Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Need any non-admin help here?

I have noticed this board is getting really long and was wondering if some of the cases can be archived off as well as a bit of the legwork done on a few of them. Spryde 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help out. I afraid that don't see that we need any formal clerking here as the reports as supposed to be completed in a ready made format for the reviewing sysop. Any user is welcome to archive the page as required. Thanks again for offering to help out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem being, they often aren't. I think we could use some help here, although the creation of a "Clerking" system would probably be a little much. Non-Administrator assistance might be something we could think about in the future, in order to improve the efficiency of this system. Anthøny 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Short of helping with the archiving there is nothing here for a non-admin to help out with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thumperward's bad report

This diff in which Thumperward editted another report to make his report has really messed things up. The other editor added back a copy of his, but botched it, which led me into a confusing mess, which I've tried to clean up a bit. Dicklyon 06:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:AN3

I've whipped up some easy-to-use icons, similar to those used at WP:RFPP. They're located at {{AN3}}, and an example of all the icons are at Template talk:AN3. To see them in action, check out the reports that are currently at the bottom of WP:AN3. Feel free to expand!

Anthøny 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow, I was totally coming here to propose the same thing. :P I can write the bot to archive the stuff, too, if need be. --slakr^\ talk / 00:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

FYI, there is a merge proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Merge to merge WP:3RR with WP:EW. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Previous version reverted to" ?

What does even mean? "Previous version reverted to". What version is this and by who? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To prove that the edits quoted are reverts, you have to include the permanent link to an old version in the history of the page which is the version that the party reverted it to. Otherwise it is introducing new material. Of course, if the edit summary includes "Undid" or "revert" or similar words, you can leave it out. Stifle (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Report example

I seriously cannot find it anywhere. Perhaps somebody can inform me and/or place it in a noticeable location :D ~Ambrosia- ^talk 05:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving Redux

Just a general note, so folks don't get alarmed. I have changed the header styles and added archival code, for automated archiving. It is currently set at 24h. differential Regards, Mercury 04:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed algo back to 24. The reason for using 24 is to keep disputes off the page and to keep the page small. 72h is going to have three days worth of reports, this is a large number of reports. Regards, Mercury 12:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider 48 hours. 24 hours is rather short as some people visit WP very often, but not every day of the year. Such change would still achieve the reduction in size that you desire but retain some usefulness.Archtransit (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like this set at 72 hours because its often useful to see the previous reports for the persistant offenders who seem to find themselves here so often. I see Mercury reverted the change to 72 hours so I'd like to see if we can have some consensus on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs)

Also favour 72 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. WP should not just be for Wikiholic editors. Alice^✉ 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does a longer delay serve? The report only needs to be there long enough for an admin to handle it - unlike some of the other noticeboards, there aren't notices there of general interests. It's purely a task list and once a report is done it's done. --B (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The same reason that I gave in my comment its sometimes useful to see if someone has been misbehaving very recently. I agree we don't need to have reams of stuff at AN3 but a couple of days doesn't hurt and if it helps some of us what's the objection? Out of curiousity, why are we having this discussion at AN and not AN3???? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it makes the page difficult to load, and discussions need not be protracted here. There is ANI, and DR for that. 24 H is sufficient to move old cases. The board is for reporting and actioning. Nothing more. Mercury 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was originally supposed to be a notice, but it evolved into a discussion.... I'll move it to AN3. Good suggestion. Cheers! Mercury 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reset to 72 hours per the rough consensus here - feel free to change this if the conensus changes or your disagree with my interpretation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a rough consensus, please consider reverting. 48H would be a compromise. Mercury 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I count 5 for extending the time: myself, Slakr (by his edit to AN3 code earlier today that you reverted), Heimstern, Alice and Archtransit (offering 48 as a compromise) and two opposed, B and yourself. Slakr, Heimstern and myself are regular reviewing admins at AN3 as is B on the opposing side. Voting is evil but the clear majority of those admins reviewing the reports - ergo those who will actually be affected by the archive time delay - are in favour. B hasn't responded since I commented on their objection. By any definition of consensus it appears on my side. If you disagree you can always revert me but I'd suggest that if other regular reviewers of 3RR reports were unhappy they can always weigh in or change it to something else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I support 72 hour archiving. There are sometimes multiple reports involving the same users over a period of a few days. It would be of great assistance if we could have these reports on one page, instead of having to scrummage through an archive. From my personal experience here, I believe 72 hours will cover such situations. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Spartaz on his talk, I'll disengage from this discussion. Mercury 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I also believe it should be 72 hours. First of all, stale reports technically shouldn't even be removed until 10 days have passed (so autoarchiving, in theory, shouldn't be autoenabled for a period of time less than that; but, I've been previously archiving at about 7 simply because the page can grow quickly.. So, 72 hours is actually relatively short in comparison, and I feel it's a practical period of time, just so long as there is consensus for it. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 12:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz ^talk 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page question

To whom it may concern, if someone keeps posting the same incredible assumption of bad faith and inaccurate message on my talk page, is it okay to keep reverting it? Thank you for your time and help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How about you stop deliberately attempting to disrupt AFD with the intention to annoy me by deliberately voting keep in every single dicussion I start? Blueanode (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong page to discuss this sort of thing. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help/Help Desk, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) are all more appropriate forums. MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

3rr helper script

I copied my 3rr helper script over to the toolserver. Lemme know what you guys think and whether we should link to it near the sample. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea a lot - it will help with reducing the complexity of 3RR reports. I tried searching on myself only but didn'ty get anything. Does it need more data is this a result of running in IE rather then mozilla? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've only tested it on Firefox and IE6-over-Wine and it outputs normally. It doesn't have any fancy css or javascript, and the most important element (the report itself) outputs inside <pre> tags. Keep in mind that it only goes back 50 revisions and 10 days on any given article, so as to prevent people from abusing it to track down *all* contributions or to stalk people. So, it won't find anything (it will say "got nutin'") if your contributions on a certain article exceed the 10 day limit, for example. If you link your query here I can debug it if it's a problem with my script (since the form uses a GET query). Also, if a diff-to-revisionID is given, it will not enumerate either that revisionID or revisions made before that revisionID (i.e., it will only show what would presumably be reverts by the user back to that revision), but it will output the link to the diff-to-revisionID revisionID in a separate link. --slakr^\ talk / 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I "Got nutin'." when inputting data from this report. Mercury at 13:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I got sumthin'. Did you forget Anastrophe.'s "." ? --slakr^\ talk / 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

edit warring that does not violate 3RR

Is there no where to report such? AN/I says edit warring should be reported here. But what about edit warring that does not violate 3RR, for example, between experienced users who know the 3RR rules well enough to avoid breaking them? Dlabtot (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally willing to process reports like that here, though I can't speak for other admins. Note that you will generally need to make a solid case for why the situation needs attention even though there is no 3RR vio. If the situation is complex enough that a list of diffs (possibly with comments) and a relatively short explanation below it won't make your case, it might be better to place it elsewhere (I would think ANI would be fine in this case). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Reported by"

The "reported by" from the headers got removed, but were recently re-added. Well, I don't know how or why the "reported by" got removed in the first place, but I believe that was a good move. I don't see why it's important to know the username of the person reported the alleged violation in the header. Merely a signature within the report (and a cleanly titled "Comments" section) seems sufficient and a great improvement. -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never really gotten why we need the "reported by" in the header, either. Maybe the idea was that the reporter's edits might need to be checked too, but the reporter isn't always a party to the edit war, and even if he she is, checking the reporter isn't enough, as there may be yet more parties to check. Only the article history can tell you for sure. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Feeling a tad lost here...

As a non-admin what exactly am I allowed to do here? Am I allowed to submit people who have violated 3RR or must an admin do it for me? Would be v grateful if you'd reply on my talk page as this isnt on my watchlist! Thanks --Camaeron (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can report anybody for breaching 3RR. The reports are made on this article's project page GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is My Complaint?

I don't understand how to do this. I put a complaint about the warring on the anti-Americanism article on the page, but now I don't see it.Rachel63 (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You put it in the wrong place and didn't give it a section heading. I've sorted both out for you... unantagonistically. --WebHamster 14:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone threented me that they talk to you so i thought ill go ahaed a tell you first

hi im Patmar15, i eddited Template:Destroy All Humans! and User:Jéské Couriano a administarter said i was revert and stocking User:Naruto134 on the templete and let the history show that i was the first to edit and not naruto134 therfore he is the one stocking and reverting my edits. i am going to revertt it back to mine. p.s. i sent a request to report Nuarto 134 to User_talk:Sephiroth_BCR --Patmar15 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a link to the Warning Template Here?

I can't find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}}. This template should be substituted each time it is used. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I just boldly added a link to it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader (i.e. to the instructions at the top of this project page). --Coppertwig (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reforming/Streamlining the process

This page is one of the most egregious violations of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy I've ever seen, with plenty of good reports declined for lack of oldids. Can't we put a bit of the checking on an admin? It's not hard to check the history and click four or five diff links. Will ^(talk) 13:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here. I, for one, don't really have time to search a page history for reverts for very long. If the reverts are obvious enough at a glance, OK, fine. But if not, sorry, I don't plan to spend several minutes looking for them until Wikipedia starts paying me by the minute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note also that implied in my statement is my belief that the burden is on the reporter to make it clear why action is merited, not on the admin to investigate from scratch. Just so it's clear where I'm coming from. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here, and each do what we want to contribute. You can help. You can supply some of the missing information in some of the reports. I've started doing that. I've put this noticeboard on my watchlist. Admins are busy. There are often big backlogs at some of the areas requiring admin attention. We can't expect admins to necessarily spend more time on any one thing. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You do know it takes about three times longer to file a report than it would to check the history? Sceptre ^(talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing headers?

I added more information to the report WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:70.129.197.15 reported by User:Tool2Die4 (Result: No action). When I do that, would it be OK for me to change the "Result:" part of the header, i.e. delete "No action" so it's blank again, or strike out "No action" or append "but new info added" or something, to indicate that it still needs attention? --Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave a note for User:King of Hearts who already declined the complaint. If you add an appropriate comment to the bottom of the report, making clear you're asking for a new evaluation based on new data, in my opinion it's OK to change the header and reopen the issue. (It's possible no-one will bite, but you're giving them the option). EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Vicious actions by User:Atyndall93

user:Atyndall93 is making false charges and stoping me from posting on my own talk page to contest his actions about page James Roger (soldier) (Lookinhere (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Please read my appoligy at your talk page. Thankyou. again, i am sincerly sorry, i made a accidental mistake. Happy Editing! --Atyndall93 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm about done for today, it's pretty frustrating trying to make updates and when I click Save page all my changes are lost because someone cut in line ahead of me. Please find someone else to bother, James Rogers is a valid British/American/Canadian Historical Figure if you take the time to do your research. I will add my photo of his historical marker tonight.(Lookinhere (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

3RR on anonymous IPs

An editor using various anonymous IPs has been determined in inserting unallowed blog links in Gucci Gang controversy (as seen here). Since the anonymous IP has been used up to twice at most, should I have to wait for it to revert with the same IP before filing a 3RR complaint? Starczamora (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's the same person doing the reverts, it's how many reverts that person is doing; it doesn't matter if they use different IP's to do them. It might be appropriate to fill out a sockpuppet report at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets although if the IP address is only changing because the person is using dynamic IP then maybe that doesn't count as sockpuppet abuse. It still counts as 3RR violation if it's the same person and they do more than 3 reverts total in 24 hours. See WP:3RR. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The additions of the bad links are 6 days or more in the past, so 3RR is unlikely to accept such a report. Anyway, it's not much use to file this at 3RR if it's a different IP every time, since blocking all of the IPs would not be practical. Instead, consider posting a complaint about the web site www.iloiloviews.com at WT:WPSPAM. Editors at that noticeboard can advise you if the site qualifies for adding to the spam blacklist. Longer semi-protection of Gucci Gang controversy is another option to consider. (Will Beback protected it for a week, but it will run out soon). EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of policy change

A policy change is being proposed at the Village Pump, whereby a 3RR block would only be possible if preceded by a warning and if the offender persists. This seems only reasonable, since a similar courtesy is extended to vandals under WP:Vandalism, and over-zealous edit-warriors can hardly be thought to merit harsher treatment than vandals. (Can they?)

The relevant thread is at WP:VPP#Question about 3RR policy - the proposal in question appears towards the end of that section.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussing or defending yourself on a 3RR accusation?

Where does a discussion or defense of a 3RR accusation take place?

Wageslave (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

People often post comments immediately below a 3RR report about themself on this noticeboard. Discussion should stay on-topic, i.e. about whether 3RR has been violated or not, and not veer into discussion of article content or other issues except as really necessary to discussing the 3RR issue. If the accusation has taken place somewhere else, then I suppose it can be discussed there. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"New section" button

Why doesn't the report page have a new section button? It's rather annoying copying and pasting into a previous section on something so big (as in, it's a lot to type). My first guess would be because the example is at the bottom, but can't that (shouldn't it) be placed at the top anyway. Grsz ^talk 16:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Another feature of this board that might be fixed some day is that section links don't work. Whenever the outcome is entered (24 hours, no vio or whatever), it changes the section header. You can't enter a link to an open 3RR case on any other page and expect it to work in the future. With boards like WP:COIN that use the {{resolved}} template, entering the outcome doesn't change the section pointers. This also effects the section pointers that appear in edit history. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

– blocked 24 hours

I never understood why that wasn't used here either. Grsz ^talk 17:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one advantage of the current system is that one can just look at the table of contents to see what still needs to be looked at, rather than having to scroll through the whole page. If that's a big advantage, then (a) why isn't the table of contents closer to the top of the page, and (b) why don't the other pages use a system like the one here? Perhaps the TOC usage is more important on this noticeboard because pretty well any admin can handle and resolve any case, whereas on the some of the other noticeboards more discussion may be required. I just thought of a way to get the best of both worlds: a section link can be added as <span id="Username"/>. But that would add one more complication to a report that people already have trouble filling out, so maybe not. The {{AN3}} template is similar to the resolved template, but the result is still also normally filled in in the section header; should that custom be changed? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: 3RR board → Edit warring board

I have a proposal that I'd like to put out there. We've recently moved away from the technical restrictions of the three-revert rule, and began focussing on revert warring. To clarify, my interpretation of edit warring is:

Revert (or edit) warring is repeatedly reverting the changes of other editors, simply because you do not agree with their change, and continually using reverts to "force through" what you think is the proper version of an article.

Perhaps its time we moved Administrators' Noticeboard/3RR away from the three-revert rule, and towards the less-bureaucratic, more suitable ethos of edit warring? I'm very willing to work night-and-day to implement this change, but I'd like to know that it's going to be well received.

Additionally, I'm hoping that the new "edit warring noticeboard" will place a focus on rehabilitation of edit warring editors. I feel there's insufficient focus on pushing parties of a dispute through to dispute resolution, and away from revert warring. Once again, I'm willing to implement this in my new version; I would like assurances, however, that it will be well-received. Anthøny 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Man, am I out of it today. "my new version" - um, what exactly do you mean by that? John Carter (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Anthony. You seem to be very experienced as a Wikipedia administrator, and you have even clerked for Arbcom. But I haven't seen your name yet as a closer of any 3RR cases. I urge you to try out a few before you decide that the current system is not working. Some advantages of 3RR:

You get a deterministic outcome
Every submission gets looked at and thought about (cf. ANI, which archives many items with no action, and perhaps with no careful review)
No endless discussion threads
The verdicts often reflect judgment and common sense (if you don't think so, examine a few submissions as they come in and try to predict the outcome)

3RR is much less bureaucratic than it appears. If you consider the current system to be lacking, I would welcome some examples. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The recent UEFA Cup edit wars over several related articles. Given an 8hr ban from a 1st filing, immediately resumed, then when filed again, ignored here by the very same admin as a mis-filing, and technical non-breaches. Eventually resolved by rc patrollers who noticed the capital letter edit summaries. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, Anthony is indeed experienced in closing 3RR reports. I remember when he first showed up here, even.

As for what to do here: I already treat this board as an edit warring board when I'm here (which admittedly has been infrequently for a bit now). One of many ways, and indeed the most common way, to measure edit warring is three-revert rule, and probably 90% of the time it works well. The other 10% comes into play when people revert war without breaking 3RR, and admins should be careful about this. Mechanically enforcing 3RR is not in the community's best interest. One example of enforcing 3RR mechanically that's not good: one editor reverts four times in 24 hours, another reverts three. Blocking only the one who reverts four sends the message that you should be careful to stay just under the limit to win a content dispute rather than pursuing dispute resolution. In whatever way we use this noticeboard, we need to remember these limitations of mechanically enforcing 3RR.

Now to the question, should we make changes? Renaming this board to an edit warring board could have some clear advantages. It emphasizes the actual misbehaviour rather than the yardstick used to measure that behaviour. It also emphasizes that people can report non-3RR-violating cases of edit warring. Then again, making the scope more vague could lead to problems with gratuitous reports, like those we got at PAIN in the old days. As for our methods here, I think regardless of what we call the board, it's important that we be willing to look at reports of edit warring that doesn't include 3RR vios.

Although this wasn't part of the original discussion, one thing I think we could do better is using protection less often. I think we are too quick to shy away from blocks in favour of protection, even if it's just two users edit warring or one user edit warring against several. Why should other editors be locked out when the fault lies with the edit warring users? If an edit war is truly spread out among several on each side, sure, protection makes sense. But otherwise, blocks can generally solve the problem.

OK, those are my long-winded thoughts. Thanks for reading. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a reply to Ed Johnston, I have indeed been around this noticeboard in the past; nowadays, I tend to act as a bit of a "lone ranger", dealing with edit warring as I see it, rather than in response to reports filed here. I would also like to respond to Ed's other above points:

Every report looked at: and an "edit warring" noticeboard would be the same. We needn't simply make the noticeboard like a specialist version of AN and AN/I; the requirement for a list of diffs pointing to edit warring, the structure, the links to affected articles - the entire "report" feel could remain. We simply needn't tie ourselves down to a party having to have made 4 reverts in 24 hours, or (excluding the occasional report which feels IAR's force) there's no block.
No endless discussion: again, I think I may have been misunderstood here; I am not necessarily suggesting AN3 become a specialist version of AN(/I). We needn't deviate from the report structure if it's not felt appropriate. Discussion is currently either 1/ ignored, or 2/ moved to the talk page; the same can stay, if the reports become focussed on the edit warring, rather than 3RR.
Verdicts reflect judgement/common sense: and they will continue to do so :) In fact, I like Heimstern's quote: "It emphasizes the actual misbehaviour rather than the yardstick used to measure that behaviour". Common sense will prevail more in an edit warring noticeboard, than in the current system, whereby, very often, blocks are declined for blatant edit warring, simply because the disruption was limited to 2-3 reverts in 24 hours.

In all, this new system will work better. Current reforms are going on at requests for checkuser and suspected sock puppetry (see here). We're capable of doing the same thing: moving with the times, continually updating our processes to reflect current practice, and what's best for the project. I'll be opening a discussion of the same sorts as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/SSP-RFCU merger proposal, and perhaps a sandbox process to look at basic structure. We're a little way away from a full change-over yet, and I'm not going to move to implement the new decision so hastily: we've not had that many opinions yet. I also don't want to give the impression that I'm steamrolling over discussion, and jumping the gun here. But, ultimately, I think a change is in order. Anthøny 16:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Any advances on this? Anthøny 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Section headings

I see there are two "Violations" section headings. I assume the second one should be deleted? Also, perhaps it would make sense for the "Example" and "See Also" section to each have only one equals sign, like the "Violations" secton, to make them more prominent. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Malformed Reports

I'm becoming very tired of having to close reports unconsidered because the reporting party hasn't followed the instructions but actioning incomplete reports encourages users to leave the research on a violation to the considering admin. So everyone is very clear on this, I'm going to close every report that I see that has not properly followed the instructions. I won't be officious about this but the bare minimum I will accept is that the report idemises the alleged violation with diffs to every revert. Links to warnings are also vital unless the person reported is an experienced editor Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

agreed there are way too many people who just don't follow the instructions as listed on the bottom. Maybe we can move the template to the top of the page. thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat (talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, move the example form to the top; it's not easy to find if you don't know where it is. And move the TOC up instead have pages of stuff above it. Dicklyon 06:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who first used 3RR a few days ago [1] after being on WP for 2 years, I found the process so unfriendly that I'm unlikely to spend the effort doing so again. For instance, trying to understand "Previous version reverted to:" You're making good editors jump through hoops whilst bad editors can revert in a split second. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP exception

There has been substantial discussion of the BLP exception to the 3RR at WT:BLP/3RR, in particular whether it is actually applied (consistently) in practice, whether it is ever abused, whether it solves BLP issues better than the alternatives, and whether it provides any benefit to the newcomer trying to clean up his own Wikipedia article. We tried to gather some case studies, but the evidence seems thin in all directions, and the discussion became side-tracked in some meta-issues. agr made the helpful suggestion that we seek input from the people with most experience in dealing with 3RR reports. My apologies for not bringing it here sooner. Bovlb (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How best to deal with seemingly earnest but seemingly mistaken roving IP address (anon) user?

On Anussati (which deals with a type of Buddhist mediation called "recollections"), a anon user using different IP addresses all based at Queens [NY] College (recently using 149.4.218.43 and 149.4.42.149 and previously, regarding a related matter, using 149.4.105.16 and once New22) has repeatedly inserted the same material even though reverted once (perhaps hastily?) by another user and twice by myself and despite my attempting to engage the user (fruitlessly) on the talk page (Talk:Anussati#Four recollections). His edits have escalated from adding poorly formatted, uncited and dubious material to re-adding the dubious material and deleting citated material. Any suggestions? Thanks for any help, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a similar problem on the Literary Arabic page where a single unregistered user is continually changing valid linguistic material to highly-POV. I continue to revert him and ask him to take it to the Talk page, but he continues to add the same, word-for-word information each time. Where do we report this? (Taivo (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Ambiguity in the header?

The header says this page is for reporting breaches of 3RR, but not for reporting anything other than edit warring. So what if someone wants to report edit warring which does not involve a breach of 3RR? Is this page a suitable place to do so? Either way I think it should be made clear in the header.--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally would take seriously at a complaint about non-3RR edit-warring which was extremely well-documented. Experience would show whether we are able to deal with such reports. People do sometimes submit edit-warring complaints here, but usually they don't have enough backup. If it is merely offered to the closing admin as a research project, it's not worth our effect to untangle it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

3RRN admin guide

I have written an admin guide here to assist myself and fellow admins in dealing with reports. Could other user's please tell me if it reads okay and if it's fair and just? Additionally, should it be moved into the mainspace? And where, if anywhere, should it be linked on the noticeboard? Thanks in advance, guys. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If we follow the example of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Administrator instructions, your new file might go at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Administrator instructions. Then we could have a link to it at the upper right corner of the noticeboard (small and inconspicuous, so that nobody complains about instruction creep :-). EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Let's do it! Enigma ^message 00:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Need Help

I'm dealing with four editors who are engaging in admitted violation of NPOV by removing a factual description of a book. 132.241.178.146 (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I sought neutral opinion on this matter in May. [2] User nneonneo was kind enough to offer this reply. [3]. Other editors reached the same conclusion. ~ smb 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple 3RR violations in one article.....Help?

I was just at page protection requests and noticed a declined request for the article Gerald Guterman. Upon looking at the revision history, I noticed it was more of a 3RR violation than a Page protection matter. But there are too many violations to list and i'm not 100% sure where exactly to revert to an "original" version of the article? Could an Admin tackle this problem?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the 3RR issue. If you notice problems with the neutrality of the article, feel free to explain more fully at Talk:Gerald Guterman. I'll add that page to my watchlist to see if there is any reason for admin action there. Regarding the RFPP item, there are now three New York Times references in the article. Can you say more about what was removed, that should not have been? EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR query was just something that I thought needed to be addressed. As for the RFPP, look at the anonymous IP edits on The Stig article to see what I mean.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This complaint has been moving around to different noticeboards but without any details. If you expect any admin action, I suggest you accompany your complaint with diffs and say which editors you feel are not behaving correctly. The best I can tell, these edits by 24.8.11.109 (talk · contribs) removed some negative well-sourced information. If that's the case, it would help if you would confirm it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert definition

I think the definitions of a revert here and at WP:3RR are inconsistent. See Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule#Ambiguity in revert definition. Han-Kwang (t) 08:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Any moderators left?

I got the impression that either there are far fewer active moderators these days than there used to be. A reported user has already performed an impressive 25 edits to Maltese language within 24 hours, almost all of them reversions. If there are no moderators checking these boards, it undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as it allows trolls wage an indefinite edit war as policies aren't enforced any longer. JdeJ (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeouch

Yeouch at this process.

Could this please be simplified?

Something like XfD: place a header; add the links; add an explanation (and whatever further info you think is necessary); and sign.

Just editing to this page appears daunting. - jc37 20:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'm struggling to understand is why the reporter is meant to put their own name in the header, rather than just signing at the end of the report -- Gurch (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you can think of a better system for the headers. One annoyance is that adding the result field changes the header text, so that old section pointers stop working. It is very significant to know who submitted the report, because often they need to be checked for 3RR as well as the person complained of. Not sure why you think XfDs are easy to file, though. (Notice the number of incomplete AfD nominations that a bot has to fix). Maybe we could adopt a web form like WP:SSP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was actually thinking about WP:CFD. Some of the other XfD pages I find to be a bit less intuitive. (I don't think you should have to open an artcle (or whatever page is nominated) in order to get to the XfD page.)

But that aside, I agree about the headers. I understand that it's nice to see those which are "at a glance", but changing the headers is a hindrance to navigation. Why not a system similar to CfD? Have a template:3RR top and a template:3RR bottom and close these "normally", like most discussions are closed? I presume a bot can check the closer's time stamp in order to determine when to archive? Though honestly, if this page is that busy, perhaps splitting by day would be appropriate (again, just like CFD : ) - jc37 05:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I simplified the big notice at the top, which is a start -- Gurch (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'New section' button won't work for filing new 3RR reports unless we find a new home for the Example. (New reports will get added following the Example). Perhaps the Example should go into a sub-file. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made it more like the suspected sockpuppets page, as you suggested; following the "new report" link leads to an edit screen with a form to fill in and instructions for doing so. Unfortunately MediaWiki doesn't allow you to specify a section header when doing this, so the user has to be told to manually insert the appropriate text --Gurch (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but can you make the 'New report' link more conspicuous? It should be the most important thing in the noticeboard header. Regarding the lack of an automatic section header, can't you include a template as the first line of the report that expands into ==Header stuff==. When saved, there will be a header (as in this example). EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you can. I didn't think of that -- Gurch (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Long-term noticeboard users are going to keep on restoring the Example text, if they see that it's missing. How about adding a temporary notice at the top, saying 'Report submission has changed' or some such. Plus, could there be some esoteric template that automatically drops itself to the bottom of the page, saying 'Click here to file a new report?' EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done that -- Gurch (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Big improvement! Now, for extra credit, could the 'Click here to add new report' button at the bottom be arranged so it doesn't overlay the hidden category display, for those of us who have selected Preferences->Misc->Show hidden categories? I know I'm pushing it here :-). EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to ask that too :) Stifle (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately putting things at the bottom of the page when they're declared at the top is a bit of a hack that is hard to do without messing up (and probably looks wrong on other skins too) but it was requested above so I had a go. The problem is that anything sent to the bottom in that way can only float on top of other things, not control their layout, so if it's moved up above the category bar it will overlap the last text on the page. What would be really nice is if MediaWiki had some feature that let you define a point in a page where new sections would be added, so that we could add a footer to the page and still use an "add new report" link that creates a new section without the footer ending up halfway up the page. But then there's lots of things it would be nice for MediaWiki to have -- Gurch (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's an issue, why not just reverse the page (new entries at the top)? Again, just like CfD : ) - jc37 21:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Because unless it works by adding new sections, you can't make a new section with preloaded text appear, as this currently does. The alternative is to instruct users to substitute some kind of template, but I think templates are only really suitable for situations where one or two (or no) pieces of information have to be provided; I think a 3RR report is really too complex for a template. (Of course, you're welcome to try and construct one that you think people might be able to understand) -- Gurch (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was easier to determine whether a report was valid if the date of the edit were included; perhaps changing [link] to [link date] for the diff links. (It would also be helpful if the reporter tool were rewritten to match the new format, but that's another issue.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we get the timestamps back on the edit reports? Its terrible without. Is there a template to correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the sample report?

There used to be a sample report to work. I'm unable to find it now. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I found an old copy to restore from. I didn't notice any explanation of the removal. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, here have you been? :-) See Gurch's new system, which is explained above at #Yeouch. Editors who want to add a 3RR report should click on the link called Click here to add a new report, provided at both the top and bottom of the noticeboard. Re-addition of the sample report to the noticeboard is a mistake, and is usually reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I haven't made a report in awhile.

I removed the link that caused me confusion. ~~I'm completely unable to find where the new information is. Can someone clearly point it out.~~ Then I'll see what can be done to make it more visible. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Found it. LOL --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I reorganized it a bit. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Layout

Why don't we add new reports to the top, like we do at RFPP? Much easier to keep track of 'em. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I wondered that myself. I say be bold and just do it, unless it will mess up the bot. Tiptoety ^talk 05:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Misza and then I'll flip. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I found out that it would have no effect on the bot, but I'm not so sure, as ANI and similar noticeboards all go newest-bottom... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

uw-3rr

Should the uw-3rr warning be posted before the forth revert happens?
Should all contributors be warned? - The 3RR page only says that "The template message uw-3rr may help explain the rule to unaware users involved in edit warring." But after I click "Click here to add a new report" I read "Warn the user if you have not already done so" and that looks like all should be warned. --Gogino (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should warn before the the fourth revert. If a user racks up three reverts, that's a good time to make the warning (suggestion: make this your first priority!) The idea is that we shouldn't block users without making sure they know what they're doing and that it's not allowed. (It's not that different from how we warn users who vandalise.) If you know a user already knows about the rule, a warning isn't necessary. Cases where you'd know they're aware is if they've already been blocked or warned in the past, or if they refer to the rule at some point. (But if it's an IP, you should probably warn, since it may not be the same person.) That clear things up? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It should be explained this way on the 3RR page because I only found out that the warning is so important when I was about the report a violation of 3RR. But the contributor succeeded to do his 4th revert before I warned him and didn't need to do any additional revert after the warning was posted. --Gogino (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

.:As said on your talk page, we put emphasis on the warnings to make sure that an editor is aware of it or hasn't forgotten. But that is more with the intention of persuading them once more to stop that as a legal advice before a block. Of course we will have to assume that an editor who has just issued a 3rr warning is aware of the rule themselves. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page the 3RR and edit-war pages should contain better information of what to do in case of high-profile articles to avoid these kind of desperate acts. I am willing to improve them. This situation resembles the current crisis. If one wants a system to be self-correcting one should set good rules (means formal, informal, and "culture"). --Gogino (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gogino, you were the person who actually posted the 3RR complaint against Farcaster. If the system was new to you, it might have been better to ask first for advice at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests rather than opening up a 3RR. When a person posts a dispute at 3RR, and they themselves have already gone over the limit of three reverts, it's a difficult situation since the conduct of posters is usually scrutinized. (It is usually considered unfair to sanction only one party if both have gone over 3RR). Your own reverts might have escaped any sanction if you had not formally posted at 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with EdJohnston above and I would add that in the (very common) case where the reportee has reverted 4 times and the reporter 3 times, I would usually block both. A similar logic applies to attempts to game the system by use of WP:RFPP at 3 reverts. The rule is "Don't edit war", not "You are allowed to revert 3 times". CIreland (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but i understand Gogino wants to move beyond this particular incident and sees issues with the current set-up which is well becuas he has use d it. Paraphrasing, such issues might be

While the report template asks quasi for a mandatory warning in the form 'Warn the user if you have not already done so' with a diff, the main instructions are more generic.
All request concerning edit warning seem to be directed here, see e.g. the WP:ANI header, but the process only deals withh clear-cut 3RR violations on one article.
The requester may not be sufficiently advised to reflect about their own possible role.

Would that summarize some of your concerns?--Tikiwont (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It does it perfectly. Thank you. I would only add that high profile articles should be treated differently and there should be a note about that. Then people will believe more that the system works well and calm them down. If the system works well it will save time to many of us. Just to make it clear I do not complain that I was punished. I am only "building on" that experience. --Gogino (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In what way should high profile pages be treated differently? People should be allowed more, or fewer, reverts? Or something else? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

At least the reports should be treated with higher urgency and there should be another place where to report non-3RR violations. Compare Tikiwont's "2." above. --Gogino (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a fear that a place for reporting non-3RR violations would add too much work for administrators? --Gogino (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous if we turned down pure edit warring reports that hadn't (per se) breached 3RR. I think every admin who works on this board would still take action on a report that indicated edit warring. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 3RR noticeboard be renamed then?

We all want that editors learn how to contribute cooperatively in a short time. Are there other "low level" actions than just simple warning, for example, n-days flag on editors talk page "engages in edit warring", n-hour ban from reverting anything (0RR), or protection of a page from editing by contributors who accumulated n block hours?

Better prevention than cure. Some just need to learn that you are serious, which can be much sooner before getting any blocks or being frustrated. In the long run, all editors will work more smoothly and save a lot of time. --Gogino (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editabuselinks}} describes this noticeboard as dealing with 'Edit warring (3RR)'. That seems close enough. (It's in the shared template that is placed at the head of all the admin noticeboards). I'm not sure what reform Gogino is proposing, or how the success of his plan would be measured. Look through past 3RR decisions and you'll notice a few cases that are blocked without reaching 3RR, and you'll see others where admins tried to use diplomacy to solve a long-term issue. You'll notice that these can be described as 'edit warring' decisions. Which shows that this board sometimes *does* take action in edit warring cases. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

> 'Edit warring (3RR)'

This does seem to emphasize Edit warring over 3RR but after you click on it you read just about 3RR and if you read some admins' comments like:

:: This isn't the place for reporting edit warring (no, I don't know what the correct place is). Your report is rejected on the grounds that it only contains 3 reverts.

:: Its not at all clear to me why the 4th "revert" [52] is a revert. Please explain. Until you do, no vio...

:: No single user has reverted more than three times in a single 24-hour period. This is not a place to have people carry your desires in a content dispute.

:: Additionally, next time you add a report, please follow the directions given, format this properly, and be sure that they have violated the 3RR rule.

then it must be clear to everybody.

> this board sometimes *does* take action in edit warring cases.

If you didn't tell me I wouldn't notice, I mean really.

Some statistics out of 24 reports 3 days ago:

:: non-3RR = 3 out of 24, only 1 action but both warring

:: failed 3RR = 3 out of 24, only 1 action in a case that was as bad as 3RR

:: Not one case of an effective non-3RR report.

Conclusion: this is a strictly 3RR board and anything else is hard to notice.

> I'm not sure what reform Gogino is proposing

Not full reform only to

- rename this board to "noticeboard/Edit warring" and change the description with guides and templates accordingly

- deal with most accessed page edit wars more seriously than with the rest

And I wanted to have a discussion before any proposal is finalized, which is the most important thing since if admins are not interested I doubt I can change anything.

Then the right question here is: "Is there a problem worth solving here?"

I guess some statistics could help but don't think that the number of reports on the 3RR board would. I believe that it is more important to know things like:

how many good contributions are reverted while the contributor doesn't do anything about it for whatever reason
how many contributors get frustrated and just give up

One can estimate 1. by taking a random sample of pages and analyzing their history. I took 10 most accessed pages and found that they all contained in the last 50 edits a removal of a good post (not explained and not reverted back) and and 2 of them contained also edit war.

One can try to estimate 2. by a survey even though one hardly can catch somebody leaving.

Conclusion: There should be a group of admins interested in these things and collecting these kind of statistics.

--Gogino (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is unrelated to your request, but I have written a bot that basically detects some types of edit warring. I'm getting an alert approx every 15minutes to an hour. I will in a few days create a subpage for the bot. (I will be making a proposal first). —— nix eagle 06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find the bot, not even on your page. Can it sample pages and save stat data? --Gogino (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Should report format change to accommodate edit-warring better?

After recently writing a report for lengthy but slow edit-warring, and holding off on reporting a much more complicated case (72.219.132.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), if anyone wants to sort out a case of edit-warring, vandalism, advertising, and copyright infringement), I think the report format should be changed to accommodate edit-warring better, at least to differentiate simple 3RR violations from more complicated situations. What would be helpful for the admins that are trying to respond to reports? --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What you have said above is almost sufficient, but you should say more about what kind of stuff he is trying to force into the article, so the admin reviewing the complaint doesn't have to click through the entire edit history. Since this guy has not edited since 22 November I doubt that any block would issue at this time. If he resumes editing in the same vein then sanctions should be considered. If you file something like the above, be sure to note that it is not a regular 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just using it as an example of something that I wouldn't consider reporting here because of the complexity. The report template is for 3RR violations, so it should at least be minimally changed to guide other reports. --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to keep the standard format as is, and if it doesn't fit the situation well enough you can always file a report without using it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Link fix

The "Click here to add a new report" link at the top of the page has stopped working since the page move. I tried to fix it, but got lost... - auburnpilot talk 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried too, and got no where... Tiptoety ^talk 22:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Tiptoety ^talk 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision

Excellent revision of the page, since not all editwarring shows up as a violation of 3RR. One thing still puzzles me though:

3RR is a type of edit warring

As I understand it, 3RR is not a type, but a sign of editwarring. Each case still needs to be investigated before one can conclude to editwarring, as is already clear from the existence of exceptions. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It probably was supposed to mean that edit warring is more general term than violation of 3RR. And yes, great revision. --Gogino (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep Gogino, that was my intention...but maybe it did not come across as clear as it could have. If anyone feels that there is a better way to word it, feel free to make the change. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't find the archive to this noticeboard

Can anyone add the archive function? MaxPont (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On this noticeboard, I used control-f on my browser to search for the word "archive", and found a notice with a link to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives. Since this page used to be called "Administrators' noticeboard/3RR", the archives have "3RR" in the name; but the most recent archive has stuff from Dec. 4, so I think archiving is still being done. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 18:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

requesting more opinions please

hello. i believe collect has a history of edit warring. william connolley seemed to disagree. per his suggestion i am now asking for input from other objective admins. any takers? Brendan19 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Slow revert wars - why not report here?

I see several reports on the current board that were declined on formal grounds for not literally matching 3R/24h. Where has this convention come from that only literal 3RR violations and not slower, protracted edit warring can be reported here? Where should those other cases go? We keep telling people that protracted edit-warring just under 3RR is just as bad as literally breaking 3RR, we keep telling them they can be blocked just the same, the 3RR warning tags say it too, the instructions at the top of this noticeboard says not to submit "reports of anything other than edit warring here", but not "other than literally 3R in exactly 24h".

I was going to report a guy for 12 sterile, identical reverts in 8 days (Luka Jačov (talk · contribs) on Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia), but seeing this I'm probably not going to bother. Why would this not be the right forum for such cases? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The behavior you mention sounds like it could be properly reported on this noticeboard. Your description, 12 sterile, identical reverts in 8 days is a much more clear summary than submitters usually provide, in edit-warring cases. Can you point to a recent case, rejected as not a 3RR, that you think would have been worthy of being investigated for edit warring? EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I was seeing was the (currently) second-from-last and third-from-last report on the noticeboard, both declined as "no vio" or "wrong forum". True, one of them was protracted over many more days, and the other didn't have diffs, so perhaps declining was independently motivated, but in each case, the declining admin seemed to reduce it all to the naked formal criterion.

FWIW, here's what I was going to report:

Old version: 15 October (first 5 rv); 09 Nov, 12:10 (subsequent rv's)

Rv : 6 Nov, 17:26
Rv : 6 Nov, 23:46
Rv : 7 Nov, 09:40
Rv : 7 Nov, 17:35
Rv : 7 Nov, 27:57
Rv : 9 Nov, 13:01
Rv : 10 Nov, 12:41
Rv : 11 Nov, 14:11
Rv : 11 Nov, 18:21
Rv : 12 Nov, 23:40
Rv : 14 Nov, 08:11
Rv : 14 Nov, 16:39

Warning: [4]

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The header of the third-last case, marked 'No Vio,' doesn't reflect that the 3RR closer wound up giving a long block to the cited user. The second-last case I would probably have accepted, and tried to resolve, as an edit-warring complaint. The one you propose above looks fine for this noticeboard, and I'd suggest you post it in the normal way. Possibly the noticeboard instructions might be clarified re cases that are not plain 3RRs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Users that just don't get it (it being that it damages Wikipedia to edit war), should be blocked (and/or page protected) to protect Wikipedia. "Slow revert wars" still harm the encyclopaedia and should be treated as vandalism, especially when they refuse to get that there is no consensus for their changes. I'd be willing to intervene in such a case. Ed, will you be able to append the noticeboard instructions to recommend admins to deal with these? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I feel this whole noticeboard needs to be rewritten and renamed. A user can be disruptive and involved in a edit war without violating 3RR. Often times 3RR is used as an excuse to further a edit war (or justify it) "I should not be blocked, I only make 3 reverts every 24 hours". Really this noticeboard is meant to deal with edit warrer's and should be amended to say such. Tiptoety ^talk 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would favor creating some new recommendations that deal with edit-warring where no 3RR has occurred. To start out, we might add this to the administrator instructions since it might be less controversial there. We just don't want administrators to blow off all cases where there are less than four reverts in 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What a great idea. Please implement this as soon as possible. Just last week I was unable to report a slow revert war due to lack of forum. Not to mention that the actual 3RR warning template mentions that users can be blocked for reasons other than the narrow definition of the 3RR, yet no forum has been made available to report such exceptions. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Where has this convention come from that only literal 3RR violations and not slower, protracted edit warring can be reported here - this board has slowly suffered mission creep, and now handles edit warring cases that would once have been rejected as not breaching 3RR. Rather than creep any further, it would be better to have a fresh board to deal with edit warring. Note that the 3RR enforcement was the result of an explicit poll Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of mission creep. I thought there was always a proper count of the reverts and I also noted many cases thrown out as not violating 3RR. However your idea of a fresh board with a new mandate and criteria is also interesting. Whatever the modalities we should expand the definition of what constitutes a disruptive series of reversions. Dr.K. (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion last April about handling edit-warring complaints at this noticeboard. The summary title of this noticeboard in {{Editabuselinks}} was updated by User:AGK to include 'Edit warring' in this edit on 27 March, 2008. I'd be cautious about introducing a new separate board just for edit warring, since the complaints which arrive here are often very confused anyway. Admins should be able to switch their brains between the two modes if there are instructions somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Having yet another noticeboard strikes me as remarkably unhelpful indeed. Now that really would be "creep", process creep. We shouldn't be sending users from one door to the next in a confusing maze of boards with each its own small domain of responsibility. To William: I believe the policy consensus on what is blockable and how blocks should be used has developed considerably since that 2004 poll, and there's no reason the use of this board should be forever tied to the policy understanding of back then. Reverting 12 times in 8 days or reverting 4 times in one day are signs of the same underlying problem; they are covered by the same blocking policy, and there's no reason to keep them procedurally apart. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No, a new noticeboard wouldn't be a "creep", it would be a "jump". That is, instead of incremental change that can easily be missed, we'd have a major change that could be noticed, and possibly objected to. Not that anyone does seem to be objecting to the creep as it occurs: perhaps people have now become so familiar with, and tired of, edit warring that they are far more inclined to let people jump on it. There may be lots of people watching here, but there are remarkably few contributing here (or at the poll linked above) to what is a largeish change of policy. One that I'm in favour of, cautiously William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that actual policy has changed. Admins have been blocking for edit warring for a long time. The place where the reporting and discussion occurs seems like a detail, so long as it is a public discussion and lots of people know where it is happening. If an issue like edit warring comes up at ANI, that would be completely normal. Why not here as well? EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The {{uw-3rr}} template also mentions: Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Currently there is no administrative forum or policy to enforce this part of the warning. This is not consistent and does not reflect well on our standards. Policy needs to change to accomodate this discrepancy. Dr.K. (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Case in point. In addition current rules are even weaker when it comes to coordinated attacks from multiple IPs all making the same reversion. Dr.K. (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Tasos: 1) I have been blocking users for edit warring for a while, the 3RR policy states that even if you do not make 4 reverts in 24 hours, you can still be classed as an edit warrior and be blocked as such. 2) Also, Template:Uw-ewblock is a block template I had made for me when users hadn't violated 3RR but had been edit warring. 3) With edit warring/3RR admins are far more liberal than policy would suggest :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pat for the information. But as you can see from the link I provided above, when I reported the long-term edit warrior my report was rejected as malformed because I couldn't provide the required number of recent diffs. What do you suggest I do in the future? Is there some other reporting structure that could be used? Thanks again. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

I too have noticed multiple admins close cases as "no vio" or "malformed" because the case was not a clear 3RR violation. Like everyone else has suggested, why don't we change the admin instructions a bit to reflect the fact that this board may also be used for cases of edit warring, not just 3RR violations. Tiptoety ^talk 20:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So what's the decision on this? Non-3RR edit warring to be reported here, or on some new noticeboard, or on some existing one? As far as I can see it doesn't really matter, as long as the instructions are made clear to everyone. I've just had to make such a report on the main WP:AN (perhaps not a bad idea anyway in my particular case), since I didn't know where else to go with it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Since no-one can answer this simple question, I've been bold and updated the header with an instruction to take non-3RR edit warring reports to the main Administrators Noticeboard. If anyone's got any better suggestions, please change it further.--Kotniski (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I do not think that really reflects currently how it works. I know tons of admins (many of them have commented above) who dealing with non-3RR edit warring cases here. Tiptoety ^talk 19:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand. You just said yourself that such reports are often closed as malformed or no vio.--Kotniski (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and that is what we are hoping to change with this thread. Currently the majority of admins close the cases as no vio, ect... while another (smaller group) deal with the edit warring. I think what we are hoping to achieve here is a noticeboard that will deal with all forms of edit warring. Tiptoety ^talk 19:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(Just a quick comment as I passed by) Tip, could you change the instructions to show that admins should deal with all edit warring reports? And possibly a rename of the board too? Plugging reports onto ANI would severly clog it up, and having a 2nd n/board would make things confusing. Having one single, streamlined place to file reports would be logical and clean; as opposed to patches of reports all over the place. Essentially, 3RR = edit warring. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

← Doing... I am a bit bust at the moment, so it may take me a while. 19:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to make my position clear, I'm totally in favour of this solution too, but I wouldn't want the instructions to be misleading as they were before. If all admins are now happy to take such reports here, and the instructions amended accordingly, then that would be perfect.--Kotniski (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the changes to the header and to the administrator instructions. Before I complete a page move, anyone have some suggestions for the new name? Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ?? Tiptoety ^talk 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds perfect to me. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Done Now just to wait for a orange bar. Tiptoety ^talk 01:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. After some period of inactivity following my last post above, things really picked up. I just noticed the renewed discussion and the recent changes to the noticeboard. They were long overdue. The noticeboard looks great and has a more inclusive and streamlined mission which will lead to a better functionality IMO. Good work. Dr.K. (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, long overdue. What section uw-3rr couldn't do, this one did. Great job! --Gogino (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like it to be noted that I oppose the renaming of this board. In answer to EdJohnston's question Where has this convention come from that only literal 3RR violations and not slower, protracted edit warring can be reported here, well the answer is that this board was introduced to enforce an electric fence rule first proposed by Jimbo and supported by the community in 2004. After this rule was introduced, against some objection, attitudes in the admin community to "edit-warring" gradually hardened, and so Ed you got the history the wrong way about. The cultural shift against edit-warring has made newer user-admins cease to see the distinction over time between 3RR violations and non-3RR violations, as this electric fence has changed from being a mere electrical fence into being one moral precept inside a greater wiki-ethical code. I've been watching admins for years list no vios against edit-warriors, and no-one saw anything wrong with this until relatively recently. Given the advent of [this bot], however, my opposition will be remain nominal rather than active, as I await to see what effect this has. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The "electrical fence" idea makes sense. But to move on these changes are good. The next big idea will be better than all the previous ones :) --Gogino (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

i believe the original statement by Fut.Perf. ☼ may also apply to me. please see my comment at the bottom of this page or my complaint on the edit war/3rr page. thanks. Brendan19 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party. While there is no doubt in my mind that everyone who commented above did so in the best of faith, this implementation was horrible on two counts. 1) It is a major change, with very little community discussion. This should really go to a community-wide RfC, preferably with something at the top of everyone's page telling them to comment. 2) It's a bad idea, and encourages admins to block at their whim, with no effective recourse for the blockee. It was bad enough to have 3rr haphazardly and inconsistently enforced, now we have "edit-warring", a term with no fixed meaning. (Yes, I know people could be blocked for it already, but with this board named after it, that makes it much easier for people to be blocked essentially at random.) Please, all of you, take a moment to reconsider. IronDuke 02:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this was more of an experiment than anything and I don't it has turned out so badly. Admins' actions are still monitored as closely as ever so things can't really get out of hand with the "blocking at their whim" thing. And, because of the relative amount of people reporting edit warring in comparison to the higher no. of 3RR reports we receive, there is actually little difference. Renaming the board (and fiddling with the admin instructions) isn't actually a big deal and it only serves to aid people who have no where to go with their complaints when something doesn't breach 3RR to the letter. I honestly think it does some good. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 03:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, but I don't think there's much recourse (or monitoring) for someone with, say, a clean block record who comes here to report a 3rr violation and is him or herself blocked for "edit-warring". An AN/I report about such a block, if the complainer is lucky, will be met with indifference. If not, jeers and "Complaints department is thataway" type lines to start out with, then threats of further blocks if the user continues to complain to follow. IronDuke 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing you would give this example. That's how I got my one and only block. I reported an IP who was edit warring on Greek name by adding a name (Iasperos) with zero ghits. On top of that they refused to discuss anything. I reverted them, thinking it is vandalism, and then reported them here and, you guessed it, I got blocked as well, without a single warning. Only good thing at least the blocking admin had the good sense to give me time served and unblock early, through the intervention of Xeno. But it was a very traumatic experience for me. Dr.K. (logos) 04:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty the majority of the administrators who monitored this board were already blocking users in cases of edit warring (which does have a defined meaning mind you), and this change/rename was only done to reflect that and really has yet to change the outcome of any cases reported to this board. In regards to this needing to have been a larger community discussion, I would agree with you if larger changes had been made, but simply renaming the board to what appears to be a rather uncontroversial name requires exactly the consensus we have above. As for the issue of "bad blocks" (if you can even call them that) - it has nothing to do with the name of the noticeboard, it has to do with current policies and the blocking administrator. If you feel the issue is overzealous administrators dealing with edit wars, then I think you need to look at the bigger picture (ie: policy) and attempt to make a change there. The name of this noticeboard is not the issue (IMO). Tiptoety ^talk 05:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're quite right that policy is a bit to blame here. I quote from the edit war page, the first line under "What is edit-warring": "Edit warring is not necessarily any single action; instead, it is any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes." Ahhhh. Well, that about settles it. We block for mindsets. And here I was thinking there might be a tiny amount of room for judgment when we have what is essentially black letter law. (NB: My sarcasm is directed at no one on this page... I'm just a bit cheesed off by vague pseudo-policy like this.) I'd also say that changing the name has made it more likely that admins block "edit-warrers" without warning -- just as 3rr violators are sometimes so blocked. It needs to be made crystal clear this is not okay, and that any such block without warning can and should be undone without discussion (the block itself serving as the warning). Tiptoey, I understand you don't think this controversial, and I believe you, but I also believe a significant number of Wikipedians in good standing would agree with me that it is. In the end, consensus might well favor your way. But I think this is a major change sort of snuck in the back way (not implying nefarious motives to anyone). Oh, and another thing: I won't be filing any more 3rr reports that I am in any way involved with. It's too much like playing admin roulette, where I end up getting blocked by a random admin who had a bad day because I tried to minimize disruption but had a bad "mindset" or, shudder, reverted twice in one week. IronDuke 06:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

←My point exactly, work on changing the wording of WP:EDITWAR, then the actions taken on this noticeboard would fallow suit. Also, if you feel that further community input needs to be gathered, I am perfectly fine with you dropping a note on WP:AN or some other relevant noticeboard directing other members of the community here - in fact I think that is a good idea. Tiptoety ^talk 06:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think changing that policy page will have any effect (but I may try anyway). People treat editwarring like incivility they "know it when they see it." And, like civiility blocks, the criteria are incomprehensibly vague. As for AN, that's not a bad idea, but I think turnout would be sparse. This needs to go community-wide. Do you know how one goes about getting one of those annoying messages at the top of the page directing editors to comment? IronDuke 16:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how one goes about getting one of those annoying messages at the top of the page directing editors to comment? Yes, it's called the sitenotice, and it's not for cases like this. You're more than welcome to ask at the village pump for policy, file a requests for comment, or even ask for some centralized discussion. Neither the site notice nor the watchlist notice are for cases where you disagree with something and/or want everyone to rally to a cause.

As a side note, and as a word of caution: edit warring is something that the community, as a whole, is extremely clear about not liking— ever. Even things that resemble edit warring for administrators, like wheel warring, carries with it an almost certain guarantee of desysopping. This is why both the three-revert rule and WP:EDITWAR are policies and not guidelines.

Furthermore, reports of edit warring that aren't necessarily 3RR violations tend to only be able to be reported to ANI (under the old naming convention), and as a result, added to the massive bloat that already is WP:ANI. Couple that with the fact that people frequently game the system by attempting to skirt 3RR and/or goad other editors into breaking it (so that they'll be blocked and therefore "lose"), I feel that it makes sense that AN3 also deal with edit warring, in general. In several cases I've seen, for example, a slow, drawn-out edit war will take place over months with little or no intermediate edits, which is just as bad it all happening in 24 hours. Therefore, I support the rename.

--slakr^\ talk / 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the change. It accurately reflects what we were already doing which is the way things usually change around here. Tip was bold and enacted the changes and I think we should commend him and the others. Going through the hoops of a lot of policy would really be a waste for a change as straightforward as this. Surely we don't want a separate board do we? JodyB_talk 18:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war?

If you edit the article war is that considered edit war? On my before last edit it said on my page : "Editing War in Darfur"!!! LOL :) --CyclePat (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring consensus?

Can someone point me to the discussion where it was decided to change the name of this board? I strongly oppose it, but don't want to rehash a settled matter. IronDuke 23:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

*Points up* Tiptoety ^talk 02:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here, friend. It was decided that it was better because Edit warring encompasses all, and not just 3RR. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. Thanks for the pointer <<hits self in forehead with it>>. I have commented above, please feel free to disagree. IronDuke 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

this isn't good. AN/3RR was intended for clear cut cases where you could just check the diffs and issue a block. Anything else belongs on AN/I. The upshot of this move will just be an overlap of the scope of AN/EW and AN/I, and this board will get bogged down with epic discussion of what is or isn't a "slow edit war". Remember, admins, you can make a call on 3RR without using your higher brain functions, but if you want to make a call on an "edit war" in a wider sense you will need to make a cognitive effort to understand what is going on. We can and always did block users for slow unproductive revert warring under WP:DISRUPT. No problem. Take it to AN/I. This isn't what this board is for. I strongly urge you to revert this well-meaning but misguided move. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Largely true, except that very few reports of "simple" 3RR violations were or are actually simple. I don't recall once when I could legitimately have just checked the listed diffs and left it at that. The cases here since the change are no more or less complex than they ever were; the simplicity of the three-revert-rule has always been theoretical at best, an acknowledged fiction at worst. CIreland (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

even if, for argument's sake, I grant this is true (which I do not really believe), that's no reason to make it even worse. --dab (𒁳) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CI. I opposed the change initially, but in practice it has caused no problems, apart from a few amusingly weak reports William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Transclude 3RR bot report?

I'm wondering if it would make sense to transclude the bot-generated 3RR report onto this page somewhere, a bit like the bot-generated vandalism reports are transcluded onto WP:AIV. This would give the bot report much more visibility, and I would think increase it's effectiveness. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is such a bad idea. Maybe have it post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/bot reports or something? Tiptoety ^talk 17:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We can do that, several things to note though.

The format it is using is not final, I intend to change it to make it more readable.
The reports it does are not always mentioning the right person as the problem editor. We get reports saying the person that is reverting vandalism is the problem editor... that is incorrect. I intend to fix this, however it needs to be noted before any such move is made.
The reports are currently archived every 6 hours. Not archiving this often would result in the page literally being too long. In other words this page has high turnover. People almost need to watchlist the bot's reports separately from WP:AN3.

I'm gratified that people like the bot's work enough to make it more visible, however I feel that it is also important to list the caveats. If the consensus is to move it to a more visible location, I will do so, just please note my concerns. —— nix eagle 18:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit War in Progress

The article Christopher Cox the outgoing chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission is targeted by user 71.217.3.20 and possibly by user Tycoon24 as well. These two will without reason, revert previous edits and improvements made by other editors. The disruptive reverts has already violated Wikipedia 3RR. Please help. Ronewirl (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please file your concerns on the main page. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this failing as a noticeboard for edit-warring?

As I've pointed out before, I haven't kept up on why this board was expanded to include edit-warring, but I am concerned that we don't have enough guidance for report creation or response (See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Should_report_format_change_to_accommodate_edit-warring_better.3F).

Once again, I'm at a loss as how to properly report an editor with a long-term history of edit warring, who is threatening other editors while threatening to edit-war further (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Timeshifter_reported_by_User:Ronz_.28Result:_stale.29).

Do we need to change this noticeboard back to 3RR, define edit-warring better, or something else? --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor Reverting to his version, refusing to discuss, 3r violation

User:Dodo bird User_talk:Dodo_bird consistently reverts edits to his version without commenting or responding to talk. He has done this on the neutering, Pedigree Dogs Exposed no-kill shelter and other pages. I have repeatedly reverted his edits, asked for discussion, discussed the issues as well as this editor's insulting comments to no avail. This editor has blanked his user page, reverts any changes to his talk page and in the past has even redirected his talk page to another page. While some of this editor's edits are legitimate, many appear intended to insert POV rather than improve article. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:96.239.140.104 Report

It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by two users [User:96.239.140.104 and User: WillC] "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [5] [6]" and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source, so it seems the objections of the two editors in that regard has no substance. Considerable havoc was raised today on the four articles noted in the report, based on false or spurious claims. Multiple edits were made by individual users in an apparent attempt to make reverts difficult. Curious that in all four cases, the articles may be of special concern to persons with particular racial preferences, who may not be sympathetic to the civil rights of others. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Comparison of wiki farms

Reviewing the recent histories diff I see a tempest building between User:HelloAnnyong and User:Timeshifter that may benefit from administrative intervention. I tried myself to get parties to "sit down" and discuss, but each side is adament in their particular interpretation of guideline. This is escalating. Though each is being careful to avoid 3RR, the war is ongoing and escalating. Summary of recent edits:

19:14, 10 February 2009 Akve adds a link
19:17, 10 February 2009 Akve adds a link
19:17, 10 February 2009 HelloAnnyong immediately reverts
15:49, 11 February 2009 Yaron K. updates data
20:53, 11 February 2009 122.57.32.174 updates data
18:46, 14 February 2009 Ikip adds links
18:47, 14 February 2009 Ikip minor copyedit
18:48, 14 February 2009 Ikip adds qikilink
19:36, 14 February 2009 HelloAnnyong reverts all Ikip edits
21:22, 14 February 2009 Ikip returns his edits
02:05, 15 February 2009 Childofmidnight minor spelling correction
02:45, 15 February 2009 Ronz reverts to last edit by HelloAnnyong
02:47, 15 February 2009 Ronz resores earlier version of first sentence
03:11, 15 February 2009 Ikip reverts to last version by Childofmidnight
03:12, 15 February 2009 Ronz reverts Ikip
03:21, 15 February 2009 MichaelQSchmidt reverts and suggests discussion
03:23, 15 February 2009 Ronz reverts
03:30, 15 February 2009 MichaelQSchmidt revert and again sugest discussion
03:39, 15 February 2009 2005 reverts
04:18, 15 February 2009 ChildofMidnight minor copyedit
04:25, 15 February 2009 ChildofMidnight minor copyedit
05:48, 15 February 2009 117.198.241.30 contribution
05:54, 15 February 2009 HelloAnnyong reverts
06:06, 15 February 2009 Galoubet contribution
16:41, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter returns ELs and points to talk page
17:13, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter changes ELs to Ref format
17:23, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter wikilink and additional Ref
17:28, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter ref fix
17:29, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter additional ref
17:31, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter ref format fix
17:33, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter additional refs
17:35, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter fix redlink
17:44, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter format tweak
17:46, 15 February 2009 HelloAnnyong complete reversion of all Timeshifter additions
17:48, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter minor section tweak
17:48, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter added wikilinks
18:13, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter returned intermediary additions removed by the HelloAnnyong reversion

I tried to gain an earlier understanding of Ronz's action by opening a discussion on my talk page, but was unable to find the insights I needed. This needs input and resolution from someone far better versed in edit wars than myself. Timeshifter and HelloAnnyong need to talk before they act, and perhaps seek mediation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the page needs to be protected? Ikip (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Question re: edit warring

I'm involved with an editor, at Delhi-6, who blanket-reverts to his vio-filled version even after I've called for an RfC at Talk:Delhi-6, saying, in essence, I have no right to call for one. (His edit summary here: "dont need an Rfc for this.")

It hasn't reached 3RR yet, but the Project Page says edit warring is more than 3RR. Given this user's unilateral rejection of RfC, and his overall aggressive, WP:OWN attitude, is there a way to report this on the Project Page withut the 3RR template? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. Use the template as described for adding a new section. then, just list all the reverts he has made recently, even if not in 24 hours. Also list any warnings he has been given for his conduct. Then include a brief summary, as you normally would. Firestorm (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Options?: User:THF & User:Ikip

Page: Business Plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User: THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

14:31, 27 February 2009 [7]
14:29, 27 February 2009 [8]
14:32, 26 February 2009 [9]
14:06, 26 February 2009 [10]

Editor renamed article in the middle of a edit war with me, with no previous discussion on the talk page.[11] THF has removed 1423 words yesterday, well referenced sections.

I have never learned how to effectively engage with POV editors who delete large amounts of well referenced material. What are my options? Ikip (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Per multiple pages where you have sought editwars, this is not one. THF is making good faith edits. The proposed renaming was clearly stated well before it occurred. Collect (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I document your deletions Collect, over 1600+ , and THF deletions yesterday, over 1400 on the talk page. THF refused to answer my questions, and is now hiding the history of his deletions, causing a new edit war on the talk page. Ikip (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I count two reversions there, each a day apart. How is a new edit that never existed before (and a page move supported by the majority of editors to comment on it) an "edit war"? Ikip seems to define "edit war" as blaming his reversion of another editor on the editor who "forced" him to edit war. I further note that this is part of a campaign of harassment Ikip has waged against me, which has included (1) multiple personal attacks at Talk:Business Plot; (2) a frivolous MfD nomination that included Ikip deleting my remarks on the page; and now (3) making this frivolous report without either warning me or notifying me of the report. The claim that I have made "1400 deletions" in a single day is delusional. THF (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

14:06 Feb 26 is a new edit. Not a reversion, not an edit war.
14:32 Feb 26 is a reversion restoring content deleted by Ikip.
14:29 and 14:31 Feb 27 was a single reversion that got glitched by Twinkle and turned into two edits because I didn't realize the 14:29 edit happened. But I'll count that as two in refraining from further edits to Business Plot today so that I remain at 2RR for the day. THF (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I came here on how to handle this situation and get other editors feedback, without formally filing a complaint.

I would appreciate if you remove the word "delusional". As it is a personal attack. I counted all of the deletions via word, would you like a copy cut and pasted? I could cut and paste my graph you continue to hide on the talk page, here, in a collapsed table. Ikip (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My report

Sorry to be a bit pushy here but per WP:IAR I've removed a faulty report filed against me by a misguided user. If you're concerned where it went, I continued the issue at WP:AN/I#Temporary 3RR exception for article patrol?. I'm not condoning edit warring, but trying to manage / centralize our response to some Obama article probation trouble. Sorry if it causes any consternation. Wikidemon (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the point of using IAR here. I think it will be less confusing to simply consider it as normal William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a process fork, possibly unwitting, of a prior issue already on AN/I that goes beyond (and may obviate) the question of 3RR. I've asked on AN/I that we create a temporary exception to 3RR to allow for some article patrol at Talk:Barack Obama. Either that's approved or its not but either way I'm not setting out to violate policy, I'm just trying to hold the peace. ~~I wish you would have discussed before reverting, btw.~~ Wikidemon (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I guess you're right given that the report is so flawed. Wikidemon (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Complaints about AnonIP most recently 141.154.15.141

Per wiki rules small/miniscule minority opinion/viewpoints do not belong in wiki articles and I have been attempting for some time to delete such a small minority opinion from the Second Amendment article as per wiki rules it does not belong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The opinion has such a small following that it is not mentioned once by the Supreme Court when it ruled on Heller. In case you are unaware of it Heller is comparable to the Miranda case on the 5th Amendment or Roe v Wage on abortion in importance, in its own section of the law of course. The opinion that I have been trying to remove is the "civic right" interpretation of the second amendment

All you need do do to confirm that it was not even referenced once is to click on the link below which goes directly to the Supreme Court website and the decision for that case, and then do a search for the term "civic right". You need to go down and click on the text for the search feature to work. For some reason just loading the page does not enable the search feature to work on this page.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html

If a viewpoint is not even mentioned in such a major case, I hope that you agree that it can't have much of a following. If you agree please undo any actions you may have taken to limit my access to editing the Second Amendment article.

May God side with the Right! Just not the "civic RIGHT" ;-).68.163.98.56 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion but my internet provider keeps changing my IP at irregular intervals. I was 141.154.15.14168.163.98.56 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Template for warning for non 3RR edit warring?

Is there a template to warn users about edit warring that isn't concentrated on the 3RR? The reason I ask is because I was recently tried to warn a user about their edit warring [12] & [13] because I got the feeling they were going to continue but may not violate the 3RR as they seemed to be editing sporadically over a day or two so didn't think the 3RR warning was appropriate or useful. As it turns out I was wrong about the later part as they did violate the 3RR so it would be useful if there's a general template for edit warring which mentions all the essentials so I can avoid this sort of thing in the future Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The normal 3RR warning template mentions that users may be blocked for edit warring, whether or not they violate the three-revert rule. In cases that are unusual enough that the normal 3RR template won't work, I think it would be advisable to avoid using a template at all; those situations probably merit a from-scratch note. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

New subheadings

Do we really need the new structure with the automatic subheadings "Discussion" and "Result"? I don't like them. Few threads get long enough that they really need them; the "Discussion" section remains empty ballast in most cases; pages with many identically-worded subheadings are difficult to navigate; and if you edit one of the subsections the edit summary will no longer automatically record which main thread your edit belongs to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, I think separating the noise from the action is useful and good, but it's no biggie to me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In the last 17 hours, there are already 5 changes that show up in the edit history just as '->Discussion'. I.e. no pointer to which issue it was. This puts no useful information on the watchlist of anyone who is trying to follow particular issues at AN3. I would vote with Future Perfect to go back to the old scheme without the subheadings. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to the old way. How do we make the change? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who believes they have consensus can edit Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example. The new subheadings are courtesy of User:Sandstein. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was my bright idea :-) intended to ease the reading of longer submissions, and to make the outcome of a request apparent at a glance. But if people who use this page more often than I dislike them, then I have no objection to getting rid of them again. Sandstein 18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted it (can we have an edit war over it? That would be spelndidly ironic :-). Still, now I know where it is which is nice William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not ditch the discussion section (which will continue to go under the report), and keep the result section (or at least an admin response section)? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A result section would be nice. Btw, for long reports (those ones are the worst; you just wanna look at the edit warring, not the crap that follows.) we can just create a new subheading for it manually and/or actually remove the discussion itself [as sometimes it can descend into: "You did it!" "No! You did it!"] which isn't helpful. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Boxing up long screeds in a show/hide box also works. I still wish we could have permanent links to 3RR reports. (When the closer adds the result to the header line, it spoils any existing links). Maybe some template magic could be added to Example that would create an {{anchor}} at the top of the report? EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the reports do not get very long, and generally only consist of the report and the result making separate headings/sections pointless. Also, having all those extra headings really messes up the table of contents and makes the page considerably longer. I think, like AN or ANI should there become a need to add a section break, then we add it. But for everyday use I say we leave them out. Tiptoety ^talk 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The subheadings mess up the TOC. More, if you *edit* one of the subheadings, you get boinged back to the *first* subheading with the same name, which is not the one you want. Most irritating! As S says, if you want a subheading, you can just create one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are these reverts or editwarring?

According to Bongomatic, these constitute four reverts:

First revert: 01:52, 31 March 2009
Second revert: 02:20, 31 March 2009
Third revert: 02:29, 31 March 2009
Fourth revert: 02:59, 31 March 2009

If so, how do they meet the definition of reverting or edit-warring? Thanks for your time. --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Bongomatic said he wasn't going to report you, that ended the problem, in my view. On the issue you wanted an answer for, I'd say that refactoring of Talk pages needs consensus, and in principle, persisting in a refactoring scheme that other editors don't want could be sanctioned. WP:REFACTOR: If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Although refactoring in order to continue a discussion "string" or correct an error in sequence shouldn't be a problem, especially if it doesn't cause a "disruption in the force." FWiW (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

Reporting an anonymous user who continually changes IP address?

Is this possible? This particular user has violated 3RR on numerous occasions, the latest being this one. I do not recall if they have ever explained their edits or provided a citation. On occasion their edits have been found to be justified. The user does not respond to anything left on their talk page and does not modify their behaviour except to, eventually, abandon their current IP address and later resume under another (I could probably find previous addresses if necessary). Apart fro msemi-protecting the page in question, which seems harsh on genuine users, are there any other solutions? DerbyCountyinNZ 10:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can, you just show the history tab of the main article being fought over. I've semi-prot'd that article and I'm going to have to ask you not to revert that IP again as you've both violated 3RR. Right now, if you haven't done so already, I'm gonna ask you to start a discussion on the talk page to try and reach a consensus about the information in particular. If the IP doesn't wish to engage in the discussion (of which, you will notify him) then semi-protection will last longer. Also, it doesn't reflect well on you when you call someone an idiot in an edit summary now, does it? Just try and keep calm and stick close to WP:1RR. Consider notifying administrators (or, at least other users) sooner, rather than later, so you don't expose yourself to scrutiny. If you require any assistance, or if you have any questions, feel free to reply here or on my talk page. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor/Edit warring

A case of edit was presented at WikiProject Football (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Dagoberto) and, as i, upon a careful look, saw a familiar "face" emerging, added some info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#DAGOBERTO_-_Adendum).

Upon discovering there is a proper space for edit wars' reporting, i now "invaded" this space and proceed to counter-report: That edit war, between user PAULOZIN and an anonymous user is not new to me, because the anonymous user is none other than BRUNO P.DORI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruno_P._Dori), banned for disruptive editing, which consisted in enlarging football players' infoboxes needlessly, he only works in that (i do mean only! in infoboxes, does not add one single line in story or links or references). He was duly warned (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruno_P._Dori) and finally indefinitely blocked.

I have recognized, before and after his ban, more than 30 (!!) anonymous IP with the same disruptive pattern. Here is a sockpuppet list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bruno_P._Dori). For instance, the last four IP in Antonio Longás (another pattern, he solely operates in football players connected past or present with FC Barcelona, please check BRUNO P.DORI, the original account, list of contributions) are also his, the one numbered 217.129.67.28 is my anonymous IP (forgot to sign in). Another pattern is that he engages in no talkpage discussions, does not respond to messages and, in over 1000 contributions (all IP added), has not written one single edit summary, none, immediately re-reverting actions that have been reverted (Three-revert rule constantly violated), inclusively leading to some articles being protected (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergi_Busquets&diff=260741413&oldid=260737132)

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Exactly, in only one hour, a different anonymous IP of this person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.73.104.59) proceeded to enter LONGAS' article (among others) and re-reverted everything again, no edit summaries.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. I did not find any existing sock case for this user, but you can go to WP:SPI and open a new case, giving the name Bruno P. Dori. In your posting, be sure not to use capitals for emphasis. Inlude a link to the sockpuppet category for this editor, the one that you mentioned above. Your report will be more effective if you can include some IPs who have edited in the last 30 days. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

3rr in middle of Arbitration Enforcement complaint?

As I was putting in an arbitration enforcement complaint I noticed the individual had just done a second 3RR and mentioned it without the diffs. Should I - and others in same situation - just include diffs there or should I bring it here, linking to the Arbitration complaint as well? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Drsmoo (talk · contribs) made at most three reverts on Gilad Atzmon on 5 April, since a block of consecutive edits counts as at most one revert. He did make 11 edits altogether on 5 April, but they were in just three groups. It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dang! Even though I've worked on the 3rr article in past, I had temporary memory failure and thought the 3rd revert got you in trouble - and had been controlling myself lately. Senility!! Thanks. Will fix where appropriate! Meanwhile, I know it gets into administrivia, but maybe whether you can do two complaints at once should be mentioned somewhere! Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you see a plain 3RR violation on an article subject to Arbcom sanctions, it would be simpler to report it here first, mentioning the sanction. Closers have been known to take the sanction into account. There is no fixed policy that I know of about where to submit, but such cases are often taken here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to move back

As William C. said above, the rename hasn't had much effect. That is precisely the reason to move it back. There was more opposition to the move than support in any case. This forum, de facto, was for violations of WP:3RR, and still is, despite the move and the best intentions to blur the line by stressing all-edit warring scope at the top of the board. Edit warring that does not violate this rule is routinely listed as "No Violation". This is confusing for ordinary users. My suggestion is to keep this noticeboard to its tradition role enforcing the 3RR electric fence, but have a new noticeboard for edit-warring that is merged with User:3RRBot/bot_reported_disruption_and_3RR_violations. So let's move the Edit warring archives to line with the 3RR archives, move this back to 3RR and begin a new board. There is no benefit to the current situation. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Deacon. Making a whole new other board for edit warring reports would be, in my opinion, an unnecessary waste of space and time. Admins would have to split their attention between two relatively similiar boards in an effort to reduce confusion. I think the notice at the top of the page sums up what we do here without any unknowns. If someone edit wars, report it here. It's as simple as that. 3RR is just a type of edit warring with a set definition of terms to specify it. I'm all for trying it out if you wish to experiment. Would you like to try out a second board for a while and then have a feedback session in a few weeks/months after its inception? Thanks and regards. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, can you provide recent examples of non-3RR complaints dismissed here as No Violation where you think a block for edit warring could have been justified? EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

'old on. I'm obliged to admit that I opposed the move initially, but I think it has in general been a good idea and has shifted, or perhaps codified a shift in, policy: it is now completely uncontroversial to block people for 4R in 25h (once upon a time this would have been heavily argued) and long-running but not-4-in-24h-or-even-close blocks are quite common. And this is a Good Thing. In other words, the scope for admin judgement has been expanded. I do wish we could get the auto-report form unbroken, though: the current one positively encourages people to put in a useless header. Can anyone fix this or do you need some dev rights? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever controversial to block people for edit-warring, well, I think it became acceptable before the board was moved. Any report of someone who's reverted three times in a day, listed here with 4 reverts one of which is a mistake, is likely to have a no vio slapped on the report. In theory, each one of them could be blocked for "edit-warring". That's just confusing, and there's no way around that. @Scarian, it's not a split of attention, but streamlining process; all we got to worry about is an extra click for all the saved confusion. @ EJ, yeah, a bunch, but am not going to for obvious reasons (but see my response to WC and the page as it stands per this edit). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Give it some more time, Deacon. The new board is routinely rejecting edit warring that technically doesn't violate 3RR because some of the sysops patrolling it are still in the habit of using 3RR as the unquestionable metric ruler for incidents of editorial revert warring.
(Personally, I'm all for scrapping 3RR and blocking anybody who uses the revert button in bad faith, but that's a little outwith the scope of this thread.)
AGK 16:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR Violation

I apoligize for the WP:3RR violation on Template:Template sandbox. Ig you accept the apology, then don't block me. Webster6^{Yo, So} 05:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR Violation on Rehoboth Carpenter Family & related Carpenter pages

WP:3RR on Rehoboth Carpenter family by Iwanafish, alias 125.199.58.121 and 160.244.140.202 refuses to communicate despite many entreaties to do so by several editors. This became a modified edit war. See discusion page of Rehoboth Carpenter Family. Apparently this stems from some disagreement which he refuses to discuss. Iwanafish has repeatedly rolled back this and related articles to a previous version of his without discussion. He has used his Washington State IP and his Japan IP as an alias. He has been given many warnings regarding his behavior. I will admit I and another user used the wrong warning format at first regarding his reversion from surveyed articles using wiki format and inline references back to his own format. We are now using the proper warning format. Any help in getting him to communicate or to stop his negative behavior would be appreciated. Blocking may be needed. This behavior has also been seen on John Carpenter (bishop) John Carpenter, town clerk of London and Culham. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This should really have been filed on the noticeboard proper. But I did look into this, and it appears to be a genuine case of long-term edit warring. Iwanafish comes back to Rehoboth Carpenter Family repeatedly and changes it to a drastically different version that only he supports. His behavior is extensively discussed on the article Talk page by a variety of editors, who notice that he never participates on Talk and will not respond to questions. I have given him a final warning to revert this article to the version before his last edits. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the allowance. FYI: Iwanafish, (known aliases 220.102.13.244, 125.199.58.121 and 160.244.140.202 Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice

There's an editnotice that has been created three months ago for this page, but never showed since it isn't named correctly: MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
Should it be displayed at WP:AN3, or not? And is it still up to date?
Amalthea 12:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if it should then just move it to Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and it will work, I'm unwatching this. :) Amalthea 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Protect the page?

Within the last few minutes, there was a suspected test edit on the main project page. I think the page should be semi-protected as it is not really for IPs to edit. 10metreh (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandlaism. But it will need to get rather more sever than that before it needs to be semi'd William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

IP editors have to be allowed to submit 3RR complaints. Otherwise in an editing dispute between a registered account and an IP, if the registered account was behaving badly, the IP would have no recourse. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about the actions of an administrator

RHaworth seem to think he owns WIKI making changes to content and tiltes of articles he knows nothing about. He does not try to consutl with editors or users before making his changes, and ignores thatr fact that I have a communication disability.

From his action tonight regarding the dyslexia project, he does not deserve to bew a WIKI adminstrator, morew a WIKI vandal

dolfrog (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You've not provided any diffs to show edit warring. Try to persuade other editors on one of the article talk pages relevant to this issue. If the issue can't be resolved there, follow the steps of dispute resolution. I've refactored your section heading per the talk page guidelines, which require headings to be neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of auto-templates?

Unsure if it's been discussed before, but what's the possibility of automatic response templates like Template:RFPP showing up/integrated automatically at WP:RFPP. I know there's Template:AN3, but it's not integrated like that at RPFF. Could it be done? Nja²⁴⁷ 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How's that, then? –xeno^talk 01:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page: Brilliant, and thank you! Nja²⁴⁷ 07:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring without violating 3RR

One of the rules of edit warring is that you don't need 4 reverts to be doing it—this is described on this noticeboard as

Remember, 3RR is a type of edit warring, and just because a user has not violated it does not mean they have not engaged in edit warring

and on WP:EW as

However edit wars can and do take place without breaches of the three-revert rule - and editors may be blocked for edit warring without having breached the rule.

(I don't know how much everyone agrees with this policy, because I have in the past seen people say "that's only 3 reverts, no violation...but still, it is the policy.)

There are a few things on WP:AN3 that I think either cause confusion about this policy, or straight-out go against it. First of all, in the editnotice for the page there is a template

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.

which doesn't seem useful to me; the issue people should be judging here is whether or not there was edit warring, not just whether or not there was a 3RR violation. Another thing is in the report itself; it seems like the preloaded text at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example was recently changed and now includes the text

Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR

Yes, technically you do need 4 to violate 3RR, but you don't need 4 to be edit warring, so why is this relevant? Perhaps inexperienced editors frequently report people for 3 reverts, but it is just as frequent that experienced editors report someone with fewer because they know what they're doing and can still recognize edit-warring behavior.

To be honest, I think both of these things should be removed from AN3, or at least clarified (the nve template seems to have no use whatsoever, but the recently-added preloaded text might be ok if it is clarified to say something like "if you believe there has been edit warring without an explicit violation of the 3RR, please explain why"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the problem is a historical accident. WP:AN/EW – this board – used to be known as WP:AN/3RR, and it was used only for reporting cut-and-dried clear violations of WP:3RR. It's name and mandate were both broadened to cover additional classes of edit warring when EW disputes started to crowd out other discussions on WP:AN/I and other noticeboards. Unfortunately, some of the templates and instructional text have not been updated to meet these newer needs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So is it ok if I remove {{AN3|nve}} from the editnotice (and maybe even mark it as deprecated in the template documentation, although I probably shouldn't remove the functionality altogether, as it might still be used in older archives--unfortunately, I know of no way to check WhatLinksHere for a template only with specific parameters checked)? I don't want to go ahead with any changes to the preloaded text until I hear back from William M. Connelly, the editor who made the changes (I've left him a message), but as for the template your comment makes it sound as if it's not needed anymore. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks as if {{AN3|nve}} has been used as recently as this month (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive100#R7604 reported by Cactusjump (Result: No violation), among others) Search results for {{AN3|nve}}: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns2=1&ns6=1&redirs=0&search={{AN3|nve}}+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2F3RRArchive&limit=500&offset=0). I don't know if this means that version of the template ought to be kept, or if some admins ought to be given a reminder to re-read WP:Edit warring. The impression I'm getting from reading these archives is that one common understanding of edit warring rules is something along the lines of "you can be considered edit warring without violating 3RR, but you can only be blocked through this noticeboard if you've violated 3RR; if someone is edit warring without violating 3RR, deal with it somewhere else". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You need 4 reverts in 24h to violate 3RR. You don't need 4R to be blocked for edit warring. 3RR is just one variety of edit warring, but it is the one most likely to trigger an automatic block. I haven't counted, but I would guess that most blocks made on this page are for actual 3RR violations. And although I said above You don't need 4R to be blocked for edit warring while that is technically true, in most cases you probably need rather more than 4R, spread over more than 24h, to get blocked just for edit warring. William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This page desperately needs to be clarified given that administrators are closing reports with "no violation" solely on whether or not there were more than 3 reversions in a day. The top of this page says that it may be used for ignoring the 3 revert rule or for edit warring. According to the definition provided there, edit warring can exist without a 3 revert rule violation. Or am I misreading it? Fyunck(click) has been edit warring on two articles, although he or she has not technically violated the 3 revert rule. What is the appropriate venue for addressing this if not here? Chidel (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment very much and for a long time now. Likewise, the form for reporting also mentions only the 3RR variant, so should also be updated. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made an edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example, adding the issue of edit warring in two places. Let's see how people will like it. Debresser (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

On User-friendliness

Just added my first report here. Jee, the proces is deadly. It is un-doable. Am I the first one to ask for user-friendliness? If so: how to improve it. If not so: can someone reread all earlier suggestions and frustrations. (For sure: it says "1st revers: [link]", but it really should say "[diff]", not? And then explain the difference between these two. And how to get one). Very negative experience. -DePiep (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite like it being unfriendly. It means that only people who care report William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But since I'm basically kind I've edited Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example to change "link" to "diff" as you suggested. This template is editable by non-admins, though if you do edit it prepare to be reverted if people don't like it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is unfriendly. I didn't find the template. Other pages like this have the template clearly displayed at the top, just below the rules. Those who need this noticeboard the most are likely those who are the least technical. Those who have been around the block (and Wikipedia) the longest tend to know tricks and attack the newer editors. This imbalance of power may more knowledgeable editors. Make the template more easily accessible. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean the preloaded text template? There's no need for most users to access that; it's not what you actually use to make your report. You just click the "click here to make a new report" link and the edit window is filled in for you. And I think it's good that the "click here to make a new report" link is partway down the page, because it means people need to read through the noticeboard's instructions before they get to the link. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's shocking. I've been here 10mins and I'm about to give up. --Merbabu (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer, I find the whole thing very unfriendly. Is this some sort of clique that experienced users jealously guard against newcomers? I just wanted to correct a spelling mistake in the article, but I can't find any way of doing so. In the section headed "Definition of edit warring", "exemplified" is misspelt "explemified". Can someone who knows how to do so change it, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendropithecus (talk • contribs) 00:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What's just happened is a good example. Despite having made a few edits to other pages, this time I forgot to sign my comment. The editing process could be improved by providing a box for us to check, rather than having to remember to type in those squiggles, and having to check each time how many are needed, or how to use the auto-insert link! (Because I'm 68 years old & my memory isn't what it was.) Better still, why not make the automated signing process SineBot the standard method? Dendropithecus (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

regarding signatures, there is a box you can click above the edit box. Ie, the one that looks like this:

--Merbabu (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had observed a row of icons above the box, but I'd neglected to check every one to see if it was of any use to me. Also, the row of icons tends to go out of view when one scrolls down to see the instructions, that are underneath the box. Perhaps the row of icons would be better placed under the edit box rather than above it. --Dendropithecus (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Small values of four?

I had a notice declined because "there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria." Okay, I admit that I am confused by the form. But I'm also confused by interpretation. If an editor changes text in an article, and changes it back three more times (all within a day) is that three reverts or four? --Curtis Clark (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, if the first edit is not a "revert". In this hypothetical situation, assuming the change is a new change, the first is just a BOLD edit and the rest are reverts. ("Reverting" only means "undoing someone else's edit", not "making a change someone else disagrees with".) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Technical violation

I'm having some qualms about 3RR being too letter-based. Suppose the following happens:

A makes a bold edit.
B reverts.
A reverts.
B reverts.
A reverts.
B reverts.
A reverts.
B reverts.

Then A reports B for 3RR. Thus far, A has made 3 reverts, while B has made 4. At this point, blocking only B is not the solution. On the other hand, A can't get blocked for 3RR since he has not exceeded the limit. Yes, he can be blocked for edit warring, but that requires a great deal of discretion. An admin who probably knows little about the situation (in fact, is required to be disinterested) would be forced to make a call. Wikipedia:Edit war#Administrator guidance contains a lot of fluff; we should spell out more clearly when to block and when not to block. Recently, I've been dealing with these cases using page protection, but is there a better way? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protection is bad. Yes, you need to use your discretion. No, more guidelines won't help William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

4-against-3 edit warring can be handled with zero, one or two blocks. If the 4-revert guy seems to deserve a block, I would look at the overall behavior of the 3-revert guy also. It takes two to edit war. There is no carte blanche to make three reverts.
People who seem confused should in general not be blocked. Unconfusing them may be possible.
Negotiation is sometimes worth a try
A very specific warning (rather than a block) can sometimes stop a war
I agree with WMC that full protection isn't usually the best choice.

It would be quite hard to add this to the administrator instructions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both WMC and Ed. Ed suggests a very specific warning; I sometimes couple this with watching the page being edit warred on and informing the combatants that I'll be ready to block either if they continue to edit war. Essentially I'm trying to bring about the same effect as full protection for the edit warring parties only while leaving others unaffected. (Of course, this requires additional vigilance on the admin's part, which is why I haven't done it ever since my time on Wikipedia's been more limited.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

fuck me, this is complex

Is there no easier way of submitting things that the current method? Next time I'll not bother it's so difficult. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think it's that difficult. The important components of the report are (a) who you're reporting, (b) what article the edit war occurs on, (c) evidence of the edit war (the four reverts, with the version that was reverted back to), (d) evidence that the reportee is aware of the three-revert rule, and (e) evidence that another attempt was made to diffuse the situation. The current format includes all those components and nothing else, and, frankly, I don't think there's a more organized way to assemble that information than the one that is presented here. If you think these instructions are not worth your time, the edit war you're reporting is probably not a major issue. Most people who find an edit war so troublesome that it impedes with the editing process -- and, really, that's all we care about -- would happily go through the ten-minute process required to report the disruptive user. -- tariqabjotu 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This tool makes the process much easier. --guyzero | talk 19:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to comport with the template. Violating 3rr is not even prerequisite for edit-warring.Here is an example of an edit-warrior being blocked despite the report's non-conformity with the template. It all really depends on the non-bias and common sense ability of the reviewing admin. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why bother jumping through all these hoops when an admin can then simply choose to ignore a blatant 3RR violation ? Duke53 | ^Talk 16:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot-reported section?

For about a month or so, Special:AbuseFilter/249 has been live and catching repeated reverts done by non-autoconfirmed accounts. Perhaps we should have a section where a bot automatically reports said accounts that trip this filter (kind of like already done with bot-reported cases at WP:AIV). Thoughts? MuZemike 22:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. Eagle used to have a bot that found apparent 3RR cases and accumulated them into a file. Unfortunately it took a lot of time to figure out which ones needed any admin attention. As an experiment, could you try reviewing the output of this filter and see how many minutes it takes you to find the first case submittable as a true 3RR? I just looked at the current output of Special:AbuseFilter/249 and found a case needing a warning, so it might have its uses. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

MFD

Can someone justify not MFDing this page? Without WMC, it's not worth having - no action is taken for tens of hours on obvious reports. Hipocrite (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I used to do this once upon a time. I got tired of all the crap that comes with adminship and pretty much don't use my buttons anymore, and at present I've still got no desire to get back into it. And with how few new admins are being added these days, I'm not surprised we're not getting a whole lot taking up these tasks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How to report edit warring that does not violate 3RR?

I have been observing slow motion edit warring on Halide Edip Adıvar. A pointless and lame dispute about whether to use 'Istanbul' or 'Constantinople'. But when I look at reporting it to this board, it is all about reporting violations of 3RR. Indeed, didn't this page used be called the 3RR noticeboard? That made sense, since that is what this noticeboard actually is.

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26].

This does constitute edit warring even though it doesn't come anywhere near 3RR. What is the best approach in a situation like this? Dlabtot (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Dlabtot (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And: [33] [34] Dlabtot (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And: [35] [36] [37] [38] Dlabtot (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And: [39] [40] [41] [42] Dlabtot (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason the board was renamed was to let people know that they can report edit warring even if it doesn't break 3RR. So yes, you may use this board for this report. It's a good idea to be sure you explain in your report why you think this situation merits administrative action (since most, but not all, action against edit warring is for 3RR vios). I haven't looked at the details of your report clearly, so I can't be sure of its merit, but it seems reasonable at a glance. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that that was the intention of changing the name. However, the instructions, and especially the template for adding a report, very much discourage adding a report that is not a 3RR violation. Dlabtot (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be changed, then. What exact wording do you think discourages it? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost all the wording is geared toward 3RR, but what most discourages adding a non-3RR report is the template. What I would suggest is, instead of a single link ("Click here to add a new report") that opens the template, two links, one for reporting violations of 3RR that would open the template, and a separate one for reporting edit warring that does not violate 3RR. How workable that suggestion is, I don't know. Dlabtot (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Dlabtot (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate a tad: The majority of these reports will in fact be 3RR cases, as the majority of edit warring cases meriting action fall under 3RR. So it may well be that the instructions will emphasize these cases. That said, I don't think we should discourage posting of non-3RR edit warring if people think it's needed (and obviously it sometimes is), so if we should reword, I'd be cool with hearing suggestions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The template does say: "For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary", right after the 3RR stuff. It seems clear enough to me, but maybe only because I was involved in renaming this board. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that a lot of notorious edit warriors report their opponents here for imaginary 3RR violations, with a very badly structured presentation (sometimes without any diffs) that forces admins to choose between wasting their own time by examining the matter in detail and wasting their own time by explaining to the reporter how to report correctly. Any language for encouraging non-3RR reports should not encourage malformed 3RR reporting. Hans Adler 08:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm not a fan of the name change. The change of focus and the loss of WCM have meant that 3RR is not being enforced unfortunately. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think it's the name change that's making the difference; I think it's the lack of admins. You mention the loss of WMC, I myself used to do this and don't really have time or drive to do it anymore, EdJohnston mentioned recently that he's been busy, on and on. And I can't blame admins for not doing it; you get crapped on sometimes if you do. We also haven't really been adding a whole lot of new admins lately. I think this is the real problem, not the name change. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. My worry was that at around the same time we lost WMC (and others), we also diluted the concept by merging it into another page, where as things stand it's just a subsection of another section. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RRN used to be my "thing" and I even drew up the admin guidelines for it. At the end of the day, long term edit warring should (and can) still be reported to this board even if it doesn't strictly fall under 3RR. If any admin refuses to deal with it because it's not 3RR then point out that it's still an edit war that needs to be nipped in the bud. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Here explicitly states that admins should act on edit wars in general, and not just 3RR. I guess the problem is the template that is 3RR orientated. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that philosophy aside, when it comes to reporting edit wars that skirt the three-revert rule, the two places that most directly come to mind as alternative reporting outlets are the Drama and zO...M...F...G...Drama!!11! noticeboards....I mean, edit warring is bad and all, but certainly it's not bad enough to the point of unleashing that hell upon the poor souls. :P --slakr^\ talk / 09:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR report helper tool

Resolved

– slakr had his toolserver account reactivated. —DoRD (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php saith:

404: User account expired

User notified.--Elvey (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: I also updated the template so that it spits out something closer to the current report format. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 09:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian, concernign the article Irish people

Issue began over an image of a coat of arms of the O'Neills of Ulster which requires a white shield with a red left hand cut at the wrist. Sources for this may be seen [43], here and at [[44]]. O Fenian initially changed the image under the guise I did not source my image, though the replacement was itself unsourced. I provided the aforementioned sources, he ignored them and continued to argue I did not properly source my image. It seems that he has been taken this argument personally, ignoring the facts of the case, and even stated "[left hand and right hand are irrelevant", which, if any are familiar with heraldry, would know this is blatantly incorrect. The user has reverted the article soem four time, threatened me for reverts despite his own actions, is refusing to hear the facts about the image at hand and is refusing to be reasonable or civil. If this is taken to WikiProject Heraldry, it will be easily discovered that it is important whether a left or right hand is shown, and that my image is accurate despite the users arguments and that his reverts are unwarranted and disruptive without just cause. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There are so many pieces of false information in the text above. My issue is not whether the left or right hand is used, only that an accurate depiction is used. Xanderliptak insists on using a jazzed up version created by himself in order to promote his own business, and I have just raised the matter at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard‎. O Fenian (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to post. This page is for discussing the actual edit warring noticeboard, where reports are made for edit warring and violations of the three revert rule. If you have a report to make, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you have a content dispute, please consider dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 10:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

proposed uw-1rr template for discretionary sanction

Given: {{subst:User:Unomi/uw-1rr|Golan Heights|Some text|Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions}} it renders:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Golan Heights. Note that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions including the one revert rule, which prohibits making more than one reversion on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the one-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Some text

Given: {{subst:User:Unomi/uw-1rr}} it renders:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note the one revert rule, which prohibits making more than one reversion on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the one-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Anyone is welcome to tweak the wording and move it to template space if it should seem useful. Best, u n☯mi 12:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Active_Banana - this user is continuing his same old story of sites not being relaible and that blogs have been used etc..... yesterday Hebrides (talk) even helped me in converting them to citation format, including the title, publisher, date, etc. even she agrees that the 68 were genuine. now i added up more sources which are yes relaible upto 75 to convince all detractors.. now what needs to be done to ensure that the article contributed by me at present which contains solely and solely facts supported by valid references is being made open to public for reading and not deleted? please help seriously i need ur helpShrik88music (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC) following are the references i provided from reputed magazines,newspapers,websites of tv channels,news channels,articles on filmstars etc,..... i know all my 75 references are valid but do not understand y no action can be taken to make such biased editors away from such articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=387349101

I request that this issue be resolves at the earliest and i assure u that all 78 references are genuine.....

infact i want seniors, experts too see it coz iam sure biased anti khanna fantic fans are deleting scentences..activebanana and shshshs are one of them Shrik88music (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to seek dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for your options. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Constant removal of reliably sourced content

User:The Four Deuces has now three times removed well sourced content from the Hugo Chávez article. He seems to think that negative content does not belong in this blp. This was the last edit which he reverted. [45] What is an editor to do if someone editwars well sourced content out of an article? mark nutley (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make an edit warring or 3RR report, do so on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring following the procedure. If you are having a content dispute, you can use dispute resolution. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks spike mark nutley (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Testing for new reporting form

Hi all. I've created a new reporting form at User:Netalarm/AN3 that makes it easier to report users, when compared to the current template on Wikipedia. If you would like, please submit reports there to test it. If there are no problems with it, should we replace the current system with that? Important note: Do not link anything there. If the Page is linked, it'll automatically take it down to a simple link to the page, with no detailed links. Netalarm^talk 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC on definition of revert

Here. It should be of interest to those patrolling this board. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Report helper

The 3RR report helper tool does not have the field "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". Is it possible to add it? TFD (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider leaving a message for User:Slakr, who is the author of the script. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. TFD (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions

I'm confused by a couple of things related to this notice board. When one files a report, the template asks if you have warned the user. Because the instructions and the template indicate that warning the user is a good idea (required?), when I file the report, I add the recommended warning to the user's Talk page. However, the warning is not a notice of the filing of the report. Instead, it is a warning that they may be blocked "if they continue". This makes no sense to me. At this juncture, I wouldn't be filing the report if I didn't believe the editor had violated the rule. Wouldn't it be better to have a real notice rather than a warning? Even the instruction says to "inform them of [the report]", although at the same time it also calls itself a "warning template". The 3RR rule describes itself as a "bright-line rule", meaning assuming all the requirements are met and there is no exemption (and exemptions don't include not being warned), it's over. There is no good-faith exception I'm aware of. However, a notice is a good idea because it permits the user to comment on the report. As it stands, the warning template doesn't even say a report has been filed.

My second point of confusion is this language at WP:3RR: "When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard." Can one seek guidance on this board? The instructions only address filing a report, not asking questions. Does the language mean asking for guidance on the Talk page of the board (as I'm doing now)?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to answer this question at User_talk:Bbb23#Edit_warring--Toddy1 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw report or early closing

Hi

I have a couple of questions as I cannot see any way to request closing an edit warring report early.

It seems that I have a couple of problems: 1 Some of the diffs I have provided may not be the right ones. 2 As it was my first time and took so long to complete the report the user has accepted the original text before I had finished and filed the report. THey are also now continuing discussion on the article talk page. 3 The original change was a very long time ago and misquoted in my original as I misread and put the first change from the established as a diff instead of the last edit to the correct text. (I have edited it now though)

I do not think that continuing the report would be sensible. Can someone advise me on how to get it withdrawn?

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also informed the editor of my intention to withdraw/close early User_talk:Iaaasi#Closing_of_the_editwar_report Chaosdruid (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

New report or not

Hi

After my last attempt being a little messed up I wondered if it is possible for someone to advise me on whether or not I should report this action.

The user came into the IRC help channel for advice. They pointed out that a section of text might have been incorrect. We discussed sources and he persuaded me that the text, its source and ref were ok. I advised him the best course of action was to put a {{verification needed}} tag onto an article as the text was correctly quoted, had a source and the ref was correct. Their problem was that they believed the book was not correct. I showed that there were a couple of other refs that also supported the ref;d book and so I could not support him removing the text.

The user then removed the text - I reverted and explained BRD, he unid, I tried to explain again etc. and we are at 2RR I believe. I have tried to communicate to no avail, advising of BRD, 3RR etc. and asking him to discuss.

Talk:History_of_condoms and User_talk:Regge#March_2011

Do I revert and then fill in a report, or am I/will I be in breach of policy?

I also appreciate it is a while ago. I had to go off for a few hours and an admin said they would look at it, but they have not actioned it as yet and are unresponsive in IRC Chaosdruid (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider asking for a WP:Third opinion. It is sometimes possible to handle conflicting sources by quoting both sources, to let the reader decide. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have posted there. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple offenders

Can I report edit warring amongst several individuals? There is some edit warring going on which I am mostly uninvolved in, but it has been ongoing amongst multiple editors, IPs and established users alike. If I can report multiple people, should I do it here? Also, the page may need to be protected. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ellen MacArthur Foundation

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and I incorrectly labelled a file I uploaded with a Copyright of whjich I needed to get permission for. The logo only consists of simple colours so it does not conform to copyright rules and therefore it is in the public domain. I'm trying to help this company and all I'm getting is people incorrectly making assumptions about this and therefore blocking me out of editing it.

Would you please allow me to edit my logo on the Ellen MacArthur Foundation page and therefore I can correctly label this as in the public domain.

I seem to be constantly at war with people who do not reply to my posts at them, othewrwise I shall delete my account, because there's nothing I can do if all my pages get blocked by people.

Thank you.

Alastair Carr (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Automating notification

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NekoBot regarding a bot involving this page. MBisanz ^talk 06:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Blender

Hi, I don't want to make a formal notice since the editor involved is new, keen and I haven't handled him very well. But please could someone, perhaps someone with a cooler temperament for handling newbies, keep an eye on Blender (software). Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 13:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I only see two recent edits on that page, one of the users of those are blocked already, can you be a little clearer on who you mean? -=- Adam Walker -=- 13:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, wrong blender. Link above fixed! GDallimore (Talk) 13:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Policy Question

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

Not sure if this is the right place, but it seems sensible...

There's a lot of editing going on at Novak Djokovic with people (mainly IP editors) changing his ranking to 1. It's not, it's still 2 until Monday - see my comment on the article's talk page. I just made what would have been my fourth undo of the day on that page but I was beaten to the punch by another user, but the thought occurred: even though my edit would be correct, would it still be a violation of 3RR? The exemptions don't seem to cover this sort of thing, so I thought I should ask somewhere. I've requested the page be semi-protected to stop this happening in any case. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. The point of 3RR is not to restore a "correct" or "right" version but to simply stop the edit-warring so that the article is stable enough to discuss chances. As such, 3RR does not care for who is "right" and reverting more than three times even if you believe to be right is a violation. The exceptions only exist so that edits that are unquestionably made in bad faith are not left in the article because a user reverted thrice already. Regards So Why 20:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about tagging an article with notability concerns.

I tagged the article, Generation of Youth for Christ with a notability tag, based upon my concerns that it doesn't meet WP:GNG, and should be merged. Two editors have then been reverting the tag out of the article, with the last using an edit summary that was quite questionable. Those editors have now threatened me with blocks and such if I should restore the tag. What are the protocols in such cases, when pretty blatant tag-teaming is going on to remove a legitimate tag about concerns being discussed at the talk page? L H M 01:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Article nominated per WP:N and an admin kept the article with the reason "No consensus." Notability concern was not sustained at AfD. This was explained to LHM but he IDONTHEARTHAT. The edit summary was inappropriate and left by an inexperienced editor who should pay more attention to his mentors. No threats: just warnings for edit warring. The tag teaming accusation is without merit and WP:NPA. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you please let someone uninvolved look at the situation. I've explained to you (and Jclemens does so at his talkpage, as well) that "No Consensus" just means "No Consensus." And when there's no consensus, the status quo remains for the time being. It does not preclude tagging for notability concerns. Now please let someone else look at the situation. L H M 01:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The AFD process was very recent. (1-2 weeks ago) Now you have a content dispute over re-tagging it...IMHO the is no inherent right for the tag to stand = no policy violation for removing it. IMHO the case looks a little weak for re-tagging it just after completion of the review, but that's just one opinion. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The AFD resulted in "no consensus", not "keep." And what do you mean by "inherent right for the tag to stand"? All that's needed for a tag "to stand" is for an editor to express concern about the given issue, and be willing to discuss that concern at the talk page. And it wasn't a "re-tagging", North, it was a "tagging" in preparation for my merge proposal, which will be based upon the fact that the GYFC possesses sufficient notability for inclusion in a larger article, but not sufficient for its own. L H M 01:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

the 3RR template hostile to complex cases involving sockpuppets or tag-teaming

Whenever I try to change the format of a template to something that fits the case (but is still a 3RR violation), I get a bot telling me my post is not readable. Can someone please fix it? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-3rr1 up for deletion

Just a notice, these templates have been nominated at TfD. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_5#Stepped_3RR_warnings. -- œ ^™ 05:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I did come here to report some edit warring in progress

but frankly the process is too convoluted to bother with. Surely this is a place simply to bring to admin's attention some edit warring? So why can I not simply post a link to the article in question so that an admin can click on it and look at the history? Where is the benefit in me spending valuable time compiling a load of links to different edits and the names of those editors involved, etc? I could perhaps understand it if I were involved in the dispute and wanted to put my point across for arbitration purposes but as I'm not it just disinclines me to try. All I want is for someone with some clout to take a look and bang some heads together if that is deemed necessary. danno 00:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support revamping the page. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is a legitimate question, so I will answer it as such. I believe the admins or whoever set up the reporting system in this manner did so because it is the most efficient use of administrator time. Instead of forcing them to waste time by merely linking to an article, directing them to the issue gets right to the point. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page doesn't explain 1rr notices

I have a problem a violation of 1RR under WP:ARBPIA by a contentious editor. The ARBPIA template on the article says that violations can be reported here or at Arbitration Enforcement. I'd pref to here, but the main page doesn't mention you can do so. It DOES say you can be blocked for not discussing the specific edit on the talk page. I have mentioned it was a 1rr but given months of reverts that usually fell out of the 1rr time period, now that I've gotten one, I'd like to make use of it. So should this main noticeboard page mention 1rr to avoid confusion by complaining editors and/or admins? CarolMooreDC 17:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider proposing a further bullet point which could be added under 'Listing instructions' in the page header. How about, "Violations of WP:1RR restrictions may also be reported here. Two reverts in 24 hours must be included, plus a link to where the restriction was imposed." EdJohnston (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion as a proposal. Anybody have a problem with it?? CarolMooreDC 10:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-assignment of NekoBot

Since I'm feeling more confident, and will be re-writing NekoBot with new code (and requesting BAG to re-approve it after a decent trial run), would it still be accepted by a consensus agreement here? The features it would have would be (to begin with, unless anyone has additional ideas/suggestions/comments):

Notifying reported editors
Backlog notifications
Adding various information templates (User blocked, information relating to other Administrator noticeboards such as WP:UAA, WP:SPI, WP:AIV)

+ Crashdoom ^Talk 14:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not give us diffs showing examples of the past notifications. Also, if you are going to propose something to BAG, link to a draft of your proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The past template for the notification to reported editors: [46], Backlog notification [47], malformed report warning (working on getting a better system for it): [48]. As for the new information templates, they would just be notes stating the information and shouldn't cause any problems. I haven't drafted a proposal yet, I was planning to if there was still consensus for the bot here, however the last BRFA is here. + Crashdoom ^Talk 17:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Does replacing the "/" in a missing reference count as a revert?

I'm being accused of edit warring on the politically contentious and fast-moving Occupy Wall Street article again, and I would like some guidance. Does removing the "/" in <ref name=missingref /> when replacing a deleted reference count as a revert? Dualus (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No 19:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"No" is too strong. It might count as a revert if it is in furtherance of an edit war, as opposed to merely done multiple times due to edit-warring unrelated to the /. If it is merely a technical correction, than "no" is correct. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution I have decided that I probably did unintentionally violate 3RR. I agree to refrain from editing Occupy Wall Street for 48 hours, and I throw myself on the mercy of the administrators. Dualus (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) No. A purely technical correction is not a revert. If users are accusing you of going over 3RR on the basis of technical edits, they should be trouted at best, or depending on their other behavior, blocked on grounds of abusing policies for purposes of harassment or battlegrounding. However, I also don't see that that's what's been happening - you appear to have been reported for content editing, to which 3RR does apply. Please explain. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(Purely for my own edification, it would also be nice if you could clarify the technical correction you say you are making. I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you, because removing the slash from that tag would break the code, and repeatedly breaking code is disruptive.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad experience

For those interested in improving this Project page, this is my first report and it's follow-up. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Israelite1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Israelite2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You probably meant to link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Israelite1 reported by User:DePiep (Result:Declined). The original guy, Israelite1, stopped after the report was filed. He eventually got blocked by the checkuser Deskana (who may not have seen the 3RR report) at 09:45 on 20 December. After that, the editor behind Israelite1 seems to have created a sock, User:Israelite2, to war on the same article. The sock then got blocked. Are you not happy with how this turned out? EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

when to warn

When reporting a user here, inform them of this, possibly in conjunction with the {{uw-3RR}} warning template

- This seems to me a bit pointless. Does it assert you should or can, add the warning template at the same time as a diff to the report? If so, what is the value of the warning in such a case? I would like to change the wording a little to increase the discussion rather than the focus on reporting. A warning must be given and no report should be made unless the user makes a further revert after the warning. Youreallycan (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it is unnecessary. If the editor has not reverted since receiving the warning then a bit of common sense from the admin should prevail—after all, it is not mandatory to hand out bans after a 3RR violation. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Then it could be added to the report template that if the user been reported has not made a revert since the warning the closing Admin will take this into consideration. IMO it is an absolute waste of time and indeed a falsehood to add a warning template at the same time as a link to a report, and that is what the wording is being claimed to currently assert. Does the current wording assert that? I am looking to raise the level of diplomacy during reporting to a clear position that you will only be reported it you revert after a 3RR warning template has been given. If its correct that a warning can be given with a diff of a report there is no value to the warning at all? I would like to change this wording to Users should give a warning after three reverts have occurred within 24 hours and only report if the user makes a further revert after the warning has been issued. Youreallycan (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

- Here's the position that I think would be more correct to add to the 3RR template...this is also moved from after the revert diffs so that users have to address it prior to adding the diffs of the reverts. see the present order and wording

Please make sure you have previously warned the user that you are reporting and that the warned user has made another revert after your warning prior to making your report. If after your warning the user has ceased reverting please consider returning to discussion in preference to reporting

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of the user reverting after your warning: [link]

thoughts

Please consider a comment - thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any change in the formal process. Admins usually take the kind of precautions that you seem to be aiming at. It is good to mention the need for a warning in the template because some people may file a 3RR report at the noticeboard without ever talking to the person they are reporting. Some editors already complain that the instructions are too complicated so I would not want to make them longer. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It would also be easy to trim the explanatory wording, adding almost nothing but also changing the weight to ...

- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] (Do not report without warning the user first)
- Diff of the user reverting after your warning: [link] (do not report unless the user has reverted again after your warning) - Youreallycan (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that this clarification and added clarity of "the red line" is an overly complicated change that users that are already making reports would not be able to understand. I think from my experience of 3RR that this small change will reduce the reports by around fifty percent and thereby reduce the need for restricting contributors editing ability, and will also reduce the need for administration by the same amounts. Perhaps we could do a trial run to see the benefits or losses as the case may be? Youreallycan (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this a violation of 3RR?

I count four edits in a few hours with intervening edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&diff=473082384&oldid=473009651
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&diff=473083523&oldid=473082587
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&action=historysubmit&diff=473089469&oldid=473084766
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&action=historysubmit&diff=473091054&oldid=473090449

Anon and the other intervening editor claim it's not three reverts. Please weigh-in at the article or respond here and I'll summarize the discussion at the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

question

I dont want to seem rude or anything, but is there a reason this report has gone unanswered and several have been resolved below? This editor and his suspected sockpuppets are continuing to commit rogue edits and action needs to be taken. Its getting frustrating to work on the page in question. Thanks, Metallurgist (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually it's because someone's looked at it, doesn't see enough evidence so they leave it for someone else. That said, technically, the report doesn't really break 3RR, does it? Screwball is pretty tendentious on that article, but it's not 3RR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well theres since been more edit warring, this guy has a history, and now theres a sockpuppet allegation against him. If its not an edit war, its only because I and the others gave up on reverting back.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

... of course, you're following WP:DR, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As best as we can. However, its hard to take someone seriously who does all those things. None of us are personally attacking him, which is the main issue we would have to worry about.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And things seem to be proceeding better now with a proper discussion taking place.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Forced section header

This is not the first time I have this problem. A few minutes ago I added a new entry ([49]) through the Click here to add a new report button. Everything went fine, but the interface forced me to provide a section header, which I had to remove manually ([50]). Any idea what I could be doing wrong? - DVdm (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Note — It looks like user IRWolfie- had the same problem: an extraneous header. The bad header was removed a bit later by user The Blade of the Northern Lights. Quid? - DVdm (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, not sure how it happened myself, I just went through the same Click here to add a new report button to file the report. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Insisting (by hitting the "Save Page" button again) seems to help now. See [51], resulting in a blank edit summary. Strange.

I guess we can also copy the generated section title into the edit summary field (with the "==" removed), and then erase the title from the edit window. That would produce an entry with an edit summary. I'll try that next time. - DVdm (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mtking

I am not sure how/where to report this, but the above user is edit warring across multiple MMA articles trying to impose redirects when no such consensus for them has been established. See his recent edit history. The discussion he links to as somehow endorsing his stance is still open and filled with more opposition than support. --131.123.122.38 (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140, plus discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and Talk:2012 in UFC events, plus multiple ANIs, other AFDs that came to the same conclusion (deletion, then became redirects), such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4. There are more, these are just the ones off the top of my head. Plus there are many more ongoing discussions, primarily about formatting and such, with people who had previously disagreed but agree once they saw the final product. The IP is grossly overstating and exaggerating their case. The IP appears to be an SPA who just recently jumped into the mix, while these discussions have been going on for quite some time. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This IP also added this vandalism/bad humor/whatever. [52] leading me to believe they aren't taking the situation very seriously. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Underlines

Why the whole report is underlined? It's automatic, because I didn't find any code for underlining. Besides, it's not underlined at all in the preview. What's going on? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The report filed immediately before yours contained an unclosed <u> tag, whose effects spilled over into subsequent sections. Since your preview only showed one section, the broken section was not being displayed at that time, and so its effects were not apparent. It was fixed by adding a </u> with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Response at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jakebarrington_reported_by_User:Muboshgu_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29 please

This report was posted yesterday, and the editor continues to edit war. I would appreciate a response to this report. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Policy proposal

I would like to propose a new policy:

If an editor initiates a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, the editors involved in the dispute should not continue with the same editing activity after being notified without engaging in the discussion at Dispute Resolution. Refusing to participate and continuing with the same disputed edits at the article should incur a mandatory 24 hour block. Betty Logan (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea. You seem to be fighting a battle on multiple fronts, which is not good. Wikipedia is not for ideological or personal warfare. If an editor doesn't want to engage in endless, unproductive dispute resolution with an editor who causes them grief, that is their rightful choice. Jehochman ^Talk 02:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you expect me to do? I am engaged in a content dispute with an admin who claims she has a consensus, even though there are serious doubts about that. I made a request to enter dispute resolution which is what it is supposed to be for, so what is the point of it if editors are not obliged to enter it? This is ONE person claiming they have a consensus. I want an IMPARTIAL person to decide what the consensus is, not the FUCKING PERSON INVOLVED. I have got articles to FA and GA status but I am THIS CLOSE to calling it a day with Wikipedia. If there is no process to hold editors to account then there really isn't much point. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This does seem to be just another extension of SlimVirgin's long-running objection to templates, which has been a source of contention with her on many articles. She should be aware by now that very few editors agree with her tendency to remove templates in favor of hardcoding things. If you search for past disputes on that issue, you may be able to get a large enough group of editors together to successfully get her to stop. I think she's completely and absolutely wrong on this issue, but I've never engaged in any discussion with her on it, so I can't certify an RFC on it. I'm quite certain that you can find others that can and will.—Kww(talk) 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible wording changes to the report template?

I was considering what to do about a brewing edit war today and I came by this board as a possibility. And then I remembered - I've been completely incapable of filing a well-formed report here, ever, because the "new report" template is so incomprehensible to me. It's unclear what diffs are being asked for, and the language of the comments that are intended to clarify things actually make them worse. I like to think I'm not entirely stupid, but I just can't make heads or tails of this reporting style enough to use it when I need to.

I'd like to propose some tweaks to the wording (based on my understanding of what the report SHOULD be asking people to provide, if I'm interpreting it correctly). I'd be bold and do these myself, except for two things: one, I'm seriously unsure wtf is being asked for in some spots, and two, I have no concept of where to go to change what's pre-loaded into these reports. Some sort of template? No clue.

So, what would people think of:

Change: 
To: 
Or: (this is where the incomprehensibility comes in. I truly can't figure out which of these things the report is asking for)

Change: 
To:
Or: (incomprehensibility again)

Change:
To:

We'll never be able to make the wording completely foolproof without writing full essays, but I think my changes would make it at least somewhat clearer. Thoughts? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeking input

I just resolved a mini edit war that prompted me to suggest a new flag called "rollback exempt" it would alert someone prior to undoing, restoring over, or rolling back the trusted users who get the flag. (similar to the whitelisted user warning you get when using huggle) I know if my antagonist had discussed before removing, we would have had a much more cordial discussion, and I surmize there may have been other disputes avoided if the users talked before the content removals began. If anyone here is aware of situations where such a flag, , might have been helpful. Please consider commenting at the discussion [53] Thank you - My76Strat (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on unblocking policy

A request has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

Should the proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to the unblocking policy. Penyulap ☏ 01:22, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

3RR report helper tool

The tool linked to at the top of the page no longer works as the user account has expired. Is there an alternative tool available, else that line needs to be removed. KTC (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The owner of the tool is busy. They may have not noticed that the account expired. I pinged Slakr about it on their talk page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How to deal with disruptive reverts which don't actually break 3RR

I'm in a bit of a quandary and I hope someone can point me to a good way out of this situation. I've been trying to improve and cite the article on Königsberg, particularly the section Königsberg#Poles_in_K.C3.B6nigsberg. This is what the section looked like before I noticed it - it was ill formatted, full of bad grammar and badly sourced (though honestly, the rest of the article is/was crap too). I've cleaned up the grammar, formatted the section and added more than a dozen citations.

The problem is that every time I start working on the article two or more users (in particular User:HerkusMonte and User:M.K show up and immediately begin reverting. This makes editing difficult - for example Herkus adds in a 'citation needed' tag, I go and find an appropriate reference, then spend some time formatting and typing it in, only to get an edit conflict or even realize that in the time it took me to find the reference he asked for he simply removed the text. In that case, if i want to provide the citation that was asked for, I have to revert (to put the original text in). If this is done often - and skillfully enough - it looks like a perfect strategy to game someone into breaking 3RR.

Likewise M.K has been removing well sourced info in between my edits, so that text i found and wanted to add - based on reliable sources - cannot be added because what it referred to is no longer there. Attempts at compromise [54] have not worked [55] (I have no idea what that edit summary is even suppose to mean). Oh, and did I mention that neither user has participated in talk page discussion, aside from making a few "I don't like it!" kind of comments?

At this point M.K has reverted the article three times in 24 hrs [56] [57] [58]. I have text which I want to *ADD* to the article but because he's removing other text, what I want to ADD does not make sense without it. I've asked him (and Herkus) to back off a little but, nope, does not work. Funny enough, they're quite and leave the article alone when I'm not editing, but as soon as I make an edit, they start up on it.

Now, there's AGF and all. But there's also seven years worth of Wikipedia experience which means that I can smell the "let's bait him into breaking 3RR" game when I see it.

While I think M.K is clearly edit warring just to edit war here (situation is less clear with Herkus, I can live with the inappropriate tags he's been spamming for the time being) I would rather resolve than report this.

So my question is this: if I put the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Under_construction "Under construction" template on the section (or article) do I get to do some work in peace? I've already spend probably a days worth (literally, 24 hrs) looking up and reading sources (some of them in languages which I'm not that adept at) and I'm getting a bit fed up trying to make improvements which get sabotaged at every step of the process. I'm fine with them raising issues on talk, and they can edit war to their hearts content once I'm done working on the section but in the meantime this is both frustrating and is probably a bad faithed attempt at provoking an edit war.

How much "peace to edit" does the "Under construction" template give me? VolunteerMarek 07:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You posted this on the wrong page, and you should notify the users. This is a talkpage to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Personally I would recommend using the sandboxconsensus strategy: make a sandbox in your own userspace. Ask people to leave feedback on the talkpage of the sandbox (keep WP:CANVAS in mind). If at least 4 goodfaithed Wikipedians agree that your sandbox version is an improvement it will be hard for those 2 users to sabotage it. If they revert you, revert them twice, then post on the 3RR noticeboard and explain what they are doing and mention the fact you have consensus. Arcandam (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In a way this is a question about improving WP:3RR. Specifically, how does 3RR interact with the "Under construction" template if users come in and start monkeying things up while that template is up?

While we're on the subject though - and I do appreciate your advice - here is why it's unworkable. It takes a buttload of time to properly write, reference and clean up a section or an article. What you are saying is that I should waste a few days of my life (in literal work-hours), put it in my sandbox, just on the chance that it won't get sabotaged again. It basically says "do all the work first" and maybe, just maybe, it won't be wasted. I'm 100% sure that there would be 4 goodfaithed Wikipedians who would think my work would be an improvement. I'm also 100% sure that this wouldn't matter squat to those 2, or a couple of others, and they'll think of reasons to mess it up anyway (and hell they might try to report me for WP:CANVASS, as you say). I'm asking for realistic and practical answers, not idealized how-Wikipedia-works-in-theory suggestions.VolunteerMarek 07:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam's advice seems reasonable to me. Reading between the lines, you seem to be asking for a way to guarantee that your contributions will remain in the article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been making small incremental edits. If you have consensus for a completely different, much longer and better referenced version that is actually an advantage, much easier to convince people it is an improvement. Weakening it step by step will be very hard for them, much more work than protecting the current version while someone is trying to improve it step by step. Arcandam (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. I can't speak for the community as a whole, but if I see one of those under construction thingies I think: "yep, wiki is always under construction".

Ugh. Pale, you're sort of right. While in this situation I just want some "peace and quite" to improve the article, thinking a step or two ahead I can see how that template can be easily gamed as a way to try and evade 3RR. Still, I don't agree that the advice is.. workable. The situation sort of highlights an underlying problem with editing Wikipedia. What do you do when you're trying to add text while another person is removing text which is directly connected (or removing text that you're adding citations for)? You stop, and then that means you can't edit the article without reverting. Pretty easy game to play (once you learn it), next time I want to disrupt an article and keep edits I don't like out of it.

Basically, what you're saying is that I'm fucked, and Wikipedia is fucked because it cares far more about behavioral bright line rules rather than actual content. Ok, I sort of knew that already. Forget I asked.VolunteerMarek 08:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could try editing at a different time of day - maybe when the other editors are asleep...? (That is actually a serious suggestion. OK, I'm also trying to introduce some levity to the situation, as I sense you're frustrated, but seriously sometimes it's better just to leave things for a while, and then go back when things have quietened down. I do that quite a lot). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could give you the answer you want, but I can't, sorry. Stop caring about 3RR, maybe that helps. Arcandam (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I was informed by different party that my name is mentioned here. Not surprised that initiator of this discussion failed to inform me.
- First, I have not reverted 3 times in that article, contrary to Volunteer Marek "statement". This is simple edit.
- Second. This is clear cut that this particular editor is shopping that his POV'ed version remained at all cost, (especially then ZERO editors support his version) and by providing false information he hopes that some admin would block me as well. And I speak this is from my personal experience, as this particular editor (known back then as "Radeksz") was found by Arbitration involving in abuse of dispute resolution processes, edit-warring, treating Wikipedia as a battleground and so on. Thus this newest report of some kind is nothing less then extension of his previous behavior.
- Last, but not least I am truly sorry to neural editors if my two reverts upset you all and you have to spend your time over and over again other this. M.K. (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to go into detail here, Marek seems to believe anybody not supporting his POV must be a "battlegroundy, disruptive tag-team". Marek, a founding member of the WP:EEML started his "crusade" against me right after I discovered several socks of his EEML colleague User:Poeticbent and this is just another sad example of his continued battleground mentality (Note: he followed my edit and removed an "unreferenced" tag, not vice versa [59]). HerkusMonte (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh*. I am neither a "founding member", well, of anything actually, nor am I on a crusade against you, nor did you discover any socks (you just harassed a user who was attempting a clean start after a particularly nasty form of off-Wiki abuse, but that's neither here nor there).VolunteerMarek 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, he was blocked for operating socks[60][61]. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest M.K.'s and HerkusMonte's personal attacks boomerang. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen H. Wendover

I don't want to file a formal complaint, I just want an independent person to peek at Stephen H. Wendover where the discussion over the infobox has become heated and needs a calm, disinterested party to decide if consensus has been achieved, and whether the infobox should stay until consensus changes. One party left because of an ANI but a tagteam partner has arrived to take their place. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-assignment of NekoBot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see WT:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Archive 2#Re-assignment of NekoBot for prior discussion relating to the assignment of User:NekoBot to perform automated tasks on this board.

The automated functions the bot will perform are as follows:

Notifying reported editors
Backlog notifications
Adding various information templates (User blocked, information relating to other Administrator noticeboards such as WP:UAA, WP:SPI, WP:AIV)
Clerk tasks, for example: automated detection of edit warring at the time of report

A request for approval has been submitted to WP:BRfA, please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/NekoBot_(Re-approval) + Crashdoom ^Talk 13:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Templates used by this bot will include those located at User:NekoBot/AN3 and User:NekoBot/3RRAttn + Crashdoom ^Talk 14:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archived cases

It would be nice to have a Search Tool on the other page (not this Talk Page) so we can see if Editors have been accused previously. I am not sure why Editors have to go to the Talk Page to find it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There is one. Just above the TOC: "If you do not see your report here, you can search the archives for it." Click on the word "search" and then use the appropriate search box on the following page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit war brewing; attention might be helpful

If anyone (especially an admin) can put an end to the endless reverts at the edit-reversion dispute about the application of a tag here (see items 2, 3, and 5 in the table of contents), that would be helpful. See also the history at the related article. It might warrant the attention of those familiar with our edit warring rules if they have interest/time, and it could forestall the need for a report.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Template for reporting

Does the current reporting process seem a bit outdated to anyone else? You have to add the username twice, the section header changes over time, and the setup largely ignores such concepts as reporting multiple users, or reporting editwars that you yourself were not engaged in. Now, all of that could be fixed by making the necessary modifications to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example, but why not just do it like we do most noticeboard reports (e.g. at SPI, at CHUS, or at AE), and use a template? I've created a proposal template at User:PinkAmpersand/Template:AN3 report (testcases) which would be used as a preload as shown here. Thoughts? Improvements to either the template or the preload are welcome, of course. (If the preload seems too wordy, I could make a second version without all of the hidden text notes, and have a separate link in the noticeboard header for users who are experienced here.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The system currently in use at WP:AN3 is just less bad than the previous alternative. If you want to innovate further, I'd suggest checking out Timotheus Canens' new proposed system for SPI: Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive12#A new wizard for filing SPI cases. I don't think accepting the *current* SPI submission process as a model for AN3 is worthwhile. It has things like 'LEAVE IT EMPTY. DON'T PUT ANYTHING IN IT', which is a thing the software ought to be hiding from you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that a wizard would probably be the best way to go with this, and I wouldn't mind seeking out permission to draft one from the proposed system by Timotheus Canens (taken from WP:DRN). It should lead to everything being posted in a single format, while making sure all of the information is provided for a report. + Crashdoom ^Talk 09:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN3 Automated Clerk

As above with the Re-assignment of NekoBot, I've been asked to post this once again to request comments on User:NekoBot regaining status as an automated clerk for WP:AN3. The bot would perform automated tasks that initially include notifying users when they're reported, managing the backlog tag when there are more than 4/5 reports outstanding. It will also post information regarding the user, such as existing reports on other admin noticeboards in a style similar to that of Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations, the bot will review the diffs posted by the reporter and attempt to find a violation of the 3RR rule (This will not be an official confirmation or rejection of a report; mainly something to make the admin's lives easier). Would it be wise to have the bot check for users that are gaming the system as well? + Crashdoom ^Talk 08:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Template needs to say warning is not necessary

As I asked just now at this diff:

How can something be stale after 28 hours? If you want immediate reports, you should NOT ask us if we left a 3rr/1rr/etc warning - Or if we tried to discuss it on the talk page. Where's the best place to take this complaint about an inaccurate admin ruling?

Dr. Smoo second revert: 23:49, April 23, 2013
My 1rr Warning (where I asked for a revert): 00:47, April 24, 2013
My complaint 03:19, April 25, 2013‎

I see now that Wikipedia:3rr#What_to_do_if_you_see_edit-warring_behavior says: A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page.

If a warning - or talk page discussion - is NOT a requirement, then your introduction and template should say so. Obviously I will not be warning people again unless I really think it's a naive person, and I don't run into too many of those any more. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to address the merits of the policy, you should post on the policy talk page, not here. These comments seem written out of pique at the result of your report. That's not usually a good reason for changing what you do. I suggest you continue to warn editors when you can that they are about to violate WP:3RR, or even if there is a pattern of edit warring absent an imminent breach. I can tell you that I look at that when I'm evaluating a report, and I imagine I'm not the only admin who does.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Carol, there seems to be a misunderstanding on your side. A discussion about controversial edits is always required before reporting other editors to this board. Once it has been established that the other party either don't respond to your talk page messages or ignore the consensus of a discussion, then it's time to report them for edit warring. As to 3RR and the warnings template, it's not necessary to use it when you've started a discussion about potential edit warring anyway. But most often the template is the very first message that comes across to the edit warring factions when it is used by uninvolved editors who happen to come across a random edit war.

You also asked how something, i.e. an edit warring report, can be stale after 28 hours. We block users as a preventative measure, and not as an act of punishment. So when it turns out that an editor's edit warring has ceased after a certain time, it might not be necessary at all to block them. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, De728631's explanation makes sense and now that I know it is the WP:3rr policy page where explanations of how to use this noticeboard are discussed, not this one, I'll go see if it's adequately explained there. It can be a real trial and error process, for sure! CarolMooreDC🗽 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Self deletion: is this subject to 3RR?

I've had to delete my own message after another user threaded it into a conversation where I wasn't a participant (twice) [62] [63]. May I continue to delete (as a form of 'self-reversion'?) or is this subject to 3RR? I don't want to strike through, as this will imply that I was participating, but then changed my mind about what I wrote. (The involved editor is Andy Mabbett/Pigsonthewing). --Klein zach 22:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked Andy about this at User talk:Pigsonthewing#Mentioned on 18 May, but did not find his response very satisfying. The original dispute was about the formatting of the talk threads at Talk:Richard Wagner#No infobox. See also User:Ched/RfC - Infobox for the background. There does not seem to be anything more to be done on this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Actually I did intentionally ask a question here, rather than report edit warring on the main page. I really was interested in learning the answer to my question. --Klein zach 23:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Jón

I'm not sure this is the right page to report to, but various unregistered users have repeatedly and without any motivation deleted "Jón" as an Icelandic variant of John (given name). Even though I've reverted it countless times and have referenced to Jón Sigurðsson as an example and that this name is clearly etymologically related to the English "John", it keeps getting removed again and again and again and again. I've asked on the talk page why people have problems with it, but nobody has replied. Leaving a message at their talk page won't do anything, because these are the only edits ever performed from those addresses; they won't look. It's very frustrating and I'm not convinced that if only I keep putting it back, one day they'll leave it there. It's just guerrilla vandalism. I propose to protect the page from non-registered users. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The removals are all being done by IP editors. I have semiprotected John (given name) for two months. Let me know if any other articles are affected. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Twinke

I've added AN3 reporting functionality to Twinkle now. I hope you don't mind. _→AzaToth 01:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

After the problem with bits.wikimedia.org it's now functional again. _→AzaToth 19:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious notification

I got a notification "71.2.172.65 mentioned you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Yesterday at 19:29" but there's nothing about that on this page. How come? Dauto (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive215#User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:71.2.172.65 (Result:No action) for the last edit warring report filed by that IP. But the 3RR report does not mention your name. It's a mystery. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notifications#who, me? is this a bug? --Onorem (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, per Onorem's link the IP transcluded the entire Science Reference Desk momentarily into the 3RR noticeboard. (They unwisely used curly braces when posting the location of the dispute). So the software worked as designed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Add back navbox near top of page?

Can we add back the Noticeboard Navbox to near top of page? The current text:

"If you do not see your report here, you can search the archives for it."

is unhelpful in three ways:

It's disconcerting to be faced with this gigantic poorly-sorted archive list (due to lacking leading zeroes).
The linked search doesn't seem to work as expected: a search for Lexein in the 3RR box did not return the most recent discussion there involving me (in archive 216), only two older ones from archive 162 and 197.
It's also disconcerting that EW is archived under 3RR, without any notice given that this is the case.

Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)