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 06:35, 26 December 2008 editB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,958 editsm →EmpMac reported by Josh the Nerd (Result: ): Adding result to header← Previous edit Revision as of 06:36, 26 December 2008 edit undoMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 72h) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive87.Next edit →
Line 18: Line 18:
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.
--> -->

== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==

* Page: {{article|Armenian Genocide}}
* User: {{userlinks|Ahmetsaatalti}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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


<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
"This article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert on this article (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war." User has reverted 2 times more than the limit.--] (]) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

: 24h ] (]) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result:31 hours) ==

*] violation on
{{Article|Kosher tax}}. {{3RRV|DrHerbertSewell}}: Time reported: 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 259421658 by ] (]) not frivolous")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 259460501 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 259462164 by ] (]Please let someone else comment before removing this tag, as you are not objective)")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>

* Diff of warning:

—]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:Blocked for 31 hours. ] ] 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: protected) == == ] reported by ] (Result: protected) ==
Line 204: Line 159:
The IP editor from Tulsa, Oklahoma has been consistently deleting one particular paragraph, a paragraph about multiple entry horn technology which happens to hold three out of four references contained in the article. The IP editor has occasionally engaged in ] discussion saying that the article needs to have additional paragraphs added in order to make the article balanced in viewpoint. I, too, would like to see the article expanded to contain more horn speaker technologies, and I suggested the tried-and-true chronological framework for introducing each important new horn speaker development, its time frame and its inventor. I made an initial search in patented horn speaker inventions and listed this on the talk page as a source for some of the future article expansion. The IP editor from Tulsa, however, has not wavered from insisting that the paragraph about multiple entry horn technology should NOT be in the article until full expansion of the article has been reached. I see no compelling reason why the paragraph can't remain in place during the expansion process. ] (]) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC) The IP editor from Tulsa, Oklahoma has been consistently deleting one particular paragraph, a paragraph about multiple entry horn technology which happens to hold three out of four references contained in the article. The IP editor has occasionally engaged in ] discussion saying that the article needs to have additional paragraphs added in order to make the article balanced in viewpoint. I, too, would like to see the article expanded to contain more horn speaker technologies, and I suggested the tried-and-true chronological framework for introducing each important new horn speaker development, its time frame and its inventor. I made an initial search in patented horn speaker inventions and listed this on the talk page as a source for some of the future article expansion. The IP editor from Tulsa, however, has not wavered from insisting that the paragraph about multiple entry horn technology should NOT be in the article until full expansion of the article has been reached. I see no compelling reason why the paragraph can't remain in place during the expansion process. ] (]) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


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

*] violation on *] violation on
{{Article|Talk:Ron Paul}}. {{3RRV|75.51.76.94}}: Time reported: 03:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC) {{Article|Talk:Ron Paul}}. {{3RRV|75.51.76.94}}: Time reported: 03:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:36, 26 December 2008

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)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    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

    Reports

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


    RafaelRGarcia reported by Walkel01 (Result: protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    <Mr Garcia is promulgating biased, novel information. He refuses to be neutral in his editorializing. (Walkel01 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)) here -->Walkel01 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    Ruslik0 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Clarence Thomas: Edit warring / Content dispute: This is the third edit-war in just 3 months. Please, discuss changes on Talk page. ( (expires 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)) (indefinite))) (rollback | undo) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    User:DCGeist reported by User:Str1977 (Result: page protected, warned, no blocks)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: DCGeist's block log indicates that he knows about the rule.

    DCGeist also engages in condescending personal attacks like "buh-bye" and "stop o\your silliness, child". Str1977 09:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    • This is a tough one. There is a clear 3RR violation here (and I acknowledge that this user has a block log showing 3RR violations 4 times before). However, User:DCGeist has contributed massively to Pulp Fiction (film), and I can somewhat see how a difference in opinion on an article that one has worked a lot on can lead to terseness when changes are made. I encourage discussion on Talk:Pulp Fiction (film) specific to choosing between these two revisions. If this has been discussed before in the talk archives, I ask User:DCGeist to link to the discussion. Finally, separate to the 3RR report, I will give a WP:NPA warning to User:DCGeist regarding the edit summaries -- Samir 10:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Maybe violations should not be reported anymore if all that happens is that the culprit is "rewarded" by having the result of his crimes be enshrined via blocking. I also see that you appear to subscribe to a sort of ownership principle. No matter how much he contributed, he should have the courtesy to explain his edits instead of insulting me, and he certainly should not be excused to rules applying to everybody - I have been guilty of 3RR too, including on pages I heavily contributed to and I was justly blocked for such violations. There is nothing tough about this case at all. Take also into account that my edits were clear cut formatting improvements, nothing controversial. Str1977 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I appreciate your frustration, Str1977. The edit summaries directed against you were not polite. However, I think this matter can easily be resolved by discussion on the talk page of the article (i.e. a link to previous discussion on formatting, if it was discussed) -- Samir 10:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
          • You also caused my frustration by your incomprehensible actions. I am not hopeful for any discussion, given DCGeist's history. Why should he change if he is rewarded for his violations. Ah, and BTW, you have not - contrary to your claims - have warned DCGeist for anything. You merely informed him of your post on the talk page. Str1977 10:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    The warning is weak. I will strengthen it. But lack of discussion on talk from *either* of you is bad William M. Connolley (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC) And they have both been edit warring without discussion at McCarthyism too William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    I have not been edit-warring on McCarthyism. I made a content edit and a formatting edit. DCG reverted me on both. I did not restore my content edit but merely tagged a questionable bit. That's not edit warring. Str1977 12:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    Knotslanding reported by Either way (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    User has been reverted about 5 or 6 times in the last 25 hours. Additionally, the user has been uncivil on the article talk page, and borderline uncivil on his own talk page. He believes that he is in the right because he believes 3RR only covers reverts on the same content, and not on different content in the same article as the rule actually states. either way (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked user for 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 04:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

    EmpMac reported by Josh the Nerd (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Note that EmpMac sometimes labels the edits he/she is reverting as vandalism, even though they are clearly not vandalism. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

    Basically one user reverting everyone else and calling it vandalism for soapboxing about Windows7 copying ideas from Mac OS X. There's a thread on the talk page as well. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    information Administrator note Blocked user for 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 17:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

    70.234.147.98 reported by Binksternet (Result: )


    The IP editor from Tulsa, Oklahoma has been consistently deleting one particular paragraph, a paragraph about multiple entry horn technology which happens to hold three out of four references contained in the article. The IP editor has occasionally engaged in Talk:Horn speaker discussion saying that the article needs to have additional paragraphs added in order to make the article balanced in viewpoint. I, too, would like to see the article expanded to contain more horn speaker technologies, and I suggested the tried-and-true chronological framework for introducing each important new horn speaker development, its time frame and its inventor. I made an initial search in patented horn speaker inventions and listed this on the talk page as a source for some of the future article expansion. The IP editor from Tulsa, however, has not wavered from insisting that the paragraph about multiple entry horn technology should NOT be in the article until full expansion of the article has been reached. I see no compelling reason why the paragraph can't remain in place during the expansion process. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    User:75.51.76.94 reported by Foofighter20x (talk) (Result: Note left)

    Talk:Ron Paul (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.51.76.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 16:57, 24 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
    2. 17:00, 24 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
    3. 17:01, 24 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
    4. 17:01, 24 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
    5. 02:59, 25 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
    6. 03:01, 25 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
    7. 15:34, 25 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
    8. 01:43, 26 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")

    I know this may seem a little ridiculous, but this guy keeps edit warring with Sinebot. It added his sig to a comment, and he keeps removing, even after people have asked him not to do so. — Foofighter20x (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    This one is a toughey! But his comments do seem to be overly aggressive anyway. I'll leave him a welcome message and ask him if he'd like any help, and I'll leave a gentle note about the four tildes. Scarian 03:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, I've left a welcome temp. and a note. Hopefully AGF'll solve this one. I wouldn't want to block or prot, obviously, as this guy is clearly relatively new. Message me if he comes back again. Scarian 04:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    Categories: