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 21:18, 10 April 2022 view sourceDesertInfo (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,846 edits →User:Desertambition reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: ): CommentTag: Reverted← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:18, 10 April 2022 view source Toddy1 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,837 edits →User:Desertambition reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: ): remove report. he/she has self-revertedTag: Manual revert Next edit →
Line 349:		Line 349:
	::I'd like to thank you for the source you provided in your recent edit. ] (]) 17:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)		::I'd like to thank you for the source you provided in your recent edit. ] (]) 17:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|nv}}. A series of consecutive edits counts as only one revert. The IP has reverted only twice.--] (]) 17:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)		*{{AN3\|nv}}. A series of consecutive edits counts as only one revert. The IP has reverted only twice.--] (]) 17:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Orania, Northern Cape}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Desertambition}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:''' ''Added mayor''

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# ''Undid revision 1081866625 by BilledMammal (talk) Yes, that is how the government of South Africa works. The mayor oversees all settlements within Thembelihle Local Municipality.''
	# ''Undid revision 1081869738 by BilledMammal (talk) Stop and discuss this on the talk page. You do not understand how the South African political system, and by extension mayors, works.''
	# ''Undid revision 1081993313 by Toddy1 (talk) That is not how mayors are listed on any other South African town/city article. ie. Pretoria, Cape Town, and Johannesburg''
	# ''Undid revision 1081997904 by Toddy1 (talk) Double checked all the sources and they passed verification. Please read about how mayors work in South Africa on the talk page.''

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]

	'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

	<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 21:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	'''Comment''' Self reverted. I did not realize it hadn't been literally 24 hours. Fell asleep and woke up again, was not marking down the times. The edit times reflect this.

Revision as of 21:18, 10 April 2022

Noticeboard for edit warring

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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Ficaia (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:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: P.S. I know I've filled this out wrong. I'm not a technical person. But the recent page history demonstrates the issue.

User:2A00:23C4:4788:2400:FDF0:F5B2:3CBE:C401 reported by User:PAVLOV (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 2A00:23C4:4788:2400:FDF0:F5B2:3CBE:C401 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Oswald Mosley was left wing, his own words. Only a fool or a liar would parrot the left wing diatribe of Fascism being Far Right. Fascism was a progressive left wing ideology, hence the attraction to Mosley. To quote Mosley In 1968, he remarked in a letter to The Times, "I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics.""
20:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Cannolis LMFAO you Soy Boy Black Shirt, I'm waiting for you to revert it again, like a true Left Wing Fascist would. Adolf would have been proud of you LOL"
20:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Cannolis, your personal opinion & political affiliations disregards the FACTS. The Doctrine of Fascism was written by the far left Giovanni Gentile & Benito Mussolini, heavily influenced by communism. FACTS."
19:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Oswald Mosley Wiki page, he was left wing. In 1968, he remarked in a letter to The Times, "I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics.""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on British Union of Fascists."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Well, this edit war was started by this IP user and seemed they don't want to communicate with each other. PAVLOV (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cannolis: welcome to share your opinion about this case. Thanks a lot. PAVLOV (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Looked to me to be an IP trying to push the absurd idea that fascism is a left wing ideology. Considered it to be vandalism so I was reverting freely though perhaps it was just WP:OR with the IP thinking Mosley's quote constitutes a RS for this particular group being left wing. Cannolis (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Also been involved here; the IP has repeatedly reverted several users while trying to equivocate fascism as being a leftist ideology. My last revert asks for discussion prior to future edits. We'll see. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Should also note that the first two edits of this string came from Special:Contributions/92.40.174.238 Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Drmies. The IP editor wants to describe the British Union of Fascists as left-wing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Galileeblack reported by User:Sweetpool50 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The last was an immediate reversion of user’s self-reversion

Appeal to discuss matter

20:58, 5 April 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

22:35, 6 April 2022

Relevant talk page discussions:

Subsequently blanked by user # And replaced by another editor

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 8 April 2022

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ankit solanki982 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Sock 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:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Note they have in fact (along with oither users) been at this for days. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note they continue to edit war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note as well the user continues to try and make dishonest edits here ], this is the second time they have tried a stunt like this. I think they need a full on block. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably more appropriate at ANI? Due to likely sockpuppetry, and POINTY disruption, as well as edit warring and personal attacks. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

True, but at the time this was really an edit war issue, now I think there are other issues as well. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

They have now been indfed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Result: Indef blocked by User:Girth Summit per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaideep thakur. The page in dispute has also been EC protected under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Chesapeake77 reported by User:Triggerhippie4 (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Chesapeake77:
Me:
Chesapeake77:
Dunutubble:
Chesapeake77:
Me:
Chesapeake77:
AusLondonder:
Chesapeake77:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Chesapeake77 is adding inappropriate infobox to article against reverts of three other editors - AusLondonder, Dunutubble and me. It continues after the edit-warrior being referred to the guidelines: link. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Chesapeake77 said she was not aware of the three-revert rule. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment I did not know about the 3 revert rule.

The first time I saw the rule described, I stopped reverting.

I did not see all the posts about this immediately.

I won't be doing any more reverts on this issue. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment Editor posted a template on my talk page to accuse me of edit-warring despite being reverted by multiple editors. Editor also used edit summaries to accuse others of vandalism for reverting the incorrect addition of a second infobox to the page. Fairly new editor so may not be aware of policies regarding edit warring but they need to learn basic policies like this fast. AusLondonder (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Result: Warned. The user may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
They're a new editor. Please be gentle. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:188.120.98.211 reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: Semi)

User being reported: 188.120.98.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

10:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081140751 by Vacant0 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Check the page history, the same user has been removing content from different IPs. IP 1, IP 2, IP 3 Vacant0 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Previous IPs have been already warned 1, 2, 3, 4 --Vacant0 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Gasittig reported by User:Balkovec (Result: Warned)

User being reported: Gasittig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "NPOV with inclusion of descriptor further in paragraph."
17:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Refer to WP: NPOV"
17:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Refer here if you need a lesson on neutral introductions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Emmanuel_Macron https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Barack_Obama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Olaf_Scholz"

Consecutive edits made from 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) to 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
1. 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Neutral intro accompanied by previously removed description later in paragraph"
2. 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) ""
03:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Neutral description; see f.ex. Macron, Biden, Johnson, Scholz."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Warned after the report filed 18:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note User was never warned about 3RR. Warning just issued. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:ChristaJwl reported by User:MrOllie (Result:Partial block)

User being reported: ChristaJwl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081659356 by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk)"
20:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081653346 by MrOllie (talk)"
19:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Hollins releases his own birthdate on verified[REDACTED] page. Better, more comprehensive wording."
00:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I did not write this like a campaign advertisement. And all sources are cited."
00:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Correct Dates, Cite practice areas, update info block to reflect accurate descriptions, revise headings and subheadings"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

19:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* New Edits */ Reply"

Comments:

Note in particular persistent removals of the word "Interim" from his sourced job title, "Interim County Clerk". User is a near-single purpose account who was previously blocked from this page for a week for edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Partial block restored, this time indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 20:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Berposen reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Blocked one week)

User being reported: Berposen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Dispute tag initially added here.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I rescue template. The consensus(RFC) has a content gap. The term neonazi is agreed upon, but the issue of its current status is not addressed, this is April 2022. I have said it in the discussion. Why does only one give his point of view? Discuss it there please, before deleting the quote template."
22:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "The edit summaries are for summarizing the edit. I suggest removing templates that a collaborator places only after consensus. I also mention that "multitude" is too broad to describe the two reverters, 3, including you."
21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Be discuss removing this template in the discussion. The template "more citations needed" has too survived the criteria of the administrators. And it also dates from April."
20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081661457 by BSMRD (talk) The term is not questioned, it questions whether it continues to be or not."
20:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "The edit summary is not the adequate place to justify template removals."
20:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I recreate lost template, after restoration, because whitewashing."
16:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081630255 by EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk)"
16:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I proceed. I do not question the term. I question its actuality. Please remove the template via discussion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* 3RR violation on Azov Battalion */ new section"
22:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* 3RR violation on Azov Battalion */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

20:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov Battalion */"
21:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Dubious template */ new section"
21:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Sources for neo-Nazi descriptor */"
21:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* RfC about the neo-Nazi descriptor */"

Comments:

They reverted another time shortly after I explained to them on their talk page that they had reverted four times already. (Though, when I went over their edits with Twinkle I found even more reverts on top of that.) Note that the text they are trying to tag as disputed was decided with an overwhelming consensus in this RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that they have continued to revert-war after I made this report, (added above as well.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment:The collaborator does not agree that a point is questioned, under a template, totally within the norms. Although the complaint has substance, only I took the flag to defend my staff. That if there had been no objection from a vehements group of followers of the article, they would have discussed it in the discussion.--Berposen (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

My Dispute tag initially added here. I hadn't noticed the other user's. I disputed his actuality. The other user, disputed to its origins, that flag, I do not take it, it is clear the agreed point in the RfC. The templates and their places were different. The rollback he are talking about is the rescue of the template quote. Because the other user who took the flag to question the RfC, added other templates, and the reversion that caused, eliminated mine. --Berposen (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

*Comment: Battleground mentality of User:Aquillion. The editor's repeated removal of "disputed" and "dubious" tags despite ongoing, and very involved, Talk Page discussion, in which a plurality of active editors disagree with his POV:

1. - "rm. tag per additional sources."

2. - "rv. recently-added template per https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion - it is inappropriate to add a template like this once consensus is established."

User:Aquillion has made massive edits despite all other involved editors refraining (or being forced to refrain through instant reverts) from doing so while the Talk Page discussion over sources and the upcoming RfC is ongoing.

User:Aquillion has refused to engage with the many sources, including those of the leading scholars on the issue (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, et al), in addition to the latest from the news orgs AFP, BBC, DW, CNN, WashPo,, Financial Times, which all explicitly refute his POV.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

*Comment: It seems User:Vladimir.copic is also in breach of 3RR,, - but I wouldn't dream of trying to get him blocked just because he happens to hold the opposite POV to me. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked one week. I also question whether Berposen has even the minimum English skills necessary to edit on en.wiki and to communicate with others.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Bbb23 - Battleground mentality of Aquillion? I feel users who arrive here with such an obvious absurdity to safeguard their POV partner need to be cautioned. I'm referring to the remark left EnlightenmentNow1792. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If another administrator wants to take action against another editor or editors, that's up to them. The block of Berposen was straightforward.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References

User:Marappagounder reported by User:WikiLinuz (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff

Comments:

Persistent edit-warring. Previously included the same text as an IP here, but ever since the page protection, warring as a registered user. For instance, see this note on the article talk page. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and here's the latest personal attack towards me. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Here too. This seems to be WP:NOTHERE. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

When the closing admin reads this, please take a look at (and block) the following IPs, who vandalised my talk page after I reverted Marappagounder; based Marappagounder's comment here, they are clearly the same individual:

117.249.228.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
117.245.96.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
117.249.206.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks. — Czello 08:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

User:106.215.40.96 reported by User:EnlightenmentNow1792 (Result: No violation)

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: Obviously not interested in engaging in Talk

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: Weirdness ,

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The first three edits are manual edits. It is appaling that this user termed these 2 diffs, as "Weirdness" when they are just sensible replies to User:El C and now further justified by this deceitful report. 106.215.40.96 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for the source you provided in your recent edit. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No violation. A series of consecutive edits counts as only one revert. The IP has reverted only twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Categories: