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 17:32, 30 April 2017 view sourceHipal (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,048 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:21, 1 May 2017 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,054 editsm Archiving 9 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive341) (botNext edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:

	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->		NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Edward Scolnick}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Intelscience}}

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|777392357\|22:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Merck */"
	# , 22 April
	# , 19 April
	# , 18 April
	# , 12 April


	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:



	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|777139459\|12:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Vioxx */"

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	This report is re edit-warring, not 3rr. The editor is removing the same material repeatedly (only not at a rate that violates 3rr). He/she has not responded to user-talk-page messages and has not participated in the article-talk discussion. The material in question has been discussed among established editors (also at BLPN: ) and subsequently restored. It's obvious that the editor will continue to remove it, so a preventative block is called for (it's also obvious that the editor has no interest in Misplaced Pages in a general way). ] (]) 06:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
	:I have asked that this editor contribute to forming the consensus on the talk page, but there has been no response or indication that this message was understood. If this user reverts again, they should probably be blocked (note that I agree with the removal of the information, but do not support the edit warring). If this user were to simply present the reasons why they believe the material should be removed, per policy, there's a much better chance of a successful removal. ] (]) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|w}}. ] 11:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Germans}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Geohum}}



	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 />
	User has continued to ignore requests to discuss their edits. ] (]) 12:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
	*Repeated edit-warring, obviously with no intention to stop, by an editor who in September of last year was blocked for a full week for never-ending edit-warring on both this article, ], and other articles... - '''Tom''' \| ] ] 13:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
	**Just undid another edit . The data they're entering fails ] to boot. Assuming either hoax data or CIR issues. ] ] 14:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
	***And ... - '''Tom''' \| ] ] 15:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
	*This editor is also making unsupported changes to statistics in other articles, such as . Can they be blocked before they do any more damage, please? ] (]) 16:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	*{{AN3\|b\|one month}}. ] 16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wahhabi sack of Karbala}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mhhossein}}



	Previous version reverted to:


	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# revert

	# He adds back Islamic fundamentalism even though he used nowhere says that fundamentalism was the cause of the whole attack. Only that Wahhabis were fundamentalists and their ideology was based on it. This may have played a part in their destruction of shrines, but not necessarily the attack itself but it is OR to wonder about this old attack.

	# revert

	# revert

	# revert where he removed the template added by claiming "it will be added if other users think so" even though the issue of unbalanced nature of his edits was already raised.

	# where he unilaterally removed the templates of POV and OR and not in source without waiting to finish discussion and completely prove himself correct without a doubt, just because he thinks it does.

	#



	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,


	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this thing since 19 April but he deems it fit to do what he wants because he thinks he is correct.

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

	Sorry if this comment is long but I want to explain the sitiation and background completely. The user ] has consistently edit-warred and imposed his own edits at ] regarding the motives, despite the discussion about it ongoing at ]. He has been edit-warring for long over this thing. The whys matter little, but still he seems to think his edits are sourced while I don't think the sources are actually saying what he thinks they are.

	I have tried multiple times to adress concerns by discussing the issues and leaving the edits be after them being reverted. The reverts by Mhhossein are multiple where he reverted and made disruptive controversial edits of his own will instead of waiting for discussion to reach an understanding of sorts, in addition to his misrepresentation of sources.

	where the source simply says the attack is an "example of fanaticsm" of Wahhabis, though it doesn't cite fantasticm as a motive. This will make "cruelty" a motive if someone called it an "example of cruelty". Mhhossein however seems to do what he wishes to.

	3 of the reverts were made in less than a day. I have made reverts myself as well as controversial edits though I later dropped them to avoid edit-warring and made efforts to prevent it, but Mhhossein did what he wanted. Reverts of mine as well as Mhhossein's actions:

	* as I thought it was self-interpertation (which seems to be correct) and also was unduly biased and POV as anti-Islamic or atleast anti-Wahhabist, though I seem to have less proof for that, but POV does seem to be an issue here.

	* which I to avoid undue multiple controversies and edit-warring.

	* where I removed Islamic fundamentalism however allowed . I Instead I just added a "not in source" and "original research" template so there wasn't any unnecessary controversy. However, both of them removed without waiting to reach an understanding through discussion.

	* , In both these one after the other revert I went on to add back the templates Mhhossein unilaterally removed.

	* the templates, I him and also removed both his motives in these edits , as I didn't think they are mentioned in sources and asked him to discuss first.

	* and . But I , instead restoring both the motives only maintaining the issues templates of OR and POV which he kept on unilaterally removing.

	He has made no attempt at cooperation in addition to making little attempts to discuss first and try to avoid edit-warring and controversial edits in the meanwhile. He has made no attempt at cooperation in addition to making little attempts to discuss first and try to avoid edit-warring and controversial edits in the meanwhile. I have warned him multiple times: , and . However he reverted, in the he unnecessarily removed my signature which I added. In the he completely removed it, Reason - "OMG!" per him.

	Also ] has been open since 19 April but regardless, instead of waiting for discussion to reach a conclusion, Mhhossein is doing what he wants. , even though the problem was verification and the sources not saying what he claimed, also he himself kept on editing. It didn't turn out in his express favor with one user ] and another ] . But still kept on doing what he wanted to. He also recently but himself keeps on edit-warring and never bothers to verify his edits properly without a doubt and solving any dispute about them which is a basic requirement.

	Also instead of focusing on the topic, he keeps on lecturing me about my comments as you can see from some of his already mentioned comments and , this is not what we are here for. As can be seen in and the ], this isn't his first conflict either. I suggest that he be warned for his behaviour and if needed blocked. ] (]) 17:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

	:Just for info, I made a previous report at , but shifted here after advice from and . ] (]) 17:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|c}}: Page is now under ]. Hopefully, ] will slow down this edit war. ] 23:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': The IP needs to respect the consensus on the TP. I asked him to start a RFC, if he's seeking for a new one and he refrained from that and kept on tagging and reverting. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
	:{{u\|Mhhossein}}, don't forget that you recently asked for opinion of two editors and it didn't turn out in your favor. I have repeatedly asked you to correct the issues. Instead of that you just keep edit-warring and also falsely when all I did was notify you about the complaint. Who is being disruptive here is visible. You seem to be just trying to prove yourself correct with RfCs instead of making proper edits that followed rules. You need to respect the rules, drop the stick and stop edit-warring. ] (]) 16:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
	::It's interesting that you think I could prove myslef correct with RfCs. RFC is meant to gather broad views on disputed issues. You need to respect the rules, drop the stick and respect the consensus. I won't feed an IP more than this. Bye. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
	:::It is not me who is breaking the rules or disrespecting the consensus ]. Two users including me pointed out the mistakes you made. You don't give a hoot and add your own edits, edit-war yourself, impose your own version because you think you are correct, commit OR, and accuse me of disruption that too for norifying you. You have been consistently trying to prove yourself correct, disregarding rules. I am not against RfCs, but this is about you npt following rules. RFCs cannot solve that and it seems like another attempt as you have done so many times. What's really interesting is you mock me like I am some kind of "troll" with comments like "feed me". I am not here for being "fed" by anyone. This shows your own attitude. ] (]) 19:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Rishabhanatha}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Jenishc}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|777547689\|20:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)}}
	#
	# {{diff2\|777454895\|07:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)}}
	#

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|777480146\|12:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	#

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	This article is a GA quality article, and the user has been disruptive in more ways than just revert warring. The content added by the editor is unsourced, and as ] shows, request to "stick to the reliable sources, not add original research / unsourced content" have not helped. The two cited sources, which I added to the article, do not state (592.704 x 10<sup>18</sup> years) anywhere that this editor keeps inserting and revert warring with. ] (]) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

	*{{RFPP\|q}} Can you demonstrate that the earliest diff is a revert and not simply an edit? (If not, you may wish to take this to ].) What other disruption? ] 23:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

	:*{{ping\|El_C}} yes, because this (592.704 x 10<sup>18</sup> years) in the same infobox before the earliest revert. I had the source cited previously, and this number failed verification. I edited it to match the source, which states 84,00,000 purva years. Two other sources confirmed 8.4 million purva years. I added this. But Jenishc has been it to the old pre-4RR version, to add back what is in none of the three sources. ] (]) 00:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}}. ] 00:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Rishabhanatha}} <br />

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ms Sarah Welch}}

	Previous version reverted to:

	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|777479961\|12:14, 27 April 2017‎ (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|777488918\|13:40, 27 April 2017‎ (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|777498978\|14:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|777478768\|12:02, 27 April 2017‎ (UTC)}}

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rishabhanatha

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	The user has been reverting all worthwhile changes under the blanket reasoning of "unconstructive" and the fact that it is a "GA" level article. There are various changes that the editor is reverting, possibly due to lack of knowledge. One specific issue is regarding the definition of a unit of time called purva. Another is about the comments of specific authors, which are interpreted and not quoted exactly. Further, non-standard authors are elevated to the status of authoritative scholars, which is again inappropriate.
	*{{AN3\|nv}}. Three out of the four listed reverts are consecutive, i.e. they count as one revert. Please see ]. ] \| ] 23:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation, Protected) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Teotlalpan}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Marrovi}}

	;Previous version reverted to:
	{{diff\|oldid=775179726\|diff=775211653\|12:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|777538965\|19:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|777542354\|19:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|777575809\|00:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)}}

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff\|oldid=775211653\|diff=775501290\|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC) to 08:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|775538048\| 14:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)}} “I fixed it again: (Unnecessary information, deleting hoaxes)"
	# {{diff\|oldid=775544531\|diff=775546715\|label=Consecutive edits made from 15:51, 15 April 2017‎ (UTC) to 16:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|775551379\| 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)}} "For second time, I fixed it"
	# {{diff\|oldid=775554499\|diff=775577245\|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:16, 15 April 2017‎ (UTC) to 19:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)}}

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|776828181\|14:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)}} "Once and for all"
	# {{diff2\|777501075\|15:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)}} "Some solutions"

	;<u>Comments:</u>
	The user does not accept corrections or opinions that contradict his "ideal image" of the topic. He has tried every ] angle to keep it out because he considers himself the only one able of understanding the subject because he was born there and only those who live there can do it ]. I found a poor page with no good references or useful bibliography, I corrected all the text and gave it a wiki style.

	The page created by this author was deleted in Spanish by a where it was verified the incapacity of this author to understand the subject, for his stubbornness in other subjects was indefinely blocked in and , on Meta even was asked for him a . Here he has repeatedly been asked to work with propriety, he has not listened, by long idle speech he tries ], finally he puts his editorializing on the article. His consecutive editions (168!) to improve the text are idle editions, he removes and puts words, he adds a data and then removes it, puts it elsewhere and thus endlessly, can last for years doing this and not finishing the page. The text that I put is definitive, I make the wording more neutral and it does not need many changes.

	The information that tries to impose the user in part already appears on the page, so it is unnecessary, the user just wants right there appear his "words." The other information without reliable sources is irrelevant because it is part of his personal vision ] hat does not contribute to understand the subject. The result of his stubbornness is the current page whose information is ambiguous and inconsistent. From the user's history I'm request a topic ban for this user. --] (]) 02:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	: This information is very necessary: ], , . This article needs users for opinions and checking references, texts, notes and books; no fire opinions, no envy, no hates, no political opinions, only academic checking with users in Mesoamerican studies. Akapochtli was the autor in Spanish Misplaced Pages blocking by a text ''Lenguas Nahuanas'', he talking with Bernad for my blocking by this act , him use all information for opinion manipulation, also other users for political opinions in their support.--] (]) 02:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|nv}}. You need ''four'' reverts to violate ]. Continue to discuss the dispute on the article talk page and explore other ]. ] 05:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
	*{{RFPP\|n}} Note that I considered issuing a warning (actually, began writing one), but it seems both editors reverted the same number of times (are exclusively reverting each other) and, frankly, the language barrier makes it difficult for me to infer what is happening in this dispute. ] 06:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}}. I've decided to protect the page for a week to limit participants to the talk page. This content dispute goes back further than I realised. ] 06:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Kimberley Garner}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Ashldn}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:


