Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gkmx (talk | contribs) at 02:48, 4 July 2008. 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:Berlinerzeitung reported by User:Pureditor (Result: 24 hours)

    Time reported: 04:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]
    I'm not particularly happy with the format of the report above, but there was still a violation. Berlinerzeitung (talk · contribs) has been blocked for twenty-four hours. -- tariqabjotu 08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EEMIV reported by User:GameJunkieJim (Result: Protected)

    Don't want to revert it back or I will be just as guilty. GameJunkieJim (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If GameJunkieJim were to take a closer look, he'd see my first edit within the 24-hour period removed a single sentence of OR. I stopped blanket reverting at the third occurrence to avoid violating 3RR. --EEMIV (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, please be aware that this isn't really a 1 on 1 situation here. This is one editor and a number of IP's. Protonk (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been protected. -- tariqabjotu 08:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dvakili reported by NewbyG (talk) (Result: 16 hours)

    Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dvakili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Previous version reverted to 04:40, 29 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    • This appears to be a very new user, who may not yet understand the application of 3RR.

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

    1. 19:44, 29 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    2. 21:07, 29 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    3. 21:37, 29 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    4. 05:52, 30 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    5. 06:07, 30 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    6. 06:15, 30 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    • warned of 3RR : [7]

    —NewbyG (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked sixteen hours. -- tariqabjotu 09:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Apollo Augustus Koo reported by User:Skalskal (Result: No violation)

    Time reported: 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


    Note: This user appears to have a political motivation, removing Taiwan and Kosovo flags.

    New Note: Dispute may be resolved, may just have been a misunderstanding. If no further edits are made to the page, recommend no action. Skalskal (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether the dispute is resolved or not, No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. TalkIslander 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:60.254.218.50 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: Page protected)

    Time reported: 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

    The anons with the same specific ISP designated in Japan vandalised the article in question as distorting information from his/her citation. The anon previously was warned by me for his/her WP:3RR breach, but one hour past after his previous reverts, the anon began to do the same thing. It is a clear gaming Wiki rules, so block is in order, I believe. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected As none of the IPs have individually breached 3RR, it's probably best to drop it for now in the hope that the page protection solves the problem. If, however, problems persist after the protection has expired, consider making another 3RR report. TalkIslander 21:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ooao reported by TheMightyQuill (talk) (Result: indefinite)

    Aryan Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and multiple other articles (all edits by this user). Ooao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 16:52, 30 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    2. 17:27, 30 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    3. 19:18, 30 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Thank you.

    —TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely; attempts have been made to influence this user's disruptive behavior and ignored. east.718 at 02:49, July 1, 2008

    User:WorkerBee74 reported by User:Brothejr (Result: 72 hours)

    Time reported: 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: There had not been a warning issued before I came across this edit war.

    This user has engaged in contentious edit wars in the past both with this article and also the Barack Obama article to name a few. He also has a a SSP report [8] and also there is an AN/I report [9] filed too. I tried to fill out this new form as best as possible. Brothejr (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After I filed this report I also added a 3RR warning to User:WorkerBee74's talk page. Brothejr (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see only three reverts, but they were to attempt to shove in poorly cited negative material about a living person; there was also no corresponding discussion on the talkpage. Viewed in the context of WorkerBee74 being a repeated edit warrior, I'm inclined to believe that this is a behavior problem rather than a momentary lapse. Blocked for three days. east.718 at 02:36, July 1, 2008

    User:Sindhian reported by User:Dance With The Devil (Result: Blocked)

    Time reported: 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scjessey reported by User:Kossack4Truth (Result: No violation)

    Time reported: 11:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

    No discussion on Talk page. This user has engaged in contentious edit wars in the past, both with this article and also the Barack Obama article to name a few, resulting in multiple blocks. Brothejr reported WorkerBee74 (resulting in three-day block) but for some reason, neglected to report Scjessey. Scjessey has repeatedly been blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations, is in the habit of using WP:BLP as an excuse for removing well-sourced criticism about Obama, and has participated in warning and seeking blocks against other editors for violations, so is well aware of the rule.

    It takes two to edit war. If one is blocked, the other should be blocked as well. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but this is a retaliation report because Kossack4Truth's editing buddy got blocked. Only two of the edits listed were reversions (the second and third), and all the edits involved the removal of a WP:BLP violation (some conjectural interpretation), which doesn't come under 3RR per WP:GRAPEVINE. Kossack4Truth's assertion that I have received "multiple blocks" is a complete fabrication, as my block log indicates. No violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation The three-revert-rule usually requires 4 or more edits in a twenty-four period. Moreover, looking at the content that was reverted, Scjessey's three edits listed above are exempt from the three-revert-rule. CIreland (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:87.9.131.127 reported by User:Kww (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

    Time reported: 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


    Editor keeps changing to a tense not supported by the source.

    People taking a quick look might think that I've been edit warring, but this is a heavily vandalized article. 90%+ of those reverts you see in the history are "Zac Efron is SOOO GAY!" or the like.
    Kww (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours You were indeed close to violating 3RR, but in this case I think WP:BLP prevails. TalkIslander 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maracana reported by User:Martintg (Result: No Vio)

    Time reported: 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [13]

    Editor keeps reverting info box data, despite there being no concensus for the change. Martintg (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation All editors on this article are hereby warned about edit warring. --Selket Talk 03:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amoruso reported by User:RolandR (Result:　No Violation)

    Time reported: 22:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

    Very experienced editor, who marks his return from a two-month block for "very abusive sockpuppetry" by edit-warring on a sensitive article relating to a libel case, by repeatedly introducing material which breaches WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NOR

    user:RolandR is making a false report of course. He has been removing a reliable source, and abusing the article. I have not made 4 reverts. I have made 3 reverts like user:RolandR himself. The first "revert" is the first edit I've made, an original edit by mine using the actual original source. 3RR comes after the 4th revert. That is why he did not show an original version. I try to assume WP:AGF but it seems he just tried to lie by this faulty report. He's an experienced user and should be punished for that behavior. He has been reverting using a pop-up tool, which is vandalism. Note: user:RolandR has been blocked many times for WP:3RR on the similar page Steven Plaut. He should know better. Amoruso (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been blocked "many times" for 3RR on Plaut. I was blocked twice; one of which was a mistake, quickly removed, and the blocking editor apologised. RolandR (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is not a tool for continuing disputes. Amoruso (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Previous version reverted to" is missing. As the text says, this is mandatory. —Ashley Y 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IbrahimMC reported by User:Angelo De La Paz (Result: Blocked 24 Hours)

    Time reported: 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [14]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

    Angelo De La Paz (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Selket Talk 03:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.0.36.36 reported by User:Enigmaman (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Time reported: 02:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Selket Talk 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jonathanmills reported by User:Historičar (Result: Stale)

    Time reported: 06:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


    Note

    Regarding IP addresses used by Jonathanmills, I would like to say that he admits those addresses were his. Take a look here: Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#my_stance. There you can see his insults as well, for example he said: I have no interest in pushing shit uphill against a bunch of dickheads with no interest in the facts...However,if any dickhead re-inserts the word 'panicking' about that Bosniak soldier, expect it to be deleted at some point.

    He is acting as he is the owner of Wikipedia. What does it mean: expect it to be deleted?! I am shocked. He also insults other users in edit summary: [21]: like this YOU ARE A COMPLETE FUCKWIT, MATE. i don't mind putting the tag further down, but LOOK UP THE FACTS ON 'PANICKING'!!!!!

    I think he should be blocked for a longer period. Historičar (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stale This was yesterday and the edit war has died down since. 3RR blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive. Both users warned of the arbitration remedies. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:De Broglie hypothesis (Result: Warned)

    • Continuous editwarring over User:86.83.155.44's artificial signature by User:Erik Baas. AFAIK, extra wikilinks in sigs is not a good idea, but editwarring over it doesn't look like the correct response; anon simply seems to be testing. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Users are continuing their editwar despite warnings issued. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Savvy10 reported by User:Aspects (Result: 24 hours)

    Time reported: 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


    Aspects (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours TalkIslander 20:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ancientworld reported by User:Laveol (Result: 24h )

    Time reported: 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


    Additionally the user has most probably created a sockpuppet History753 (talk · contribs) to enable him to edit-war on Heraclea Lyncestis --Laveol T 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Furthermore, 77.28.161.245 (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours. GDonato (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maracana reported by User:Martintg (Result:24h)

    Time reported: 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


    Editor keeps reverting info box data, not accepting the compromise offered on the talk, and despite being aware of the ANI report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Contentious_infobox_edits_by_User:Maracana and the community's view that he should be more courteous towards other people and consider their opinions rather than simply changing stuff; and also warned by an admin on his talk page to obtain concensus first before changing or be blocked. Just made a 10th revert, Maracana seems to be thumbing his nose at the community and the need to get concensus on talk. Martintg (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Certainly a violation (reverts 6-10 being within 24 hours for 3RR). I am also suspicious of 90.190.59.117 (talk · contribs) and whether there is any relationship with Vecrumba (talk · contribs) (Vecrumba having made 3 reversions) but I could not find any evidence I would encourage editors to seek a compromise and have the article on watch, willing to protect it if disputes continue, GDonato (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an Estonian IP, but Vecrumba (talk · contribs) is a Latvian editor (from USA?). There are many anonymous editors from Estonia. Oth (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.5.143.72 reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 48 hours)

    Time reported: 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


    Warned with the hope that they will stop. GDonato (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User has now reverted again despite final warning. Kariteh (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours --slakr\ talk / 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.157.83.142 reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 48 hours )

    Time reported: 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


    Warned with the hope that they will stop. GDonato (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has now reverted again despite final warning. Kariteh (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has reverted three more times despite final warning. Kariteh (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours --slakr\ talk / 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:162.83.201.159 reported by User:Tomas_e (Result:24h )

    Time reported: 22:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

    Mixed approach of reverts and reentry of text. Basic dispute with several other editors concerns the unsourced addition of "Along with Mavrodaphne, it is used as Altar wine in the Orthodox Church". The two versions mentioned above differ only by a "source needded" tag, but have the same substance.

    Was given "the benefit of doubt" by going through uw-unsourced1 to uw-unsourced3 before uw-rr3 was applied.

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Fairly obvious violation, GDonato (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User (208.87.241.137 (talk · contribs)) is now under a new IP address, reverted the article, and evading his ban. El Greco(talk) 23:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, interesting, couldn't find any real link GDonato (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.19.41.23 reported by User:Btharper1221 (Result: Semi-protected

    Time reported: 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

    User also has similar edits to the Phil Spencer article, containing the same comment. The user was provided with additional warnings concerning his "Note to the moderators", he has been told numerous times to provide something verifiable. The user has been blocked three times previous to this for vandalism and disruptive edits which may also apply in this case. Thank you Ben (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arjuna316 reported by User:terrifictriffid (Result: 8 hours)

    Time reported: 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [23]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [29]
    • Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Publiusohio reported by User:Ave Caesar (Result: No action)

    Time reported: 12:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


    • User has been blocked for violating this rule several times before.
    Declined The edit war has ceased and as 3RR blocks are preventative and not punitive, there is nothing really to do here. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DuckerM reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: )

    Time reported: 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment: Technically this is not 3 reverts within 24 hours, but it is clearly gaming the system. In addition, "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day". — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    Talk:De Broglie hypothesis (2)

    User:Taulant23 reported by User:Gkmx (Result: )

    Time reported: Gkmx (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. The user is just short of the time frame of 24 hrs. However, it has clearly been an ongoing problem. Whenever other users restore the original version of the item in question, the user Taulant23 reverts them within several hours. The intent of the 3RR is to limit edit warring and the item in question is becoming subject of an edit war due to the actions of Taulant23 on one side and several users on the other side.
    • Gkmx (talk) 02:48, 4 July 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 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=223443954"