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 16:27, 29 April 2008 editWizardman (talk | contribs)Administrators401,513 edits →User:Matthew reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: ): note← Previous edit Revision as of 17:25, 29 April 2008 edit undo207.102.64.207 (talk) new reportNext edit →
Line 568: Line 568:
**Was blocked and unblocked. I'm not gonna fight over it, so hopefully a third admin will look over everything. It's certainly a mess right now. ] 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC) **Was blocked and unblocked. I'm not gonna fight over it, so hopefully a third admin will look over everything. It's certainly a mess right now. ] 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
:At this point the question is now whether to protect the page, a block on either side now appears unnecessary. ] 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC) :At this point the question is now whether to protect the page, a block on either side now appears unnecessary. ] 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

== Dynamic IP ] to ] reported by ] (]) (Result: ) ==

*] violation on {{Article|Ustka}}. {{3RRV|62.134.89.40}}: Time reported: 17:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

*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: (as User:62.134.88.16)
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert: (as User:62.180.160.57)
*4th revert: (as User:62.134.89.40)

*Diff of 3RR warning:



== Example == == Example ==

Revision as of 17:25, 29 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.


    User:Landon1980 reported by User:Fair Deal (Result: Article protected)

    Comment This edit war broke out yesterday with User:Navnløs exceeding 3RR across several articles. Navnløs received a 48 hour block. Today User:Landon1980, a new user, has appeared on the scene to continue the edit war started by Navnløs. Landon1980 has ignored the talk page discussion and made accusations that the IP editors were using open proxies. A DNS search shows this to be untrue. a Warning for 3RR violation was issued to Landon1980 but after his fourth revert he blanked the warnings here claiming them to be irrelevant. Fair Deal (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

    Decision deferred pending checkuser - The odds of those IP addresses all being independent people is pretty close to the odds that I'm going to be elected President this fall. 142.177.76.36 (talk · contribs) and 142.163.22.182 (talk · contribs) are the same dial-up ISP. All of them but 99.251.226.121 (talk · contribs) are dial-up ISPs. So it's probably either the same person IP hopping or someone getting their friends to go in. I'm going to ask for two checkusers (1) to determine whether Landon1980 is a sock of the blocked Navnløs (talk · contribs) and (2) to determine whether our IP-hopping friend is a sock of Niderbib (talk · contribs). --B (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, a cursory review of the contributions of Landon1980 and Navnløs proves they are not socks. They have edited simultaneously on multiple occasions. --B (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    Checkuser says everyone is unrelated. The IPs are obviously related in some fashion (sockpuppets or meatpuppets) ... but ... whatever. Article protected. --B (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:PetraSchelm reported by User:AnotherSolipsist (Result: )


    "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule."--I reverted four separate changes (made today, by Another Solipsist) in consecutive reverts instead of one revert, but could easily have consolidated them into one revert. (No single change was reverted twice, let alone 3x.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: PetraSchelm, you misunderstand the meaning of "consecutive" in this context. When an editor does two edits and no other editor edits the article between those two edits, so that the two edits are listed consecutively in the page history, then those two edits are considered "consecutive" and are generally counted as one edit for 3RR. Your edits are not consecutive. Other editors edit between your edits, and each of your edits appears by itself, not immediately preceded or followed by another of your edits, in the page history. Therefore, to avoid violating 3RR you need to avoid doing any more reverts on that page until 24 hours after the first (or second) revert. If there are really 4 reverts, you might want to self-revert one of your edits back to the previous version so that you won't be violating 3RR. However, I have difficulty seeing the 1st "revert" as being a revert since the equivalent sentence doesn't exist in the earlier version. Perhaps an argument could be made that the word "people" is being used to mean the same or similar thing in the two versions even though the sentences are different. Note that 3RR does not allow more than three reverts on a page by an editor within a 24-hour period even if the reverts are all on different parts of the page. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    Additional information. (Third party comment - replacing my initial summary comment with this one that includes diffs)

    • Disclosure: I've made a variety of edits to the page over the last few days and have been active in the talk page discussions. Only one of my edits was a revert (plus two immediate self-reverts to discuss the proposed changes first).
    • The reported series of edits was part of an edit war that involved multiple editors on opposing sides of a dispute. It has since been resolved amicably, at least for the time being.
    • I concur with User:Coppertwig that the first listed diff in the report does not appear to be a revert, leaving only three.
    • User:PetraSchelm is new and has never seen a 3RR report before as far as I know. I alerted her to the 3RR policy a couple weeks ago and she's been careful to avoid edit warring. She may have had a misunderstanding of some of the policy, that's since been clarified by User:Coppertwig above. I'm sure she will take it to heart as she has shown herself to be a civil good-faith productive editor in the several weeks she's been working on the project.
    • The user who posted this 3RR report was a participant in the content dispute. He made more than three reverts within 24 hours, though without using the term "revert" in most of the edit summaries. The following list of diffs includes only the subset of his edits to that page during that 24 hours that involve reverting contested text:
    • I am not reporting these diffs to file a 3RR report against User:AnotherSolipsist, just for context and more complete record of both sides of the incident.
    • I recommend this report be closed with no preventive block against either editor. Involved editors have settled on a consensus solution for now and there's no edit warring in progress at this time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Ed Fitzgerald reported by User:Childnicotine (Result:no action)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: Reported user has edited since 2005 and certainly knows of the rule
    Comment, not all of Ed's reverts are consecutive, and therefore the three revert rule does not apply. Also, your changes have been challenged by at least one other editor, making this a content dispute that needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article. --clpo13(talk) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    Furthermore, this appears to be an exact duplicate of a report above, which was dismissed. --clpo13(talk) 07:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    Response The result of the previous complaint (which dealt with the first four diffs provided) was a finding that the 2nd and 3rd edits were together one revert. In this instance, inspection of the fifth "revert" (which would be the fourth, if the 2nd and 3rd are one revert) will show that it's not a revert at all. None of the material posted was removed from the article. The "see also" link stayed, but was moved from a prominent position in the list to a less prominent one. The two references given, which had been attached to the "see also" link were moved to the section of the article which discussed the issue under question, where they more properly belonged. I also, in fact, added back in a category which had previously been deleted as aprt of my reversions, but which had been neglected to be restored. In short, rather than a reversion, I simply edited the article in a reasonable fashion.

    Further, I have to protest that neither in this instance nor in the previous one was I notified by the complaintant that he or she had filed here. The length of time I've edited on Misplaced Pages or my presumed knowledge of the 3RR rule is irrelevant, the notification of both a possible 3RR violation and the act of filing a complaint is a necessary part of the process and a matter of Wikipedian courtesy.

    Ironically, as I've tried to make clear, my editing in this instance has been in an attempt to help the complaintant add the material in a way that would be permanent and not reverted, as I tried to make clear on both the user's talk page and the talk page of the article in question . Clearly, I have been less than effective in putting my poitn across. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 08:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Ed Fitzgerald appears to have stopped reverting after becoming aware at 01:34, 26 April of this 3RR report. The 2nd and 3rd reverts are consecutive and can count as one. The 5th revert does not appear to me to count as a revert: it moves material, and it removes a name, but the removal of the name is (according to the edit summary) per BLP and therefore exempt from 3RR. However, there is an additional revert not listed above, at 21:01, 25 April 2008, so there are still four reverts within 24 hours. Although it's a nice courtesy to inform someone of a 3RR report, you should not expect such a notification, and I believe the usual practice on this noticeboard is that people can be blocked after violating 3RR if they have ever been notified of the existence of the rule. There was a suggestion in bold near the bottom of this thread at the Pump to change the policy to require warnings, but it didn't fly. On the other hand, since blocks are not used punitively, if you seem to have stopped reverting you're unlikely to be blocked, though you may want to consider self-reverting one of your reverts to be on the safe side. This case is the sort of thing I was thinking of when I said "One can revert 4 times in 24 hours without doing any editwarring, in my opinion" (in that discussion I just linked to). (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    My memory is that I stopped editing that night and didn't see the 3RR notification (which did not come from the complaintant) until I logged in the next day. I don't think there was a fourth revert at any time. My edit at :38 is the first, the two edits at :43 and :44 count as the second, and the third was at :48. My edit at 16:01 was completely unrelated, and the one at 20:20 dealt with the some of the same information, but in a different part of the article, and was a removal because of BLP concerns. The next edit at 20:26 was the one I described above where I moved some of the material in question around and added back some that had been forgotten, and again removed one piece of information because of BLP concerns - so it's basically an edit. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    As far as I can see, Coppertwig's assessment is correct, so no action. It would be better for Ed to do less reverting and get other people involved, obviously. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    I agree, but you might note that after my second' revert, I posted to the user's talk page to explain that I wasn't trying to block the information from being posted, I was trying to help insure that it was posted in a way that it wouldn't be removed. The result was another restore by an IP editor, my third revert, a similar note to the talk page of the IP editor, and a 3RR complaint by the original editor, who still doesn't seem to understand what I was doing.

    Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Just to clarify for future reference: even if edits are "unrelated", they can still violate 3RR. The rule is no more than 3 reverts on a page in a 24-hour period. Four reverts are a violation even if they are on different parts of the page and unrelated to each other. I'm sorry the other editor(s) didn't seem to understand what you were trying to do. Maybe if you explain it on the talk page and wait for them to comment before editing they'll be more receptive. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification, which was quite helpful - I actually misunderstood the rule, thinking that it applied only to reverts of the same material. Very useful to know for the future. So much for the presumption that someone who's been around for 3 years is presumed to know the rules. I indeed "knew" the rule, but I knew it wrong. Thanks again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Watchdogb reported by User:Top Gun (Result: Page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: User:Watchdogb is constantly removing sourced edits claiming they are not reliable. However that source is used by the Indian goverment and other Southeastern Asian nations for their own research. In any case he is constantly claiming to upholding Misplaced Pages rules, but obviously doesn't mind to revert 5 or 10 times to make his point.
    Clearly you do not know what 3RR is. I did not make 3 reverts in any 24 hours. The so called revert #9,#7 and #3 are not a revert. It is actually an edit and not a revert. So called revert 4 and 6 are the exact same entry and not two different reports. Watchdogb (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    No actualy number three is not a revert, but if you sum it up with your next three edits 12:18, 24 April 2008 12:21, 24 April 2008 12:23, 24 April 2008 you get a revert of everything the previous editor did. Top Gun

    Page protected Rjd0060 has protected the page. (See also a similar report on the same page below.) (comment by non-admin.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Watchdogb reported by User:Top Gun (Result: Page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: User:Watchdogb is constantly removing sourced edits claiming they are not reliable. However that source is used by the Indian goverment and other Southeastern Asian nations for their own research. In any case he is constantly claiming to upholding Misplaced Pages rules, but obviously doesn't mind to revert 5 or 10 times to make his point.
    First, this is not violating 3RR as only 3 edits are made within 24 hours which is not a violation. Second, the article is locked and therefore no need for any block even if I did violate - which I didn't. Watchdogb (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    Not a violation, the name of the rule is 3 revert rule, and buddy you made 5 reverts. One after the other. Three of which within 24 hours. Top Gun

    Page protected The page has been protected by Metros. (comment by non-admin) Coppertwig (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Top_Gun reported by User:watchdogb (Result: Page protected)


    User has already been blocked once for 3RR violations. : Note that this user is the same person as the IP (87.116.170.203) here you see the IP signs Top Gun. More evidence are herehere here.

    As it may be hard for admins to see this user keeps reinstating the following line in the article:

    On April 23, a large-scale military offensive was mounted against the LTTE defence line in the northern peninsula of Jaffna. After several hours of intense fighting the SLA was beaten back with heavy casualties sustained on both sides. Like always the casualty figures were disputed by both sides of the conflict. The SLA claimed to have sustained 165 soldiers killed, 20 missing and 84 wounded in the day-long battle while they killed 100 militants. In contrast the LTTE said they themselves lost 25 men. Whatever the numbers this was the costliest battle yet for the SLA since the October 2006 debacle when 129 soldiers were killed and 515 wounded after a LTTE counter-offensive in Jaffna.

    . Watchdogb (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    Yes I am reinstating that because it is a sourced edit. There is a reference. And it is also a mainstream news source, because you are advocating mainstream as a primary precondition mr Watchdogb. And yes I am user 87.116.170.203 I just don't care about signing in sometimes. User Watchdogb should be blocked for reverting sourced edits. And I have not been the only one whose edits he has reverted, there are also other users.Top Gun

    Nope, it was a content dispute in which you reverted to your version 4 times violating 3RR. Watchdogb (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    I reverted only after you reverted, so you started reverting first. You are now accusing me only because you are trying to fight back because I reported you for violations of 3RR on two articles at the same time.Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Rjd0060 has protected the page until May 15. (comment by non-admin) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


    User:Yankees10 reported by User:67.137.0.28 (Result: No violation)


    It seems user Yankees10 is completely against updating the Tyrell Johnson entry with information on his early years or information surrounding his recent drafting. I warned him on his user page not to revert anymore (which he has since removed from his page with the comment "funny asshole") and he kept doing so. Please keep him from reverting entrys so we can update them without it all taken off.

    67.137.0.28 (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    I have only reverted your edit regarding the extra draft info thing twice, so this is not even a 3RR violation, and for one thing you are adding things that should not be there--Yankees10 02:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    I see four times you have reverted that page today. You're explanations have been from "none of this shit is necessary" to "why are you doing this." 67.137.0.28 (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    I reverted for differnt reasons, and most of the things you wrote was just commentary and opinion.--Yankees10 02:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: The three-revert rule says that you can't do more than 3 reverts on a page in a 24-hour period. It doesn't matter whether the reverts were of different text on different parts of the page for different reasons; you still can't do a total of more than 3 reverts. Note also that users can be blocked for edit-warring even if the number of reverts does not violate 3RR. I encourage both of you to use the article talk page to discuss and come to an understanding with each other about the article content. It may help to refer to policy to support your arguments. If necessary, see dispute resolution. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)'
    Oh I didnt know that, I am willing not to touch it for know, because I really dont want to get blocked specially at a busy time--Yankees10 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    Hey what do you know, here is a 5th revert: 02:30, 27 April 2008. This is pretty blatent edit warring and we still haven't seen anything on the talk page about why he's reverting. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    And now he's admitted that he wasn't even paying attention to all of it and some of it should've stayed 67.137.0.28 (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    No violation Yankees10 never received a proper 3RR warning. (The link above does not go to a warning at all. The actual warning given did not mention 3RR). Yankees10 did finally join in this discussion and stated above, at 02:47 UTC on 27 April: Oh I didnt know that, I am willing not to touch it for know, because I really dont want to get blocked specially at a busy time.. This sounds to me to be a promise to stop edit warring. Please note that the entries in this report are not proper diffs, and the report (plus those below) could have been rejected on those grounds. In future, please use {{uw-3rr}} to notify editors, and put the notice at the bottom of their Talk page not the top. The two reports below have the same defect: no proper 3RR warning was given prior to the last revert. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    Just noticed, although Yankees10 stated Oh I didnt know that, I am willing not to touch it for know, because I really dont want to get blocked specially at a busy time.. at 02:47 UTC on 27 April, he went in again and reverted it a 6th time] at 13:42 on 27 April, 10 hours later without saying anything on the discussion page. Of course this was just a few hours before being blocked for a different 3RR violation. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Yankees10 reported by User:67.137.0.28 (Result: No violation )


    Blatent edit warring. 5 reverts within 24 hours, this isn't the 1st or only time either. This user seems to have a history of blatently reverting repeatedly often without even paying attention to what he's reverting. -67.137.0.28 (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    No violation No proper 3RR warning was given. All these edits took place before this user became aware of the 3RR issue. See previous report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    Can you please like seriously stop trying to block me, what is the point, I was reverting vandalism--Yankees10 13:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    Yankees10, these were not vandal reverts. If the added material was unsourced, or did not belong, you should have discussed it on the Talk page. If you continue to edit war on these articles, you will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well it wasnt vandalism, but it was something that all that we are trying to get all NFL players to have, your right I should have discussed it.--Yankees10 14:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Yankees10 reported by User:67.137.0.28 (Result: No violation)


    Another example of edit warring and blatent repeated reverting of user's posts. At least three within a 24 hour period on this article as well. Three strikes and you're out. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    First of all these are not even reverts I am re-adding a word that was being removed--Yankees10 13:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    No violation Only three reverts are listed above. You need four reverts in 24 hours to violate 3RR. In any case there was no proper 3RR warning given; see above.
    Yankees10, you are on thin ice here; both of your recent comments on this board show a misunderstanding of the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    I dont plan on touching any of these article for the next couple of days, because I really don't wont to be blocked today or any time soon, since its NFL Draft day, and I'm like the only one updating the players.--Yankees10 14:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:GDD1000 reported by User:BigDunc (Result:24 hours)


    Editor is repeatedly adding unsourced information and WP:OR to the article, and is making false accusations of vandalism despite three editors pointing out the information is not properly sourced. BigDunc (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    This seems like an extremely clear case, so blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Yankees10 reported by User:Tromboneguy0186 (Result:24 hours)

    Editor is repeatedly adding a sub-category to the article, which is not needed as it is covered y a parent category. I and another user have both asked him to stop.

    Yes, the three-revert rule was breached, but the warning did not come until afterward. Therefore, no block for now per EdJohnston in above reports. If Yankees10 continues to edit war, he's likely to get blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    wow, how about the incivility he had at my talk page see:User talk:Yankees10#Joe Flacco and sub-categories, saying: "It's not there? Are you blind" and "Fuck it", is way worse than me reverting something that is right--Yankees10 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    Not good, but also not what this noticeboard is for. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    Where do I leave that--Yankees10 19:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


    Is it acceptable to directly solicit another user to revert the same article for which one has already surpassed 3RR? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours on Joe Flacco. Per the note from Tromboneguy. If you ask someone else to make a revert for you, that's as bad as reverting the page yourself. This happened after Yankees10 must surely have known about the 3RR rules. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    Yankees10 also asked user Chrisjnelson on his User Talk page to make reverts for him on the Tyrell Johnson page the with the explanation "Can you help me get rid of the stuff he adds if he adds it again, I dont want to be blocked". User Chrisjnelson replied "Yeah no problem." although he admitted "Some of it's decent info." As anyone can see, this is chronic abuse of the system here. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:DavidPaulHamilton reported by User:CharlesFinnegan (Result:protection)

    |edit]] | [[Talk:Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). DavidPaulHamilton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    This is a rather widespread dispute. I have decided to fully protect the page for one week, despite concerns about doing so, namely, the fact that some of these same users were involved in a dispute on this page in March, leaving me wondering how likely this protection is to be effective. If the edit war continues when protection is lifted, I think liberal dishing out of blocks would be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


    User:86.27.230.177 reported by User:bardcom (Result: 24 hr)


    The editor has started an edit war this evening over just about all the edits I've done. The editor alleges that I am not editting in good faith, and am merely removing all mention of the term "British Isles". Despite the vast majority of my edits being held up as good edits by a large number of editors over time, this editor reverts my edits without good reason, counter arguments, research or alternative references.

    User:Mikkalai reported by User:Nicklausse (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    This was in turn reverted by Mikkalai 16:43, 28 April 2008

    This user is essentially trying to make Nairi part of Armenian history.

    Mikkalai is continuing to revert the content of this page , as well as reverting another template . Nicklausse (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    Reverts by Nicklausse:

    Previous version reverted to: 00:40, 28 April 2008

    Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    1st: yes, this is part of the Ancient Near East.
    3rd: that was not added - it was copy-edited and moved.
    4th: Somebody else came along and reverted to a much earlier version, undoing changes that even administrators had made to the article.
    Nicklausse (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Hopping reported by User:Antelan (Result: 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Bless sins reported by User:Merzbow (Result: )

    Games 3RR by reverting 4 times in 25 hours and 10 minutes. He's a very experienced user who's been blocked for this in the past. - Merzbow (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

    Firstly notice that it is not 24 hours. Yes it is a little over 24 hours, but I never intended to game the system. If I like gaming the system, then Merzbow should be able to find other examples. Yet the history of this article and other articles show that I have restricted myself to no more than 2 reverts per day (often even 1 revert a day).
    Secondly, there is a question on Merzbow's involvement. Merzbow reverted me on Banu Qurayza without even caring to discuss why or joining the discussion on the talk page. From that perspective Merzbow's contribution looks like that of a drive-by reverter. Isn't drive-by reversion against the spirit of 3rr?Bless sins (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    I am afraid I might bear some responsibility for this report as I mistakenly talked about such a violation on the article talk page and BS's user talk page (asking him to self-rv). I was mistaken in thinking that these reverts all occurred within 24 hours (and mistaken on the extent of the last revert).
    However, I do think that this reverting is disruptive, no matter whether BS just got lucky or was waiting for the 25 hour mark. I certainly think it is not proper for him to fault Merzbow for his reverting or the report. Str1977 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    I too find your reverting disruptive (did you notice it reduces the article by 2k everytime?). But this is not the avenue to solve disputes. Do you also realize that you've made 3 reverts in less than 8 hours?Bless sins (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    BS, this is not the venue to discuss my edits but yours. I do not engage in constant blanket reverting aside from countering yours. I actively work towards finding solutions. I made three reverts and stopped then because I follow the rules. I do not care that your version as 2 KB less litter included. Str1977 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Str1977, the edit conflict form which the edits are being reported is something you too were engaged in. You said that you "stopped then because I follow the rules". Well I didn't break the rules either, as I did not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. "I actively work towards finding solutions" as do I by actively engaging on the talk page, and responding to you before I revert. I'm not sure the same can be said of Merzbow, who made a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    And working towards finding solutions includes reverting 4 times in 25 hours? Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage, but I have every right to revert an immediately objectionable POV edit if I see one, where I see one. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    If reverting 3 times in less than 8 hours is (as Str1977 did), then reverting in less than 26 hours (but more than 25) can also be considered as working towards a solution. During that same 25 hour period I made 9 responses on the talk page. "Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage" The talkpage is where I explained my revert. So you reverted without knowing "what the heck " my reasons (or others) were? That's indicative of a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Both you and Str1977 need to cut it out. This edit summary exemplifies the wrong attitude you both seem to have: that someone else's reverting justifies your own. Both of you need to do what Str1977 said and stop with your double standards and quit reverting (and yes, I said both of you). You're both edit warring, which is to say you're both being disruptive, and I'm rather disinclined to take any action that doesn't treat you equally. Can both of you just stop reverting, or am I going to have to get out the hammer? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Let me just state that I take exception to this "everyone's equally bad" view. If one editor repeatedly reverts to a version that he knows to be controversial, are we not allowed to resist? Str1977 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think any of the versions is considered controversial by the other person :) I personally don't think attempts to get any of the parties blocked is a good way to go. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    I personally wouldn't have submitted this report. There has been a long dispute on the Qurayza article; there was a mediation but it was closed as being failed. There has been much discussion on the talk page. This is not gaming the system to me, to be sure; and in my opinion filing such reports and trying to get one editors blocked is by no means, by no means the way to go. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    Let me make it clear that I don't fault Merzbow for making this report. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Antelan & User:Orangemarlin reported by User:Hopping (Result: No action)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • No violation Reporting editor has already been blocked for WP:OWNing this article, and is now edit-warring on it again (for which another admin has just blocked him - ). Plus you don't get to report two separate editors for 3RR by adding their edits together (unless they're sock/meatpuppets, in which case WP:SSP is your correct venue).Black Kite 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I am most definitely not a sock of Antelan. And I'm not a meatpuppet either, unless we've changed the definition so that two individuals with the same concern about these edits are considered meats. This is a bogus and abusive use of the noticeboard. Are there further sanctions available to deal with Hopping's methods? OrangeMarlin 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

    Editing Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (section) - Misplaced Pages, the 💕


    • Loodog (talk · contribs) assumes ownership of the article, the mentioned talk page consensus exists in his/her fantasy alone. The first edit listed above is not a revert, but my original edit. Loodog was the first to revert, and warned against 3RR before the fact, a characteristic of the seasoned edit warrior. Moreover, he overeagerly also reverted a useful edit by a third editor and refused to restore that edit, despite being informed of it. Also, as User:Tanthalas39 correctly pointed out here, Loodog, which of course he forgot to mention is the other party in this stupid little edit war. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 19:46, April 28, 2008
    • I have now filed an RfC at the article talk page, like I should have done at once. See also this discussion at WP:RSN (permlink), of which Loodog was notified but chose not to respond to. Dorftrottel (talk) 20:14, April 28, 2008

    User:Bermudatriangle reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: 24 hours)


    despite this being a new user, they seem to be aware of wikipedia protocol and have quoted AGF to me etc.

    I gave a 3RR warning, and suggested that they may wish to revert their previous edits, however the user has refused to do so, even though I have made them well aware of 3RR. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    I messed up the diff times, I have corrected these.

    I should add that the above reverts are not only against consensus, but also disruptive. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    My last revert is nothing to do with my previous reverts. I consider it is content dispute and your creation of uncited article and then linking it to another page is borderline vandalism.Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Your last revert was on the same article. The first four reverts within a 24 hour period are enough to violate 3RR. The last revert while it did relate to another section of the article, was still in violation of 3RR. You are well aware of this, considering that I copy/pasted the following from the 3RR article onto your talk page:

    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.

    My edit was most certainly not vandalism, I put a link to a wikipedia article, there was nothing remotely close to vandalism on the edit in question. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    To me it is vandalism. You have edited on Diana, Princess of Wales is only about her virginity. Now you are taking interest of an Institute under her name. Do you think others are insane here?Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Do I think others are insane? well I could answer that in a slightly witty but predictable manner, however if I did, then I would fall foul of wikipedia civility rules. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. No consensus to include that section, and 3RR clearly broken. Black Kite 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


    User:Matthew reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: )


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
      • Was blocked and unblocked. I'm not gonna fight over it, so hopefully a third admin will look over everything. It's certainly a mess right now. Wizardman 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    At this point the question is now whether to protect the page, a block on either side now appears unnecessary. Wizardman 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    Dynamic IP 62.134.88.16 to 62.134.89.40 reported by 207.102.64.207 (talk) (Result: )



    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