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 262: Line 262:


He will revert almost any changes from [[WP:OWN|his version]], reverting any attempt to bring the article in line with policy. <strong>[[User:BigDunc|<span style="font-family:Ariel Black;color:Green">BigDunc</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:BigDunc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Orange">Talk</span></sup>]] 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
He will revert almost any changes from [[WP:OWN|his version]], reverting any attempt to bring the article in line with policy. <strong>[[User:BigDunc|<span style="font-family:Ariel Black;color:Green">BigDunc</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:BigDunc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Orange">Talk</span></sup>]] 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|d}} In spite of the turmoil, the article seems to be moving forward. It is hard to identify specific edits as reverts since so much development is happening. I hope that more neutral editors will become interesting in working on the article, though I do see good faith effort by both of the partisans who are involved in this 3RR report. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|d}} In spite of the turmoil, the article seems to be moving forward. It is hard to identify specific edits as reverts since so much development is happening. I hope that more neutral editors will become interested in working on the article, though I do see good faith effort by both of the partisans who are involved in this 3RR report. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:Txbad1]] reported by [[User:Karanacs]] (Result:24 h) ==
== [[User:Txbad1]] reported by [[User:Karanacs]] (Result:24 h) ==

Revision as of 18:40, 9 August 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:MKil reported by User:Reallmmablogger (Result: no violation)

    MKil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: Time reported: 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


    3RR is breached with four reverts being made within the span of 24 hours. El_C 10:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone should be warned about violating at least the spirit of 3RR, it's User:Reallmmablogger. I tried to clean up Charley Belanger and he continually reverts it with no reason given. I try to talk to him about this and all I get is an answer like this [1]. In fact, I'm pretty sure he violated 3RR:

    MKil (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

    I agree; that's not acceptable. El_C 11:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is he going to be warned or something? His behavior on this incident and others ([2],[3],[4],[5], for instance) seems overly aggressive and, to me, indicates an unwillingness to work well with others.MKil (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
    I should not be the one to get any warning we have been going back and fourth on this issue. I have tried to come to an agreement. Mkil does not want to come to an agreement. The information I have provided for the article is important for the article. Obviously this user has friends on here trying to help him out in this dispute. What reason did he give to undo changes? The reason was he did not agree with the information. The information is fact and non of it can be disputed. I have opened this to get a non biased opinion from users that truly care about Wikipedia. Reallmmablogger (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I undid your reversion of my work is that I took your list and wrote an article using the information. That's an improvement of the article and there was no longer any need to have those lists on it. You didn't like that I touched your article and reverted all my work. You did the same on Young Corbett II.MKil (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
    As for the unwillingness to work well with others. I would love to work with a fellow editor who truly cares about what he is editing. The links he has provided proves my case showing that he has been following my edits and harassing me. The link that he put is not even from me. If you click on it it shows this message = My chess club (and its not mine anymore, never was) could easily destroy your mafia, tons of perverts with no feelings, robots, the undead! I am glad once in your pathetic life you feel sorry! And that's a lie in itself! But manners you will never learn! Contradiction is your name! And stop violation other rules. Oxymoronic perfect term for you! Just keep on playing mr ip user from IS X-Originating-IP: [162.84.41.179]

    That message has nothing to do with me he is purposely trying to sabotage me for some reason. Can someone please realize this. The one below is also another disagreement where he thinks his article is better and I think mine is also. I also tried to come to an agreement but he did not want to. [6] Reallmmablogger (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as this goes He keeps on stating that Mike Tyson should not have an information about the Wrestelmania he referred for I tried to explain that to him. in a nice manner. I also did not like the one he wrote to me. Which states below

    As far as the Tyson Wrestlemania incident goes, I removed it because it is a very trivial event in Tyson's career and giving that much space to it in the Tyson article is ridiculous. Wiki is not here to be a comprehensive biography. It should not catalog every little event in someone's life.MKil (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)MKil [7] Reallmmablogger (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My answer to him specifically states great reason why this needed to be in Mike Tyson's article [8] Reallmmablogger (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As for [9] Not only did he keep on editing my article he even edited the aricle by user:Amalthea on the issue. Even though user:Amalthea had resolved the issue between the aarticle. So what does he want things his way or no way there is no resolution with him. Reallmmablogger (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This page is not for discussion, please use WP:ANI or another board. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ada Kataki reported by User:Johan Rachmaninov (Result: 24 + 48 hour blocks )

    Ada Kataki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


    Anonymous IP reported by User:Miyokan (Result: Page protected)

    89.110.23.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    89.110.9.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.90.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.90.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    89.110.24.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    89.110.2.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.81.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.94.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.87.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.93.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    89.110.20.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    --Miyokan (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The same user editing from slightly different IP's. All IP's traced to the same location (RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MOSCOW, ISP: ST.PETERSBURG TELEPHONE NETWORK - check here).

    User was blocked for 12 hours [10] for breaking the 3RR rule here [11] then he was blocked for 24 hours [12] for block evading and also breaking the 3RR rule by reverting under yet more socks [13]. Then user was blocked again for 3 days [14] and article was semi-protected for block evasion by socking again and breaking the 3RR yet again, making an incredible 11 reverts in 24 hours.[15]

    User has been repeatedly blocked for violating the 3RR and block evading. Now he has made 5 reverts just after being released from his block yet again, clearly showing he doesn't care about policies. Can the article be indefinitely semi-protected this time as he will no doubt use socks to block avade again and the article is subject to heavy vandalism since coming off a 6 month semi-protection recently, and a longer block for smashing through the 3RR rule yet again right after coming off a block for this, and after repeated warnings and blocks within the last week.--Miyokan (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually its not one user. There is just a lot of friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.2.64 (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.117.128.12 reported by User:GauthamNarayan (Result: Article protected )

    76.117.128.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 71.232.6.182 (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Itaqallah reported by 218.213.226.210 (talk · contribs) (Result:24 hours for IP; no block for user)

    Itaqallah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 06:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


    User:Offerpoint reported by User:UKPhoenix79 (Result: 24 and 48 hour blocks )

    Offerpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 09:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


    • Result - I have blocked Offerpoint for 24 hours for violating 3RR. And Phoenix for 48 for edit warring. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:87.198.252.179 reported by User:BigDunc (Result: Article protected )

    87.198.252.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

    Using dynamic IPs this editors has been making the same disputed edits for months and months now, including disgusting personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him. The IPs listed above are not all the same, but are clearly the same editor. Also seems to still be carrying on with an edit war.BigDuncTalk 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Thunderer reported by User:BigDunc (Result: Declined)

    Time reported: 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

    He will revert almost any changes from his version, reverting any attempt to bring the article in line with policy. BigDuncTalk 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined In spite of the turmoil, the article seems to be moving forward. It is hard to identify specific edits as reverts since so much development is happening. I hope that more neutral editors will become interested in working on the article, though I do see good faith effort by both of the partisans who are involved in this 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Txbad1 reported by User:Karanacs (Result:24 h)

    Txbad1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


    I tried to discuss the changes on the user's talk page [16] and on the article talk page[17]. User's only response [18]. I've been attempting a wholesale cleanup/expansion, of the article but have stopped for now as user is unwilling to allow changes to certain sections. Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    and now a legal threat from this user [19]. Karanacs (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked 24 hours. However, Karanacs, please keep in mind that being stubborn and argumentative is not considered vandalism and therefore you were not exempt from 3RR when reverting his edits. If need be, seek dispute resolution in cases like these instead of contributing to the edit war. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I (finally) realized that, which is why I stepped away from the article. Thank you for the reminder. Karanacs (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Adoniscik reported by User:Vitilsky (Result: Reporting user blocked for 24 hours, reported user warned)

    Adoniscik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


    User:Adoniscik does not provide valid sources for the article adding revisionist information and reverting my edits, without any explanation of them. He made that reverts and at same time changed all the article without any verifiable source, just non-sense links. --Vitilsky (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both parties have edited warred but Vitilsky issued a warning on his own talk page, and then promptly reverted again himself. Adoniscik has not reverted since the warning and, because it was on Vitilsky's talk page, there is no proof that he has seen it. I have posted a warning at Adoniscik's talk page instead. TigerShark (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Frank Pais reported by User:Thivierr (Result: 24 hours)

    Frank Pais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring over several days. TigerShark (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:88.109.195.218reported by User:Garycompugeek (Result: 24 hours)

    User:88.109.195.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [20]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Slightly malformed request but was warned before latest reverts. TigerShark (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, first time I have reported someone and was a bit tipsy to boot. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog reported by User:Alexander Widefield (Result: 24 hours)

    Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

    Note: User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog permanently reverts a box in the right of article.


    • Comment Even after being advise of WP:3RR, this user is continuing. Additionally, they have warnings on their talk page in regards to being uncivil. As this diff shows, they have not heeded the warning on their talk page in regards to WP:CIVIL and seems to be intent on being uncivil to other editors. --Россавиа Диалог 10:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Baku87 reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: 12 hours )

    Baku87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


    You also might want to consider whether these reverts fall under the restrictions of WP:ARBAA2. --Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 1 week)

    Pietervhuis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

    Check block log - just came off a 10 day block for breaking the 3RR rule for the fifth time.--Miyokan (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    75.82.59.206 reported by 72.225.227.83 (Result:Reporting user blocked 48 hours)

    Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours Page also semi-protected due to edit war involving multiple IPs. Okiefromokla questions? 17:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Icealien33 reported by User:RobJ1981 (Result: User warned)


    Many people have told him the character list isn't notable, but he refuses to listen and doesn't want to discuss the issue very much either. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    == [[User:<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->]] reported by 
[[User:<!-- Your NAME -->]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. 

{{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 

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 from BEFORE all the reverting started. -->

<!-- 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]

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=230857607"