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 486: Line 486:
::::I hope they're better now. [[User:Eschoir|Eschoir]] ([[User talk:Eschoir|talk]]) 00:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I hope they're better now. [[User:Eschoir|Eschoir]] ([[User talk:Eschoir|talk]]) 00:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


:::::Eschoir was deleting content that was supported by consensus, deleting the same sourced content three times within one hour. I repeatedly asked him in edit summaries to obtain consensus on the Talk page. The article is on ArbCom probation. For all these reasons, on the 2nd and 3rd diffs, I treated it as vandalism and used the letters "RVV" in my edit summary. Reverted vandalism is a 3RR exception. [[User:Samurai Commuter|Samurai Commuter]] ([[User talk:Samurai Commuter|talk]]) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Eschoir was deleting content that was supported by consensus, deleting the same sourced content three times within one hour. I repeatedly asked him in edit summaries to obtain consensus on the Talk page. The article is on ArbCom probation. Please also review his extensive history of disruptive behavior and his king-size COI problem, as documented in detail at [[WP:RFAR#Free_Republic]]. Eschoir was asked five days ago by Newyorkbrad, a member of the Arbitration Committee, to explain his "very troubling editing history" but has ignored that request, choosing instead to continue edit warring against consensus of other editors. For all these reasons, on the 2nd and 3rd diffs, I treated it as vandalism and used the letters "RVV" in my edit summary. Reverted vandalism is a 3RR exception. [[User:Samurai Commuter|Samurai Commuter]] ([[User talk:Samurai Commuter|talk]]) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


== [[User: 81.103.115.49]] and [[User:Sonoforion]] reported by [[User:Bettia]] (Result: article sprotected<span class="plainlinks"></span> ) ==
== [[User: 81.103.115.49]] and [[User:Sonoforion]] reported by [[User:Bettia]] (Result: article sprotected<span class="plainlinks"></span> ) ==

Revision as of 01:59, 19 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:Tankred reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: No block)

    Magyarization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • No need for 3RR warning, old user already blocked for 3RR and made reports himself.

    User:Tankred broke 3RR on the article Magyarization deleting relevant material (describing Andrej Hlinka as a controversial figure) and inserting POV information while deleting my contribution to change the meaning of my words. Also has been disruptive at the article Battle of Rozhanovce. I do not want to break the rule, so please look into this. Squash Racket (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess user Squash Racket is misleading you because of our content dispute in the article he mentioned. Only two first edits were reverts. The third edit was simple copyediting and addition of a citation. The fourth edit was expansion of a sentence based on a source cited in the article. These edits are not the same and only two of them were reverts. As to the article Battle of Rozhanovce, I am the original author and I do not understand how writing an article can be considered disruptive. Squash Racket is more than welcome to contribute to it in a constructive way. Tankred (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting another editor's edit more than three times is breaking this rule. Squash Racket (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only two edits were reverts. Tankred (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Earlier I tried to resolve the dispute at the talk page (see section "Černová event as a proof of the 'violent' Magyarization"), but received no answer from him. Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You have never replied to a comment by another user at that page. Anyway, the 3RR noticeboard is not a dispute resolution procedure. Tankred (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of my talk page attempt I had a dispute with Tankred (see dates and diffs), not an anonymous IP. Squash Racket (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The violation is stale, as it happened a few days ago. I'm leaving this one alone. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BKLisenbee reported by User:Opiumjones 23 (Result: )

    Frank Rynne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BKLisenbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BKLisenbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages See [2] and [3] Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even. BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

    This user refused mediation call by User:FayssalF on his talk page. For mediation page see User:FayssalF/JK. A severe block is needed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone explain what the alleged BLP issue is here that you guys refer to in your edit summaries? (Removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR.) --B (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User places external link alleging illegal act by page's subject on Frank Rynne. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural note: It's a lot easier to assess a 3RR notice if the evidence presented is in the form of diffs (with timestamps) rather than with histories. Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rufuskhan reported by User:JD554 (Result: 72 hours)

    Darragh MacAnthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rufuskhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and User:Chakanobody over the past few weeks as the complete history of the article shows. At this time Rufuskhan appears to have made a total of 40 edits over the past 2 weeks alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. JD554 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chakanobody reported by User:JD554 (Result: 72 hours)

    Darragh MacAnthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chakanobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and User:Rufuskhan (see previous report) over the past few weeks as the complete history of the article shows. At this time Chakanobody appears to have made a total of 20 edits over the past week alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. JD554 (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:1csimfan reported by User:Bigskyblueeyes (Result: 24 hours)

    Danny Messer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 1csimfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:24, 15 January 2008


    1csimfan has been repeatedly editing the Danny Messer article daily since at least December 27, strictly for the intent of POV pushing. It is also possible that this user has used the username Roximonoxide as a sockpuppet for the same purpose.

    • I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. If the user continues to edit after the block, I will protect the pages. I only chose not to protect the pages in this situation, because the user has been edit warring on multiple articles, and has made a minimal attempt at discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:1csimfan reported by User:Bigskyblueeyes (Result: 24 hours)

    Lindsay Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 1csimfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:24, 15 January 2008

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [4]

    1csimfan has been editing the Lindsay Monroe article multiple times daily since at least December 27, strictly for the intent of pushing their POV as fact. It is also possible that this user has used the username Roximonoxide as a sockpuppet for the same purpose.

    • I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. If the user continues to edit after the block, I will protect the pages. I only chose not to protect the pages in this situation, because the user has been edit warring on multiple articles, and has made a minimal attempt at discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BTNCOURT reported by User:The Ogre (Result: Blocked)

    Latino (demonym) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BTNCOURT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User BTNCOURT (and maybe some sockpuppets) insists, against all other user, to add a disputed, non-encyclopedic and normative section. The Ogre (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the history of this article, this meme looks familiar. In any event, the user is blocked. --B (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:L.Wadsworth reported by User:VirtualSteve (Result:Case sent to RFCU)

    List of cities in Australia by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). L.Wadsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Editor L.Wadsworth has a specific interest in the area of Hervey Bay, Queensland. He has persisted in adding detail concerning that location - in the case of this 3RR report to List of cities in Australia by population, but he has also made similar reversions stopping just before breaching the 3RR rule at Australia. It appears that he has now attempted to circumvent the rule by editing under his IP account (whilst not logged on). His page has a number of 3RR warnings. --VS talk 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For clarification purposes only, it should be noted that the information that User:L.Wadsworth insists on adding to List of cities in Australia by population is incorrect. His additions involve replacing properly cited and verified data with his own versions. This is why other editors have reverted his edits. His errors have been explained to him both on the article's talk page and on his talk page yet he insists on reverting the correct figures to his own. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guido den Broeder reported by User:Seicer (Result: 48 hours)

    Chronic fatigue syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    These are based upon the last 24:28 hours:

    The user has continued to edit war at Chronic fatigue syndrome and other related articles. He is the subject of numerous disputes at his talk page, has filed requests at WQA (2nd), filed frivolous requests against disputed editors at ANI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: The user has a previous 31h block on 14 December for 5 reverts within 24 hours at the same article, with disruption to talk pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the time, I did not understand how 3RR was counted, and did not receive a warning. It was a simple mistake for which I apologized. Note, by the way, that User:Seicer's warning was immediately followed by this report, and therefore constitutes a fake warning. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Seicer is bandwagoning on a threatening editwar that I have prevented by starting RfC's, which he ignores. I am not the subject of any disputes and do not make frivolous requests. The diffs he mentions above pertain to several different content disputes on a very long article, all of which are presently discussed on the talk page, and do not constitute a 3RR violation (in fact, I am trying to follow 2RR these days). The content issue on Fibromyalgia is unrelated and has already been solved to my satisfaction. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am requesting that User:Seicer reverts his own edit. It is good practice not to make contested edits while an RfC is running. His edit also includes reverting an undisputed edit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the edit marked above as "vandalism fix" is in fact a reversion of a constructive edit by an established editor. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not, I undid a revert of a constructive edit. In his haste to help his friend, user - who did not partake in any discussion - didn't notice that he destroyed an undisputed edit as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misinterpreting WP:3RR#Exceptions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Please note User:Seicer's further disruptive behaviour by votestacking and discrediting on User talk:Orangemarlin [5]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Seicer has just added another diff to his list from which it may look like his report follewed a new diff, instead of what really happened, that he filed his report right after a (therefore) fake warning.[6] This manner of editing is disruptive and misleading. Note that the edit in question is a reparation of damage done by User:Seicer who reverted a normal copy-edit as part of a massive revert. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for forty-eight hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked by User:Mangojuice ('not editwarring'). Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review the block/unblock situation

    I'd like to request that another administrator who has not been involved in this dispute or in the Wikiquette alerts involving Guido den Broeder review the situation. There is now a discussion going on in my Talk page (User talk:KieferSkunk#Concerning Guido) about whether Guido was edit-warring, and a contention on the part of at least one party that Seicer was executing an agenda against Guido in this 3RR notice. Here is the approximate order of events surrounding this entire issue as I've seen it:

    • Guido den Broeder filed a Wikiquette Alert against User:Orangemarlin claiming abusive behavior and false accusations regarding edits in the Fibromyalgia article. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Orangemarlin (2)
      • User:Cheeser1 told Guido that the WQA appeared to be frivolous and that the diffs did not appear to support his accusations against Orangemarlin.
      • Guido filed a second WQA against Cheeser1 accusing him of making false accusations and "bad edits". Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Cheeser1
      • I gave guidance to Guido letting him know why I felt the situation had gone the way it did. I also advised Orangemarlin that some comments he'd made about Guido were incorrect and unhelpful.
      • Cheeser1 closed the Orangemarlin WQA as frivolous. I closed the Cheeser1 WQA as frivolous.
      • Upon Cheeser1's request, I took the resulting discussion on the Fibromyalgia content dispute to Guido's talk page.
    • Guido received a 3RR warning from User:Seicer after the WQAs were closed, regarding reverts in Chronic fatigue syndrome. By his count, there were 6 reverts within 24 hours and 7 within 25 hours.
      • This 3RR notice was posted here shortly afterward. (It does stand to reason that more time may need to have been given between the 3RR warning on Guido's talk page and this noticeboard.)
      • User:Tariqabjotu issued a 48-hour block on Guido for violating WP:3RR.
      • Guido requested a block review, stating he was not edit warring and had done nothing wrong.
      • User:Mangojuice said he would consult with the blocking admin.
      • I reviewed the diffs in Seicer's warning and the full edit history of the article in question, then declined the unblock request on the grounds that it was a clear violation of 3RR.
      • Mangojuice unblocked Guido shortly afterward and went to my user talk page saying that if I felt Guido should be blocked for his behavior on the WQA page, I should block for that, but not for edit-warring. He asserted that Guido had not been edit warring, and that he had initiated two RFCs for the article and was discussing the issues there.
        • Mangojuice also stated that Seicer appeared to have an agenda against Guido ("...because Seicer felt the need, based on the WQA interactions, to try to have Guido blocked (after all, he wasn't editing the article in question)..."), which I also disagreed with and Seicer has denied.
      • Tariqabjotu stated that he disagreed with Mangojuice's rationale for unblocking.
      • Discussions ensued on my talk page and on User talk:Tariqabjotu#User talk:Guido den Broeder as to whether Guido had been edit-warring.
      • To Mangojuice, I've said that I disagree with his assessment, and that we'll apparently have to agree to disagree on this issue.
      • Seicer suggested that we get a third opinion on this matter. I agreed on the ground that it would be good to have a neutral opinion about each admin's handling of the situation.

    In my opinion, we should not allow users to engage in rapid reversions of edits that are not obvious vandalism (as is stated in WP:3RR), and we should furthermore not allow them to get away with it. I believe that unblocking Guido and defending his actions has sent Guido a message that he can basically do what he wants here on WP and get away with it, and I believe Guido's responses to the discussions following the unblock reflect that attitude. I am not asking for a formal review of Mangojuice, per se, but I would like additional guidance for future occurrences of this type of situation - if we're going to have the policies and be expected to enforce them, we need to do so equally. If we need to consider changes to the policies, we should do so through the appropriate channels of discussion rather than overriding each other's actions.

    Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For a short add before I head out for the evening, is this note that the user was unblocked on the basis of Tariqabjotu being offline for more than two hours that has me worried. An unblock should be carefully reviewed, not on the basis of a user being away, but upon the various policies. If the user was away for two hours (probably attending to real life duties), then that is immaterial to the case at hand. That's why we have the unblocking process, which was circumvented based upon the reason given above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Seicer, I didn't see an issue with that, since Mango's reason for unblocking wasn't that Tariq was away, but rather that he felt the block was unjustified. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. The unblock still circumvented the process, however. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above leaves out a lot of essential information and makes several unsubstantiated claims. I get the feeling that User:KieferSkunk is trying to find a backdoor and a hanging party in order to deal out some punishment anyway, after a wiser admin explained to him that that is not what policies and blocks are for, and doesn't much mind discrediting me in he process. And that's all I'm going to say, this is a complete waste of time. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I wasn't clear, Guido: I am seeking the opinion of an uninvolved administrator to review my actions and those of the other admins involved in this case. So long as you stop being disruptive, no further action will be taken against you. I really wish you'd stop insinuating that we're all out to get you - it really doesn't help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, if you are going to undo another admins actions without being able to discuss with them, then you probably should discuss it at AN/I first and seek consensus for the unblock. Spartaz Humbug! 10:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Spartaz, that's certainly prudent but it isn't always necessary. In this case, I looked carefully through the edit history and made a decision based on policy, common sense, and the facts. If the situation had been a little simpler, I probably wouldn't have even asked Tariq; as it was, I asked if I had missed any information, only because there was a chance Tariq would respond quickly and because the situation was a bit complicated (and because it's courteous). My understanding is that's the way the unblock process works -- the point is to have an independent admin look at the situation and make their own judgement. When you do that you have to accept that admins will view the situation differently, and just because you wouldn't do things exactly the same way doesn't mean you should overturn an action, but only to overturn an action for a good reason. If you take that kind of care, you don't need to go to WP:ANI every time. Mangojuicetalk 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But you were not the admin who declined the unblock, KieferSkunk was. You decided that the reason that KieferSkunk and the original blocking admin's reason from Tariqabjotu wasn't adequate, and circumvented process and unblocked Guado yourself. That's not how the unblock process works; if Guido wanted to dispute KieferSkunk's decline, then he would have added another unblock notice and another independent admin would have come in and decided based upon the policies. Furthermore, you began discussions with Tariqabjotu on unblocking Guido, but decided that after two hours that you would unblock without even a two-way discussion, which circumvents policy. It should have been taken to ANI, if the original blocking admin was not available. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't an unblocking admin - I just declined the unblock. That doesn't automatically mean that the case is closed - I could very well have been wrong to decline the unblock. But with the original blocking admin and myself both of the opinion that the block was justified, we had a sort of mini-consensus already, and unblocking policy does state that you need to have a good reason for unblocking in situations like that. I agree that seeking consensus for an unblock (even if it's as simple as "give the guy another chance" or "the block was too hasty due to RFC discussion") would probably have been a better course of action in this situation, as it ensures that more eyes have viewed the situation and agree with the decision, rather than it being a unilateral decision that opens up discussions like this one.
    For the record, I am not trying to discredit anyone, cause extra drama, or seek extra punitive action. I simply want some feedback from an experienced admin (I am relatively new) as to how we all could handle this situation better in the future. Spartaz, thank you for your comment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I mistyped what I wrote last night -- it was worded completely opposite of what I was meaning. It has since been corrected. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Omegatron reported by User:Fnagaton (Result: Not a violation)

    Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Omegatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently, someone pointed out on my talk page Omegatron made a change to MOSNUM. Upon investigation his change does not have consensus. The change was undone and I placed a request on Omegatron's page to not make changes until he had consensus. Since then Omegatron has claimed I've been edit warring when actually it is him who has been edit warring to try to make sure his changes (without consensus) stay on MOSNUM. My justification for reverting him is that he has failed to demonstrate consensus. I have checked that last two months of his edit history and nowhere has he once discussed those changes he made to MOSNUM. The diffs of his changes clearly show changes in the content of the guideline which go above and beyond simple "tidying up", for example he removed completely the phrase starting with "When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor...." and he also changes that part starting with "There is no consensus...". Even though he has not reverted more than twice, so far, he is well aware of the 3RR rule and should know better than try to make changes on guideline talk pages without building consensus. In summary, as explained above, he has failed to show any recent discussion he has tried to build consensus for these changes. Fnagaton 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what this is, but it's not a 3RR issue --B (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback. When making this report I was thinking of this phrase "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." in WP:Three-revert rule. I'm of the opinion that someone making changes to guidelines without building consensus and then reverting their changes back again are disruptive. Fnagaton 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd want to report him for disruptive editing then, and that's at WP:AIN. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (See Wikipedia:AIN#Repeated_reverts_of_MOSNUM_by_User:Omegatron). — Omegatron 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gamaliel reported by User:DJ Creamity (Result:no block)

    Tom Harkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gamaliel seems insistent on removing this information, even when properly sourced. He should know better. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the section in question violates WP:BLP in its non-neutral, unsourced, one-sided presentation of the issue. I removed the section as required by BLP policy and thus these reverts are exempt from the 3RR. DJ Creamy restored the section three times, with the only change during the first two reverts the addition of a far-right opinion column as a source with no change to the non-neutral text. The user finally added, on his third revert, two sources which appear to be netural, reliable newspaper articles, but made no changes to the text. I took this as a sign he was willing to work on the section instead of merely edit warring, so I did not remove the section a fourth time, but I did add an NPOV tag and remove the inappropriate source, which is the fourth "revert" listed above. I have self-reverted this last edit to avoid any appearance of impropriety, though I still believe all my edits were exempt from the 3RR as per the BLP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-revert = no block (no comment on whether or not one would be merited otherwise). I'd advise heading for an appropriate noticeboard (perhaps this one) to vet out the BLP issues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have spent a few minutes sourcing the text, as I did, in order to find the citations you requested. There is no good reason given for the removal of the Jerusalem Post source, as it meets all the requirements for WP:BLP, and the opinion that the source was too partisan is not a good enough reason for its removal if it meets the criteria for inclusion. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 18:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP requires the immediate removal of non-neutral unsourced text and it requires the person who wishes to include it to provide sources. Sourcing the text is not the only issue; if it was I would have gladly participated in finding appropriate sources. Neutrality is the other, more important issue. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Muntuwandi reported by User:PelleSmith (Result:1 fortnight)

    Origin of religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: No need for warning since he has been blocked before for 3RR [7]

    Muntuwandi is edit warring over a version of this entry that was previously deleted in an AfD and has sparked numerous controversies spanning a number of entry and user talk pages (generally between Muntuwandi and the rest of world). Unhappy with the version another user created in the spirit of the consensus established in several of these venues Muntuwandi has decided to simply insist on his version and has now broken 3RR in doing so. He is an experienced user who is well aware of the rules. PelleSmith (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an old content dispute, I suggest also looking into PelleSmith's behavior because he is largely responsible for much of this unnecessary trouble. Muntuwandi (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Muntuwandi is clearly edit warring. As for PelleSmith, two reverts is hardly enough for me to take action. Muntuwandi has already been blocked a few times for edit warring, therefore, I'm blocking for a fortnight. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that this is all the rage lately, but considering that hardly anyone knows what a fortnight is (I had to look it up), it may be better to use modern English in the block log so that the user isn't guessing when their block will expire. --B (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Odst reported by User:Pairadox (Result: One Month )

    An Jung-geun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Odst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Odst has engaged in edit warring and 3RR violations on An Jung-geun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with edit summaries and talk page contributions that indicate an unwillingness to allow any wording other than that which s/he desires. Although not given a 3RR warning this time, the edit summary on the 6th revert above and previous blocks indicate that the user is well aware of the violation. Pairadox (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I initially saw a canvassing attempt on another user's talk page to get them to do the reverts for them and, having seen the user's block log, went for a 72 hour block. Having now seen this report and that the user knowingly went over 3RR (they brag about it in one of their edit summaries) their failure to use DR in an editing dispute, disruptive POV pushing, refusal to honour consensus it is clear that this is an insufficient sanction to reflect the fact that the community cannot tolerate behaviour of this kind. I toyed with just blockinbg them indefinitely but imposed 1RR conditions have successfully rehabilitated other problem editors in this area. I therefore settled on a one month block, the length designed to reflect the repeated offenses and wilful refusal to edit according to accepted norms. The user also left a long screed on their talk about the nazis after my first block but I have not taken this into account in my consideration. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miyokan reported by User:JdeJ (Result: no violation; warned)

    Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [8]


    I’m not sure if this technically qualifies for 3RR, but definitely edit warring. Restoring a POV-box would not normally fall under the rule, but when the general consensus is that the box should go, it’s a bit different. None of the edits are exactly the same, but all consist of restoring the POV-box and constantly removing criticism that is very well-sourced. Primarily about criticism from inside Russia and a controversy surrounding the church. Perhaps more of vandalism than 3RR, as deleting sourced content is usually vandalism, but the strong edit warring by the user,(has been going on for almost a week now) makes me post it here. JdeJ (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • First revert isn't within 24 hours and 5th isn't a revert, so no violation but a strong warning for Miyokan. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:59.190.130.200 reported by User:RomaC (Result: Incomplete)

    MV Steve Irwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 59.190.130.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User is repeatedly inserting the word "illegal" as an unqualified characterisation of the boarding of the whaling ship, despite a consensus against that on the Talk Page. User is not discussing their edits, and is similarly active on the Sea Shepherd page. RomaC (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs, not oldids, for all edits. Also, 3RR prohibits reverting more than three times, only three examples are presented here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about that Seraphimblade, this is my first time reporting a 3r, I think I got it right now. RomaC (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:samurai commuter reported by User:eschoir (Result:)

    Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Template:Samurai commuter: Time reported: 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [9]


    NOTE: "4th" revert is not the same content selected by Eschoir to make the subject of the article look bad, it's differet content selected by Eschoir to make the subject look bad. Don't let him fool you. It's not a 4th revert of the same content. Samurai Commuter (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:

    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.

    Eschoir (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The return of User:BryanFromPalatine, defender of the faith, Eschoir (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Malformed Please provide the diffs for Samurai Commuter's reverts. What you have listed for diffs are edits by you. Metros (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Metros, Please carefully review any evidence posted here by Eschoir. He's been trying to bait me into an edit war for weeks. You are urged to review evidence of his edit warring at WP:RFAR#Free_Republic. Samurai Commuter (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs are still screwed up. Prodego talk 00:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope they're better now. Eschoir (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eschoir was deleting content that was supported by consensus, deleting the same sourced content three times within one hour. I repeatedly asked him in edit summaries to obtain consensus on the Talk page. The article is on ArbCom probation. Please also review his extensive history of disruptive behavior and his king-size COI problem, as documented in detail at WP:RFAR#Free_Republic. Eschoir was asked five days ago by Newyorkbrad, a member of the Arbitration Committee, to explain his "very troubling editing history" but has ignored that request, choosing instead to continue edit warring against consensus of other editors. For all these reasons, on the 2nd and 3rd diffs, I treated it as vandalism and used the letters "RVV" in my edit summary. Reverted vandalism is a 3RR exception. Samurai Commuter (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 81.103.115.49 and User:Sonoforion reported by User:Bettia (Result: article sprotected )

    Cardiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sonoforion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    • Diff of 3RR warnings:
    00:59, 18 January 2008 (Sonoforion)
    15:00, 18 January 2008 (81.103.115.49)

    I believe that these are the actions of the same user, using both his logged in username (2 reverts) and the IP shown above (2 reverts), repeatedly entering highly POV commentary into the Transport section of this article. Warning messages have been left on both talk pages by myself and other users. However, these appear to have been ignored and I believe that this user will probably continue this line of editing. B e t t i at a l k  15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article semi-protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reginmund reported by User:Metros (Result: Warned)

    Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary as Reginmund has 4 blocks for edit warring in the past.

    Reginmund has continuously added comments to the RFC on this article talk page after it was closed. He argues that he started making the comment before the RFC closed (which closed over 10 hours before he posted the first time). His past history with 4 blocks for edit warring (with the most recent block being a month for edit warring) proves that he should be well aware of the standards of editing. Metros (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, those edit warring to remove his comments were just as misguided as those edit warring to put them in. People are allowed to discuss articles on talk pages. Declaring a discussion closed and reverting further input is tricky at best. Friday (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well this is a discussion that dragged on for a month after another discussion on the same topic in July. The issue needs to be put to bed and to allow further discussion like that after the close of the RFC is inappropriate and only furthers the issue at hand. By allowing one user to comment after the request for comment has been closed, we're going to have to allow others to respond to his comments made after the closure. There is a clear consensus on the RFC, so the comments made by Reginmund after the closure of the RFC will do nothing to aid the situation. Metros (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, I just wish people had let him say his piece, and then ignored it. Friday (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but you know Wikipedians. If one user gets to say his piece after a discussion is closed, they're all going to want to say their piece which is only going to drag us on further. Metros (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Users can comment in an RfC after its closed along as its outside the archived area. I don't think a block is necessary here. At least the edit warring wasn't in an article. Tbo 157(talk) 21:31, 18 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]

*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=185337006"