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 18:06, 6 May 2008 view source75.31.210.156 (talk) →User:Cryptographic hash reported by User:Josiah Rowe (Result: ): cm← Previous edit Revision as of 18:08, 6 May 2008 view source Coz 11 (talk | contribs)1,130 edits →User:Coz 11 reported by User:Chicken Wing (Result: )Next edit →
Line 498: Line 498:
] (]) 10:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 10:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


:: Lets be clear here. The user with the problem is Chicken Wing who has decided to try and take over articles and force them to be one sided. He is the one reverting content and refusing to work things out via the edit pages. I, and others, have consistantly told this user to stop being heavy handed and to stop slanting these articles but he chooses to complain about the people instead of being a responsible editor. --] (]) 18:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: both blocked 10 days ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: both blocked 10 days ) ==

Revision as of 18:08, 6 May 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:Matt Lewis reported by User:Wotapalaver (Result: No action)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    Wotapalaver (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Defence: I've been stitched up here with the use of an IP - and a weak 'warning' came after my last edit too. We were told to discuss changes when the article was recently locked - Wotapalaver has simply carried on in the same vein. I didn't intend to 3RR - but this guy is writing a entire article to his POV. I have explained why I feel he is "spinning exaggerations" and others agree: he does not have consensus. I feel I have been provoked here by an IP that seems to have turned up to replace Wotapalaver's edits - I was reverting the IP without considering a 3RR total - stupid maybe, but this has happened too easily, in my eyes. My reverts weren't all on the same text - but they certainly were for the less-biased spirit of the pre-existing edit (which was aleady a compromise from my own point of view).--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Additional note: I was reverting the "Many Irish" line in the edit (a long dispute), not the Irish language line (which I know nothing about, but others were clearly unhappy with). The problem was that it seems two separate controversial issues were being made in the same constantly replaced edit: I did say this in Talk too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Without making a clear decision right now, it appears to me that blocking Matt Lewis would be rather pointless, as this seems to be an extremely widespread edit war. Normally, I'd just protect the article for this; however, it's already been protected twice recently, making me skeptical that doing it again will solve the problem and reluctant to lock out non-edit warring users again. I think we need a better solution here; possibly one where we're willing to liberally give out edit warring blocks (ideally, some of those "discretionary sanctions" might be nice...) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    The article has been full-protected many times in the past, and this has not led to a stable version. The entire edit war we are seeing now started after 16:02 UTC on 1 May, when the last protection expired. How about we offer a tricky plan:
    • (A) Each editor who went over 1RR during the most recent war (1 May 16:00 up through 3 May 03:00 UTC) would be subject to an article ban. They would not be allowed to edit the British Isles article during the rest of the month of May.
    This list of editors restricted consists of: Bastun, Matt Lewis, Thingg, Wotapalaver and the two 78.19.* IPs.
    • (B) The ban would be lifted for any of the editors who can come to agreement among themselves on a compromise version of the article. The group includes Bastun, Matt Lewis, Thingg and Wotapalaver. The IP doesn't have to join the agreement, but if he doesn't he is still banned from the article during the month of May. Editors freed from the ban must still observe 1RR for the rest of May. (One revert per article per day).
    • (C) All editors besides the above five are restricted to 1RR for the rest of May on this article.
    • The article ban would be enforced by a delayed 3RR block that would be given to whoever resumes editing before the end of May, unless they've signed to a compromise. Please let me know your opinion of this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Note. The discussion thread that used to be here has been moved to Talk:British Isles#Discussion of how to resolve the 3RR complaint. Please add any additional comments there. I've marked this 3RR complaint as 'On hold pending discussion'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Closing. I am closing this complaint as 'No Action.' I've no objection if another admin wants to follow up anyway. The exposure of the issue at 3RR seems to have temporarily halted the edit war, and the Talk discussion is extremely vigorous. I'm aware that at least three editors skirted the rules about number of reverts. Admins at 3RR do have a tendency to recall the specifics of repeated problems concerning the same file and the same editors, and please don't assume that blocks won't be used in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kt66 reported by User:Wisdombuddha (Result: Not blocked, will submit checkuser)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    Thank you for your time. This user is repeatedly reverting any other editor and not discussing with them.Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Version of the above, reformatted: Previous version reverted to: 15:59, 3 May 2008

    The other edits may or may not also be reverts. Truthsayer62 may have also violated 3RR. Wisdombuddha has done 2 reverts and Helen37 has done 1 revert. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Not blocked as the user has retired so it is now moot - I'm going to ask for a checkuser on Truthsayer62, Helen37, and Wisdomofbuddha for obvious reasons. --B (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:67.183.62.211 reported by User:asams10 (Result: No violation)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • 9th revert:
    • 10th revert:
    • 11th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Comments: This is edit warring. He is doing the same thing on two other articles, all of which is being reverted by multiple users and violates several Misplaced Pages and WP:Firearms project policies. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: The reverts span much more than 24 hours. I don't see more than about 2 reverts in a 24-hour period. Neither 67.183.62.211 nor asams10 has been making use of the article talk page to explain their edits. Although 67.183.62.211 has received a number of warnings, the warnings don't seem to me to explain clearly what is wrong with the particular material the user wants to insert. 67.183.62.211, please note that editwarring is not endorsed as an editing method. When others revert your changes, you should realize that your changes don't have consensus, and you should discuss the changes on the article talk page and get agreement among the editors before re-inserting. Note that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't violate the 3RR rule. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and discuss the situation with other editors. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Zhenqinli reported by User:Oiboy77 (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    Comments: This user has repeatedly being reverting an article where most of the editors have come to a consensus on the issue at hand on the talk page. As a new editor on wikipedia I urge you to look at the edit history of the article carefully some of the edits by people were not reverts. Simply adding information or correcting grammar.Oiboy77 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Response
    The above relevant background and facts should be taken into considerations. --Zhenqinli (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Please look at the edit history carefully 4 edits were made within a 24 hour period. Also please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jin_Jing#Official_policy_from_Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.23Categories It cleary shows that it has been discussed and sources have been provided by various editors that support the statement. Regardless of that fact 4 reverts within 24 hours is a violation of the 3 revert rule.Oiboy77 (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Also it was made clear to you that adding a link to Category:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China does not violate any policy regarding a Biography of a Living person as it is not refering to her as a propagandist and refering to the incident itself.Oiboy77 (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Whether Propaganda should be used as a category or not has been discussed on the talk page, with the conclusion that there are reliable source supporting the inclusion in the Propaganda category. If you ahve concerns about the category User:Zhenqinli should have taken that to the talk page instead of reverting one edit after another. See Talk:Jin_Jing#Official_policy_from_Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.23Categories for the relavant discussion. Novidmarana (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Skyring reported by User:WebHamster (Result: Not blocked)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    There is currently a heated discussion taking place on Template talk:Infobox Television about Torchwood and Doctor Who about the use of flags in the infobox template. During the discussion on the infobox talk page Islander (talk · contribs) proposed that no changes should be made until a consensus is reached. Skyring (talk · contribs) a user who has been blocked several times for edit warring and 3RR violation, has ignored this 4 times since the suggestion was made, 3 times within 15 minutes today. In spite of the edit summaries used Skyring was in full knowledge of the ruling, in fact he even voted on it. -WebHamster 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    • not blocked - reverting three times (which you did yourself, by the way) is outside the scope of this noticeboard. This is silly and if it continues, then we may have to implement Edokter's proposal. A better idea would be to just quit reverting it and wait until some kind of agreement is reached in the discussion. Who really cares if the infobox has a flag or not? --B (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Your opinion on the reasons for the edit war is immaterial, but your ability to count is. I reverted twice (not three times as you erroneously stated) to maintain the status quo of the ruling stated in the discussion. Regardless 3RR is 3RR whether you think the reason is silly or not. But now I know what the threshold is I can do what I like, thanks for the heads up. --WebHamster 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    In case this isn't clear, one must revert four times to violate 3RR, not three. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:79.22.129.58 reported by User:Rsazevedo (Result:protected)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    User has been consistently changing this player's statistics, removing properly sourced information retrieved from the player's official website, and inserting inappropriate ones from dubious websites. He made the same alterations on the same page using other IP numbers as well, such as 82.59.70.249, 79.3.121.30 and 82.53.67.141. Rsazevedo 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Out-of-control edit war: 82.53.67.141 and Rsazevedo are continuing to revert each other rapidly numerous times in violation of 3RR. Neither user has made any effort to explain their edits on the article talk page. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    My reversal hardly needs explaining, since it consists of information previously contained in the article before the aforementioned user's first edit. However, I did include my point of view in the Edit summary of the first reverts. If any proof is needed that the user is wrong, is the fact that other editors have deleted his edits as well. It would be in the best interest of everybody to try to watch and understand what's going on before passing an opinion. Rsazevedo 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, no, Coppertwig is right. Both parties are edit warring. Since the user in question is hopping IPs, this situation is rather complex, as it's difficult to block both editors. I'm leaning toward protection right now pending any other input. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I see. I am "edit-warring". I guess next time I should just let the page be vandalised... (sigh) Rsazevedo 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    A dispute over sources is not vandalism. And if this is vandalism, it shouldn't be here, but at WP:AIV. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The user was reported at WP:AIV. And if you'd compared both sources, you'd understand that in this case it is, indeed, vandalism. Rsazevedo 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    OK, I'll assume it is vandalism. If so, there's no need to report here. This place is for edit warring only. Take vandalism reports only to AIV and, if protection is need, WP:RFPP. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    In any case, the page is now semi-protected, and I guess that should settle things down. Greetings, Rsazevedo 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Ejanev reported by User:Laveol (Result:warning, page watched)


    • The user ecidently knows what 3RR is as previously he was blocked for logging out and reverting with his IP when he was out of reverts with the original account. See the notices on his talkpage and . Moreover he has tones of other notices for disrupting editing (apart from mine). --Laveol 20:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Both users are edit warring and misusing the term "vandalism" to refer to the other's edits. Both need to stop. I'm watching the article and am ready to block either editor if he or she reverts again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I've labeled his edits as vandalism only cause he stalks me and undoes my edits. And moreover he removes info which is sources - I tried to explain to him why sources are needed and added, but he keeps repeating the same stuff again and again. --Laveol 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Stalking and undoing is bad, yes, but not vandalism. Not all misbehaviour on Misplaced Pages is vandalism. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oks, I couldn't find a more suitable thing on TG, but it's pretty close (removal of sources and sourced material with no proper reason, I mean)--Laveol 22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I've removed a lengthy comment by Ejanev, as it was solely about content. This board is not for resolving content disputes, but for dealing with user conduct, specifically, edit warring/3RR. It may be appropriate to resurrect this comment elsewhere, such as on the talk page or a dispute resolution-related page, so I'll give the diff to the comment here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    He has posted it on a number of places already - you shouldn't have bothered :) --Laveol 00:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks "Heimstern". The case of "Laveol" is even harder one. He has not pushed the Bulgarian POV for the Macedonian articles just at "Lazar Kolisevski" but for many of them, including the once of the highest importance to the Macedonians.

    Please watch his to see if this case with and myself is an isolated one or a pattern with many articles about Republic of Macedonia and other contributors of Misplaced Pages. This has already happened: Promoting the Bulgarian POV in articles about Republic of Macedonia by "Laveol's" and other contributors actions. Please let not make a climate where people masked under "Misplaced Pages Contributors" seed Propaganda negating their neighbors and taking away from them their right to express there views.

    Sincerely, --Ejanev (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: 48 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    Previous reports on disruptive editing , M0RD00R (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

    User:Red4tribe reported by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 1 week)

    User is repeatedly adding a map that he has drawn (and that was challenged for WP:NOR, WP:SYN reasons). On numerous occasions he has been asked not to put up maps that he has drawn himself. Having an uphill struggle asking him to use reputable sources, not self-published websites.

    Also multiple reversions at Fall of Constantinople following disagreement with another editor there. I also have reason to believe that he has used a sockpuppet account to revert changes at the same Dutch Empire article - not the first time that he has been accused. I have requested a new checkuser here .

    He has also commitied the 3RR rule. Just take a look. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
    Here

    (Red4tribe (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

    He is removing a reliable map without any good reason why. Has also done the same with many other things. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
    Blocked – for a period of 1 week Edit-warring to insert a map, drawn by himself, of the use of Dutch language around the world that seems to be inadequately confirmed by reliable sources. It is taking liberty with our policies to think this insertion of personal POV is an innocent matter. Checkuser has confirmed that SaudiArabia44 is a sock of this editor. I think that an indef block of SaudiArabia44 ought to be considered, but the 3RR submitter should submit his own report at WP:SSP documenting some form of collusion or abusive editing before this is done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:NuclearVacuum reported by User:Miyokan (Result: Blocked for 24 hours - reporting user warned for edit warring)


    User knows full well about the 3RR rule as he just 3RR warned me.. He put this page (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR) on his watchlist as soon as he reverted for the 4th time. .--Miyokan (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Decision: Reported user blocked for 24 hours. The reporting user has also edit warred extensively over the past few days, but it is not clear whether they were aware of the 3RR policy. I have given them a warning. TigerShark (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Yaf (Result: 96 hours)

    |edit]] | [[Talk:Right to bear arms |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Right to bear arms |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Right to bear arms |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Right to bear arms |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Editor continues to edit war on this article, for which earlier edit warring blocks were issued to him. Yaf (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    The first three reverts are adding a "{{primary sources}}" tag to a section. The fourth revert is adding a "{{POV}}" tag. The fifth revert inserts the words "which is not necessarily the same as bear arms", for which the previous version reverted to is 16:33, 5 May 2008. Leaving out the first revert but including the fifth, there are 4 reverts within a 24-hour period. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 96 hours Two previous 3RR violations on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Jps57 reported by User:Bryan H Bell (Result: )


    For some months, editor has been repeatedly reverting edits by most other users on this article and telling one editor on the talk page (Talk:Central_Jersey/Archive_1#Definition) that "I will continue to undo you". --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Looking over the history of changes to the Central Jersey article, I realize to my shame that I've been just as guilty of edit warring as the editor I'm reporting. I can't believe I let myself get sucked down into that. I've posted an apology on the article's talk page and resolved to stay away from this editor and the article for the forseeable future. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:MSJ1958 reported by User:Joshii (Result:24 hour block )

    • Previous version reverted to: 4:50

    User has been constantly adding a "Media" section to the Rochdale article and being a small town it really does not warrant one, let alone one which is merely promotion. Myself, User:Jza84 and recently User:Malleus Fatuarum have tried to reason with him but he persists on promoting his own website. He has already admitted he owns the site on the Talk:Rochdale page. He also posted a comment on his own talk page saying "You may block me but I will be back of that you can be very sure." which shows a clear intention to come back and continue adding this spam disguised as prose. The reason the edition which I included to revert back is so recent is because other editors have been trying to improve the article during the edit war with copyediting. Joshii└┘ 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:ThomHImself reported by OrangeMarlin 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC) (Result: )

    Robert J. Marks II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ThomHImself (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 07:52, 5 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Be honest with readers; see talk")
    2. 08:52, 5 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Perakh's web-published opinion about Marks' writing is now unsourced, thus no longer a reliable source")
    3. 09:47, 5 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210283206 by Orangemarlin (talk) Read the talk page, engage in consensus building")
    4. 04:24, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Note was incorrect; URL given as existence "proof" of another URL has died")
    5. 04:28, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Marks creationist presentation has disappeared; removing everything depending on it per WP:BLP")
    6. 04:46, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210500640 by Orangemarlin (talk) READ, READ, READ. Source for a DIFFERENT topic has vanished. WP:BLP")
    7. 04:48, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Marks' biosketch vanished; replacing with another - or is this COI?")
    8. 05:14, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210503267 by Hrafn (talk) BOTH links in ref are DEAD, not just original; replacing intervening edits per WP:BLP")
    9. 05:52, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Marks publication list now says a paper is in press; no details of proceedings or journal, so unverifiable")
    10. 05:54, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210509708 by ThomHImself (talk) undoing my own change")
    11. 05:56, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210508734 by FCYTravis (talk) Reversion of deletions mandated by WP:BLP unjustified; see talk about links")
    12. 06:14, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210511271 by FCYTravis (talk) No excuse to replace content disallowed by WP:BLP; I will restore idiotic ref")
    13. 06:18, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Restored the ref with TWO broken links; all other changes are compliance with WP:BLP")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —OrangeMarlin 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    There are so many intermixed edits, I needed to place all of the reverts or edits. They are essentially variations of the same theme. OrangeMarlin 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    He has since reverted several more times. Very disruptive here. Baegis (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)



    User:FCYTravis reported by User:Guettarda (Result: Page fully protected)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 06:08, 6 May 2008 (As an established editor he knows better, but I gave him the opportunity to revert himself).
    • Note that this edit, while partially replacing material removed in his fourth revert, does not replace the text that made the fourth revert a revert).
    Per the Biographies of Living Persons policy, the information that was being being inserted may be removed without revert limit, based on the fact that it is creating guilt by association between a person who signed a petition questioning the veracity of modern evolutionary theory, and the DI's actions. The material in question does not belong in Picard's biography, and I am fully justified in removing it. FCYTravis (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Not when you are inserting OR into the article. You insisted on inserting your own "plain reading" of a primary source into the article, while removing the version that is amply supported by secondary sources. Adding your own (unsourced) "plain reading" into an article does not fall under the BLP exception to the 3RR. Guettarda (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Well, of course you'd feel that way - you're the one trying to get me blocked and the one trying to push into the article a guilt by association paragraph. How shocking that you disagree with my view. FCYTravis (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not "trying to get you blocked" - I gave you ample warning and opportunity to undo your revert. Anyway, by your 5th revert you aren't even pretending to be reverting material that you called "guilt by association". Guettarda (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    How disingenuous, Guettarda. That fifth "revert" is a good-faith edit to replace sourced material that I agree I made a mistake in removing. I first replaced it here. You even asked me to replace it here - which I had already done, and apologized to you here. Orangemarlin accidentally removed it here by reverting to a previous version after Relata refero made an edit he objected to. I simply put it back. I have had a talk page conversation with Orangemarlin and he's made no objection. FCYTravis (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Look, we have a 3RR for a reason. You aren't allowed to revert the article more than 3 times in a day. After you had violated the 3RR and after you had refused to undo your 4th revert, and after you had been reported - you still reverted again. Whatever the reason, you shouldn't revert again. The 3RR is a hard and fast line. After 3 reverts you only revert vandalism. "OM understands" is not an exception to the 3RR. And you are well aware of that fact. Guettarda (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    This article probably deserves full protection. There has been severe edit-warring on both sides in the past few days, including canvassing for reverts, so a single block is not appropriate. - Merzbow (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    The article has been fully protected per my request on RFPP. Gentlemen, to your corners. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    There was a related discussion about the Rosalind Picard article over at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive412#BLP_tag-teaming by User:Orangemarlin. Guettarda participated in that thread but not FCYTravis. All the edits listed above are *subsequent* to the actions discussed in the ANI thread, so we might have grounds to examine them, if protection had not been applied. It is logical to close this complaint with no further action unless a similar dispute between the same participants restarts after the protection is lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Please update WP:BLP with this reading of policy. Thanks. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Jmlk17 decided to full protect this article. That effectively ended the 3RR case, since it is very uncommon to do both protection and blocks. (The rationale is that 3RR is to stop edit wars, and with full protection, there is no edit war). Do you believe he wasn't following policy when he did that protection? EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Cryptographic hash reported by User:Josiah Rowe (Result: )

    The first three reverts are about a paragraph being discussed at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Huffington paragraph; I and other users feel it isn't sufficiently related to the article's subject, and Cryptographic hash and one other user feel it is. The last reversion is about a change being disussed at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Parallel incidents and Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Suggested compromise text: I was attempting a compromise between one editor who wanted the "Comparisons with other candidates" section cut back to four sentences and those who wanted it to be the highly detailed, multi-paragraph section currently in the article.

    As an admin, I could block Cryptographic hash myself, but I figured that since I was a disputant in the edit war, it would be more appropriate to report him here and let another admin judge. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Cryptographic hash has made subsequent additional reverts to the ones noted above by Josiah Rowe on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. In the following revert, he violated WP:CIVIL in the edit summary. He has also violated WP:CIVIL on the article and other user's talk pages and has been very rude and disruptive in general. Josiah Rowe has made every possible effort to reasion with and educate the editor, but he refuses to change his behavior. It has been very difficult to work on this article and I am making a formal request that Cryptographic hash be blocked from any further participation on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. If this request is beyond the 3RR board, could you please refer this to the to the appropriate admin. Thank You 75.31.210.156 (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Coz 11 reported by User:Chicken Wing (Result: )

    Note: The warning was for a previous near-3RR violation on the same page just days ago for the following reverts:

    Chicken Wing (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Lets be clear here. The user with the problem is Chicken Wing who has decided to try and take over articles and force them to be one sided. He is the one reverting content and refusing to work things out via the edit pages. I, and others, have consistantly told this user to stop being heavy handed and to stop slanting these articles but he chooses to complain about the people instead of being a responsible editor. --Coz (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti reported by User:Miyokan (Result: both blocked 10 days )


    User has received several blocks for edit warring, the most recent two were for 1 week each.--Miyokan (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Both blocked for 10 days, seeing as both violated 3RR. Miyokan has also been edit-warring elsewhere and has a previous track record of blocks for edit-warring as Ilya1166 (talk · contribs). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:55, 6 May 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: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

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