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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:23, 30 October 2016 editSoftlavender (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers92,254 edits →User:<Jkouhyar reported by User:Softlavender (Result: )← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:24, 30 October 2016 edit undoDoc James (talk \| contribs)Administrators312,278 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 321:		Line 321:

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,		Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

			<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Mucoid plaque}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Aerozeplyn}}



			Previous version reverted to:


			Diffs of the user's reverts:
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#



			Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


			Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />		<u>Comments:</u> <br />

Revision as of 12:24, 30 October 2016

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Two editors warned)

Page: Template:KidsTVBlocksUSA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 745568501 by Vjmlhds (talk): No - not needed...why single out Litton, when there are so many other production companies? (TW)"
01:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 746292479 by Vjmlhds (talk): Drop the attitude - it's easier to list by network than producer. (TW)"
18:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 746377205 by Vjmlhds (talk): The network is what counts, not the distributor. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Litton subgrouping 14:15, 26 October 2016

Comments:

Ongoing edit war between this user and Spshu. Resolution initiative was attempted over at template's talk page, but neither party is agreeing with each other. Electric Burst_(Zaps) 19:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Result: User:Vjmlhds and User:Spshu are warned for edit warring. Per this comment on his talk page Vmjlhds has agreed to take a break from editing the template. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That break is meaningless as he already put his version back in place. He was also warned about abusing Twinkle in not initially giving any sort of meaningful edit summary. Spshu (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Spshu Nice try...a simple look at the revision history will show I made my last edit to the template at 2:20 p.m. Eastern time. The warning then came at 3:50 p.m. Eastern time (which can be found on my talk page). I haven't touched the template since the warning was put in place. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing two issue the twinkle abuse warning thus proved my point. You don't need to edit the template since it is in the form that you want it in instead of stopping for the discussion of BRD.

Litton subgrouping 14:15, 26 October 2016 (discussion started)
Vjmlhds informed of discussion 12:57, 27 October 2016
Vjmlhds template 4th edit 18:20, 27 October 2016
"I'm done with the template" 00:44, 28 October 2016

So, the whole backing off editing the template is a falsehood, since you already did. You are done with the template since you have your way. Second, it doesn't matter when the edit warning notice was put into place it is whether or not you exceed 3RR, which you have. The discussion was up for nearly a day and a half. Thus you should have been discussing not reverting. Spshu (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Spshu You're grasping for straws - I never exceeded 3RR (3 reverts in 24 hours), and the fact you just now are talking about 3RR and Twinkle means that you are just trying to pull something out of the air to gripe about something. Looks like a case of sour grapes on your part because you can't revert the template back to your version without a block breathing down your neck. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not grasping for straws. I just showed that your statement of being "done with the template" should not be taken seriously to get you off the hook since the template is currently your preferred version thus meaningless. Spshu (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Spshu You used a sock account to attack Electricburst1996 on my talk page, and quite frankly, I don't think you'd be too upset if I had laid off the template if it were in YOUR version. You're upset that the template isn't the way you want it, and you're throwing a wiki-tantrum. Not a good look. You know there's an investigation looking into you being a sock, so I'd suggest you cease and desist. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You were suppose to as the discussion was already started, so you backing off is bogus. So, now you are attempt to WP:HUSH me with the sock complaint. That doesn't look good for you. A false sock investigation doesn't look good for you or EB support it. Spshu (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Spshu Not trying to "hush" anybody. It's obvious you wouldn't be throwing this fit if the template were YOUR way, and you just keep going and going and going as if any of it is gonna make the template magically change. EB opened the sock investigation on you - not me, so if you have an issue with it, take it up with him. No conspiracies here, just pointing out that you keep digging your own grave and beating that dead horse. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Henocksey reported by User:Haploidavey (Result: Blocked, 48h)

Page: Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Henocksey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

17:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "political propoganda inciting ethnic violence, banned under rules of the current ethiopian state of emergency. Will bring back when state of emergency ends in six months"
17:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "political propoganda inciting ethnic violence. Banned under rules of current Ethiopian state of emergency. can bring back info after six months when state of emergency ends."
17:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC) ""
17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "reason explained previously"
16:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "I removed this paragarph and others like it because this wikipedia page on Ethiopia should be free from any political propoganda peddled by groups inciting violence in my country."
Consecutive edits made from 16:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC) to 16:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
1. 16:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "removed information"
2. 16:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "removed paragraphs"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ethiopia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Too many attempts to list here. User has been repeatedly invited to discuss on talk-page, per BRD but has not attempted to engage other than in edit summaries (listed above) and reversion Haploidavey (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC) User seems to believe they're entitled to remove the content in question because it breaks Ethiopian law

Endorsed.I have reverted this user many times. Yoshi24517 _Online 18:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit warring, disruptive editing, POV-pushing. CIreland (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Clarinetcousin reported by User:Prcc27 (Result: Blocked, 3 days)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WP:1RR was violated by this user. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a funny WP:DUCK feeling but will let the admin look at the history to see if im wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You are unfair as you can get, I don´t care. And you feel that by doing that they are not going to suspect from you, but guys you are the ones who are disrespecting the agreement. It is even the beggining of the talk page, 270 is the agreement! Castle and McMullin are big write in candidates as well, and you remove just the others. I don´t care if I get suspended because I am stopping you from being unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well in less than a 24 hour period you undid three different editors whom have all told you the same thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I undid the edits that people that are not following the consensus did, and they thought that by the 24 hour rule I wouldn't return it to how it was agreed. I am one user that always have been one but the other three how they were so coordinated? If added new content first. The 24 hours is to promote the agreements and limit the behavior you had. I already said that if I had to get suspended I will accept it but you are removing candidates just because you want to do it. Again why them? They qualify that is it. I don´t know what your motivation when you remove them. I can tell you mine, be fair and give the candidates that can mathematically win a chance. I don´t deny that I undid them but the admin will see why... User:Clarinetcousin —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Even if you did have consensus for your edits, you still violated Misplaced Pages policy by edit warring. There are some exemptions to the edit war policy but having consensus isn't one of them. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 days Not so much for the edit warring itself but for declaring that he doesn't care it violates policy - that indicates they're likely to continue. Huon (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Glueman9 reported by User:Openskye (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:This person is clearly only changing this page for kicks and not actually being helpful.

User:58.120.40.69 reported by User:PurpleLights123 (Result: )

Diffs of the user's edits:
Informal Talks

Link Removed info about Brian, Alec and Alistair. When I reverted this edit, I explained my reason for reverting in the edit summary.
Link Removed info about Brian, Alec, Alistair and Nazarov, and added false info with no source (which the user has also done in this edit and this edit) Again, when I reverted this edit, I explained my reason for reverting in the edit summary. I also left a message on User talk:58.120.40.69, explaining my reasons for removing his/her edits (which has been ignored)
Link 3rd time removing info about Brian, Alec and Alistair again. Again, I explained my reason for reverting in the edit summary, and reported this on the administrator's incident noticeboard here
Link 3rd time removing info about Suhrobjon again.
Link 4th time removing info about Brian, Alec and Alistair again
Link 4th time removing info about Suhrobjon again

A Bright World

Link Removed info about Gaive. I reverted the edit and explained why in the edit summary.
Link Removed info about Thep
Link Removed info about Gaive again. I reverted the edit and explained in the edit summary that I re-added this info, because in Season 2 Episode 2, this info was confirmed. I also left a message on User talk:58.120.40.69, explaining my reasons for removing his/her edits (which has been ignored).
Link For the 3rd time, removed info about the representative (Gaive). And again, when I reverted, I provided an explanation. I also reported this on the administrator's incident noticeboard here
Link For the 4th time, removed info about the representative (Gaive)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
As I stated before, after the 2nd and 3rd time this user has removed the same info (on both the Informal Talks and A Bright World pages), I provided an explanation in the edit summary when I reverted the edit and left a message on User_talk:58.120.40.69, first to explain my reasons for reverting, and 2nd time to make the user aware I was reporting him/her on the administrator's incident noticeboard. That report was not dealt with, and was simply archived by a bot. It can be found here. The user has not replied to either message I left on his/her talk page.

Comments:
I am open to discussing this with the user, as I am sick of constantly having info removed, or false info added, with no explanation. But since my attempt to discuss the issue as failed (the user has not replied to my messages), it seems that the only solution is to report this on the Edit Warring page. Starting October 18th, this user has repetitively removed the same info over and over again, it seems unlikely they will be willing to stop.

Please help me with this issue by either warning or blocking this user. Thank you for your time! PurpleLights123 (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:185.75.56.168 reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: IP already blocked.)

Page: Onogurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 185.75.56.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746788864 by KGirlTrucker81 (talk)"
15:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746788519 by Crovata (talk)"
15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746787292 by Crovata (talk)"
15:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746786646 by Crovata (talk)"
15:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746785450 by Crovata (talk)"
14:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746784230 by Crovata (talk)"
14:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746783102 by Crovata (talk) bro, the same goes for you"
14:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746782593 by 85.118.68.210 (talk)"
14:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Negating different points of view is not the way western science/democracy work. You don't belong."
14:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746779339 by Crovata (talk)"
14:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746777921 by Crovata (talk)"
13:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746764493 by 85.118.68.210 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

15:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Onogurs. (TW)"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:185.75.56.168

Comments:

IP sock refuses to engange in discussion KGirlTrucker81 15:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the same disruptive edit previously done by other IP sock-puppets by User:PavelStaykov. With the mention of "Turkish..." on its talk page the IP revealed itself to be related to PavelStaykov sock activity. It needs indefinite block. There's also Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection#Onogurs. --Crovata (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

We can close this. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BG89 reported by User:The TV Boy (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:PFC_CSKA_Sofia#Removal of sourced content

Comments: User continuously removes sourced information of a football match, saying that "CSKA and CSKA-Sofia are two different clubs". In reality there are no two different clubs, only one and the same club that has been restructured, discussion about the subject is going on Talk:PFC CSKA Sofia and enough sources are provided about the matter, but the user continuously edit-wars, saying that "he will remove the information" even thought the evidence. Similar responses I got after warning the user on his talk page, you can see them on User talk:BG89.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Page protected Slow edit war between two users. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:NatGertler reported by User:AManInWikipedia (Result: no violation)

Page: IsAnybodyDown?
User being reported: User:NatGertler

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the editor's reverts:

Comments:

No violation Further, the reported user hadn't even been warned. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since the accuser is a new account having trouble formatting his accusation, let me give a run-down of what is happening here. The page in question I've edited twice in the past 24 hours, both reverts, one undoing an attempt to blank some sourced information, the other undoing an attempt to replace the whole page with a redirect. Prior to that, I had not edited the page for 10 months.... which, yes, was a reversion to an IP attempt to delete the same sourced information; I am not the only one to revert such deletions. I had also started a discussion of that material on the Talk page prior to these deletion attempts; the deleting accounts did not only not engage in the discussion, one of them deleted the discussion. Inspection of edits suggest that the IPs and the new user account are iikely the same individual. (Also, in terms of technicalities, no warning of Edit Warring was given before bringing matters here.)

So, it sum up: No 3RR, no warning, no unreasonable edits, and I started discussion. I think I'm comfortably outside any edit warring concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)