When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:diff Final sentence softened here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion took place here and here. Consensus was supposedly reached at the BLP noticeboard here and on my talkpage here.
Comments:
This issue is not necessarily over the timing and number of reverts as opposed to the manner in which the last one took place. I tried taking this to WP:Dispute resolution, but was told that that was not the proper forum because this was a conduct dispute. There were two paragraphs in the article that PluniaZ wanted removed but which I wanted to remain. We unsuccessfully tried to reach an agreement on the talk page before PluniaZ launched an RfC and eventually reached one, largely off the talk page itself, while the RfC was still open. The idea was that we had an agreement. PluniaZ closed his complaint at the BLP noticeboard with the notice: "Consensus has been reached and the article has been edited in such a way that it no longer violates WP:BLPSOURCE. Thank you all for your help in resolving this matter." The administrator MelanieN added in the compromise version of the article at our mutual request, expressing satisfaction that we had arrived at a solution. I haven't pinged her here because she's given the impression that she doesn't want to get involved anymore.
The problem was that neither PluniaZ nor myself shut the RfC down afterwards. An editor later weighed in and agreed that the content should be removed. However, the content that they stated should be removed was the content that existed before our compromise. Most obviously, they quoted a piece of the article which didn't exist in the current version and had been replaced as part of the agreement as an example of what should be taken out. PluniaZ used that as an excuse to go back on our agreement and remove the content that was agreed to during the compromise, which was modified to assuage their objections and was, as I said, added by an administrator at the request of us both. To me, this is extremely questionable both because the editor who voted in the RfC based their response on the original version before the compromise and because the RfC was still technically open. I'm looking to see if someone can make a judgment as to the validity of the "consensus" for reverting. After I informed the editor who contributed to the RfC of the agreement, they declined to "fundamentaly" change their response but agreed that the content "probably" should not have been removed. It appears to me that PluniaZ is falsely claiming that talk page consensus existed for the removal of content in order to continue reverting to get their way. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Response - The behavior identified in this report is not edit warring, so the report should be summarily dismissed. I did not violate the 3RR or any other Wikipedia policy.
In response to the concerns raised by Display name 99 (talk), the most important point to keep in mind is that the article has had multiple issues that we have both been trying to address. The diffs linked by Display name 99 reflect this - Diff2 isn't even the same material as the other diffs. We and other users have been making extensive edits to the entire article to try to improve it. On some issues we reached a tentative agreement, but on others we have not. Display name 99's report reflects confusion in where we reached agreement and where we did not, so I will try to explain.
The BLP noticeboard discussion and the discussion on Display name 99's talk page involved a request for a temporary fix in order to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC. I specifically say this in both discussions. I wrote, "This would be an immediate fix to comply with WP:BLP, subject to the ongoing RfC on whether to remove the paragraph in its entirey [sic]" in User_talk:Display_name_99#Wuerl_Issue. And I wrote, "I would be fine with that as a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC regarding whether to include this paragraph at all" in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive285#Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick. Thus, while we did reach an agreement on a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP, we never reached an agreement on the the dispute that was subject to the RfC.
Throughout the time that the RfC was up, both Display name 99 (talk) and I made edits to the paragraphs under dispute. At no point did we reach a final agreement on these paragraphs. After 9 days had gone by and we received only one response to the RfC, I removed both paragraphs because there were 2 votes to 1 in favor of doing so on the Talk Page and I objected to the edits that Display name 99 (talk) was continuing to make to these paragraphs despite the 2:1 ratio against him on the Talk Page.
Finally, I object to Display name 99's unilateral decision to close the RfC, which he did without anyone else's consent in violation of WP:RFCEND. Since this content dispute is clearly not closed, the RfC should be reopened, and neither of us should make any further changes to the disputed material until the RfC is closed. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Most of this is blatantly untrue. If your statement that we never reached "final agreement on these paragraphs" is correct, why did you write in relation to the first paragraph: "Consensus has been reached and the article has been edited in such a way that it no longer violates WP:BLPSOURCE. Thank you all for your help in resolving this matter" in this diff? And why did you previously say that you were "fine" with changing the content in the manner that was done? You certainly never described it as merely a temporary fix. It's true that this applies only to the first of the two paragraphs, but we still discussed the second paragraph on the talk page. I proposed a compromise version, you said nothing, I added it, and then we each made some revisions to it in a manner that reflected finding a compromise. Later on you simply removed it, even though there was no consensus to do so, because the RfC respondent cited a version of the paragraph which no longer existed. Finally, if you state that neither of us should make any further changes to the disputed material until the RfC is closed, how do you justify your removal of the content while it was still open? You're holding me to an entirely different standard than the one to which you hold yourself. If you can edit the content while an RfC is open, why can't I?
I closed the RfC because it had received only one response in over a week and a half and because the versions of the paragraphs that you originally linked to had been altered by our agreement. I do not see how it violates the RFCEND policy. Display name 99 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
This complaint was archived by a bot. I have restored it. I see nothing proper in a complaint being archived without an administrator making a decision. This has been open for about three days now so hopefully someone will get to it very soon. Display name 99 (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
331dot and Bbb23, hello. I'm pinging you because you seem to be two of the most active administrators here. Is there any reason why my report has received no action in over 3.5 days? That's much longer than anything else here. Surely some administrator should come by and offer an opinion. Display name 99 (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Stale Every admin is a volunteer here, who does what they can do when they can do it and if they choose to do it. Since it's been a few days I think that the issue has died down and is no longer urgent. I remind both of you to not edit war and discuss any issues you have; you can use dispute resolution if need be. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
331dot, I already went to dispute resolution and was referred here because it was an issue of editor conduct. It is still a major issue and I refuse to let go of the fact that the removal of these paragraphs was illegitimate and based off of false consensus. I also find it highly damaging to the project and quite frankly personally insulting for a report to be made without any kind of opinion being issued at all. Honestly, I'm not sure what you expect me to do other than except revisions to the article which I firmly believe to be done in dishonesty and against Wikipedia guidelines. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I suggest that you find some way to move on from this. We've all had disputes not go the way we might want them to. The discussion is not going anywhere from the talk page, other editors will see it in time. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Let me get this straight, you feel "personally insulted" because of a volunteer's inaction? Do I have this right? El_C00:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
El_C, not simply inaction, but the action of closing a review without a decision being made, as if my report is so insignificant and worthless that it should not even be dignified with any kind of resolution whatsoever. The assumption is that if someone goes to this forum, their concerns will be treated seriously and be subject to a full review. No complaint should be archived or closed without a decision being made. Take the good article nominations board for example. Volunteers can review whichever articles they want when they want, but ones that don't get reviewed stay up there. An article does not get removed from the list because it's gone a certain number of months with no reviewer. In fact, reviewers are actually asked to consider reviewing older nominations. Why should things be any different here, where the issues at hand are much more urgent and need to be resolved more quickly?
Yes, I am absolutely insulted that not only has my post gone days without a response, while administrators have chosen to address reports made well after my own, but that it was first automatically archived and then manually closed by an administrator without any kind of resolution. I think that most people in my position would probably be upset as well. I am convinced that there should be a rule requiring that all reports be addressed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
The top of this page has this sentence in it: "When reporting a user here, your own behavior WILL also be scrutinized." Therefore, the assumption seems to be among the creators of this board that all reports would receive a hearing and not simply be rudely dismissed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
The report is now stale, so there's nothing to be done. The edits in question are nearly ten days old. I don't know why your report wasn't acted upon sooner, but it doesn't matter. Nobody is obligated to do anything on a volunteer project. You can take that inaction as a personal affront, but it's a waste of time and energy for naught. El_C03:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
04:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 902171972 by Beyond My Ken (talk) took out the quotes...Is that what you had an issue with? I don't see any problems with the edits...."
00:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 902160470 by Beyond My Ken (talk) what are not improvements? several references were fixed. delete the items that you think aren't improvements but don't just revert everything."
I have already warned this editor. He is not doing WP:BRD. I have asked for protection to the status que version the editor doesn't want that and is only editwarring. He removed sourced information and his rationale was pure original research.-- SharabSalam (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think this dispute is going to be resolved by either protecting the article in the status que so that the editor stop delaying in response and the wrong version doesn't stand for so long or (which I don't recommend) is to sanction the editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
The dispute between these two editors on Houthi movement was just here on 14 June, and was closed by me with a warning to both parties: "If either of you continues to revert the article you are risking a block. Use the talk page, open an WP:RFC, or use WP:RSN to find out which sources are reliable." I think that both parties should be blocked (per the warning) for continuing the war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
21:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC) "Tharoor’s article is based on the logical fallacy of “hasty generalization”, as defined by Jonah Willihnganz of Stanford University. The article does not meet academic standards."
19:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC) "Statement made in this section was not supported by the article, or evidence within the original article. Does not substantiate popularity or distribution. The article referenced is not a reputable, journalistic source for political analysis.."
19:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC) "Removed reference known to be disreputable. Source does not uphold journalistic standards worthy of citing in academic articles."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:See this talk page section (And also the user talk message linked above)
Comments:
The actual content dispute here is small beans, but still, I think Ozzie10aaaa's behaviour has been unacceptable.
On 6/03, I made a good faith effort to improve what I thought was some broken template usage on a talk page, leaving pretty detailed edit summaries explaining my intention ([6], [7]). Ozzie reverted my changes with the edit summary "Better version, and has had no issues till now". Rather than un-reverting, I left a talk page message, outlining the problem (as I saw it) in even more detail, and asking Ozzy to clarify why they wanted to keep the templates. Their response was "see prior answer on edit (to alter talk page you would need consensus from those who contributed to it and article, thank you)". That's the only communication I've been able to elicit from them on the talk page. And yet the edit summaries of their subsequent reverts have just said "see talk page". I've repeatedly tried to engage them in discussion on the talk page (including pings), and get no response. What can you do when someone reverts your changes every time, but refuses to discuss?
The only other communication I've had from them is this template they left on my talk page today about disruptive editing. Audaciously, it includes the line If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. I have bent over backwards trying to do exactly that, and they've refused to talk.
Sorry if this is the wrong venue - I've never done this. I looked at the info on dispute resolution, but it seems like those processes require that both sides are willing to communicate. I know there's no 3RR violation here, but I'm thinking it falls under the "edit warring" umbrella. Colin M (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Bbb23: Could you advise as to whether there's a better place to resolve this issue? If I keep making the change and being reverted, is there a magic number of reverts at which it becomes an edit war? (I'm being a little facetious - but I really don't know what other options I have other than saying 'okay, fine, you WP:OWN that page'. I want to reach a resolution on this issue, even if it's a small one.) Colin M (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Bbb23 thank you.....Colin M its never been clear what purpose is served in altering a talk page to an outbreak that happened some time ago??(there are several hemorrhagic fever articles which could use an individual who has interest) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
A talk page edit war is still a war. I recommend that neither Ozzie10aaaa nor Colin M make further changes to the collapse boxes without getting consensus first. If the other party won't participate, open an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Stale Every admin is a volunteer here, who does what they can do when they can do it and if they choose to do it. Since it's been a few days I think that the issue has died down and is no longer urgent. I remind both of you to not edit war and discuss any issues you have; you can use dispute resolution if need be. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
No violation. Only two reverts are listed — you need four to violate 3RR. El_C 17:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
