8900 (talk · contribs), Vision Thing (talk · contribs) and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs). All of them are Libertarians who are sympathetic or adhere to the fringe theory involved and have thus stifled constructive edits to the article by me and others. They have stifled improvement of the article through continually reverting any substantial removal of Karmaisking's vandalism, while doing nothing to remove it themselves. They do minor copyediting of the article and say "Oh, Karma's edits are bad," on the talk page, but whenever anyone attempts to remove Karma's nonsense, they revert, claiming we need a drawn-out debate. RFC was attempted in the past. In a past AfD discussion on this article, the article was only kept based upon the assumption that it would improve over time. [5] It didn't. In fact, it got a lot worse because it was expanded by Karma with even more nonsense and inappropriate citations. For this reason, it is clear by now that the only way the article is going to go anywhere is with a full re-write.

    I have strongly invited Vision Thing, Sm8900, and Carolmooredc to re-include material from Karma's version in with mine. They have refused and in fact none of them can specifically name what was wrongfully removed. They simply put forth a vague appeal to consensus, while not specifying the fact that Karma's edits should be completely disregarded for being vandalism and in bad faith.

    Normally, I would find an approach of "gradual improvement through discussion" to be reasonable and appropriate. However, given the circumstances and the people involved, it is absurd to argue at this point. My actions are fully consistent with the 3RR and, in any case, WP:IAR was created for precisely this kind of situation, where an individual good-faith editor needs to completely disregard wikilawyering and get the article fixed. Zenwhat (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know a thing about this topic. But 3RR only has narrow exceptions. If there is a legitimate problem with the article, you can open a request for comment or use some other aspect of the dispute resolution process to fix it. --B (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RFC has been tried in the past. You can see the tag on the article's talk page. Dispute resolution doesn't seem appropriate since the conflicting parties above won't specifically explain what the dispute is (why my re-write was bad) and also since the article was created and primarily maintained by Karma, who has since been banned for using sockpuppets to push fringe theories about monetary theory. If they can explain what's actually wrong with my version of the article and then want to go to mediation, we can do that. Zenwhat (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a venue for discussion. Open an RFC, use the talk page, or bring ongoing user conduct issues to WP:ANI. This report is closed. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UpDown reported by User:Collectonian (Result:Problem seems to be worked out )

    Executive Stress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UpDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:37, 1 January 2008 (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: 02:18

    I originally tagged this article as needing missing footnotes, having too short an intro, and needing expert attention from the TV project on December 24th[6]. UpDown reverted on the 25th[7]. I retagged[8] as the issues were not addressed. He reverted less than two minutes later[9]. I put them back again. He removed again on the 27th[10]. He finally actually addressed some of the issues and removed the tags. I put back the expert tag (still had issues there), and a ref-improve since its sourced from only three sources at 15:48, 1 January 2008[11]. It is then that the current cycle of reverting by UpDown really began, along with borderline uncivil remarks in his edit summaries that include calling me a stalker. After his second revert, he started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Executive Stress. I explained, in more detail, why the article was tagged as such, but he again removed them and refused to listen, repeating his early remarks and calling my expectations unrealistic and basically saying "if you don't like it, fix it yourself." He also left a message on my talk page saying the need for expert attention is unrealistic [12], even after I explained it helps a project see an article does need attention, even if its mostly just clean up work. I have not undid his last revision since that would then have me also violating 3RR, and will defer instead here.

    The fourth revert took away the ref request because you questioned where the airdates came from. I added a ref, so removed the ref request. More refs are not possible for this article.Expert attention is not needed, any reordering (to my eyes, its in right order) etc should be done by Collectonian if he is thinks it necessary. I apologise for breaking 3RR, but I did it because the articles does not need the tags, as explained on talk. However, I will go and revert my edit now, as it broke 3RR. But I firmly believe the tags are not needed.--UpDown (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I just ask why time reported says "Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)". Thats not when it was reported?--UpDown (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for fixing that.--UpDown (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can see, two things have happened. First, you have both violated 3RR. Second, the problem seems to have been resolved on the talk page, please contact me if either of you disagree. Consider this a warning, UpDown, and Collectonian has already been warned. Keilanatalk(recall) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, did you mean that the other way around? UpDown is the one who has already been warned, not me, but will attempt to be more careful in the future. Collectonian (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Absolon reported by User:Thejerm (Result: no violation)

    Savannah State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Absolon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:00, 2 January 2008


    • 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:

    User:Absolon asks for a peer review for the Savannah State University article here [13]. Today I proceeded to clean up a few sections but each time I change something I am reverted. The last area I tried to clean up was the the athletic infobox which is duplicate information found in the Savannah State University article, Savannah State University infobox, and Savannah State Tigers. After undoing the information once and writting a rational of my edits on the talk page [14] I am reverted again. This time I am also notified on my talk page to "cease from removing it (see the 3 revert rule if you are confused) until you find the appropriate Wikipedia policy statement or have an neutral authority to adjudicate" (emphasis mine). This user is not assuming good faith, and following WP:OWN because he insist another party make the decision.

    Here are the reverts I count: [15], [16] and [17]. This is not a revert. User has made 3 reverts, and I will warn him about 3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On top of that, the report included previous versions and not diffs, so it is extremely difficult to determine which are reverts. Please use diffs in future. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carl.bunderson reported by User:65.94.218.24 (Result: Not a violation, reverting edits of a banned user)

    Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Carl.bunderson was reported for a 7RR violation a few days ago for the same edit on the same article (see here). Even after being warned about it before hand, he was forgiven that time for his 7RVs. Yet, today he has resumed edit warring on the same article with the same edit and has broken the 3RR. Also he removes the same sourced content over and over again as can be seen here. Since he is removing sourced content and broken the 3RR rule twice the past week, a temporary block might help him change his ways.

    I'm inclined to hold off on this one pending a checkuser to determine if AntiFascism (talk · contribs) and 65.94.218.24 (talk · contribs) are a reincarnation of the banned user BamyanMan (talk · contribs)/Padmanii (talk · contribs)/Tajik (talk · contribs). Looking at the article history, that seems to be Carl's thinking when he made these reverts. Reverting edits by a banned user while banned is exempt from 3RR limitations. --B (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And in this case, you are correct, yes. It's also pretty evidence from the edits and the edit summaries - Alison ❤ 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been reverting vandalism. Afghanistan has experienced repeat vandalism on this demonym matter. If you see the talkg page, consensus is reached, maintained for about a week, then new socks turn up and start screwing with it again, and refuse to use talk page. In the face of that, I prefer to revert repeatedly rather than allow what looks to me like vandalism. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries - reverting edits of a banned user is exempt from 3RR limitations. In fact, since this section was created by a banned user, if you want to, you can just blank it. --B (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Thanks, Alison. It looks like the user has already been blocked. This user also edited this page from 65.95.147.37 (talk · contribs). Can the whole range be blocked? Whois says the range is 65.92.0.0/14, but I'm a bit nervous to block a whole ISP. --B (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recommend against rangeblocking at this time, as there would be too much collateral damage. Maybe run the question by User:Dmcdevit, as he's good at that sort of thing and may be able to help - Alison ❤ 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result:Both users blocked - 24 hours )

    Heterosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: For greater clarity, the 2nd and 4th reverts are each given as two separate but consecutive edits.

    User G2bambino has been multiply warned and blocked in the past for 3rr violations, and was warned again, before making this report.

    The disagreement is about G2bambino's edits to long-stable section titles. Please note, also, G's using edit-summaries for personal attack, flatly denying the need for consensus for an opposed edit, and ignoring of entreaties (by edit-summary) to take the disagreement to the talkpage. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked both users for 24 hours - they're quite cleary in conflict with each other and this is completely disruptive. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pedro Gonnet reported by User:Dbratton (Result: 24 hours)

    Gilad Shalit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pedro Gonnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Not issued, this is an experienced user who himself warned those he was edit warring with about 3RR prior to his own violation. Clearly aware of the policy.

    Disagreement over usage of the term 'captive' or 'hostage' on an otherwise relatively quiet page. RfC was issued which got moderate response and (very) arguable consensus. Changes that were made to the article based on this RfC have been reverted and re-reverted multiple times, and intervention appears necessary to stop the disruption to otherwise valid edits. Please note that while the user reported here is a clear case of 3RR violation, there are others reverting at the page who may also qualify under a more in-depth investigation. DanielC/T+ 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. --B (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Charles reported by User:Piotrus (Result: page protected )

    Duchies of Silesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Charles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Edit warring. User familiar with 3RR, having been blocked before; should know better.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification. This dispute is about the naming of a Duchy formerly located in the now Czech city of Opava, formerly Austrian and Sudeten German Troppau, called Opawa in Polish. It is not about any of the places called Oppau in German, of which a minor one is also called Opawa in Polish. Yet, the incorrect OR-ish term "Herzogtum Oppau" was

    Thus, Piotrus, a Polish editor and administrator on English Wikipedia, introduced and defended the non-existing German name "Herzogtum Oppau", which due to his persistence may annoy and then offend persons knowing about the history of Troppau. Then, he brought both of his opponents to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, resulting in me getting listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, the article getting protected with the non-existing German term, and Charles barely escaping, as I understand. -- Matthead  DisOuß   12:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I really dislike seeing edit wars where no-one involved is using the talk page. Please do not discuss disputed edits in edit summaries. Seek consensus on the talk page. Since the last edit was some hours ago I'm going to protect the article for 7 days to allow a consensus to be reached. If there is further edit warring on this article blocks will ensue quite liberally. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you that I do not seek edit wars and avoid them at all costs. Contrary to the belief that I have not learnt a single thing while editing, I have actively participated and initiated discussion on a great number of topics in order to seek resolution. That I hadn't in this instance I apologize to the administrators who have had to spend time on this issue. A general note though, I respond best if notified of these things, I believe it is standard, or at least courteous, practise to do so. Charles 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure, from my observations about the conduct of User Charles, that he practically seeks edit wars, and is involved in such relatively often. Henq (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know how this user navigated here other than following edits, etc. It should be noted that this users observations should specifically include unanswered notices on his talk page and discussions on the disputed pages, where he was adding unsourced material and original research that was not NPOV. Charles 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its also good practise to discuss disputed edits on article talk pages and I didn't see any of that here. See my comments below Spartaz Humbug! 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (and with this I'm away to bed). Night all...[reply]
    • Indeed, and sorry that there wasn't even a notice of centralized discussion (truth be told, it's all over the place and if that's going to be the case, it should be mentioned everywhere where it applies). Kind of a mess really, there are a few move discussions concurrently and old, related discussions across several articles. Good night! Charles 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my... Well, all I can really say is to look at this user's comments on talk pages relating to the duchies, specifically naming requested moves as in bad faith when they were not. And yes, I was blocked for 3RR in the past but if Piotrus feels the need to bring up something that didn't involve him I feel inclined to mention that he, in the past, has been party to many, many disputes, which he seems to cause or share fault in. That I find myself linked to this page is disheartening really, but not surprising given the circumstances. Charles 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly I couldn't care less. The point was that you were all revert warring with each other and you personally did breach the 3RR and you all know better. Ad homs do not help your cause - comment on edits not editors. Please have a discussion - I'm sure you all have better things to do with your time then to end up being blocked over petty arguments that frankly don't reflect well on anyone involved. I was reasonably generous not blocking you - use the chance to do something constructive. Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not feel that anything other than a generally fair course of action was taken, which is totally and completely fine (and in fact, best desired). As such, I don't feel that there is generosity in saying that I wasn't blocked because, again, I think this would be recommended to discussion or mediation by any administrator. 3RR violations have always been followed by a block as far as I've observed. Looking back, I didn't violate it, although I and other editors came close, sadly. Charles 22:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like to split hairs, particularly when I think the admin ultimately made the right decision, but I am a fan of clarification. Upon analysis of the differences in question, I note that there are four identical versions by me in less than 24 hours, but no more than that. 3RR is broken after the fourth revert to the previous version in less than 24 hours. As I understand that, that is a version reverted to with four reverts all within 24 hours. That it came close to that for all parties is enough to warrant the restriction on the article, but to be scolded for it after when the lesson has been learnt before is not appreciated. Charles 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite possible that, after experience curve of a year or so apparently, User Charles has learnt how to go close to 3RR without precisely breaking it. However, it looks to me like he broke it this time. Having seen User Charles' temperament in work, frankly, my opinion is that each occasion he breaks 3RR, the block could well be one week. Another good idea would be that for User Charles, RR block will be given after 2RR. After all, if he really has something valuable to add to an article (and not deleting contributions of others), one edit will suffice for inserting it. Such policy would pacify royalty and nobility articles nicely. Henq (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, by all means, state all of your grievances in a new report and link it from here, if you must. I will be more than happy to address all of your questions and concerns and will back them up. Note also that you ignored messages on your own talk page and you are now (what I would say is) stalking because process does not agree with your edits to Saxon duchy related articles. Indeed, articles you aren't even involved in are now immediately of your concern because I have edited in them. That's okay, I'm not the king of Wikipedia and can't tell people not to edit, but it speaks to the veracity of the claims against me by you. Charles 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Case in point, finding this after my last reply here. I am done dealing with Henq's intrusion in this matter and advise him to file a report at WP:AN/I or any other appropriate venue if he has grievances with me. If necessary, I welcome anyone to post on my talk page if they feel they need to clear something up with me. Civility works if exercised. Charles 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kindly observe gist of the text on the greenish-bluish background. One cannot help a feeling that if so many editors find conduct of one editor as disruptive and problematic, possibly even detestable, as the text gives us to understand, there unavoidably lies a grave inherent problem in the very conduct of that one editor. Henq (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have refactored my previous comment here, it was not very civil and the discussion should stay closed. My apologies if anybody was offended by it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Squash Racket reported by User:Svetovid (Result: no violation)

    Bratislava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Squash Racket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. Also, for future reference, please format the request correctly, as instructed at the bottom of this page. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tigeroo reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 2 weeks)

    Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tigeroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 08:35, 3 January 2008 He obviously didn't need to be warned, but I actually warned him and asked him to stop.

    I initially restored the concensus version of the article as modified by User:Itaqallah. Tigeroo reverted it. Instead of reverting, I was willing to work with him and tried to improve his version by adding new content. He removed it. I then added new sourced content (all to reliable sources). He removed it. It became clear that he was in no way interested in working collaboratively and was reverting reflexively; I restored my additions and asked him to stop. There appears to be some coordinated meat-puppetry going on; as of now, user Itaqallah has also revert me twice, and Bless sins three times, to delete new sourced content, while I have made only one revert in the last 24 hours, though I may soon restore the deleted text. I have not been edit-warring! There has been almost no justification given for what appears to be vandalistic meatpuppetry. Arrow740 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arrow has been continually edit warring on this article for several days, both before protection was implemented on 26 December and after it expired on 2 January. He habitually games 3RR by reverting right up to three and then reverting sometime later. He was recently blocked on a previous article for this behaviour of rushing to three reverts. He seems to have invented a novel way of gaming it: that is, continually and disruptively insert more and more disputed material each time someone takes a previous addition out (this, on a featured article.) Yet, in spite of that, Arrow still seems to have managed three reverts on that article. ITAQALLAH 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as I said, I have not been edit warring. I learned when blocked recently for combating vandalism with three reverts to be more conservative. Itaqallah also often uses three reverts; I could give examples if the issue were not Tigeroo's vandalism here. I believe I have restored the content two times. Arrow740 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arrow740 has been edit warring with various users on multiple articles. Islam, Muhammad, Muhammad's wives, Islam and antisemitism etc. are but examples.Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no "Previous version reverted to". Apparently, it's "MANDATORY", is it not? Then, why did Arrow740 miss such a crucial detail in his report?Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided a previous version for each diff by showing the exact edit he undid - I know it's complicated. Arrow740 (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it was complicated. I just went to the article history and started counting reverts, but then I saw Blnguyen had already blocked the user. Bless sins, don't jump on Arrow740 for missing a detail in his report. It does not affect the validity of the report in any way. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishkid64, this is a detail that renders many reports as invalid. WP:3rr considers it as mandatory, why should we not insist upon something that is "mandatory"? Unless, you think that it is not "mandatory".Bless sins (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BS, you need to read the report more carefully. It clearly states, for more complicated revert-warring, more complicated reports are needed. Please desist. Arrow740 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Invalid reports do not grant 3RR violators a free pass. Some administrators, such as myself, collect their own evidence to make sure of the 3RR violation, and make a judgment call from there. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think the report should have been filed differently? Arrow740 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a complicated report, so "previous version reverted to" would be of no use here. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.47.32.88 reported by User:TheIslander (Result: 24 hours )

    Have I Got News for You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.47.32.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Quick background: Presenter of Have I Got News for You is fired from show on a specific date. The article provides a rock solid source (BBC News article) to back this up. User insists that this is not true, ignores the source, removes it and replaces with original research. They are reverted, so they re-revert and add a rude message (first diff). I revert it, and the user re-reverts (second diff). I warn the user about 3RR, and revert to replace correct information and source, but they re-revert (third diff). I revert one last time, and am re-reverted (fourth diff). This is a blatent breach of 3RR; the user in question is repeatedly adding false information, and removing the very source that shows it to be false. TheIslander 01:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:XLR8TION reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: 1 week)

    Dominican Day Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). XLR8TION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: UnclePaco (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Not a new user. Has been blocked multiple times [18] for personal attacks as well as 3rr violation.

    Removal of sources. It was discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Day_Parade&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade

    Both parties are in violation, but are now discussing it on the talk page, blocking would serve no purpose unless it starts back up. --B (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've really been trying. User Xlr8tion has been speaking to me in a demeaning manner and using personal attacks. [19] UnclePaco (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for review re:XLR8TION

    I previously closed this request by issuing a warning to both users, both of whom appeared to have violated 3RR, but, at the time, were talking it out on the talk page. I felt that a block would not be helpful since the edit war appeared to have stopped. (I had never interacted with either user nor edited any of the involved articles prior to that time. ) Since that time, XLR8TION has continued to edit war in less than constructive ways and, though I feel I would be justified in issuing the block myself, I wanted to relist it here to allow an admin who has not yet taken an action in this matter to make the decision.

    Since the time I declined the block and left this warning with XLR8TION, he has repeatedly added a post from a white power message board to Puerto Rican Day Parade. (The only edits to that article in the last two days have been XLR8TION readding the link to the white power message board and others removing it.) He has also resumed reverting Dominican Day Parade, which was the original article for which this 3RR request was made.

    Again, while I would feel completely justified in making the block for edit warring (3RR is not a license to revert exactly 3 times per 24 hour period) and for adding inappropriate external links, since I myself have removed the white power message board, I wish to maintain transparency and ask another admin to reconsider this request. Thank you. --B (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewed. I have blocked XLR8TION for one week for edit warring, incivility and personal attacks. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This was the website he posted. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/puerto-ricans-133236p6.html . Innapropriate. UnclePaco (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:UnclePaco appears to be editing in bad faith. See this edit. [20] He has been attempted to characterized the Dominican Day Parade as a mostly criminal activity through inappropriate photos, weasel words, and wikilawyering. I will appeal XLR8TION's ban. Zenwhat (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Zenwhat appears to be editing in bad faith (Meatpuppet and utilizing WP:Stalk 67.101.248.187 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:201.218.79.62 reported by User:Dúnadan (Result: 24 hours)

    Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 201.218.79.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [21]


    • 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: [29] (for all warnings) [30] for my warning.

    The anon user 201.218.79.62 is engaging in WP:OR (and vandalism) by making unsubstantiated claims and continuously inserting them on the article despite being warned several times to WP:CITE. He has been reverted by three users, and warned by three users to stop vandalizing the page. He has also been warned to stop reverting/vandalizing the article North America: he has also violated the 3RR rule in that article: [31]. the Dúnadan 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LGBTRights123 reported by User:Fordmadoxfraud (Result: 24 hours)

    Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LGBTRights123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:00, 4 January 2008 (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.

    LGBTRights123 continually reverts to versions containing his/her edits that more than one editor--ExRat and myself--both feel violates WP:NPOV and is not supported in substance by the citation given. We have placed our concerns on both the article's talkpage and LGBTRights123's, and the editor has continually ignored all attempts to communicate about the dispute, except to act belligerent in the edit summaries. Ford MF (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guettarda reported by User:TableManners (Result: No violation)

    D._James_Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [32]

    Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [33], [34], [35], [36]. The last edit suggests bad faith, incorrectly characterizes a fact tag (the fact tag was to a sentence that never had its own citation). I don't think this is good form on the part of Guettarda, but thought I'd submit for others to look at. Guettarda is well liked no doubt so disinterested admins only please. TableManners U·T·C 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see no 3RR violation here. Without going too much further into the issue (as arguments should not be continued on this page), the first two diffs you listed are sequential and the second one is unrelated to the other three. It's an edit war, and an unquestionably bad decision on Guettarda's part, but I don't think a block is warranted in this case. Kafziel Talk 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I did not intend to request a block. Just some other eyes on the issue. Thanks Kafziel, you may withdraw this if this is a place to request a block. TableManners U·T·C 06:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this noticeboard is for block requests (it looks like the editor who recommended you come here assumed that the four diffs were the same). I dropped Guettarda a warning and requested that he go through dispute resolution if need be. I think that's sufficient, and I'll go ahead and close this case. Kafziel Talk 06:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverts do not have to be related to be a violation of 3RR. Any full or partial reverts - even if you aren't reverting back to the same version - in excess of three is a violation. That said, as you correctly pointed out, two of the diffs were in sequence, so Guettarda reverted EXACTLY three times, not in excess of three times. I would close this as no violation, but because I am involved, I cannot. (Never mind the last sentence, after I typed this, I see you already did close it.) --B (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chemical Euphoria reported by User:Splette (Result: User warned )

    Attribution of recent climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chemical Euphoria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    This is my first 3RR report ever. So, please excuse in case I made any formal mistakes filing it. The global warming articles like this one seem to be a popular target for vandals, who do not agree with scientific consensus. Quite a number of sockpuppets have been 'retired' during the history of these articles. But new ones appear constantly. The user User:Chemical Euphoria appears to be one of them. The account was used for nothing else than reverting global warming articles[41]. In the case of Attribution of recent climate change the user constantly reverted a certain phrase as can be seen in the diffs, without engaging in any discussion on the talk page. This is why I file this report. Splette :) How's my driving? 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a brand new account and no warning had been given prior to the diffs given above ... HOWEVER, Raymond Arritt has tagged the user as being a suspected sock of a banned user (seems rather likely) so this may all be moot. --B (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I realize, that the user should have been tagged first. However, I also thought that this is a rather clear case and therefore went ahead and reported it. --Splette :) How's my driving? 07:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has now been warned and any further disruption will result in a block. please reopen this report by removing the result if they make any further reverts. Cheers. If this is a sock, there are mechanisms to deal with it elsewhere Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thanks! --Splette :) How's my driving? 07:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Betacommand reported by User:Yukichigai (Result: No violation)

    List of Metalocalypse characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:47, 4 January 2008 (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.

    Betacommand has been insistent that all non-free images be cleared out of the List of Metalocalypse characters article, claiming that WP:NFC says that lists are "prohibited" from using them. Both myself and another editor have taken issue with that interpretation of WP:NFC and have attempted to discuss the matter with Betacommand, who has elected not to participate. He has in the last hour attempted to restore his preferred version of the article (the part about the images, anyway), claiming that the enforcement of WP:NFC exempts him from 3RR. I find this hard to believe to say the least, and thus I am reporting the incident here. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation, copyvio removal is indeed exempt from 3RR, and character lists are not permitted to contain nonfree images. However, I would encourage Betacommand to seek input from other editors rather than reverting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm... where does policy say that? The only thing anyone can show me is an essay written by Durin. I know there's a specific prohibition on decorative images in grid-type lists, but this article is a list only in the name of the article. It's a merged collection of several stubs, essentially, with paragraphs and all that jazz. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a simple list, though. Rather than just being a table listing character names, and descriptions, this article has a good deal of content and I don't believe could be considered a blatant violation of the non-free content policy. I'm not inclined to block BC, though, because certainly he believes it is a violation, even if it isn't, and acted in good faith. --B (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Can I at least ask for a warning to be issued, lest some other, less-ballsy editor be run over roughshod because Betacommand doesn't realize he doesn't have carte blanche? -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've protected the article to stop the revert war and left a note on the talk page expressing a concern that this may not be a flagrant violation. Please discuss the issue there and feel free to open a request for comment to ask others to be involved or ask at a suitable location like WT:FAIR. --B (talk) 08:05, 4 January 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]

*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=182133130"