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 573: Line 573:
* [[Help:Diff]] or [[Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide]]
* [[Help:Diff]] or [[Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide]]
* [http://tools.wikimedia.org/~slakr/3rr.php 3RR report helper tool] – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.
* [http://tools.wikimedia.org/~slakr/3rr.php 3RR report helper tool] – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

==Help needed==

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I (user name Anup Ramakrishnan) am making this post from outside of my account in Wiki. In a certain page here, titled [[Viv Richards]], a player of the game of [[cricket]], there is a lot of trouble being created by some extremely biased and cheap fans of other cricketers who do not want to see facts about others that their own favorites cannot boast of.

This has led to my having to revert their edits more than twice, and one of the miscreants on that page is getting his friends to revert my edits so that he himself would not violate the rules on this site. Please warn the user [[Blnguyen]] not to come on that site and remove whatever goes against his own views and opinions on the subject, even if they are fact. He is guilty of false citations and lies on other pages which I am not even detailing here. Hope you understand and help.

Revision as of 02:00, 2 June 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    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:67.87.7.164 reported by User:MrPrada (Result: 24 hour block )

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]
    • 1st revert: [2] (06:55, 29 May 2008), inserts defamatory material reported at ANI and reverted by me, warned by Cluebot
    • 2nd revert: [3] (07:00, 29 May 2008), deleted large portions of text, I gave up reverting at this point, final vandalism warning from User:Anonymous101 (IP had vandalized other articles earlier, I did not issue any template warnings, I went directly to the talk page)
    • 3rd revert: [4] (07:26, 29 May 2008), deletes large portions of text & image, reverted & warning by Cluebot
    • 4th revert: [5] (08:02, 29 May 2008), deletes large portions of text & image, reverted by User:Aleenf1
    • 5th revert: [6] (08:06, 29 May 2008), deletes large portions of text & image, reverted by User:Aleenf1
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • 1st warning: [7] (07:22, 29 May 2008)
    • 2nd warning: [8] (07:29, 29 May 2008)
    I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:121.45.48.22 reported by User:AI009 (Result: warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: [9]
    • 1st revert: [10] 14:44, 28 May 2008 repositions images for no reason
    • 2nd revert: [11] 14:48, 28 May 2008 reverts
    • 3rd revert: [12] 14:35, 29 May 2008 reverts again..
    • 4th revert: [13] 14:38, 29 May 2008 ..and again
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    1st warning
    2nd warning
    3rd warning

    User:Starimmanuel reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: Already blocked)



    User is similarly edit warring over this content at 2006 Lebanon War

    Already blocked indef by Tiptoety. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nickhh reported by User:Julia1987 (Result: No vio, malformed report)

    5th is the revert of this edit [14] this is the revert: [15]

    4th : partial revert of he words without pay [16] is here : [17]

    3rd: full revert: [18]


    2nd: partial revert of this: [19],[20] is here: [21],[22]


    1st: partial revert of [23] is here: [24]

    there are more, just look: [25]

    --Julia1987 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    noncando these are partial reverts. --Julia1987 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation There are enough edits by User:Nickh that they might add up to four reverts. However we can't reach that total unless we say that his revert of Category:Brainwashing techniques is something he should not have done. There is (a) no word 'brainwashing' in the text of this article, (b) no evidence offered that brainwashing occurred, (c) nothing on the Talk page. Since this removal is the kind of thing an admin might have done anyway, I decline to count this removal as one of four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    count again. enough reverts without that one. Julia1987 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are only four groups of consecutive edits by Nickh in the period under discussion. Each group counts as at most one revert, under our rules. Since one of the reverts is not being counted, per policy, there are at most three reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The category appears to have been added by another editor as a means of disruptively making a point, as the article has nothing to do with "brainwashing techniques". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thanks for checking. --Julia1987 (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:AI009 reported by User:Ijanderson977 (Result:no block for now)


    AI009 has violated WP:3RR. He/she keeps on deleting well sourced infomation as this does not suit his WP:POV. It is information which suggests for Russia to seem as a potential super power. If you look at the talk page you will see that he/she appears not to like Russia. So not only is he in violation of WP:3RR, he also violates WP:NPOV, due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
    I have given him/her a warning.



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [30]

    Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It looks to me like the user has not reverted since being warned, so no block for now. I'm watchlisting the article so I can block if the user or 24.180.3.127, who also looks to me to have violated 3RR (but hasn't reverted since being warned), reverts again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Thetriforcehero reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hours)



    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Youcallhimdoctorjones reported by User:Alientraveller (Result: 24 and 31 hour blocks )



    Result - I have blocked both users (24 & 31 hours) for violating 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HAl reported by User:AlbinoFerret (Result: 1 week block )



    Previous warnings used to show knowledge of the rule.

    Previous bans for 3rr violation

    Stale report of another 3RR violation proving additional proof of edit waring. [35]

    HAl has a history of edit warring and using reverting as a edit style. He has been been banned twice before for reverts to this same page. He continues to revert anything he doesn't agree with.AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked known edit warrer for 1 week. He also committed a few "crimes" against WP:MOS by openly citing himself in plain view of the text which is completely wrong. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John celona reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: Protected)



    Reversion is over adding Ridgeston's real name. John celona is adding it with a source. However, there appears to be a history where Ridgeston does not wish his real name to be in the article (please see the article's talk page). At this point, I can't say who is right, but thought it needed to be reported here in any case. Thanks.

    Page protected I see no evidence that the dispute over disclosure of the actor's real name has ever been submitted to a noticeboard. I've protected the article for a week, and invite one or both parties to submit the issue at WP:BLP/N. If no effort is made to get general opinions on that, I believe this falls back into our jurisdiction and we should start enforcing 3RR against whoever violates it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Webster121 reported by User:Christopher Parham (Result: 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: 03:21 May 30 Establishes preferred version of infobox
    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Allstarecho reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: 31 hours)

    Content dispute on AFA article. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JTWoodsworth reported by User:Nickptar (Result: 12 hours)

    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours VanTucky 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You've now got an obvious sockpuppet reverting the article again. [37] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And a second one has emerged [38] for the obvious purpose of re-posting that absurd POV tag and counting on other users not to violate 3RR themselves. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TaiChiChuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and JulieKO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have now also been blocked 24 hours. For background on the WP:MEAT issue, see a discussion of their plans at Talk:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull#Prejudice. In the words of TaiChiChuan, referring to JTW, ..when he said he was blocked Jules and I laughed and said we'd help him. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arzel reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: No violation)


    1. Revision as of 10:13, 29 May 2008
    2. Revision as of 16:13, 30 May 2008
    3. Revision as of 19:57, 30 May 2008
    4. Revision as of 10:56, 31 May 2008
    5. Revision as of 15:11, 31 May 2008


    No violation Arzel's removals are exempt under WP:BLP. He was taking out inadequately-referenced negative material from a biographical article. Since the people who keep putting back this material are gradually improving the sourcing, he may not be able to get away with this indefinitely. Neither Blaxthos nor Arzel has so far made any use of the Talk page of the article. (It should be noted that the NY Times reference offered for the critical material doesn't mention Gretchen Carlson, so it's not an ideal reference for criticism of Gretchen. It is not clear that blogs are a suitable reference here either). EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that Blaxthos has an ongoing dispute with me personally over other articles. He has never once commented on that talk page, and as near as I can tell never made an edit. It would appear that he "followed" me to that page and is reviewing my edits, showing a huge lack of good faith. Additionally, I can't understand why he would even be in favor of such vague references to controversies within a BLP. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, the anoyn added the same material multiple times without reliables sources, any sources, or sources even relating to Carlson multiple times and I am the one that gets reported? Not cool at all. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gulmammad reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: Discretionary sanction notice)



    Diff of clarification of the sensitivity of these types of articles and advice against edit waring

    What I really find frustrating is the fact that Gulmammad keeps reverting everything that I add to the article and keeps trying to push POV. He adds very little to the talk page other than say that it should be added to the article because he knows it is true. Note that I have only made one revert of a revert he made on one of my edits because he didn't explain the revert in talk. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I request from administrators to investigate who did more reverts without sufficient explanation. This is the third time user Pocopocopocopoco mentions my name here (I'd say calumniate me). He/she keeps reverting my edits without sufficient explanation and therefore pushing me into edit warring. First time he/she reported me with many incorrect informations and caused temporarily removal of my right of using the rollback tool. However, after I defended my actions, my rights returned back. The second time all report was incorrect and declined by administrators. Now this is the third time. I am looking for your serious concern related to this incidents. Thank you. Gülməmməd Talk

    This area of editing is covered by an arbitration case which provides for discretionary sanctions. Both editors have been notified that further edit warring will result in application of sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Gregbard reported by User:Ncmvocalist (Result: 48 hours)


    • Stated here (16:09) that it was his first and actual intentional policy violation as a form of protest - it was therefore in WP:POINT.
    • He needs to learn he cannot remove or alter other people's comments under any circumstances, and that he should not edit-war to try to prove a point or get the type of attention he wants. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Duration increased since it's also violating WP:TALK, which does not allow removal of others' comments. The 3RR warning was not timely, but on his own Talk page Greg makes clear that he understands 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gulmammad reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco second report unrelated to the first (Result: Discretionary sanction notice + 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    31 May 2008 05:37, 1 June 2008



    • Diff of 3RR warning: He has responded to the 3RR report above hence he is familar with the rules. Please also see the guidance I tried to offer in the provided in the previous report

    I recommend that the two 3RRs be served consecutively. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This area of editing is covered by an arbitration case which provides for discretionary sanctions. Both editors have been notified that further edit warring will result in application of sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is highly inappropriate. I have only made one edit to this article. Gulmammad was edit waring with other users and he breached 3RR. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked Gulmammad 24 hours. (Poco did not go over one revert in 24 hours on this article). Since Seraphimblade did not object, and this is a conventional 3RR violation as well as an Arbcom issue, I've issued the normal block. I did not include the Sheylanli case (reported above) in my analysis. In my study I was influenced by the strongly POV nature of the material G. was pushing to include in this article: However, the brutal tactics employed by Armenians resulted in thousands of innocent Azeri being massacred. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I would say don't block, because I told him in my summaries to continue trying to make the edit, if he could neutralize it, so I figure he would be under my 'protection' in case of a 3RR. However, seeing that he's also editwarred on another article today, I won't unblock. But I just want to make it clear that he 'violated 3RR' at my request, I did not consider it an edit war, we were merely using the article to try to work something out instead of taking it to the talk page, which I've now done. --Golbez (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Asher196 reported by — MrDolomite • Talk (Result:warning)

    Detroit Red Wings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asher196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 12:44, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 215487855 by 69.246.26.161 (talk)")
    2. 20:35, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216184584 by Salparadise44 (talk)")
    3. 22:34, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "I don't agree")
    4. 03:16, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Look at the talk page, idiot. Long discussion on this topic.")
    5. 03:29, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Team Information */")
    6. 03:47, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Anaheim eh?")
    7. 13:49, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216399762 by 66.212.150.82 (talk)")
    8. 14:09, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "remove vandalism")
    9. 15:18, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216412550 by Salparadise44 (talk)")
    10. 15:18, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "just continuing my edit war.....")
    11. 15:24, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "relenting on" jersey"....")
    12. 19:34, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "I'm not relenting that much")

    — — MrDolomite • Talk 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Salparadise44 reported by — MrDolomite • Talk (Result:24 hours)

    Detroit Red Wings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Salparadise44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 13:41, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: ""Uniforms" is a fair compromise.")
    2. 21:32, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "As pointed out before "Uniforms" is a more than fair compromise.")
    3. 23:49, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "You don't agree this is a fair compromise? (you may offer a more encompassing solution) Or is it you don't agree that "sweater" is the traditional term in hockey? (if so you need to educate yourself).")
    4. 14:08, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "This barely merits discussion. The point with Wiki is to inform. "Sweater" is the traditional term used for the uniform in the sport of hockey. Somehow this is a difficult concept for some. So be it.")
    5. 15:06, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Remove vandalism")
    6. 15:09, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    7. 17:43, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Uniforms */")

    — — MrDolomite • Talk 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both Salparadise and Asher are pretty clearly edit warring on this issue (not all diffs listed here are actual reverts, but the history is pretty clear). Normally, I'd be blocking both; however, I see no sign that either has been warned. So I'm going to start with a warning and see if that stops the situation (the attitude taken by both editors leaves me skeptical, but I'll at at least try the more pleasant way). Come on back if this edit war continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kuratowski's Ghost reported by User:70.19.197.168 (Result: Stale)



    The malicious user didn't make these deletions in a short period, but should be blocked, as is the discretion of the Administrator in this type of case. The user's Talk page has numerous warnings spread out over wide amounts of time, on many articles.

    Hasn't reverted since 1 am this morning, ergo, stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There were nowhere near four reverts by Kuratowski's Ghost in 24 hours. The submitter of this complaint, and some of his supporters, persist in adding an unsourced passage to the Immanuel article. If your claim is correct, you should be able to find sources. It seems probable that Mateek (talk · contribs), 70.22.168.24 (talk · contribs), 70.19.192.13 (talk · contribs), and 70.19.197.168 (talk · contribs) are all the same editor. Otherwise the exact coincidence of viewpoints between Mateek and these three single-purpose accounts would be curious. Sockpuppetry on admin noticeboards is not likely to be a successful strategy. (Mateek is inviting a block, in my opinion). If the abuse continues, semi-protection of the article should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kaiwhakahaere reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: 24 and 48 hour blocks )

    Part of a general pattern of incivility towards me by this user, as well as a debate over the standard of referencing in this article. The user is consciously ignoring the numerous times I have pointed them towards the WP:VUE policy. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked both the reported user and the reportee for 24 and 48 hours respectively. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Collectonian reported by User:Abtract (Result: no action)

    • Previous version reverted to: [43]
    • 1st revert: [44] 00.13 2 June
    • 2nd revert: [45] 00.56 2 June
    • 3rd revert: [46] 01.00 2 June
    • 4th revert: [47] 1.05 2 June
    • No warning necessary as this is a very experienced user who knows better but has let a silly error during a self-admitted wikibonk phase turn into a vendetta. I tried a very reasonable softly, softly approach but sadly this was the response.

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|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. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

    See also

    Help needed

    Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I (user name Anup Ramakrishnan) am making this post from outside of my account in Wiki. In a certain page here, titled Viv Richards, a player of the game of cricket, there is a lot of trouble being created by some extremely biased and cheap fans of other cricketers who do not want to see facts about others that their own favorites cannot boast of.

    This has led to my having to revert their edits more than twice, and one of the miscreants on that page is getting his friends to revert my edits so that he himself would not violate the rules on this site. Please warn the user Blnguyen not to come on that site and remove whatever goes against his own views and opinions on the subject, even if they are fact. He is guilty of false citations and lies on other pages which I am not even detailing here. Hope you understand and help.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=216533215"