Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:15, 17 March 2008 editSlakr (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators33,695 edits →User:Mrbelial reported by User:Moonriddengirl (Result: ): fix← Previous edit Revision as of 22:02, 17 March 2008 edit undoTigerShark (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators17,551 edits →User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)Next edit →
Line 39: Line 39:


: I noticed your decision was revoked by ]. You can see ] for the details. ] (<small>]</small>) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) : I noticed your decision was revoked by ]. You can see ] for the details. ] (<small>]</small>) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, Piotrus contacted me and told me that he was too experienced for the 3RR rules to apply to him and that he had managed to convince an admin to unblock him at IRC, and then lectured me on the risk of being de-admined and told me that I was lucky he had woken up in good mood. I do note that the admin who unblocked him still felt that he had violated 3RR, but felt that other parties had too (not really a reason to unblock). I checked the talk page, but couldn't find the discussion. Cheers ] (]) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours ) ==

Revision as of 22:02, 17 March 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: contributor was already blocked by admin due to violation of 3RR

    This is really disrupting. Another contributor involved in edit warring, that is most troubling in this case that particular contributor not even changing article version which is contested, but also trying to distort cited publications consistently; despite many pleas to stop. M.K. (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Update another article is affected Simonas Daukantas . Wondering how long this edit warring by particular contributor will lasts? M.K. (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    I noticed your decision was revoked by User:Zscout370‎. You can see User talk:Zscout370‎ for the details. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, Piotrus contacted me and told me that he was too experienced for the 3RR rules to apply to him and that he had managed to convince an admin to unblock him at IRC, and then lectured me on the risk of being de-admined and told me that I was lucky he had woken up in good mood. I do note that the admin who unblocked him still felt that he had violated 3RR, but felt that other parties had too (not really a reason to unblock). I checked the talk page, but couldn't find the discussion. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Jagz reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 24 hours )

    Four complete reverts.Ultramarine (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    Agreed. Blocked for 24 hours. Moreschi (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


    User:Jaysweet reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:no action)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Retaliatory report by editor justly blocked for edit warring, meritless and stale anyway.


    1st revert: 20:29, 12 March 2008

    There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history and Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other and working together. In all, Jaye did in fact violate a 3rr. Previous report was made but it was stated taht it was severly malformed and must be resubmitted. As a result, I am resubmitting it. Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    I am one of the parties mentioned.
    • Note, this is about Talk:David Paterson not the article David Paterson. The article was receiving heavy edits due to a breaking news story, that due to N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer's sudden resignation, Paterson will be the next governor. The Talk page was an important venue for making collaborative decisions quickly. Overall, it was a successful joint effort on a high-visiblity site, for an obscure person thrown into the national spotlight.
    • The link to my User Talk:Colfer2 is wrong, no material was deleted. The diffs linked are for User talk:Jaysweet.
    • Jaysweet owns his Talk and can delete.
    • The reverts made by Jaysweet and me on Talk:David Paterson were for Copyvio, so 3RR does not apply.
    • The reverts may have been for obvious vandalism. After the first add of the Chapelle video, Uconnstud put it back in with a list of random links on the article subject and no substantive comments.
    • Jaysweet then filed a 3RR report on Uconnstud. Uconnstud retaliated by filing one on Jaysweet and me.
    • I do not know Jaysweet and as far as I recall I have not edited the same pages as him.
    • Uconnstud was then banned for 24 hours.
    • An anonymous I.P. was then used to make his edits again to the Talk:David Paterson page. I tagged that I.P. as a suspected Sockpuppet of Uconnstud: User talk:199.3.218.137
    • The Sockpuppet tag on 199.3.218.137 was then removed by another I.P., 74.66.11.10, whose edits, such as Talk:St. John's University (Jamaica, NY) (scene of a longstanding edit war over the name) show a similar interest to Uconnstud. So I tagged it as a Sockpuppet: User Talk: 74.66.11.10
    • As I noted there, Uconnstud is interested in the boundaries of Misplaced Pages policies, see archived Uconnstud User Talk, and also interested in Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars.
    • Uconnstud's current talk page ends with "Waiting Patiently... going to ride this one out..." and some ideas for new articles.
    In summary, this 3RR report is not constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colfer2 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think I've ever seen a 3RR report on an article talk page, with accusations of sockpuppetry as icing on the cake.
    • First, this report is stale by almost 24 hours. The reverting has stopped, so no action is required on our part here. Blocks are preventative, not punitive.
    • Stop editing/deleting/moving/tagging each other's comments on article talk pages. If you don't like someone's comments, respond to them, discuss them, walk away, fly a kite, do something else – but stop deleting comments by other editors. If it happens again and we find out, any or all of you can and probably will be blocked. This is nonsense.
    • Editors can remove comments and warnings on their own user talk pages as they see fit. Once upon a long time ago it was verboten, but it is now allowed. - KrakatoaKatie 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If you scroll above there has been blocks that were over 2 days old and over 24 hours. So why is this ignored?
    • I was told by an admin to resubmit it If you look at the link on the report.
    • Had I resubmitted it earlier I would've been circumventing the block.
    • Why is it that I was blocked and the other users if you scroll a bit higher not blocked for reverting a talk page of an article
    • There have been bad faith edits and bad faith accusation and bad faith warnings. Uconnstud (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:12.144.110.131 reported by User:Mysteryquest (Result:24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    This editor has reverted the article four or five times despite a warning and a request that they engage in talk. The reverts have all been the same.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Jalalabadi reported by User:McTools (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: , ,


    The vandal reverting is desperately attempting to avoid checkuser being filed on him and his different ips. If you may please revert its last edits.McTools (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Para reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: No action)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Para has been repeatedly trying to amend this guideline without achieving consensus support. There have been massive discussions on the talk page over more than a month and eventually Para achieved agreement of 3 out of 4 remaining participants for a change. Two of the 4 participants want further input, but Para prefers to edit way than to check whether there is a consensus other than amongst those left standing.

    Note that while the revision log shows multiple reverts today by me, one of those was a mistaken revert of the wrong edit, and I self-reverted that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    No. If this report doesn't qualify as tendentious, I don't know what does. The page is already protected, and blocks are preventative, not punitive. This is ridiculous. How is that fourth diff a revert? It's a post on the talk page. He has made 3 reverts today. You have also made 3 reverts today, I notice. Just as bad as each other. Moreschi (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    Reconsider per disruption, its a slow war on guideline page....
    In this case this is obvious Gamming and edit warring which is disruption to a guideline page. Even if this user did not revert more than three times per day, 3RR should not be discounted as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy. (I'm not advocating others behavior in this case)--Hu12 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    Absolutely, but in a goodly number of those diffs you've just listed it's still Para and BHG edit-warring away. Either we block both parties (which there is certainly a good case for doing), or we block neither. I see no cause just to block one. Take your pick (and see also here). Moreschi (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks, Hu12. AS noted here, Para started by unilaterally changing the guidelines, and has persisted in trying again and again and again to find a group of people, however small, will support his change. Misplaced Pages:CONSENSUS#Consensus_in_practice is clear that repeatedly pushing the same point does not amount to a consensus.
    Moreschi, if you check back, you will see tat other editors have reverted Para's insertion of a new item in the guideline, and it is not solely me. Can anyone suggest a way of persuading Para to actually seek a consensus per Misplaced Pages:CONSENSUS#Consensus_in_practice? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    I see Moreschi's point BHG. This is one of those reports that gets everyone blocked. right or wrong, It still doesn't confer a license to war even if it's true. There has to be a better way to resolve this, and blocking won't help. --Hu12 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    I see Moreschi's point, too. Any suggestions on what that better way might be? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    WP:RFC? For the guideline, not user conduct. As far as I can see the main problem is confusion about where consensus lies - who holds what opinion. RFC should settle that problem. Frankly, I can make neither heads nor tails of what's being fought over, so if you do go for RFC please make the issues very plain. Moreschi (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Colfer2 reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:Reporter warned for personal attacks)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Retaliatory report, requester now blocked again for disruption.


    There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history and Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other and working together. In all, Jaye did in fact violate a 3rr. Previous report was made but it was stated taht it was severly malformed and must be resubmitted. As a result, I am resubmitting it. Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    I only see two reverts here and each revert is done by a different editor. Metros (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    and it was now fixed. gosh you must have me on your watch list isn't there a WP:Stalk Uconnstud (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    Or perhaps I have 3RR on my watchlist considering I am an administrator. Did you consider that? And you say it's fixed, but I still only see two reverts. Metros (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    or perhaps you're following me around. I think the latter considering my last two edits you were right behind me. Look above " Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day." Uconnstud (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    My response is above. There are numerous reasons why this was not 3RR besides the factual inaccuracy of the report. Also it is stale! Have a good weekend everybody. - Colfer2 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah it's a fact that you were edit warring. I guess you aren't familiar with WP:Stalk as well. Look at the edits you reverted more than once! Uconnstud (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    If I was in NY I would invite you out for a beer! - Colfer2 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    Personal attacks renoved by Metros (talk) at 21:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Uconnstud (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusion - I don't believe any 3RR violation has occured although I am going to warn Uconnstud for personl attacks. Scarian 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    I am from Manhattan, this isn't a personal attack. Guys don't ask guys they don't know out for a drink of beer unless they are trying to go out with them (date) I gave user Colfer2 a decline after he asked me out Uconnstud (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    That's some serious stereotyping right there. It doesn't matter now; I've found no evidence of 3RR violation or edit warring. Please take heed of what other editors are saying about your additions. Any admin can feel free to reverse my decision (if they notify me first, of course). Scarian 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    You don't need to remove any personal attacks against me, I don't care. I'm more concerned that the resolution was "WARNED", as I think you mean you warned the reporter. Anyway, there is one more matter to clear up, this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:74.66.11.10&oldid=198280020 I would appreciate it someone would edit it for me. The other page in question is User talk:199.3.218.137 but it seems fine now. Thanks! - Colfer2 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    I've fixed the header. Metros (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mike Babic reported by User:Rjecina (Result: 24 hrs)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    For original version I have his last version before 3RR

    This nationalistic SPA account has been warned on talk page about 3RR rule and it has been warned by administrator about POV edits. It is possible to see small difference in wording between 1/2 and 3/4 revert but 1 thing has never changed. Editor has always reverted original article (before he has started to edit on wikipedia) deleting words:Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term Vlach was used for Ortodox Vlachs and Serbs.....

    Because of that he has broken 3RR rule with deleting of this 2 lines. On other side I have demanded checkuser because he has made 5th revert from IP address. When this will become official he will be blocked. --Rjecina (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:RucasHost reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: 48 hour block )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    A request for comments was started over the nodaddy link and he still reinserts it. GreenJoe 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusion - I have blocked the user for 48 hours. Scarian 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Guinness2702 reported by User:John Anderson (Result:no violation)

    • Previous version reverted to: (I don't know if I am filling this our right)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME I warned Guinness2702 yesterday, both on the article's talkpage and on Guinness2702's own talkpage.

    A short explanation of the incident: Guinness2702 has erased information because he/she personally finds it irrelevant. At first, Guinness2702 did not even discuss it on the article's talkpage. Now Guinness2702 does talk about it, but is stubbornly refusing to see the relevance in the information and keeps erasing the information even if the discussion is not over yet. John Anderson 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

    First of all, when you next report a suspected 3RR violation, please use the correct format as listed below. Secondly, please brush up on the 3RR rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." One of the four reverts you have listed here occurred in February and another occurred three days ago. Only two of the reverts occurred in the last 24 hours. In fact, you have committed more reverts in the last 25 hours (3) than he has (2). Because of this, I have declined this report as no violation. Metros (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Dance With The Devil reported by User:Supergreenred (Result:)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Comment: I'm not a party to the edit warring, but I am a party to discussing these very changes on the talk page, which is currently a matter of unresolved dispute. Saying that the anon editor was removing things without consensus is not exactly right since Ultramarine added that material without consensus, and I objected. Specifically, to using The Weekly Standard to make claims of historical facts on a history article. I think an easy compromise would be to find alternative sources for the same claims, if they are valid. In any case, its very bad to edit war and not discuss any of these issues on the talk page. It makes it look that your reverting is a knee jerk support of Ultramarines contentious and problematic additions. I also note that you were edit warring on the American Terrorism article as well, with 3 reverts, at least. I think a cool down period is a good idea. Now having said that, I think Dance with the Devil is generally a good editor so maybe just a warning would be best. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. He seems to acknowledge that he needed to cool down, and that is good enough for me.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    Giovanni33 claims regarding the content dispute is false. See the talk page. Agreed that this report by Supergreenred is suspicious. This is the first action ever taken by Supergreenred who first appeared today. Agree that Dance With The Devil is a good editor who would self-revert if he could. Best action would probably be to semi-protect the page.Ultramarine (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed with semi-protection but its absurd to deny this is a content dispute. A quick glance at the talk page shows that. This is not the board for raises suspicions on editors motives, appearances, etc, either. Its for the 3RR rule. Its a wall we are not supposed to cross over. Period. A firm warning is in order at the very least. And this goes for you too, as you actually provoke edit wars all the time UltraMarine, by almost never respecting the consensus process. This is not understatement, either.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Sceptre reported by User:91.12.10.50 (Result:No violation )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    The article contained the claim that Verisign never issued any statement about the impact of Sitefinder on non-http protocols. I added a link to such a statement, which is evidently relevant to counteract the article's claim.

    User:Sceptre reverted me four times in a row, claiming on User_talk:91.12.10.50 that my edit was vandalism without talking about the facts in the article.

    I have only reverted three times, being the one who has made the first edit. I cannot edit his talk page so I could not have warned him. --Xif (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (aka 91.12.10.50)

    By the way, sorry that I've not registered myself yet. --91.12.10.50 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    no Declined. This lacks any warnings and it would appear you have reverted the same amount of times. Instead of issuing blocks on your IP or another user, I'd suggest discussing the change on the articles talk page before re-adding. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have only reverted three times, being the one who has made the first edit. I cannot edit his talk page so I could not have warned him. --Xif (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (aka 91.12.10.50)

    User:Mattelot reported by User:Ehheh (Result:No violation )


    Single purpose account. Has been reinserting POV language into this article for a long time now. Ehheh (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    Each of you has only reverted 3 times in 24 hours, please don't revert again, either of you. I've issued warnings as well. Keilana| 19:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    I did 3, he did four - now up to five. - Ehheh (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:70.104.89.107 reported by User:GreenJoe (Result:No violation )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    He keeps re-adding himself to the list. GreenJoe 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    He hasn't reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. No violation. Keilana| 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:J Greb reported by User:Rockfang (Result: warned )

    • Previous version reverted to: 12:08pm


    The above times are in the US Pacific time zone. This started with me tagging an image Moshikal uploaded as being fair use disputed here. At that time, I noticed his talk page was extremely long. I decided to help him out and add archiving to his talk page here. After which, I informed him of it here. I was then repeatedly reverted (and did reverts myself) as shown above. The situation was discussed both on my talk page and and J Greb's talk page. I have since stopped because I do not want to break the 3RR policy. I would hope this doesn't go ignored because this user is an admin. Rockfang (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    I've left a note at the User's talk page. That said, it's rather bad form (to the point of being disruptive) to remove image upload warnings before the user has noted that they have seen them. I understand being bold, but to continuously revert without discussion? How about let the user respond? I see by their contributions that they are an active user. As for J Greb's actions, he's a new admin, else, he probably would have (as I likely would have) reverted you and protected the talk page after your second reversion. (Which is annoying, personally, because it's obnoxious to force an admin to protect someone else's talk page. That's disruptive.) See WP:BRD, and m:The Wrong Version, among other pages, for more information. If archiving this user's talk page is of such vital import to you, then I suggest that you at least begin a dialogue with the user. I hope this clarifies. - jc37 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    I understand what you are saying. If Moshikal would have reverted my change I would have not put the archiving back on. And I do understand that waiting for a reply from Moshikal would have been better. That being said, J Greb still broke the 3RR which is still the issue being addressed here. Him being a new admin doesn't excuse him from following policy.--Rockfang (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but neither does it you for attempting to (let's presume unknowingly) being disruptive. It's one of J Greb's responsibilities as an admin to attempt to prevent disruption. So, if I read your comments correctly, you want him blocked for restoring the talk page from your disruptive actions? I doubt you'll get much traction from anyone on that. Especially when he could just have easily protected the page and blocked you. You are, of course, welcome to see if you find any supporters to this wikilawyering, but I'd respectfully suggest dropping it before someone less polite than I comments or, possibly even takes action, in a way that you might not appreciate. I'll end with a quote from the top of this page:
    • "Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action. Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day." - jc37 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    I never stated I want J Greb to be blocked. The thing is, he broke a wikipedia policy and I don't want it to go unnoticed. As long as an uninvolved admin makes a decision on this, I'm fine with it. Either way.--Rockfang (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Warned – Actually, if I was going to block anyone it would be the reporter, because I genuinely understand why someone would repeatedly revert in this case, as it involves a pretty big change to a person's talk page, which is usually the only way we can get in touch with users. However, I truly believe that both editors were acting in good faith, and it wasn't too ridiculous of a violation (i.e., it only just barely broke 3RR and there weren't personal attacks or whatnot). Though, both editors should consider this their only warning. Should something like this present itself again, I would suggest going directly to the administrators' noticeboard to ask for a third opinion instead of revert warring, as it will bring about faster and more definitive results.
    While I'm on the topic, a word of advice: do not add/remove anything automated to anyone else's user/user talk pages without them asking you to do so. Sure, they don't own the pages, but it's common courtesy to avoid doing anything that might, on the off chance, provoke the user. Frequently, people tend to view it as an intrusion, much like it would be if you were to get on someone's computer and rearrange their desktop icons. Even though it might look/work better, and even if the person might just keep it anyway to avoid a confrontation, they may silently resent it. So, while it may be well-intentioned, it is our custom to pretty much leave people to do their own thing on their user and talk pages, just so long as they aren't doing something that conflicts with our other policies. This is even more important when it comes to stuff like bots, archiving, and talk pages, as like I said, talk pages are usually the only way of contacting a user until they confirm their email; so, automatically making threads "disappear" will be particularly confusing to newcomers.
    Thus, it's always best to avoid being bold when it comes to the user space. First ask the user politely, and 9 times out of 10 they will be eager to let you set up the bot since it's kind of cool and reduces the amount of crap they have to do themselves. :P Long story short, of all of the places to have an edit war, avoid having one in the user space, as it almost always results in bad things happening— whether it be to those involved in the edit war or the user on whose page it is done. --slakr 17:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:FCBarsalona reported by User:McTools (Result: protected)


    This article should be protected, I requested protection but was ignored.--mCtOOls 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:69.138.133.89 reported by User:edgarde (Result: already blocked)

    Anon removes unflattering information from BLP, especially that pertaining to a recent (and sourced) drug bust. (Also reverts to formatting that is contrary to WP:MOS, especially unnecessary capitalization.) This appears to be the same editor who under another IP address performed similar sanitizing a few weeks ago. Arguments for these edits are they are "defamatory" and "inappropriate". These statements are via Edit summary only; will not discuss on Talk page despite repeated invitations. edg ☺ ☭ 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    In a new development, we now have some Talk page discussion. However, this is followed by a 5th revert. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:68.121.110.57 reported by User:Operation Spooner (Result: semi-protected)


    • 3RR warning on his user discussion page under slightly different IP (68.124.66.87):

    Deleting templates that are asking for sources. Operation Spooner (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Page protected – I semi-ed the page, since it looks like the dude's IP just keeps changing and he'll continue on revert warring. Feel free to update this if something changes. --slakr 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mattelot reported by User:Eruhildo (Result: 24 hours )


    See my comment on the article's talk page. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    Result: - I have blocked User:Mattelot for 24 hours. Scarian 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Desione reported by User:Fowler&fowler (Result: 55 hours )


    four reverts in less than 24 hours on Company rule in India:

    I left a note on his talk page, but he seems unrepentant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User: Scjessey reported by User:Andyvphil (Result: warned; voluntary non-editing of article for next 24 hours )


    • 1st revert: 14:07, 16 March 2008 "m (rv vandalism and POV - see talk page)"
    • 2nd revert: 02:47, 17 March 2008 "m (rv to last version that made any sense at all)"
    • 3rd revert: 12:27, 17 March 2008 "m (rv numerous POV, false statements. Please seek consensus on the talk page before destroying a featured article)"
    • 4th revert: 12:40, 17 March 2008 "m (Undid revision 198842236 by Realist2 (talk) - rv again. Please seek consensus on talk page)"
    • 5th revert: 13:06, 17 March 2008 "m (fix broken, inaccurate, POV stuff. Please seek consensus for ANY changes. See most recent discussion on talk page.)"


    Scjessey is currently the most active and least cautious of a group of editors who are striving to retain ownership of what is now, by a factor of more than two, the most visited page on Misplaced Pages. Rather than, as Dispute Resolution policy calls for, balancing what they view as "negative material" on the subject of the article (such as the ADA(!) ratings of Barack Obama, or any mention of his problem, now all over the news, with his pastor's sermons) with their own "side of the story"WP:DR, they demand prior "consensus" to any edit, which consensus they withold without engaging in much meaningful discussion or any compromise. Now, Scjessey is engaging in mass unconsidered reverts of work by multiple editors, sometimes with misleading edit summarys (most obviously, "rv vandalism") and falsely marking his reverts as minor. He's restoring outright errors (the mistitling of the pronunciation cite and the misattribution and misquotation of Soetoro-Ng spring to mind) and deleting "pro-Obama" material (the community-organizing info and the coming back to Chicago to do voter registration when he could probably have gotten a Supreme Court clerkship are obvious examples) that I'm sure he would be quite happy with if he actually looked at it, as well as the NPOV stuff he doesn't want to see. And he's violated 3RR. Violated 4RR, actually. I warned him to self-revert but he's only consented to revert "as much as he can". Not good enough, I think. Andyvphil (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    Completely agree, I asked him to user the discussion page or even to use neutrality tags if he had a serious concern about pov but rather reverted the whole lot. He has a fundamental liberal bias (much like the media) (hey im liberal, but i can spot bias a mile off), and there seems to be a pattern where negative info is reverted instantly. Realist2 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    It is true that it appears I have violated the three-revert rule. I will accept a temporary block if an administrator deems this appropriate. I believe that even a cursory investigation of my editing history, taken into context with the ongoing discussion at Talk:Barack Obama will offer some justification for my behavior; nevertheless, I am prepared to voluntarily cease editing the Barack Obama article for 24 hours as a good faith gesture. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    Warned – Cool, then no block is needed, just so long as you stay clear of the article for the next 24 hours. :P Just be sure to keep using the talk page to try to avoid this in the future. Cheers =) --slakr 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mrbelial reported by User:Moonriddengirl (Result: 31 hours)

    (Also, less formally: 23:16, 5 March 2008)

    See also earlier, additional reverts:

    User is obviously attempting to game the system by remaining under the 3RR threshold in spite of warnings that doing so may still result in a block. This editor, brought to my attention yesterday on my talk page by an editor with whom I have at most had tangential dealings, is by the evidence of his talk page resisting good faith efforts of other contributors to reach consensus. He seems to have stopped responding to such efforts on February 25th, based on the article's talk page. (Just to note: The article was protected on March 5th for "heavy vandalism" by AndonicO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) following repeated insertion of this same material by anonymous IPs. The question of sock puppetry has been raised with this user, who has neither confirmed nor denied.) Though as an admin I am inclined to follow WP:3RR and block for edit warring in spite of the >24 hour time, I have currently no experience with 3RR matters and would appreciate review by admins with more experience in this area. Moonriddengirl 15:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours – Although this isn't a three-revert rule kind of thing, it definitely falls under disruptive editing, as the user fails to seek consensus, multiple editors feel the article should not reflect the editor's changes, and he has continuously reverted over a long period of time despite that opposition. --slakr 18:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- 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: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories: