Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Machine Elf 1735 (talk | contribs) at 07:10, 21 August 2010 (→User:Machine Elf 1735 reported by User:Andrew Lancaster (Result: Protected): I'm not seeing equanimity yet except insofar as the page was protected. Thank you.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report


    User:78.101.141.187 reported by User:Big Bird (Result: Semiprotected)

    Page: We Care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 78.101.141.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] - posted on article talk page, not on the editor's talk page but the editor acknowledged reading the warning in his subsequent edit comments

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:We Care#WP:TRIVIA

    Comments:
    The music video for "Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe" shows singer Cia Berg wearing braces, licking a lollipop and acting in a general juvenile manner. This has, over time, created almost a cult following of fans who remember it due to a perceived sexual connotation and the internet is full of blogs where people discuss things like what they would like to do to Cia Berg while looking and acting like that. Information about the braces was first introduced to Cia Berg's article by an IP editor (80.192.21.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) that has a history of introducing contentios material of a sexual nature (see these edits to Paul Lovering: [7], [8], [9]). A discussion at Talk:Cia Berg led to the contentious material being removed. He then added the same material to We Care and, in June, was blocked for edit-warring to add it back after it was removed as contentious material by other editors. That IP no longer seems to be active. 78.101.141.187 has repeatedly re-inserted the contentious material back even after a discussion on the talk page where the unanimous consensus is that this, although possibly sourceable, is non-notable and inappropriate due to being contentious material referring to a living person. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Semiprotected two months, due to the persistence by multiple IPs. The person behind this IP has reverted four times and is clearly edit warring. It appears that the campaign to insert material about Cia Berg's braces has been going on since February. I recommend opening a WP:Request for comment to determine whether this has consensus. The IP is offering as a reference for the importance of the dental braces to the article on the We Care album a 15-year old article in New Musical Express that describes Berg's work on a song from a different album. In June an IP was blocked for edit-warring over the same issue: User talk:80.192.21.253#June 2010. Whether to mention dental braces in Cia Berg's article was discussed at WP:BLP/N in February. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed my comment, per the IP's information (below). EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Big Bird is actually lying when he says there is a 'unanimous concensus' - it just ain't true. Someone in the UK was looking for a cite for an NME article, I provided it. The cited article describes work on the video of a song from the album, so, Ed, you are mistaken to suggest otherwise. Not very encouraging, is it, for people that try and legitimise an observation with an accurate cite from an RS, regardless of the age of the piece - I struggle to see the relevance of this? It's slightly depressing, truth be told. Big Bird's rant about the video is entirely irrelevant to my inserting the cite and Bird is guilty of 3RR and edit warring himself, not to mention deltionism and possible vandalism. Childish and dogmatic behaviour. Well done! --78.101.141.187 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You reverted 4 times in the last 24 hours, I made one revert. How am I guilty of 3RR? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is two IP adresses who may or may not be different persons, one of which is no longer active or more likely, one person (which the tendency for edit warring in both IP's indicates) that support the inclusion of this info. Everyone else thinks it's unencyclopedic. It is not unanimous, but pretty much as close as possible. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kagiaras reported by User:Meand (Result: 12h block)

    Page: London Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kagiaras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [10]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

    Comments: I've reverted some of Kagiaras' edits.[17][18][19] Other edits were reverted by User:Donald Duck.[20][21] me_and (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 12 hours The user has stopped editing for the day, but needs to understand that this behavior is not acceptable. Hopefully a block will force them to pause and read policy. --Chris (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just made another reversion[23]. I claim this is exempt from the 3RR policy, as it was removing content that was blatant copyright violations.

    User:MickMacNee reported by User:Wjemather (Result: declined)

    Page: The black ball final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The black ball final#Discussion

    Comments:

    MickMacNee insists that this redirect must be categorised despite two editors having removed the category. In keeping with his previous pattern of behaviour, he has then chosen to engage in an edit war to preserve his preference. wjematherbigissue 02:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified Mick as the opener of this report did not. I also note that Micks warning was given and that no reverts have occurred since the warning, it seems pointless to give a warning and then immediately go and make a report. I thought you were supposed to give a waring and then it more reverts occurred make the report then. I also notice that the reverts provided here are not on a 24 hour period. Off2riorob (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left an apology for the lack of notification on MickMacNee's talk page. Usually I would agree, but given this users history (the last block for violating 3RR being just last month), I think the report is appropriate. The diffs provided span less than 8 hours. wjematherbigissue 02:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a whole defence prepared and then e/c'd with this decline, so canned it. For the record, that was going to be my opener, his rather rude warning came after my third revert, and just as well, as I had genuinely forgotten I had made two reverts previously, not that I was not discussing already, as can easily be seen. I'm willing to conintue to discuss, if these guys are not going to resort to tag-teaming as a replacement for knowing the actual guideline, or in the third party's case, even accepting it should be followed. MickMacNee (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Starlingmaximilian reported by User:Jonathan Hardin' (Result: 24h)

    Page: Final Fantasy VII (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Starlingmaximilian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [24]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

    Comments:

    MEGA edit war (Result: Most pages protected, IP blocked 24h)

    Hi! I don't exactly know how to use this but can someone take a look at this 5 pages? There is a SUPER edit war going on in this things:

    1930fwc (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Machine Elf 1735 reported by User:Andrew Lancaster (Result: Protected)

    Page: Potentiality and actuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Machine Elf 1735 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [31]

    • 1st revert: [32]
    • 2nd revert: [33] this in same series of edits as last and there were more reverts in this one series
    • 3rd revert: [34]
    • 4th revert: [35]
    • 5th revert: [36]
    • 6th revert: [37] (same series as last)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38] Not exactly. The talk page context makes warnings a moot point. These intensive reverts come after attempts to talk on his talk page and article talk page which have ended up with me being told not to post on his talk page. These are now just automatic reverts of every edit I make because he is angry? Note: User has deleted much of the attempt to discuss on his talk page. UPDATE a few minutes later. Have now posted also to him: [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40] (it dominates the whole talk page)

    Comments: I suppose the following should also be kept in mind. Apart from 3R as a formal rule the edit warring is felt by me to be extremely blatant in spirit. I mean by this that for the last day approximately the practical reality is that dozens of edits have been reverted (many in a single series of edits, so I guess counting as one revert and a small number with slight changes, so not pure reverts) and I simply can not work on the article. Furthermore, talk page behavior makes it very clear that the real concern of Machine Elf is that he wants me to slow down making changes in general, all changes. But finally and perhaps most importantly, this is not a new bout of editing and discussion, so not just a problem that might finish after a day or two of reflection. Extensive waits have been granted already for editing on this article, and there seems to be no reason for waiting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, I would call this blatant in spirit
    • Lancaster's deletion of most of what I've worked on from the original article: 18:46, 20 August 2010
    • Lancaster's changes to the "definitions" I made in the lead from 01:43, 20 August 2010: 18:35, 20 August 2010
    • Lancaster's removal and derision of modal logic in the lead from 02:30, 20 August 2010: 18:35, 20 August 2010
    • Lancaster's refusal to accept an OR tag on his un–sourced work from 00:58, 20 August 2010: 18:42, 20 August 2010
    • Lancaster's reversal of changes to §Actuality from 01:10, 20 August 2010: 08:21, 20 August 2010

    If I should reply to what Lancaster has written here, (I haven't and don't intend to read it), please let me know. Also, if this 24 period doesn't work for you, please let me know. I'm not seeing equanimity yet except insofar as the page was protected. Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would very much welcome any attention from other users and admins on this matter. I've spent countless hours responding to User:Andrew Lancaster. I don't believe there's been an actual instance of 3RR because there's no single point of contention.

    • The 6th revert above was when he wholesale deleted almost all the material from the original article and the material which I've added, (cited material). Just look at the reference errors: prev to 6.
    • The 5th revert was because he removed two references because he doesn't like what they say. Much less, he's yet to cite a reference that does say what he wants it to say.
    • The 4th revert was where he removed {SectOR} tag which I've opened an RfC about. The section has only one cite taken from elsewhere in the article that I had recommended he needs to read. He wrote the section as replacement for one in the original article he had previously wanted to prune and rearrange in ways that didn't make sense. I added a {SectOR} to his section and restored the original section separately.
    • The 3rd revert was combination of changes throughout article including reverts to changes I had just made, (denied in his EDSUM), counter–factual inline comments and an attempt to alter the text of the 5th revert, contrary to the cited sources, without removing them.
    • The 1nd revert was when he deleted the Bekker numbers that show the reader what line is being referred to because...
    • In the 2nd revert he was trying to hot–swap those 7 references for a translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics that only includes BK numbers for the starting line of each chapter. This after I had so painstakingly identified specific BK numbers to use for inline cites to support the original material in the article. Additionally, it would reduce the diversity of translations being referenced in the article and there was absolutely nothing stopping him from creating separate references for the website he wanted to use and, in fact, I had created 4 references to that website myself for that translation (including BK numbers). Moreover, he didn't bother to change the name of the translator. I have no sympathy for the excuse that his Google Books won't go directly to a page. It's a public domain translation and he can download the PDF then use the BK numbers to look things up (like in paper books). Last I checked, he started accusing me OWN over it, was undaunted in his insistence that Google Books not be used and, as always, demanding response after response.

    I've made numerous compromises all along but he is not flexible. I just received a user talk message saying that it appears I've broken 3RR. I'm not convinced I have because these are not that sort of reverts (back–and–forth)* and each one is based on reason (like correcting unconstructive edits that delete cited material and leave big red ref errors in the article).* I welcome the feedback. I need help with this situation. There are 5 articles involved in this whole merger debacle and the talk pages are prohibitively lengthy: Talk:Potentiality and actuality, Talk:Energeia, Talk:Entelechy.

    Thank you and please let me know if there's anything else I can provide.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Extensive waits... please check the contribution times on his rapid–fire carpet–bomb talk page demands.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    * which is to say... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rapid fire talk page reactions do not equate to rapid fire editing and certainly not in this case. We had rapid fire talk page discussion today because we were both on line at the same time. I was trying to get communication going and break an impasse in progress which goes back much further. I would hope Machine Elf had similar motives. However, discussion got stuck in a wave of heated incivility from Machine Elf.
    The idea that sourced material can never be changed or deleted is obviously wrong, especially after a merge.
    Concerning flexibility it has been extremely superficial indeed. The real practical effect is that I can not edit until this behavior stops. Every edit I make, no matter what, is being reverted because Machine Elf wants me to slow down. That he is experienced enough to remember to make edit summaries does not change the fact that he is reverting pretty much everything, and he openly refuses to take part in straight forward civil discussion on talk pages. If there are very occasional exceptions, this does not change the basic problem.
    Going through remarks above in the same reverse order as Machine Elf, gives a flavor of the strong repeating themes in Machine Elf's recent blocking of editing on this article, and his reasons for it:
    • 6th example. Deletion is to be expected because the current article has recently been merged and still contains a lot of repetition and sub-standard material. Material is also being added, or that was the aim. Amongst the reverts of recent days Machine Elf removed most tags I had put on that old material also. Talk page discussion failed with him telling me to slow down [41]. He has not defended this material at all.
    • 5th example. The wording I have objected to is discussed on the talk page, but also on Talk:Entelechy. In other contexts, Machine Elf has made it clear enough he knows that the wording he is defending is actually not a neutral statement of what the field thinks [42], but he is choosing to revert to it anyway because (he says) it is sourced. But he is also incorrect to say my alternative wording is not sourced. It is from Aristotle himself.
    • 4th example. I do not know what article Machine Elf thinks he recommended I should read. If he is referring to anything by Sachs I introduced some books by Sachs as a source to at least one of these articles long before the recent merge discussion re-started (though not for this subject area which he apparently wants deleted). I have not read any articles by him, and nor did Machine Elf ever recommend any. One was mentioned by another Wikipedian on Talk:Entelechy. During merges, sometimes footnotes have to be rebuilt, but to say I am trying to propose the section needs no sourcing, and to even call an RFC as if this is what I am arguing for, is tendentious[43]. I also do not believe that he really believes the section is OR, and I have challenged him on this. He will not discuss it in any straightforward or civil way[44].
    • 3rd example was not a revert of a revert as he claims. It was a revert of an edit which included some very small tweaks that were for example single word reverts, with other edits trying to find a compromise after a whole series of my edits had been quickly dispatched.
    • 1st and 2nd examples are a good example of why I say that this is blatant blocking of all editing. The talk page discussion is remarkable: [45]

    --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Machine Elf's revert first, then fix later approach isn't particularly endearing, and I agree his edits have been a bit more disruptive, but neither of you are going to win any awards for editing on this article. There seems to be some discussion on the talk page, and the protection will ensure it stays there rather than in comments in the article (no) or in the edit summaries (doubly no). -- tariqabjotu 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think two points need to made.
    First, the ruling above is now very article specific, but the article is a result of on-going merging which is not done, and which is indeed the reason for disagreements, and a reason for some poor quality material. Furthermore, now that talk page discussion is specifically being considered, it should be kept in mind that talk page discussions on several other articles are also relevant, especially Talk:Energeia. Does that change things? Leaving a merge half done seems to be something that should be avoided. Machine Elf is indeed trying to slow down merging work and discussion because in his words "The material in this article is long standing and the article was rated C class, so please consider that it might not be as bad as you (once again) are implying it is. (And, of course, as a result of this merge zealotry, starter class material is being merged into it)."
    Second, please review the talk page discussions you say are happening, and please consider how you believe this solution is supposed to be fair and workable in that context. To me they seem to only be going downhill. Machine Elf's postings on talkpages are remarkably unconstructive and very often obscene with no justification at all. Polite questions are replied to with tirades about "lies" and "accusations" time and time again, and increasingly include bald statements that he simply refuses to work with me. See his latest reply to EdJohnson concerning this case - "Look, I've quit paying jobs for less than this. I'm happy the article has been protected for four days but I'm not going back to that abuse either way. So there's no need to negotiate with Lancaster about anything and I don't want to hear from that person ever again." That reply on its own does not seem to validate the assumptions made above about how this is supposed to work?
    Machine Elf's reverting and talk page entries have one big theme which is that he wants my editing to stop or slow down. He does not want to have to be forced into having to defend a proposal to keep anything. So in practice I have already not been able to edit and improve the article. So yes, obviously indeed I'll not be getting awards for editing, not now and not before. The article needs work, in your opinion and mine, but Machine Elf does not want that because he gets angry when he sees people cutting up things he worked on. (Nevertheless, when merging was proposed for example on Talk:Energeia, he could politely agree that work was needed, and concerning his defense of old material, in some cases he is blocking me from merging and fixing material I worked on as well as material he worked on, as far as I can see. Who wrote the old material is really not important to me, but very important to Machine Elf.)
    This freeze is no worse than what we had of course, but it is a kind of ironic solution: a person violates 3R because he wants to stop people editing, and in response editing is fully frozen for all editors. What can be expected from this when editing starts again?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nikurasu reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: )

    Page: Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nikurasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [46]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

    Comments:

    The editor above has been relentlessly tagging the entire article in question as "POV" based on a handful of sentences in the economy section that he does not like. Apparently, they were not "negative" enough for his liking. This is despite the fact that I had already replaced [53] today all of the material he complained about with reliable sources such as the Central Bank of Somalia, which is the nation's central bank and local counterpart to the US' Federal Reserve. But the user above moved the goalposts, and is now rather incredibly claiming that material from the Central Bank of Somalia itself constitutes a "conflict of interest" and therefore cannot be trusted. Basically, anything to keep the tag in place. I've tried discussing the edits over with him on the talk page, but he has been reluctant to genuinely do so, instead dropping meaningless one-liners and/or describing the entire discussion process as "filibustering", while simultaneously knee-jerk reverting. He has in the process well-surpassed three reverts, even after I repeatedly explained to him how his unwarranted tagging violates WP:VAND's abuse of tags clause. He has also been littering my talk page with disingenuous warning signs, even after I had removed them per WP:HUSH. Middayexpress (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=380109178"