	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|777647348\|12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)}} "General note: Ownership of articles. (])"
	# {{diff2\|777654336\|13:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (])"
	# {{diff2\|777658281\|14:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Kimberley Garner */ new section"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


	;<u>Comments:</u>

	The user has clear ] with the article in the question. (He has admitted to be the employee). User keeps uploading the copyrighted image for the subject and keeps changing sourced information without providing any source of his own and shows ] behaviour. ] (]) 14:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	Unbelievable. I have been asked by Kimberley, herself, to update her Misplaced Pages photo (to which she owns the copyright to) and correct her birth date. Coderzombie has ignored my previous messages on their talk page explaining my changes to the article and has been nothing but rude and unnecessarily brash. I sincerely hope this can be solved and the CORRECT amendments remain.
	] (]) 14:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	:Hi Ashldn. Do you have a citation regarding her correct birth date? I'm sure you can appreciate that we can't simply take someone at their word; everything needs to be ] on Misplaced Pages. Photos, because of the nature of copyright, are a more complex issue. — '''''] ]''''' 14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	::I have mentioned in my edits that you are not citing reliable sources. Please point to me where I have been "rude". You keep reverting my edits without any explanation. ] (]) 14:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|nv}}. No ]s of reverts are cited—how come? Suggest you take it to ]. That said, ] need to be ], Ashldn, for ]. ] 15:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
Line 287:		Line 41:
	:This is by no means an edit war from my part. I provided different references when requested, while reverting in good faith user Jytdog reversions in question. The reference sources I chose were random and yet sufficient to prove the existence of the common trade names in question. I have no vested interest in those sources. Furthermore, user Jytdog incorporated my contribution into his edit, providing a spammy "drugs.com" instead, an eyeballs catching website that pushes advertising, as his reference. On the other hand, user Jytdog keeps reverting editors' contributions with no explanation, akin to vandalism. If anything, his action constitute the edit warring. I am satisfied by now that Jytdog's final edits incorporated my contribution, albeit with a low quality reference. Therefore I will not pursue a revert of his last revert. ] (]) 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)		:This is by no means an edit war from my part. I provided different references when requested, while reverting in good faith user Jytdog reversions in question. The reference sources I chose were random and yet sufficient to prove the existence of the common trade names in question. I have no vested interest in those sources. Furthermore, user Jytdog incorporated my contribution into his edit, providing a spammy "drugs.com" instead, an eyeballs catching website that pushes advertising, as his reference. On the other hand, user Jytdog keeps reverting editors' contributions with no explanation, akin to vandalism. If anything, his action constitute the edit warring. I am satisfied by now that Jytdog's final edits incorporated my contribution, albeit with a low quality reference. Therefore I will not pursue a revert of his last revert. ] (]) 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
	::{{AN3\|nv}} - 3RR was not violated, but the question of whether to include a trade name in an article is subject to editor consensus. When an article keeps going back and forth with no discussion on article talk it suggests a need for full protection. ] (]) 21:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)		::{{AN3\|nv}} - 3RR was not violated, but the question of whether to include a trade name in an article is subject to editor consensus. When an article keeps going back and forth with no discussion on article talk it suggests a need for full protection. ] (]) 21:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 36 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Oxford Union}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ashtrayheart17 }}



	Previous version reverted to: first edit by user


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



	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No point. Clearly an inappropriate edit.

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

	It's an unsourced, POV edit that has been undone by four different editors. User has ignored an edit warring warning, a 3RR warning, and a threatened block by admin ] ] (]) 05:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}}. ] 07:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|David Bowie}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ATS}}



	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 />
	I personally provided quite a detailed explanation for my addition of 100 million in sales. Yet ] disagrees without providing any reasonable ground as to why the 100 million in sales should not be added--] (]) 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

	:See ]. —] 🖖 ] 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
	{{AN3\|c}}: But what does that have to do with choosing to violate ]? What you should have done was to ask an admin if you have a ]. ] 07:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
	::To reiterate, {{u\|El_C}}, I invoke the overriding ]. The tag-team reintroduction of a manufactured "{{diff2\|777785215\|however}}" situation was done ''by collusion'' to introduce ] in a direct effort to cast aspersions on the cited, reliable source. By policy, such an edit cannot stand. —] 🖖 ] 07:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
	:::Again, I don't see how you had a ] in this case, sorry. You may be right on the content, but it's a content dispute nonetheless. Please choose from the following two sanctions: a 24-hour block or 0RR for 72 hours on all articles, whichever you prefer. ] 08:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
	::::A ''punitive'' ]? Is that your suggestion, {{u\|El_C}}? —] 🖖 ] 08:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
	:::::''Deterrence.'' Please choose. ] 08:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
	::::::Deterrence? From what?!
	::::::To be clear and to remove the others' falsehoods: {{diff2\|776384311\|the initial edit}} ''changed'' record sales from "an estimated 140M" to "an estimated 100" using a source that said "over 100M". This was a factual inaccuracy that ''required'' removal. The {{diff2\|777785594\|first}} of the tag-team "we're doing it anyway"-style edits made '''''during the discussion''''' created a nonexistent, patently false "however" scenario specifically intended to impugn the cited source. This was an artificial ] that ''required'' removal. I will not accept any block under these circumstances. —] 🖖 ]
	:::::::This is your last chance to choose which sanction you prefer, or I will choose a 24-hour block for you. ] 09:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

	:Yo, {{u\|ATS}}, fatal error relying on ]; it only applies to 'contentious' material, so you would have to argue that a few million units difference fulfilled that criterion Further, regarding '{{green\|contentious material. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.}}' Aaaand- unfortunately that didn't happen. Always worth doing a bit of policy-focused 'BEFORE', when relying on BLPEXEMPT. Cheers, — ]] 08:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
	::Ah, yes, the old "{{tq\|what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial}}" trick. Personally, I find the deliberate reintroduction of synthesis to not be exempt, given that OR, too, is policy—but maybe that's just me. So, this begs the question: am I the only one to suffer a "deterrent" or is the {{diff2\|777785594\|tag}} {{diff2\|777786221\|team}} {{diff2\|777786615\|effort}} to not appear to cross that "bright line" to be not similarly ''punished''? —] 🖖 ] 09:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
	:::The tag team was borderline; violating 3RR was not. ] 09:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}}. ] 09:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 02:21, 1 May 2017

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)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
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:50.187.63.48 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: diff (with no spamlink or reference to "Equipoise") or this with brandname but no spamlink.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

diff 02:51, 8 March 2017, reverted by Edgar181
diff 13:40, 3 April 2017 reverted again by Edgar181
diff 6 April 2017, reverted by me
diff 28 April 2017, reverted by me, after which I added sourced well-sourced content, here
diff 28 April 2017,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No need, they are aware from prior interaction at a different drug article. See this warning they gave me.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion at my Talk page here.

Comments:

Editor is adding link to steroids.com, an obvious spam link, originally claiming that article "must" reference this brand name. But the last diff has no justification there, as the brand name was there. This appears to be just aggressive spamming. Note, there was a similar interaction with this editor spamming a bad source to get a brand name into WP at GW501516. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is by no means an edit war from my part. I provided different references when requested, while reverting in good faith user Jytdog reversions in question. The reference sources I chose were random and yet sufficient to prove the existence of the common trade names in question. I have no vested interest in those sources. Furthermore, user Jytdog incorporated my contribution into his edit, providing a spammy "drugs.com" instead, an eyeballs catching website that pushes advertising, as his reference. On the other hand, user Jytdog keeps reverting editors' contributions with no explanation, akin to vandalism. If anything, his action constitute the edit warring. I am satisfied by now that Jytdog's final edits incorporated my contribution, albeit with a low quality reference. Therefore I will not pursue a revert of his last revert. 50.187.63.48 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No violation - 3RR was not violated, but the question of whether to include a trade name in an article is subject to editor consensus. When an article keeps going back and forth with no discussion on article talk it suggests a need for full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Boaqua reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: DS applied )

Page: Armenian Genocide denial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boaqua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PLease note

Although, there has been no formal violation of 3RR, reported editor is edit-warring in an AA2-DS article against multiple editors, pushing a strong POV.

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

10:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "See explanation on the talk page"
13:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777570160 by Dr.K. (talk) British American historian and Former President of Israel are not Turkish source and have no COI"
23:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Armenian Genocide denial. (TW ★TW)"
18:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC) "Discretionary sanctions notice about Armenia and Azerbaijan"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

06:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Israeli president Peres */ Out of context cherrypicking"
11:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparison with Holocaust and Israeli stance */ Warning"

Comments:

Edit-warring in an article covered under WP:AA2 DS. Edit-warring disruption without addressing points on talkpage and without consensus. Dr. K. 11:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Not blocked, but I did place the article under 1RR/consensus required, so if they continue to reinstate the material without getting consensus on the talk page they may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Ks0stm 17:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ks0stm. That was an excellent idea. Dr. K. 17:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:U990467 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Ariana Grande discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: U990467 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

15:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777834536 by Kellymoat (talk) These is no source called it a promotional single but a single. You have failed WP:No original research."
15:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777832058 by Kellymoat (talk)"
15:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777828436 by Kellymoat (talk)"
13:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "/* As lead artist */"
13:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC) ""
11:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Billboard called it "the latest single.""
Consecutive edits made from 11:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC) to 11:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
1. 11:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777804972 by 79.222.93.37 (talk)"
2. 11:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777804906 by 79.222.93.37 (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 10:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC) to 11:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
1. 10:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "/* As lead artist */ Billboard called it "the latest single.""
2. 11:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

15:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Jason's Song */"

Comments:

This is taking place on 4 separate articles related to the same song. User's edits have also been reverted by another user before my involvement. User has a history of ownership on pages from Universal Music, particularly the Ariana Grande pages. Kellymoat (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have shown multiple source on talk page to explain my edits but Kellymoat refused to discuss and completely deleted my edits (containing my edits which are not about the song). I have pinged other users to discuss about the issue. --U990467 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 22:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:79.17.217.9 reported by User:Jdcomix (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Asia Featuring John Payne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.17.217.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777871542 by Joefromrandb (talk) from what? people adding unreferenced material?"
20:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777871224 by Joefromrandb (talk) Upset troll keeps reinserting unreferenced materials to article, against WP policy about living persons."
20:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777870575 by Jdcomix (talk) Removed unreferenced material."
20:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777870388 by Jim1138 (talk)"
20:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777870214 by Joefromrandb (talk)"
20:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777869898 by Joefromrandb (talk) You area violating Misplaced Pages rules for references AND 3 reverts rule. Next time you will be reported to admins."
20:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Again, removed unreferenced material, and it WAS explained. Apparently someone is not reading. Feel free to restore it when properly researched and sourced."
20:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777863174 by Joefromrandb (talk) Still UNREFERENCED. Hello, Misplaced Pages rules about living people? Source the material or it goes."
16:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777791499 by Jim1138 (talk) An artist interview is not a reliable third party neutral source, as you've mentioned many times in the past. Regardless, the rest is unreferenced."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Asia Featuring John Payne. (TW)"
20:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Asia Featuring John Payne. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

20:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC) "Dispute Resolution".

Comments:

Isn't responding to my warnings regarding edit warring. Jdcomix (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User is a self-declared IP sock. I requested protection of the page. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Maybe consider providing the references the user is asking for. El_C 22:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Pdfpdf reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts:

12:48, 18 April 2017 (This was self-reverted, but susequently the same inforation was readded in diffs #2 and #4 below)
10:12, 20 April 2017
10:16, 21 April 2017
13:04, 28 April 2017
08:38, 30 April 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:07, 28 April 2017

Attempts to resolve dispute on talk pages: Talk:List_of_Archibald_Prize_winners#Embedded_external_links, User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive40#Not_vandalism, Talk:List_of_Archibald_Prize_winners#Links_to_jpeg_files

Comments:

Technically, this is edit-warring to add redundant or otherwise inappropriate external links. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Categories: