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 22:27, 3 May 2007 editHeimstern (talk | contribs)Administrators16,881 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:): most seem to agree there's no vio here← Previous edit Revision as of 23:31, 3 May 2007 edit undoProabivouac (talk | contribs)10,467 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:no vio)Next edit →
Line 639: Line 639:
::::I concur. ] 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ::::I concur. ] 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Listed at ] as an excecption: ''Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space''. ] (]) 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC) :::::Listed at ] as an excecption: ''Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space''. ] (]) 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::ALM has taken to removing most warnings from his talk page, for example (count the diffs) among many others.. The most likely purpose of this is to ensure that other administrators reacting to the very same mode of disruption across multiple articles are unaware that he has already been requested to stop. For example, from Elonka is a standard template, as if this advice to refrain from edit-warring werent something with which he was already more than adequately acquainted. ALM , then restored it, perhaps when he realized that Elonka is an administrator.] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 23:31, 3 May 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

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 and 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)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    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.


    User:Jagged 85 reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result: article protected)

    Battle of Talas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    He is like making reverts without an agreenment was made on the talk pages, regardless Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had clearly violated and exceed the 3RR reveting. Eiorgiomugini 01:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Got confused with the date, I changed it. His first revert was indeed happneed on 1600 hrs 30 April, not 0000 hours 1 May, which was the second similiar reverting of chronologically order. Eiorgiomugini 05:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not convinced that's a revert. But it is an edit war from both sides. Article protected. ··coelacan 10:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Whether it was a revert war or not he still exceed the 3RR rules, so is it better for you to make a block. Eiorgiomugini 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    None of these above are not clear violation of 3RR rules, is all within a period of 24hrs, I don't see why he shouldn't be blocked for so, and should be let go. Eiorgiomugini 05:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Blocks are to be preventative, not punitive. Since the article is protected, there is no more need for prevention and thus there's no reason to block. Heimstern Läufer 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Lanternix reported by User:Zerida (Result:31h)

    Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lanternix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    This is the second time I am reporting this user . The previous report is still up. He also violated 3RR on another page no sooner than his block expired , , , . Also, I believe he made this edit thru an IP to avoid 3RR, so he actually made 5 reverts. — Zerida 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:AnonMoos reported by ] (Result: no violation)

    Rafida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AnonMoos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Reverted 9 times from (21:10, 30 April) to (10:29, May 1)...and still continuing to war with user listed in the following report.

    24.218.222.86 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Dreamz rosez reported by ] (Result:Indef)

    Rafida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dreamz rosez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Reverted 10 times from (3:27, May 1) to (10:31, May 1)...and still continuing to war with user listed in the previous report.

    24.218.222.86 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:58.85.115.16 reported by User:Endroit (Result:12h)

    Takeshima, Shimane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 58.85.115.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    - * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    User:Chivista reported by User:anon (Result:24 hrs)

    Illegal immigration in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chivesta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported 14:46 EST:

    • ] 17:35, 30 April 2007
    • ] 12:11, 30 April 2007
    • ] 18:26 1 May 2007
    • ] 18:33 1 May 2007

    -198.97.67.56 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Anon, can you supply a link showing that the first edit above was a revert? Cheers, SlimVirgin 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, I see Kafziel's already blocked. SlimVirgin 03:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:156.110.204.66/User:Sdth reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:24 hours each for the IP and Sdth)

    Jeff Gannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 156.110.204.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Sdth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Repeated insertion (almost daily for over a month) of POV material despite the universal opposition of all other editors and multiple warnings from those editors. User:Sdth is certainly the same user as User:156.110.204.66; regardless the IP address has violated the 3RR even if you do not count Sdth's edits.

    24 hours for the IP address. I'll block the account if you can show why you think it's the same person, though if it is, blocking the IP may block the account too. SlimVirgin 02:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    It does look as though it's him, and the IP belongs to a school so it may not catch the same person at this time of night, so I've blocked Sdth too. I daresay if it's not him he'll let us know soon enough. SlimVirgin 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:G-Dett reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 24 hrs)

    3RR violation on Pallywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • 1st edit 23:18 May 1, adds the expression "pictures of hopelessness".
    • 1st revert 23:29 May 1, restores the expression "pictures of hopelessness."
    • 2nd revert 01:28 May 2, restores the expression "pictures of hopelessness."
    • 3rd revert 01:49 May 2, restores the expression "pictures of hopelessness."
    • 4th revert 02:28 May 2, restores the expression "pictures of hopelessness."
    Comments

    Four clear reverts in just over three hours to a version containing the expression "pictures of hopelessness," despite objections on talk. User has been warned about 3RR many times and blocked for it once. SlimVirgin 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Blocked for 24 hrs. FeloniousMonk 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Might this warrant another look? If you look at the 4th revert, G-Dett didn't actually replace the previous edit, which was a quote, but instead tried a paraphrased version that hadn't previously been used. This was also in keeping with Jayjg's suggestion in talk that a paraphrase was the more appropriate way to go about it. There are further issues here, but as a matter of the spirit of 3RR and even a technicality, I'm not sure a newly created paraphrase that happens to include some text from the older direct quote is a revert. For what it's worth, G-Dett was also extensively using the talk page. Mackan79 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It's as clear a 3RR violation as you could find. The suggestion on talk was that we paraphrase the author's position, which had already been done. G-Dett insisted instead on inserting the phrase "pictures of hopelessness," which has nothing to do with the author's argument, and did it five times in just over three hours, despite objections. SlimVirgin 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, you're noting the three words, but the fact is that those words were part of a larger paraphrase, which indeed was in keeping with Jay's suggestion, and a clear attempted compromise. Even speaking to the technical rule, though, I'm also not sure this is a clear violation. By rule, a revert can be as little as a single word, but if the word is in a different format (such as a different sentence), then it clearly isn't one. Here, your and Jay's objection was to the direct quote, with a suggestion that the material instead be paraphrased. I don't believe you said anything about that phrase. To then call the paraphrase a revert because it contained three of the same words doesn't seem reasonable. Considering you also reverted the page three times during the period with far less explanation, though, I'd think another look might be warranted. Mackan79 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm inclined to go with SV's position...4 reverts, not including the initial edit that included it, is intentionally disruptive, even if he's changing it up a little, the intent is still there. 3RR is not intended to keep out content, it is intended to prevent edit wars. ⇒ SWATJester 06:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the response. Looking through it again, I saw that Jayjg's invitation was actually more explicit yet, though, as seen here. "Again, the quotation doesn't seem to be about Pallywood at all, and its best not to invent quotations from foreign language sources, but instead paraphrase their contents. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)" This is, then, exactly what G-Dett did I don't know if Slim had seen that; does that perhaps change the situation? Mackan79 08:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Mackan, you always do this when you or someone you agree with politically violates 3RR. Jay was saying the text was fine as it was. G-Dett kept restoring that phrase either with or without quotation marks, over objections, even though it had nothing to do with Pallywood, the subject of the article. S/he added it once and restored it four times in just over three hours, which is a 3RR violation. There's nothing complicated about it. SlimVirgin 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • I think if you can't see the problem here, you must be overly caught up in the situation. When Jayjg directly tells G-Dett that it's best to instead paraphrase the quote's contents, you can't report her for 3RR when she then does so. 3RR is about edit warring, not inviting someone to do something and then saying "gotcha" when they accept your compromise. The block is clearly a mistake; I hope this doesn't take a great deal further ado. Mackan79 09:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • He doesn't tell her to paraphrase; he says it has already been done, and he asks her to leave it. This is my last response, because this is what you always do, and it goes nowhere. SlimVirgin 09:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • You are talking about a previous edit, not the most recent one in which he suggested it is what she should do with the particular quote. As noted above, it was following the recent suggestion that she went ahead and did so, in very clear and modest fashion, and specifying why in her edit summary. Considering your own edit warring on the page, I find it disappointing that you would be so insistent on this, as well as that you continue to make unwelcome and unjustified personal comments toward me, but I hope again that the clear mistake can simply be corrected. Mackan79 09:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:ImprobabilityDrive reported by User:EdJohnston (Result:no block)

    Creation-evolution controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ImprobabilityDrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


    • 1st revert: 01:22, 1 May, 2007 Actual words restored: CONTROVERSY ENSUED WITHIN HOURS (these exact words are restored in each of the five reverts)

    Diff of a Talk comment mentioning the 3RR rule (in passing) to User:ImprobabilityDrive, left by User:Guettarda: 13:38, 1 May 2007

    Formal 3RR warning left by User:Orangemarlin after the 5th revert: 21:22, 1 May, 2007

    This user's account was created on 20 April, 2007 but he arrived knowing many details of WP policy. in this edit on 22 April he inserted a 'fact' tag and an explanation next to it in hidden text. Several people have quizzed him in his Talk page as to whether he had a previous account, including User:JzG, but he always avoids answering the question. See User_talk:ImprobabilityDrive#Previous_account. EdJohnston 03:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    • User appears to have stopped after the first clear warning about 3RR (Guettarda's comment doesn't really make it clear that 3 reverts is a rule), so no block for now. Update if user continues to edit war. Heimstern Läufer 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Rebecca reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result:No action)

    Terry Lewis (police commissioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rebecca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Continually restoring an unsourced article with large amount of negative information about a living person, despite me telling her this on her talk page and raising the matter on WP:ANI. One Night In Hackney303 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    I have explained on several occasions why Hackney's actions are unjustified by the policy he purports to cite. Despite several attempts to get him to address my reasons for reverting, he has not done so beyond "I am right and I will revert you until doomsday". In doing so, he has himself significantly overrun the 3RR rule. Perhaps I should have left the matter wait, but I am disinclined to leave a previously fine article in an abhorrent state because of someone dogmatically deciding to get their way regardless. Rebecca 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Removing content that violates WP:BLP is exempt from 3RR. One Night In Hackney303 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Except that, as I've repeatedly pointed out, this content didn't violate WP:BLP. Claiming that it does without justification does not give you a free pass for deciding to revert until doomsday. Incidentally, the material concerned is now sourced. Rebecca 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    The content was an egregious WP:BLP violation. One Night In Hackney303 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    As El C has pointed out on ANI, BLP is not generally meant to be applied in cases where the content was immediately verifiable. If you have anything further to say on this matter, I suggest you say it there. Rebecca 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I claim to follow the spirit of the policy, not its letter, and policy (yes, even BLP) needs to be fundamentally undogmatic; thus, I do not view your reverts as exempt. El_C 05:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:ChazBeckett reported by User:Yukichigai (Result: 12 hrs)

    List of Heroes episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ChazBeckett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    While there may or may not be justification for the removal of fair use images, it is not a clear-cut policy matter at this point. (Especially due to the ongoing, yet-to-be-resolved discussion of the matter) In essence this is a content dispute based on differing interpretations of policy, which is in no way exempt from WP:3RR. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 05:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    • As an admin, personally, I would likely never block someone for removing fair use images under 3RR...protecting Misplaced Pages from potential copyright issues is something that should never be punished. However, inserting them, is another story, for which I would block under disruption. I'm not as neutral on the subject as I'd like to be, however, my outside opinion is that no block should be issued. ⇒ SWATJester 06:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      The problem I have with that is that the WP:3RR policy doesn't make any exception for "protecting Misplaced Pages from potential copyright issues." Lots of things can be potential copyright issues. What is allowed is enforcing policy, and as I've said before, policy doesn't explicity allow or deny the inclusion of fair use images in lists. Until it does neither side can be said to be enforcing policy, but enforcing an interpretation of policy. That isn't allowed under 3RR by design, because if differing interpretations of policy were sufficient justification for unlimited reverting we'd have edit wars that dragged on for months. Now I'll admit I do fall in the "fair use images in some lists is okay" camp, but regardless of my opinion on that matter I realize at this point that it is an opinion, an interpretation of policy. I do not feel entitled to revert a page infinitely to preserve those images I deem okay, and I would expect to be banned for violating 3RR if I did so. The same should be true for editors on the other side of the argument. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 06:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      I'm not saying that id does make such an exception. However, inserting fair use pictures can clearly be seen as disruption in some instances: removing them is much more likely to be seen as good editing. As such, as an admin, I use my discretion, and I would not block under 3RR for someone who was removing fair use images that are repeatedly being inserted. Nobody is "entitled" to revert anything. I'm just saying, that while I lean towards saying "no block for removing RFU images", I'm not going to be the one in this case to close the report and say "OFFICIALLY" no block. I'm merely offering my opinion to whichever admin closes this. ⇒ SWATJester 07:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    (unindent) Also, while you correctly note that nobody is entitled to revert, editors should be expected to err on the side of protection against copyvio and in this case, that appears to be what was done. ⇒ SWATJester 07:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


    • Note: however, I did block anonnymouse (incorrect spelling) for using an anon IP to violate the 3RR: he was WELL aware of the rule having been blocked at least 3 times before it, and being warned at least twice for other violations of it. Further, his rationales show reversions based on a lack of understanding of policy (he claimed that administrators create consensus, among other things). See the page history for details. ⇒ SWATJester 07:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    3RR doesn't allow an exception for removing nonfree images (which are not forbidden by policy) - whether any given nonfree image is justified is a content dispute, which specifically is not exempted by 3RR. And nonfree images aren't a copyright issue, the justification for removal isn't copyright infringement, it's wikipedia's nonfree policy, which is more strict than US copyright law. This is a clear case of 3RR violation and should result in a block. --Minderbinder 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    It does cover vandalism, which this very clearly is. -M 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    You say that, but I've yet to hear any justification for how adding images to an article is vandalism. These aren't unrelated images, they are screencaps from each of the episodes listed. There is no part of the Misplaced Pages policy on vandalism that the edits in question go against, and I challenge you to explicitly cite any part of the vandalism policy that says differently. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Ridiculous. You should be ashamed of yourself for sinking to calling a content dispute "vandalism". --Minderbinder 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    "Non free images aren't a copyright issue?" Oh, well I guess we can get rid of that pesky little GFDL and copyright violation policy then. Fair use is a HUGE copyright issue....ever hear the Betamax case? It was a landmark supreme court case regarding....badum ching! Fair Use! ⇒ SWATJester 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    There is no content 'dispute'. There is content not allowed to be posted that was readded. Copyvios are not disputes, they are required to be removed. Go troll elsewhere. -M 00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Blocking for 12 hours. Whether or not the images were allowed to be there, they've been entrenched for a while and I count six reverts. Go for a page protect next time. This not exempt from 3RR, and is unacceptable. Majorly (hot!) 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Otto0612 reported by User:fcsuper (Result:attack account, blocked indefinitely)

    Sarah schlachter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Otto0612 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: *Page was speedy deleted due to being an attack, no history*

    *Page was speedy deleted due to being an attack, including a person's phone number, no history* Otto0612 added a females phone number to the Sarah schlachter article three times in rapid succession before the article was deleted. This is of great concern because Otto0612 was using wikipedia to victimize another person.

    I've blocked the account indefinitely. Those were its only edits. SlimVirgin 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Kataimiko reported by User:JuJube (Result:No block)

    Sakura Haruno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kataimiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    This is not completely a clear-cut case, as the first revert was done by the user while she wasn't logged in, and thus I self-reverted the last time; however, common sense says that the anon and Kataimiko are clearly the same as their edits are the same. She is changing the Sakura Haruno biography to a horribly written fanfic-style gush full of speculative brouhaha. Note that her only previous edits to Misplaced Pages are to bash Maile Flanagan (the English dub VA of Naruto Uzumaki). JuJube 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Do you have a link that shows the first edit was a revert? It's not clear from the 22:50 May 1 link you provided. SlimVirgin 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Bleh, the first edit has to be a revert, huh? Damn it, I just wasted people's time. I need to sleep when I say I'm sleeping. Sorry :/ JuJube 08:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    No worries. :-) SlimVirgin 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


    User:Smatprt reported by User:Alabamaboy (Result:48hr)

    William Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smatprt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    Note: User:Smatprt was previously blocked on April 29 for a 3RR violation on this same article. Because I am a party to the editing of this article, I do not want to block Smatprt myself b/c of COI concerns. I'd appreciate if a third party could analyze the situation and see what action is needed.--Alabamaboy 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Only three reverts; need four for a 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Heimstern, given that he's got a prior 3RR block not just a few days ago on the same article, I'm inclined to block for violation of the spirit of the rule (remember, not ENTITLED to 3 free reverts). Therefore, I'm going to go ahead and block, if you object, please leave a message on my talk and I'll unblock. ⇒ SWATJester 08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Threeafterthree reported by User:Blaxthos (Result:Article protected)

    Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Third item on the list is not a revert. No violation here at the moment. Under some circumstances I would be willing to block without a breach of 4 reverts, but that doesn't seem like a productive action here. Looking at the talk page, I don't see a whole lot of consensus either way. So I am protecting the article to stop the edit war and you can all continue to discuss it on the talk page. Kafziel 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks Kafziel, I will try to cool it and use the talk page. Cheers!--Tom 18:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:68.54.18.57 reported by User:RWR8189 (Result:24h)

    Democratic Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.54.18.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Also, please note that this article has been placed on probation by a ruling from ArbCom.

    User:67.168.240.216 reported by User:EncMstr (Result: Article semi-protected)

    Lars Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.168.240.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    (All times below in this entry are UTC-0700)

    Reversion dispute is over whether cited fact belongs in article. The IP has not responded to requests to discuss the addition or removal.

    I have no opinion on the discussed item, but it's quite obvious the anon editor is reverting just for the sake of being disruptive. -- tariqabjotu 00:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:75.7.200.183 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: Article protected)

    Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.7.200.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:24.16.121.195 reported by User:hmwith (Result:warned)

    Marty Meehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.16.121.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Reversion dispute is over whether people who are running for congress should be mentioned in the biography of Marty Meehan, who currently is in congress.


    I don't see a 3rr warning? Komdori 03:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Both the anon and User:Gang14 are involved in this edit war, and it looks to me like both are probably guilty of violating 3RR. As neither has been warned, I've warned both rather than making any blocks. Note to the person filing the report: please provide diffs rather than oldids next time. Heimstern Läufer 04:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Komdori (Result:)

    Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and associated infobox (which only appears on this page, having the effect of reverting this and only this page). Cydevil38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Complicated because of the interplay of the infobox and the article. I tried to group the changes to both together. I hope I didn't miss any, it was tough to get sorted out; even if a couple of the reverts don't count, there's still 3RR violation happening and he's clearly involved in a serious edit war with at least 3 or 4 other editors on the page. Note the link where he "compromised" still had the effect of removing the references he didn't like.

    and infobox here:

    • Reverting to

    22:49, 30 April 2007 and infobox here: (consistently replacing the new map with alternate images to remove it)

    I don't see alot of real reverts. Certainly not more than 3. --Woohookitty 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Please note that while the word "Korean" is minor, it's being debated very heatedly and is indeed a "real revert"--I marked four easy ones to see, and as Endroit mentioned he's been blocked for 3RR before that with his other account. Komdori 13:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'll let someone else handle it. Partial reverts are not my forte. --Woohookitty 13:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:FactsFirst reported by User:Bobanny (Result: article protected)

    Kevin Potvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FactsFirst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    I’ve put in a request that this person be blocked for repeatedly making inappropriate edits to a biography of a living person as well, have explained on the article's talk page why these additions are inappropriate and have placed warning templates on FactsFirst's talk page. Thank you. bobanny 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    The user was not given a 3RR warning, such as {{uw-3rr}}, so there can be no block. However, the edit warring does need to stop, so I have protected the page. Request unprotection at WP:RFPP when the discussion has moved forward. ··coelacan 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Nunh-huh reported by User:smatprt (Result:no block)

    William Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nunh-huh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    This user and another has been tag team edit waring with me for the last week and this user himself has issued 3rrrv warnings. He is also harrassing me on my most recent edits that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I have atttempted talk with no results. I also informed him of his 3rr violation, yet edits continue. Smatprt 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Just out of curiosity, Smatprt, it appears you reverted at least seven times in the same timeframe, or am I missing something? Komdori 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Obviously you are aware of 3rr since you're filing a report here (and you yourself were blocked for doing the same thing to the same article just a few days ago). Cut it out, both of you. You know the drill; talk, etc. Komdori 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Itsnoteasybeingbrown reported by User:Abecedare (Result:12h)

    Mahatma Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Itsnoteasybeingbrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Repeated addition of information that violated WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and even miscites cited web-links.


    User:76.201.20.106 and possibly same person as User:Dr. Alberti reported by User:fcsuper (Result:)

    Telegraphica Oculta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.201.20.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    User:81.154.137.31 reported by User:Muchness (Result:12 hours)

    Eminem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.154.137.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Viriditas reported by User:Arcayne (Result:no vio)

    Children of Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    User:Viriditas is an experienced editor who is aware of 3RR. The user has been engaging in edit-warring, reverting content without citing references, pushing a POV not supported by citable references. Although this is not the place for it (except as a possible motivation for having violated 3RR), the editor has been uncivil, resorting to personal attacks and WP:POINT when others point out citable evidence that contradicts the edits. The article is suffering from it. Note that the 4th revert is an attempt to sidestep the same citable proof that was reverted before.

    Note: Numbers 3 and 4 are two consecutive edits, hence not technically a 3RR violation. But this is a long drawn out edit war over several days, with lots of tinkering over a trivial detail, where both parties seem to be equally at fault. I count at least 5 reverts in 3 days by Arcayne, and several edits more that are all designed to undo work by Variditas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, FutPerf is missing most of the picture here. Viriditas sought to include uncited (and then maintain) uncited information in the article. You failed to mention that during these edits, I was polite enough to not violate 3RR. Edits 3 and 4 are not consecutive edits, but are instead instended to sidestep 3RR by reverting cited information with - again - uncited information. A 3RR block is to protect the article; preventing uncited information from being continually and repeatedly introduced is a protective action. And not once was I impolite about the edits or removing the uncited edits; the same cannot be said by the violater named in the complaint. While the perception is that the edits are designed to undo work only by Viriditas, it should be said that Viriditas is currently the only person offering uncited data that needs reversion. Arcayne () 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Very well. I certianly hopes this bullet dodging serves as a wake-up call for the user.Arcayne () 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: 24 hrs)

    Operation Sarindar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    Previously was given just warnings two times:

    Eliminates sourced, reliable information from the article that doesn't suit to his political agenda. Vlad fedorov 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Reply. This is an example of alleged vandalism committed by User:Vlad fedorov on a regular basis. So, I only tried to correct this alleged vandalism. Please see Talk:Operation_Sarindar#I_think_that_is_vandalism. I reported about this problem twice to different administrators and warned Vlad fedorov twice on his talk page (but he deleted my notes). Please also note that Vlad Fedorov has been reported on this notice board by Piotrus just a few days ago about his RR violations. See No actions with regard to him was taken. He continued RR warring even after this notice. Biophys 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Please see how he previously deleted referenced sources in articles Nikolai Koltsov, Persecution of political bloggers, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews and others, and his more recent disruptive editing of article Institute of National Remembrance. He was also reported for alleged wikistalking of me and others by User:Colchicum. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov.Biophys 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    I have additionaly reported your personal attacks here and here. Vlad fedorov 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    As for your allegations of disruptive edits and so on and comments on me, I believe they belong to other noticeboard. And, perhaps, it would be worthy to read RfC on you Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Biophys in order to see your disruptive editing and violations. Vlad fedorov 16:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    23 minutes? Sigh. Considering Vlad got away recently from a much more serious 3RR violation I suggest using the same approach here and protecting the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    It wasn't violation as Irpen had explained to you. And here is the speech about user Biophys who has violated 3RR thrice in a period of no more than two weeks. Vlad fedorov 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:ALM scientist reported by User:HighInBC (Result:no vio)

    User talk:ALM scientist/Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ALM scientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    I decided not to block this user myself as I am directly involved. While WP:3RR does say that "Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space" is exempt, in this case the user is attempting to portray a dispute out of context in an essay like fashion. I personally feel that not even allowing discussion on the talk page about this expository piece of work is contrary to WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:OWN and the spirit of WP:3RR. I ask that an uninvolved admin look at this. InBC 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    I reverted at my user-space HighInBC after keep telling him not to add material there. I asked from User:William M. Connolley before reverting him last time. He said that "Repeatedly posting to someone elses talk page when asked not to is impolite. You cannot really violate 3RR on your user space William M. Connolley 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)" and then I reverted him again. I at least have not violated any policy intentionally and even confirmed from a person who is most active 3RR maintainer before reverting HighInBC. Rest is on you, to block me or not. --- A. L. M. 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    I agree you may have gotten some bad advice leading to the final revert. WP:3RR is a bit ambiguous about the issue of userspace. InBC 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    When I create any article on main space then many people say first create on your user space and then on main space. Now I am trying to work under my user space and still WP:NOT#SOAP does not leave me alone. Let me first please complete it without interruption (like created by HighInBC) and rewrite it. It will be changed a lot and will be a well-written/balanced article. --- A. L. M. 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    My opinion is that this shouldn't be 3RR; and if the page is too offensive to be allowed to live then it should go through AFD William M. Connolley 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    I concur. Heimstern Läufer 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Listed at WP:3rr as an excecption: Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space. GDonato (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    ALM has taken to removing most warnings from his talk page, for example this memorable one (count the diffs) among many others.. The most likely purpose of this is to ensure that other administrators reacting to the very same mode of disruption across multiple articles are unaware that he has already been requested to stop. For example, this recent warning from Elonka is a standard template, as if this advice to refrain from edit-warring werent something with which he was already more than adequately acquainted. ALM removed it, then restored it, perhaps when he realized that Elonka is an administrator.Proabivouac 23:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Методије reported by User:85.158.35.24 (Result:)

    7th Muslim Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Методије (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:

    by Nikola Smolenski who was asked by this user to help him.

    I would like to say that this user doesn't want to cooperate. He keeps pushing unreliable sources per WP:RS, and replacing previous version of the article. I think this user is radical Serb and insults all other users in Bosnia related articles (I think his behaviour is in the light of previous war between Serbia and Bosnia and genocide commited by Serbs in Srebrenica). He insults Bosniaks the same way Serb war criminals did before. Here are some insults and other examples: now some other idiot has hooked into me, my toilet paper is better source, because I don't care about tuzla having a good, rigorously sourced article, I tried for protection, but administrator seems to think we should discuss with this vandalistic idiot. Examples about anti Bosnian sentiment: Removal of some sentences related to Anti-Bosniak sentiment etc.

    I ask you to stop this radical Serb, because many victims of Serb terror are horrified watching his horsing in this encyclopedia. Unlike him, some users are insisting on reliable sources (courte decisions, courte reports) not war propaganda already seen during the war. Thank you and God bless you.

    I didn't look into the actual content of the reverts, but a few things--please provide the diff times (I looked, it appears they happened over the course of several days, and wouldn't qualify for a 3rr violation). I also didn't see a 3rr warning on his page (although I just glanced--there is no link to one here in any case). Including this information will speed things along. Komdori 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    I also added two earlier edits (30th April and 1st May) and the rest are (3rd May) in order to show the continuous pattern.

    User:Boggienights reported by User:EncMstr (Result:)

    Lars Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boggienights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    (All times below in this entry are UTC-0700)

    The reversion pattern is the same as reported above (resulting in article semi-protection) and is probably the same user. The talk page has a clear appeal for discussing the issue, but the serial reverter has ignored every such attempt.

    Example

    <!-- copy from _below_ this line -->
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
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 -->
* 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 may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Categories: