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 07:44, 21 January 2007 editSarvagnya (talk | contribs)9,152 editsm →[] reported by [] (Result:)← Previous edit Revision as of 07:51, 21 January 2007 edit undoSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,206 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:): commentNext edit →
Line 408: Line 408:
::::::I'd be willing to block both for 24 hours, but I don't like undoing other admins' work if they object, so I'll put a note on William's and Sandstein's talk pages and ask for their opinion. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ::::::I'd be willing to block both for 24 hours, but I don't like undoing other admins' work if they object, so I'll put a note on William's and Sandstein's talk pages and ask for their opinion. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::So, just so I'm clear on this, you don't see a decision as being vandalism even if vandalism warnings were made, attempts to dialogue attempted, and blanking of cited material continuing despite a big "final warning" being placed on the user page? I guess it's a good thing Jossi called you for a second opinion then! ] 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC) :::::::So, just so I'm clear on this, you don't see a decision as being vandalism even if vandalism warnings were made, attempts to dialogue attempted, and blanking of cited material continuing despite a big "final warning" being placed on the user page? I guess it's a good thing Jossi called you for a second opinion then! ] 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(De-indent) I was the admin blocking {{vandal|VictorO}} for 1 week on an AIV request by Mael-Num, and now I've been requested to comment here. As far as I could then tell, VictorO was repeatedly removing large amounts of content that looked ''prima facie'' quite valid and that did not appear to be unsourced libelous material, without engaging in any discussion about it. Looking closer though, it's probably better to characterise this as a content dispute about the appropriateness of external links, as SlimVirgin does. So, now what?
* I'd not reduce the block on VictorO until he actually complains about it. When he posts an {{tl|unblock}} message, we'll have a request to consider.
* I can see how it could have been justified to have also blocked his fellow edit warrior for 3RR (with which policy, I'll have to admit, I don't have a lot of experience). I'm just not sure what the point would be to do this ''now'', as the edit war is perforce over now. In my understanding of ] blocks are ever only preventative and not punitive in nature.
At any rate, the time spent here might be better spent on the article talk page discussing the appropriateness of the content at issue. I hope these comments have been helpful and I'll not revert any action of SlimVirgin that they might want to take in this issue. Best, ] 07:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 07:51, 21 January 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

    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.

    Please place new reports at the bottom.


    User:RCS reported by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on List of very tall men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    There may have been a lot more than this that I missed



    Comments: Sorry if my report was formatted incorrectly. I don't normally report people on this board. Subject was warned about 3RR policy. Although I'm not sure if he's considered "new," he clearly read my warning (and repsonded to it on my talk page), and continued reverting.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    Looking at his contriubtions, it's clear RCS is not a new user and should have been well aware of 3RR prior to my warning.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


    Reply : The Fat Man Who Never Came Back popped up in the middle of a conflict and took party for the wrong side. If you look at the history of the page, you'll see that some IP's (later appearing under an username) just don't want the 6ft 4 section to be kept deleted as it was for good reason for several days already. I don't know what's on The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's mind, but he certainly ain't an honest broker. RCS 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Aquarelle reported by User:Grcampbell (Result: warning)

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

    • No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Misplaced Pages policies. (I also believe that it is a sockpuppet of User:Hardouin


    Comments: Reverting to a version using French whilst discussion is taking place regarding this very issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Anglicisation. Other editors have ceased editing these articles for this issue to be resolved yet this user is continuing to edit. Clear bad faith editing. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    My reversions were to the previously established version which came before user:Grcampbell's controversial edits. No evidence that other editors have refrained from editing this articles : they are not often modified. I violated the 3RR by 30 minutes after confusing UTC with UTC+1 (where I live), my apologies. I am not a sockpuppet, and I resent the libelous, unmitigated accusation. --Aquarelle 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    The fact you were waiting for 24 hours to pass does not negate the accusation of edit warring. 24-hours is a guideline, not a hard rule, trying to argue that edits fall just outside or inside a 24-hr window is wikilawyering. --Matthew 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Aquarelle reported by User:Grcampbell (Result: warning)

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

    • No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Misplaced Pages policies. (I also believe that it is a sockpuppet of User:Hardouin as the user reverts to French when he is upset, edits almost exclusively on France related articles and Hardouin has a history of suspected sockpuppetry, although nothing has been proved to my knowledge. Weak evidence, but that is neither here nor there for this abuse of the 3RR). User is now trolling my talk page. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    Comments: Reverting to a version using French whilst discussion is taking place regarding this very issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Anglicisation. Other editors have ceased editing these articles for this issue to be resolved yet this user is continuing to edit. Clear bad faith editing. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    My reversions were to the previously established version which came before user:Grcampbell's controversial edits. No evidence that other editors have refrained from editing this articles : they are not often modified. I violated the 3RR by 30 minutes after confusing UTC with UTC+1 (where I live), my apologies. I am not a sockpuppet, and I resent the libelous, unmitigated accusation. --Aquarelle 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:TharkunColl reported by User:MarkThomas (Result:No block, warned)

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

    Comments: User is involved in an edit war on United Kingdom to do with not replacing the infobox map. He has been blocked before for 3RR and has had many similar warnings on other pages, see User talk:TharkunColl for details.

    This is not true. I uploaded many different maps, and at no time reverted to the same one more than twice. However, User:MarkThomas has indeed reverted to the same map more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, and even removed the official warning I gave him on his talk page. TharkunColl 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    It is true that in several of the cases above TharkunColl made subtle changes to the map he uploaded in a deliberate effort to avoid 3RR, but each time he was reverting the same Euro-map which is the bone of contention. If I've transgressed it was in an effort to stop this flagrant breach of Misplaced Pages rules, and would be happy to accept a block for it. MarkThomas 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    No, this is a travesty of what I actually did. I made a map and uploaded it, then the following day made a very different map because people had expressed an opinion to show the EU. The only person who broke the 3RR rule is User:MarkThomas. I did not report him, because in my opinion crying to the teacher is petty. TharkunColl 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    It's really pointless you going on like this Tharkun - the admins can see the log of diffs for themselves and will be able to decide on the evidence. MarkThomas 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    Absolutely! I have made a number of different maps based on what was discussed. All you did was revert to the same map. TharkunColl 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    Except it wasn't just me, you were busy changing reverts by other editors too, as you are doing tonight on United Kingdom. MarkThomas 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    You reverted to the same map four times. I listed the times you did this on your talk page, but you deleted it (twice). I have proposed a succession of different maps based on the discussion for that day. I have not uploaded any map more that 3 times in 24 hours. You, on the other hand, uploaded the same map 4 times. TharkunColl 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    This is the place where I inserted the official warning onto User:MarkThomas's talk page for breaking 3RR (it also lists the times that he broke it) . He deleted my warning, and deleted it again when I put it back. User:MarkThomas appears to be under the impression that he has achieved some sort of consensus regarding the European maps issue, but this is very far from the case as a perusal of Talk:European Union will reveal. My intention was to create a better map for the United Kingdom article, and each new one I created was based on discussions held at Talk:United Kingdom over a period of three days. User:MarkThomas, however, apparently felt that he had an overriding right to continually remove my maps, based on discussions he had had on a different talk page - and in so doing breached 3RR. My own opinion is that an appropriate map always enhances Misplaced Pages, but a shoddy one devalues it. To see a selection of maps that I have created, including the three different ones under discussion here, please see my user page User:TharkunColl. TharkunColl 09:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    Comment: Dismiss. This is not a 3RR case but a content dispute. I suggest both users take a deep breath and discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages. --Asterion 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    (editconflict) :As I can see discussion on the talk page of the article, and you seem to have reached an agreement as to the usage of the image, no blocks will be issued at this time. However, blocks will be used as a preventive measure to deter editors from edit-warring further. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Sarvagnya reported by User:RaveenS (Result: no block)

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

    Comments: The above mentioned user has been blocked prior to this. Others have in the past complained about his behavior number of times . In the above mentioned article he is in edit war with others and has personally attacked other Wikipedians. He has called other editors “apologists of terror groups” and I have tried to reason with the editor to allow the wiki process to take it it cause but he refuses to let a request for comment to resolve this issue harmoniously instead keeps reverting the article. In the last 48 hours he had reverted it 4 times.RaveenS 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    In addition on Saare Jahan Se Achcha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a clear desire to edit war and troll can be found in the page history. Reverts on that page span 4 reverts in 25 hours Bakaman 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    71.139.4.32 reported by Griot (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Chris Daly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.139.4.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 14:56, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk)
    • 2nd revert: 10:01, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk)
    • 3rd revert: 01:36, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk)
    • 4th revert: 01:34, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk)


    Comments: User has repeatedly reverted over a period of several weeks. I have placed 3 Rule warnings on his/her page, but they were ignored. Griot 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Admin comment. There's not much point in a 3RR block, since this user obviously is resetting his/her IP regularly. A semi-protect will stop the shenanigens for a while. Bucketsofg 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result:Page protected)

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

    For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->

    • Necessary only for new users: Not a new user

    Comments: Check also user's block log. All reverts are about removing a "border issue" section, which was agreed in Talk by 4 editors (me, User:Dl.goe, User:Dpotop and User:TSO1D) , but with which User:William Mauco don't agree. Some of reverts are also about removing other information. I have to mention that "border issues" section was a stable part of this unstable article from 2 September until end of December and its removal was one of the reasons of the edit war which was the cause of article protection for 3 weeks.--MariusM 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    I made four edits, and not all four were clearcut reverts. The page was protected until less than 24 hours ago. Instead of seeking consensus in Talk, User:MariusM waited until it was unprotected. Then he immediately launched onto the page and made 9 major edits within 7 hours. It is not just a "border issues" section, as he claims, and he did not wait for consensus. In fact, some of the editors whom he cites are involved with me in an ongoing and very constructive discussion on how to improve this section in Talk:Transnistria right now. May I also request that you look closely at the DIFFs which he provides, as one of them shows an alternate border issues section added by me (and proposed by another user) which had broader support and consensus on the talk page. - Mauco 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    All 4 are reverts, at least regarding "border issues" section. There is no alternative border issue section added by Mauco. Some are also reverts regarding US Department of State position or of usage of word "officially" regarding Pridnestrovie name for Transnistria. All issues were long discussed in Talk. Anybody who check my edit count can see that I have a lot more edits in Talk pages than in mainspaces, the claim that I don't seek consensus in talk is fake.--MariusM 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    Nishkid has protected the talk page; also a good amount of time has elapsed since you engaged in edit-warring. I do not see blocks as being useful. Both the users have breached WP:3RR; and will not be subjected to leniency next time. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Ramananpi reported by User:125.22.132.241 (Result: no block)

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

    Comments: User has history of reverting and deleting content with citations and adding content without citations including blogs.Please also see his reverts on Jan 3rd.this is despite another anon requseting in the talk page not to revert and adding expert India to accomodate is his point of view.125.22.132.241 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:MariusM reported by User:William Mauco (Result:Page protected)

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

    For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->

    • Necessary only for new users: Not a new user, but I warned him anyway out of courtesy:

    Comments: Cronic edit warrior, see his block log. Frequent use of uncivil and/or misleading edit comments. Background: Transnistria was under full protection due to previous revert warring. Many of us are in the process of working out the issues in Talk at this point in time, and making progress. Protection was prematurely lifted in 19 Jan at 12:56. Immediately thereafter, User:MariusM took advantage of this by falsely claiming "consensus" when there was none, adding disputed pet POV items, and removing of stable features of the article. Despite nine edits in seven or eight hours, he was notably unwilling to seriously discuss most of this in the same period in the article's Talk page where I and other editors meanwhile kept working on developing acceptable phrasing, with a lot of progress. - Mauco 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    Only 5th, 8th and 9th are reverts, rest are edits long discussed in talk. Some of them are consecutive edits for different part of the article (you can see my name in previous edit). In fact, Mauco want to have veto rights for all Transnistria-related articles. Talk page is showing that the majority of editors accepted the changes that I added, only Mauco was against, he broke the 3RR (see above report) and I had to revert him. I stopped at 3 reverts.--MariusM 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    As an example of bad faith by the person who reported me, he agreed to remove the paragraph "Transnistria in popular culture" , however now he listed the agreed edit as my 4th revert. Also, he agreed to split the "violent incidents" section in "antisemitic incidents" and "explosions" but now he is reporting this agreed edit as my 3rd revert.--MariusM 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    Page has been protected by admin Nishkid64. See above. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Toajaller3146 reported by User:Axem Titanium (Result:12h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Kingdom Hearts series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Toajaller3146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: This user has also added content of a similar nature farther back but they aren't direct reverts so I guess they don't count. He has been warned several times for several policy violations on his talk page but they have been summarily ignored or denied. Axem Titanium 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    12h. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Supaman89 reported by User:Corticopia

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

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

    Continued reverts in 24 hr; also see above:

    • 5th revert (I think):
    • 6th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Comments: After some rigmarole and prior edit warring (admittedly), an agreeable version of the article -- namely about Mexico's location in the Americas -- has surfaced. However, this user continues to revert to a biased version and eliminate unrelated edits (which are cited), is rather beligerent, has been warned by me and another editor about etiquette, and is also deliberately trying to incite an edit war and get me 'banned', soliciting assistance from another editor (translation: he's 'tiring' of me); also consult talk page. Corticopia 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    The "previous version" is supposed to be the one he is reverting to, so we know that the first revert is indeed a revert William M. Connolley 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    Fixed; now, can you or someone investigate and take action? Corticopia 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

    Comments: Continually adding of a spamlink to an image gallery -- not only to this article but to a number of bio articles -- under the premise that "they're models, so it should be allowed."

    User:193.219.28.146 reported by User:Axlq (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Ass to mouth (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.219.28.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Anonymous editor persists in writing an inflammatory trolling comment on the Talk:Ass to mouth, in spite of warnings and explanations. In between those reverts, a tag was added to the top of the page explaining that this article had survived an AfD, in the hope that this would convince the anon editor to stop the trolling. That intermediate version is now the "previous version reverted to", not the earlier version prior to the trolling edits.

    He has been reverted by a group of (I think 5, maybe 4) editors now. Please block him as he is not helping improve the article just making wide ranging comments about the site.-Localzuk 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    This is one little comment. Please, stop using misleading plural form "comments". Thank you. 193.219.28.146 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    2007-01-21T00:20:04 Wangi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "193.219.28.146 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruption) William M. Connolley 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:VictorO reported by User:jossi (Result: 1 week)

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

    Comments
    • request 24 hrs block for 3RR and another 24 hrs for disruption

    2007-01-20T22:21:02 Sandstein (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "VictorO (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism) William M. Connolley 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Mael-Num reported by User:jossi (Result:)

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

    Comments
    • Request 24 hrs block for 3RR violation and another 24 hrs for disruption

    In view of the prev block for vandalism, no block William M. Connolley 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    This user was as disrupting as the other, reverting without seeking consensus, on an an item that is disputed and that is being discussed. I would request a re-assesment of the unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    I made my determination purely on the basis of the other edits being decreed vandalism. I'm happy for others to look at this users edits, though William M. Connolley 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    William, It is unacceptable that a user can get way with violating 3RR, by claiming that he is "reverting vandalism". The material that one was adding and the other removing, is currently being discussed by other editor's at that article's talk page. New users need to learn not to engage in edit wars, and I had hoped that both editwarriors be blocked for 48hrs or more. I would appreciate another pair of eyes to reassess the unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    If I may speak in my own defense, I attempted to open discussion with my fellow editors through the edit notes and submitted requests for dialogue and ultimately warnings on users' talk pages. Two admins reviewing this situation, William M. Connolley and Sandstein, seem to be in agreement that the reverts were vandalism, and that I therefore shouldn't be banned. Is it really necessary to continue soliciting additional opinions? Mael-Num 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    I was asked to comment here. I can't see how the edits that were reverted could count as vandalism. It looks like a regular content dispute about whether the external links were appropriate, and as such I see it as a clear 3RR violation. SlimVirgin 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Am I to take it now that Jossi is privately soliciting opinions to have me removed from participating in the Prem Rawat article, while pro-Rawat editors simultaneously rip the article apart? . As it is, due to this spurious set of accusations, my hands are tied in protecting long-stable material that has consensus for being there. Am I the only one who finds all this a teensy bit suspect? Mael-Num 03:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    "long stable material"? The material about which you edit warred was added yesterday. Rather than revert each other and violate 3RR, you could have discussed rather than accusing a fellow editor of vandalism, to get him blocked as you did here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, the material being removed in my examples above has, for at least several months, been part of the article Criticism of Prem Rawat, which despite consensus being against merging, was suddenly (and expertly) merged by a previously uninvolved editor, with no prior indication that this was to be done and no apparent solicitation of his help or advice. I could show that there was no consensus for this move, and that the material was stable, but all information was expunged from Criticism of Prem Rawat, so I have no evidence to give. I noted the behavior of vandalism, and followed proceedure, and the involved admin agreed with my assessment and took appropriate steps. Mael-Num 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    No material was deleted in the merge by a third-party editor. In any case, note that this board is not to discuss content disputes, Mael, but to look into violations of WP:3RR and disruption. 03:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    That is a straw man argument. I never claimed it was deleted in the merge, but stated explicitly that it is occurring now, after the (unexpected and contested) move occurred. I offer this information not to seek resolution on it but so that investigating admins may more readily understand the "bigger picture" of events involved. Why are you trying to minimize this point and misrepresent my argument? Mael-Num 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Because there is no excuse to editwarring, and no excuse to disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, as you did with your six reverts and spurious "vandalism" reports and sockpuppet acussation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    And that's the reason for misrepresenting my argument? Quite Machiavellian, IMO. Mael-Num 05:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Also note that William did not support the block, just unblocked you because of the allegations of vandalism upon which Sandstein blocked your edit warring partner. He asked for other admins to take a look and did not oppose a review. My opinion is that both of you should be blocked for 24 hrs for 3RR violation and another 24hrs for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that William didn't look into the matter and make a judgement on his own? Mael-Num 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Read what he says, Mael "I made my determination purely on the basis of the other edits being decreed vandalism. I'm happy for others to look at this users edits". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    So you're saying that, in William's judgement, it's likely that another admin's decision that it was vandalism was probably a good decision? Or are you saying that William just closed his eyes and started mashing buttons? Mael-Num 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    And finally, I would ask you to be cautious with your accusations of socket puppetry as you did here. If you have such suspicions place a request at WP:RFCU and provide the necessary evidence as per policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    I wouldn't have blocked VictorO for vandalism either. Both parties appear to have violated 3RR. Both should be blocked for 24 hours; longer if they're engaged in other disruption, or if they've been blocked several times already for 3RR. SlimVirgin 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    That's an odd opinion, given that he received warnings of vandalism both on his talk page and in the comments section of the article's history. I know for a fact that he saw the vandalism notices in history, as he mimicked them back to me. Mael-Num 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    I would ask that admins checking this board, implement a 24 to 48 hr block on both users. VictorO (talk · contribs) to be unblocked and re-blocked and Mael-Num (talk · contribs) to be blocked for the same period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    I'd be willing to block both for 24 hours, but I don't like undoing other admins' work if they object, so I'll put a note on William's and Sandstein's talk pages and ask for their opinion. SlimVirgin 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    So, just so I'm clear on this, you don't see a decision as being vandalism even if vandalism warnings were made, attempts to dialogue attempted, and blanking of cited material continuing despite a big "final warning" being placed on the user page? I guess it's a good thing Jossi called you for a second opinion then! Mael-Num 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    (De-indent) I was the admin blocking VictorO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 week on an AIV request by Mael-Num, and now I've been requested to comment here. As far as I could then tell, VictorO was repeatedly removing large amounts of content that looked prima facie quite valid and that did not appear to be unsourced libelous material, without engaging in any discussion about it. Looking closer though, it's probably better to characterise this as a content dispute about the appropriateness of external links, as SlimVirgin does. So, now what?

    • I'd not reduce the block on VictorO until he actually complains about it. When he posts an {{unblock}} message, we'll have a request to consider.
    • I can see how it could have been justified to have also blocked his fellow edit warrior for 3RR (with which policy, I'll have to admit, I don't have a lot of experience). I'm just not sure what the point would be to do this now, as the edit war is perforce over now. In my understanding of WP:BP blocks are ever only preventative and not punitive in nature.

    At any rate, the time spent here might be better spent on the article talk page discussing the appropriateness of the content at issue. I hope these comments have been helpful and I'll not revert any action of SlimVirgin that they might want to take in this issue. Best, Sandstein 07:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Martin181 reported by User:SteveLamacq43 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Brock Lesnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Martin181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: 3rd time this user has broken the rule on the same article. SteveLamacq43 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:MarkThomas, User:Haham hanuka reported by User:Feba

    Three-revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mark


    Haham


    Complex, need an admin to look through this and over this to decide who all is at fault and what actions should be taken. -- feb 02:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Actually as far as I can tell, none of us were specifically in breach of 3RR, although there has been some frustrating editing going on. Perhaps if Feba can fill out the template properly, we can speed things up! MarkThomas 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah, sorry about that, busy busy -- feb 02:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    The 5 you present as mine are in the wrong order and two of them are the same edit done in two steps. The remaining three are spaced over more than 24 hours. A simple check on the history page will confirm this. MarkThomas 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    I know they're backwards. I don't have any programs or bots making this easier on me. This is all CTRL+V. And again man, it's not worth getting angry on wikipedia. I'm not taking sides in this, because I don't really care about the subject, I care about making wikipedia a better medium. If you want to call me a crappy editor or something, my sig has a link to my talk page, feel free to use profanities. -- feb 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


    User:Sarvabhaum reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result:)

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

    Comments: Not a new user, so no warnings were served. Infact, this user has been blocked before for violating 3RR and also for using socks.

    Sample violation report to copy

    ===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:
* 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.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
''' 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: