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 20:20, 12 April 2008 edit203.173.156.182 (talk) →Example← Previous edit Revision as of 20:31, 12 April 2008 edit undoCoppertwig (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,236 edits Fixing example section; collapsing and commenting on Solomon reportNext edit →
Line 510: Line 510:
:As per Coppertwig (again ;-), no violation here. These are also stale, and unless they're reverting today then no action will take place as blocks are not punitive. ]] 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC) :As per Coppertwig (again ;-), no violation here. These are also stale, and unless they're reverting today then no action will take place as blocks are not punitive. ]] 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


== Report by Lawrence Solomon (]) ==


{{collapse top}}
Misplaced Pages's Zealots: Solomon Misplaced Pages's Zealots: Solomon
Posted: April 12, 2008, 3:07 PM by Lawrence Solomon Posted: April 12, 2008, 3:07 PM by Lawrence Solomon
Line 542: Line 544:


While I've been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Misplaced Pages -- or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen -- beware. Misplaced Pages is in the hands of the zealots. While I've been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Misplaced Pages -- or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen -- beware. Misplaced Pages is in the hands of the zealots.
{{collapse bottom}}
I collapsed this because, although it's talking about a revert war, it's not in the appropriate format for this noticeboard. I also looked at {{Article|Naomi Oreskes}} and see that {{3RRV|KimDabelsteinPetersen}} has only 3 edits on April 11, and none the day before or after, so there is no 3RR violation on that page. (non-admin opinion.) <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

== Example ==

<pre>
<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

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

*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:

*Diff of 3RR warning:

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
</pre>


== See also == == See also ==

Revision as of 20:31, 12 April 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Violations

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


    User:Scjessey reported by Andyvphil (talk) (Result: No action)

    Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 13:23, 7 April 2008 (edit summary: "Repair article after break from consensus - see discussion(s) on talk page")
    2. 19:51, 7 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ - rm details that aren't directly linked to Obama, and are therefore not relevant to his BLP. Wright details should be in Jeremiah Wright")
    3. 00:21, 8 April 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 204090834 by Thegoodlocust (talk) - rv due to lack of a reliable source and POV language")
    4. 11:58, 8 April 2008 (edit summary: "er... I don't think so did. Your own website is hardly a reliable source, is it?")
    5. 12:36, 8 April 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 204199396 by Kossack4Truth (talk) - rv per WP:WEIGHT")
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Previous report:

    Result of previously reported 3RR violation was accepted offer of self-block for 24 hours. I noted another 3RR violation and was told "I don't monitor my contributions to make sure I don't violate 3RR. I just do what I think needs to be done."(see grey text above diff ]). Message that 3RR is absolute upper limit needs reinforcing, I think. Maybe another warning from an admin will do the trick. Up to you. Andyvphil (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    As I see it, Scjessey is enforcing the BLP policy by removing unsourced or poorly-sourced statements about a living person. Enforcing of BLP is specifically exempt from 3RR: see WP:3RR. Next time you do a 3RR report, remember to include the previous version reverted to. It's also useful to include in your brief description of the event a brief comment about the nature of the material being added or removed. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    I see only one of the five reverts that might qualify for the BLP exemption (the "I don't think so did" one). That leaves 4. The material differs, but I've already described what's going on in the previous notification. I don't have time to do more, before I got to go to sleep or now when I have to go to work. But 3RR is a violation of a community standard. It is not my job to act as prosecutor when supplying notice of such a violation. Andyvphil (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    This one also looks like a BLP revert to me: "rv due to lack of a reliable source and POV language)" (at 00:21). Just my opinion. Anyway, the user hasn't edited the page since 12:36 8 April (UTC). Blocks are not used as punishment, but only to prevent problems and there doesn't seem to be a problem right at the moment. I think enough time has passed that if the user were to revert again now, that would not be a 3RR violation even if the previous reverts were a violation (which I think they weren't due to BLP exemption; I haven't even checked whether they were all reverts, since no previous version reverted to was given.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    The BLP exception reads as follows: "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons". The revert that you would characterize as a "BLP revert" removed a report that the Washington Times claimed to have found inconsistencies between Obama's political positions during his Senate and Presidential campaigns. It is not remotely "clearly libelous", and it is well cited, to a Times article. Scjessey's edit comment identifies it as a revert, and in any case examining the text as of the first revert I list shows that none of the material he is removing in the later reverts was present at that time, so that there is no question that his removals were reverts. Would think you could have figured that out for yourself, if you were of a mind to. Andyvphil (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think it is pretty obvious to anyone that this is not a case of edit warring. The edits took place over two days (although yes, they were within a 24-hour period) and for different reasons and editors. The reporting editor is probably retaliating to a pair of 3RR warnings I placed on his own talk page recently. In violation of WP:3RR, the reporting editor has not even warned me for a possible 3RR violation before reporting me, as can be seen from the misleading warning links listed above (the listed warning is a threat given on an article talk page last month). I expect this 3RR notice to be rejected out of hand, and the reporting editor to be warned for attempting to game the system to suit his own ends instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." What part of must not are you not getting? You have been warned. You were reported. You accepted a voluntary penalty. You did it again. I warned you but did not report you. You did it again. I reported you. An administrator who advanced bogus arguments on your behalf let you off again, without so much as a warning. But you did violate 3RR, and you have this second report of your third instance (that I know of) on your record. Don't count on being so lucky again. Andyvphil (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Looks to be a content dispute to me, and the claim that BLP violations are being reverted would take a lot of study to prove. Under these conditions I think both editors should carefully follow the 3RR limit. Since in the previous 3RR case on 17 March, Scjessey promised an administrator on this board that he would be more careful in the future, I think his actions should get more serious scrutiny now. An editor is only entitled to get a 3RR warning once, and Scjessey got one last time around. When taking any action, the closing admin should note that Andyvphil has two previous blocks for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Don't follow your first sentence at all. Of course it's a content dispute. How does that exempt Scjessey from 3RR? And, disposing of the bogus BLP claim wouldn't take much "study". Just look at the diffs. That's why I supplied them. The BLP exemption specifies "clearly". No "clearly libelous" material material will be found, or any libelous material at all, and only one (previously noted) probable poor citation. Then ask Scjessey to identify what he alleges to be clearly libelous or poorly cited. Then examine the poverty of his reply. Further note that in neither case had I actually violated 3RR. See my talk page for details. But now Scjessey has violated 3RR three times, been reported twice and has no blocks. Interesting. Andyvphil (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    In Scjessey's defense, this article has come under attack from editors who seek nothing more than to turn this BLP into something it shouldn't be, and the users who he reverted have a history of unilaterally inserting negative (and oftentimes irrelevant) material into the article (that goes against consensus and almost always ends up getting reverted by someone else anyway). In addition, this article gets profoundly more edits in a given day than the vast majority of articles on wikipedia, so I could see 4 edits of it not being particularly shocking. Also consider that while 4 reverts is said to break the rules, there seems to be no limit on how many times a user can insert new negative material into an article against the consensus of other editors, and there are most definitely editors who have attempted to do this at least 4 times in a day without being warned or punished for it (and indeed this is a conflict for which people who want to keep this BLP legitimate and respectful will lose). I encourage you to consider these things in coming to a judgment/decision as well as note that Scjessey has been a kind and respectful editor who has worked hard to improve this article and keep it from being hijacked by users with a vested interest. --Ubiq (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    No, 4 reverts is not "said" to break the rules. 4 reverts does break the rules, and you do not get an exemption for removing "negative" material. Only "clearly libelous" and "poorly cited" and the other specified exemptions. No matter how badly your finger itches to hit the "undo" button, if you've done three reverts already you need to leave it to someone else, even if admin Stifle doesn't want to say so. Andyvphil (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    also this 3rr report comes from a user who has been the subject and object of numerous admin actions and efforts. the term wikilawyer comes to my mind. user:Andyvphil has not yet posted on the talk section where 3 editors worked to solve a text problem, and because he disagrees with the solution, he vindictively does a 3rr report. Its also not the first time he has ignored BLP policy in making 3rr reports, ihe reported me in similar circumstances, and the admin's agreed with my BLP argument. Also check those Diffs very carefully, he padded my 3rr report with seperate edits to give it a greater appearance than was actually there. He seems to advocate use of the "3 edits of page text" view of 3rr and not the seemingly more common "3 edits on disputed text" which is what i am used to. And he only does this selectively, so its not like editors have a regular ability to see what his standards are, which is important on such a fast moving page.
    And the idea the Scjessey engages in "edit warfare" is ridiculous to anyone who looks at the page regularly (except apparently the reporting user apparently)... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    You were blocked. The admin who blocked you explained why your BLP claim was bogus and refused to unblock you. Another admin then lifted your block, an action he declined to defend when challenged to do so. If your conclusion from that experience was that your exceeding 3RR was justified and I was in the wrong to report you (or "childish", as Scjessey would have it)... well the actions of Jayron32 and Stifle might lead you to that error, but that doesn't reflect well on them. Andyvphil (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Unbelievable. In what way is #5 a BLP-exempt edit? The text removed is as follows:

    In the wake of the Wright controversy, the New York Times has reported that support for Obama has softened among Democratic voters at a critical moment in the primary process:

    Senator Barack Obama’s support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month, particularly among men and upper-income voters, as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him ... Mr. Obama’s favorability rating among Democratic primary voters has dropped seven percentage points, to 62 percent, since the last Times/CBS News survey, in late February. While that figure is by any measure high, the decline came in a month during which he endured withering attacks from Mrs. Clinton and responded to reports that his former pastor had made politically inflammatory statements from his church’s pulpit in Chicago. ... Of those respondents who said they had heard about the controversy involving Mr. Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., 36 percent of the general electorate said it made them look less favorably on Mr. Obama.
    Again, it is not remotely libelous, and largely consists of a quote from a RS (the NY Times) which is properly cited. The edit comment again self-identifies the revert as a revert, and, again, the first dif does show a prior text not containing any of the material Scjessey later removes, making clear that his removals are reverts. Andyvphil (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • My mistake, I meant 3 and 4. Also #1 is not clearly a revert. Can you please indicate which exact previous version that the article matches after edit #1? Stifle (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    No.3 is no more a BLP-exempt revert than #5. It's the citation of the Washington Times that I reply to Coppertwig about above. Not libelous, and well-cited.
    Thast there should be any difficulty seeing that #1 is a revert is a little hard to understand, but this diff shows that what Scjessey did was undo the three immediately preceeding edits. Andyvphil (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'd like to point out that this stems from an ongoing content dispute (see Talk:Barack Obama) that resulted in me giving User:Andyvphil a polite 3RR warning. He is trying to use this procedure as some sort of "retaliatory strike" to get me temporarily blocked by lumping together a collection of largely unrelated edits that took place over 2 days. Meanwhile, over 24 hours have passed since the last listed reversion, rendering this report rather "stale" in any case. Please don't let Andy's personal dislike of me interfere with my normal functioning as a diligent, active Wikipedian. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I didn't ask that you be blocked. I asked that you be warned in much stronger terms than you had before. "Maybe another warning from an admin will do the trick." Not that you didn't deserve to be blocked. Andyvphil (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Then shouldn't the result in the header be changed from "no action" to "warning"? Andyvphil (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    ...though, for the record, calling this a "warning" is stretching the word beyond recognition. Andyvphil (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:76.102.72.153 reported by User:Dance With The Devil (Result: Semi-protected)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 03:54

    Continuing the edit war State terrorism and the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that started earlier today. Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    Agree. Massive edit warring by IP single purpose accounts during the last few hours. Previous IP reverter blocked for 3RR after nine reverts. This is an obvious sock/meatpuppet who continue with exactly the same revert. Semi-protection needed.Ultramarine (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think this IP editor is related to the previous one. This one has a history of productive, good edits to the article, and doing an IP trace, appear to be from different areas. So lets not make negative associations. This user appears to have accidently gone over 3RR for the first time--but other users should be be doing 3 reverts either--esp. for trying to force making massive against consensus. I think the IP user should self revert in principal, and then another editor such as myself can revert for him. No one should edit war much less go over 3R, even if they are acting correctly otherwise.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:24.193.80.215 reported by User:Cigraphix (Result: 24 hrs)


    User:24.193.80.215 returns to article Sonic the Hedgehog (character) often to change a date from "present" to "2008", has reverted 5 times between 15:28, 8 April 2008 and 13:56, 9 April 2008, see user's contributions Special:Contributions/24.193.80.215. (Edit: I have a -4:00 time difference from UTC put into my Preferences if that matters with the edit times) Cigraphix (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


    User:Wikkibobby reported by User:Vinh1313 (Result: 24hrs )


    Wikkibobby is a suspected sockpuppet of Xhy20 who has been involved in an edit war on the Luscious Lopez article for the past two days. His suspected ip was also warned for 3RR on 22:18, 8 April 2008 by an admin. Wikkibobby has reverted an administrator many times during this edit war. He has behaved in an uncivil manner in the edit summaries. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wikiuserc reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: Protected)

    While the reverts are not to the exact same versions, they do share similarities, and the intent is quite clear. Seraphimblade 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: I give previous versions reverted to for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th reverts below. I haven't confirmed whether the first one is a revert or not.
    • The 2nd revert (at 23:59) deletes the word "Yet" (and replaces it with "Still"); the word "Yet" had just been added in the previous edit. (Previous version precisely reverted to: 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC).)
    • The 3rd revert (at 00:05) replaces "bought" with "used" in a sentence about Naples police officers. Previous version reverted to: 01:06, 8 February 2008 (A very short version with almost all content deleted, immediately reverted back to the longer version by Cluebot; doesn't contain the sentence about Naples police, therefore doesn't contain the word "bought".)
    • The 4th revert replaces the same word "bought" with "acquired"; since it's deleting "bought" which had just been restored in the previous edit, it's a revert. (Previous version reverted to: 00:05, 10 April 2008; not reverting to precisely the same, but reverting to a version not containing the word "bought" in the sentence about Naples police.)
    (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Revert #1 does not bring the article to the same version as the previous version reverted to. If it did, this diff would show no change. Revert #2 is valid. Revert #3 does not appear to be a revert. Revert #4 seems valid.
    • As such, No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However, Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:208.104.238.191 reported by User:Loodog (Result: No violation)


    User repeatedly changes population estimates to those of a source agreed on the talk page to be unacceptable. User has been told to resolve the matter on the talk page and not to revert without consensus.Loodog (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    No violation (non-admin opinion). You've listed only three reverts, and they span more than 24 hours. To violate 3RR, there have to be four reverts, and they must all be within one 24-hour period. However, I encourage discussion on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. --☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'll rubber-stamp that. No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:20.133.0.13 reported by User:Jza84 (Result: Blocked, 36 hours for 3RR and vandalism)

    A problematic ip user. Wishing to spoil the hard work taking place at Talk:Scotland. Hasn't commented at the talk page to get a consensus, just has anti-UK, English and some racist sentiments (see here, here, here). I'd really urge a short block rather than semi-protect, please. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 36 hours for edit warring and petty vandalism. CIreland (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:20.133.0.13 reported by User:Cameron (Result: As above)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    This user reverted a fourth time despite recieving a warning after the third. Cameron (t|p|c) 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    See above. CIreland (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


    Douglass Feith (malformed)

    As dictated in the BLP rules: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

    I have repeatedly removed the anonymous slander attributed to Condoleeza Rice, which originates from a partisan newsletter and quotes and anonymous source. It is replaced as soon as I remove it. The Colin Powell attack on Feith is strenously denied by Powell, who maintains the exact opposite. In fact, the entire page is a laundry list of negative quotes and vulgar references mined from any source possible. Very few of them have scholarly nor informational content that is valid and pertinent to the bio of public servant Douglas Feith: instead, the page is a collection of partisan smears, thinly sources rumors and vulgar name-calling and epithets, many anti-semitic and Nazi references (accusing him of being Gestapo-like). The "praise" section, half the size of the "criticism" section is apparently a sop to allow griefers to post any criticisms, no matter how scurrilous, with the excuse that there is a "praise" section to balance it. Both are unencyclopedic, sloppy and without real informational value. Attempts to clean up the page result in reverts and even moderators refuse to abide by BLP rules, especially on the Rice quote. Other quotes seem to be included merely because they belittle Feith in extremely vulgar terms. Finding a quote calling him the "dumbest m----f---- on the planet" may be very amusing, but its not informational and its slanderous and unserious. I would like to see the entire "praise" and "criticism" sections made more encyclopedic and held to standards, but partisans refuse to allow any changes, despite mine and others complaints about the standards of the pages (see Bueller's arguments on the talk page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.196.85 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: This seems to be about the article Douglas J. Feith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been semi-protected at 16:25 10 April (UTC) and has had only two edits since then. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Abtract reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: No violation)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Abtract is aware that there is a discussion on Talk:HP (disambiguation) but is blatantly ignoring it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    The report is inaccurate; diffs 1,2 and 3 are not reverts. Hence no violation, hence no action. I will, however, look at the possibility of page protection if other users continue the edit warring. CIreland (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    You're saying subsequent changes are not reverts? In any event, , , , , look like reverts. I would like to hear more opinions. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    User:JHunterJ is one of the editors who has reverted User:Abtract, and he is administrator. Since admins are supposed to know how to calm the troubled waters, I invited him to join this discussion. There seem to be some fairly intellectual issues about policy being discussed, but I don't see people waiting to reach a Talk consensus before making their edits. A slight excess of BOLD and REVERT, and not enough DISCUSS. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    I'd support a block on User:Abtract, who looks to be the instigator in the edit warring. Scarian 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    As well, I would support a block, as per Sesshomaru, Ed and Scarian. He was pointedly asked to discuss his edit and await the conclusion of discussion, as the edit was a new one and linked to discussions both in the WP (dab) and Harry Potter articles. None of what we do works if there is a pointed unwillingness to discuss. - Arcayne () 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Abtract only reverted three times and made no reverts after he was warned to cease or be blocked. I would not support any block of a user who ceases to edit war after being instructed to do so. Such a block would be entirely retributive. As such I would be disinclined to change my original close of this as "no violation" and I would not support a block on this user for his edits to HP (disambiguation). CIreland (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Concur with that. No violation Stifle (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you ... but I will heed the need to discuss more. Abtract (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Signsolid reported by User:JdeJ (Result: 24 hours )


    While the last diff is slightly different, the same sourced texted is removed and changed in each of the four reverts. The user has a long history of edit warring and of attacking other users, I recently started a discussion on him . He has removed the 3RR warning and clearly assumes ownership of the article . JdeJ (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    Result - I have blocked User:Signsolid for 24 hours. Please use discussion on the articles talk page from now on. Scarian 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Garycompugeek reported by User:The way, the truth, and the light (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: 21:25 9 April 2008 (by Garycompugeek) for the first 3 reverts.

    21:20 10 April 2008 (by Garycompugeek) for the 4th.

    His knowledge of the rule is shown by his issuing this warning to me.

    His first 3 reverts added an anti-circumcision link which had been originally added by him. In 2 more edits he removed a medical summary in retaliation. He said in the talk-page warning I cited above that he wants to respect consensus but he's not acting like it. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    Self-reverted: Garycompugeek has self-reverted at 22:29, 10 April 2008, nullifying the 4th revert, after a discussion with Jakew on Garycompugeek's talk page. (opinion by involved user) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:JHunterJ reported by User:Arcayne (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: the user is an admin and is (or should be) well aware of 3RR

    User:JHunterJ has been endeavoring to add HP as a dab term for Harry Potter for months, and not finding consensus for inclusion in either the HP dab page or Harry Potter, has taken to edit-warring in both articles over this and formatting. The 3RR vio is in the dab page. Note that this complaint is not being submitted to address the content issue but rather the stability of the article caused by JHunterJ fighting everyone for inclusion. - Arcayne () 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    Result - Blocked for 24 hours. Scarian 07:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:PageantUpdater reported by User:David_Shankbone (Result: 24 hour block )

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    Dispute over whether to use a low-resolution, poor quality head shot in the lead, versus a high quality, high-resolution full-body shot in the lead. Despite 3RR warning and attempts to engage User, continually reverts to have low quality in lead. Per WP:IMAGES, highest quality should go in lead. David Shankbone 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours and also warned David. Scarian 15:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


    User:Grandia01 reported by User:topsecrete (Result: both blocked 24 hours)

    • Previous version re-reverted to:



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

    A short explanation of the incident. topic was open for discussion for a lengthy time, i was given permission to take out the argued part after i provide good sources and discussion, the discussion went on for a week or so, then i brought the source, a report made by the DIA of the DoD. Grandia01 will not discuss and will not read the source and will just keep on re-editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs)

    Both users were already warned by me; both now blocked for 24 hours. Mangojuice 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:J.R._Hercules reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result: )


    He keeps singling out Hitler as one opposed to trade unions and thus possibly trying to sneak in Reductio ad Hitlerum. -- Vision Thing -- 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    I've posted a message at J.R. Hercules' talk page informing the user of the 3RR rule and of this report, and inviting the user to self-revert. The user has not edited for over 24 hours.(11:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    J.R. Hercules has been editing Misplaced Pages for two and a half years so I believe that he is acquainted with the 3RR. Also, he was active after Coppertwig left him a message at his talk page but he refused to make self-revert, which indicates that he believes that revert warring is a legitimate way of resolving disputes. Other user tried to discuss this issue on article talk page, but except comment in which he accused him of having political agenda and being intellectual dishonest, Hercules failed to provide any explanation for his reverts. -- Vision Thing -- 09:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Karojaro reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User is continuously adding npov content and links to a large number of videos in the text, seems to be spaming or advertising for the BLA. SMS 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    C.Fred has blocked Karojaro for 24 hours beginning 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) for edit warring. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Zero705 reported by User:21655 (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: 14:09 (restored at 16:07)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 15:29

    Repeatedly removes {{hoax}} tag from article, despite it being confirmed in an outside source. 21655 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    Tony Fox has blocked Zero705 for 24 hours beginning 21:14 11 April 2008 (UTC), for edit warring. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:The rabbit in the suitcase reported by User:Urzatron (Result: 24 hour block )


    User The rabbit in the suitcase is determined to make the Absout Vodka page about blogger Michelle Malkin. He is determined to revert as many times as he wishes to "own" the page. People have attempted to reach consensus with him, but he does not reciprocate. Urzatron (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

    Apparently no violation. (non-admin opinion). I see only three reverts. It takes four reverts in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR. The two edits at 02:07 and 02:11 are consecutive, so they count as one edit. That edit added "led by", apparently for the first time, so it was apparently not a revert. The following three also added "led by", so they are reverts. No proper "previous version reverted to" has been supplied. Dates as well as times should be stated. Urzatron's account has only 24 edits. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I struck out some of my words. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    The "previous version reverted to" isn't done correctly? My mistake.Urzatron (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    I've attempted to rectify by changing the "previous version reverted to." The words aren't exactly the same, but you'll see the intent is to make the entry "led by Michelle Malkin" or "bloggers connected with Michelle Malkin began" ... to revert this meaning repeatedly.Urzatron (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    I also neglected to realize that two of the user's edits were back-to-back; therefore I've removed one of the claimed "reverts" from this log, as you're obviously correct -- two edits back-to-back certainly aren't two reverts. Your advice is appreciated. :) Urzatron (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    I see your point now. The version of 13:45 10 April 2008, although it did not contain the words "led by", contained essentially the same or a very similar idea, "bloggers connected with Mexican immigration critic Michelle Malkin". This idea of M. Malkin being central to or connected with all of the bloggers mentioned was softened and removed in the two subsequent edits: "Various bloggers, including those connected with ... Michelle Malkin," (Ulzatron, 14:40, 10 April 2008; then "Various ... bloggers, including ... Michelle Malkin", by Orangemike at 14:44, 10 April 2008, completely eliminating the idea that the bloggers were "connected" with M. Malkin. Therefore, logically, if not literally, inserting "led by" is a revert, and if this argument is accepted then there are four reverts within 24 hours.
    I've added dates to the above report.
    Here is The rabbit in the suitcase's response to the 3RR warning. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:TheRealFennShysa reported by User:A Raider Like Indiana (Result: No violation)


    Before we discussed it in a talk page; which is not going to well, I changed a the Star Wars episodes in the template in order and this user came and reverted my edit in all 6 Star Wars Articles, not just this one. We reverted 5 to 6 times, it doesn't seem stop or go anywhere. I feel she or he is following me around Misplaced Pages and reverting my edits, and I dont want to break the 3RR rule and revert my edits back. This user does not clearly know the 3RR rule. // A Raider Like Indiana 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

    No violation (non-admin opinion). Looking at the edit histories, I see only three edits in April on each page by TheRealFennShysa. It takes four reverts to violate the 3RR. The report is not formulated properly: diffs must be given, not version links; there are duplicates in the list; not all versions listed are by the reportee; and no proper "previous version reverted to" has been given. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    As per Coppertwig (again ;-), no violation here. These are also stale, and unless they're reverting today then no action will take place as blocks are not punitive. Scarian 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

    Report by Lawrence Solomon (user:203.173.156.182)

    Extended content

    Misplaced Pages's Zealots: Solomon Posted: April 12, 2008, 3:07 PM by Lawrence Solomon Lawrence Solomon, Junk Science, The Deniers, Climate change, global warming, propaganda, Misplaced Pages, Intergovernmental Panel on Climare Change, IPCC, Peiser, Oreskes

    As I'm writing this column for the Post, I am simultaneously editing a page on Misplaced Pages. I am confident that just about everything I write for my column will be available for you to read. I am equally confident that you will be able to read just about nothing that I write for the page on Misplaced Pages.

    The Misplaced Pages page is entitled Naomi Oreskes, after a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, but the page offers only sketchy details about Oreskes. The page is mostly devoted to a notorious 2004 paper that she wrote, and that Science magazine published, called "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." This paper analyzed articles in peer-reviewed journals to see if any disagreed with the alarming positions on global warming taken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position," concluded Oreskes.

    Oreskes's paper -- which claimed to comprehensively examine all articles in a scientific database with the keywords "climate change" -- is nonsense. As Post readers know, for the last 18 months I have been profiling scientists who disagree with the UN panel's position. My Deniers series, which now runs some 40 columns, describes many of the world's most prominent scientists. They include authors or reviewers for the UN panel (before they quit in disgust). They even include the scientist known as the Father of Scientific Climatology, who is recognized as being the most cited climatologist in the world. Yet somehow Oreskes missed every last one of these exceptions to the presumed consensus, and somehow so did the peer reviewers that Science chose to evaluate Oreskes's work.

    When Oreskes's paper came out, it was immediately challenged by science writers and scientists alike, one of them being Benny Peiser, a prominent UK scientist and publisher of CCNet, an electronic newsletter to which I and thousands of others subscribe. CCNet daily circulates articles disputing the conventional wisdom on climate change. No publication better informs readers about climate change controversies, and no person is better placed to judge informed dissent on climate change than Benny Peiser.

    For this reason, when visiting Oreskes's page on Misplaced Pages several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes's correctness.

    Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Misplaced Pages page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Misplaced Pages that we all have, corrected the Misplaced Pages entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

    Peiser wrote back saying he couldn't see my corrections on the Misplaced Pages page. Had I neglected to save them after editing them?, I wondered. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

    Nonplused, I investigated. Misplaced Pages logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop's. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wiki-etiquette, also explained why. "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!" Tabletop said.

    I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."

    Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.

    Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop's undid and protested: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."

    Tabletop parried: "we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."

    Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Misplaced Pages. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I -- no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Misplaced Pages readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out. By patrolling Misplaced Pages pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Misplaced Pages a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident. We don't suspend belief when we read Misplaced Pages, as we do when we read literature from an organization with an agenda, because Misplaced Pages benefits from the Internet's cachet of making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its views with a mouse.

    While I've been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Misplaced Pages -- or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen -- beware. Misplaced Pages is in the hands of the zealots.

    I collapsed this because, although it's talking about a revert war, it's not in the appropriate format for this noticeboard. I also looked at Naomi Oreskes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and see that KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only 3 edits on April 11, and none the day before or after, so there is no 3RR violation on that page. (non-admin opinion.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

    Example

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

    See also

    1. "Obama's Support Softens in Poll, Suggesting a Peak Has Passed". The New York Times. 2008-04-04. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
    Categories: