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 00:03, 18 April 2008 editKww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →Example← Previous edit Revision as of 00:29, 18 April 2008 edit undoBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers496,428 edits →Violations: Analog holeNext edit →
Line 578: Line 578:


*Diff of 3RR warning: *Diff of 3RR warning:

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

Multiple reversions by anon IP user with multiple IP addresses editing the article ].

*15:08 April 17 - ] appeared for the first time today at the ] article and added an external link to a "how-to" site.
*17:05 - I deleted the link simply because it was a "how-to"; I didn't want the article to become a linkfarm.
*17:57 - ] came back and .
*17:59 - ] .
*18:22 - ] appeared and made a small change to the link's wording.
*18:36 - I deleted the small change without examining it closely, I thought I was deleting the whole link.
*18:39 - ] returned to restore the newer link text.
*18:40 - I returned to delete the anon IP "how-to" link.
*18:42 - I examined the remaining links more closely, evaluating them for their relevance. I found one that linked to a software application solution which appeared to fail ] so I deleted it.
*19:00 - ] returned to .
*19:07 - ] left a note on my Talk page including
*19:09 - ] returned to .
*19:19 - I replied to my Talk page saying the links fail ]
*19:40 - I deleted both links again.
*19:41 - ] came back to
*19:53 - I reverted both links
*19:53 - I called for discussion on ]
*19:54 - I went to ] and asked him to take it to ].
*20:11 - ] appeared at the Village pump to
*20:13 - ]
*20:34 - I responded at ]
*20:40 - I responded further at Village Pump
*20:44 - I deleted just the link to the software solution, awaiting discussion regarding the "how-to" link.
*20:48 - ] appeared and restored the link to the software solution.
*20:48 - ] tweaked the wording on the "how-to" link
*22:33 - ] appeared and responded at Village Pump
*23:19 - ] responded further at Village Pump
*23:39 - ] responded further at Village Pump

Clearly, I myself am in violation of 3RR. I am willing to take whatever punishment is deemed suitable. What I would like most in this case is for the system to come up with a way to tame this anon user who is leapfrogging from IP to IP without ever having to answer to his wrongdoings such as his vandalism of user pages, immediate accusations of POV and his threatening attitude. Having multiple IP addresses insulates this user from warnings and 3RR. This user appears to feel that the rules are best applied to others.

*3RR warning:

*] violation on {{Article|Analog hole}}. {{3RRV|71.100.171.52}}: Time reported: 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)



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

Revision as of 00:29, 18 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,
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)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Violations

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


    Article Bălţi on the verge of a edit war

    Could anyone, pls, help prevent this dispute degenerating into an edit war. Sorry for not putting this request through the proper channels, they are very slow in reacting. Hopefully, this very conspecous place would help get some of you interested to help us. Thank you very much. Dc76\ 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Biophys reported by User:Krawndawg (Result:No action )


    • Diff of 3RR warning: User is a regular and has many warnings on talk (removed lots of them)

    He keeps reverting changes I made with no legit explanation at all (saying no consensus, all the while he makes those huge changes with no consensus), and continues to make huge POV pushing edits that aren't warranted and are highly controversial. This user is a massive POV pusher and has been warned about baised editing by admins, as well as for wiki-stalking (me and others). He is constantly edit warring and trying to push his conspiracy theories without consensus, giving them undue weight and using logical fallacies to justify the changes. - "If this theory is wrong, then where's a book that says it's wrong?" *revert* - That sort of thing, absolutely ridiculous. Krawndawg (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

    In fact I made only one revert. As one can see from this article talk page and edit history, I tried to accomodate the criticism of another side. He challenged views about Putin's involvement in the murder as "fringe theory" . So, I had to provide much more supporting sources, and that is exactly what I did. In reply, my opponent told that he is not going to cooperate . However, I am ready to apologize if you think I am still at fault.Biophys (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC) O'K, I made a self-revert. I guess we need more opinions on this subject.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't challenge your sources, I challenged the fact that they are views worthy of a 4000 word section, which they are not. I said that twice in discussion. The claims are politically motivated, all made by dissenters and defectors, and have no evidence to back them up. Additionally, you reverted my original changes a total of 4 times as you can see above. I also find it amusing how you just reverted yourself saying "we need more opinions" after I had to do this. Why didn't we need more opinions before when I told you that in the first place? Krawndawg (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well this is great. Now we can go through the whole thing all over again in a few days and Biophys gets away with breaking rules and POV pushing yet again. Krawndawg (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, it was you, User:Krawndawg, who started undoing edits by several users and broke the 3RR rule:

    1st revert
    2nd revert,
    3rd revert
    4th revert.

    Biophys (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    And the solution to your problem was so simple, to get your friend to do the reverting for you! Man I wonder why more people don't do that..
    Like I said yesterday, it starts all over again. This user refuses to cooperate in discussion and reverts changes with no explanation whatsoever. The word consensus means nothing. I'm done. I just don't care. As long as wikipedia is full of people like Biophys and as long as they're allowed to run rampant, it will always be a joke and will always be a propaganda tool more than anything else. Krawndawg (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    So, that is why you just made fifth revert? It was not me who you have reverted three times in this article. It was not me who gave you this warning. Biophys (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    That's right, I'm not going to bother with trying to improve the article but don't expect the tags to go away. Krawndawg (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Littlebutterfly reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: Protected)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been 3RR'd in the past and has reported another user's 3RR before. This user should have known better that he would be 3RR'd for hisactions.

    Littlebutterfly has been constantly doing harm to this page and has continuously reverted anything that went against his views Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected Stifle (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Supergreenred reported by User:John Smith's (Result: 48 hour block)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    10:03, 13 April 2008 (first revert) 10:18, 13 April 2008 (reverts 2-4)

    Supergreenred has been edit-warring on the above article. He was temporarily blocked for tendacious editing, which was then lifted. However, even though I had warned him about edit-warring, the first thing he did after the block was lifted was to start reverting again. He also removed my warning and subsequent requests to calm down from his talk page.

    Clearly the user does not believe the rules apply to him. He is an experienced user - he admits he has long edited as an anon-IP and seems to know the rules, even if he doesn't follow them. He should not be treated as a newbie. Although he has not quite reverted four times in 24 hours, he has broken the spirit of the rules by reverting four times within 26 hours, especially when he had just been released from a prior block. John Smith's (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    Err, with all due respect I have seen many cases where editors have been blocked for four reversions outside of 24 hours. Sure it can't be too great, but I think four reverts within 26 hours is quite similar. If you want to say that the period was not large enough, ok. But you are not being correct when you say there must be 4 reverts in 24 hours. John Smith's (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    I am happy with my decision; another admin can feel free to review. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    Strange, I was blocked for edit waring with less than 4 in a 24 hour period, I thought 3RR stated that just 3 was the maximum and you may be blocked for less. Also I think that waiting till the 24 hours is up, then making another revert is considering gaming wikipedia, and is most certainly not within the spirit of the rules, a block would be highly suitable for this particular case. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    I already closed this case. Somehow my notes disappeared. In any event, this user was on notice about edit warring, and just came off a block. They immediately gamed the system to do four reverts in just slightly more than 24 hours. That's a clear violation that we do not allow. Jehochman 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    JEH's disappearing notes are actually below, in the second complaint about Supergreenred (from a different submitter). Both reports are now properly closed, and with the same answer. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Darkmage Rector reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: blocked 12h)


    Continued insertion of the same nonsense. User has been told to stop many times, but refuses to do so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 12 hours. CIreland (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Zencv reported by User:Kelly (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Warring to include a link to a non-notable YouTube film parody. Kelly 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours. Scarian 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:AgntOrange reported by User:Peteforsyth (Result: 31 hours )

    Each revert deletes " Agricultural College" from the sentence "he attended ..." and/or from the sentence "Pauling entered...".

    AgntOrange has made a number of edits today, all related to Oregon State University; I believe every edit, or nearly every one, has met with opposition from a variety of editors. He/she was warned about 3RR on the Oregon State University article, violated 3RR, and the remedy was protecting the page. Now he/she has violated it at Linus Pauling, also with attempts to discuss the situation on the talk page by more than one established editor. This is becoming a big distraction from encyclopedia writing. The string of casual accusations of vandalism, sock puppetry etc. doesn't help. Pete (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    I've modified (by striking out) and added to the above report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for your help. For the record, AgntOrange quickly evaded the block by logging out: The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peteforsyth at 17:53, 15 April 2008. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    Not continued editwarring: The link given is a posting of a comment on the talk page of protected article Oregon State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't know whether it's block evasion or not, but it isn't editwarring. You might want Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets rather than here. (non-admin, kindof involved (see above) opinion.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Novidmarana reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 31 hours )


    Editor keeps deleting the words "fending off protestors" in the intro. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    User has already been blocked. Scarian 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


    User:HongQiGong reported by User:Dassiebtekreuz (Result: No vio)


    Actually see above, as the complainant above has also violated the 3RR rule. Editor User:HongQiGong keeps removing content that is sourced and has a citation, keeps adding "defending the Olympic torch against a protestor who....", although this is what the source is exactly saying, and keeps adding a disclaimer on a reliable source, in the form of "According to Geoffrey York", although source is a reliable source according to WP:RS. Same applies for User:Helloterran.

    Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I see where the 3RR violation is. The first two diffs are different edits from the last two diffs. But if you can point out the 3RR violation, I'd be glad to self-revert. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    I see 2 or 3 reverts looking through the articles history but I can't see any violation. A little bit of WP:OWN perhaps, but nothing too auspicious. No violation. Scarian 09:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Helloterran reported by User:Dassiebtekreuz (Result: 31 hours)


    Once again, see above, as the complainant above has also violated the 3RR rule. Editor Helloterran keeps removing content that is sourced and has a citation, keeps adding "defending the Olympic torch against a protestor who....", although this is what the source is exactly saying, and keeps adding a disclaimer on a reliable source, in the form of "According to Geoffrey York", although source is a reliable source according to WP:RS.Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    Already been blocked. Scarian 09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:GijsvdL reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: See result)


    • Previous version reverted to: (not sure what exactly is meant here by 'previous')

    Editor keeps removing references that are in full accordance with WP:COS, despite ample explanation on the talk page and several warnings. User is not disputing relevance (the other books in the series are kept) but insists that my name is not allowed to appear on the internet. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    Please note Guido den Broeder is notorious on the Dutch wikipedia for selfpromotion and related problems. He's under strict supervision of a mentor, and currently blocked for two weeks. See here his track record on blocks. Regards, JacobH (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (sysop on Dutch wikipedia)
    User:JacobH is a single-purpose account, taking part in the same edit war. Enough said. As explained already in 30 other places: I have no mentor, block is random by another mob member and is being dealt with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_3RR.3F about this case. A EN.wiki sysop already states my reverts are valid. Note also that JacobH is not a single-purpose account. JacobH is a NL.wiki sysop. As an addition: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for the same behaviour. He's also blocked at NL.wiki at the moment. GijsvdL (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    No such measures have been taken. Since user keeps repeating this lie (check with nl:Arbcom, note that the previous random block was lifted by the Arbcom), can something further be done? Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Anybody may visit NL.wiki IRC to verify. GijsvdL (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    The IRC is not a part of nl:Misplaced Pages. The Arbcom is.
    Meanwhile, it has been confirmed (village pump) that these actions are also a violation of en:copyright, and I will treat them so. There are already Arbcom procedures at nl:Misplaced Pages against this mob for similar violations (note, however, that the cases are incessantly vandalized by same users, so again check with nl:Arbcom). I will add no more and await your decision. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    At IRC there are sufficient sysops online to verify that Guido is lying about the NL.wiki arbcom-decision. GijsvdL (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    I've decided to try something different today: I won't block you if both of you just stop editing chess articles and use discussion to work out your disagreements. Both of you are not allowed to edit a chess article (Except to remove blatantly obvious vandalism/libel) until some progress is made between you. If you wish, I can help mediate the discussion. Scarian 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    I have clashed with Guido before (on the English Misplaced Pages), so I will not take any actions here. I just want to say that he does have a mentor on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, appointed by the Dutch ArbCom. Guido doesn't accept the mentoring, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The main reason for his problems on the Dutch Misplaced Pages is self-promotion, just like here. And checking the VPP discussion started by Guido indicates that it has not been confirmed that the removal of these links (books written by Guido and published by his own company) is a copyright violation at all. My suggestion would be to warn GijsvdL to be more careful about the 3RR (it is unclear to me whether he was aware of this policy), and to strongly warn Guido den Broeder against inserting any form of reference or link to his own work or work of his company, to avoid running in the same trouble here as he has on the Dutch Misplaced Pages. Fram (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Again, please check with nl:Arbcom, also read up on Dutch law, and yes, GijsvdL was aware, he was warned several times and was already active on this page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Dutch law is irrelevant here, I have checked the Dutch Misplaced PagesThe same arbcom page that undid your second-to-last block, only four days ago, also confirmed the mentoring], and could you point me to the place were GijsvdL was informed about our WP:3RR policy? It's unclear to me what you mean by "this page", but if you mean this page, then he hasn't edited it before your report here.Fram (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have been informed about 3RR as follows: It is not currently 3RR (currently at 3) and if it was taken to 3RR I wouldn't block anyway, because it is clearly removing self-promotion. Those aren't references, they're just adverts for the books. Black Kite 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) - GijsvdL (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    @Fram: You missed the Arbcom procedure where this so-called mentorship is contested. nl:Misplaced Pages falls under Dutch law, which says that a mentor can only be appointed if the pupil requests it. There is plenty of jurisprudence. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Why do you think nl: falls under Dutch law? It's hosted in the same way as all the other Wikimedia projects. The fact that it uses the Dutch language is entirely irrelevant for the jurisdiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I have given the link where Dutch Arbcom, four days ago, confirmed the mentoring. You contest it, but I have seen no posts from either ArbCom or the mentor that contest it, so for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, the mentoring is still valid. As for Dutch law: that is completely irrelevant here. A website can have its own rules of participation. Dutch law also forbids the silencing (blocking) of people, but that does not apply to a private website. But you have accused GijsvdL of lying (see above), while he has done no such thing. You are blocked and a mentor has been appointed by the arbcom (which recently confirmed this). You can contest these measures, but to deny them and to accuse another user of lying for pointing them out is way out of line. Fram (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Allow me to say this in Dutch: waar in godsnaam gaat deze ruzie over? Jullie zijn aan het stoeien als twee kleuters in een zandbak. Hij begon, nee hij, nee hij, nee hij, ik vind je stom, jij bent stom, nee jij bent stom. Zien jullie zelf niet dat jullie van een mug een olifant aan het maken zijn? Als je bloeddruk zo hoog oploopt dat je je niet meer normaal kan gedragen, zorg dan dat je iets anders gaat doen. Ga de afwas doen, boodschappen, een spelletje, wat dan ook, alles behalve Misplaced Pages. Translated in English per a message left on my talk page: What the hell is this dispute about? You are fighting like two babies in a sandbox. "He started it, no he did, no he did, no he did, I don't like you, I don't like you." Can't you see that you're making a mountain out of a molehill? If your blood pressures rises to the point you can't behave properly, make sure you're gonna do something else. The dishes, groceries, a game, anything, but Misplaced Pages. Aecis 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • To clarify, my previous comment in Dutch was a stern reprimande wrt the behaviour of both editors. I do think GijsvdL has a point though. Guido den Broeder has a habit, both here and on nl:, of inserting his own, self-published books as further readings. Those books are probably relevant and authoritative, so he probably remains inches within WP:COI. GijsvdL has objected to this. The merits of this objection should be assessed on the relevant talk pages, which appears to be taking place. But the response can never be to edit war to get the books in or out of the article, which is what both sides have done here. Aecis 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have raised this issue on the conflict of interest noticeboard. This is more appropriate, since the dispute revolves around the allegation that Guido has violated WP:COI, and Guido's denial that he has done so. Any mediation and dispute resolution is most likely to come from that direction. This discussion has sunk to the level of flaming, so I recommend closing it. Aecis 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • A ruling has already been given by Scarian: . Therefore, this discussion is already closed. Furthermore, the page has been protected by AGK (expires 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC))). Please stop posting to this thread. If you have things to discuss, please find an appropriate place to discuss them. This page is not for discussion. Every post here takes up space on administrators' watchlists. If more 3RR violations occur, please list diffs according to the standard format. By the way, "previous" means "before", "earlier". In order to prove that something is a revert, you need to show that there was a version at an earlier time that's the same as (or similar to) what the person is changing it to. Otherwise, it might not be a revert but just an edit that puts in new information. The time on the "previous version reverted to" should be an earlier time than the times of the versions being compared in the diffs. That doesn't matter now for this report because Scarian has already ruled on it. (Edit conflict; non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Supergreenred reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 48 hours, repeat offense, WP:GAME)

    • Diff of 3RR warning. The first action of the account in Misplaced Pages was a 3RR report so he knows the rule: 01:58, 16 March 2008 Also warned later about the rule on his talk page:

    Attempt to violate the spirit of the rule by waiting 9 minutes before making his fourth revert.Ultramarine (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    Agreed. This editor has persisted in edit-warring, even when asked not to/warned about it. He was let off with the last report because he reverted four times in 26 hours. This time he has reverted four times in 24 hours 9 minutes. Other editors have been blocked for doing this, so I do not see why this guy should be any different. He admits that he is an experienced user who edited as a series of IPs in the past - he may have been blocked then as well for edit-warring, as he has not disclosed any of the IPs he used in the past, even after he was asked. John Smith's (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 48 hours. Jehochman 14:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Jsn9333 reported by User:AuburnPilot (Result: Protected)


    Jsn9333 is a disruptive SPA who has already been blocked once for sock/meatpuppetry on Fox News Channel, and his sock/meatpuppet (Unc 2002 (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely following a SSP case and checkuser. This is Jsn9333's second violation of the 3RR, but as I am involved in the FNC discussion, I cannot place the block myself. - auburnpilot talk 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    I am not altogether convinced that #1 is a revert, as it does not match the version reverted back to. Bearing in mind that the page was protected for 4 days and the edit war began again when the page was unprotected, Page protected This one's indefinite, though. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    From WP:3RR "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content...". Jsn removed the same version of the intro 4 times in 24 hours. However, I suppose protection is the second best thing. - auburnpilot talk 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:VeritasAgent reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    Keeps trying to push his POV into the article, so trying to edit war it in. Grsz11 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours. Scarian 15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Andyvphil reported by User:Scjessey (Result: No violation)

    User has been warned for three-revert violations on multiple occasions and has been blocked twice before, yet continues to edit war on Barack Obama in order to push POV. Reversions often take place despite pleas for talk page discussion and consensus-building. The users performed a self-revert to avoid 3RR issues (diff), but then immediately cancelled it (diff). In the interests of disclosure, I should point out that this user has previously reported me for violations of 3RR, but these have not resulted in a block. Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    Scjessey, the first three reverts are consecutive, so they only count as one edit. You'll need to find other reverts to get a 3RR violation. Edit warring, now that's a possibility.. --Bobblehead 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    You make a good point, and I confess I was unaware of that nuance in the policy. That leaves only 3, so I agree the monitoring administrator will need to make a decision based on edit warring. I'm not looking for a block, I just want the edit warring to end. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    The reports on Scjessey (which were for clear 3RR violations, not vaguely defined "edit warring") did not result in a block, but did result in warnings and an offered and accepted self-block and parole. The text in question was transferred whole from the talk page where it had resided for a couple days, so assertions that I am avoiding discussion are false. Scjessey is confusing my refusal to accept his partial acceptance of the proposed change as adequate with a refusal to build consensus. Not the same thing at all. Putting text on the page once in awhile is what keeps the discussion going. Otherwise the refuseniks demand "consensus", ignore or string out the discussion endlessly, and win by desuetude.
    We're all three edit warring, but so far (since Scjessey was last reported) obeying the speed limit. None of us have violated 3RR. We each have three reverts in the 24 hour period in question (in each case spread over two or more issues) although one of Bobblehead's is a genuine rvv exception (one of Scjessey's is a bogus rvv claim, but he's the one still getting an education in the details of the speed limit.) It's not disruptive -- it's how things get done at Barack Obama, and I can give chapter and verse and explanation as to why -- and there's no reason for anyone to be blocked at present. Andyvphil (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    No violation. I'm not seeing enough reverts by Andyvphil to break the limit. I have merged multiple edits into one, for purpose of counting. Here are the beginnings of the sets:
    14:52 UTC 15 April: Adds "terrorism" in double quotes to Wright discussion, adds ABC News link (doesn't seem to be a revert)
    15:44 UTC 15 April: Adds new material on Rezko's federal trial which wasn't there before; not a revert
    16:11 UTC 15 April: Puts back the Rezko material after someone removed it; it's a revert
    17:00 UTC 15 April: Puts back the Rezko material again; it's another revert
    00:19 UTC 16 April: Adds 'POV' tag to one of the sections, which is not a revert
    I invite others to do their own analysis, and block if they can find enough reverts. I don't perceive that either side in this debate is much more virtuous than the other, regarding edit warring, so I don't see cause for a block on those grounds. Scjessey didn't edit enough during this period to risk a 3RR violation himself. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    UEFA Cup (Result: One user blocked)

    Anyone with a spare half hour, the long running war over UEFA Cup related articles is ongoing, see UEFA Cup records and statistics. Protections such as that by 'B' at Valencia CF have had no effect, nor a short ban for User:Ultracanalla (more than this one user are involved, but he appears to be asking for an admin to become involved judging by his edit summaries) MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    For convenience, here are some links to the above-mentioned: article UEFA Cup records and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and article Valencia CF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and user Ultracanalla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:28, 15 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) 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    A correct report would have filled a whole page, since nothing was done after the editors resumed warring following an 8hr block by your own hand, following the first correct filing. If anyone is interested in another incorrect filing: admin User:Oldelpaso must have either acted on this filing anyway, or saw the capital letter e/s tirades in recent changes, and has warned two editors since, and , of which Ultracanella broke tonight , and Fadiga09 reverted with the e/s if i get blocked, so do you. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    No violation (non-admin opinion). Although there's editwarring going on, I don't see 4 reverts within a 24-hour period on either of the two pages whose links I've listed above. I encourage all involved to discuss things calmly on the talk page rather than reverting repeatedly. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure edit warring within the technical limit is supposed to be actionable. Do you see any evidence that the users will discuss on the talk page, despite having been warned? Plenty of talk has happened with no result, now they just seem determined to take each other down, meanwhile the article gets reverted continually without a technical violation. And be aware, this is being done at other articles too. There comes a point where the technical interpretation of the policy and the correct use of filing template has to be put aside for the good of an article. If it goes on much further, I and I presume other non-admins will just unwatch it and let them get on with it. MickMacNee (talk)
    I issued the warnings as a result of seeing edit warring on UEFA Cup on my watchlist. I hadn't realised it had spread to Valencia CF too. The prolonged nature of the edit warring means I wouldn't oppose a block even if 3RR was not technically breached, as both have continued to edit war despite receiving previous warnings and short blocks for it. By now they should both be aware that 3RR is not an entitlement. Lets see whether B's actions change anything. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Fadiga09 blocked 48 hours, Dustihowe warned, rollback removed, Ultracanalla warned. The cross-article edit warring is ridiculous. Protecting the article for a week didn't seem to do the trick. I have removed the rollback privilege from Dustihowe (talk · contribs), who was using it to revert war on Valencia CF. I have blocked Fadiga09 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. He appears to be the only one to have violated 3RR of late. I left warnings on the talk pages of the other two. --B (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Gavin.collins reported by Anon (Result: No violation)


    Edit warring over clean-up tags. Basically an episodes-and-characters dispute. 71.107.160.155 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    No violation Removal of the templates was vandalism, and Gavin was reverting it. A fluctuating set of four different single-purpose IPs was on the other side of Gavin during this dispute. User:Jeske Couriano, an administrator, is one of those who restored the templates. User:Tiptoety has now semi-protected the page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    That's wrong, removal of incorrect templates is not vandalism. Gavin should be blocked. Also, Jeske Couriano is also a deletionist, so he is biased in this instance. The administrator who protected the page obviously didn't look at the revisions.

    You *are* aware that those on the other side turn out invariably to be Grawp socks, right, Ed? -Jéské 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    Those reverts weren't 3RR-exempt. But I probably wouldn't have blocked anyway. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Light Defender reported by IP Editor 87.XXX (Result: Page protected)


    This is only one example, the editor is trying to systematically remove any evidence that a musical is not endorsed by the band take that - he is removing material sourced to the times (a reliable source) from multiple articles. (I am a dynamic ip which is why I'm listed as 87.xxx.xxx 87.114.150.200 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    PhilKnight has protected the article (expires 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)). Netsnipe has also protected article Gary Barlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), (expires 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC))). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Rodhullandemu bullying and vandalism (Result: No action)

    Disruptive editing of Talk:Deaths in 2008, removing contributions of other editors when it doesn't suit him, reverting to present his view of history. Breach of 3RR when other editors attempt to restore contributions.

    1. (cur) (last) 14:53, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu
    2. (cur) (last) 11:28, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu
    3. (cur) (last) 10:57, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu
    4. (cur) (last) 09:01, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu

    This person is a disgrace to wikipedia 62.64.200.158 (talk) 17:37, 16 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. You could also try discussion, if you see it from someone else's perspective, it can help. Rudget 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    Information: This anon IP is a suspected sockpuppet of Smurfmeister (talk · contribs)--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Rodhullandemu reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: No action)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: (User is an administrator, therefore presumably aware of 3RR.)

    This is the same incident as reported in the malformed report above. Rodhullandemu removed a comment from an article talk page four times, essentially the same comment each time. The comment is addressed to Rodhullandemu. Smurfmeister posted the original message; the message was restored 4 times by 3 similar IP accounts. Rodhullandemu alleges that the comment is vandalism and that an IP account restoring it is a sockpuppet of Smurfmeister. Smurfmeister is not a banned user, so I don't think it's a valid 3RR exception even if they're sockpuppets. I didn't find any suspected sockpuppet report. If the IP accounts are sockpuppets of each other, they've also violated 3RR.

    The reverts by the IP accounts are as follows:

    • 10:55, 16 April 2008 62.64.201.155
    • 11:02, 16 April 2008 62.64.201.155
    • 14:50, 16 April 2008 62.64.213.157
    • 17:39, 16 April 2008 62.64.200.158 (This last one is the one which posted the above report, and

    which Rodhullandemu alleges to be a sockpuppet of Smurfmeister.)

    ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    1. The start of it all: Talk:Mark_Speight#Death
    2. Notification of problem: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive138#Revert_war_at_Mark_Speight
    3. Support for my actions: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Update:_WP:POINT_disruption_at_Talk:Deaths_in_2008_-_Block_review_please
    4. The locus in quo:Talk:Deaths_in_2008#Mark_Speight
    5. Proposal by third party to block IP for disruption: Misplaced Pages:AN#Proposed_blocking_of_an_IP_user_.2862.64.200.158.29
    6. IP is blocked by User:seicer:
    7. Relevant policies/guidelines:
    Misplaced Pages:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages
    Misplaced Pages:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable
    • If this is an improper 3RR violation, I am a banana. And I note the editor in question has not taken up my suggestion to open an WP:RFC in relation to this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Note While the reverts were not strictly exempted from 3RR, I am minded to take no action on this because the IP and poster were making posts which bordered on personal attacks.  Deferred RFC. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Yaf (Result: 48 hour block )

    Editor is continuously edit warring with other editors, attempting to WP:OWN this and other articles on the topic of firearms and is a well known tendentious and POV edit warrior on Misplaced Pages. He attempts to WP:OWN all articles which he patrols, while adding very little content. See the mediation to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article itself, the Gun politics in the United States article, the mediation to Hunting weapon, WorldNetDaily, ad nauseum histories. Also, see RFPP request.Yaf (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 48 hours for clear violation. User has been blocked before for edit warring on the same article. There also seems to be numerous editors reverting him/her. Obvious consensus against their changes? Scarian 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Anastrophe. reported by User:Anastrophe. (Result: No vio )

    i'm reporting myself in the interest of fairness per the block immediately preceding this, as believe i'm guilty of violating 3RR in response to User:Saltyboatr's reverts. Anastrophe (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    Nej, at most you did 3 reverts apparently in line with consensus. No violation. (And don't let you conscience fool you into feeling guilty ;-) Scarian 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    thanks. less about guilt than about being fair, and above-board. Anastrophe (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:12.18.63.233 reported by User:kww (Result: )


    User:71.100.12.251 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )

    Multiple reversions by anon IP user with multiple IP addresses editing the article Analog hole.

    Clearly, I myself am in violation of 3RR. I am willing to take whatever punishment is deemed suitable. What I would like most in this case is for the system to come up with a way to tame this anon user who is leapfrogging from IP to IP without ever having to answer to his wrongdoings such as his vandalism of user pages, immediate accusations of POV and his threatening attitude. Having multiple IP addresses insulates this user from warnings and 3RR. This user appears to feel that the rules are best applied to others.


    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: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic