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 07:00, 20 January 2007 editRCS (talk | contribs)7,222 editsm →[] reported by [] (Result:)← Previous edit Revision as of 09:36, 20 January 2007 edit undoTharkunColl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,559 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:)Next edit →
Line 136: Line 136:


'''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.''' ] 00:31, 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.''' ] 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

'''This is the place where I inserted the official warning onto ]'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. ] 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 ] will reveal. My intention was to create a better map for the ] article, and each new one I created was based on discussions held at ] over a period of three days. ], 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 ].''' ] 09:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result: no block)=== ===] reported by ] (Result: no block)===

Revision as of 09:36, 20 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:)

    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)

    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:)

    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)

    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)

    • admin commment. No violation of WP:3RR here.

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

    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)

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

    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)

    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: