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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:34, 2 January 2008 view sourceKeilana (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators59,299 edits →User:UpDown reported by User:Collectonian (Result: ): problem seems to be sorted out← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:35, 2 January 2008 view source UnclePaco (talk \| contribs)662 edits →User:XLR8TION reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: Warning, not blocked)Next edit →
Line 145:		Line 145:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade		http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade
	:Both parties are in violation, but are now discussing it on the talk page, blocking would serve no purpose unless it starts back up. --] (]) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)		:Both parties are in violation, but are now discussing it on the talk page, blocking would serve no purpose unless it starts back up. --] (]) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

			I've really been trying. User Xlr8tion has been speaking to me in a demeaning manner and using personal attacks. ] (]) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: Not a violation)===		===] reported by ] (Result: Not a violation)===

Revision as of 18:35, 2 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.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

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

User:VanBrigglePottery reported by User:Duchamps_comb (Result:User blocked for other reasons)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st Revert|
2nd Revert|
3rd Revert|
4th Revert|

--Ducha mps_comb MFA 04:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No violation. WP:3RR requires more than three reverts per 24 hours. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Added another revert, please look again. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked by Rlevse for reasons unrelated to 3RR. --B (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Avidius reported by User:ILike2BeAnonymous (Result:No violation )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME (see below; note left on their "talk" page)

A short explanation of the incident.

Simple; editor has repeatedly removed material from the article, even after being warned (on their "talk" page) about 3RR. Particularly galling is the fact that they never bother to leave a single word of explanation for their edits (in edit summary or elsewhere).

To their credit, editor did respond on my "talk" page after I left a note on theirs, but did not stop reverting. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has not reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, as far as this report shows; please contact me if he/she has reverted more in 24 hours. Keilana_(recall) 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Helodriver reported by User:Kjoonlee (Result: Both blocked for 8 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 2008-01-01T03:47:23

1st revert: 2008-01-01T03:52:14
2nd revert: 2008-01-01T03:57:28
3rd revert: 2008-01-01T04:08:09
4th revert: 2008-01-01T04:25:44
5th revert: 2008-01-01T04:28:59

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-01-01T04:23:57

Addition of non-notable unverifiable data, which is also actually an external copyvio. --Kjoonlee 03:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Both parties have violated 3RR, and then some. Accordingly both parties are blocked for 8 hours. Work out your differences cooperatively please. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a closer look at the edits he was reverting. They were flagrant vandalism. It was some guy playing a joke on someone named "Daniels". Look at the (now deleted) images the other user uploaded. They are obvious photoshops/attack images. We should be thanking people who revert vandalism, not blocking them. --B (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result: Not a violation, user warned)

e to the state of the article by not improving it while standing in the way of those editors who do. By doing that, they are impli*Three-revert rule violation on Debt-based_monetary_system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zenwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 18:32, 30 December 2007

Since he has given this edit summary on one of his reverts it is obvious he knows about 3RR. Also, given his edit history and comments on the talk, he is now signed in 69.138.16.202 who has been warned about 3RR before and who has been revert warring for a while on this article (11 reverts in article's 50 revision history). -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to expess my support and agreement for this notification. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a violation. One of those reverts was reverting an antivandalism bot, which could not be described as edit warring. I will leave a warning on the user's talk page. --B (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to vandalism. Since they're going to make this an issue, I will open an arbitration case. Please see the discussion on the talkpage. I reported the actions of the above users for violating WP:FRINGE and openly acknowledged the fact that I have reverted more than three times on the fringe theories noticeboard. . Per WP:IAR, I will defend my actions. To start off, the article Debt-based monetary system was a POV fork of Fractional-reserve banking created and primarily maintained by Karmaisking, a confirmed sockpuppeteer. This vandal has continued to violate WP:FRINGE, with support from Sm8900 (talk · contribs), Vision Thing (talk · contribs) and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs). All of them are Libertarians who are sympathetic or adhere to the fringe theory involved and have thus stifled constructive edits to the article by me and others. They have stifled improvement of the article through continually reverting any substantial removal of Karmaisking's vandalism, while doing nothing to remove it themselves. They do minor copyediting of the article and say "Oh, Karma's edits are bad," on the talk page, but whenever anyone attempts to remove Karma's nonsense, they revert, claiming we need a drawn-out debate. RFC was attempted in the past. In a past AfD discussion on this article, the article was only kept based upon the assumption that it would improve over time. It didn't. In fact, it got a lot worse because it was expanded by Karma with even more nonsense and inappropriate citations. For this reason, it is clear by now that the only way the article is going to go anywhere is with a full re-write.

I have strongly invited Vision Thing, Sm8900, and Carolmooredc to re-include material from Karma's version in with mine. They have refused and in fact none of them can specifically name what was wrongfully removed. They simply put forth a vague appeal to consensus, while not specifying the fact that Karma's edits should be completely disregarded for being vandalism and in bad faith.

Normally, I would find an approach of "gradual improvement through discussion" to be reasonable and appropriate. However, given the circumstances and the people involved, it is absurd to argue at this point. My actions are fully consistent with the 3RR and, in any case, WP:IAR was created for precisely this kind of situation, where an individual good-faith editor needs to completely disregard wikilawyering and get the article fixed. Zenwhat (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know a thing about this topic. But 3RR only has narrow exceptions. If there is a legitimate problem with the article, you can open a request for comment or use some other aspect of the dispute resolution process to fix it. --B (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC has been tried in the past. You can see the tag on the article's talk page. Dispute resolution doesn't seem appropriate since the conflicting parties above won't specifically explain what the dispute is (why my re-write was bad) and also since the article was created and primarily maintained by Karma, who has since been banned for using sockpuppets to push fringe theories about monetary theory. If they can explain what's actually wrong with my version of the article and then want to go to mediation, we can do that. Zenwhat (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Huwjones7 reported by User:Warren (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 12:59, January 1, 2008

User has also inserted the exact same text into Mac OS X twice: 14:30, January 1, 2008 and 16:30, January 1, 2008 and Finder (software) once, 16:35, January 1, 2008, after multiple warnings on their talk page.

Diff of 3RR warning: 16:20, January 1, 2008

Note that this a single-purpose account; the user has made no other edits but seems to have enough understanding of Misplaced Pages to carry on with this. -/- Warren 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the Huwjones7 account for 24 hours for persistent insertion of unsourced and biased original research into Macintosh related articles. This user is clearly pushing a specific agenda, as Warren notes. Gwernol 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:XLR8TION reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: Warning, not blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:47, 1 January 2008

Not a new user. Has been blocked multiple times for personal attacks as well as 3rr violation.

Removal of sources. It was discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dominican_Day_Parade&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade

Both parties are in violation, but are now discussing it on the talk page, blocking would serve no purpose unless it starts back up. --B (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've really been trying. User Xlr8tion has been speaking to me in a demeaning manner and using personal attacks. UnclePaco (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BlueValour reported by User:Duchamps_comb (Result: Not a violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

--Ducha mps_comb MFA 22:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the 3RR forbids more than three reverts in 24 hours, not three. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not a violation, only one revert and even if all three of the diffs were reverts, they were not within a 24 hour period. --B (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Kamujin reported by User:98.204.112.111 (Result:24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kamujin&oldid=181520686

Inserting own interpretation and critique of a cited source, blind revert removing constructive edits, punctuation edits and vandalism reverts. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring. Take it to the talk page, please. Keilana_(recall) 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:UpDown reported by User:Collectonian (Result:Problem seems to be worked out )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 08:34, 1 January 2008

1st revert: 01:57
2nd revert: 02:08
3rd revert: 02:11
4th revert: 02:20

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 02:18

I originally tagged this article as needing missing footnotes, having too short an intro, and needing expert attention from the TV project on December 24th. UpDown reverted on the 25th. I retagged as the issues were not addressed. He reverted less than two minutes later. I put them back again. He removed again on the 27th. He finally actually addressed some of the issues and removed the tags. I put back the expert tag (still had issues there), and a ref-improve since its sourced from only three sources at 15:48, 1 January 2008. It is then that the current cycle of reverting by UpDown really began, along with borderline uncivil remarks in his edit summaries that include calling me a stalker. After his second revert, he started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Executive Stress. I explained, in more detail, why the article was tagged as such, but he again removed them and refused to listen, repeating his early remarks and calling my expectations unrealistic and basically saying "if you don't like it, fix it yourself." He also left a message on my talk page saying the need for expert attention is unrealistic , even after I explained it helps a project see an article does need attention, even if its mostly just clean up work. I have not undid his last revision since that would then have me also violating 3RR, and will defer instead here.

The fourth revert took away the ref request because you questioned where the airdates came from. I added a ref, so removed the ref request. More refs are not possible for this article.Expert attention is not needed, any reordering (to my eyes, its in right order) etc should be done by Collectonian if he is thinks it necessary. I apologise for breaking 3RR, but I did it because the articles does not need the tags, as explained on talk. However, I will go and revert my edit now, as it broke 3RR. But I firmly believe the tags are not needed.--UpDown (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just ask why time reported says "Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)". Thats not when it was reported?--UpDown (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that.--UpDown (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, two things have happened. First, you have both violated 3RR. Second, the problem seems to have been resolved on the talk page, please contact me if either of you disagree. Consider this a warning, UpDown, and Collectonian has already been warned. Keilana_(recall) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Example

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
===] reported by ] (Result: )===
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
*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: 
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
A short explanation of the incident.
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

Categories: