Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Not sure whether to post this here

3 days back, I cleaned up this article, but I got reverted many times, I tried to explain but got this reply and even my clean up tags have been removed. I am not sure how to resolve this, since the user is unresponsive. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

New 3rr exemption so can't report 4rr here?

Here a couple editors are claiming that an editor's 4rr (or 5 or six evidently) is ok because there's a discussion of making POV section titles less POV. Some new editors were brought to the discussion by a relevant BLP Noticeboard posting about the POV problem and might find it disconcerting to see existing editors declare this new??? policy. Clarification helpful. Though I guess the best clarification is to just post here and ask the question before it goes stale. User:Carolmooredc 12:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of misleading description Just to clarify, OP's complaint cites 4 reversions, and three of them were of an editor with whom I was collaborating on the article, and who supports me in arguing there was no 3RR (we were actively and collaboratively experimenting on section titles). My behavior may have constituted a 3RR, but only in the most technical and tedious sense, similar to the sense in which three copy edits deleting typos from other users within 3 hours is a "3RR". Given my views and that of the "victim" who denies 3RR occurred, I think WP:IAR applies here. Steeletrap (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, 3rr does not say "if you and another editor support each other you can violate 3rr all you want". User:Carolmooredc 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The reverting at Gary North (economist) is on the edge of being troublesome. If it continues, full protection might be justified. Has anyone noticed that a well-drafted RfC might solve the problem? People who could be following WP:Dispute resolution but decline to do so should be asking themselves if it is wise. It is likely that Gary North may deserve criticism for his more eccentric views but third-party sources ought to be found for such criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It did go to WP:BLPN for discussion bringing a couple people over. Others also have now made it clear it's not acceptable, so hopefully lesson learned. :-) User:Carolmooredc 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing editwarring

Just thought I'd make mention but not only was there no action on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive217#User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Djflem reported by User:The359 (Result: ) but the edit warring is ongoing despite the presence of an RFC. --Falcadore (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC - Edit-warring

I invite community feedback regarding this RfC.[1] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Searching Archives

There is a simple link (on the word "search") that leads to a page where one can search the Edit Warring archives for older cases. Cases on this particular Noticeboard are archived quickly and it's quite possible that a case from a week ago is already archived.

I'd like to propose that a search feature is put more prominently on this page like the ones that exist (left-side) of these similar pages:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
Wikipedia:Bot_owners' noticeboard
Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Other noticeboards have search boxes at the top of the main page:
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

...so that would be another option.

I just think that if an editor comes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring looking for a case from a few days ago, there should be a search box right on the main page to make navigation easier. It's quite easy to overlook a link that is tied to a specific word and this search box feature exists on similar Noticeboards. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I added the Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox in place of the rudimentary search we had before. The improved searchbox is already in use at WP:AN and other places, so we might as well use it here. Please check the appearance of WP:AN3 now and see if this looks right, and verify if the search box works for you. A further improvement (some day) would get the search hits to come out in date order. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dead link in the welcome box

The 4th bullet in the "additional notes" says: "A 3RR report helper tool was available, which assisted in diff gathering and reporting.[dead link] Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected." The 3RR report helper tool is a dead link (and is tagged). Why is this bullet still there? I tried to find where to edit the welcome box IOT remove the whole thing, but can't find an "e" button anywhere. Would someone WP:DIY for me? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I left a message for User:Slakr who is not currently very active. He should be able to restore the 3RR helper tool. EdJohnston (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This tool is still dead. Perhaps it should be removed pending Slakr's return. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's already been removed, but User:Slakr just left me a message so I hope the tool will be returning soon. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As a heads up, it looks like they renewed it for me, so yay ts-admins! :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 05:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Lack of bot archiving at WP:AN3

See User talk:ClueBot Commons#How to enable ClueBot archiving for WP:AN3. In my opinion it would be reasonable to use ClueBot if it can be set up, since User:MiszaBot is on extended vacation. ClueBot is already taking care of archiving at WP:ANI and WP:AN. User:Legoktm has done some archiving runs in place of MiszaBot but I don't think he will be doing that permanently. I'm also pinging User:Σ since he may have some future archiving plans. For the moment I think we need ClueBot and I hope someone will explain to us how to create the key that we need to allow this to work. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The bot is supposed to understand the Misza config templates, so no changes should be necessary, except for updating the keys. →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the resumption of archiving, now done by User:Lowercase sigmabot III but still using the MiszaBot instructions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring and the three-revert rule

Unfortunately, there seems to be an emerging edit war going on between me and User:STATicVapor, I am just trying to contribute meaningful info here. Help please, thanks. Ben0kto (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I marked Frayser Click an article created by Ben0kto for speedy deletion, due to it being a copy of another article DJ Sound that is currently up for deletion. Ben0kto posted this before I had made a single revert on the page and the only revert I have made on the page so far is restoring the speedy deletion tag that he is not allowed to remove, since he is the creator of the article. STATic message me! 19:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, you shouldn't removed speedy deletion tags from pages you created or revert another user on their talk page. I don't think there's any need for admin intervention here though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Help me

(there is ongoing vandalism on the Out of the Furnace wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Out_of_the_Furnace&action=history by user: 72.77.53.216 You can review history to see all the times they have attempted to vandalize the post. how can this be corrected and stopped?) (72.77.50.249 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC))

I think you're already receiving help in #wikipedia-en-help. --I dream of horses (T) @ 03:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle to report 3RR Comment

The page says Twinkle can now be used to report 3RR, but without any instruction, so I'm wondering how exactly I would do that? --I am above others! ^{Leave a message} 21:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In the ARV module (which you can access on pages in userspace and contributions. At the top there is a drop box, edit warring is at the bottom of that list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it. It seems that edit warring wasn't in that list earlier when I was looking for it --I am above others! ^{Leave a message} 02:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's new. Or maybe there was a way to do it differently before. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Question About Using This Noticeboard

The template for using this noticeboard allows me to identify the editor whom I am reporting. Can I duplicate it to report two users who are edit-warring with each other? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "duplicate". My biggest objection is to having two sections, one for each user being reported. In one section, you should name both users (in the header as well) and separate their reverts (one part of the report for each).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I was asking whether to enter the User portion of the template twice, and your answer is yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The two users have taken a break from edit warring to merely engage in uncivil talk page dialog that doesn't rise to the level of being worth reporting at the drama boards. I am not reporting them at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nuanced difference between reverting and undoing?

In reference to 3RR, I am being told that there is a subtle difference between these two terms, and that "As an admin, you or I can either undo an edit or rollback an edit. If an edit is undone, it is recorded in the edit summary as an undo. It also means I have regarded that edit as a good-faith edit, or needed to make some comment about why I restored it to an earlier version. A rollback is recorded in the edit summary as a revert, and is used in cases of bad-faith edits and vandalism. Thus if something is called a "reversion" it implies that it has been rolled back through vandalism. None of the edits related to these articles were in bad faith, and none of them were vandalism." My opinion is that this is incorrect so far as it refers to 3RR, and that whether an editor thinks they are undoing or reverting, we treat them all the same. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone is using WP:Rollback to remove an edit that is WP:Vandalism or one of the other approved exemptions to 3RR then the action is exempt from WP:3RR and it should not be counted as a revert in determining if they violated the three revert rule. If they are using rollback to revert edits that are not appropriate uses of the tool then they should be counted as reverts under 3RR along with possible removal of the tool. GB fan 11:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverting/undoing vandalism is always an exemption, of course. But I think that there is confusion about what appears in the edit summary. 'Undo revision" obviously occurs when you use the Undu function. Using the Rollback function leaves an edit summary saying "m Reverted edits by Example (talk) to last version by Example2". You can use it for non-vandalism reverts but if you do that you should explain somewhere why you did it, editor's or article's talk page - something not to do often. But not all rollback edits are done through the user right rollback function. There are a number of tools that offer rollback with an edit summary, and those also say 'reverting' or 'reverted' in the edit summary. My point to the other admin was that the wording in the edit summary is irrelevant to 3RR, and being called a reversion should not be automatically interpreted as meaning vandalism. If text is removed then if it is not vandalism it counts towards 3RR, whatever the edit summary says. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

What the edit summary says means nothing. The edit summary can say reverting vandalism, but unless the edit was actually vandalism the revert should count as a revert towards 3RR. Admins should be looking at the actual edits not the edit summaries, because non-vandalism edits are called vandalism every day. GB fan 17:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Unlike the other Admin I was quoting, I don't see a difference between 'undo' and 'revert', what counts is whether the edit is exempt from 3RR or is simply a conduct dispute - and good faith reverts are treated the same as bad faith ones as I understand it. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about resolved and archived disputes that re-emerge after short period of time

Greetings! I couldn't find an answer from the Wikipedia policies so I'd like to ask you that how should one deal with a following situation:

There has been a dispute between two editors, Editor A and Editor B, concerning an on-going editwar at an article Talk Page. As a result of the dispute, both editors received a warning from the administrator. The following day, however, Editor A deleted* a post made by Editor B at the article Talk Page again despite the warning. Thereafter, Editor A has also been reverting edits made by a third editor over the very same topic at the actual article. In other words, Editor B has removed from the Talk Page such posts that might contradict his own views when it comes to the recent edits in the main article.

The reason why I am asking it here is due to mere caution. See, I am the the Editor B of the aforementioned example, and I am scared of opening a new dispute since I have already been warned once. I haven't been involved into any further reverts at the Talk Page after Editor A's removal of my post. I strongly feel, however, that Editor A has violated against his warning on a rather short notice.

Should any further information be needed, I'd be glad to answer.

• The post that got removed was totally self-supporting and independent from any quotations. In technical terms, Editor A "archived" the discussion, which I see no different from removing though, since in both cases the history is easily available and the post is closed from any further comments afterwards. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're hesitating to file a report because your behavior will be examined as well, it's a safe bet you're behaving badly. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Spike Wilbury. Actually, I haven't done anything after that spotted revert, except for posting here. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A bit of a mistake here

Resolved

 – No blocks - article locked-up

-- Moxy (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:HMWD has just been blocked for edit warring as seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HMWD reported by User:AbelM7 (Result: 48h) but the problem is with the other user as see at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AbelM7 reported by User:HMWD (Result: ). Yes User:HMWD has been reverting but this is because sourced material is being replaced with badly sourced and unsourced information by the other user that has already in the past been blocked for this behaviour. Yes they have both been edit warring but User:AbelM7 is the real problem here - misreporting sources - using mirrors and bad sources for there edits. Can we get someone to look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AbelM7 reported by User:HMWD (Result: )-- Moxy (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

I'm currently working on an article and another user feels that something should be one way while I feel it should be another. I attempted to have a discussion on the talk page of the article but the user has ceased any discussion with me after pointing out that he has over 100k more edits than my 1k and making an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Obviously, that's just my side of the story.

I'm not looking for help with "my side" of the argument but could use some advice on how to proceed. I'm not one to edit war but this is the kind of thing that makes me want to stop editing when I can't even get the other person to discuss the situation and am being told to just "drop it". Is there a good resource for dealing with issues like this? WCS100 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken has decided to discontinue the feud but not before calling me an asshole on my talk page.

I'd appreciate it if someone still gave me some advice on how to avoid this situation in the future. Thanks. WCS100 (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have tried to make peace with a user called Riothero (not sure how to make link) over the past few weeks and he continuously reverts my work. He makes multiple accusations of my work and it is beginning to offend me. He has also violated the 3 revert rule multiple times, but I have tried to ignore it so the matter would not escalate. This did not work. I need assistance on how we can both resolve this continuous conflict so we can make valuable contributions to WP instead of having to make reversions. Any suggestions?--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

tool for 3rr

The tool for 3rr is longer works either should be removed or replaced by some other tool--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What tool? The one for reporting? The one for performing? You'd have to know which tool and address it at the related tool help page the panda ₯’ 08:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Advertising on WP?

I am in Spain. Obtrusive, obnoxious ads appear in both sides and in the bottom that cannot be taken out. This is a nightmare. Am using both Chrome and Safari and have the blocked popup opion checjed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.199.127 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I added a heading here, but this post doesn't appear to have anything to do with edit warring, more likely the editor has malware on their computer. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Readers#Why do I see commercial ads at Wikipedia?.--220 of ^Borg 16:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

SockPuppet accusation?

Does all the shady 'sockpuppet' stuff stay on my talk page for forever?

I didn't even know what a 'revert' was to be honest so I didn't understand the rules I was violating. If I made a 'logged out' edit it wasn't a conscious attempt to get around any restrictions on my own account, I was probably just on my phone instead of desktop and didn't notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeneditor491 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Greeneditor491: I have had a look at your talkpage and cannot find any mention of sockpuppetry. Can you advise where it is?--220 of ^Borg 16:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am mistaken, sorry - the sockpuppetry thing is only on the forum (administors' noticeboard). Does that get deleted after a certain time? What about the editing warring/sanctions thing on my talkpage? (Or is that only visible to me and certain people?) I know I'm expected to research all that myself but if you're able to shed some light it's appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeneditor491 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please note I have wp:indented your post as is usual on Wikipedia.(WP)

I think you meant Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greeneditor491 (wp:SPI). The Administrators noticeboard(wp:AN) is another page. As far as I know SPI pages are not deleted. You are allowed to delete most posts from your talkpage (see WP:BLANKING), but it still remains in the page history. You can also wp:archive the page. Any text on your talkpage is there for the whole internet to see, if they know where to look.

Personally I find just blanking a post, especially without responding, to be rather rude, and is often done by 'dodgy' editors to 'hide' misdeeds. However, if an editor 'blanks' it is regarded as evidence that they have seen and read the message. Sometimes I wonder if some editors even know they have a talkpage as I send messages and ... are totally ignored, not even an angry rant in return!

I have put a welcome template message on your talk page with more information about WP rules. --220 of ^Borg 20:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Article recreation = Edit warring?

Wondering if edit warring can be applied to the recreation of an article like Boraj Tanwaran (3 deletions) aka Boraj Tawaran (one deletion). The creator Boraj Tanwaran (talk · contribs) has recreated despite an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boraj Tanwaran) that voted to delete, and despite many warnings to desist. Seems totally oblivious to advice and totally committed to getting a page about some tiny place in "Salumber tehsil,Udaipur district, Rajasthan,india" onto WP. --220 of ^Borg 17:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not edit warring but is definitely disruptive, I've blocked them for three days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Callanec: Appreciate the action, but I am quite sure we'll hear from them again. :-\ Mind you the latest version of the page, after an experienced editor cleaned it up, has improved markedly. And it didn't have a huge geneaological section, this time. --220 of ^Borg 06:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Christopher Nolan Page

I seemed to have again become involved an edit war on the Christopher Nolan page. I have tried to discuss the issues in maintaining accuracy in the table and have offered several options that I can live with. Originally 198.228.216.17 (talk · contribs) was the other editor and now it is 166.137.210.41 (talk · contribs). I suspect they may be the same person based on the comments in the edit (there have been no discussion from either on the talk page). I don't want to be in this position, but I think the information (in any of the several forms I have proposed or other forms I may not have thought of) needs to be accurate. The table after those reverts is not accurate without the notes.AbramTerger (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes editors are not aware of talk page discussions; I always explicitly link to them from my edit summaries and inform the involved editors on their user talk pages. If they then continue to ignore the discussion then you should request semi-protection (which will block IP editing) at WP:RPP. Obviously if editors refuse to discuss their edits in a dispute they must not be allowed to continue editing the article, since the consensus process cannot take place without discussion by all parties. Betty Logan (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, I have mentioned the discussion in several comments and in the talk page, it can be seen that I have also pinged them. That, I believe, gives the same notification that they would get from posting on the talk page, and also keeps the discussion in one place.AbramTerger (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you go to their talkpage and say "hey, as per WP:BRD, we're discussion the changes you want to make -here-, and it would be great to have your input in order to determine WP:CONSENSUS on the issue"?? the panda ₯’ 19:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No I had not, since I felt that the pinging and the note in the edit comment was sufficient. I have done it now with the latest proposed compromise. But since the other editor has no user name (just an IP Address that changes) I put it in multiple locations. Are there any other suggestions?AbramTerger (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, WP:DR suggests a lot of things - for example, if it's problematic enough, page protection can be requested. A semi-protected page forces an IP to either a) register (thus giving you a place to converse) or b) discuss on the article talkpage the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Still need assistance

I still need assistance with an edit war between User:Riothero and I. Even though we were both blocked, he still follows my edits and reverts them. I do not wish to be blocked again for trying to bring back my edits which have reliable sources and are according to WP policies. He just continuously does not have good faith and makes accusations. I have nothing against him or anything just need some help so we can both go on and make valuable contributions. Any suggestions?--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How about listening to my good faith concerns re: your edits, and engage me on talk pages? Whether your edits are reliably sourced and in accordance with WP policies are the very issues under dispute. Riothero (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Without looking at any specific edits, dispute resolution procesess are clearly defined. We not-so-jokingly state on Wikipedia that WP:CONSENSUS often trumps verifiability - meaning that even the best-referenced edit can be tossed out through discussion. As such, WP:BRD is very important: you're bold, if it's reverted you may never re-add until you have discussed and obtained consensus for the edit. Go a few steps further, if the question is about the reliability of the sources, then the noticeboard setup for that is available. the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed quick full protection on breaking news

The often incendiary US campaign season is coming up. I wonder what the rest of you might think of establishing quick full protection on some related articles, with maybe a template or two in the page edit box and the article talk page indicating that it remains possible to start related news stories at wikinews and that the article is undergoing regular updates on normal changes in the topic based on material there and elsewhere. Material on unusually significant developments, like deaths in the family and assassination attempts, might be indicated as being among the few topics significant enough to merit a specific immediate change. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dunno about that, but breaking news articles in areas where there is ethnic conflict require full protection from the outset, because editing them to wikipedia criteria of neutality is impossible with so many IP or unregistered editors rushing in by the minute. This is the case most recently with Operation Protective Edge, which is totally POV, and essentially is the Israeli Foreign Ministry's version of an IDF operation. Try and adjust it, and your edit mostly disappears, and it is under IR. Under IR,IPs and socks and meatpuppets thrive, giving an enormous advantage to POV pushing against registered editors. But of course, like that particular reality, nothing substantive will be done to offer a viable solution.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The proximate instigator of this thread was actually Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, now under full protection, but I imagine it might be possible to do something similar wih Israel articles, something like a regular periodic edit quest,on a daily or weekly basis with a list somewhere of such articles to update. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing Tools

"A 3RR report helper tool is available, which can assist in diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected."

The tool is no longer available. R3ap3R (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I just clicked on you, the user. I then clicked TW...then ARV. I chose the dropdown for edit-warring, and all the options were there the panda ₯’ 19:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think he meant a toolserver/tool labs tool.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he means this tool. I commented out the relevant text in this edit. I'm guessing the tool went out with the rest of toolserver. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfair process: person edit warring with me has put warning on my page

It feels unfair that the person (User:John from Idegon) that is edit warring with me has put an edit warring notice on my page, a notice that includes the threat that "If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing." Also his notice says in bold letters: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." The issue at hand is the Transportation section of Bowling Green, Kentucky. The section includes Roads and Air transport. I added rail. I noted that the city had been a hub for passenger rail transport. I gave a reference to a timetable for the passenger rail transport. I also gave cross reference to another wikipedia article touching on the issue of the rail transport history of Bowling Green: The Historic Railpark and Train Museum. This is very frustrating when he is charging me with giving false information, not giving references. I'm very confused that he is saying that there needs to be a section on rail, yet he has removed it. It is frustrating that he wrongly accuses me of not putting my comments on the Talk Page, when I indeed had done so. I did not need to put the comments on the Talk Page when I contributed the new information. I did add to the Talk Page on the first instance of his deleting of my work. I would hope that in good faith that he would not make the above claims against me when they are not true. Again, it feels quite unfair that I threatened with losing editing rights, when User:John from Idegon begin the edit war, and his telling me not to do edit warring, when he is doing the same thing. In fact he began the reverting of my contributions.Dogru144 (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is further unfair that User:John from Idegon's core complaint is that my edits lacked references (which was a false claim) when in fact he does not challenge most of the sections of Bowling Green, Kentucky, which have no references. The following sections in Bowling Green, KY carry no references: History: Twentieth Century, Geography, Economy, public schools: Elementary Schools, District Schools, High School, Post-secondary Education, Public Library, Transportation: Major Highways, Other Highways, Air Transport, Attractions: Parks and recreation, Community centers, Parks, Swimming Centers, Museums, Golf courses, Other attractions, Media: Print media, Television, Digital Broadcast, Radio, and more. I wonder why I am subject to such a standard that is not enforced on most sections of the Bowling Green article.Dogru144 (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Dogru144 (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone is taking things way to personally. And you are supposed to notify me when you report me at a notice board. There is nothing to defend here. I explained it at the article talk page and his talk page. there is a serious case of WP:IDHT. I have said nothing about him. I do not at all like the copy and have explained why. He may have started a discussion at the article talk page, but has not participated in it except to demand I accept his version. What's a boy to do, I ask ya? John from Idegon (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the comments on the OP's talk page and at the article for a hint of how much this dude is interested in forming a consensus. I am off to bed and I'll see where the stuff falls in the morning. Wasted way too much of my time on this already. John from Idegon (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep tone civil and encyclopedic. Enough with the "ask ya" and "dude". This is an encyclopedia, not a bar. As you'll note from the Talk Page, I have engaged in discussion all along the way, so refrain from misstating the facts and claiming that I didn't post there. I made the overture for participation in arbitration. I am awaiting your reply. Finally, this strikes me as a serious offense that he began an edit war and yet he puts a warning on my page, saying that I could lose my editing privileges.Dogru144 (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone also needs a thicker skin. This is Wikipedia, not the ladies debating society. You have an awful lot to say for not being willing to talk to me. So when you get your panties out of a wad and want to try to form a consensus hollar. If not, not. You were engaged in edit warring. have been since you put it back the first time. are you even vaguely familiar with WP:BRD? My hands are not clean either. I missed the fact that you had started a discussion when i re-reverted you or I wouldn't have. But since that was where we were supposed to be I did not undo it. everything since then has been edit warring and we are both guilty. i told you you were edit warrinng via a commonly used template. STOP TAKING THINGS PERSONALLY. I made my arguments at the talk page you did not counter one of them; you just said I had no right to remove your edit. I did have the right to do that, and after I did it is up to you to justify its inclusion. you have not done so. All you have done is get your panties in a wad and "run to mamma". Neither of us have broken 3RR. I have been trying to discuss the edits with you and all you have done is whine and say how unfair it all is. Well, dude...guess what? Your perception of fairness is not the issue here. My perception of the crap edit is. If you wanna talk about that, talk. Otherwise, whatever admin deals with this can deal with you because I AM DONE! John from Idegon (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia asks that the tone be nice. You said "All you have done is get your panties in a wad and "run to mamma"." And you made 3 reversions of my edits: 9:05, August 6; 19:20, August 8; and 3rd: 6:03, August 12. I've asked you for participation in arbitration. Instead, you make personal comments and use crudely uncivil language.Dogru144 (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit war leading to nomination for deletion & other issues. What should a bystander do?

I do not wish to cite the specific article this refers to. (I don't want to make things worse when for now we at least have a very uneasy cease-fire.) However, several open general questions remain for me:

1. If someone threatens to nominate an article for deletion if his edit is reverted "one more time," and then does so when it actually is reverted, what should a bystander do? (Note, I was not one of the warring parties. I only became aware of this during the AfD discussion.)
2. Should I, as a 3rd party who doesn't want to see an important article nominated for deletion, post something here for admin action as an edit war? (My interest was to preserve the process for appropriate AfD nominations, and not allowing the nomination to be used as the "nuclear option" in an edit war.)
3. Is there some way of tagging the AfD discussion or formally requesting admin review of this one question within the AfD discussion, allowing the AfD discussion to continue if the admin disagrees with what I think happened?
4. Does the above scenario fall under edit warring? Or maybe gaming the system?
5. The above edits and reverts did not happen within a 24 hour period. In fact (if memory serves), one party reverted 3 times, and the other twice (nominating for deletion after his/her 2nd was reverted), and that was over a few days, possibly a week. Still, it seemed clear to me that is was an edit war, just a slow one. Must a series of reverts happen rapidly, all within a day or so, to establish an edit war, or can they happen over days or longer?

What DIDN'T work:

• Doing nothing. This risked losing the article because it seems most people who participate in AfD discussions, to my unending frustration, seem to look at the article as it currently exists and vote for deletion, regardless of whether it could be fixed or whether it once had satisfactory content. By the time it reached AfD, the article had been horribly gutted and was not in an acceptable state. (The person nominating it for deletion did not follow the steps in WP:Deletion for improving the article, looking over previous content, or most other steps that should be taken before nominating for deletion. Again, it seemed to be a simple and blatant case of destroying the article because his edits were reverted, as he stated in his comments at the time.)
• Asking for mediation. I was not a party to the original dispute, but I was automatically a party to mediation because I made the request, and the other parties never joined the process. The person who nominated for deletion talked much about my accusation that he misused the AfD process, but never signed on for mediation. It was closed.
• Posting a proposal for a solution on the article's talk page. Maybe my proposal isn't the greatest, but it's not attracting any discussion. I'm afraid to implement any of it though. I really think everyone could live with it though.

This article is still a mess, and it contains much volatile content regarding international relations. I think I have a solution for a WP:TNT and re-write, but I don't know what to do because everyone is still pretty high strung, and no one seems interested in my proposal (on the article's talk page) either way. Since the AfD ended in "No Consensus," the whole process can happen over and over again until the article finally gets obliterated. If it actually is deleted as a result of this silly edit war, it seems to me it will be virtually impossible to restore it. (No one has ever argued that the concept itself is notable, only the article's content.) This is the aftermath of the edit war, as I see it. As with many other wars, the current cease-fire seems very untenable. Thank you. Dcs002 (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: What a difference a day or two can make! A very civil and productive discussion has now begun on the talk page for this article, focusing on common ground. Still, I would appreciate it if someone could answer my questions above. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Question on gnomish editing, eg case changes, and what counts as a revert

At Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Using YouTube for citations an editor (who is also asking for Admin help) has accused another editor of a revert constituting edit warring because they changed "Mosul Dam" to "MusulMosul dam", saying ""Technically, any change to an article or the restoration of material previously deleted is a revert". An unnecessary and incorrect revert to another editor's accurate edit is a revert.". Is this sort of edit counted as a revert (the editor in question actually then reverted themself without seeing the post as they decided they were wrong. A gnomish editor going through an article is going to make a variety of minor changes such as [2] and [3] which are technically changing someone's edit. Is there any guidance on this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable question for clarification in this important matter. What did you mean by "gnomish editor"? and who were you referring to when you said "A gnomish editor"?... Thanks Worldedixor (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One more thing. The original edit of the Mosul Dam was correct, and should not have been reverted to Mosul dam. Also, Musul dam is not correct either. Worldedixor (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't bring arguments about other editors here. "Musul" was my typo. I'm trying to start a discussion with other Admins in particular, and experienced editors, about how to deal with minor changes which undue others work but have no impact on the meaning of the article. I'm not trying to ask for opinions as to whether an editor's edits were right or wrong. It's a general question which would apply to all 'gnomish' editing. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the generic answer to the generic question is that it will always depend on the circumstances surrounding the article topic itself, and on the particular gnomish edits being undertaken. WHen 9/11 was a particularly hot area, any edits to articles were contested with spirit. Today it is relatively cool and gnomish edits, if required, are likely to be uncontroversial. I often get involved in "Suicide of Foo" articles where the article must be written as an article about the event, not as a pseudo-biography. Gnomish edits there are initially hotly contested. As the event passes the edits become more accepted because passions have cooled.

I have oft been perplexed by the simple fact that any edit reverts another editor's work. I suspect that is not what was intended by the initial framing of the 3RR, for example.

I may be an experienced editor, but I wonder if I have gone anywhere near answering your question. 21:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC) (This conribution was posted by User:Timtrent)

• Doug, this issue has been brought up before in various contexts and generally the answer is the administrator evaluating the allegations has some discretion to determine whether the edit in question constitutes a revert. Some editors have wanted changes to the policy, but, as far as I know, those of us who frequently patrol WP:AN3 have opposed such a change because (1) it is very hard to describe the myriad situations that might arise and (2) it might limit our discretion is ways that would be counterproductive. This isn't the only policy where an admin has discretion to decide whether the policy has been violated, and although we want to give editors notice of potential violations, eliminating that discretion won't achieve that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Aagadu page protection required - serious disruptive edit warring and vandalism by un established users

admin assistance is needed. Lot of disruption and vandalism is going on Aagadu. Please protect the article for 24 hrs Bewakoofian (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be best @Bewakoofian: if you made your request here. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Should complainants who have been actively editing on an article indicate their own editing as well?

Frequently the complaints are posted by editors who may also be as guilty of reverts as the person being complained about. Right now, it basically requires either the "defendant" or a third party to list such edits.

Would it make sense for the OP instructions to state "please list your own edits on this article which might be considered reverts in any way during the period in question" in order to dissuade people who know their own behaviour might also be viewed as edit war from making complaints here?

At this point, unless someone does post the problematic edits of the OP, it is often difficult for admins to absolutely assess exactly what happened on an article. I suspect more cases would be solved by page protection with such a rule. Collect (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I see lots of cases where administrators block both editors or lock articles, and many of the administrators dealing with this page have considerable experience. So I imagine they do check the evidence thoroughly and it is a simple matter to look at article edit histories. I think your recommendation would just add a degree of redtape to reports that are already time-consuming to complete. TFD (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with highly personalizing WP:TAGTEAM?

Is WP:ANEW the right place to address a case of WP:TAGTEAM editwarring? I'm being blockaded from adding anything to an article (more than one article, actually) by two editors collaborating to keep me from editing "their" articles, without them running afoul of 3RR. They deleted reliably sourced additions, and only permit a) sources they prefer, and b) interpretations of sources they prefer, when other sections in the same sources directly contradict the POV they're trying to push with out-of-context quotations. They also frequently personally attack me, page after page after page, and engage in ad homimem techniques to try to derail any other actions I'm involved in such as RMs. Another common technique is to engage in POV and SYNTH violation, and AGF/CIVIL/NPA violation, but proclaim loudly and in multiple forums that I'm doing all these things to them (and that I'm claiming they're doing it to me); it's a psychological-projection-on-top-of-psychological-projection, gaslighting game. I've tried informal dispute resolution to no avail, and had a request for formal WP:DR rejected. Their talk pages show evidence of treating admin noticeboards and the drama generated on them as a form of entertainment and gameplaying. Yet the editors are not vandals; they're actually productive editors, who simply have a really severe WP:OWN problem when it comes to articles and categories within a particular scope. They used to be "wiki-enemies", and one attempted a year ago to recruit me to oppose the other in some dispute (I decline to get involved), but now that they've made up after their fight, they're using me as a form of sport, and I've had about enough of it. I really, really hate using ANI much less AE as venues for settling personal disputes, but this is getting into rather serious POV/OR pushing through coordinated editwarring, and it has to stop, my personal feelings aside. PS: One of them was administratively warned (as was I, in a mutual warning) to stop personalizing disputes between us on article talk page, but refuses to do so. The admin who issued the warning has intervened a few times to "hat" such commentary but otherwise takes no action, effectively making the warning toothless. I've been verbally attacked by the same editor twice today alone, and this is after the editor agreed to de-escalate, after lengthy negotiation on my talk page. Over the last two weeks, the attacks have numbered in the dozens, and use extremely emotive accusations like "vicious", "bullying", etc. that better describe the party making them. It's starting to feel completely perverse at this point. I already quit editing for a month in an effort to avoid this person and mollify them, and it was just taken as a sign of weakness and exploited.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How to report this?

I want to report a case of edit warring by a user with an ever changing (Nepalese) IP. This appears to be impossible. What to do? Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@WeatherFug: you can either list the IPs that have participated and if it is appropriate, a range of IP numbers will be blocked; or you can request page protection and then the IP will not be able to edit war no matter how dynamic it is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Since blocking the IP's is useless, I'll repeat my previously denied request for protection. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Searching for the edit-warring noticeboard

Could someone please make it easier for people to find the edit-warring noticeboard? Searching "WP:edit-warring" does not prompt the edit-warring noticeboard link, whereas "WP:edit warring" without the hyphen does. This is a very annoying anomaly, not to mention that "edit warring" is wrongly spelled. WP is full of this kind of slipshod lack of attention to detail, particularly in the Help pages. Lengthy trial and error and sheer luck play too big a part in finding information and then understanding help when it is reached. . ~ P-123 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I just created a hyphenated redirect that should fulfill your request (although you may have to clear your cache first). Wikipedia is monstrously large and is volunteer-run, so there's lots of inefficiency. However, experience grows with time, and you will become more familiar with various locations/policies/etc. the more you participate, (assuming you are here to build an encyclopedia). By the way, generally, it's best to avoid even the semblance of or cause for an edit war by instead taking things straight to a Talk page discussion after there's even one or two revert(s). Talk page discussion and consensus-building allows everyone to air out differences, read and cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines, cool off, and (hopefully) reach consensus before edit wars even start. Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The "Click here to create a new report" instructions do not give instructions to notify the user reported.

Unlike every other report instruction field I've ever encountered on Wikipedia, this instruction set does not indicate that the user reported should be notified. Could someone please add that to the instruction field (along with the template to be used)? The likelihood of someone seeing that above the "Click here" button is too random. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the instruction is "random". It's in red. It's well above the click here so an editor should have read it first. It's similar to other noticeboards like ANI. A lot of editors simply don't read - or don't want to read - the instructions. I don't see why we have to add something to the click here edit instructions. What makes you think anyone reads that?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"What makes you think anyone reads that?" Everyone has to read that, each time they file a report -- it has all the codes, parameters, and templates that require filling out. Softlavender (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Warnings

On the instructions, it asks people to provide a diff to a warning given. But some of the time, the edit-warrior has made no reverts since being given that warning. Do you think that the instructions should be changed to state that a diff to a warning should only be posted if the edit-warrior has continued edit warring after the warning?

There was one case today where the warning was given at 05:03 26 December and the complaint posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring at 05:05 26 December, where the edit warrior's last edit was at 08:46, 25 December.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Warnings of edit warring are preferred when possible but not required. Every case depends on the circumstances. There's no reason to change the instructions. Sometimes it's helpful to explain the sequence in comments so the evaluating admin can understand what happened before they look themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Link broken

The URL to the tool is broken ([4]).143.176.62.228 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Slakr's 3rr.php tool hasn't been available since the Toolserver was discontinued. Instead you might consider the Twinkle ARV tool. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there a way to change this on the project page? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Format change

I think we should change the way usernames are shown in the headings. We should figure out a reasonable way to change this:

[[User:*insert name here*]] reported by [[User:*insert name here]]

to this:

[[User:*insert name here*|*insert name here*]] reported by [[User:*insert name here*|*insert name here*]]

I believe it would be a good call for this page, as it would be less awkward-looking. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How about Revert-Wars and bad behaving users w/ revert rights only alegedly fighting vandalism but are not involved contentual?

Drop the stick Monty845 01:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The focus of this page seems to be on contentual involved editors having quarrels about content. I personally experienced uncivil revertism - even occuring on my personal talk page - and violations of 3RR and other WPs by an user with revert rights who was not involved contentual, but behaved grossly uncivil and boasted to be a (unprofessional) vandal fighter, not adding wikipedia content any more but only spreading warning templates all over, with the help of some software plug ins and a bunch of buddies (and anon IP edits) in the same good-cop/bad-cop (bullying) mood harassing content delivering editors/users! I feel that this should be covered by this page also, because specialized editors fighting vandalism, not involved contentual, are sometimes seen to exert their powers and behave bad/uncivil (even climbing the Reichstag with a spiderman dress), thus ending up in redundant revert wars and notice board struggles, stealing a lot of time of multiple wikipedians, and dispelling new and/or delivering editors. One may call them "The Basterds of the Professionally Misused Warning Templates"! It is a very bad and ugly corner of wikipedia concerning vandalism and alleged vandalism and false-positive vandalism and vandal 'vandalism fighters' and look away injustice. Or is there an address to notice wikipedians about vandal 'vandalism fighters'? How about a ranking system or an assesment system to indicate violent or abusing 'vandalism fighters' with "admin wannabe" tags on their User Pages.--Miraclexix (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Obviously I am sure you are talking about me. Please stop. Please stop telling everyone how I am an uncivil, edit warring, personal attacking, insulting, blackmailing, wikibully. Please stop ignoring all the positive contributions I have made. Your constant evidenceless claims of wikibullying, canvassing, assumptions of bad faith, and general antagonazation are taking a massive toll on me. Weegeerunner (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC) @Miraclexix: Mistakes happen, Drop the stick. Monty845 01:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Closures

If someone has closed a report by noting a result in the section header, is it likely that any further comments would be examined? I'm not particularly happy with a recent closure, which I think is the first time I've ever filed here and been refused. And it is pretty much the same as many of my others that were actioned previously over the years. The closure was the last edit of the closing admin and their talk page says that they're not around very much at the moment, so I suspect my ping might go un-noticed. The thread is here.

Not having come across this situation before, I'm not even sure where to ask. I did think of WP:AN but they'll probably just direct me elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Roshan08.08 appears to be a non-communicator. I've left a comment at User talk:Roshan08.08 and one can always hope for a response. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr.

Wikipedia Administrator Noticeboard/Edit

I wish to block Username:"Clarityfiend" from further vandalism as result of dozen of edits over the course of several years to Wikipedia page "Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr."

Request made from Username: "InfoLeak" — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoLeak (talk • contribs) 07:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This comment at ANI explains the COI here and the nature of the editing. I've linked the editor to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and suggest we see if there is a willing to acknowledge the COI issues or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

me being banned

My edits were just fine and are being told they are not good enough. Cthornley85 (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cthornley85: Your response to the report belongs with the report, [5], not on this Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 02:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

I did some manual archiving, and the board is temporarily caught up. (The timeout is 48 hours). We are still hoping that Special:Contributions/Lowercase sigmabot III will return to a full schedule of work. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note on Σ (t c)'s talk page regarding this, so hopefully someone can figure out why the bot keeps skipping this board. —Darkwind (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I access an archived discussion? I'm using the mobile front end, beta, and I don't see any way to find an archived discussion. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Anon IP gaming the system

What is the recourse with an anon IP who habitually does long-term edit warring, never bunching it up within a 24-hour period. As you can see at User talk:71.82.105.171, ever since this editor joined in June, he has been the subject of near-constant warnings from multiple editors for his disruptive editing. In particular, he was a history of the same consistently reverted edit, containing some POV nonsense term, reverted by at least six different editors at X-Men: First Class, as can be seen at:

• 02:52, 27 June 2015
• 20:36, 27 June 2015
• 07:06, 29 June 2015
• 23:02, 14 July 2015
• 01:08, 15 July 2015
• 03:10, 15 July 2015
• 03:42, 15 July 2015
• 03:02, 16 July 2015
• 17:11, 17 July 2015
• 17:39, 20 July 2015
• 00:07, 21 July 2015
• 18:19, 27 July 2015

The same ridiculous edit, a dozen times in a month. Reverted by a half-dozen editors.

Never once has he replied to warnings on his talk page. And he is never, ever going to stop. He is gaming the system by staying under 3RR — which does nonetheless state: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to 'win' a content dispute." What recourse do the responsible editors have? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

3RR is a bright-red line, usually grounds for automatic response. It's not required, you can submit a report to WP:ANEW, which is the same as WP:AN3. Choor monster (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Choor. I'll give it a try.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That was quick! Good job. Of course, at the slow rate the anon causes trouble, he'll probably just repeat on return. You may at that point probably just want to leave a note with the blocking admin, and if he really won't give it up, consider WP:RPP. Choor monster (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User edit warring on Venezuelan articles

A self-proclaimed Chavista user, Tellectualin, is edit warring on Venezuelan articles and their disruptive edits are not new as there was a previous discussion surrounding their political efforts through their edits and their website, riothero.com.

In the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, they have made disruptive edits removing Nelson, a reliable source, and I have tried to avoid warring over or breaking the Wikipedia:3RR:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2
• Edit 3

They have also attempted to remove images from the Bolivarian propaganda article:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2

If you look at the discussion I brought up above, Tellectualin (Riothero) has a reputation to censor the work of other Wikipedia users and if Tellectualin finds it offensive to the Venezuelan government, Tellectualin will remove it. I have been trying to avoid edit warring for a very long time with this user and would like some help.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Can editors edit war in a sandbox?

If editors make edits in a sandbox article that would be construed as edit warring in a fully "published" article, is this edit warring?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Why would an editor want to edit in another's sandbox anyway? Unless he'd been invited? Which would imply some common case on the topic. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - I should perhaps have provided more detail. An article was fully protected because of edit warring. So that we could continue editing and discuss changes to the article, I created a sandbox version of the article with the idea this could be copied and pasted when the protection stopped. Myself and a couple of editors have moved the article on substantially in a very collaborative way. Now, one of the editors previously involved in the edit warring has waded in and made large scale reverts. My question is whether these reverts to the sandbox article constitute edit warring.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring can be done on any page—there is no distinction between an article or a sandbox as far as WP:EW is concerned, apart from the importance of the issue where a flare up on an article might get a sanction whereas the same on a sandbox might result in a warning. This may concern Talk:Glyphosate/sandbox which I did not examine, but Jytdog's explanation is correct: consecutive edits may count as a single revert, but never count as more than one. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clarification.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on KwK 36 article

User:Denniss has abducted the 8.8 cm KwK 36 page and in an edit war with other users. He's trying to keep subjective info on the page. He has removed dubious tags without reason, and kept undoing the removal of subjective information on several occasions. This page needs administrator attention. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No idea why you come here to claim this, I just revert edits that border vandalism. Actually most of this users edits have been reverted by me and others either as not helpful, unexplained removals or vandalism. --Denniss (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Then why did you remove the dubious tags? And why do you never explain your edits? You also never answered any of the talk I started regarding that page. This is the first time I hear from you. The fact is that some of the stuff on that page is very subjective, we need to talk about how bring it to a more neutral tone. Let's talk about that on the article's talk page. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocking options

Just wondering that options to use when blocking editors for edit warring - what is the standard practice? For IPs, do you use the hardblock option or not? For registered editors, do you use the autoblock option? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Hardblock on IPs, autoblock on registered. Takes away the temptation to sock and dig themselves a deeper hole. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious what other administrators who patrol AN3 do. EdJohnston? I have never hard-blocked an IP for edit-warring. Although an admin can see how much the IP itself has been used, they can't see whether the IP had been used by other accounts legitimately. Those accounts will get swept up in a hard block. I realize they can complain, but I'm not sure they should have that burden. Hard blocks of IPs are normally reserved for more egregious conduct than an ordinary edit war. Hard blocks are routine for anonymous open proxies, and perhaps webhosts/colocators. In other situations, a CheckUser would generally be the one who would impose a hard block after first evaluating the collateral damage.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke. I actually softblock IP's with account creation disabled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb23. Hardblocks are normal for open proxies, but otherwise there is not much occasion for a regular admin to issue them. On a 3RR block I'd normally disable account creation, as would NeilN. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Martin's standard header proposal

I'm thinking of a standardised header to every report generated by a template. The reporting user's signature and timestamp could be generated automatically. The format could look something like the following. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:90.196.204.46

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn (demo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.196.204.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reported by: Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time of report: 19:11, 5 October 2015
Diffs of the user's reverts: [6], [7], [8], [9]
Diff of warning: [10]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Done on IRC, can provide logs upon request.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Martin's demo

You maintain a sort of a template in User:MSGJ/Sandbox/1. Then somebody needs to enter the information into all the fields, as shown in User talk:MSGJ/Sandbox/1 to produce the result? The result looks good, but I wonder if submitters would have the patience to fill in the data. Do you have an idea for some automation to help them enter the information? EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct, the template could be moved to something like Template:Edit warring report. I don't think that filling in the template is any more onerous than filling in the preload template that is currently used (reproduced below) and which everyone seems to manage to complete. (In fact it will be slightly easier because the reporter's name and timestamp can be garnered automatically on substitution.) It will also keep the wikicode cleaner because all the formatting (line spacing, numbering, underlining, etc.) will be in the template rather than on the page itself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

So shall we give it a try? I can also change the background colour when the report is closed to make it clear which requests are still open. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

As a first step I have removed the result from the heading. This will prevent many of the section links breaking when the result is updated. I am waiting on User:Σ to confirm that further changes will not break the archiving bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Current preload template

== [[User:<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->]] reported by [[User:]] (Result: ) == '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}} <!-- 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: [diff preferred, link permitted] <!-- 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. --> Diffs of the user's reverts: # [diff] # [diff] # [diff] # [diff] <!-- 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: [link] <!-- 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: [diff] <u>Comments:</u> <br /> <!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

We already have {{AN3 report}}, but don't change that yet as that's what Twinkle uses. If you want, let's create the new template at the more fitting title {{ANEW report}}. AN3 refers to the three-revert rule, which the edit warring noticeboard is not limited to. Once you've created the new template I can update Twinkle to use it. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but I think we should still have a preloaded layout for users doing it manually as we do now. This is simply because many people do not understand templating syntax — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Musikanimal. I'll try and mock something up in the next few days. Yes, there will be still be a preload template. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing headings

Please can we not put the "result" in the heading? It's annoying when the section links in the edit summary do not work properly. I could try to design a template which would show the result just under the heading. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No comments yet, so going to start coding this shortly. I also think "reported by" is unnecessary for the heading and could go slightly lower. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Including the 'result' means that a passing admin can tell from viewing the table of contents which reports still need to be actioned. Seeing the result in the header is also helpful when viewing an archive, or when looking at search results. I agree that it's annoying when section links stop working due to the closing of the report. I've had some ideas in the past for fixing that but none seemed practical. Would still like to see whatever new header you have in mind. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What about putting the anchor template on the heading would that achieve the same effect?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's worth considering, but people submitting the reports would be aware of the presence of the hidden anchor when using the edit window. It's common to have people misunderstand the format already, and we are constantly cleaning up the reports to fix the syntax. Using bots might be an option since that wouldn't require any learning curve for the user. Another long-running problem is that links to 3RR reports break when the report is archived. Would be nice to fix that at the same time! EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that's a harder problem to solve because there is no easy way to determine whether the report has been archived or not. And if it has been archived there is no way to automatically determine the archive number. The only way I can think of doing that, is by putting all the reports on daily subpages, but that would add a lot of complication. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ and EdJohnston, I'm coming into this late in the day because I don't patrol AN3 as much as I used to. I just added a Result to the header in one report I closed. I also added it to another report closed by another administrator. Of course, I didn't realize this discussion had started a few days ago. In any event, at the moment it would appear that the header now has the Result removed but nothing new has been put in to replace its functionality. I'm not very happy with that, frankly. Wouldn't it be better to leave the status quo ante until we have a viable replacement?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with EdJohnston and Bbb23, and I too have added a couple of "results" by hand to reports that I've closed. It's very convenient to be able to see at a glance which reports have or have not been actioned. Frankly, I'm that much less likely to work AN3 without that functionality (however it's achieved). Bishonen | talk 15:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC).

Martin made this change to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example on October 21. Some admins might find this inconvenient. In your original proposal, wasn't there a way to display a Result somewhere, even though the section header wasn't used? The way Template:Archive top can take a 'result' parameter? I propose that this talk thread be moved to the bottom of the page to reduce confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding 'status' and 'result' parameters to display in a "box" a la {{Archive top}} sounds like a splendid idea indeed to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, just seen the above discussion. I have just reverted my change to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example. I remain convinced that the heading is not the correct place to put the result, but I agree it would be better to wait and make this change at the same time that other changes are made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A complete reworking with bot/script assistance

@EdJohnston: If by "bottom of the page" you meant a separate section for actioned (closed) reports, I think that is an excellent idea as it will address the issue of finding which reports still need to be tended to by looking only at the table of contents. Meanwhile we can adapt the new proposed system of closing the reports like we do at AN/I and elsewhere, simply putting a result= (or what have you) within the {{archive top}}.

I'm willing to put some tech work into automating this process to make it easier, if there's consensus to do so. First off, I can modify User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper to support adding {{archive top}} where you are prompted for what goes into result=, making it easy to close the report itself. Then a bot will move it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Closed which will be transcluded under a "Closed reports" section. The archiving bot will work only on that subpage.

So ultimately you are left with two level-two headings, "Open reports" and "Closed reports", within each there's a level-3 heading for each individual report that always has the same name (as we'll do away with the Result: part). This means links to it remain constant so long as the report is still at WP:ANEW (open or closed). — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The other beautiful thing about using level-3 headings is the bot can automatically remove extraneous level-2 headings (when they fill in the subject line when creating a new section). MusikBot already does this at WP:PERM [11]. With time we can try to use some strict regex to clean up more complex malformed reports, but let's save that for later — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Rather than just using {{archive top}} I'd like to use the new Template:Edit warring report (which may well use {{archive top}} inside its code to achieve the same effect). This would make the wikicode much tidier and allow more flexibility if we decide to change the format of the page later. I'll try and get something mocked up to show what I mean. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: please press the button below to see an example of what I am trying to achieve. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I must say this is a nicely constructed template! Should be easy for those who don't understand templating syntax. However if they did manage to royally mess it up you'll end up with a bunch of gibberish from the substitution, to the extent you probably won't be able to repair the report by hand. Probably wouldn't happen often. Either way I can make my script (for those of you who decide to use it) close the report however we decide to do it, doesn't have to be {{archive top}} — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank :)) Actually the substituted version is not much different from the unsubstituted one - it just adds a timestamp and the reporter's user ID. In the worst case scenario we could just undo it and ask them to resubmit their report, but I think most people submitting reports will be reasonably familiar with templates so hopefully there will not be many problems. Question: can Twinkle be reprogrammed to use Template:Edit warring report (preferably bu substituting Template:Edit warring report/subst? It would be good if both reporting methods produced the same format of output. And by the way I implemented your suggestion of indicating closed reports by using Template:Archive top. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. I can update Twinkle once we have some reasonable consensus to adapt the new format. What did you think about the "Open reports" and "Closed reports" system I proposed? — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes it sounds like a good idea, and I'd be happy to give it a try. In that case I'll adjust my template so it creates a level 3 heading. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No further comments. Let's do this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Poke MusikAnimal ... can we make a start on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) @MSGJ: Sorry, forgot all about this! Let's ping some admins who frequent here, as there is a lot of work involved and I want to make 100% sure we're all on board with this idea: @EdJohnston, Bbb23, Bishonen, NeilN, and Slakr: Sorry to bug you all, would you mind reviewing the this section on proposed reworking of ANEW? Essentially it boils down to having two level-2 heading sections: "Open reports" and "Closed reports". The actual reports will be made with level-3 headings, and will appear like the demo you see below at #Martin's standard header proposal (correct me if I'm wrong Martin). I think overall this will keep the place better organized, and won't break links to discussions still on the ANEW page, closed or not. Bot interaction includes only moving closed reports to the closed reports sub-page (that is transcluded on the main ANEW page), and also repairing malformed reports (removing extraneous level-2 headers, etc). — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your detailed explanation, especially at the end of a rather busy day for me, makes my head hurt. Maybe I'll be better able to understand the proposal tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea, but some initial thoughts:

1. It gives no clear and obvious place for people to discuss, which is a big aspect of some of these reports. In many instances, administrative action can be avoided by that discussion, which is the ideal outcome. That said, if they're level3 headings, I guess you can discuss below it, though the archive then sorta looks weird.
2. It might create over-reliance on Twinkle or assistance scripts, particularly the fact that someone would need to scrape revision ids from diffs. Technically this could be solved using a module (instead of normal template syntax) as it allows for better string parsing and a wider range of input options, but you shouldn't need to have to use Twinkle to get a report filed.
3. (less importantly) Ideally it shouldn't be critical that one uses the template (i.e., not using the template doesn't break anything). Granted, I'd love it if we could get everyone to follow the directions, but there are plenty of times people do have a genuinely valid report or concern and they just don't "do the paperwork" of the "proper format." I mean, I can tell within a minute of visiting the page's history, as long as I can figure out what page they're talking about. It seems sorta wrong to me to reject the report just because they didn't follow the WP:BURO, but if this gets more organized, we also need a quick way to make any report report enough for auto-archiving and so forth. Maybe like a barebones set of arguments (e.g., just need "detail=" and "result=" and the template still renders correctly when you paste the existing text into it)? That way patrolling admins don't have to waste time filling in parameters just to close a report.

--slakr^\ talk / 08:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not like the new proposed header at all. It omits timestamps and edit summaries, both of which I like to see at a glance when I'm looking at reports. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing

What if the header instructed admins to {{collapse top}} {{collapse bottom}} a request once it had been answered? Unlike WP:AN and WP:ANI, this isn't a page where {{archive top}} is useful, and archiving a section immediately after it's been archived wouldn't be the best idea, in case someone has additional input. However, the discussions (long discussions, in many cases) can really get in the way; it would be simpler if I knew that any visible discussion still needed action. We could always instruct the archiving bot to remove the collapse templates during the archiving process. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow-on comments to a closed report are sometimes useful. For example a report might be declined, but then the person reported may continue to revert. If a report gets too rowdy an admin can always add {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. Some admins are annoyed by the post-closure comments but others don't care one way or the other. If you check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive299 (which is the last full archive) you'll see that only about 10% of the 60 reports have post-closure comments. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What about using a modified version, then? It works the same way, but instead of "Extended content", it says "Collapsed to save space. If you have additional information, please remove {{top template name}} and {{bottom template name}}"? The template has a parameter to perform such a function:

Collapsed to save space. If you have additional information, please remove the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} code.
text

It should solve the problem of ended discussions taking up lots of space without making it look like extra information shouldn't be added. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than collapsing we could just increase the rate of auto archiving? I don't think it's necessary for resolved reports to sit for 48 hours and it results in the page always being unnecessarily long. Swarm ♠ 08:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Definition of work

"Undoing another editor's work" is a phrase I see used to define a revert.

Is the process of reverting (undoing another's work) considered to be work itself?

It seems to me like it is 'work' to introduce information and properly fill out a citation template for referencing the information. To simply click 'undo' and revert something on the other hand, does not seem to fulfill the spirit of 'work' in the same way.

I worry we may be giving a bias towards non-inclusivity at Wikipedia if we consider reverts to be work. They discourage the wiki's expansion. People who want to halt the addition of any information whatsoever could simply gang up on information additions and build up reversions and claim people who revert the revert to be 'removing their work'.

I would posit that "reverting" a revert (restoring information that is removed) is actually not a revert, it is not undoing another's work, it is restoring which was undone. Ranze (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ranze, While I concur that "Undoing another editor's work" is a a useful analogy or layman's terms version, I would caution against over analysis of it. In my, albeit limited, experience, it can be the repeated insertion of "work" into the article that is more disruptive than removal. The "3RR" (and "1RR") bright line rule already provides a first mover advantage. (I, and perhaps other editors, would suggest that this is suboptimal). I'm not sure that allowing multiple reinsertions of contested material is a good solution. In an ideal world, any contested insertion should invoke a Talk page discussion, in hopes of forming consensus.
This is, of course, a far from ideal world, and I do concede that forcing discussion makes the process of change slower. Such a conservative approach to contentious changes to Mainspace may, however, be a useful feature. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: do you know how to go forward when people remove contested material even when it's properly sourced? I mean heck, even when something isn't sourced one generally tags it and allows people to provide one. When I provide a source from the get-go, rather than simply tagging it with Template:Unreliable source? they remove the information AND remove the source.

I mean it'd be one thing if they thought I was misintrepreting the source and simply rephrased whatever sentence the source was being used to report, but they're simply deleting the source too. Shouldn't the deletion of reliable sources from pages be protected against? Particularly when in doing so they re-insert unsourced material? Ranze (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ranze, I would suggest a) Talk page discussion (which I see has been initiated), b) requesting a Third Opinion at WP:3O, c) putting a notice at any relevant WikiProjects Talk pages, d) raising an RfC; in roughly that order. If Talk page discussion has been initiated, and the other editor simply reverts, I would suggest e) contacting an uninvolved admin, f) the edit war noticeboard at WP:3RRN, but we would hope that it did not get that far. I recommend against holding discussions in edit summaries. And remember to stay calm and stay civil.
While I realize that these may not seem like good options for your current scenario, they may be the least worst solution for content disputes across the project. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I seem to be making some headway engaging 1on1 on the WikiProject for now, will see how that goes. For a while I thought I would only be getting replies in edit summaries which was frustrating. Now that I feel less dismissed, it seems worth a shot to see how that goes before requesting external opinions. Won't say third since there's more than just me and another person involved. Ranze (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Work" can constitute the addition, removal, or alteration of content, however minor. It's not an esoteric, abstract concept, it's simply synonymous with "edit(s)". If you want to get technical, yeah, a revert is a type of edit in which an edit is reversed and would thus constitute "work". Swarm ♠ 08:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  I see what you mean @Swarm:, in terms of quantity though, it sure is a lot less worky. It's "work" in the sense of a technicality like "hey look how much work it took me to click undo and press save" rather than "hey look I actually did some research". Especially since a lot of reverts are done without adequate explanation, and done to remove reliably sourced information. At some point we need to look at what is actually correct and not who edited how many times. Wikipedia's supposed to be about the reliability of content not who can game the system. Ranze (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. It is frustrating as hell to put a ton of effort only to have it reverted over some petty BS that doesn't matter. But it's a collaborative project, just as you have every right to put in effort and make changes to an article, someone else has every right to object to your edits and revert. Repeatedly reverting their reverts isn't going to solve that, it's only going to disrupt what's supposed to be a collaborative project. That's why reverts of reverts are still reverts, why WP:3RR is a thing, and why, if reverted, the desired standard is to proceed directly to discussion and seek out dispute resolution, rather than re-add your work at all. You need to resolve disputes, not let them disrupt articles, and we don't care who's 'in the right'. Period. Also, having "actual work" reverted isn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. Any edits, whether reverted or not, are retained in the page's history. You're "work" isn't going anywhere. Swarm ♠ 06:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice please

Looking for guidance here. An IP made what was probably a good faith edit, which I disagreed with and reverted, with the edit summary “Rv per WP:BRD, please discuss on talk page”. The IP reverted to their preferred version and engaged on the talk page. I noted several reasons why their preferred version was incompatible with MOS (which I linked to) and reverted to the stable version. The IP reverted to their preferred version with no further engagement on the talk page. If I revert to the stable version I will contravene 3RR. What should the next step be? Daicaregos (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Daicaregos: Aren't there other people watching the page who can intervene if the IP editor's edits are obviously inappropriate? If not, consider WP:Dispute resolution unless you reach an agreement by simply discussing on the talk page. LjL (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution won't help unless both parties have discussed the issue in-depth on the talk page. The best course of action would be to ask the other editor to use the talk page to justify their edits. I don't know what the proper procedure would be if they don't respond, though. clpo13_(talk) 19:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Clpo13: Daicaregos has said that the other editor has engaged on the talk page and, in turn, they have reasoned there about it. LjL (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, missed that part. I thought this was about non-responsive reverting. In that case, WP:3O would be a good start to start forming consensus for one version or the other. clpo13_(talk) 19:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

About team-led reverts

Perhaps I missed it in the literature about Edit Warring-- what to do when an impulsive driveby user forces you to the 3 reverts line in 24 hours, finally agrees to a conversation in the Talk Page and while the discussion is just beginning (in a bit more than 12 hours), another user takes you to task with the same type of revert? Technically, you are not with more than 3 reverts within a 24 hours cycle, but it can look belligerent. Thanks. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 16:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No crowd, no wisdom

Previously my encounters with reversions without comment have been by IP editors and quickly resolved, in part because the articles had other participants.

Currently I have issues with three articles with no current participation except one editor who is one of the top 400 contributors to WP (!?). The lack of interest is not surprising since my primary issue with the articles is notability, and the NPOV problem is a result it being written by few editors who used primary sources. However they don't care very much, since there had been no real activity since 2009, and there had been lots of link rot.

I would call the problem "No crowd, no wisdom.". Adding from secondary sources with a different POV must have pushed a button, because I got reversions and insults rather than discussion, although some new content was finally allowed to remain. What was to be my final edit was from a very RS, but it was reverted 3 times with only more insults and unsupported claims of bias on my part.

I posted the 3RR here but it has been archived without any comments having been made. It seemed straightforward to me, I added a single sentence supported by a scholarly book and a synopsis of the book on the publisher's website. I expected an immediate result here informing the other editor not to revert such content, but to find equally RSs for a rebuttal, if there are any.FriendlyFred (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you try to discuss with the editor using talk page(s)?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How can I discuss a series of personal insults that never mentioned the content of the article?FriendlyFred (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume that the editor actually added/removed some info, not just made blank edits with summaries containing perdonal insults. These edits should be first attempted at a talk page discussion. If the editor does not reply, or the discussion goes nowhere, you can go to the next step in the dispute resolution.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking it to the next step exactly what I am doing here and on the NPOV Noticeboard. After almost two weeks, no interest from anyone else.FriendlyFred (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI if you feel that the user is acting against the policies and WP:DRN for pure dispute resolution.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not an incident or complicated dispute that should require anything more than my posting here. A user, no matter what his status with regard to other articles, has reverted well-supported content three times, refused to discuss the matter, instead posting personal insults.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the article, and the fact is that you were edit warring just as much as User:Kintetsubuffalo. When you are reverted once, you should stop editing and attempt to discuss rather than reapply the same edit. I can't really fault Kintetsubuffalo's edits on the article which seem to be appropriate or at least defensible. They have also made good attempts to explain their reasons for reverting you. But their hostility on the talk page is certainly cause for concern and there does not seem to be any particular reason for the aggressiveness towards you. However I'm not sure it rises to the level that we can sanction, but perhaps a gentle request to Kintetsubuffalo for more civility would be apposite. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Just as much?" Restoring content that was removed for no reason is edit warring? What does 3RR mean if not restoring content, giving the warring editor two more chances to leave things as they should be before reporting a violation?

I should try to discuss content with someone who makes personal comments, starting with a wisecrack about my user name? Who responded to "assume good faith" by saying "you have not earned it"? Whose only attempt at "logic" was to set up a "straw man" argument that proved nothing? This is obviously a very intelligent individual, but identifies himself as an Eagle Scout, and is demonstrating a blind spot with regard to scouting, or perhaps this one topic?FriendlyFred (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply when reverting edits by users without an account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On a number of occasions, I have filed 3RR reports listing unambiguous violations of the rule. Not once has any action been taken against the violator. Plainly, filing such reports is a waste of time because in practice, the 3RR is not considered to apply if the edits being reverted were made anonymously. This information should be added to the instructions so that people can avoid wasting their time. Something along the lines of "Anonymous editors should note that no action will result from any violation they report." would do the trick. 82.132.217.12 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I would block if someone with an account violated 3RR while reverting an IP, subject to the usual exceptions stated at WP:3RRNO and in some arbcom/community sanctions. If the 3RR violation is unambiguous and does not meet any of the exceptions, I see no reason for one not to block (or very strongly warn, with one more revert being a block) for it. If you can name a few instances where you've seen this I can take a closer look and see if I can figure out why no blocks were issued. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And reverting vandalism doesn't count. But if it's not within the exceptions, then edit warring, WP:3RR and WP:BRD all apply, as it is not 'open season' on newcomers. IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Examples? Diffs?

Precisely. As a matter of simple fact, 3RR does apply when reverting anon edits. As another matter of simple fact, there exist trolls. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, per policy, the rules should be applied equally. However, in practice, many editors regard all IP edits as vandalism and some editors also have a free pass for 3RR because they're doing Serious Admin Bizniz, or have friends who are. This isn't how it's meant to be, but that's cliques for you. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Four reverts by User:Boomer Vial, within 25 minutes: [12], [13], [14], [15]
2. 3RR report: [16]
3. Report ignored: [17]. Administrator stated that "There isn't a 3RR violation here".

I have plenty more examples. 84.53.70.94 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, technically, there was a violation of 3rr. There was also quite a bit of a violation of WP:CIV, too. Not saying "two wrongs make a right," but that's a case where it'd be best to either block both or neither, and blocking both would have probably had a negative effect on their later behavior.

WP:IAR does apply to looking the other way on mistakes when doing so prevents further disruption, even in the case of IP editors. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive.

I do admit that there are unfortunately going to be some users who mistakenly think that IP editors are second-class editors, but they are unfortunately not going to pay any attention to this message. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing "technical" about it. There was a violation of 3RR, plain and simple, which resulted in no action whatsoever - not even a warning. 84.53.70.94 (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, so data point number one is that four reverts in 25 minutes, as clear a 3RR violation as there could be, actually "isn't a 3RR violation" according to User:EdJohnston but is grudgingly considered to be "technically" a violation by User:Ian.thomson. Before I post another example, perhaps someone might like to offer a counter-example? What is the most recent case where an anonymous user reported a registered user for breaking the 3RR and the registered user was blocked? 82.132.216.66 (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You've completely ignored the extenuating circumstances that were pointed out. Wikipedia doesn't have Vogon-esque laws that must be obeyed under pain of death, it focuses more on guidelines meant to keep things running smoothly. As was explained, for a block to have been fair, both parties would have needed to be blocked (for different reasons), and that would have likely only stirred up more shit. The edit warring was over and not likely to be continued (blocks are preventative, not punitive), so there was no reason to carry out a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There were no extenuating circumstances, as was explained repeatedly (see, I can arrogantly use the passive voice to try to make my opinion seem more important than it is too). There was a blatant 3RR violation. After 4 reverts in 25 minutes, what makes you think his edit warring was over? What makes you think that he didn't even need to be warned about his conduct? 82.132.216.66 (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying the reporting user was a perfect example of civility and didn't deserve a block as well? The reporting user was being highly uncivil, and you cannot deny that in good faith. That is an extenuating circumstance. If you don't think that WP:CIV is a thing, go on ahead and start insulting people and see what happens. See WP:AGF, which you seem to be having a problem with (if you're even aware of it at all). And again, we don't operate off of Vogon-esque laws, even if that's what you want. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Highly uncivil? Hardly. You seem to have missed the point which is that User:EdJohnston didn't actually say "I'm not blocking because I think there are extenuating circumstances". He said "there isn't a 3RR violation". He made a mistake, which he could very easily have apologised for and rectified, but he hasn't bothered to do so. Why did the edit warrior not even need a warning let alone a block? They did, obviously, but the admin made a mistake that they are refusing to acknowledge. 82.132.235.210 (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At first glance the most recent might have been Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive303#User:TheManchoMan reported by User:100.12.206.17 (Result: Blocked). If you look through the archives you'll see that reports by IPs are a minority, and among those, most show that the IP is confused. The example given above in the earlier message was obviously a valid report, however, and the article was protected to stop the edit-war. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. And it was User:EdJohnston who blocked in that case. Why is he refusing to account for not bothering to even warn the user in this case? What is his reason for treating this user so differently and endorsing their 3RR violation and dishonesty? 82.132.216.66 (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston does a lot of work around here. If you think you can do a better job, then become an admin. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

He might do a lot of work but it doesn't look like very good work. He has offered no explanation or apology for his failure to deal properly with an unquestionable 3RR violation.82.132.238.129 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• TLDR version of above thread: "This one thing happened once that I disagreed with, so it means rules shouldn't exist". No. We will continue to block block 3RR violators, or not block them, as unique circumstances dictate in every case, without regard for whether or not either or both parties has a user name or not. You cannot extrapolate the general from one case, even if the one case didn't go the way you like. That's not how life works. You also don't people to change their minds by calling them all prejudiced without any evidence. --Jayron32 01:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. "This one thing" happens all the time, and the rule should exist but effectively doesn't for some people. No-one has explained why this user was exempt from the rules and was encouraged to break them by User:EdJohnston. What "unique circumstances" dictated that this 3RR violation wasn't one and didn't warrant even a warning? If I'd have known it would be ignored, I wouldn't have wasted my time creating the report, and I'm furious that my time was wasted. I want to save other people from wasting their time. You prefer that they just waste it or what?

Edit warring and 3RR are enforced in a fluid fashion. Just because a rule is sometimes enforced and sometimes not enforced does not invalidate the rule. We handle things on a case by case basis here. The rules are here to allow us to make the project go forward, they are not here to bind us. HighInBC 01:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because a rule is sometimes enforced and sometimes not enforced does not invalidate the rule. - that is exactly what it does, in fact! A rule that some people are arbitrarily exempt from isn't a rule at all. How did approving of this user's 4 reverts in 25 minutes make the project go forward, exactly? 82.132.235.210 (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The obvious thing to note here is that "sometimes enforced and sometimes not enforced" does not equate to arbitrariness. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"sometimes enforced and sometimes not enforced" is a perfect definition of arbitrariness, in fact. 109.155.216.108 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarifications please

Can anyone please clarify or point to the appropriate policy for the following please:

• Does a 3RR exception apply to reverts against a new account or IP where these are a content dispute, i.e. not themselves "obvious vandalism"?
• Does such an exception apply if there is a consensus on the article talk page opposing such a new editot (but it's still a content issue, not "obvious vandalism")?
• Is there an exception if it is a content dispute, but one editor (maybe not yet at 3RR) can be said to have provoked the other (who has now breached 3RR)?
• Is there an exception if the contested change is "obviously wrong" (but still a content issue, not "obvious vandalism")? How "obvious" would that have to be? To a subject expert? To the man on the Clapham omnibus? To anyone passing WP:CIR?

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say in general that you will not find such exceptions, unless they rely on common sense. The test for obvious vandalism is deliberately quite high, so there's very little wriggle room - obviously wrong can be subject to debate, and can sometimes be in fact right. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That was my understanding too. The "bright line" was deliberately uncrossable by single editors, even "if they're right". If there really is "consensus" to revert a change, then there are presumably several editors available to revert a pushed change without individually needing to breach 3RR. However recent actions, inactions and boomerang blocks here seem to suggest the other view: I don't see this as a positive change. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Is refusing a pending edit a "revert"?

I have been granted pending edit privileges and was wondering how they work within the context of 3RR? If you refuse a pending edit in one sense they are reverts because you are reversing an edit by another editor, but in another they are not because the content was never published. So one hand you can argue that there is no reason to limit the number of times an editor can revert a pending edit because it won't have a de-stabilising effect on the article, but on the other hand since the edit doesn't go live until it is reviewed there is no urgency to revert. Basically I would just like to know how admins perceive the revert of a pending edit. Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This is my take on it. Strictly speaking you only reject pending edits that are vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content; generally, this is why pending changes is applied to a page, there is a history of such behaviours. In those circumstances, a revert does not count for the purposes of 3RR. Good faith edits however should be accepted or undone in the normal way with an appropriate edit summary; and reverts of these will count towards 3RR. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

TJD2

Reports concerning TJD2 have been archived twice this year without action, in January and a few days ago. He reverted five times to restore a BLP violation recently, including once after I filed a report here and after he had responded to it. His response was: "Hate to break it to you, but edit warring is violating the 3RR."

I realize that it's too stale for a block, but not warning him means he'll keep on doing it, and it's not just the reverting but that he's adding nonsense. Pinging FreeKnowledgeCreator and some of the admins active on the board: Coffee, Bbb23, Widr, EdJohnston, SQL, Bishonen. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't help but feel like this would be more appropriate material for WP:AN or WP:ANI. SQL^{Query me!} 04:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It has been several days since TJD2 restored the disputed material. Hopefully, he won't do it again and that will be the end of the matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

He won't do it again at that article, but the lack of response is making him think it's okay to edit like that. I've never seen action not taken at AE when someone reverts again after having responded to the report.

SQL, I don't want to make yet another report elsewhere. I'd have unarchived the recent one here if I'd noticed sooner that it had been archived. I'm posting here as a second best. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sarah: I just gave him a fairly clear warning. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Coffee, thanks for doing that. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Me too. It's unfortunate that the last report was archived, and I've told the user he was undeservedly lucky. Bishonen | talk 08:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ip address involved in edit warring.

• 2001:16a2:225:6000:14ea:e32c:309e:31c4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:16a2:42b:9900:7536:4273:1f26:38d0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:252:d26:d7f0:dfe:f35e:79cc:b5ce (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This ip address is reverting all the pages again and again. He seems to be a sockpuppet of account Fareed30 as he also use to keep on reverting again and again. He has been editing pages like Anil Kapoor, Fawad Khan, Saif Ali Khan and many more. Issue is that he keeps on ignoring the comments which are left in the edit section. Can you please have look into this matter. Thankyou

Links to his edits are [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] etcSaladin1987 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Saladin1987. The right place to report this is on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is allowed to break the 3RR, and who is not?

Someone who made 5 reverts in 24 hours did not get blocked. They did not even get warned about their disruptive behaviour. Meanwhile I, who reported them, was attacked and insulted by four different editors including the 3RR violator: Edit warring IP that can't spell, Looks like we have the pot calling the kettle black (insult left together with a false claim that I had broken the 3RR), Of course it is. You reverted existing text. Hence, you edit-warred. Cheers mate! (blatant trolling, bizarrely claiming that my initial edit to the article was a revert), IP has probably had too much sangria

The admin who closed the report did not explain why he didn't block or warn the user, so I am left to guess their reasons. I assume it's because the disruptive user is their friend. If some people are allowed to break the 3RR, it would be nice for there to be some clear indication of who is exempt and why. 88.10.70.228 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a complaint about the result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive317#User:Jytdog reported by User:81.36.240.108 (Result: Page protected), which I closed on May 28. Your IP address is different from that of the filer of this report. Though I closed this, I don't remember the details. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Images

• 66.87.79.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, this IP address (66.87.79.137) keep reverting my edits for no reason. I mean, they're just images. There's nothing with that. Why can't I have any images in the year articles? It's not even fair. 207.161.13.82 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I left a warning for this IP editor. Let us know if this pattern continues. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 207.161.13.82 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Part 2

It happened again. Different IP. 2602:306:3357:BA0:81FC:22A7:8971:ACBD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP reverted my edit in the 1893 article. This one was not a pattern. The reverting better stop soon, cause I've had enough of this nonsense.207.161.13.82 (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification please of 1RR

I added the following passage to Jeremy Corbyn (which is subject to a 1RR for circumstances with which I am not familiar: I have not edited on that page before today)

Following the Brexit campaign (in which Corbyn gave what his critics called a "half-hearted" call for the UK to remain in the European Union), and the success of the "Leave" campaign, a motion of no confidence in Corbyn as Labour leader was tabled by the MPs Margaret Hodge and Ann Coffey in a letter to the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party on 24 June 2016. Hodge claimed "“This has been a tumultuous referendum which has been a test of leadership ... Jeremy has failed that test". John McDonnell and union leaders including Len McCluskey condemned the motion.

The passage was fully sourced by citations from the BBC and The Guardian. User:Bodney deleted it as "too early" and "too biased". He also wrote in his summary "I hope you are aware Smearus [sic] that you can only do one revert in 24 hours on this article".

A documented formal challenge to a party leader by his or her own parliamentary party must in itself be WP:NOTABLE. "Too early" is a piece of WP:OR that seems to me has no relevance. The opinions of both sides are mentioned in the extract, so as to avoid bias. I construe Bodney's deletion as an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and aside his rudeness in rewriting my name, and his hint of referral to arbitration. I do not believe that the 1Revert lock on this page should prevent the provision of genuine information, and invoking it in this sense seems to me to be intimidatory.

Incidentally the paragraph was then restored by another editor, and then deleted again by a third for what I regard as similarly specious reasons - see article talk page.

I should be grateful to learn whether, should I reinstate the paragraph and its sources, that would be regarded as an infringement of WP:1RR, as User:Bodney implies. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I simply believe that a motion before it is even voted upon is not notable. We do not know at this stage what will come of the future vote. We are not crystal ball gazers or war correspondents. We can wait 2 days. At least two editors had already deleted the section title on this paragraph before my edit on the same day, to be twice changed back by Smerus. I do believe the paragraph was biased as the were two quotes from critics (a possible minority view - we dont know yet) and a brief mention from Corbyn supporters. I was away and unable to balance the section (which placed in the article too early). The is an over use of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by some editors, when another editor disagrees. -- BOD -- 18:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Slow

I posted and it takes over 12 hours (so far) for an admin to come and see a straight case of 3RR violation and insults. Why is that? Not enough volunteers? Debresser (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not enough volunteers.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Then perhaps this noticeboard should be merged with WP:ANI, where there seem to be enough admins. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO, it will flood ANI. The most notorious cases though can be taken to ANI rather than added here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. ANI is flooded as it is. This would just flood it even more. Not to mention, Twinkle (among other tools, I'm sure) would have to be updated. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI is flooded, but they are coping. Edit wars need fast reactions. A merge would include admins from here joining forces with their brethren at ANI. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Illegible advice

When trying to add a new post, I found this piece of text in the edit screen:

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

The part saying "version from before" I understand, but the rest is nonsense. eg, "the diffs are revert" -- no, the diffs are new edits! (that is the point of this page), away from the preferred version. Then, from 'showing material ...' you lost me completely. 'showing material', what is that supposed to be? (for example, what happens if this part were removed completely?). -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh and let's be clear: tha page threatens to block me if I don't fill it right. So there we are. -DePiep (talk)

• Thanks for all the support. It helps beatin 3RR. -DePiep (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ignored report

Could someone tell me why the report I filed three days ago was completely ignored and no action taken against the person who unambiguously violated the rule? 128.40.9.123 (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, no. So, I won't be wasting my time using this page in the future. 128.40.9.123 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You must be referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive315#User:Chiswick Chap reported by User:128.40.9.123 (Result: ). It seems that the editor you complained about decided to stop editing the article, and he has done so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why the report was ignored. Reports being arbitrarily ignored leaves a very sour taste. Like I said, I shan't make any more, and if I get the chance I'll discourage others from doing so as well. 128.40.9.123 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

What is up with the different levels of tolerance for admins on AN? I was just reading a section on AN today and a user was not blocked because he hadn't been warned. When I was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR, I never received a warning. This has got to stop, all admins should have the same consensus on an AN post... Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That would be a rather nasty case of groupthink. We can assume administrators are people, and people naturally have different views on things as well as different approaches to superficially similar issues. Consensus does not mean that everyone must be forced to have the same opinion or the same approach to a problem. MPS1992 (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, you might be talking about this edit warring complaint of August 10 which led to your being blocked 24 hours for warring at Sausage Party. You were alerted to the 3RR rule here on August 8 and notified of the filing of a 3RR report on August 10. In what sense are you stating that you 'never received a warning'? EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: I remember very clearly giving you warnings about your ER and you promptly removing them from your talk page. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Template

If I want to report here, what is the template for a new section? 86.22.8.235 (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@89.22.8.235: Just click this link. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What to do when a report is archived.

Hello everyone, I filed a request a few days ago and it was archived before any action was taken. I was wondering what the policy is on reposting incidents, or if anyone looks at the archives. The user has stopped his disruptive editing the last time I looked, but I am just wondering in general about what to do when this happens. If anyone wants to look at it, the report is available here. Thanks, Gluons12 ^talk 15:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC).

Letter vs Spirit of the rule discussed at WikiLawyer essay

A common misperception is that eds get 3 free reverts before they have to discuss. Among other places, this might be inadvertently implied by current text at the Wikilawyer essay. I attempted to delete the 3RR example but another editor reverted (thereby preserving the text). The other editor has appeared at the talk page but only to ask a question and express their hope that others will offer their thoughts, and some are starting to do so. I've explained mine in more detail at that venue. Please stop by and chime in! The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Wikilawyering#3RR_example ....... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

can't you make this simpler?

I just gave up on reporting 3rr vio.. 80.233.239.118 (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Having an autoconfirmed account and then using WP:TWINKLE makes it a great deal simpler. Register now, useful for next time. MPS1992 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain this in a simpler and understanding way? Martinkopperudandersen (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Go to Special:Preferences, select the 'Gadgets' tab and click on the 'Twinkle' box. Then hit the 'Save' button at bottom of page.
2. Navigate to the user page of the person you want to report such as User:Example. You should see a 'TW' tab at top of the page.
3. From 'TW' select ARV. This will open up a box called 'Advanced Reporting and Vetting'.
4. In the roll-down at top of page, select 'Edit warring (WP:AN3)'
5. Click on the 'Load' button. This will bring up some recent edits by the named person at the named article. You need to click next to each edit you consider a revert that you want to include in the report.
6. The ARV form will ask you some questions about warnings. These should be answered.
7. Before leaving this screen, be sure the data you have entered is what you wanted. There is no further chance to correct before filing. When you are ready, hit 'Submit report'. Twinkle will go ahead and warn the user and file your report at AN3.
8. After the report is filed you can make manual changes. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

how to request enforcement of 3rr

Reading the dashboard/noticeboard/etc. pages, I really have no clarity what I need to do to obtain enforcement of a 3rr violation. It would seem like I should able to just alert an administrator (e.g. identify a page and the editor who has made 4 reverts of the page (not subject to any of the exceptions) within a 24-hour period). Is that not enough? Fabrickator (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You should have attempted to resolve the issue previously with the person you are reporting. Admins usually won't get involved if you haven't tried to resolve the dispute yourself. If you make a report but don't include diffs it is possible that nobody may take action on it, since figuring out whether such a complaint has a real basis is not always simple. For more advice, see Wikipedia:Edit warring#Handling of edit-warring behaviors or ask any admin. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

An illustration of edit warring on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWqoI7UKpQg --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oscar Munoz (executive)

The controversy surrounding a passenger being removed from United Express Flight 3411 has inspired all kinds of edit warring on the page for United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz. Can someone please look at this? I’m personally attempting to stop non-neutral and non-encyclopedic content from being added. Many editors are simply adding tabloid-ish content and not much else. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscar_Munoz_(executive)&action=history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyMagician (talk • contribs)

Takes a bit of cheek for someone who has been edit-warring to post here about edit-warring... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Can you please look at the edits I have been reverting. Tons of non-neutral, non-POV stuff. But hey! I’m done. Check my edit history; barely active. Jumped into being active while reading up on this story. Done! Bye. --SpyMagician (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Indication for when about to trip 3RR

I've probably done just that, admittedly by mistake (forgot about it until I took a step back and realised that a user won't be stopping their editing for some time), but where's the visual indication that I've done so? Will a warning pop up somewhere, or will an admin from behind their radar tracking screen leave me an angry message? New to me. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: There is no visual indication. Editors are expected to keep track of their own edits. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, good to know. Response appreciated. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Scott Pelley

Hello, folks. I'm unsure of whether I'll be violating the three-revert rule if I revert the re-addition of POV material in the above-referenced article. Any comments or advice will be greatly appreciated. Recent page history is here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible edit war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.115.39.66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli9011 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Respected kashmiri You can verify my edits Paras Wiki (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Reporting a war rather than a warrior

Despite its title, "Edit warring", this page is set up to fill a very restricted purpose, reporting one edit warrior, with the assumption that the person doing the reporting has been countering the efforts of the edit warrior. I want to report an edit war but don't know where to do that. It's been going on for over a week at Somali language, with maybe four editors taking turns adding Somaliland to and removing it from the list of places where the language spoken. They've been discussing it on the talk page as well, but restraint is not being exercised while a resolution is sought. Largoplazo (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you considered requesting page protection as an interim measure? Just a thought. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It didn't work the first time. The feud started right back up within 12 hours or so of that block's expiration. I see now that the same admin has protected it a second time. Largoplazo (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My edits illegally deleted by user:kashmiri Paras Wiki (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Illegally? LordAtlas (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ease of reporting

Hi everybody! I have been on Wikipedia for over a year, but there are still certain elements of coding on Wikipedia that really confuses me. For example, I have been trying to report a user for a violation of edit-warring and I actually find myself completely confused as to how the reporting is even done. I repeatedly used edit summaries to ask the user nicely to go to the talk page, but they refused, and I spent minutes going up and down on this page trying to learn how to report. I ended up simply writing that I might report in an edit summary so it would at least have some effect. I'm pretty much just a content writer on Wikipedia, not an expert on the coding itself, and I just wanted to ask if someone has an instructional video or something to do it? I'd genuinely like to know. I know I probably appear completely stupid writing this, but I just have to admit navigating this noticeboard is very overwhelming and definitely not like anything a content writer is used to. :P But back on point, seriously, does anyone have a tutorial video or some easier instructions? LocalNet (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's ironic that immediately after asking for help, after already spending many minutes trying to learn, that I suddenly think I figured it out. At least I hope I did. Next time will tell. LocalNet (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If not, one recommendation is to click Preferences (top right) and then select the Gadgets tab and then enable (tick or check) Twinkle. Having done so -- in most web browsers -- then when you are on someone's talk page there will be a "TW" drop-down near the "View History" link in the top right. From that drop-down you select ARV (this stands for Armed Response Vehicle in the UK) and then choose the edit-warring report thing. That sounds a lot more complicated than it is, but basically it replaces most of the manual report-constructing requirements with a point-and-click solution. I am good with wikiformat but I still find the Twinkle way much easier for this. MPS1992 (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In a previous post, I listed the 8 steps required to file a 3RR report using Twinkle. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@MPS1992 and EdJohnston: Thank you so much for the advice, both of you! :) Sorry for the late reply, I don't have this page on my Watchlist. :) LocalNet (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem

I am not going to mention which editer it is until I must. I made an edit on the Italian profanity page. A week ago it was reverted by a fellow Wikipedian And changed. I changed it back to mine once and a few days later they did it again. I'm trying to avoid am edit war and I even contacted the user but they are just ignoring me and I'm not sure what to do now. Their last edit is slightly offensive to me. I just need a little help? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay wait here: User:Mimiddu As for the page it was done on: Italian profanity Dinah Kirkland (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: once you have been reverted, don't make the same edit again. Stop and discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That is what I do. I tried to discuss but the user ignores me and in tired of people not listening. This is why I took a break from Wikipedia Dinah Kirkland (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Would these be considered as edit-warring?

I see these as brightline 3RR. Am I wrong? How so?

Article #1

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

Article #2

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

I'm not looking for any action on these, as they're both stale. However there is some disagreement elsewhere as to whether they're EW, 3RR or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's the kind of stuff that makes me want to full protect a page for a couple of days to force the participants to use the talk page. In the first example, everyone finally went to the talk page. In the second, they did not. I can't speak for AN3 standards on the whole (since I don't volunteer here often). It's the kind of activity I really try to not block over, since it isn't about POV and doesn't threaten the neutrality of the articles, it's just annoying as hell for everyone else. In both cases, I would have strongly recommended dropping a note on the talk page, instead of relying on edit summaries. I like to on the first revert, to make it clear that I'm trying to work with them, and if I'm being honest, to demonstrate my own good faith in the process if they refuse to communicate and just keep reverting me blindly. Yes, I will add a new note for each revert, pinging them, so it is clear to any admin that I tried to communicate. To answer your question more directly, is it edit warring? Yes. Does it violate 3RR? Yes. Could an admin have blocked for it? Absolutely, but I think (and hope) they would have tried communication first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, they're edit-warring, no, they're not 3RR violations. The initial edit in both examples are not reverts, and they don't count toward the "allowed" total. Parsecboy (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Confusing wording

In the template for creating a new report, the instructions for the "Previous version reverted to" diff are confusing (at least to me!):

• "In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place" - fair enough, you're looking for the 'original' un-edit-warred version (or at least that's what I take this to mean);
• "and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to." - I don't get this. The person edit-warring will presumably have added material or removed material to differentiate it from the original. Then they get reverted. And they re-do their edit, etc. Surely it's their first edit that is then the 'baseline' to show what is being reverted to?

In any case, I've filled out a report as best I can and assumed my interpretation of the first bullet point is what's being looked for... Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

What does one do to appeal a bullshit ex cathedra pronouncement here?

Seriously. Apparently I've just been "sentenced" to being forbidden to remove BLP violations for a month. Obviously, I refuse to comply with such an egregiously unjust edict, but is there any avenue of rejoinder in such a case? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_by_sanctioned_editors. However, I recommend you immediately stop your attacks towards slackr, or you might find yourself in a position where the appeal no longer matters. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How to report a user violating 3RR on multiple pages

Hi. I'm confused and have questions. I've read this page and googled it but I couldn't found the answer. And I think this page would be better with it.

1. How can we report a user violating 3RR at more than two pages, especially when the reporter is not involved in any of or involved in only one of the pages?
2. Is it even possible to report the fact a user violating 3RR at multiple pages?
3. Can or should we report it at once together? If so, how can I write it in a format?
4. Should we report a user multiple times per page?
5. Do we have to choose only one of the pages and report a user about only it with or without referring violation at the other pages in the comment section?

Thanks.--Wickych (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wickych: I think you could include both articles on one report. But to be clear, they have to exceed 3 reverts on the same article to have violated WP:3RR. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

prevention of edit warring and false-flagging/reporting

There have been two destructive reverts today on the Narita International Airport Corporation, the user deleting the material about the Denial of Service hack of the airport website. Clearly and properly referenced from South China Morning Post (a Hong-Kong newspaper), I really wanna undo the destructive edits, but am wary of 3RR being misquoted; if it is undone, it would be exempt from the 3RR due to the facts of the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.146.76 (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@207.228.146.76: If posting here doesn't help, I suggest notifying a noticeboard like WP:NPOVN for more people to monitor the article. If that is not enough and disruptive editing persists, it's also possible to request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Individual editors are always subject to edit warring policy, but they can request help; reverting obvious vandalism of course doesn't count as a content-dispute revert. —PaleoNeonate – 12:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who reverted these edits. Note that this IP editor belongs to a group of 30+ IPs that have been trying to insert weird, confusing, unsourced claims and half-truths over a time frame of years, so sorry for my lack of patience with these edits. In any case, PaleoNeonate improved the added content, so it's resolved now. -- intgr [talk] 12:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible breakout of edit war

• Srobidx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I am growing concerned about an argument that has broken out on the 2018 Winter Olympics page around a section called "Showcase of technical innovations" which has been repeatedly removed by one user and re-added by the other. In my opinion the content is rather dubious and there may well be a COI going on. I suggested the two users moved their 'discussion' to the Talk page which one of them did, but I then discovered that the two of them have been hurling insults at each other via their individual user Talk pages. So I don't think they are prepared to enter into a useful and productive discussion and I don't really want to get involved any further. Rather than report them for edit warring I thought I would just alert you so you can assess the situation! Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This might be the same issue as what was described at Talk:2018 Winter Olympics#User:Srobidx edits. There was a personal attack here by Srobidx. The issue is now stale, but if promptly reported it might have been taken to ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Flagging an edit war without reporting individual editors?

Is there a way to ask the admins to take a look at a particular page, without filing a complaint against individual posters? That seems to be the only option here, but I think that's not particularly helpful when there are numerous editors involved; too adversarial to single out a particular editor in the report, when it may be that there are several editors doing the reverting/counter-reverting. Any way to be more informal and just say "hey, someone should take a look at Page X"? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is nobody you can report to admins for violating policy you might as well participate on the article talk page and try to help steer the discussion. If you think there is a general edit war you could ask for protection at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to update an editwar report with a new tag-team partner?

I have an editwarring report open at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Torsodog reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: ). Since I opened it, another long-invloved editwarrior has joined in.[29][30] How do I handle this? Do I update the current report? Open a second report? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Tweaks to instructions

I've made two tweaks to the instructions. [31] - Some editors were confusing adding an edit warring warning with adding a notification of a report. Hopefully this makes it a little more clear. [32] - Modified editnotice to repeat reminder. Awareness is something I think we should consider, especially when dealing with new editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Report filed through twinkle not showing up

I just filed this report [33] using twinkle but it's not showing up on the main page. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I found the problem. You had [[WP:JDL][]. Notice the brackets. ~ GB fan 12:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks! Khirurg (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

User Borsoka is now actively even deleting my comment from the disruptive edit page

This user is now deleting my comments from the notice I put up on the disruptive edit page.

Surely this is wrong since it should be for someone else to decide and not for him to delete my comment.

Can someone take action against this user please, it would seem that one can't even report him as he even deletes the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.74.178 (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, how is it that the user has managed to delete my comments from the disruptive admin page so much so that I have to write them all over again and can't revert to when I had them written?

As such, I will post my comments here since I can't seem to be able to save them as the user keeps deleting my comments and substitutes them for his own.

The user keeps deleting completely fine sourced material and phrases such as "| 1224 || || The Diploma Andreanum was issued by Andrew II of Hungary granting provisional autonomy to colonial Germans residing in the present-day area of Sibiu." and "| 1438 || || The Unio Trium Nationum pact was signed as a reaction to the Transylvanian peasant revolt at Bobâlna." and "| 1514 || || György Dózsa led a peasant's revolt in Transylvania against Hungarian nobles." for example. The user also reverts massive edits that are actually positive to the article as they contain conversion of mere links to Google Books into proper web citations for example. The user also does not single out things that he has a problem with but rather makes sweeping reverts wasting other user's contributions away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.74.178 (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Techiqs Techiqs 08:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What do I do if I suspect two IPs are the same user who is using multiple IPs to avoid an edit war brightline?

So here's the situation, an IP user came along and inserted a bunch of (cn) content into the lede that seemed like asking for a citation that the sky was blue. I reverted - please note I didn't realized precisely how that piece of wiki-code interacted with the page when I wrote the edit summary. I still stand by the reversion though.

Then a different IP came along and reverted to the previous IP's preferred version.

I reverted a second time, clarifying my reason for opposition and asking them to take the discussed edit to talk so we could build consensus as per WP:BRD.

Instead they did not go to talk and just restored their preferred version.

Now they're different static IP addresses, but you could produce that just by going to a Starbucks for two edits; I suspect that the user is the same user. And they have not gone to talk to discuss their edits. If they are the same user, they've triggered the edit warring brightline condition WP:3RR but I don't know if it's possible in a circumstance like this to demonstrate it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I've geolocated the IPs (by using geolocate button at the bottom of their lists of contributions) and they appear to both be from the same location in Hong Kong, so they are very likely the same person. And it appears they're the same person just from their edits anyway. So if you write a report, you should be able to show they are the same person to an admin. However, they only appear to have reverted twice within 24 hours, so not enough to break 3RR yet (you need 4 or more to break 3RR and their first edit doesn't count as a revert. TedEdwards 16:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll post to talk and give them some time to reply before taking any further action but appreciate the feedback. I wasn't sure if the geolocation would be sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Help Techiqs 08:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techiqseton (talk • contribs)

User: juanpumpchump

Hello,

as per instructions - I have read them and edit warring and blocking on either a temporary or permanent basis is not what I would like and therefore it has ceased.

Apologies to the administrators and thank you.

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and unconstructive editing.

What is the best way to deal with a user who is engaging in a slow burn edit war and tries to sneak their preferred version in to an article? The user will not engage in discussions and refuses to acknowledge that they do not have the right to impose their version on an article. --91.110.126.37 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

(Comments by User:KellyHillMinister related to the AN EW case --DBigXrayᗙ 22:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this user (or which one) is edit warring. Don't want to report wrong user.

As seen here [34]. I do not know if @Coltsfan: is the one doing edit warring, or is it the users that are getting their edits reverted there that he is calling "socks" are the one edit warring. I don't know which one to report, or should I report this at all on the main project page.

Thank you in advance for any assista,ce with this problem.

Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The socks have been blocked for sockpuppetry, so no, you shouldn't report it at WP:AN3. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.:) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrectly placed comment

User:WikiDan61 he edit wrong information he get jealous of true information he abuse another user work Durrani khurasan (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Durrani khurasan: This is not the proper venue to discuss this edit war. Please discuss on the main project page (here). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Doubt regarding vandalism

I have a doubt in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lugnuts. In the notice containing six lines, in the last line, should the word before 'AWB' in line six, is a violation of any of the policies of wikipedia?Or does it lead to vandalism?Adithyak1997 (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts has an attention-getting box at the top of their talk. Each line is linked to a suitable target. Line 6 features a naughty word and reads: fuck AWB—the link shows a diff with "using AWB" in the edit summary and the edit certainly appears to warrant strong language. Wikipedia is not intended to make everyone happy and while I wouldn't put "fuck AWB" on my talk, some would. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: My main doubt is whether it needs to be reported somewhere other than the user's talk page.Adithyak1997 (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's fine. It's offensive to some but not in a way that violates a policy. WP:Civility requires civility when interacting with others but that's a bit different from a personal statement at the top of a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

New to report

Hey, I've made a report against User:103.224.161.36 for doing repeat reverting Australian dates to American dates for Australian celebrity Tina Arena. I'm new for reporting someone and I think I've stuffed the report up I've submitted.. this user just won't stop reverting, turning into edit war as it seems.

Thank you and apologies again. Cristabel0 (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

New York Times crossword puzzle

Fans of the NYT crossword puzzle might want to check out 9 Down for the Monday puzzle. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank youOrville1974^talk 05:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Don't know where to go ~ Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

• Gordon Ramsay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I edited on the project page this ~ == Gordon Ramsay ==

I have left an edit on User talk:Nampa DC please get involved ~ I can not revert this editor's edits ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

and this is what I got (Undid revision 904929728 by Mitchellhobbs (talk) that's not a report) ~

no help on where or how get help ~ it was an active edit war being started ~ I just backed off and said fine ~ If an young editor can not get help on another young editor warring with on these admin pages ~ then maybe one of you can tell me where to go ~ instead of 'that's not a report ~ and blanking your request for help ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Consider posting at Talk:Gordon Ramsay to explain the dispute. You have twice told the other editor to use the talk page but have never explained the thing you are reverting about there: File:Hell's Kitchen (45797062395).jpg. They want to remove the image and you want to keep it in the article. The rationale is unclear, for both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Someone is reverting to inaccurate text on this page--charactering a novel without having read it, since it's not been published. Corrections by those familiar with the text--such as myself--are being reverted, in what appears to be an edit war. How can such misuse of wiki be stopped? Also, balanced quotation from Guardian article on topic is being cut, as is reference to James Barry page, which cites similar trans controversy regarding Rachel Holmes' biography, which was accused of cis-gendering. Hedgielamar (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Characterizing" not "charactering," that is. Hedgielamar (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hedgielamar: Since multiple editors disagree with your changes, you need to take the matter to Talk:E. J. Levy and/or Talk:James Barry. You may not edit war to try to get your preferred version of the page in place. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) Keeps reverting my edits on The Jessica Pegula page and Cori Gauff page when I add their commonly used nicknames to their pages. This user has also Violated Wikipedia's 3 revert rule within 24 hours when they constantly reverted my edits last week more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same page's just because they disagree with my interpretation on how to add a nickname to the pages. I have mentioned nicknames on Cori Gauff's and Jessica Pegula's Talk pages and their is no concensus to not add their nicknames or to otherwise revert my edits. This user keeps reverting my edits just because they prefer their version of the Wikipedia pages and disagree with my edits. Nicknames are a vital part of the person's information and should be on their Wikipedia pages. I posted a 3 revert rule warning on this user's talk page and they deleted the post. Wikipedia has instructions here on adding nicknames and that's what I have tried to do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography I also read on Wikipedia under the 3 revert rule that an editor is not suppose to revert another editors edits just because they disagree with the content and edits even though these edits give vital info about the person. Princeofearth (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I put this in the wrong discussion! Princeofearth (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Galatz

• Galatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bilorv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Writing this on mobile so can't give diffs or make a formal report. Can someone report Galatz for making dozens of reverts before establishing consensus? They are likely planning to make 100 further reverts which will all have to be re-reverted after discussion if consensus is that they were correct. I have told them I will reply to them as soon as I am back home. This mass reverting before discussion is not helpful regardless of whether the user is correct or not. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 19:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at what you just wrote Can someone report Galatz for making dozens of reverts before establishing consensus?. I am reverting your edits you made without YOU having a consensus. You literally had 1 other person agreeing with you in a local consensus and are attempting to make hundreds of edits based on that, creating a sweeping policy change. As I stated to you, if you want to make sweeping policy changes, it should be brought to WP:VPP - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not a policy change, and Bilorv was making our articles match the actual references. Don't revert any more of these changes without first obtaining consensus. Bilorv, you as well should firm up consensus for this change before making further edits, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely SarekOfVulcan, I planned from the moment I saw the first revert to discuss this further before making edits on any new articles, but in the meantime I am dealing with an editor that has just made "99+" consecutive reverts, according to my notifications, and I can't help noticing that you haven't blocked that editor for what is one of the clearest cases of edit warring I've ever seen. The block is still necessarily as a preventative measure to stop this user from causing further disruption on hundreds more articles in the meantime. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Galatz's last revert was at 19:25, just before their response here. Therefore, there's nothing to prevent. Yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: There are further edits of mine which the user could have reverted, and you replied 5 minutes after their last revert so you couldn't have known at the time that it would be their last revert. And on the not of "nothing to prevent. Yet.", please see ANI. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 21:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Where to report

I'm planning on reporting an editor whose edits are almost entirely adding unnecessary punctuation and making ENGVAR violations (which have been reverted by multiple different editors), but not sure whether this is an appropriate venue, as although they have returned to some articles multiple times (in one case seven times over a few months) to reinsert their edits after being reverted, they have not broken 3RR (they usually return a couple of days later to make the same edits, not using the undo function). They've also failed to respond to several messages on their talk page. Is here appropriate? ANI seems a bit much (and also often fails to result in any action for relatively minor things like this). Cheers, Number 57 16:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we have a MOS noticeboard. If the user has been warned previously and is failing to follow normal dispute resolution guidelines, ANI is the right place to go. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Confusing lack of attention given to report filed on 2 August

A report I filed on 2 August has recently been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive394 without any attention, let alone action, taken by admins here. As I saw it, and still see it, the report detailed a clear example of a user repeatedly, over a period of years, reverting editors who tried to remove the same unsourced information. When I first removed this original research, having first checked whether a source might perhaps have been lost in a past removal of prose from the article, I made reference to one editor's similar attempts – I wasn't yet aware of how far back the problem went. The specific incident I reported here concerns the user reinstating the information four times in the space of two hours, without ever producing a source to support its inclusion. How can this not be actionable? The user, Carliertwo, claimed I started an edit war and that there was longstanding consensus for retaining the information. Which is bs on two fronts: I was expanding the article, which necessitates removing that and any other example of original research; and the unsourced information had only stayed in the article for years because Carliertwo kept reverting any editor who removed it as unsourced.

Peacemaker67, El C, C.Fred, Nardog, Bbb23: from what I can see, you all variously blocked or warned in other reports before mine was archived. How come this one was completely ignored? The editor in question only stopped after the report was filed. How can it not be a clear case of a user deserving a block? JG66 (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@JG66:, some reports fall through the cracks, that's just the nature of a volunteer project. I don't recall examining your report, so I can't comment beyond that — except perhaps by saying that if the user stopped after the report was filed, then problem solved, no? El_C 08:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. I look in at reports in an ad-hoc way when I have a free ten minutes or so, and sometimes I am drawn to particular reports because they touch on subject areas I watch closely. Many admins deal with 3RR reports, and we are all volunteers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

<edit conflict>El C, thank you for the reply, and point taken about the volunteer aspect.

But no, I disagree that the problem's solved because the user finally faced Wikipedia reality once the report was filed. They clearly indulged in this behaviour for years; it's just that no previous editor was actually committed to the article as a whole and therefore took the issue any further. I've seen admins come down like a ton of bricks on comparatively minor offenders, yet this user's edit-warring was part of their serial violation of a Wikipedia policy (WP:VERIFY) – and it's gone completely uncensured. Surely, the incident itself is the only thing that counts, not when the reported user happens to act vaguely contrite or cooperative as a result of their behaviour suddenly being brought into the spotlight here.

I would like someone to examine the now-archived report and give it the attention it deserves. Hell, since first editing on Wikipedia in early 2012, the only occasion that my actions and behaviour have ever resulted in me being the subject of a report, someone saw fit to warn me (and the other editor(s) cited in the filer's report). So what on earth is AN/EW about if it fails to address the type of complaint I filed? Where's the incentive for a serial edit-warring original-researcher to mend their ways? (Sorry, El C – not all aimed at you, obviously. You just happened to be the first one to reply ...) JG66 (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@JG66: First, the report was filed at the start of a window where I was offline for an extended period of time, so I never saw the report while it was timely. Even if I had been online, I only check this noticeboard sporadically. So yes, it may have just slipped through a crack.

Second, as far as looking at the report now, it would be looked at as stale, no action necessary: the edit warring has stopped, and discussion has shown up on the article talk page. ANEW is for active edit warring and recent 3RR violations. If there is really such a long-term pattern of behaviour, it would probably need to be addressed at WP:ANI.

Finally, any sanctions resulting from a report filed at either noticeboard are to prevent future disruption, not punish users for past transgressions. If they "faced Wikipedia reality" and stopped what they were doing, then mission accomplished. If they were to go back to prior patterns of editing, however, admins would then be looking at a situation where the behaviour needed to be stopped—and it could be addressed at ANEW or ANI depending on whether you're focusing on the acute or chronic behaviour, respectively. —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

3 revert rule violation

@Fyunck(click) Keeps reverting my edits on The Jessica Pegula page and Cori Gauff page when I add their commonly used nicknames to their pages. This user has also Violated Wikipedia's 3 revert rule within 24 hours when they constantly reverted my edits last week more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same page's just because they disagree with my interpretation on how to add a nickname to the pages. I have mentioned nicknames on Cori Gauff's and Jessica Pegula's Talk pages and their is no concensus to not add their nicknames or to otherwise revert my edits. This user keeps reverting my edits just because they prefer their version of the Wikipedia pages and disagree with my edits. Nicknames are a vital part of the person's information and should be on their Wikipedia pages. I posted a 3 revert rule warning on this user's talk page and they deleted the post. Wikipedia has instructions here on adding nicknames and that's what I have tried to do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography I also read on Wikipedia under the 3 revert rule that an editor is not suppose to revert another editors edits just because they disagree with the content and edits even though these edits give vital info about the person. Princeofearth (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Princeofearth (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A) Reports of edit warring should be made on the noticeboard (This talk page is for discussing the noticeboard itself); B) Fyunck has not violated the 3 revert rule, and you would have had to provide help:diffs to prove it anyway, which you did not; C) Do not participate in an edit war from both your account and while logged out - this is skirting the boundaries of sockpuppetry and can get you blocked even without breaking 3RR (or rather, get you blocked even more easily). Someguy1221 (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Improving response to edit warring

As part of an initiative to examine ways to improve English Wikipedia's procedures and processes to encourage desired behaviour, I have opened a discussion on improving how edit warring is managed. Comments are welcome at User talk:Isaacl/Community/Fostering collaborative behaviour § Improve response to edit warring. isaacl (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought I knew how to format reports

But I filed a distinctly mangled report just now. All I want to know is, how in the world did I come to be known as @EdJohnston:? Elizium23 (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

An ongoing mystery. Someone will try to file a new report and it winds up being signed with my name. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23 and EdJohnston:It's from an edit last October to the header link. It was pre-filling the subject with the last author of the page, so if you didn't change the subject to your own username, it would use the most-recent editor's username instead, thus pinging them. I've put in a stupid hacky change so that, when saving, it will use your own username, but it makes the section link in the edit summary crappy; there's probably a better option. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amory: I have made some fix again; the magic word must be substituted to prevent waht you wanted to fix. I got here because it was still happening . – Ammarpad (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Is this happening only on Twinkle-filed reports or on ones that do it the old-fashioned way (manually)? I just filed a Twinkle report and it fucked up the header of the previous report (I've fixed it), but I haven't filed a report here in quite a while, and I'm having trouble following this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia hindi

Respected sir In Wikipedia hindi some hindu peer review team members doing intentionally wrong thing they are distroying Wikipedia image they think they have a monopoly on it.They does not want any other religion person write in hindi.They continuously removed my pages. When i do any grammar correction they also change them. When i done the protest now they are blocked me.They does not know any thing about Sikhism and islam religion but they continuously writing wrong and incomplete information about it when any person want to correct it in hindi language they threaten him about the rules of Wikipedia. I think in the name of rules they are playing with the sentiment of sikhs and Muslims. Respected sir In india hindu are think they can done any thing. Intolerance in India has increased a lot. My humble request to you please appointed a Muslim or sikh person whom can check the whole process in hindi language Thank you Gsmalhadia (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gsmalhadia: This noticeboard is for edit warring during content disputes on the English Wikipedia. Volunteers here have no direct influence in the activities of other language Wikipedias. You may want to try Meta which handles cross-wiki activities.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert rules

Hi there Sysops and otherwise involved in edit wars, as some of you probably already know, we have a dispute at the Tell Abyad page which has caused some reporting at the Edit Warring Noticeboard. It has given me the idea that revert rules might be enhanced in the way that reverts during an edit war should only be made after a talk page explanation on topic. I have started a discussion at the Edit Warring page. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Excessive use of cryptic templates

I asked here about how to report an COI edit warrior, and was send here (or better the front page here;), which was probably correct. But....
I was shocked by the unfathomable thicket of cryptic templates and jargon, that should probably keep normal users away from this page. I would have chosen to delete most of the templates and used free text and only a wee assortment of the templates, that I could get some sense to after trying preview. I was relieved of my wish by an admin, who blocked the edit warrior before I could ask for it, but I wanted to give this feedback nevertheless.
Why is this page so extremely user unfriendly?
Do I really have to use all those unfathomable templates, that clutter the page?
Is there anywhere a user guide to fill in these cryptic illegible form?
Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 14:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sänger, if you use Twinkle, it makes reporting to this board much easier in the most common case - revert limit breach on a single page. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And if I just use the normal wiki editor, I'm screwed. I don't want to use Twinkle or any such stuff, why should I? Why do you want to press users to use such non-usual stuff? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 15:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sänger. Your own post at our Help Desk was well-written and you probably could have taken it directly over to WP:ANI without needing to stop off at the edit warring noticeboard. ANI is good for things that are already on fire and don't need a lot of study to see the problem. It seems there is no equivalent of WP:AN3 on the German Wikipedia. But there is such a board on the Spanish Wikipedia. You have expressed dislike of our templates but they do save a lot of time for the reviewing admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The easiest one was the headline:
[[User:<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->]] reported by [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]] (Result: )

Then the following:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />

How to report two or more pages? I tried with more |, but it would not work. And it says article, what about talk pages?

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

Huh? Again? Or someone else? Or what?

{{subst:void|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.

What's void supposed to mean? As an more veteran user I know the meaning of subst, which for n00bs is something weird as well, but WTF is void?

}}'''Previous version reverted to:''' [diff preferred, link permitted]

??? What to insert here where and why?

{{subst:void|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.

??? Isn't a link to page history enough? each single diff listed here? Why?

}}'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# [diff]
# [diff]
# [diff]
# [diff]
{{subst:void|

Another void, I'm thinking of Jon Voight.

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.

??? Of course the user was warned before, in the edit summary most probable, or on their talk page.

}}'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' [link]

Is this another Form 23-B/42c or such?/

{{subst:void|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

??? Another Jon, and some more matter of courses

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

Ain't that already up there in the diffs?

<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
{{subst:void|OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~}}

That's probably the only one I would have left over. With some plain text like the one I used in the question over at Help.

All that's needed is two user account links and one page history, perhaps one link to the started discussion, the rest is self-evident. But it's packed in a lot of syntax to obstruct the meaning. Templates are something to avoid, they are repellent and exclusive, only nerds will have no problems with them. And the Wikipedia should avoid being only for nerd by nearly all means. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 19:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I found the Template:Void, something, that seems to be used tio obfuscate and irritate readers of plain wikitext instead of using ordinary <!-- comments -->. It seems, that some deranged nerd with a great love of template clutter designed that stuff to shy away ordinary users. Templates are something, that should be used very scarcely, especially in surroundings, where th un-initiated should have easy< access. Templates in wikitext create a huge barrier for the usage. Templates should be avoided as far as possible. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 06:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism | Removing Content from Page

FYI

 – Moved over to the project page proper. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Islamia University of Bahawalpur

risingstarpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He is continuously reverting my edits on Islamia University of Bahawalpur page because he disagrees & jealous of the noble alumni content. He has deleted the notable alumni section many times & removed data from time to time. He wants to put himself in notable alumni but don't have an original reference. I have given warning on his talk page but he deleted all warnings from talk page.

(Non-administrator comment) @Asim mz: Per policy at the top of this page you must notify the person whom you're reporting on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You also posted this in the wrong page. Please follow the style of the templated posts over in WP:ANEW. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Asim mz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The guy Asim mz acting totally immature and showing unprofessional behaviour on Wikipedia and out of anger now using childish words. Just look at the history of Islamia University Bahawalpur page, especially the Notable alumni section. On 05:01, 15 October 2020, he replaced someone's name from Notable alumni section with his name and now labelling me as being jealous of him. I think he is perceiving me as someone else of which he himself is jealous of. It's not just me who identified his conflict of interest, indeed his name was removed by other senior Wikipedia editors as well (Viewmont Viking). Putting someone's own name on any page is simply a violation of Wikipedia rules. He also tried putting his name on Bahawalpur page, which was also removed by senior Wikipedia editors/contributors from there (Ohnoitsjamie). To stop me from reporting his conflict of interest, he started writing threatening messages on my Talk page that my ID will be removed, if I keep doing so. I would let Wikipedia editors decide who is doing vandalism and acting immature. A special thanks to Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) for bringing this into my attention. — Risingstarpk (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

risingstarpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Alright, let's start with a bit history of the case, the vandal risingstarpk is a constant offender of the Wikipedia policy. He created his ID for his own promotional purposes and for that he started by putting his name in the following page Islamia University Bahawalpur on 03:27, 4 August 2020 and claiming him (Ahsan Saleem) to be one of the youngest PhD in Pharmacy even without a single suitable reference. He mentioned an orchid ID as a reference & not with any an article/news of any credible website to verify his claim. When I got through this, I undo his editing quoting improper referencing. For that enviousness, he removed the name Muhammad Asim Masoom Zubair (Former Campus/Youth Ambassador, Youth Assembly at United Nations) from notable alumni section, edited by me on the same page Islamia University Bahawalpur with a proper reference from credible Pakistani news-site. Since then his childish and unprofessional behaviour is still continued and he is violating Wikipedia's policy on edit warring and constantly removing the name from notable alumni list. To stop him, I didn't threaten, I simply followed the Wikipedia policy of warning him of vandalism on his talk page. For his comment to the page Bahawalpur, I agree with the senior editor (Ohnoitsjamie) that the name didn't qualify for the "notable person" list as there is no Wikipedia page or article exist on it and was removed rightly. But here at the page Islamia University Bahawalpur as part of notable alumni (with a notable achievement), it should stand. I request the editors to stop the vandal from constant re-edits. Also, I request Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) to review this issue and I would be happy with whatever decision he made. Thank you Asim mz (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Asim mz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have gone through the history of the Islamia University Bahawalpur page, but I could not find any vandalism or personal attack on you made by risingstarpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The response provided by risingstarpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is purely professional and just reporting of a conflict of interest. As I have gone through the history of the disputed page, I would suggest you to not take anything personally. Clearly, you do not qualify to be listed as notable alumni at the moment. Moreover, you have wrongly tagged risingstarpk for ID deletion. I hope you would not wrongly tag anyone else in the future. Talk pages are just for friendly discussions, not for tagging someone's profile for deletion. I hope you would take my response positively — AlexanderD01 04:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Please note AlexanderD01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has no previous edits) has just blanked this section. MarnetteD|Talk 04:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Appologies for blanking. Blanking might be inappropriate, but not my response. AlexanderD01|Talk 04:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD, Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) please note that the vandal risingstarpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a fake ID AlexanderD01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 16:02, 9 November 2020 by a fake name just to malign my image by posting the above comment even he is not among one of the senior administrators and have just created a new ID. It completely shows the intentions of the vandal. Secondly, I have already explained everything above and I strictly follow the Wikipedia policies and currently in learning phase. Asim mz (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This is my last response Asim mz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If Asim mz had any problem with the content created by me, he could have quoted a reason (i.e. improper referencing) before removing it. He has a right to disagree and I respect that, no one is fighting over that. But, instead of quoting any reason, he replaced my content with his own name On 05:01, 15 October 2020. Anyone can see that on the disputed page's history that he did not quote any reason. This is the end of the story. The rest of his conspiracy theories, though very convincing, are just distractors and waste of time. I would not waste my time or any other editor's valuable time on that. — risingstarpk 7:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

bot archived report before it was dealt with - ok to reinsert at top?

User:lowercase sigmabot III archived "User:Edgekirov reported by User:Rwendland" when it had not been dealt with at all. It seems an very easy case to deal with, so I am puzzled why it wasn't dealt with earlier. This is my first ever report - so I wonder if I misformatted it in some way so it was overlooked? Would it be proper for me to reinsert it in Edit warring at the position it would have been, which is now the top. It is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive420#User:Edgekirov_reported_by_User:Rwendland. Thanks. Rwendland (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Rwendland, I think you just have to resubmit at the bottom. Nevermind. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

There are reports being archived without any response from the admins. Could we please get the oldest one's dealt with first? And maybe change the bot so it doesn't archive posts which have no result in the title? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I undid today's premature archiving of open reports; I did not check whether this has happened on previous days. Has it? Newimpartial (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Based on the section immediately above, it's happened at least once. Gbear605 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah; I just looked through yesterday's archiving and it seems that two other open reports were also archived, besides the ones mentioned so far here on Talk (and the ones from today that I fixed). I don't know how to identify or report bot problems, but this certainly seems to be one. Newimpartial (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I just checked all of Sigmabot's edits since the beginning of November, and it looks like there have been seven reports over the 21 days, not including today when there were five. Definitely a problem. Gbear605 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to underline that this is a problem. Edit warring processing is important and valuable, and probably a bit tedious, so thanks to those who do it. When a long-standing user who virtually never interacts with admins finds their report overlooked then archived, it does make them feel rather under-valued, so the impact of this is significant. Rwendland (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for so succinctly articulating my exact feelings! Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Multiple threads for same problem

It seems like it might be a good idea for WP:AN3#User:PabloLikesToWrestle reported by User:Andrew nyr and WP:AN3#User:KhanzotChinev reported by User:Andrew nyr to be combined since they're dealing with the same issue. Is it AN3 protocol to discuss individual editors involved in an EW dispute separately and independently of each other? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know--I'd just let it ride and let the archiving bot take care of it. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input. I've got no problem with letting the bot do its job. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Danloud

Continuous unhelpful reversions of edits for petty reasons. None of which have been productive. User claims edits reverted versions were more "stable" yet only superficial changes were conducted. User has been introducing vandalism to pages. Articles Russia Westernisation Siberia North Asia Russian Americans Claims chages are "useless" or cannot provide any reason or discussion as to why they are to be changed. User should instigate use of the Talk page before reverting multiple edits of multiple users for unclear or non-sensical reasons. Vyaiskaya (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia: Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war. Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is disruptive. Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version, and the decision to temporarily preserve the stable version for the purposes of deescalating a dispute may only be made by an uninvolved administrator. And Danloud has been in violation of this, using "stable version" as a means in itself to justify article alterations without cause or attempts to explain reasoning or deescalate. This is a recurring pattern from said user who already has numerous notices of vandalism. Vyaiskaya (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Update and notice that petty vandalism by user: Danloud has spread to pages including White Americans Westernization Russians Northern Asia Siberia Russian Americans as part of a personal campaign, and against Wikipedia guidelines. Edits have been repeatedly and destructively reverted based on a personal basis with no basis in page quality. Vyaiskaya (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

No attempts at discussion over concerns have been raised, only senseless and targetted reversions. Vyaiskaya (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Vyaiskaya, this is the talk page for the edit warring board, not itself proper. I suggest using a tool like Twinkle or taking a look at the other reports at WP:ANEW to see how they're structured. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 19:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tenryuu.

I'm unfamiliar with Twinkle (& rather tired of being senselessly chased across all my edits). If someone could help link me to the actual correct page, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you greatly. Vyaiskaya (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Twinkle. Twinkle is probably most useful in setting up reports to noticeboards. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Archive timeout

Sometime in the second half of November it appears that an editor changed the archiving timeout of the noticeboard from 2 days to 4 days. (Not mentioned so far on this talk page). Though this may have some benefits, it means that old reports now stay around for a long time and could make the new reports less visible. Anyone object to changing the timeout back to its historic value of 2 days? EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is ok to change it back.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Any consideration for changing the titling scheme?

Specifically, the (Result: ) portion. Reports are sometimes referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g., the ANI), and when a decision is made (or changed) that changes the aforementioned portion, the heading also changes which breaks links to them. Would it be alright to just do standard closes to declare that a report has been resolved in some way without changing the title of the report? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Over the years, admins have got used to scanning the list of headings to see which ones have no 'Result' filled in. This can lead you quickly to an unclosed report you can take action on. I agree that it's annoying that when the result is filled in it may break some previous links to the report. A few years ago I had ideas for fixing this, but unless we could change Mediawiki (overkill) there is no easy way to do it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, ah, that's unfortunate. I guess the best thing one can do is to grab an oldid revision of the report then? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 21:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have the patience, you can go around updating AN3 links on existing talk pages that have changed due to subsequent updates or due to archiving. Such a task might even be automated if it had consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Backlog

Some of the reports here are 4 days old with no action, and the backlog isn't that big. Are we that short of admins? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Reporting multiple users

I'm a bit surprised that the standard format for adding a report at AN3 is to report single users, even though edit wars often involve two or more editors repeatedly reverting. Shouldn't there be a standard template for reporting multiple editors involved in the same edit war? I've come here before while considering filing a report, as a third party. One of the things that gave be pause was the fact that an AN3 report revolves around reporting the actions of a single editor. Such a system seems to disproportionately imply that fault is on a single editor, even when others are more-or-less equally culpable. In these instances, I even considered adding separate reports for each editor involved, but that seems rather silly for just one edit war. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add other users to a report manually, if you think more than one person is edit warring. You can also include both of the warring people in the header. The closing admin ought to be looking at the full article history anyway, so they ought to notice if more than one person is involved. The admin should apply sanctions if appropriate. Another catch is, if you are complaining about several editors you need to notify all of them. If the number of warring editors expands to much more than two, then full protection might be the preferred option. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

After filing, then posting the required notification to the other user's talk page, I usually add a note about that in the report, just for the sake of completeness. I add it as another diff, just after "diff of attempt to resolve" and the "comments" section, so it appears as;

---

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [8]

Comments; Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...

---

(the addition would not be a different color, that is just to highlight it here)

I was thinking this would be a worthwhile addition to the report template. Along with having that notice confirmation along with the diff info for, as I mentioned, completeness, it also has an added benefit of reminding filers to post that notice, and quickly letting the reviewing admin know it was done. It's a minor addition that doesn't clutter up the template or report, so there's no downside, just upside. (imo) That's my suggestion. Cheers - wolf 03:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Undid my first comment. Looks like I misunderstood your proposal. Still not sure that this is worth the added space in every template. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It's just a single a line, so the space is minimal, but it has the advantage of being both a reminder to the reporter to notify the reportee, (let's face it, they don't always remember, even if they notice the message at the top of the board), they will see it as another diff to be added as they go through the steps of the template. It also has added advantage of letting anyone one else know, including the evaluating admin, that yes... the notice has been posted. I know the response to that is "well admins should be checking that anyway", but that could be said of all the diffs that are required in the report. Anyway, like I said, it's just one extra line, with an upside and no downside. Why not add it as a trial for say... 30 days, see if it's used, if there's any feedback, and then evaluate after? Thanks - wolf 20:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(fixing @ping: - wolf 01:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC))

See my further reply at User talk:EdJohnston#ANEW. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Help Soho House (club), Bottega Veneta, Daniel Lee (designer)

Soho house club has been reverted 3 times now with no engagment on the discussion page, similar things have been happening to the same event as related on the pages of bottega veneta and daniel lee. I am marked as "talonx" with a signature on everything I have done there. This is corporate cleaning plain and simple. I'd love it if they didn't use a VPN and could be tracked down... The issue is regarding a well-documented event that police are now investigating relating to a party in the middle of pandemic lockdown at soho house in Berlin by Bottega Veneta's Daniel Lee and co. I would say my last edits in history are the revert option, but I've maxed out at two reverts on the soho house page and I think it would be silly to wait to do the same on the other two pages. I cited well-renowned newspaper articles with first-hand acounts, I refrained from linking video material, though that also exists. As soon as this is resolved I will modify the german soho page too. talonx78.55.189.214 (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Talonx. All that negative material you want to be restored to these three articles was restored by Ohnoitsjamie a couple of days ago and myself today. Luckily it's well-sourced and notable. The obvious question is, though, why are you bringing it up again here?! It's over. Done. Daniel Lee and Bottega Veneta haven't been edited since the 24th. ——Serial 11:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW, with respect, I'll move this to the talk page, as it will otherwise just be removed as "malformed". ——Serial 11:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hi, just a query. I've a low-traffic page on my watchlist where a user keeps inserting WP:SYNTH, and I revert. A few days later, they re-add. They're up to five re-insertions now, but it's over about a month, so they're not breaking 3RR. They've not engaged on the talk page, despite being referred there. What are my options here? AN/I? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

See my message on their talk. It's painful but the options are to attract attention via a noticeboard or wikiproject or RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Where do I report slo-mo EW?

• Calabria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Yakme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ItalianConquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2 editors have been going at it, arguing in edit summaries, with no talk page usage at all, on our page on Calabria. I see that they have been careful to not break 3RR, but this has been going for 5 days. I have no desire to get involved should I just report the two editors to ANI? ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring doesn't have to break 3RR to be reported on this page, so here is suitable. Spike 'em (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Another discussion of this dispute has already occurred at Talk:Calabria#Bring disputes here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for two weeks to stop this. Number 57 23:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say and I am surprised by this report. If you have a look in detail to the content of ItalianConquest's edits on Calabria, you might understand for yourselves why I thought they had to be reverted. They are not really improving the article, adding bad-English and merely false information to it. I explained more in detail on Talk:Calabria#Bring disputes here some of the wrong things present in those edits. Apparently ItalianConquest thinks that there is a "problem of political nature", and I am clueless to what they are referring to. --Yakme (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It does seem possible that User:ItalianConquest's edits reflect a lack of familiarity with the standards of the English Wikipedia. Further discussion may soon reveal whether that is the case. Meanwhile, I've posted advice to both editors' talk pages: As a first step, you might begin by explaining one of your recent reverts on the article talk page. If ItalianConquest's changes are actually nonsense that fact will become evident and admins may have something to take action on. Yakme's last revert changed many sections of the article. User:Yakme, consider trying to explain a single section and what the available sources say. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't really understand. My edit that you are referring to is a partial revert of what originally was added by ItalianConquest in a single edit spanning many sections of the article. It was not me who changed many sections of the article in the first place, I just restored the previous status of the page, which at least was written in English. Also, I think I already explained in the article's talk page why I think that edit was bad. If a consensus of other editors or admins asserts that ItalianConquest's edits are good encyclopedic content, I will accept it. --Yakme (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is in the narrative, generally part of Northern Italy's political parties, in which Southern Italy is broking apart.. in three pieces: Sardinia and Sicily and the southern Italian peninsula. The reason is that they (namely, the Lega Nord, which northern Europeans tend to misinterpret by the way especially the British) seek central power, that of Rome. Another reason is that they would want to be "allowed" (by Rome) to form an independent nation. And so on. Followers of their political movements push this narrative. This habit they thrive on is not acceptable. But some how their national party gained a broader consensus over the course of the last years that they were recognised credit by many, leading to despicable disinformation, as it is the case for this page on Calabria, a Southern Italian administrative region (a proper political entity). And so now let's jump into the specific statements. "<<Calabria was the first region to take the name of Italy, as well as the founder of the homonymous name, since it was inhabited by the Italics.>>" ______ That's false. Entirely speculative. Not only, it is actually part of a narrative of expansion, economic and political. It's vomit. The story of the name of Italy goes more like this: ancient people came up with the name Italia to distinguish it from Sicily. End of story. Basically, the Italics were living on the "boot" while Sicilians on the Island of Sicily.

"<<In antiquity the name Calabria referred, not as in modern times to the toe, but to the heel tip of Italy, from Tarentum southwards,>>" This is a play. Why does it read "from Tarentum southwards" and not something like "on the other side of the Gulf of Tarentum"? In my opinion it's purportedly written to lack full coherence, or possibly they simply got it wrong. Who knows? It's written with a propagandist mindset absolutely. Need I go on with the rest I edited? Yakme is shilling and that's clear as daylight. ItalianConquest (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I replied to this last message on Talk:Calabria#Bring disputes here and agreed to remove a dubious paragraph that is currently in the lead (BTW I think we should discuss in a single place). However, the reason why I am writing here is that something else happened: I received a very bad threat / personal attack by ItalianConquest. I would ignore it now, but a second attack would not be ignored. Anyway I am really puzzled, I really do not understand the connection of this little quarrel with most of the things ItalianConquest is talking about (propaganda, Brexit, northern independence) and why they are getting so frustrated at obviously harmless mistakes (like writing that Salento is south of Tarentum while it is indeed south-east). --Yakme (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:ItalianConquest has been blocked by another admin for 72 hours for making a nasty personal attack on 22 November. If there are any more such attacks an indefinite block seems likely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

And they now have been indeed for socking. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And they are very likely back with another (similar) user name. --Yakme (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

User:FrenchConquest is now blocked indef by User:Bbb23. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItalianConquest/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert confirmation page should contain a warning.

As someone who has been caught out by the 3R rule a couple of times.

1. When I didn't know it existed. (I tried to remove a falsehood and some original research for which I got banned for 72? hours)
2. When I thought it was about the same edit rather than the whole article. (Lots of crawling to arrogant admins & apologies to the editor I had reverted to avoid a ban. The editor I reverted failed to respond to my talk page entry explaining his edits and allegations were incorrect.)

Might I suggest that the revert confirm page contains a RED notification that you have now reverted n number of times on this page within the last 24 hours and that there is a strictly applied 3R rule that will get you banned. And some advice as to how to deal with bad edits.

This way new(ish) editors like myself might find wikipedia a less hostile place full of unknown traps. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

What "revert confirmation page"?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23 the one that comes up after you click undo. Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, the system cannot count the number of reverts you've made to be able to warn you. As an aside, you were not blocked for violating 3RR, but for edit-warring and disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

He actually has a point, Bbb23. Why wouldn't it make sense to have a link to WP:EW or WP:3RR on the revert page? The system doesn't need to count reverts. A general advisory about edit warring policy would be kind to newer editors who are out of the loop. Not everyone reads the entire set of WP:PAGs before editing, so context-appropriate reminders are helpful. That being said, WP:VPR is probably the right forum for this proposal. Or maybe WP:VPT? AlexEng^(TALK) 05:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, (non admin response) WP:EW says "Edit warring is unconstructive", so editors should avoid edit warring, and that would also mean they keep within the 3RR. Obviously the full policy has more detail. A 3RR warning would not advise against edit warring within 3RR, which can still be disruptive. TSventon (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

anonymous user, invisible report

I have attempted to file a report on an anonymous user, but they don't have a talk page, so I have been unable to inform them properly. I posted the notice on the article talk page in hopes they would respond. [35] I am quite willing to talk this out but have received no response to that effort yet. I clicked the link in the notice but there is no discussion posted that I can find. I am wondering if that is because I can't notify them, or because they are anonymous, or if it is just a time constraint or what. I'd really appreciate it if someone could help me out and explain what's what to me. I have never done this before - not in the five years I've been here - and wouldn't be here now if they had just responded on Talk. Please help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to file an actual report at WP:AN3 (see the instructions at the top of the noticeboard). You've already left a notice on the IP's talk page, at User talk:24.154.55.106. Presumably the page in dispute is Ambrose. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston thanx for this response. The thing is, I thought I did file a report. I don't want to make the mistake of doing it twice, but since I can't find it, should I take it as proof I didn't? I filed that notice on a talk page that didn't exist before I did that. They don't have an actual user page, all they have is a special contributions page, so I have no confidence they will see that notice on a talk page that might not really be connected to them. I will attempt to file another report I guess. Thanx for your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston You were right! Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Being late

I'm afraid I'm late to add my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Archive 3 § User:Andriyrussu and User:Woodlandscaley reported by User:Stevie fae Scotland (Result: Both blocked 48h) about what I know of the issue. Action has already been taken. Should I still write down my observations or skip it for the time being? ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 15:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to report User - Andrewgprout

Andrewgprout is reverting edits from Chandigarh - Vistara operates UK707 using A321N IXC-DEL-CCU with same aircraft, same flight number and pax does not disembark from plane. I have made attempt to chat with him on his chat page and he didn’t cared about and still reverted the edits and in the past he has got several warning for edits. I want to report this user. I dont know how I can. Admins please help and look into this matter. 649pardeep (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Andrewgprout doesn't appear to have violated the 3RR. This looks like a standard content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page. — Czello 11:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Where did report go?

I have looked at the latest archives and the history, but I can't find this final closed discussion anymore. Please advise. Kire1975 (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive453#User:Kire1975_and_User:North_Carolina_Man_reported_by_User:Gulbenk_(Result:_Fully_protected_for_one_week) here, in Archive 453. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. How is it in a 3RR archive when there was no 3RR issue? Kire1975 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kire1975. I have undone your change to Archive 453. If you are questioning an already-archived case, you should raise the issue elsewhere, for example by asking the admin who closed the report. It makes no sense to try to have a discussion on an archive page. In answer to your question, this was a genuine edit war that was closed with protection, which is one of the recognized methods of stopping an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Aren't closed cases marked as closed in some way? Is it customary to "close" them before the involved parties had a chance to see the notification, much less respond to the merits? Kire1975 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

EdJohnston means closed in the sense of ruled. Sometimes reports at AN3 are officially closed, but that's usually when editors carry on so much after a ruling that admins get tired of it. Otherwise, just like ANI, reports are archived after a certain preset amount of inactivity. You really need to drop the stick on this issue. I just responded to you on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Many broken links

Putting results in section headings breaks links to those sections from other pages. An alternative needs to be found. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is annoying. The 'Result' field in the header is a mixed blessing. Some editors do like having the result field visible in the header to see which reports still need action, and to assist them when scanning through old reports in the archive. People have discussed previously how this might be fixed. For a 2015 idea from User:MSGJ, see

• Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Archive 3#Martin's standard header proposal
• Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Archive 3#Changing headings.

Back in 2015 it was not clear how to implement this system or to make progress otherwise. Fancy syntax for edit warring reports is unlikely to work or be understandable to submitters, so some of these alternatives seem impractical. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)