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 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 13:28, 30 July 2011 (→User:Cckkab reported by User:RolandR (Result: Protected): Closing). 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:Lasjan reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result:48 h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

    Comments:
    WP:COI editor repeatedly trying to add promotional Facebook link to article, removed by XLinkBot and multiple users. While editing as IP, tried to hide the 3RR notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SteveyCap reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: IP blocked)

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

    User made exact same edits with an IP; his sockpuppetry was noted by an editor other than me [his IP sockpuppetry noted here.

    Previous version reverted to: [11]

    • 1st revert: 14:38, 27 July 2011 SteveyCap (Undid revision 441707172 by Fortdj33 [12]
    • 2nd revert: 06:15, 28 July 2011 81.101.241.130 (Undid revision 441726326 by Tenebrae) [13]
    • 3rd revert: 12:40, 28 July 2011 SteveyCap (Undid revision 441862403 by TriiipleThreat) [14]
    • 4th revert: 13:01, 28 July 2011 SteveyCap (53,347 bytes) (Undid revision 441865098 by Fortdj33 [15]

    He was then given the latest several edit-war warnings here and his IP sockpuppetry noted here.

    He would have been reported then, after that 4th, but he appeared to have stopped. But he then made another revert here.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16] and [17]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18] and [19] Comments:

    --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: IP blocked. SteveyCap has made no reverts in the last 24 hours. If this resumes, a block of SteveyCap or semiprotection may be considered. The IP 81.101.241.130 has been blocked for a week per the SPI report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Misessus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: No action)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [20]


    also some of his earlier edit warring over the involvement of 6 editors opposing his approach:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

    Comments:

    Sadly, even after 3 previous edit warring blocks, it appears that User:Misessus thinks edit-warring is an acceptable approach to editing. BigK HeX (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I Do Not Understand What Is Happening re John C Cremony article

    I recently posted my first major revision to an article, on John C. Cremony. I found that within seconds my corrections were deleted and the old article reinserted. Thinking that I might not have posted my revision, I reposted it, only to have my post again immediately deleted. This has happened three times [I just found out about the edit war rule.] I am mystified as to how my post could be repeatedly deleted within seconds of posting. I quoted Cremony's book [available in print and on Google Book]s directly, and do not think that the person who wrote the original article and deleted mine has ever seen a copy of this book. [The title page lists 1868 as the publication date, whereas the article I corrected claims a 1869 date]. It is true that my post was much more critical of Cremony, and perhaps this is not allowed. I had just finished reading "Life Among the Apaches" and was astounded by the misrepresentation of it on the site, so I quoted the book directly. I was not trying to start a quarrel. If upon reading my posts [name LosAngeles08] and those it replaced, if you think I am in any way in error, please notify me. I have tried posting a note to the "talk" section, but it seems unreadable when I try to access it. Thank you for your help. I am learning the ropes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LosAngeles08 (talk • contribs)

    Your complaint is malformed for this noticeboard. What you are looking for is the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where you will likely find very little support for your version of the article, where Cremony is described as a genocidal racist Indian hater. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation The user is now discussing their edits on the article talk page [23] [24], and other users have explained OR, NPOV, etc. (including, in my case, in response to an email from them). Nobody has breached WP:3RR. I don't think any further action is necessary.  Chzz  ►  05:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deano545 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24h)

    Page: English people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Deano545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [25]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

    Comments:
    Dispute over terminology in opening sentence - editor has shown no willingness to engage in discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deano545 is possibly a sock of banned User:Germanlight (in turn a sock of User:Chaosname) who was blocked for edit-warring a similar change to this article.DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rundstedt and User:Topster888 reported by User:Professor Fluffykins (Result: Both warned)

    Page: No true Scotsman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rundstedt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Topster888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Rundstedt's reverts:

    Topster888's reverts:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Rundstedt warned: [45], Topster888 warned [46]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Reverts occurred while discussion was ongoing on the talk page: [47]

    Comments:

    Professor Fluffykins (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Horseman16 reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Protected)

    Page: George Benson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Horseman16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 1st revert: [48]
    • 2nd revert: [49]
    • 3rd revert: [50]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


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

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

    Comments: This editor is also claiming some sort of ownership of the page, asking me not to edit it. He refuses to discuss it on the talk page and refuses to provide a reliable source for the change he wishes to make. I reverted his edits twice before making this report. freshacconci talktalk 14:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Protected three days. Both editors are warned to seek consensus after protection expires. Freshacconci removed a 3RR warning from his own talk page with an edit summary calling it 'vandalism'. If you want to bring complaints here you should try to behave well yourself. A bogus vandalism charge doesn't improve your case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Whoneful reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Indef)

    Page: Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Whoneful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [53]

    • 1st revert: [54] "Undid revision 442107267 by Malik Shabazz (talk): Rv. POV editing"
    • 2nd revert: [55] "Reversing POV"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56][57]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

    Comments:

    Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert rule. That means an editor may make only one revert during any 24-hour period. Please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies for more information.

    Please note that there is a large white edit notice that appears above the edit box on this page: Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons

    — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note User:Whoneful's response to edit-warring messages: "Removing anti-Semitism trumps your rediculous Wikipedia regulations." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has been indef-blocked as a sock of JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) (Grawp).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Whoneful reported by User:Silvercitychristmasisland (Result: Indef)

    Page: Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Whoneful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [58]

    • 1st revert: [59]
    • 2nd revert: [60]
    • 3rd revert: N/A
    • 4th revert: N/A


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61], not that it matters when there's a 1 revert limit.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Doesn't apply

    Comments:

    The user reverted Malik Shabazz. I reverted the user's obviously POV edits. The user then reverted me, violating the rule governing Palestine-Israel articles. The user then asked me why I "hate Jews," which, for the record, I do not. The user is now claiming to know he is violating policy and says that removing antisemitism, even though nobody has been antisemitic, "trumps...Wikipedia regulations." That, to me, constitutes vandalism, which ought to give Malik or me the go-ahead to break the 1RR once Whoneful is blocked. But I'm sure someone disagrees with that conclusion, so I won't revert again until I get permission from an admin. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is banned user Grawp, aka JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs). Immediate indef no-talkpage-or-email block please.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do edits from a banned user and known vandal constitute "blatant vandalism?" I admit I'm looking to break 1RR and not get blocked, especially since Whoneful's edits are so awful. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, the revert has been done. There ought to be a 1RR exception to situations like this. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is. The edits of banned users = pure vandalism, and as such are exempt from all revert limitations. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found this. Thank you. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:InExcelsisDeo reported by User:Dayewalker (Result:Page protected 2 days)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [62]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68] [69]

    one editor was an attack page also theer is a discussion section for this issue on the article discussion page — Preceding unsigned comment added by InExcelsisDeo (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Editor has reverted multiple times against multiple editors, has gone to the talk page but has not stopped reverting. Dayewalker (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted, issued a 3RR warning, and responded on the article talk page, but that's about as far as I'm interested in getting involved. InExcelsisDeo is clearly in good faith but sorely misguided as to the level of plot detail warranted in an article and how to handle being reverted. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected
    Though InExcelsisDeo's reasoning/response that one of the editors is an "attack page" doesn't exactly show WP:AGF.
    The page is protected for 2 days. I would urge InExcelsisDeo to review WP:FILMPLOT as well as WP:MOSFILM and actually engage in a discussion on the talk page instead of using it to ask for his edits to be left in peace. They may also want to take a second look at WP:EW and WP:BRD.
    - J Greb (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arslanteginghazi reported by User:Alborz Fallah (Result: Stale)

    Page: Origin of the Azeris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Arslanteginghazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [70]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

    Comments:

    This user wants to insert a sentence to the text by using an article as source , but that article does not have any sentence about his tendency . I'm sure giving false references is a major problem in Wikipedia , but user Arslanteginghazi does not answer to any dialog and only reverts any change to the article .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cckkab reported by User:RolandR (Result: Protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [77]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

    Comments:

    This editor has repeatedly added an unsourced allegation of a conviction for a sexual offence to this BLP. S/he relies on an article in Hebrew, which s/he apparently does not understand, but I do. The article does not make this allegation, nor any similar claim. This is an extremely serious matter, and the editor should not be allowed to add such defamatory claims without reliable evidence. RolandR (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Protected two weeks per WP:BLP. I reverted to the last version that I thought was properly referenced. We should not be including information about serious criminal violations based only on the word of the Google Translator, based on a Hebrew original. Use the talk page to reach consensus. People who know Hebrew should give a direct quote of what they think the source is saying, in English. Even the supposed reference to prove he had a relationship with an Irish politician does not include his last name. Is this credible evidence? EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=442199510"