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 01:01, 16 November 2011 view sourceMagog the Ogre (talk \| contribs)Administrators100,751 edits →User:Alan Liefting reported by User:Aircorn (Result: No vio): re← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:26, 16 November 2011 view source Biosketch (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,900 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 265:		Line 265:
	::::Doesn't matter anymore, this one is lost. Another has decided that alphabeticalising is better than using logic. Guess it's content editors 1, drive-by editors 2. ] ] 00:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)		::::Doesn't matter anymore, this one is lost. Another has decided that alphabeticalising is better than using logic. Guess it's content editors 1, drive-by editors 2. ] ] 00:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Now don't cut off your nose to spite your face here. Have a drink, go to bed, go to work tomorrow, then come back when you're feeling less upset. Even better: wait at least two days. ] (]) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)		:::::Now don't cut off your nose to spite your face here. Have a drink, go to bed, go to work tomorrow, then come back when you're feeling less upset. Even better: wait at least two days. ] (]) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|British Jews}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Off2riorob}}

			<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			Previous version reverted to:

			<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			* 1st revert:
			* 2nd revert:
			* 3rd revert:
			* 4th revert:

			<!-- 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 -->

			<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – ] initiated a discussion on my Talk page.

			<u>Comments:</u> 39 minutes, four reverts, no ] violation as the edits were sourced to a ].<br />

			<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->—] (]) 01:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:26, 16 November 2011

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

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:Thoughtfortheday reported by User:188.227.160.244 (Result: Proxy block of the IP)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please note that I have raised this issue at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing edit-warring and incivility by IP editor. Prioryman (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Both editors are in violation of 3RR. I don't think the fact that one is an IP should make any difference. Second opinion? Black Kite (t) 21:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggest 31 hours for Thoughtfortheday and semiprotection to stop the dynamic IP. If the question of who distributed her book in the US is considered important and if there is a risk that Heartland Institute is not actually involved, that material could be removed until consensus is found. This article is in the domain of WP:ARBCC, and the IP's edits appear to be devoted to that topic. A one week rangeblock of 188.227.160.0/18 might be considered. See the rangecontribs results. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've identified the person behind the IP - it's User:Marknutley, who was banned from the CC topic area in WP:ARBCC and was subsequently caught sockpuppeting in the same topic area and is currently indefinitely blocked. See this comment. Prioryman (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(added) I've now raised this at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley. Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: User:Alexandria has issued a two-year proxy block of 188.227.160.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) per the outcome of the SPI. Since the IP signs himself 'Mark' and it's probably Mark Nutley we shouldn't sanction Thoughtfortheday for reverting them, though breaking 3RR for any reason is risky. Extra credit to the sock for filing a 3RR report. Maybe he was checking to see if anyone was awake. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: 48h)

User being reported: Lhb1239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 04:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 05:24, 13 November 2011

1st revert: 12:25, 13 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460424515 by B.Davis2003 (talk)revert per :WP:REDLINK - "wikipedia is not yet finished"")
2nd revert: 16:27, 13 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460433865 by AussieLegend (talk)rvt per WP:REDLINK - "...Misplaced Pages is not yet finished"")
3rd revert: 16:49, 13 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460460757 by AussieLegend (talk)why would you revert a wikilink?")
4th revert: 02:17, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "If I'm not mistaken, there's still an RfC in progress as well as a question on police re: this matter at a noticeboard. Formal consensus never was asked for nor did it occur - reverted.")
5th revert: 02:32, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Elizium23 (talk): When there's an active RfC and a noticeboard issues there is a reason for formal consensus. (TW)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: 16:53, 13 November 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing RfC

Comments:

Elizium23 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

With this edit I've taken the liberty of expanding the report submitted by Elizium23. Obviously, if anybody opposes this change I'm more than happy to undo the edit, or anyone else is more than welcome to. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I made the mistake of choosing to comment on an open RfC at this article a few days ago, and have since done some work on the newly created episode list article, so both are in my watchlist. This edit summary caught my eye. User:Television fan had made some reasonable changes to the article earlier, explaining his reasons in his edit summary. The changes were reverted by Lhb1239, who really didn't provide any justification. A modified and "improved" version of the content was restored. Lhb1239 then reverted and left a warning on the editor's talk page. Not content with that, he then continued to harass this editor about edit-warring. The editor that he harassed had actually attempted to discuss the matter on Lhb1239's talk page, but Lhb1239 deleted his post without replying. He is still attempting to discuss.

Later, at Pan Am (TV series), another editor removed a couple of red-links. Lhb1239 restored one of these redlinks with the rationale that "wikipedia is not yet finished".1st revert As the article had been deleted at AfD and the subject still fails WP:NACTOR, I removed the link again, with a direction to WP:REDNOT. Lhb1239 then reverted that.2nd revert I again pointed him to WP:REDNOT. A review of Lhb1239's recent contributions shows that he has been in conflict with numerous editors in just about every discussion that he has had, demonstrating incivility, ownership of articles and a general unwillingness to collaborate, so I chose to give him a 3RR warning at this point, rather than wait until his third revert. He deleted the warning before I had even had a chance to add some clarification, and then made his third revert in the article.

I've since discovered that he has made two further reverts in the article, making his fifth revert only 14 hours after his first. While I do think that the last two reverts were appropriate (had somebody else made them), this still breaches 3RR. Lhb1239 is well aware of the requirements of 3RR, having been warned, and even blocked for 3RR breaches in the past, as recently two weeks ago. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment I've received no notification of this report being made and contrary to AussieLegend's claim above, I was not blocked for anything two weeks ago. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Still, you managed to find it, so all should be well. I didn't say that you were blocked 2 weeks ago. The diffs that I provided show that you were warned about making four reverts in 24 hours two weeks ago. On 21 June you were blocked for 24 hours. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It was you who wrote above, "and even blocked for 3RR breaches in the past, as recently two weeks ago.", wasn't it? What's more, "Still you managed to find it, so all should be well" is not sufficient. Editors in good standing are to be notified of AN reports such as this when the report is about them. No exceptions. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if what I wrote was unclear to you. I thought the diffs would make it clear, which is why I provided them. The fact is, you now obviously know about this discussion and nothing can be done about not notifying you. Elizium23 may not have realised that he should contact you, but really, you should have been looking anyway because you know the ramifications of making so many reverts in a 24 hour period. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Taunting in the above response and accompanying edit summary ("no point crying over spilt milk - better to mount a defence") noted. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My edit summary summarises the thrust of my post, which is what it's supposed to do on a talk page. We've discussed this sort of thing previously. You really would be better off mounting a defence instead of complaining that you hadn't been notified of a discussion that you found easily. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation. This is the user's second block for edit warring since June. He was warned for breaking 3RR at Hart of Dixie on 31 October. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Oldschooldsl reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 31h, semi)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:
7th revert:
8th revert:
9th revert:
10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
New editor, warned repeatedly, edit-warring over adding unreferenced content like there's no tomorrow. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: User was blocked 31 hours by another admin. An IP showed up immediately to make the same edit, so the article is semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:NorthernPashtun (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:
7th revert:
8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Mar4d's edits in Afghans in Pakistan are all anti-Afghan, he's trying to make Afghan refugees living in Pakistan demonized or evil-doers by searching the internet to find only negative news about them, so that he makes them criminals and terrorists. Yet, he did not add one single positive thing about them. But in Pakistanis in Afghanistan, he's trying to make Pakistanis look good. He has some kind of anti-Afghan agenda in Misplaced Pages, going around labelling European porn stars as Afghans . I notimated stolen images and he kept reverting my nomination and those stolen images all got deleted now..--NorthernPashtun (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I would like to make it clear that NorthernPashtun started the edit warring and is solely responsible for initiating it too. I have been editing Afghans in Pakistan with neutrality and have expanded on the "Crime" section only with sources that meet WP:RS. Admins are welcome to check my contributions and confirm this. Yet, this user has constantly been tampering with information to suit his POV, making personal attacks and has continously removed content that I add from the article without discussion. This is vandalism and a clear-cut violation of the 3RR rule. I have already made a complaint elsewhere and asked NorthernPashtun to not edit the article, while I am working on it for a while, but he clearly has not listened.

I would like admins to give me some time for me to file my own report here which goes into detail into some of the content dispute. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict (sorry)) I checked here after being alerted by NorthernPashtun and Mar4d of the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Afghans in Pakistan. See there for evidence.

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Philosopher 18:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:92.98.24.125 reported by Funandtrvl (talk) (Result: )

User being reported: 92.98.24.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

12:16, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "rvv- better before. If you have a disagreement here, please discuss it first.")
18:49, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "rv- the previous revision looks better. You were told this before, and you ignored it. Wiktionary explains the word, TOC on the right makes sense to make the page shorter, etc. Hope this helps.")
19:16, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "rv- I just *gave* you an explanation that you've requested on the talk page in my previous edit summary. I assume you can read, which means your intent here is disruption, not help the article.")

Diff of warning: here

—Funandtrvl (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments:

Please advise if I should rqst semi-protection for the page. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To the administrators- I was only trying to keep the article's quality. I was also hoping to reach understanding through my edit summaries, obviously I have failed. If I am being in the wrong here, please let me know and I will stop editing it. Thanks. 92.98.24.125 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed in the wrong, for failure to communicate after three separate requests. Please use the talk page: Talk:Itinerant. I also recommend undoing your most recent revert as a show of good faith while you discuss the issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre? Is that from World of Warcraft? 187.33.225.150 (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In an attempt to get some input, and settle this disagreement, I have added comments to the article's talk page today, in addition to comments I left there yesterday. I will be glad to wait a few days, however, based on the article's history of a few revert wars in the article's past, I am not too optimistic that the same battles will not return at the next copy-edit. Any suggestions on how to handle this situation would be appreciated. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If the IP doesn't come and discuss the issue within a half day or so, I'd just revert it. I'm normally never for revert warring, but you've done your part, and now s/he must do his. Also, IP: see Magog (Bible) and Gog and Magog (both are in all Abrahamic religions). Guar is just a stupid name I saw the day I created my SN. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well taken, thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Braindead2011 reported by User:MahavishnuChris (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: rev. 1
2nd revert: rev. 2
3rd revert: rev. 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User:Braindead2011

Comments:

The abuse is coming from a former user of the forums being slandered, this user has a great dislike for the website and has persisted with edit warring. I feel he should be barred from editing this wiki page for he has nothing positive to contribute. MahavishnuChris (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify the user about WP:3RR on their talk page, not their user page. I have done so now. Let's wait to see if there is a response. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:210.50.83.33 reported by User:Jack Merridrew (Result: 24h)

User being reported: 210.50.83.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

02:24, 15 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460598507 by Apparition11 (talk)can you stop?")
02:33, 15 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460713431 by Rothorpe (talk)can you please stop?")

Diff of warning: here

—Jack Merridrew (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: Looks like plain vandalism. Blocked 24 hours by another admin. The submitter of this request is having some difficulties of his own, due to his choice of a user name similar to that of a well-known editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:علی ویکی reported by User:Orartu (Result: No violation)

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

Comments:
There appears to be some edit warring here --Orartu (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. there is not edit warring. The only point is that I don't have access to roll back. If you wanna be sure, just check the content that I've reverted. Another point is that if one have a fast look to User Orartu's contributions, s/he will understand the reason of this report. He proposed a deletion, and he has started accusing all the users who has disagreed with him there. I'll keep this report in mind.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are the links of two other false accusation of this user:, . I kindly ask admins to pay more attention to these behaviors, and don't let such users misuse noticeboards, just because they want to push away anyone that has an opposite view to them. thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Aliwiki himself has disruptive activities(Please take a look at his talk page and his activities must be under consideration.His statement "I'll keep this report in mind." shows he has vendetta against me.--Orartu (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: No violation. The submitter did not list four reverts in a 24-hour period. The edit warring policy says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting reported by User:Aircorn (Result: No vio)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
One revert away from breaking 3RR, but does not seem to understand that pushing strongly for their case is edit warring. Maybe someone other than me could leave a friendly message. AIRcorn (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverting any more than once should be met with disapproval, but this is not blockable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So what do I do then? I have expressed my disapproval, but that doesn't help me with the article. I could revert again taking me to 3RR and wait and see, although that seems against the spirit of the rule. AIRcorn (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What else does WP:DR suggest :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anymore, this one is lost. Another has decided that alphabeticalising is better than using logic. Guess it's content editors 1, drive-by editors 2. AIRcorn (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Now don't cut off your nose to spite your face here. Have a drink, go to bed, go to work tomorrow, then come back when you're feeling less upset. Even better: wait at least two days. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Biosketch (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – User:Off2riorob initiated a discussion on my Talk page.

Comments: 39 minutes, four reverts, no WP:BLP violation as the edits were sourced to a WP:RS.

—Biosketch (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories: