Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.42.187.213 (talk) at 21:04, 1 May 2008 (→‎User:77.42.187.213 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:Mikkalai reported by User:Nicklausse (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    This was in turn reverted by Mikkalai 16:43, 28 April 2008

    This user is essentially trying to make Nairi part of Armenian history.

    Mikkalai is continuing to revert the content of this page [2], as well as reverting another template [3]. Nicklausse (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverts by Nicklausse:

    Previous version reverted to: 00:40, 28 April 2008

    Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1st: yes, this is part of the Ancient Near East.
    3rd: that was not added - it was copy-edited and moved.
    4th: Somebody else came along and reverted to a much earlier version, undoing changes that even administrators had made to the article.
    Nicklausse (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Re the third diff: OK, not all those words were added. The word "contend" was changed to "tackle" by Mikkalai and changed back to "contend" by Nicklauss, so it is a revert. I have the impression other material was reverted too because the diff of the two Nicklauss versions (15:41 and 16:20, April 28) looks (at a glance) as if it has fewer differences than the diff of the Mikkalai and Nicklauss versions (16:04 to 16:20). Possibly a move of material was reverted. Reverting to a version by an administrator is not an excuse to violate the 3RR rule. In any case, the reverting seems to have stopped; almost no editing on the article at all in the past 24 hours, but instead there is discussion on the talk page. That's good. (non-admin opinion.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hopping reported by User:Antelan (Result: 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [4]


    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bless sins reported by User:Merzbow (Result: )

    Games 3RR by reverting 4 times in 25 hours and 10 minutes. He's a very experienced user who's been blocked for this in the past. - Merzbow (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly notice that it is not 24 hours. Yes it is a little over 24 hours, but I never intended to game the system. If I like gaming the system, then Merzbow should be able to find other examples. Yet the history of this article and other articles show that I have restricted myself to no more than 2 reverts per day (often even 1 revert a day).
    Secondly, there is a question on Merzbow's involvement. Merzbow reverted me on Banu Qurayza [5] without even caring to discuss why or joining the discussion on the talk page. From that perspective Merzbow's contribution looks like that of a drive-by reverter. Isn't drive-by reversion against the spirit of 3rr?Bless sins (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid I might bear some responsibility for this report as I mistakenly talked about such a violation on the article talk page and BS's user talk page (asking him to self-rv). I was mistaken in thinking that these reverts all occurred within 24 hours (and mistaken on the extent of the last revert).
    However, I do think that this reverting is disruptive, no matter whether BS just got lucky or was waiting for the 25 hour mark. I certainly think it is not proper for him to fault Merzbow for his reverting or the report. Str1977 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I too find your reverting disruptive (did you notice it reduces the article by 2k everytime?). But this is not the avenue to solve disputes. Do you also realize that you've made 3 reverts in less than 8 hours?Bless sins (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BS, this is not the venue to discuss my edits but yours. I do not engage in constant blanket reverting aside from countering yours. I actively work towards finding solutions. I made three reverts and stopped then because I follow the rules. I do not care that your version as 2 KB less litter included. Str1977 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Str1977, the edit conflict form which the edits are being reported is something you too were engaged in. You said that you "stopped then because I follow the rules". Well I didn't break the rules either, as I did not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. "I actively work towards finding solutions" as do I by actively engaging on the talk page, and responding to you before I revert. I'm not sure the same can be said of Merzbow, who made a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And working towards finding solutions includes reverting 4 times in 25 hours? Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage, but I have every right to revert an immediately objectionable POV edit if I see one, where I see one. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If reverting 3 times in less than 8 hours is (as Str1977 did), then reverting in less than 26 hours (but more than 25) can also be considered as working towards a solution. During that same 25 hour period I made 9 responses on the talk page. "Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage" The talkpage is where I explained my revert. So you reverted without knowing "what the heck [are]" my reasons (or others) were? That's indicative of a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both you and Str1977 need to cut it out. This edit summary exemplifies the wrong attitude you both seem to have: that someone else's reverting justifies your own. Both of you need to do what Str1977 said and stop with your double standards and quit reverting (and yes, I said both of you). You're both edit warring, which is to say you're both being disruptive, and I'm rather disinclined to take any action that doesn't treat you equally. Can both of you just stop reverting, or am I going to have to get out the hammer? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me just state that I take exception to this "everyone's equally bad" view. If one editor repeatedly reverts to a version that he knows to be controversial, are we not allowed to resist? Str1977 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think any of the versions is considered controversial by the other person :) I personally don't think attempts to get any of the parties blocked is a good way to go. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally wouldn't have submitted this report. There has been a long dispute on the Qurayza article; there was a mediation but it was closed as being failed. There has been much discussion on the talk page. This is not gaming the system to me, to be sure; and in my opinion filing such reports and trying to get one editors blocked is by no means, by no means the way to go. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me make it clear that I don't fault Merzbow for making this report. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Antelan & User:Orangemarlin reported by User:Hopping (Result: No action)

    • Previous version reverted to: [6]


    • No violation Reporting editor has already been blocked for WP:OWNing this article, and is now edit-warring on it again (for which another admin has just blocked him - [11]). Plus you don't get to report two separate editors for 3RR by adding their edits together (unless they're sock/meatpuppets, in which case WP:SSP is your correct venue).Black Kite 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dorftrottel reported by User:Loodog (Result: No violation)

    Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    • Loodog (talk · contribs) assumes ownership of the article, the mentioned talk page consensus exists in his/her fantasy alone. The first edit listed above is not a revert, but my original edit. Loodog was the first to revert, and warned against 3RR before the fact, a characteristic of the seasoned edit warrior. Moreover, he overeagerly also reverted a useful edit by a third editor and refused to restore that edit, despite being informed of it. Also, as User:Tanthalas39 correctly pointed out here, Loodog, which of course he forgot to mention is the other party in this stupid little edit war. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 19:46, April 28, 2008
    • I have now filed an RfC at the article talk page, like I should have done at once. See also this discussion at WP:RSN (permlink), of which Loodog was notified but chose not to respond to. Dorftrottel (talk) 20:14, April 28, 2008

    User:Bermudatriangle reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: 24 hours)


    despite this being a new user, they seem to be aware of wikipedia protocol and have quoted AGF to me etc.

    I gave a 3RR warning, and suggested that they may wish to revert their previous edits, however the user has refused to do so, even though I have made them well aware of 3RR. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I messed up the diff times, I have corrected these.

    I should add that the above reverts are not only against consensus, but also disruptive. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My last revert is nothing to do with my previous reverts. I consider it is content dispute and your creation of uncited article and then linking it to another page is borderline vandalism.Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last revert was on the same article. The first four reverts within a 24 hour period are enough to violate 3RR. The last revert while it did relate to another section of the article, was still in violation of 3RR. You are well aware of this, considering that I copy/pasted the following from the 3RR article onto your talk page:

    An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

    My edit was most certainly not vandalism, I put a link to a wikipedia article, there was nothing remotely close to vandalism on the edit in question. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To me it is vandalism. You have edited on Diana, Princess of Wales is only about her virginity. Now you are taking interest of an Institute under her name. Do you think others are insane here?Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I think others are insane? well I could answer that in a slightly witty but predictable manner, however if I did, then I would fall foul of wikipedia civility rules. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. No consensus to include that section, and 3RR clearly broken. Black Kite 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Matthew reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: No action)


    At this point the question is now whether to protect the page, a block on either side now appears unnecessary. Wizardman 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dynamic IP 62.134.88.16 to 62.134.89.40 reported by 207.102.64.207 (talk) (Result: Semi-protected)


    Page protected Semi-protected two weeks. Nothing worse than an edit war between two IP-hopping clubs. Some of the editors you complain about in this report seem to be trying to carry out the Gdansk double-naming compromise. I see the beginnings of a discussion of naming issues (and a request for references) on the Talk page and I hope it continues. No IPs have so far joined that Talk discussion, not even the submitter of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Koov reported by User:Skalskal (Result: 24 hours each)

    • Previous version reverted to: [17]


    • 1st revert: [18] April 28, 17:02
    • 2nd revert: [19] April 29, 01:58
    • 3rd revert: [20] April 29, 17:20
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [21] April 29, 20:22

    Multiple reverts despite repeated requests to bring the changes to the talk page.

    Skalskal (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you are engaged in edit warring with highly uncivil edit summaries, 24 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Koov has edited the Gallery of country coats of arms [22], Gallery of sovereign-state flags [23] page and Template:Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China as 149.4.42.48 (City University of New York IP) after he was blocked [24] and before the 24 hours is up. You can see that 149.4.42.48 is Koov as a) the edit summary of his changes is identical to Koov's b) other edits from the CUNY 149.4.xx.xx range on Gallery of sovereign-state flags that re-insert the same text he's had reverted and use the same (or identical) phrasing he does (it's possible he just doesn't log in sometimes) c) edits by CUNY IP's (e.g [25] [26] [27] [28]) on the other (fairly small set of) pages that Koov edits that make the same changes he's making. Ha! (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Koov reported by User:Skalskal (Result: Duplicate report)

    • 1st revert: [29] April 27, 23:40
    • 2nd revert: [30] April 28, 17:01
    • 3rd revert: [31] April 29, 17:13
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [32] April 29, 20:29

    Multiple reverts despite repeated requests to bring the changes to the talk page.

    Skalskal (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Littlebutterfly reported by User:John Smith's (Result: 48 hours )

    The 2nd through 4th reverts were restoring material first added at 05:45, 29 April 2008.

    The user did not receive a 3RR warning in this case, but he has been both warned (as recently as the last week) and blocked for 3RR in the past - Littlebutterfly understands the rule quite well now. However, I am notifying him of this report.

    Also the last reversion ("4th revert" above) made here shows incivility in the edit summary, which displays bad faith on his part. Littlebutterfly is also edit-warring with multiple users, rather than just one. John Smith's (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: The user was warned about 3RR and informed of the policy using a standard template in March of 2008. See Diff: [33]. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment: (ec) Each of the four reverts is adding the text "In 1751 the emperor of [[Qing Dynasty]] decreed that the Dalai Lama and the Qing [[Amban]] should exercise power jointly."; the first also makes other changes. The first revert reverts precicely to the given "previous version reverted to". I added information in italics to the above report, including UTC times. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by Seicer for 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neil Brown reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 31 hours/72 hours )

    • 1st revert: 1:54, 29 April Adds "Although Peck had not mentioned chickens"; reverts precisely to the given previous version.
    • 2nd revert: 22:46 Re-adds same text.
    • 3rd revert: 23:00 (I cannot confirm whether this is a revert. (Coppertwig)
    • 4th revert: 23:56 Changes "conspiracy theories surrounding" to "invention and propagation" of HIV. Previous version reverted to: 23:40, 29 April 2008
    • 5th revert: 23:59 Adds paragraph beginning "[Barack Obama]] had at first supported his campaign adviser and pastor"; previous version reverted to: 23:00, 29 April 2008
    • 6th revert: 0:09, 30 April Re-adds "Although Peck had never mentioned chickens"
    • 7th revert: 0:51 Changes "specializes" to "claims to specialize"; previous version reverted to 00:33, 30 April 2008
    Blocked by Seicer for 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I also listed diffs of reverts by Grsz11, who filed this report; that user has not been blocked. Coppertwig (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I added information (in italics) to this report and struck out the original previous version reverted to. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverts by Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Coppertwig (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 72 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Total Ignorent boy reported by User:mark_t_young (Result: blocked indef as a sock of Komodo lover )

    • Previous version reverted to: [34]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]
    Blocked indef. For a summary of the sock reports as well as a Dec. 2007 checkuser finding, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover (10th). This editor has a distinctive pattern of contributions. Another sock, User:Mr. Loner, was reported on this board a week ago, and was also indef blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Komodo lover. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Londo06 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: No action )


    This editor has suddenly decided to take over an existing merged article to replace it with a duplicate of Adam Powell (rugby player), despite numerous requests that he stop and that he is wrong in doing such an action. He also keeps blanking the article's previously existing talk page, and its archives. Collectonian (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment No action. Both parties violated 3RR, but peace seems to have broken out. See User_talk:Collectonian#Adam Powell of Neopets. Since User:Collectonian is an experienced submitter of 3RR reports, I'd hope that he understood the rules better than this. Though his idea for disambiguation was better, that's not a licence for a revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Panel 2008 reported by User:Pundit (Result: Not blocked for now, will be blocked if edit warring resumes)

    • Previous versions reverted to: different varieties, in all cases Romania is one way or another placed in CE region.


    • Additional two warnings followed.

    The user was warned about 3RR rule, and was also advised against vandalizing the page with un-sourced and non-factual information. The user persistently introduces Romania to Central European countries list, against an established consensus. Pundit|utter 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not blocked for now - It has now been nearly 24 hours since the user has edited. (This is not a reflection on the report, which was submitted in a timely fashion - it's a reflection on nobody noticing it.) Had I looked at the report yesterday, I obviously would have blocked the user. At this point, I'm more inclined to wait. If the user reverts again, say something here or on my talk page and I (or someone else) will block him/her. If not, then there is no need for a preventative block. --B (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexander Vince reported by [[User:87.63.204.34 (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)]] (Result: Not blocked)

    • Previous version reverted to: [40]

    Tieto is a company, but the reported user wants the page to redirect to Tiësto and repeatedly vandalizes the page. The user has not responded to my warning.

    • Not blocked - The page you created is not the right way to create a disambiguation page and the user was correct to revert it. I will fix it so that the page will have links both places. --B (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drabj reported by User:Biophys (Result: Already blocked)

    That is a possible sockpuppet with less than 100 edits.Biophys (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, this is Fifth revert. See his talk page for warnings by different people.Biophys (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked Drabjd's account has been blocked indefinitely by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with a blocking summary of "Trolling only, likely sock of banned user Jacob Peters.". Additionally, I am not issuing warnings or blocks to any other parties involved in the warring at this time. Anthøny 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:N-g-Efrat reported by User:Tagishsimon (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: 16:31, 1 May 2008 - Note, I hope Ive pointed to the right version, but I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "Previous version reverted to".
    • Diff of 3RR warning: No 3RRW given ... This is a notification of an edit war that has been going on since 23 April 08, and which has had 12 reverts to date. Amply sufficient messages of concern have been left on User talk:N-g-Efrat and User talk:Zolferkatter to no effect.

    User:N-g-Efrat turned up on Wessex Institute of Technology on the 23rd April, and wishes to add a controversial section into the article. He has been pointed to the discussion of the issue on Talk:Wessex Institute of Technology#Removal of the Controversy section:. Then up pops a single issue account, User:Zolferkatter, seeking to add the same thing. Appeals on User talk:Zolferkatter have gone unheeded. Today, in combination, N-g-Efrat and Zolferkatter have exceeded 3RR. It's certainly a sockpuppet; whether they're using th same IP or not is open to question.

    See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/N-g-Efrat and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/N-g-Efrat --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:B626mrk reported by User:Skomorokh (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: 15:11, May 1, 2008 (versions reverted to are slightly different; see diffs)

    Thank you for your time. Skomorokh 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:77.42.187.213 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )

    Note by User:77.42.187.213: Please the history page for all the articles in question and you will see that I was reverting vandalism done by Special:Contributions/81.149.22.123 two weeks ago and that User:Smsarmad was undoing my edits.

    • Previous version reverted to: [41]


    • Previous version reverted to: [46]



    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. 
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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=209546957"