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 06:41, 24 December 2006 editCJCurrie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators74,750 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 06:49, 24 December 2006 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits don't move posts, pleaseNext edit →
Line 343: Line 343:


:No, it was still a self-revert. You also left something out: right after I removed the tag, you restored the disputed information '''without''' restoring the tag as well. You also made a series of edits between 07:24 and 08:37, despite having made three reverts a few hours earlier: the very definition of a borderline 3RR violation, unless I'm quite mistaken. Who exactly was system gaming, here? ] 05:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC) :No, it was still a self-revert. You also left something out: right after I removed the tag, you restored the disputed information '''without''' restoring the tag as well. You also made a series of edits between 07:24 and 08:37, despite having made three reverts a few hours earlier: the very definition of a borderline 3RR violation, unless I'm quite mistaken. Who exactly was system gaming, here? ] 05:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

⚫ == --] <sup>]</sup> 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC) replies==

⚫ I am not interested in ]'s petty edit war. His complaint is childish; and I wish he would leave me be. If necessary, I will self-revert to respect the 3RR rule.--] <sup>]</sup> 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


====Apology==== ====Apology====
Line 349: Line 353:


I'd like to apologize to everyone for letting this dispute get out of hand. I realize this isn't the place for it, and I'll endeavour not to let this happen again. ] 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC) I'd like to apologize to everyone for letting this dispute get out of hand. I realize this isn't the place for it, and I'll endeavour not to let this happen again. ] 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

⚫ == --] <sup>]</sup> 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC) replies==

⚫ I am not interested in ]'s petty edit war. His complaint is childish; and I wish he would leave me be. If necessary, I will self-revert to respect the 3RR rule.--] <sup>]</sup> 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


=== Sample violation report to copy === === Sample violation report to copy ===

Revision as of 06:49, 24 December 2006

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


    This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
    Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.


    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Codex_Sinaiticus reported by User:JDG (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Shroud of Turin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Codex_Sinaiticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 10:47
    • 2nd revert: 12:11
    • 3rd revert: 14:42
    • 4th revert: 14:49


    Comments: This user, Codex Sinaiticus, is destroying a balance in the first paragraph of Shroud of Turin that took many weeks to work out back when the article was elevated to FA. He is doing this by inserting unproven/unprovable statements about the exact nature of image formation on the Shroud: that is, he insists it is a literal photographic negative process. Debate about the "negativeness" of the image is handled very well and in detail in the body of the article. Repeatedly inserting one-sided material on it in the intro paragraph is having an extremely destructive effect on the piece as a whole. JDG 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    This 3RR "violation" should be retracted, since the so-called "4th revert" above was not a revert at all, but the placement of a NPOV tag, since I am disputing the NPOV of the article. And while completely irrelevant to this page, the above is a total mischaracterization of my position; I am insisting nothing of the sort, only that this is one of the positions that should be represented, not suppressed. Thanks ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    rv 4 is the placement of an NPOV tag. To my surprise, this tag hasn't been warred over recently - unless you can show it has been within, say, a month, then its only 3R William M. Connolley 21:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:EnglishEfternamn reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Michael Savage (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • 1st 3RR Warning
    • 2nd 3RR Warning (by an admin)

    Comments: This user continues to revert to his version of a WP:BLP article, inserting unsourced, POV information in violation of WP:V, WP:BLP and others. When it is removed, he reinstates it, calling the removal "vandalism". He violated yesterday and was not reported. At least 5 editors, including two admins have attempted to explain what is wrong with his edits, but it has become clear he is just being obstinate. He has been warned at least three times by two different admins, both on his talk page and on the talk page of the article yet he continues to revert over 5 times just today.--WilliamThweatt 21:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 09:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:67.80.238.244 reported by User:Bdve (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Rated-RKO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.80.238.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: I see that this is an anon user and probably doesn't know the rules, but I started a discussion for the (minor) change on the talk page and directed people in there in an edit summary, then dropped a note on the IPs talk page. Since their last edit was from that same IP they should have seen it.

    Ok, just a comment myself. I read (did you?) the first paragraph which says, "If you find yourself in a revert war, it is a good idea to ensure that the "other side" is aware of the 3RR, especially if they are new, by leaving a warning about WP:3RR on their talk page. Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned. If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page WP:AN/3RR." Why even make this report when you haven't explained to them the WP:3RR rule yet, nor told them that you have made this report??


    2006-12-21T23:41:12 Zoe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "67.80.238.244 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (multiple vandalisms to Team-RKO) William M. Connolley 10:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Anonimu reported by gcbirzan (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on History of Romania since 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    I've warned him on 00:30, 22 December 2006 about the three reverts rule. He was also warned previously on 21:21, 26 October 2006 by User:FunkyFly. He was previously blocked for violating the rule, as stated on his talk page.

    Comments: He preferred reverting to discussing these changes on the talk page. Also, his last revert is of a different section, but on the same issue. The recording has, in Romanian, Ion Iliescu saying (as mentioned by me on the commit): "Thanks for answering our call again", "The delegation of miners, lead by Miron Cosma, will head towards the University Square, which we want you to re-occupy", "I thank you all people you can count on, for good and especially for worse". Also, the French bit states "Iliescu appealed to the miners to re-establish order".

    Gcbirzan was also in violation of 3RR. He should be blocked as well, correct? Or am I missing something? :) --Woohookitty 12:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry. Forgot to note: 24h. As to Gcb... probably, though I haven't checked. Feel free William M. Connolley 12:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    Hum. While I admit I was close to it, I haven't (I think, might be wrong.). The 00:55, 22 December 2006 wasn't a revert. I cited sources. (Albeit unnecessarily, in my opinion...) gcbirzan 15:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


    User:A4 reported by User:Grafikm_fr (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Holodomor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User has been pushing a heavy POV agenda on this article for quite some time now (with offensive summaries like "remove trolling") and broke the 3RR rule, therefore a block is in order. Incidentally, user is known for 3RR violations, so a little longer one might be in order. -- Grafikm 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rjensen reported by User:Pmanderson (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on History of the United States Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: four exact reversions, of two different versions, by two different editors; the edit summaries should make clear this is a substantive editing disagreement. The text reverted to, despite the lapse of time, is just before the first reverted edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Jordanmills reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on OffTopic.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jordanmills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Also note Mechagrover, which uses the same exact edit summary ("rv repeated vandalism") and happened to come up at just the same time as Jordanmills did. Hbdragon88 23:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    Jackman333 also performed the same revert and also blanked the talk page when someone warned him about his/her revert. Hbdragon88 23:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Jackman added nonsense, but he didn't revert, sorry about that. Hbdragon88 02:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:ZakuSage reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Console wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ZakuSage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Ridiculous edit war. Filing a RFPP afer this 3RR report.

    In my admittedly feeble defense, I was trying to bring the page back to pre-dispute status in order to get a proper discussion going of the proposed edits. Additionally, even though it really wouldn't matter after the third, the 4th listed is not a revert. - ZakuSage

    User:Josquius reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Console wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Josquius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Ridiculous edit war. Filing a RFPP afer this 3RR report. Hbdragon88 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:195.29.133.237 reported by User:Samboy (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mel_Mermelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 195.29.133.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Comments: I feel it is fair to revert to the other version because "removal of unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living people is an excepted from the rule". Also note that this IP is going against both my wishes and the wishes of another editor. Samboy 06:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Samboy reported by User:195.29.133.237 (Result:User:195.29.133.237 blocked for 24h for 4RR)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mel_Mermelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Samboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Comments: The user abuses the 3RR rule to repetedly revert the page without having contributed to content AT ALL or discussing my edits. The reverted version also contains proven errors and unsubstantiated claims, which both he and another user refuse to address (see last section of talk page).

    User:Somethingoranother reported by User:Dppowell (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Somethingoranother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    Comments: The last 48 hours of this user's edit history and Talk:Ireland more or less speak for themselves on this. Please note that the user also blanked his talk page in an apparent attempt to obscure previous warnings. Dppowell 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    Excuse me but the edit war on the article Ireland has came to an end as a general consensus has been agreed upon and implemented. I'll kindly ask you to refrain from reporting me to Administrators simply as a way to try and get your own back on me because I disagreed with your views in the past. Regards Somethingoranother 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Olivierd reported by User:Trevyn (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Foie_gras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Olivierd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Removed the same passage 4x. User has been previously blocked for 3RR, on Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars, no less. —Trevyn 01:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


    User:72.184.244.25 reported by User:Coelacan (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Christian_extremist_terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.184.244.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Here is the 3RR warning: . Not all of these reverts are exactly the same, but the theme is the removal of religious motivations for these groups and replacing them all with racist motivations. This is probably preparatory work for user's stated intention to have the article deleted: .

    User:Lance6968 reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Palestine:_Peace_Not_Apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lance6968 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This one's a bit complicated, so bear with me.

    Comment: During the time that Lance made these reverts, a discussion concerning the 3RR was taking place on the talk page. In the course of this discussion, I was wrongly accused of breaking the 3RR, and accused of "gaming the system" (a charge I've also denied). The person who made these complaints was silent about Lance's edits. CJCurrie 05:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    CJCurrie's reverts were 49 minutes outside the 3RR "limit" — diffs here — which is why I was "silent" about reporting Lance's reverts. It seems a little unfair to report one series of complex, partial reverts and ignore the other for the sake of 49 minutes. SlimVirgin 05:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    SlimVirgin is mistaken. I self-reverted one of my prior reverts (the one from 01:00, 23 December 2006), and so did not even come close to violating the 3RR. More generally, I will note that SlimVirgin has spent extensive time criticizing me for my non-violation, and has been silent on Lance's actual violation (here, and on the talk page). Methinks a double standard is being imposed, and I can't help but wonder if the complaints against me constitute a form of harrassment.
    None of this has anything to do with Lance's situation, of course. CJCurrie 05:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    This is typical of the way you system game, to be honest, and I want to have nothing more to do with it. You had not self-reverted by the time I posted the diffs showing you'd violated 3RR. You were deliberately engaged in making it hard to see what you were doing, because of the reverting, self-reverting, then more reverting. Anyway, as I said, I've had enough. SlimVirgin 05:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    I self-reverted at 2:28, 23 December 2006. You posted the diffs at 9:43, 23 December 2006. So, I can understand why you might not want to discuss this further. Anyway, I'm getting tired of your ad hominem attacks against me, and your seeming inability to admit having made any mistakes yourself. CJCurrie 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    Also, I believe it's considered bad form to remove someone else's disputed template mere minutes after it's first posted. CJCurrie 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    Looking the history, you didn't self-revert your addition of the tag. All that happened was you later took the tag down because someone had removed the material you didn't like. That's not what's meant by "self-revert," and this is exactly what I mean about system-gaming and rules-lawyering. This is my last comment, I hope. SlimVirgin 05:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    No, it was still a self-revert. You also left something out: right after I removed the tag, you restored the disputed information without restoring the tag as well. You also made a series of edits between 07:24 and 08:37, despite having made three reverts a few hours earlier: the very definition of a borderline 3RR violation, unless I'm quite mistaken. Who exactly was system gaming, here? CJCurrie 05:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    --Lance 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC) replies

    I am not interested in CJCurrie's petty edit war. His complaint is childish; and I wish he would leave me be. If necessary, I will self-revert to respect the 3RR rule.--Lance 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    Apology

    God, what a mess.

    I'd like to apologize to everyone for letting this dispute get out of hand. I realize this isn't the place for it, and I'll endeavour not to let this happen again. CJCurrie 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    Sample violation report to copy

    ===] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* 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. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Categories: