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 05:43, 5 February 2020 editEvergreenFir (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,439 edits →User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: no violation): seems so but ANI is place to go← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:48, 5 February 2020 edit undoZanhe (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers132,020 edits →User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: no violation): reNext edit →
Line 254:		Line 254:
	:I want to note that this user's focus is to purge Chinese media sources from all articles. Here is more evidence that the user's focus is to mass purge Chinese media sources from Misplaced Pages without much regard to the material: .... I do not want to list them all, but they run in the dozens. You just need to CTRL+F "''Remove unreliable source''" (if not misspelled) in the user's contributions.--] (]) 00:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)		:I want to note that this user's focus is to purge Chinese media sources from all articles. Here is more evidence that the user's focus is to mass purge Chinese media sources from Misplaced Pages without much regard to the material: .... I do not want to list them all, but they run in the dozens. You just need to CTRL+F "''Remove unreliable source''" (if not misspelled) in the user's contributions.--] (]) 00:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
	::No text was removed in those examples because the non-reliable source was either redunadnt or it was a non-BLP page and it didnt seem like terribly controversial content so was marked with a citation needed. As I have repeatedly told you I dont think that Chinese sources are inherently unreliable, see ], but the vast majority do not satisfy ]. ] (]) 00:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)		::No text was removed in those examples because the non-reliable source was either redunadnt or it was a non-BLP page and it didnt seem like terribly controversial content so was marked with a citation needed. As I have repeatedly told you I dont think that Chinese sources are inherently unreliable, see ], but the vast majority do not satisfy ]. ] (]) 00:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
			:::Don't muddy the waters by bringing up SCMP. You know we're talking about mainland Chinese media here, not Hong Kong papers like SCMP. -] (]) 05:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

	Hi guys, CaradhrasAiguo is what I would call my Misplaced Pages stalker, this isn't even the first time they’ve brought me to this noticeboard. I believe this falls under exception #7 at ], if I misinterpreted the policy thats my bad and it won’t happen again. ] (]) 00:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)		Hi guys, CaradhrasAiguo is what I would call my Misplaced Pages stalker, this isn't even the first time they’ve brought me to this noticeboard. I believe this falls under exception #7 at ], if I misinterpreted the policy thats my bad and it won’t happen again. ] (]) 00:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:48, 5 February 2020

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)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
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:Ahendra reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: 24 hours)

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:

Hi, the reported editor reverted two different editors (including me) within few hours and refuses to discuss on the article's talk page. admins' eye would be welcome. Thanks.---Wikaviani 20:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, this editor showed the same behavior (addition of unreliable sources) on several other articles : .---Wikaviani 20:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Sorry, i think we are both reporting this user at the same moment right ?---Wikaviani 20:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, no I have not reported this user. Currently writing a bot script. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 20:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think for some reason you placed my username in the title of the report when you created it (see ). I have corrected this for you. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 20:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, i don't know how this ocurred. Thank you very much for correcting my mistake. Cheers.---Wikaviani 20:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Reported user is particulary fond of using 2-3 hour rant Youtube videos by preachers/clerics such as these as citations. This is a big no no. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Switched to partial block from sitewide. Sorry, I still sometimes forget we have that available now! My apologies. El_C 01:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: user now blocked for 72 hours (site wide) after edit warring while being partially blocked for edit warring! El_C 00:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:Mikhail Ryazanov (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: (silent revert, no valid reason), (undo, TW misuse)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Previously on the same page:

and so on.

Attempt to resolve dispute:

On my talk page: User_talk:Mikhail_Ryazanov#Commas.

Comments:

The user exhibits WP:OWNBEHAVIOR/WP:Stonewalling in the Aberfan disaster article. Did not react to the provided arguments and did not substantiate his/her claims with any reliable sources or WP guidelines. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Only two reverts in the last 24 hours over a comma. No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I had come to the same conclusion; I would note for Mikhail that you threatened to edit war on your user talk page. I would suggest that you find some other way to resolve this matter or you might find yourself reported here. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"you threatened to edit war on your user talk page" ← this is a libel. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikhail Ryazanov You said "So unless you show me a style guide that explicitly forbids them, I'm going to put them back." That sounds like edit warring to me. Certainly it is not helpful in resolving a dispute. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

To me, it does not sound like that. If SchroCat and you misunderstood my words, I apologize. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the actual 3RR violation required to report a problem? I did not want to escalate the conflict to that point, but since SchroCat was obviously non-cooperative (and apparently has a history of such behavior), I thought that reporting this issue is the best way to resolve it. If this does not fit here, where is the appropriate place? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing for you to report. I strongly urge you to drop this; otherwise, you may find yourself blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
In other words, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:Stonewalling are not a problem? But if I try to report them, I will be blocked? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
No, Mikhail Ryazanov, there is no ownership, despite the accusation. It is stewardship, which is very different. You'll note from the six diffs you provided that three of them were removing the information about the Netflix broadcast of The Crown: I removed them because the information was already in the article (as I noted in the edit summary). Should I have left duplicate references there, or should I have acted in the best intrests of the article and removed them, as good stewardship would suggest? (and please also see WP:FAOWN)

Comma usage differs between varieties of English, and within English too. I reverted your comma use because they are not needed in BrEng (some may add them, but if they are not needed, then they are best left out). I have already tried to discuss this with you on your talk page, but you came here instead. Hopefully next time you are in disagreement with someone you can discuss the matter, particularly when someone is already in the middle of a discussion with you. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

User: PeeJay2K3 reported by Lehol (Result: No violation, 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:

Comments:

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.
Note I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into Elcorteingles1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user who filed this report, because of both the name of this report and the behavioural overlap with Lehol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

User:107.77.173.58 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: one week, partial)

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:
Added a fifth revert; they clearly have no interest in what I tried to explain to them on their talk page, or in stopping the reverts any time soon.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 00:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week (partial block). El_C 00:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:85.59.199.76 reported by User:Ajf773 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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: Attempts to resolve have been done via the edit summaries by both myself and two other users.

Comments:

4RR violation by IP user, who could possibly be another user (Air7777) logged out. Clearly a sockpuppet though. Whether they are right or not, they have refused to bring this into the relevant talk forum nor discussed with other editors involved in the dispute. Ajf773 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not any other user on Misplaced Pages, nor am I required to use an account to perform edits. Besides this, a select group of users (Ajf773, Charlesdrakew, SovalValtos) are insistent on cherrypicking random airport articles to vandalize and remove future destinations which has long been accepted as per WP:Airports discussion, as long as they are properly sourced. Selected airports are militantly monitored by these users to remove any mention of future destinations which discourages any contribution to the airport articles in question at all. Edits of future destinations contributed to Doncaster Sheffield Airport's article are inline with the majority of other world airports in their information of airline announced new destinations, yet these select group of users are infatuated with vandalizing and edit warring as per their interpretation of the rules. These users conspire together to warn and report anyone who dares to edit otherwise while pretending to be impartial, yet these group of users collude on all airport articles that this occurs. Another example will be Malaga Airport. 85.59.199.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Alleged sockpuppetry can be discussed in the context of an SPI if desired; the user clearly violated 3RR. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Ghmyrtle reported by User:46.208.194.84 (Result: IP blocked)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ghmyrtle&diff=prev&oldid=939171794:

Comments:
I don't know why my name is being used here, but I did not make this report. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think they have just copy-pasted some of the preceding report in error. The report is from an IP who is persistently making disruptive edits at the Gina Miller article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I fixed it. This happened to me yesterday; I'm guessing if you don't enter the template correctly it pulls the name of the last editor of this page (in this case - you).-- Jezebel's Ponyo 20:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the error in completing the form, the sections in which to enter text are not totally obvious but I made no intention to deceive. Back on topic, I only completed this form as a result of the attitude displayed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ghmyrtle&diff=prev&oldid=939173418 Ghmyrtle is also claiming disruptive edits while breaking the 3RR rule to make changes from a long established status quo and claiming NPOV when looking to establish their own bias. I see this handle on many Brexit related articles and the NPOV only goes in one direction from this Editor. 46.208.194.84 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked IP for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:BR1997 reported by User:Calton (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
User talk:BR1997

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jack_Walker

Comments:

Continual attempts to add commentary that that has nothing to do with the article subject. The first five attempts used unreliable sources (The Sun and a message board). --Calton | Talk 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:2604:2000:7143:FD00:FC50:37E4:5E01:68AE reported by User:TK421bsod (Result: blocked 72 hours)

Page: Losing My Religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2604:2000:7143:FD00:FC50:37E4:5E01:68AE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

00:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939200265 by TK421bsod (talk)"
23:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939200068 by Tymon.r (talk)"
23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "There is NO folk in REM I said!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Message re. Losing My Religion (HG) (3.4.9)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user repeatedly changed genres. Another user and I reverted their edits and warned them. TK421bsod (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. The account too. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet, do you know who BestREMSong (talk · contribs) is? There's a few more accounts I'm looking into. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Also LosinMyReligionNOTFolk (talk · contribs). Maybe someone can write up an SPI, but I have the feeling this is a well-known person and there may already be one. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't been keeping track of that account but after a quick look around it appears that blocked User:PianoManFolkRock and Special:Contributions/Jshpinar are connected to BestREMSong, along with the range Special:Contributions/2604:2000:7143:FD00:0:0:0:0/64. Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: no violation)

Page: Fan Bingbing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939183683 by Zanhe (talk) Please start a talk page discussion but per WP:BLP do not re-ad the poorly sourced material without either finding a WP:RS for it or the conclusion of a talk page discussion. All are contentous based on the fact that they have been challenged... By me. I know its a bit catch-22 but thats how it works."
21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 939179314 by Zanhe (talk) Per WP:BLP there is no wiggle room "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.""
10:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC) "remove unreliable sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I am not involved in this 'dispute'.

Comments:

User is established enough to have sufficient understanding of WP:EW. The disruption has occurred at Death of Luo Changqing and dozens of other articles. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to note that this user's focus is to purge Chinese media sources from all articles. Here is more evidence that the user's focus is to mass purge Chinese media sources from Misplaced Pages without much regard to the material: .... I do not want to list them all, but they run in the dozens. You just need to CTRL+F "Remove unreliable source" (if not misspelled) in the user's contributions.--Cold Season (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No text was removed in those examples because the non-reliable source was either redunadnt or it was a non-BLP page and it didnt seem like terribly controversial content so was marked with a citation needed. As I have repeatedly told you I dont think that Chinese sources are inherently unreliable, see SCMP, but the vast majority do not satisfy WP:VERIFY. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't muddy the waters by bringing up SCMP. You know we're talking about mainland Chinese media here, not Hong Kong papers like SCMP. -Zanhe (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, CaradhrasAiguo is what I would call my Misplaced Pages stalker, this isn't even the first time they’ve brought me to this noticeboard. I believe this falls under exception #7 at WP:3RRNO, if I misinterpreted the policy thats my bad and it won’t happen again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The non-BLP (such as Qatar Airways) disruption is not exempt under WP:3RRNO. This is a brazen exercise of WP:NOTTHEM and deflection.

Also, per the text at exception #7, Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. This has not been done in regard to actress/model Fan Bingbing.CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: It appears you think that Chinese media sources are not RS. But that does not fall under 3RRNO as there does not seem to be consensus or any apparent agreement that they are poor sources. You need to stop edit warring about this and bring up specific issues to WP:BLPN (which I see you did) or WP:RSN. Further, do not call uesrs "stalkers" without good cause (WP:ASPERSIONS). CaradhrasAiguo routinely edits on many of the pages in question and it would make sense that they are aware of your actions. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean it lovingly but there is a long history between us and they make my wikipedia experience less enjoyable. Although I am not suggesting it actually rises to the level of a policy violation it is something other editors should be aware of given that CaradhrasAiguo claimed uninvolved status. I have no other user which chimes in on unrelated controversies I’m involved in much as they do. Our very first interaction was them randomly showing up on my talk page to join an argument against me. I think that *most* Chinese media sources are not RS, especially not for social or political topics related to China. There are some which fully satisfy WP:RS like the South China Morning Post which I cite frequently. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation. You need more than three reverts to violate 3RR, in any case, so no need to invoke 3RRNO. As for the disputed sourcing requirement standards, indeed, that conversation belongs elsewhere, and it being conducted in good faith is key. If, however, there is evidence of hounding, a report about that may be submitted to AN/I. El_C 01:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir and El C: I agree this is strictly speaking not a violation of 3RR as there were only three reverts on Fan Bingbing. However, this article is just part of Horse Eye Jack's larger campaign to mass remove Chinese sources from dozens of articles and edit war when reverted by others. This is despite the fact that he was just recently involved in a discussion on the reliability of Chinese media sources at WP:RSN, see archived thread, and did not get any support for his view that they should be considered unreliable in all contexts. And this is not an isolated incident: during his relatively short editing career, numerous experienced editors have issued warnings on his talk page for editing warring and personal attacks, but he has almost always responded by arguing incessantly until others give up. -Zanhe (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zanhe: I can see some of that in HEJ's contribs. But if there's a need for admin intervention, WP:ANI is the place to detail the issues. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories: