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 22:47, 23 May 2008 editScarian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers28,509 edits →User:Chenyangw reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: ): Res.← Previous edit Revision as of 22:58, 23 May 2008 edit undoMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →User:Andyvphil reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: ): 1 weekNext edit →
Line 658: Line 658:
:Alm. and Joe. both blocked for 24 hours. ]] 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :Alm. and Joe. both blocked for 24 hours. ]] 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


==] reported by ] (]) (Result: )== ==] reported by ] (]) (Result: 1 week)==
*] violation on *] violation on
{{Article|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV|Andyvphil}}: Time reported: 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC) {{Article|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV|Andyvphil}}: Time reported: 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Line 674: Line 674:
This user has previously been blocked for edit warring on the same article. This is largely revolving around a content dispute on one of Misplaced Pages's most popular articles. -- ] (]) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC) This user has previously been blocked for edit warring on the same article. This is largely revolving around a content dispute on one of Misplaced Pages's most popular articles. -- ] (]) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:I've added another revert by Andy that seems to be a gaming of the system by waiting 25 hours from his first revert in order to restore his preferred wording. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :I've added another revert by Andy that seems to be a gaming of the system by waiting 25 hours from his first revert in order to restore his preferred wording. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

* Blocked for 1 week, given several prior 3RR violations and blocks. There are a handful of additional reverts just outside the 24-hour window, e.g. , which add to a picture of ongoing edit-warring and possibly gaming 3RR. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 22:58, 23 May 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 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. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:TeePee-20.7 reported by User:Bidgee (Result: blocked for 1 week)


    User is edit warring, uncivil, not assuming good faith and ownership of the article. Bidgee (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

    Also this may require looking closely because some formatting changes occurred during the edit warring, but the demographic text in question that he reverted back to repeatedly is very clearly TeePee's favorite version and not what had been decided by consensus on the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Resolved – blocked for 1 week by Blnguyen for a number of issues including edit warring

    --Matilda 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kossack4Truth reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result: blocked 24 hours)

    I think User:FoveanAuthor is also a sockpuppet of this user, which would contribute further reverts to the list:

    Continual restoration (and expansion) of removed-by-consensus long discussion of Rev. Wright from Barack Obama (and deletion of summary-style link to dedicated article). Some edits also add a rant from National Review and/or some unneeded material on alleged association with Bill Ayers.

    Clarification: I think Kossack4Truth may have been careful enough to technically avoid the letter of 3RR (assuming FoveanAuthor is just another editor with the same interest in the same articles). S/h has probably spaced reversions at just under 3/24h. But this barely-rule-meeting pattern has gone on for a number of days, the Kossack4Truth has ignored the consensus on the talk page, and essentially stated his/her intention to keep doing so forever. 3 reversions per 24 hours is not a right, and his/her edits clearly violate the spirit of the rule. LotLE×talk 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    Dereks1x has been unusually active lately, and this was one of his favorite targets. It might be worth a checkuser here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    The listed reverts by User:Kossack4Truth span more than a 24-hour period. I recommend that the submitter clarify the claim to say if you think it's a conventional 3RR violation, or is a more general type of edit-warring. If you think User:Fovean Author is a sockpuppet of Kossack4truth some evidence would be good. (Fovean Author is the older of the two accounts). If you think you have enough to justify a checkuser, go ahead and submit the request there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Brando130 reported by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (Result: page protected)

    1. 01:21, 20 May 2008
    2. 02:07, 20 May 2008
    3. 16:19, 20 May 2008
    4. 16:23, 20 May 2008
    5. 16:34, 20 May 2008
    • User has been around for two years, and knows the rule well enough. 4 of the reverts relate to a date and one to some tags, totally 5 reverts. I myself and another user have also had a couple of reverts, which (esp. as an admin) I shouldn't really have done, but edits being forced are serious errors which contradict the text as well as another Featured Article and user was conducting himself in a tendentious manner, such as leaving edit summaries like "stop just edit warring" while reverting and opening talk page comments with statements like "You're pretty dense, bubs." Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Brando130 has violated 3RR and Deacon of Pdnapetzim missed violating it by about 45 minutes. Blocking both would be justifiable, but I've protected the page instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wfgh66 reported by User:Wednesday Next (Result: both editors blocked for 24 hours but subsequently unblocked)


