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 04:06, 20 December 2019 editRGloucester (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits →User:Foption reported by User:RGloucester (Result: ): c/e← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:29, 20 December 2019 edit undoEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,210 edits →User:Factsinwiki reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: ): Factsinwiki is risking a block for long-term edit warringNext edit →
Line 154:		Line 154:
	This a repeat of a previous request, because the behaviour of user Factsinwiki didn't change. Late november, he engaged in similar actions (, , e ), but the page was protected and that was that. A was open while the article was protected in older to solve the situation. The user in question, didn't take part in the discussion. He later added outside of the discussion (was on that), not adressing the issues in the discussion or presenting sources. Anyways, he was first reverted and i left him a directing him to the discussion, but he (which i interpretate as an anknolodgement of the post) and continue with the ]. Since he has a of deleting messages and since this is his second EW/3RR violation in less than an month, i'm taking this situation here for evaluation. ] (]) 20:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)		This a repeat of a previous request, because the behaviour of user Factsinwiki didn't change. Late november, he engaged in similar actions (, , e ), but the page was protected and that was that. A was open while the article was protected in older to solve the situation. The user in question, didn't take part in the discussion. He later added outside of the discussion (was on that), not adressing the issues in the discussion or presenting sources. Anyways, he was first reverted and i left him a directing him to the discussion, but he (which i interpretate as an anknolodgement of the post) and continue with the ]. Since he has a of deleting messages and since this is his second EW/3RR violation in less than an month, i'm taking this situation here for evaluation. ] (]) 20:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
	:I couldn't find the 23 November report in the archives, so I dug it out of the history and manually archived it at ]. It was removed by the filer before being closed by an admin so it disappeared from the system. It does appear that Factsinwiki doesn't like the Alliance being described as far-right. Instead he wants it to be 'right-wing to far-right'. ] (]) 23:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)		:I couldn't find the 23 November report in the archives, so I dug it out of the history and manually archived it at ]. It was removed by the filer before being closed by an admin so it disappeared from the system. It does appear that Factsinwiki doesn't like the Alliance being described as far-right. Instead he wants it to be 'right-wing to far-right'. ] (]) 23:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
			::] made three reverts this time around (Dec 18-19), after a previous spot of edit warring on 23 November that led to the article being protected by ]. Each time he was making the same changes. There has been a discussion on the talk page at ] (about 'Far-right' versus 'Right-wing or far right'), opened by Coltsfan in which Factsinwiki couldn't persuade anyone to support his version. I hope Factsinwiki will respond here to explain why he shouldn't be blocked for long-term edit warring. As an alternative he could agree to stop this behavior. ] (]) 04:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ], 2nd complaint (Result: Blocked) ==		== ] reported by ], 2nd complaint (Result: Blocked) ==

Revision as of 04:29, 20 December 2019

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: Paradise Chronicle reported by User:175.203.103.219 (Result: Filer blocked)

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:
User violate the 3RR within 24 hours. 175.203.103.219 (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. I have been attempting to contain of a major vandal here is his edit historial. He is the same who reported me here. He removed all things mentioning Kurdish or Kurds. I and Semsuri have tried to contain the damage and revert as much as we could.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Because the Kurdish names were not sourced. And in the Diyarbakır article I have two times said to you to use the talk page to explain but you just ignored it.. 175.203.103.219 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@175.203.103.219: I won't comment on the specific article or the 3RR but the onus to open a discussion is on you since you are the one making major changes to the lead (see WP:BRD). Though I would note that Paradise should've explained themselves in the edit summaries better. Gotitbro (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This report is ridiculous. The IP has been editing disruptively and now reports an user who has spent a lot of time cleaning up his traces. --Semsurî (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Should be noted that the IP has been disruptively editing articles on Turkish places with Kurdish majority populaces, wholesale removing Kurdish place names from ledes while ostensibly asking for sources. The IP user could've simply tagged the names as such or even added sources themselves (no dearth of Kurdish language sources for Kurdish settlements as demonstrated by @Paradise Chronicle:). This can only be termed as bad faith editing on part of the IP to remove Kurdish names from ledes of articles. Then to go report editors who have tried to undo the disruptions by even adding sources for these place names is simply a laughable attempt by the IP. Gotitbro (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have told him at the beginning it would be better if he'd mark the info with source needed instead of removing the info. That Diyarbakir is the Capital of Diyarbakir province was already present in the lead where you wanted to add it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

User:175.203.103.219 has been blocked for disruptive editing by User:Ad Orientem, who may not be aware of this report. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, Ad Orientem, seems that we have a sock puppet --> 118.18.179.54. This editor picks up where 175.203.103.219 left. --Semsurî (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Bishonen and Semsûrî: Just as an fyi; I am currently traveling and will be online irregularly, if at all, over the next few days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: The filer of this report, Special:Contributions/175.203.103.219, has been blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing by User:Ad Orientem per an AIV report, probably this one. The filer of the AIV, User:Paradise Chronicle, says that the IP ''removes all references to Kurdish or Kurds. At least as far as I have observed. Me and Semsuri are trying to contain the damage. (keep it short)". EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:BarcrMac (Result: Stale, warning)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

" and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".

" shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Continuing edit warring in an article that has revert restrictions. The bold edits show continuing to edit war of these edits after being blocked (for the second time) for edit warring in this page.Barca (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I was blocked on Dec. 10th because I engaged in edit waring. Barca, the user who initiated this report was also blocked shortly after. The reason why me, Barca and two other editors were blocked was due to Barca's edit on December 9th. As soon as my block period was over, I stated an apology in the talk page of the article in dispute and restored the article to the version that Barca and the other two editors insisted on during the edit war. Here is the diff between Barca's last edit on Dec. 9th and my edit right after my block period was over that shows they are the same word for word. Since then, I have been discussing things in the talk page and also have asked Barca in his talk page to help come up with a list of things he wants in the article so that the two of us can figure out a middle-ground solution.Kazemita1 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

p.s. The two sentences that Barca marked in green in this report existed in Barca's last edit on December 9th as well as in the version of the article proposed by two other editors on December 10th.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User Ypatch said they did not endorse these edits, so please don't drag them into this. As soon as the block was over, you added text that had been reverted during the edit war which did not belong to the long-standing version of the article. The diffs presented outline this. Barca (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not name any users (but you just did!). And I have addressed your last concern here in the talk page of the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Stale – No block for Dec. 13 violations on Dec. 19 unless they are blatant and easy to see. But still, I'm warning User:Kazemita1 for making edits for which consensus is not clear. Merely making arguments in your own edit summary is not enough evidence of consensus. I would like to see a clear agreement by others on the talk page that your change has support. The argument that the material 'used to be in the article at one time', or that 'Joe Smith supported this version in a past dispute' surely doesn't prove that it enjoys consensus to go in right now. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:86.8.200.145 reported by User:CLCStudent (Result: Page protected)

Page: Helstrom (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.8.200.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Dude stop ignoring what I’m saying I literally linked an article which states Gabriella Rossetti is a version of Gabriel the Devil Hunter and this doesn’t constitute as original research as it’s very much confirmed it’s a female version of Gabriel Rossetti as they literally just added La on the end and Rossetti can either be spelled like that or Rossetti"
Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC) to 13:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
1. 13:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "I don’t need to take this to the talk page as it is confirmed to be Gabriel Rossetti, just look at the article I linked, clearly cites the deadline article and elaborates further https://comicsheatingup.net/2019/10/10/hulus-helstrom-characters-cast-revealed/"
2. 13:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "I don’t need to take this to the talk page as it is confirmed to be Gabriel Rossetti, just look at the article I linked, clearly cites the deadline article and elaborates further about helstrom being Gabriel the Devil Hunter https://comicsheatingup.net/2019/10/10/hulus-helstrom-characters-cast-revealed/"
13:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Can you just leave it alone and stop vandalising it, her name is Gabriella Rossetti and Gabriel the Devil hunters real name is Gabriel Rossetti they just added an la on the end of Gabriel to signify that it’s a female version, and anyway the devil hunter is just a title it’s not his actual name as stated before."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

13:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Helstrom (TV series). (TW)"
13:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Helstrom (TV series). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

She was initially warring under user:86.8.201.145 and then changed to this current IP address. CLCStudent (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Result: Page protected 3 days by User:Anarchyte. But in my opinion the IP is trying to insert WP:OR about the identity of the character Gabriel Rossetti. At least the page protection has stimulated a talk page discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Theofilos1964 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: French People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theofilos1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

07:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Citizenship and legal residence */ethnicity = French people | speakers = 76.8 million worldwide "
13:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Citizenship and legal residence */ethnicity = French people | speakers = 76.8 million worldwide"
05:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC) ""
18:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC) ""
17:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC) ""
17:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "| speakers = 76.8 million worldwide | speakers2 = An estimated 274 million French speakers (L1 plus L2; 2014)

warnings

17:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Population figures */ new section"
17:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "you need to cite it"
17:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "A count of people who speak the French language is not the same as a count of French people"
17:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on French people."

Comments:

Repeatedly reverting to unsourced figure and disruptive editing by changing article definition without consensus. Similar behaviour on Bajuni people. Escape Orbit 17:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Factsinwiki reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Comments:
This a repeat of a previous request, because the behaviour of user Factsinwiki didn't change. Late november, he engaged in similar actions (diff, diff, diff e diff), but the page was protected and that was that. A discussion in the talk page was open while the article was protected in older to solve the situation. The user in question, didn't take part in the discussion. He later added a topic outside of the discussion (was called on that), not adressing the issues in the discussion or presenting sources. Anyways, he was first reverted and i left him a message directing him to the discussion, but he deleted the message (which i interpretate as an anknolodgement of the post) and continue with the WP:EW. Since he has a history of deleting messages and since this is his second EW/3RR violation in less than an month, i'm taking this situation here for evaluation. Coltsfan (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find the 23 November report in the archives, so I dug it out of the history and manually archived it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive399#User: Factsinwiki reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: ). It was removed by the filer before being closed by an admin so it disappeared from the system. It does appear that Factsinwiki doesn't like the Alliance being described as far-right. Instead he wants it to be 'right-wing to far-right'. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Factsinwiki made three reverts this time around (Dec 18-19), after a previous spot of edit warring on 23 November that led to the article being protected by User:MelanieN. Each time he was making the same changes. There has been a discussion on the talk page at Talk:Alliance for Brazil#Far-right or simply 'right-wing'? (about 'Far-right' versus 'Right-wing or far right'), opened by Coltsfan in which Factsinwiki couldn't persuade anyone to support his version. I hope Factsinwiki will respond here to explain why he shouldn't be blocked for long-term edit warring. As an alternative he could agree to stop this behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:113.30.156.69 reported by User:VQuakr, 2nd complaint (Result: Blocked)

Page: Mars effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 113.30.156.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

08:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC) "/* WP:REDFLAG edit by USR:Quakr */ re"

Comments:

Back to edit warring within a couple of hours after their last block for the same behavior and same content (at Astrology and science) expired. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Previous AN3. Notification. VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month. Continued edit warring on the topic of astrology with no policy-based response to the complaints. The user's edits appear to reflect WP:ADVOCACY. Previously blocked at this noticeboard. The Mars effect page is subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Foption reported by User:RGloucester (Result: )

Page: War in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foption (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

01:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931571287 by Pietadè (talk)"
18:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931528480 by RGloucester (talk)"
11:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931522699 by DagosNavy (talk)"
07:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931505448 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
07:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "see Talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on War in Donbass. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

12:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Belligerents versus suppliers in infobox */ r"

Comments:

This editor seems to be present only to disrupt Misplaced Pages, and does not seem to want to engage in talk page discussion. He has clearly violated 3RR, despite a warning. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories: