Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Laomei (talk | contribs)
193 edits
Line 1,064: Line 1,064:


—[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
—[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

*You will find that these "reverts" are edits furthering the evidence being provided while being ignored in talk by this sockpuppet of Asdfg12345 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:CENSEI]] reported by [[User:Gamaliel]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:CENSEI]] reported by [[User:Gamaliel]] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 03:19, 29 August 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    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.

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

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


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

    24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

    User:Criminologist1963 reported by User:WLU (Result: Stale)

    Criminologist1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


    Also note AN discussion which has yet to garner outside attention. WLU (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale Sorry, but this report has become stale waiting for a resolution at WP:AN. Re-report if the issue occurs again, referencing this report as further evidence. CIreland (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To date there has been no response on AN, but also no further reversions to the pages involved or discussions on the talk pages. If things remain this way then no intervention is required, if 3rr happens againI will file a new report. WLU (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Noble12345 reported by User:Queerbubbles (Result: No vio)

    Noble12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [6]


    • 1st revert: [7]
    • 2nd revert: [8]
    • 3rd revert: [9]
    • 4th revert: None yet
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [10]
    No violation The fourth revert never occurred. CIreland (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Opinoso reported by User:Crazyaboutlost (Result: No vio)

    Opinoso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I'm not sure if I'm doing it right, nor if this is the right place to do so (should it be on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection??), but this user has a seriously issue on pt:wiki and he's trying to make some noise here.

    See [11].

    Sorry if I made any mistake.

    Crazyaboutlost (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation. Three-revert-rule not violated. CIreland (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dontworry reported by User:EvaK (Result: No violation)

    Dontworry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    No violation The three-revert-rule prohibits making 4 or more edits in a 24 hour period. That has not occurred. CIreland (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:78.149.202.191 reported by User:JdeJ (Result: 48 hours)

    78.149.202.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 13:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 14.10 August 25 As the user is a sock-puppet of banned troll MagdelenaDiArco, he is very well aware of the rules.
    Firstly, can you pleast stop using personal attackos. Secondly, no, all of those were not "reverts", since if you actually checked the diffs, you would see I was not simply restoring the same version, but trying to add more sources each time. Therefore, it is not a break of the rule. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note, the article has been successfully stabilized now) 213.185.116.11 (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be more edit-warring at Maltese language. I am a neutral observer and can't really comment on the issues, but something seems to be going wrong with the editing process here. — Alan✉ 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alan is right, the same user is also edit warring extensively on Maltese language, with over 10 edits today. Yes, the user makes cosmetic changes when reverting, but the main message is still there, being reverted all the time. Please note that the reported user most likely is the same as the IP who posted the lie above about "the article now being stabilized". Both IPs have performed exactly the same reversions, and using another to post false comments to help the account being reported is an old trick used by MagdelenaDiArco, making me even more convinced that we are dealing with multiple sock-puppets. JdeJ (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why I bothered, but I did post a block warning after 15 reverts on Maltese language. I will block the IP myself if this continues. kwami (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.133.65.158 reported by User:Mikemill (Result: 24 hours)

    70.133.65.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [12] First edit that kicked off the entire thing


    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TechBear reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: 72h)

    TechBear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


    A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 16:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: (Complex reverts) the actual part that is being reverted to is:
    |image = [[Image:Yoshi.jpg|256px]]
|caption = Yoshi as he appears in Yoshi's Island DS (2006), carrying Mario
(...)
[[Image:Yoshi3.jpg|256px|thumb|Yoshi as he appears in ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'' (2008)]]

    which is reverted to: 

    |image = [[Image:Yoshi3.jpg|256px]]
|caption = Yoshi as he appears in Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2008) 
(...)
[[Image:Yoshi.jpg|256px|thumb|Yoshi as he appears in ''[[Yoshi's Island DS]]'' (2006) with [[Mario#Baby Mario|Baby Mario]] on his back.]]


    • This is not a violation of 4 reverts within a single day, but the reverts have been happening for multiple days now and there is a clear intent to continue reverting again and again. User has previously been blocked dozens of times for 3RR violations[13].

    User:Anatoly.bourov reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 24h)

    User:Anatoly.bourov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 18:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 12:33


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 17:52

    All dates are August 25. He since even replied to the 3RR warning given to him and continued to revert regardless. Only 4 reverts were listed in the report although he did a lot more by the definition "undoing the actions of another editor" on the same article within 24 hours. Hobartimus (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, he made five reverts. I recommended this user to revert himself back, which would help him to avoid sanctions (he seems to be a newcomer). Unfortunately, he interpreted my recommendation as a "threat" and apparently made 5th revert to prove his point.Biophys (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that the text repeatedly inserted by Anatoly.bourov was a copyright violation - please compare with the original reference. So, whoever reverted him was not a "vandal" but enforced WP policies.Biophys (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Delicious_carbuncle reported by User:Swamilive (Result: No action)

    Delicious_carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


    User is reverting just outside a 24-hour timeframe to avoid 3RR on a technicality. Also, 3RR on Shit Towne, Pain Lies on the Riverside, Mirror Song, Horse, and Operation Spirit (The Tyranny of Tradition).

    User:12.202.220.193 reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: 24h)

    12.202.220.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


    Please note that the user was also warned three times by the Bot concerning inappropriate links that he keeps adding into the article as well.[14][15][16] He has also been warned about disruptive editing and other Wikipedia policies; a longer block than usual may be indicated here. csloat (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fftest12 reported by User:Ctjf83 (Result: 18 hours )

    Fftest12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [17]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [24]
    Blocked – for a period of 18 hours As this user is reverting 5 other users, the problem is clear. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AzureFury reported by User:Protonk (Result: Page protected)

    AzureFury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


    • This isn't strictly 4 reverts in 24 hours but the spirit is what matters. This is the same content and 5 reverts of it, despite discussion on the talk page. Subject is clearly aware of the 3RR and seems to be intending to skirt it deliberately. His response to my 3RR warning above wasn't really civil but also gave me the distinct impression he was intending to push the content reversion rules to the limit. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came here to report this user as well. Note that this user has been previously blocked for a 3RR violation on this page before. He knows better than to strictly break 3RR but he has reverted three different editors against significant consensus. Oren0 (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user edit warred to get his version, and then you protect the page and don't subject the user to anything? What the hell kind of logic is that, it certainly doesn't send the right message to anyone that wishes to edit war. Arzel (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User_talk:70.240.209.9 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Both users blocked)

    70.240.209.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 04:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


    --SpyMagician (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Soupforone reported by User:RemoTheDog (Result: no violation)

    Soupforone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 05:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [25]


    User:G2bambino reported by User:dlatimer (Result: 31 hours)

    G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 10:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [33]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [42]

    Note: Editwar started with one user, then continued with myself.

    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Stifle (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AlexLevyOne reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: 55h)

    AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [43]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

    Editor repeatedly inserted poorly-sourced assertion re G.W. Bush and this company (making similar repeated edits to GW Bush and earning a 3RR warning there too). Warnings placed on user Talk page were blanked shortly thereafter. The relevant Talk exchanges are visible on the diff above showing the 3RR warning.

    User:SkyBon reported by User:Kober (Result: blocked 48 hours )

    SkyBon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


    User:SkyBon repeatedly removes the sourced passage from the article, claiming that the source - Human Rights Watch - "simply hates Russia". He describes his edits as "reversal of vandalism".--KoberTalk 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 3RR:[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:TimWhiskas reported by LotLE×talk (Result: 31h)

    Human (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TimWhiskas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 17:30, 26 August 2008 (edit summary: "")
    2. 17:31, 26 August 2008 (edit summary: "")
    3. 17:36, 26 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 234392301 by UtherSRG (talk)")
    4. 17:43, 26 August 2008 (edit summary: "rv per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive_26#Real_naked_human")
    5. 17:45, 26 August 2008 (edit summary: "rv per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive_26#Real_naked_human")
    6. 17:49, 26 August 2008 (edit summary: "rv per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive_26#Real_naked_human")
    7. 18:55, 26 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 234402227 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk)")
    8. 19:10, 26 August 2008 (edit summary: "rv. you are likely to get it first.")
    9. 19:20, 26 August 2008 (edit summary: "so here we go. rv per per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive_26#Real_naked_human")

    —LotLE×talk 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User first edited as IP address in same dynamic range to repeatedly insert non-consensus change. After reversions by various editors, user created an account, TimWhiskas, to try to evade the 3RR violation, and continued to edit war. Moreover, edit comments contain taunts about trying to get other users to 3RR first (presumably because we wouldn't notice the user is the IP address).

    User:76.101.72.59 reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 2 weeks)

    76.101.72.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [49]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 1923
    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks 3RR violation plus nasty personal attacks. Escalating from the previous block in July. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dscotese reported by User:VegitaU (Result:Decline - not all edits are reversions. Toddst1 (talk) )

    Dscotese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


    -- Veggy (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I added information in italics to the above report. The first, 2nd and 4th revert remove the word "account" and resplace it with "theory". The 3rd revert is arguably a revert because it removes the phrase "led to the collapse of the Twin Towers", although it replaces it with the similar phrase "the collapse of both Twin Towers was caused by" earlier in the sentence. VegitaU did 3 reverts during the same time period. Coppertwig (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:190.41.114.139 reported by Storm Rider (talk) (Result: page protected)

    User:190.41.114.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [50]

    I suspect that a fourth revert was by the same ANON given the language used in the explanation found here, but I cannot be absolutely positive; the area from where the edit generates is the same, but not an identical computer. The ANON as been warned on their discussion page and in the reverts of their edits in the article. If the language were not so obviously POV, I would not have reported it. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mod objective reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: 31h)

    Mod objective (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [51]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [56]
    Plus one more revert (earlier) that Movingboxes missed:


    User:Melonbarmonster2 reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: 4 days)

    Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 13:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


    6 important details.

    1. This user was blocked from editing for 48 hours for edit warring 5 days ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMelonbarmonster2

    2. The reverts are not exactly the same, one is changing text, one is removal of a section - but all 4 edits are reverts.

    3. The first edit is a revert, it is the removal of a section that has been discussed in the past and the editor in question was involved in the discussion, while using his previous ID.

    quote "In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined more broadly as the undoing of another editor's work by returning any part of a page to an older version." The first edit was reverting the article to the version that had been in existence due to consensus for a long time, the editor was well aware of the consensus, was involved in the discussion, and just because the revert is months after consensus was achieved does not make it anything other than a revert.

    4. Although this is a new(ish) account (that has 1 edit warring block already) the user was previously using another account which was blocked on more than one occasion, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMelonbarmonster so the editor is well aware of 3RR

    5. even if the editor had made only 3 reverts, and not 4, the fact that they were blocked for edit warring 5 days ago, should be enough to show that the actions on the Kimchi article are more than deserving of another block.

    6. In the middle of the reverts on the article in question, the above editor took time to send a message to the talk page of the editor he was edit warring with, stating among other things "Please stop revert warring. If you continue to revert I will take formal courses of action." after leaving this message he went back to the article and continued with his reverts. This is borderline gaming, and shows a total disregard for the wikipedia rules that relate to reverts.

    Response

    User:Sennen goroshi is a Japanese editor who is famous for trolling Korea related articles and injecting anti-Korean, pro-Japanese POV edits.[[58]][[59]][[60]][[61][[62]] [[63]][[64]], etc.. In any case this is not violation of 3RR. There are only 2 reverts spaced out between other edits. User:Sennen goroshi has been tagteaming with User:Badagnani[[65]] in Korea related articles.

    First edit was deletion of a trivia section in disguise and I incorporated most of the trivia into text of the article as instructed in WP:TRIV and WP:HTRIV which suggests "If an item is too unimportant, be bold and remove it." The edit itself was also not a revert but a novel edit. Furthermore to avoid revert warring, I created a talk section at the same time I made the first edit in the series of edits I made.[[66]]

    Second edit was a revert. User:Sennen goroshi had shadowed my edits and began to revert my edits.

    Third edit was removal of text that I myself had written "ubiquitous in Korean cuisine" because I had also added it in the next sentence "kimchi is so ubiquitous to Korea cuisine" along with removal of "along with other banchan dishes" for readability of the sentence. Does reverting my own edit count as a revert under the 3rr rule?

    Fourth edit was a revert. After my explanation User:Badagnani was ignoring my requests for discussion and reverting.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ===User:Sennen goroshi's further comments===Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand why you are saying that I am Japanese, I don't really see how that is relevant to this 3RR report. (on a side note, I am not Japanese, but whatever) Neither do I see my edit history being relevant, nor any other petty accusations you wish to make. This report is about your 3RR violation, nothing more, nothing less.
    The edit that you claim is a removal of a trivia section, is a section that has been discussed (you contributed towards the discussion while using your original ID) and consensus was gained - you were well aware of the consensus, so ignoring whether the section is good or not, your removal of it, was most certainly a revert. When looking at the article edit history, it seems quite obvious that these were reverts, you were removing the edits of another editor in order to revert the article back to a previous state. They were reverts not only according to wikipedia guidelines, but also according to the spirit of the guidelines. Your block history makes it clear that you have no respect for 3RR, you were blocked 5 days ago for edit warring -that 48 hour block seems to have had no effect, therefore I would suggest that a one month block from editing might be suitable, hopefully after 1 month without editing, they might think twice about edit warring again.Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and to the claim that I shadowed the user and reverted them, I edited the article today - after I had made this 3RR report. Prior to that I last edited the article over 2 weeks ago and the edit I made was to change one simple word, not a revert and nothing to do with any edit the above user has made. This report is regarding edits made yesterday and today, what I edited over 2 weeks ago and what I edited after filing this report, is obviously nothing to do with this report. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 4 days since there was a 2-day block less than a week ago. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Comayagua99 reported by User:Miami area editor (Result: Closed)

    Comayagua99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


    The accused user is obviously just removing vandalism.Just as obvious is the sock-puppet that made the accusation - a sock created today. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how putting a newer photo in an article is vandalism. The one who is reverting to older photos and lower quality photos (User:Comayagua99) is the true vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.46.16 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't reply to blatant sock-puppets.
    Can an admin please protect the Brickell, Miami, Florida http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickell,_Miami,_Florida&action=history please Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The request was submitted at WP:RFPP, which resulted in South Florida metropolitan area, Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, and Brickell, Miami, Florida being semi-protected for two days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avala reported by User:LokiiT (Result: 7 hours)

    Avala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


    I removed a map from an article, stated my reasons multiple times on both the article talk page and the image talk page, other users agreed with removal of said map, and now this user is accusing me of vandalism and "page blanking". LokiiT (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Avala reverted 4 times within 24 hours. However, Avala has made quite a number of edits since then and going mostly by the edit summaries my impression is that Avala stopped reverting the same material on receiving the warning. I added information in italics to the above report. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: Oops: apparently the reason there don't seem to be more reverts is that the map has stayed in the article. In other words, it's stayed in the version preferred by Avala. Sorry, my above comment was not thought through. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.105.246.26 reported by User:JuJube (Result: 24 hours )

    76.105.246.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


    Is attempting to add an Encyclopedia Dramatica link to the "Criticism" section of this page. JuJube (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:CENSEI (Result:No violation)

    Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    Article is under probation, and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has violated 3RR on many occasions before. CENSEI (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation here. 3RR prohibits making the same revert (or one that accomplishes something similar) within 24 hours. These are different: the first one is removing a link to an impersonator, the second removed the phrase "caucasian hybrid" from the article, the third removed details about Clinton's endorsement, and the fourth had to do with electoral history. None of them are the same, or even remotely similar. Since the page wasn't reverted to the same version (there were lots of other editors in between who weren't reverted) this doesn't look like edit warring to me, just bold editing. Also, for future reports, please provide diffs for the reverts, rather than links to versions. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy. Kafziel, your interpretation of the policy is not correct. 3RR does not prohibit the same revert, it prohibits any revert. From WP:3RR

    Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, except in certain circumstances. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert.

    I would like another opinion before this is closed as there were four reverts performed by Lulu and none of them to undo vandalism. CENSEI (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of 3RR is to avoid edit wars. The rule isn't intended to encourage people to push the limit, but it isn't intended to prevent bold edits made in good faith, either. That was the case here. As I've already said, if he had been reverting to a particular version then that would be a problem, but there were lots of other edits made that he didn't revert. For that reason I don't consider it an edit war, just an experienced editor working to improve Wikipedia. If it happens again it can be revisited, but this one is closed. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:122.135.163.183 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 48 hours)

    122.135.163.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [67]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Editors who intend to work on a hotly-contested article should move carefully and search for consensus. This IP, a brand new account who works only on issues related to this one article, does not seem to be careful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pink Evolution reported by User:Onceloose (Result: Protected)

    The above user was involved in a edit war quite some time ago apparently. The user has started adding material to For Life (Isis Gee song) falsifying the songs position in the eurovision song contest. The song came JOINT LAST and is listed as such. The user continues to add that it came second last which is incorrect as it is listed in alphabetical order as last place.

    The user has been warned about adding the same information in the past but is still doing it.

    From the talk page it looks like the user was blocked for this same naughtiness in July. 

    In order to stop an edit war please block the above user to leave the page as JOINT LAST.

    Onceloose (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this case is cleared after this and this discussion. Onceloose (talk · contribs) was wrong by official eurovision-song-contest-site and so you can't call his action just edit-war, you could call it vandalism, too. But per WP:AGF he just didn't know it and in future he won't act like this anymore (he already stopped reverting). That's why I think a block for Onceloose or the article is not necessary. Greetings, --Pink Evolution (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You added unsourced material to wiki about a no-existant 'tie-break' for last place. You are a serial vandal who has been blocked and involved in an edit war on this page. I believe your actions above are to start a new edit war. If you add a source for this 'tie-break' for last place other than the alphabetically ordered table of countires that came last I will agree with you. This has not been added.

    ADMIN please look at the edit history of Pink Evolution for confirmation Onceloose (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm getting close to reporting Onceloose for disruptive editing. Both Onceloose and Pink Evolution have asked for my help and I rewrote the sections about their disagreement hoping that it would solve the problem. Onceloose feels that the article must say that "For Life" came in last place which is wrong since according to the official website [eurovision.tv], the 3 way tie for last place was broken and the song given 24th of 25. I noted in my rewrite that the song had tied for last, but Onceloose insists on it only saying that the song placed "joint last". His comments about Pink Evolution's past are irrelevant, she served her time and it should not affect every edit that she makes especially when she has stated where she is getting her info from. See my talk page for our discussions. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note there is never a tie-break for last place in the eurovision song contest. I have properly asked for a source to prove there was a tie-break. In eurovision and all newspaper stories she came 'joint last'. I think Pink Evolution's past is very relevant. She has constantly added false material to this and other pages - even being blocked.

    1. A number of sources state that Isis came joint last as per the rules of eurovsion ( last 3 entries placed as per alphabetical order).

    2. PinkEvolution a user that has been blocked in the past for vandalism and was involved in an edit war has added new unsourced information related to a 'tie-break'.

    As the information is unsouced and from a biased user I suggest you provide a source for this 'tie-break' as when I read the rule is expressly is for a winner of the competition. Loosers are placed joint last. I am loosing heart, one tries to protect wiki and all that happens is a serial pest adds falsehoods and wastes everyones time. I give up!

    Onceloose (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good choice! Do you want to revert your nonsene by yourself or should I do it? I really hope you come back to us after you learnt how to write an encylopedia based on facts and not with evidences you personally would like to hear. --Pink Evolution (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I SUGGEST ADMIN LOOK AT PINK EVOLUTIONS EDIT HISTORY AND BLOCK FOR VANDALISM Onceloose (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected For Life (Isis Gee song). There are no references in the article to establish the final position of the song in the rankings one way or the other. I will be happy to lift the protection as soon as anyone can add proper references to the song's Talk page. Since the standing is contested, please quote the exact text that you think applies. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andy_Bjornovich reported by User:KoshVorlon (Result:Discussion at WP:AN over this user generally which will supercede this report)

    First report - please excuse any errors

    Andy_Bjornovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    Adding a 3RR when (a) the presence of his family tree is already being discussed with the user is a bit of a pile-on, to be honest. The sock is more likely to be him editing whilst logged out rather than deliberate socking. If he's going to be blocked for anything it'll be disruption generally arising out of the WP:AN discussion, so I don't think a 3RR report is beneficial at this stage. GbT/c 20:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Wikitestor & User:62.57.212.101 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result: Wikitestor 12 hours; his two IPs one month)

    Wikitestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    62.57.212.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Wikitestor has admitted that 62.57.212.101 is a sockpuppet of his. See also his user page.

    EDIT: It's not my sockpuppet lol, its my ip but I forget to login like I say on the talk page xD. Wikitestor (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Time reported: 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked Wikitestor 12 hours. Since the two IP accounts that he acknowledges seem to heavily engage in reverts, I've blocked both of them for 1 month: 81.184.38.161 (talk · contribs) and 62.57.212.101 (talk · contribs). Let Wikitestor use his main account if he wants to edit hotly-contested articles. It's not at all clear that Tennis expert has support on the Talk page for all his tournament name changes; I encourage him to build consensus for his ideas. See this Talk page link for a sensible effort at a wider discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, just to say there's no point blocking my ip's for 2 reasons: first one dynamical ip (this means I don't have that IP anymore and moreover you're probably now blocking someone else innocent from Barcelona) and i've 4 kinds of IP ranges (2 ISP's contracted). I'm not vandalizing so no need to block IPs, but even if you tried it you couldn't do it, so unblock the IPs cause maybe you're blocking random people xD. another IP of Wikitestor. 81.184.71.22 (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikitestor, if you don't want to be taken through WP:SSP I strongly suggest you stop editing with all IP accounts, since that is block evasion. Semiprotecting tennis articles is one option to consider if the abuse continues. The blocks will remain. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean: you're blocking someone from Barcelona (62.57) and someone from entire Spain (81.184). 81.184.71.22 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LedRush reported by User:Laomei (Result: )

    LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


    • LedRush is possibly a Sockpuppet or working in coordination with User:Asdfg12345. Upon reaching his 3rd revert, LedRush immediately began reverting, he has no previous history on the article or comments in the talk page. User LedRush is claiming consensus on language as an excuse for excessive reverts, however there is no consensus or agreed language.

    User:Laomei reported by LedRush (Result: )

    People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Laomei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:17 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 11:48, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */")
    2. 11:57, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Human rights */ Citations mention nothing in regard to this claim.")
    3. 16:15, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Human rights */ - see talk page, no supporting references")
    4. 16:16, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ - see talk page, figures are not documented or verifiable")
    5. 17:24, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ same reason as before for this, if you can find an original source for the data, in any official form from a 1st hand source with a definite number it can stay.")
    6. 20:26, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ If you are going to claim the numbers of one side, then the numbers of both sides shall be included.")
    7. 22:23, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ edit - there is no "consensus" here amongst anyone. I am providing a neutral source which provides the full range of claims. This is NPOV.")
    8. 23:06, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "undo rv, again there is no concensus, there is no need to expand a minor issue into an entire paragraph, there is no need to cite a source which adds nothing.")
    9. 23:22, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "There is no "agreed language" amongst anyone here, if you want to continue this, go ahead, but I suggest you take it to the talk page, where you will find there is no "agreed langauge"")
    10. 23:47, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "Please see talk page, issue has been addressed and this is an absurd edit war")
    11. 23:59, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "Likewise, neither can I, you have no history on this page and have contributed nothing, you have violated 3RR and claim a non-existant consensus.")
    • I somehow suspect I have messed this up badly, but Laomei's actions are bad enough that I must make my first report. I have contributed to the article several times in the past and it is on my watch list. I noticed an edit war and thought that I could intercede and make a compromise solution. Laomei ignored me on the discussion page, has ignored the language that has long been in place and was the result of long discussions, and has made about 10 reverts.

    Also, Laomei is aware of the rule as he reported me first.LedRush (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    —LedRush (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • You will find that these "reverts" are edits furthering the evidence being provided while being ignored in talk by this sockpuppet of Asdfg12345 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    User:CENSEI reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: )

    CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: User has reported at least two other editors on this page, so he is well aware of this rule. (
    If you look closely, as Gamaliel obviously did not, Croctotheface continued to add material sourced from http://dailyhowler.com, a weblog, which is a violation of WP:BLP,and as such 3RR does nto apply to the removal of such material.

    Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

    I may not have taken this issue to the proper authorities, but as the policy is quite clear on this, I have not violated 3RR. CENSEI (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you didn't just remove an offending source, your edits were clearly content edits. You also removed content sourced to The New Republic, which clearly isn't a blog. Gamaliel (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Asdfg12345 reported by Laomei (Result: )

    People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 20:27, 28 August 2008
    2. 00:27, 29 August 2008
    3. 10:06, 29 August 2008
    • Also, as this has drawn in more than one "user" with the same exact point and this is a trend which is ongoing, I would like to bring attention to the sockpuppet investigation which I have requested on Asdfg12345 as it is blatant and against the spirit of wikipedia. Talk pages have been ignored and ignorance is claimed, if a user is unable to explain why a change was made when requested, that change should not have been made. I am requesting a Chinese-speaking administrator to settle this argument before it drags on for months, I have already agreed to abide by that decision and it has been ignored, once again in bad faith, by a user pursuing an agenda.

    Laomei (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    == [[User:<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->]] reported by [[User:<!-- Your NAME -->]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. 

{{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 

Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VERSIONTIME] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!-- The link above must be to a version, not a diff, and must be from BEFORE all the
reverting took place. This helps us establish that the first edit, in particular, is a
revert to a previous version.
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. -->

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

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]


    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=234918356"