    Check on User:Wednesday Next who also broke the 3RR on Berenger Sauniere and is the only Misplaced Pages Editor who demands copious references on Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Chateau matters but not to any other subject matters on Misplaced Pages. He visits Misplaced Pages with the sole intention of targetting those subject matters (Priory of Sion, Rennes-le-Chateau, Berenger Sauniere, Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, etc). His ignorance of the subject matter is quite shocking. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    None of the above is true. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Rest assured that I will not be providing footnotes to the Berenger Sauniere article for the amusement of Wednesday Next, who is the only editor who demands copious footnotes; it's high time that Wednesday Next started reading real history as opposed to fake history.Wfgh66 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    (Although I'm not the admin, I will give my say). Wfgh66, you yourself have broken the rule. 3 reverts is the MAX, not the I'm reporting time. Although you may not like it, I suggest that you revert your own revision to the previous. Although this may not lower your chance of getting blocked, it may teach you a lesson, a case in which requires no block. Ellomate (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please format this report according to the example provided below with diffs. I have included the template elements for you--Matilda 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Matilda 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    Case closed. Ellomate (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Collectonian reported by User:Abtract (Result: nominating editor blocked for 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 22.54, 20 May 2008
    • 2nd revert: 00:09, 21 May 2008
    • 3rd revert: 00:09, 21 May 2008
    • 4th revert: 00:14, 21 May 2008
    • Diff of 3RR warning: ... she is a highly experienced editor who should know better and does not need a warning, but I warned her anyway in this edit summary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs)

    Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours This is gaming the system after the previous incident above. --Matilda 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Croctotheface reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: )


    Please note when determining the length of the block that the user made his sixth revert after the warning, and even went so far as to delete the warning without comment. Please also note that the reverts started right after page protection had been lifted and participants were warned for previous edit warring.

    BLP issues are immune to 3RR, csloat. Seriously, quit shopping for a block to try to force your POV into the article, sir. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Excuse me? There is quite a bit of dispute about what makes up a BLP issue, but the above certainly isn't one. It's arrogant enough that he simply deleted my warning without comment, but the abuse of Misplaced Pages policies to further edit-warring behavior is an insult to the whole project. The BLP exception is there for cut and dried cases, not for you to further one side of a content dispute through edit warring. Look, Croc's actions were beyond the pale. For someone who is in the majority already - and flaunting it over and over as an excuse not to deal with the actual arguments on the talk page - to revert six times in 24 hours anyway is seriously abusive. Finally, I encourage you to read WP:AGF; after reading that that you can use my talk page to apologize for the gross insult to my character above, which I will not dignify with a further response. Thanks in advance. csloat (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    The continued placement of the slander by yourself and jim is a BLP issue regardless of whether or not you accept it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Please stop misrepresenting the BLP issues on this page; admins are perfectly capable of looking at the O'Reilly page to see that what you're saying is completely false. By the way, I didn't see your apology on my talk page yet regarding your insults above; did you place it somewhere else? csloat (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    There is no apology granted for speaking the truth. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Merzbow (Result: )

    • Previous versions reverted to:


    These reverts are not of the same material. Moreover, the last three reverts are of an edit that I believed had been previously agreed upon. Ramsquire, who initially removed the edit, explicitly agreed to its inclusion weeks ago. I addressed this history on the Talk Page of the article as follows:

    Your not knowing it was there is evidence that you weren't paying attention, not a basis for an accusation of bad faith. Review the discussion above, particularly under second try, and the prior section. I initially proposed a separate subsection under Media Matters dealing only with their "Stop the Homophobic Comments" campaign. I explicitly stated that I agreed to other editors' recommendation that what I had initially proposed as a subsection be reduced to a sentence or two, and I added the suggested edit. You didn't object to this proposed resolution. Given your history of almost instantly reverting my previous edits, I assumed you were in agreement. (After that, you and I had a prolonged discussion about edit warring.) During the discussion, Ramsquire, who agreed that a sentence or two could be appropriate, suggested that the edit might have more substance if GLAAD or others gay/lesbian org weighed in. This prompted additional research and the subsequent, broader, proposed edit "Allegations of Homophobia" in which I attempted to merge the different groups' criticism. Your objections to that edit were based on linking the different criticisms. You never advocated removing the existing material; your doing so after the extended debate about GLAAD/MM stunned me and could have lead me to accuse you of bad faith. I did not. The MM edit has been sitting in plain sight; I cannot be responsible for your failure to read it. I'd appreciate an apology.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs)

    I would further add that as I was restoring an edit that had been extensively debated and, I thought, agreed upon, the deletions of that material were violations of the 3RR. The material, after much discussion, was added weeks ago. It's sudden deletion by editors who had either expressly agreed to its inclusion (Ramsquire) or who I believed had (Croctotheface) shocked me.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    See WP:3RR - reverts do not have to be of the same material. - Merzbow (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    One more thing, and I apologize if this is overkill, but I ask that whoever is reviewing this matter look at (1) Ramsquire's recent comment on the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly talk page where he apologized if he mislead me (I do not think he did; there was a misunderstanding) and (2) the comments on Croc's Talk page where I am described as civil and responsive to questions. I am the first to admit that I argue my positions forcefully, and lengthily...,but I consider that a good thing compared to editors who offer pro forma objections (e,g,. violates BLP, undue weight, not sourced) w/o any argument to support their bald assertions. I had thought that Croc, while profoundly misguided on some points(kidding, mostly) was at least engaging in honest debate; his recent accusations are strong evidence to the contrary, and, well, really piss me off.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Traditional unionist reported by User:86.175.64.136 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

    11:38, 20 May 2008 and 16:30, 20 May 2008


    This editor has a long history of edit warring, and has reverted four times in less than 24 hours (to 2 different version), including abuse of twinkle. 86.175.64.136 (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    Fifth revert added, which is a revert back to the version of 11:38, 20 May 2008. 86.175.64.136 (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    I strongly suspect this user is a sock.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    More evidence of a knowledge of WP rules. This user, knowingly, waded into an ongoing discussion adding controvercial weaslry.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/86.175.64.136.
    That has no bearing on this violation again you are edit warring and the evidence you provided in your sock accusation is non existent so an IP reverts you, so what you still were in an edit war, and you have been warned and blocked before for this same thing. BigDunc 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    And you have no reason to get involved. You have been warned about your civility already this week.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Fovean Author reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: )

    Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fovean Author (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 10:47, 20 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213644627 by Newross (talk)Absolutely there is consensus on this - you apologists have been trying to undo it")
    2. 11:14, 20 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213678141 by Brothejr (talk)Perhaps you missed the giant article on this?")
    3. 02:38, 21 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undo disruptive edits / violation of 3 rr's policy")

    Comment

    This particular editor has a history of disruptive edits and edit warring that are mostly reversions to the same article, although the editor normally takes care not to violate WP:3RR. Administrators may wish to consider this overall pattern when deciding on whether or not to block. In the interests of full disclosure, I have previously received a 12-hour block for edit warring on the same article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Grant.Alpaugh reported by User:Fasach Nua (Result: Declined)

    Im really embarassed to have to report this, a user is edit warring to have his comments displayyed on my talk page even though I have removed them on ten occasions and issued a warning on 3 occasions to stop reverting my blanking in the past few hours.

    edit warring and the 3RR warning is here User_talk:Grant.Alpaugh#Warning

    I don't want him blocked, I just want to be left alone Fasach Nua (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 96 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: vary, usually the previous version by himself or one of the earlier versions by himself


    Please note that Boodlesthecat was recently blocked for 48h after a 3RR report for the same page (here), then unblocked after 5h - and immediately jumped back into revert warring. The editor is also very incivil on talk, constantly harassing his opponents and accusing them of bad faith, trolling, and so on (example). Please also note that this user has been blocked 5 times this year so far for 3RR violations, harassment and disruption.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    Let's not pretend this is entirely one sided. I've already mentioned to you that you are not helping calm the situation by your comments and threats towards Boodlesthecat. We should be striving to calm things at the article, not exacerbate them. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comments that he should be civil and that if he breaks 3RR he will be blocked? Well, I am not so sorry that as an admin I am trying to enforce our policies. Considering that Boodlesthecast is single-handedly waging a revert war - with 9 reverts in a single day after his unblock - and is reverting about 5 or 6 other editors (who are not reverting anybody but him, and who are all polite towards everybody else) I think it is quite clear what (or who) is the problem here. PS. I am afraid it is you who is not helping here, by trying to appease the user who just broke 3RR three time in less than 24h. Appeasement never works, it only makes such user bolder: as I predicted few days ago, by supporting his unblock from last 3RR violation you only convinced him he is immune to it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to appease anyone, and you are hardly enforcing policies when you restore BLP violations and threaten users who remove them. If everyone stopped the blame game and started being civil to one another, then you wouldn't need outside editors like myself trying to sort out this mess. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Not a single of the 9 reverts I reported concerns a BLP violation. This is a simple case of 3RR warring (something that this user already has a block record of). I am not denying Boodlesthecat POV has some merits, and a consensus with more reasonable and neutral editors is possible, but we cannot reach it with a 9RR warrior harassing everybody who disagrees with him, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not defending a revert war (I don't agree with your interpretation that this is a 9RR, but that's another matter), what I'm trying to get through to you is that if you blame Boodles for everything and ignore the behavior of others like Greg park avenue as well as what you have said to Boodles yourself, you will do nothing but prolong this conflict. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I would recommend that you explain the constant deletions of well sourced information from this article with reference to what WP guidelines justify these deletions, rather than these continual attempts to orchestrate a team of editors to get their way via an orchestrated edit war (evidenced by the steady arrival of new editors who blindlt revert to your POV) designed to get other editors blocked. There have been zero arguments made justifying these constant deletions, and much ranting instead. You behavior constitutes a seriuos misuse of admin authority. Boodlesthecat 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    In reading the "rules" for this page, this "discussion" needs to stay on the question at hand: Did boodlesthecat violate WP:3RR?

    Discussion external to that needs to be taken elsewhere. If it continues, I, or others, may follow the directive at the top of this page, and remove it. - jc37 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    I won't close this one since I acted on a previous complaint between the same people and the same article. If the concern is that the edit war is causing disturbance, then full protection is something that should be considered. If the matter raises issues that are larger than this noticeboard usually handles, consider transferring the complaint to WP:ANI. Since Piotrus is an admin I hope he is considering some ideas for resolving the conflict that might win general support. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Both Boodlesthecat and User:Poeticbent reverted beyond 3RR. By numbers, Boodlesthecat was against a majority but by ethnic composition one might too easily see it as a Polish versus non-Polish revert war. A third, uninvolved party should help with getting the article right. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Since my family is from Białystok, which side does that put me on? Boodlesthecat 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    Boodlesthecat is on the 10th revert now. Are we going to allow such behavior to continue and wait to see if he can have 20 reverts in 48h? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    No, we're not. Just tell User:Molobo over Gadu-Gadu instant messenger to back off. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    WP:CABAL is here, muhahaha :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    96 hours. You just can't revert that much against established users, I'm sorry, no matter how right you are. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    Continuous Reverts by Anonymous User

    I'm not sure where to report this, but this seems like as good a place as any. On the Literary Arabic page, there is linguistic content about the relationship between Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic. For the last two weeks a single user has been continually pushing a pro-Arab POV. I have reverted this inserted information with the note to take the issue to the Talk Page. This anonymous user, using different IP addresses has continued to change the article without a peep on the Talk page. I'm fairly certain that the different anonymous numbers represent a single user because the changes he introduces are word-for-word the same each time. What can be done? I'm new to reporting abuse of Misplaced Pages. (Taivo (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

    User:Coz 11 reported by User:Chicken Wing (Result: 48 hrs )

    • Previous version reverted to: various reverts, see below


    User has edited the article nearly 30 times in the past 25 hours, and these specific edits appear to be more than three reverts within a 24 hour span, as defined by the rules:

    • Has also been warned twice in the past regarding the same article:

    10:13, 6 May 2008 , 02:42, 22 April 2008


    User:Domer48 and User:BigDunc reported by User:Setanta747 (Result:no action)

    Both users have effectively assumed ownership of the article, offering no explanation of their reversions of my edit - despite invitation to do so.

    Both users have subsequently removed the warnings from their talk pages. They often work in tandem to start revert wars of articles within a certain topic area.

    3RR is for one individual, not tag-team reverting. Additionally, there have only been two reverts by those two all day. 3RR is four reverts for a violation. Decline action here. Metros (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:86.154.178.231 reported by Charles (Result: )


    This editor has been making a series of disruptive reverts across a number of pages by re-including material that other people have removed such as lists of siblings and biographical details for those siblings on the pages of royal individuals (something we simply don't do) and also by filling articles with lots of useless info that we normally don't include. FactStraight, another user and myself have been trying to restore some of these pages to a point where we can work on improving them but as you can see, from this and also from the user's contribution history, it is difficult to do so. Two other users and another IP, I believe, have done or are doing the same sorts of things and concern has been expressed that sockpuppetry is in play here. The user has also been reverting to include a non-standard, to say as kindly as possibly, system of dividing the articles with headings. However, the 3RR is concerned here (although I think the background information is important). Charles 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    Please note that this anonymous editor has been warned not to violate 3RR, in multiple edit summaries and on the talk page of articles he subsequently edited. See: warning re 3RR and warning on Talk page. Most recently, when requested in edit summary to explain the grounds for his repeated reversions on the Talk page, he refused. FactStraight (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for commenting, FS. Please also see the exchange on FS' talk page as it is indicative of the anonymous user's attitude toward editing on Misplaced Pages. Charles 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:DaveJP reported by User:Snowded (Result: )

    User has three times inserted what looks like extreme right wing propaganda in the above page. He has attempted to disguise it as a "spelling mistake" which is clear evidence of malicious intent. 

    Time reported: 13:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Betacommand reported by User:Mukadderat (Result: No violation - Reporter warned.)

    Explanation:

    The community agreed that in edit count lists some users have right to have their names removed or replaced by placehorder user name user:Place holder.

    User:Betacommand posted a new list with no names replaced. According to the agreement I replaced my name with "Place holder" Betacommand reverted my edit with edit summary "Vandalism" and issued a threat to me. Then he reverter with summary "NOT censored", which is inapplicable because this is not wikipedia article. This is a hobby and fun exercise of some wikipedians. I think Betacommand must he reprimanded for his behaviour forcefully disrespectful both to me and to the commiunity decision. Mukadderat (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    please read WP:3RR

    Reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.

    are exemp β 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    I am a living person and it is very hotly discussed that edit count is very controversial material which was by the way the reason for the compromise solution of using user:Place holder, which I did for my name. . Mukadderat (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    but its sourced perfectly. β 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Your wikilawyering does not adds glory to you. You are ignoring the decision of the community you your fellow wikipedians who want only one: don't engage in your editcountitis epidemia. Also you again, as with vandalism, fail to read policies carefully: biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material: please notice the two slamm letters, 'o' and 'r' in the word "or". Now please recall that the editcount page itself says that editcount is <read it yorself>.Mukadderat (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    maintaining accurate data is a good thing, Im sorry if you dont like it, but tough. you dont get to censor information that you dont like. β 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have right to remove false, controversial, biased or otherwise detrimental information about me. Mukadderat (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    that page is none of the above, stop attempting to push you POV. β 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    My POV is no worse than yours and I am entitled to it when spoken about me in wide public. And yes that page is severely biased, as longly talked in talk page and its long archives. Mukadderat (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    If (for reasons I admit I don't understand) Mukadderat doesn't want to be in this list, where is the harm in letting him not be on the list? I don't get why we need quotes from a rule book to solve this problem- a little courtesy would do the trick. Friday (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Courtesy is what Betacommand lacks severely: he accused me of vandalism, threathened to block me in my talk page and obvioulsy has no intention to apologize. Mukadderat (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    It is his user subpage, thus, he is exempt from 3RR in this particular case. If anybody is violating 3RR (or close to it) it is you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    No he is not. Please review the thread above. He cannot force biased personal information about me even in his talk page. And he cannot call me vandal. Mukadderat (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Personal information!? HA! That is highly public information. Please, nobody is going to get blocked for this unless you continue to revert on somebody elses subpage. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Personal information means information about person. In real world people get sued for printing biased information. Mukadderat (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    Just now it came to my attention that Betacommand is an admin. This makes his disrespectful behavior even more appalling. And I understand nobody is going to reprimand him. Well, what can I say besides Allah is forgiving. Mukadderat (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    um, no he isn't. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    um back:
    18:06, 17 January 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) unblocked Betacommand (Talk | contribs) ‎
    Whatever. Mukadderat (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, Betacommand used to be an admin, but he was desysopped a long time ago. In fact, he was desysopped for what amounts to the same type if behavior he's displaying here - jumping the gun on accusing people of bad intentions, bending the rules to fit his own agenda, and poor communication. Some things don't change. 72.205.14.47 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    He was an admin before, but hasn't been one in quite a while. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    No violation - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Rjd0060's ruling. In the past there have been very hot debates about whether people could remove themselves from this list. See Misplaced Pages talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 7. It seems that on May 20, and again on May 22, Betacommand created a file User:Betacommand/Edit count in his own user space which parallels the information normally available in Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, but with the difference that he no longer uses User:Place holder to replace the names of people who want to be omitted from the list. He is not singling out Mukadderat, he is doing this for everybody. My perception is that our policy does not currently give Mukadderat the right to remove his information from Betacommand's copy of the list. If he wants to discuss the matter further, he should post his complaint at Misplaced Pages talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, where there is already a thread about the topic of removing yourself from Betacommand's list. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    This is one ugly piece of wikilawyering. People wanted their name absent from such lists. Period. So what, now each and every one can create a separate copy of this list and we must have a separate policy to cover each list? Whatever. Obvious demonstration of disregard of the desire of 30+ wikipedians in good standing to exclude them from this game. Duly noted and added to wikilawyer list. Mukadderat (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Though no 3RR violation occurred, the debate about keeping the list is continuing at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 21. EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Catchpole reported by User:Eusebeus (Result:no action )


    • Note: we are in a slow edit war over on these episode pages. While we are not technically in a 3RR position, we will be soon. I request page protection until this issue can be resolved on the talk page. The editor's talk page will indicate that this is not an isolated editing pattern (nor is mine); whilst there has been some acrimony over the editing procedures on this topic, most other editors have demonstrated willingness to discuss along content lines that have been part of an ongoing debate for 7 months now. Neither of us wants to end up blocked over this issue, I am certain. Eusebeus (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Eusebeus appears to be reporting his own reverts. Note that I have not been reverting, each of my edits today has been to add new information to the article. Catchpole (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    There has been no 3RR violation. If you feel protection is needed, report this to WP:RFPP. Metros (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:WilliamKF reported by 86.29.142.126 (Result: no action)

    NB: Copy and pasted from User talk:86.29.142.126 on request.


    I thought I needed to keep the warning history up for the WP:AIV request that was pending. Next time, I'll try to put the vandal warning template in the summary line too. WilliamKF (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't want to make anything big out of this, because you were trying to the right thing. Just read this and I'm sure you'll understand: Misplaced Pages:Don't restore removed comments. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    When there's this type of blatant vandalism in progress, there's not much wrong with restoring the warnings. However it is usually best to just mention to AIV that the warnings are being removed. It will be readily apparent from the vandal's contributions. Result: the vandal was blocked and the page was protected. No further action. -- zzuuzz 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Eurovisionman reported by User:Kevin Murray (Result: 24h)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:


    After repeated warnings about 3RR and BLP and attempts to mediate his concerns User:Eurovisionman continues to edit war and add disputed material to Isis Gee. See where he adds back essentially the same information about 6 times . I became involved with this in an attempt to resolve the frustrations of another editor participating in a MECAB discussion I’m mediating. Prior to this I’ve not been a party to this article and have never requested 3RR enforcement before.

    Blocked for 24 hours Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:ChrisO reported by User:IronDuke (Result: Stale )


    • 1st previous version
    This version does not contain the sentence “French court ruled that his 'death' may have been staged, and was in any case unlikely to have been caused by IDF soldiers.”
    • 2nd previous version (same as 1st)
    Among many other changes, Category:Violence in media has been removed.
    • 3rd previous version (same as 1st)
    Category:Violence in media has been removed.
    • 4th previous version (same as 1st)
    Category:Violence in media has been removed.
    • 5th previous version (same as 1st)
    Removes citation (among other changes).



    • ChrisO is an admin, and has blocked others for 3rr violations: , in addition to having been blocked himself twice for 3RR, and being blocked for edit-warring for 3rr (with mention of edit-warring) -- which he has a long history of in this topic area .

    This is another frivolous request for sanctions from a problem user with a track record of harassing admins (background: he objects to my involvement in this arbitration case and recently filed a frivolous and speedily rejected request for arbitration against me as retaliation). For the record, the article in question has been the subject of a French libel case which was concluded on Tuesday. Two editors and an anonymous IP address separately added a number of inaccurate and outright POV contributions to the article. As the diffs show, in all but one of my five edits, the material being reverted or reworded was different on each occasion. I might also point out that the article is covered by WP:BLP, as it concerns serious allegations against living people (who have sued others for libel concerning those allegations) - thus WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material applies. (IronDuke, note this well - "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves.") -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    My arb request was neigher frivolous nor speedily rejected. After several days, three arbs decided that more dispute resolution should occur, and that the request was therefore "premature." Had it been frivolous, it would indeed have been speedily removed.
    BLP does not apply to the reversions you made, and the subject of this article is dead.
    I will also note that subsequent to my informing Chris that I had filed the report (as a courtesy), he -- literally -- threatened me on his talk page. . Note also the edit sumary of "gloves off." IronDuke 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    Much of the article concerns allegations against people who are very much alive and have sued for libel, so BLP very definitely does apply. The article has been and is being targeted by POV-pushers who wish to state the allegations as fact - not acceptable under either WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. As for the warning on my talk page, since you have a track record of harassing administrators whose actions you disapprove of, I think you can expect some close scrutiny in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, the article mentions living people. No, your edits were not calculated to protect them; I note you never mention BLP in your edit summaries. There may well be POV-pushing going on, though I think it possible that you are engaged in it as well.
    I do not believe I have ever harrassed an adminstrator in my entire career here. I will question when I see an adminstrator - or regular editor- doing something I think is unhelpful, but I do so within the letter and the spirit of policies here, something I don't think you can claim. Contrary to your assertion, I am not a problem user. I have never been blocked, or even threatened with it, except by you. I note that you, as an admin, have been blocked relatively recently.
    You are free to scrutinize me, though I hope you are aware that you may not block me for reasons good or bad, due to our long and (very unfortunate) ever-growing record of conflict. I also hope you won't edit-war with me -- you'll note I'm not reverting your edits (though I disagree with some of them), and I'd like to keep things that way. However, if I violate 3rr, feel free to drop a report here. I could hardly blame you, could I? IronDuke 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    Addendum: can you say, for each of your edits, which specific living person was being protected? IronDuke 01:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see how we can censure an editor for going over 3RR if he can make a reasonable case that he is removing BLP violations. The fact that there is a court case where specific individuals were charged for libel makes it an obvious BLP issue. I don't think we have to do a complete analysis of who is right for every specific claim. From quickly reading over the recent edits to the article you can tell that defamation is arguable, in many different directions. I hope that Chris will not continue to revert without a more detailed discussion on the article's Talk page, where he has not left any comments so far. If after this moment there is an ongoing revert war we should consider protection. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    Well, respectfully, I'd ask you the same question I asked Chris: which edits that Chris made protected a specific person? In fact, all the POV edits to this article, from both sides, are simply skewing the story towards "The Palestinians staged it," to "The journalist committed libel." Chris's edits are more supportive of the those who condemn the journalist, which would violate BLP, not defend it. And I can't see how repeated removals of the category Violence in Media is somehow a BLP issue -- and that's three of the reversions. Another is removing a source saying the Israelis could not have killed al-Durrah (which is a BLP violation how?) and the other reversion also removes material that supports the Israeli position. All of which may be justifiable, but not on BLP grounds, and not for violating 3rr. IronDuke 03:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    I presume by "journalist" you mean the defendant blogger (not journalist) rather than the plaintiff TV reporter. The simple fact of the matter is that the case has been badly misreported by many English-language blogs, which some editors have tried to use as sources. Other editors have misrepresented what the court's verdict actually said (as in this instance). The verdict is a lot more nuanced that some have claimed - it upheld the finding that the blogger's comments had been defamatory but quashed the libel conviction, and it said there was legitimate doubt about the accuracy of the reporter's reporting, but did not support the plaintiff's allegations. Now, considering that this article concerns a court case for defamation, as well as covering the allegations that are the subject of the case, we have a responsibility to ensure that the case is reported accurately. It would be irresponsible for us to let the article state as fact claims that a court has already found to be defamatory, and it would be just as irresponsible to misrepresent the court case in a way that would itself be defamatory. Many political activists want to "convict" the reporter but that's not what we're here for. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    I should add that no revert war is ongoing, and I have discussed some of the edits with one of the editors involved (see User talk:Gilabrand#NPOV and categories). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Reverts occured, in this particular instance, on the 21st and 22nd of May. It's now the 23rd. Stale. Scarian 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Parlimen Rembau reported by User:Singopo (Result: Stale. )

    • Despite warnings, this user continues to make the same reverts.
    Stale. Scarian 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Aimulti reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Stale. )

    • 4 reversions to previous version within this diff: 23:19, 22 May 2008

    This occurred immediately after release of blocks for personal attacks and sockpuppetry, both related to this article.

    I NEVER was involved in sockpuppetry. Someone I knew joined the debate, without my knowledge, and I was honest enough to admit that this person was probably known to me. How can I control the actions of others? I even went so far as to tag them as one topic editors (with the other two one topic editors) but somehow got logged out and my IP, instead of user name, appeared on the tags. I was again accused of using a sockpuppet but was later cleared. I have played by the rules (unlike others involved in this heated debate) but have made some errors as I am new to Misplaced Pages (Novice editor). This special interest (hate group) attack on me has nothing to do with the quality of Misplaced Pages but is vendetta motivated. NOTE. I DO NOT include Todd in this group, just the one topic editors so tagged.Aimulti (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Stale Scarian 10:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:DrGabriela reported by Merzbow (talk) (Result: x2 24 hour blocks )

    Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DrGabriela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 03:46, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Here is more of your "evidence" that I agree with half of the editors: the Japan section in full is appropriate. Sorry to disagree with you, William.")
    2. 03:55, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Once more.")
    3. 05:30, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "revert account with only a small handful of edits and no participation on the talk page about this subject.")
    4. 05:32, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "revert Merzbow's billionth sock puppet.")
    5. 05:34, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "very funny. Revert vandal SPA account.")
    6. 05:36, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "fprdm")
    7. 05:39, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "rv vandal SPA account")
    • Diff of warning: here

    SPAs out of control. I've already requested full prot at WP:RPP, we will never have peace until this ArbCom case finishes. —Merzbow (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Like A Rainbow and Dr.Gabriela both blocked for 24 hours for extreme 3RR violation. I will watch the article and take further action if necessary. Scarian 10:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Almalabaari and User:Joeblckw reported by User:Pseudomonas (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks )

    While both editors have been reverting each other over this and so I feel I ought to report both, I have some sympathy with the argument of Joeblckw in that he has been removing fairly egregious POV-pushing. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Alm. and Joe. both blocked for 24 hours. Scarian 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Andyvphil reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: 1 week)

    Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 16:28, 22 May 2008 (edit summary: "Ayers:“Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.” Google it.")
    2. 12:58, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "rv weaselly revert 214358883 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Wright is an "activist", Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists, and since they -admit- to being bombers it's hardly libel to say so.")
    3. 15:31, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214435958 by Loonymonkey (talk) restore material necessary for NPOV")
    4. 15:31, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "rv rvt 214421028 by Modocc. Undo weasel, again.")
    5. 17:29, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Presidential campaign: estore Ayers") (added by --Bobblehead 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

    (3rd and 4th edits are consecutive, so I suppose the count as one)

    This user has previously been blocked for edit warring on the same article. This is largely revolving around a content dispute on one of Misplaced Pages's most popular articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    I've added another revert by Andy that seems to be a gaming of the system by waiting 25 hours from his first revert in order to restore his preferred wording. --Bobblehead 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 1 week, given several prior 3RR violations and blocks. There are a handful of additional reverts just outside the 24-hour window, e.g. , which add to a picture of ongoing edit-warring and possibly gaming 3RR. MastCell  22:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Chenyangw reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: Stale. )


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

    This user was blocked less than three days ago for edit warring on this article, specifically for trying to insert the exact same text that he continues to revert to. Once his block expired, he resumed the edit war. He initially demanded sources saying that the Chinese government were the ones questioning the report (even though the Chinese census is quoted in the next sentence). Then, when I rewrote the sentence to clarify exactly what the findings are conflicting with, he reverted again as being poor english. Subsequent reverts have demanded that I use the talk page, but without explaining further why he's reverted the changes. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Stale. Scarian 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*6 reversions to previous version within this diff:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories: