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 15:05, 19 February 2006 view source68.110.9.62 (talk) →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 15:21, 19 February 2006 view source Sceptre (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors79,209 editsm →[]: BlockedNext edit →
Line 392: Line 392:
'''Comments:''' '''Comments:'''
*The page seems to have been under steady attack by several anons until it was semi-protected; I have a feeling Adidas98, a new user with edits ONLY to the article in question is an account created to get by the protection. -- ]<sup><small>]|]</small></sup> 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC) *The page seems to have been under steady attack by several anons until it was semi-protected; I have a feeling Adidas98, a new user with edits ONLY to the article in question is an account created to get by the protection. -- ]<sup><small>]|]</small></sup> 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
*Blocked for 24 hours ''']]''' <sup>(<em>]</em>)</sup> 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


== Report new violation == == Report new violation ==

Revision as of 15:21, 19 February 2006

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

    User:Wyss

    Three revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wyss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Revert #1 ]
    • Revert #2]
    • Revert #3]
    • Revert #4]
    • Revert #5]

    Comments

    • This user has been edit warring for some time, and has violated the 3RR rule a number of times. Has been warned to stop by other users but does not. Hence I feel I have to report this so she can have a cool down period.
    • I note she will often threaten to report anyone who might revert.
    • A warining about civility policy is in order. See other user complaint as example of abusive patterns on the Admin noticeboard Incidents on for this same page:]

    4.243.158.251 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    The comments are rather distorted. The above user is likely the same as all the other red-linked users/sockpuppets who have been revert-warring at AH in the first place. Wyss 00:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    The comment is not distorted at all. Once again Wyss tries to defame other users to defend her own edits (most recently, she twice posted and defended this statement "The evidence is building rapidly that User:Giovanni33 is now using sockpuppets User:Kecik and User:MikaM to continue this disruptive revert war." even though there was no such evidence and a check eventually proved her assertion to be false.) I request admin to check the block log and the list of incidents reported here - and to pre-empt Wyss's defamations, a user/sockpuppet check will also reveal that I am not the poster above or any of the other users Wyss mentions. -- Simonides 02:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


    User:70.19.53.214

    Three revert rule violation on List of Catholic American Actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    70.19.53.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Demiurge 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked 24h for 3rr William M. Connolley 20:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

    User:68.110.9.62

    Three revert rule violation on List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.110.9.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: Mais oui! 23:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Comment. Reverted a personal attack is not abuse. --Rory096 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    rv infant, is most certainly abusive speech. 68.110.9.62 15:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    I have blocked TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.110.9.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for violating WP:3RR on List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). —bbatsell ¿? 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:87.202.17.146

    Three revert rule violation on Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 87.202.17.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Despite repeated warnings, User:87.202.17.146 continues to revert to his preferred version, with vandalism included.

    Reported by: Phædriel ♥ - 01:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for a week by User:Jkelly--MONGO 02:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Various on NiMUD

    User:151.201.48.208

    Three revert rule violation on NiMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 151.201.48.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Jlambert 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:68.162.148.34

    Three revert rule violation on NiMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 151.201.48.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Jlambert 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    These are a bit stale now, but: you need to get checkuser to confirm they are one person, or some other good evidence. William M. Connolley 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

    I'm not actually sure how to get them to confirm it aside from posting it in their list of things to confirm, which as Jlambert points out, is what I did on the 16th :P They seem to have a bit of a backlog to go through. Would it have been better for me to make my reports here only after getting the results there? I figured that the results for Eggster would have been good enough to show that it's likely to be the same person this time as well, especially considering these IPs are still in Pittsburgh, and that Eggster stopped contributing when Young Zaphod started, and the remarkable similarity with their edits. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Checkuser request was made 2 - 3 days ago, so they would be stale. Jlambert 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Chcknwnm

    Three revert rule violation on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chcknwnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Blocked for 24 hours.Geni 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    82.141.187.170

    Three revert rule violation on Fresno, California. 82.141.187.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Dsol 08:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked Sceptre 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Leyasu

    Three revert rule violation and vandalism on Gothic music and nu metal. - Deathrocker 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    You too are violating 3RR. I've protected Gothic music to calm you both down Sceptre 13:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Would you please do something about User:Leyasu? As you can see higher up this page, they are frequent in their vandalism and breaking of the 3RR, thanks! - Deathrocker 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Is there any consensus that Gothic music is Goth music? Sceptre 13:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    The only person who seems to think other wise is User:Leyasu, I think its pretty obvious that Gothic music, is Goth music. - Deathrocker 13:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Any on-wiki proof on consensus??? Sceptre 14:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked both of you under 3rr until tommorow night. Sceptre 17:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:MikaM

    Three revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MikaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Please see the case of User:Kecik reported above. Like Kecik, MikaM was a newly-registered user whose purpose seemed to be to revert for Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See comments above (at Kecik section) for information about Giovanni's link to BelindaGong and Freethinker99. All four editors revert constantly to Giovanni's version, and support him on the talk page. With the exception of Freethinker99, who was blocked after Giovanni accidentally signed a post while logged on as Freethinker 99, they all follow Giovanni to other articles (which they would be unlikely as newcomers to find by chance), and revert for him and vote for his edits there.

    It is hard to give a "previous version reverted to", as sometimes they are partial reverts. The dispute seems in part to have been over Giovanni's Kecik's, MikaM's (etc.) wish to use the word "fascist", which met with opposition on the talk page.

    Reported by: AnnH 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • MikaM removed a warning of danger of violation of 3RR from his/her talk page. Later, he/she removed a reminder of having violated it.

    Another point: MikaM acknowledged here that the IP address 69.107.7.138 was his/hers. 69.106.243.31 is probably the same person, as it's a very similar address and an edit which MikaM wanted, according to discussion on the talk page. So it was interesting to see the appearance of 69.107.21.3 to support MikaM:

    This shows a strong connection between the three IP addresses.

    I asked MikaM on the Christianity talk page to state whether or not the IP edits came from him/her, saying that if so, we'd still be willing to move on, and that we had always been very slow to report 3RR violations at that page, especially when it involved a newcomer, but that following Giovanni's behaviour, we really did need to know if anyone was using sockpuppets, meatpuppets or alternating between username and IP address to get round 3RR. MikaM was offended, and refused to answer. Note also that a checkuser did not show any connection between MikaM and other registered users, but of course would not look for reverts done while not logged in. AnnH 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    • comment: It's not suprising seeing AnnH selectively go after MikaM, who she is also attacking due to her Pov dispute. The continued allegations are in bad faith being pushed by a handful of edit warriors as a result of POV differences. This borders on harassment, and has been very disruptive. The aggressive hounding by AnnH of this matter, by repeating it as often as she can, and expanding it to anyone whose agreed with me, is taking the form of an inquisition; users have left Misplaced Pages in protest describing it as such, included valued older users. Yet, AnnH continues to lead this attack spreading bad faith interpretations and distruptive speculations. She is careful to follow the letter of the rules herself (only once slipping past her 3 reverts in 24 hour that she describes as an accident), although this McCarthy like witch hunt is certainly violating the spirit of several other equally important wiki rules and principals.Giovanni33 08:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I must take exception to the statement that users have left Misplaced Pages in disgust over my "aggressive hounding". SOPHIA seems to have gone, only temporarily, I hope, after a checkuser showed that she was sharing an IP address with another user, and an uninvolved administrator tagged the other user as a sockpuppet. I had requested the checkuser, as many brand new users were supporting Giovanni and reverting to his versions, but had not included SOPHIA in it. I removed the sockpuppet notice from her husband's user page, and when she complained that it would still be in the history, I deleted that edit from the history, and asked her to let me know if I could do anything else to help. (The checkuser request was certainly justified, as it showed that Giovanni33 and BelindaGong, who both reverted constantly to each other's versions while pretending not to know each other, were editing from the same IP.) The other user who may have left over this is Freethinker99 who (if he exists) was blocked after trying to give the appearance of a brand new user who just happened to agree with Giovanni (and reverted three times to something Giovanni wanted) and then accidentally signed Giovanni's post while logged on as Freethinker. AnnH 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked Sceptre 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Lou franklin

    Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Rhobite 17:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User: 69.196.139.250

    69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Kurdish_people

    • Previous version
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3 rd revert:
    • 4th revert Possible (99%) suckpuppet:

    Comments:

    Unfortunately this user systematically and continuously vandalises this page as well as some other kurdish related articles. (Has many strange claims without any citiation.) Diyako Talk + 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Humus sapiens

    Three revert rule violation on Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Humus sapiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: User:70.108.165.240

    Comments:

    For some reason, Hummus Sapiens does not want users to see the trustees of this organization, and uses the "well poising" phrase to explain his censorship.

    Comment by ←Humus sapiens . As you can see, one of the reverts is not mine, but the reporting anonymous. As a matter of fact, it is s/he who broke the 3RR (unreported as of yet) and failed to discuss the edits on talk. ←Humus sapiens 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    I suggest that both editors read Misplaced Pages:External links. You both, however, broke 3RR. So I'm blocking you both until midnight tonight, GMT Sceptre 09:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    I insist that I have not violated the 3RR policy. I am afraid Sceptre believed an anon IP who provided fake diffs, please doublecheck: the #4 is his edit and not mine. In the spirit of good faith I fixed the 3RR entry (filed against myself, because the anon broke the format of 3RR page) and added a comment. The anon failed to respond at talk and chose to engage in edit war. This is my first block in all my 2.5 years here. Since I have been blocked unjustly, I request it to be erased from my record. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 02:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    I believe that only a developer can erase these things. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Deiaemeth

    Three revert rule violation on Korean-Japanese disputes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deiaemeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Endroit 03:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Macedonia 2

    Three revert rule violation on Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Macedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The user is deleting sourced information. The source can be seen on the diff pages. This user has also violated the rule on the same article two times after being reverted by multiple users. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:86.42.143.118

    Three revert rule violation on Radio Telefís Éireann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.42.143.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Kiand 19:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Constantly returning an external link to their site pushing a heavy POV about the Irish television licence - which is not levied by and does not entirely go to RTÉ. Was warned about the 3RR, proceeded to break it. He changes the title of the link every time, however its still a revert as its the same link.
    • Blocked for 24 hours Sceptre 20:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Space Cadet

    Three revert rule violation on Treaty of Welawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Space_Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Reported by: Schwartz und Weiss 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    That's ridiculous! The fourth one is not even a revert! Space Cadet 22:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC) It was Ksenon who reverted four times, double check. Space Cadet 22:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    (Ksenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Oh stop it the pair of you. Both blocked, you can have half each. William M. Connolley 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
    I think SC is right here: his fourth edit was not a revert, just inclusion of minor information that does not seem to be disputed on the talk page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Its marginal. If he wasn't a serial offender, I probably wouldn't have blocked him. If he wants to skate this close to the line, he should read the rules more carefully. William M. Connolley 09:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

    User:LaszloWalrus

    Three revert rule violation on Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Alienus 07:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • There's been some disagreement about whether Rand fits into the LGBT rights opposition category. This has been handled in Talk so far, but now LazloWalrus has decided to abandon discussion and just edit war. After I rebutted his last attempt to justify deleting the category, he's given up on trying to argue based on the facts and is instead deleting the category repeatedly. With each restore, I ask him to come back to Talk and continue the discussion, but he's refused. Instead, even after I warned him — in the article and the discussion page and his own talk page — that he's approaching 3RR, he's violated it. I'm asking for a 24 hour ban so that he'll be motivated to discuss his desired change rather than forcing it. Alienus 07:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Alienus's accusation borders on lying. He is the lone supporter for Rand's categorization in "LGBT rights opposition," against a consensus of four or five to delete this categorization; I am merely expressing the will of the consensus. LaszloWalrus 07:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While there's controversy, presumably because strong, self-avowed supporters of Rand (such as yourself) are embarassed by her stance against homosexuality, the fact is that this categorization is accurate and sourced. I freely admit that the categorization is not popular, but nobody has actually come up with an excuse to remove it that withstands basic scrutiny. The big difference between you and others who dislike it is that you're not willing to talk about it. This isn't the first time you edit-warred over it, just the first time you got caught in a 3RR violation. For that matter, it's not as if I'm the only person who thinks this category is appropriate: 132.241.41.170 must have, else they wouldn't have inserted the category to begin with. Look, the bottom line here is that this is a content dispute, not simple vandalism, so even if I'm dead wrong about the categorization, you're out of line. I want you to be given a day where you can't edit-war, so that you'll be motivated to actually talk. Maybe you can actually support your point and convince me to back off. Alienus 08:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Adidas98

    Three revert rule violation on Mike Del Grande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adidas98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Hinotori 13:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Report new violation

    Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted. 

    ===]===
] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}:
* Previous version reverted to: 
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
Reported by: ~~~~
'''Comments:'''
*
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic