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 176.88.143.228 (talk) at 12:07, 4 March 2020 (→User:BlackFlanker reported by User:176.88.143.228 (Result: )). 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:202.168.59.122 reported by User:Rethliopuks (Result: both blocked for 24 hours)

    Page
    Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/South Korea medical cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    202.168.59.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak_data/South_Korea_medical_cases&diff=prev&oldid=943506718&diffmode=visual ""
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak_data/South_Korea_medical_cases&diff=prev&oldid=943506009 ""

    and so on.

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak_data/South_Korea_medical_cases&type=revision&diff=943507311&oldid=943507138&diffmode=visual"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has violated 3RR on Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/South Korea medical cases. Persistent reverting of good-faith, labor-intensive, informative edits. User has reverted my edits at least 20 times in the past three hours.Rethliopuks (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours (both users). - the IP breached the 3RR, but so did the OP - [1][2][3][4] And edit history shows that both were aware of the rule and mentioned it in summaries. So both blocked for 24 hours. Please discuss the dispute on the talk page going forward, instead of warring over it.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ritto77777 reported by User:EEng (Result: Indef)

    Page
    University of California, Berkeley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ritto77777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    In this edit summary [5] he admits to being the reincarnation of IP blocked for editwarring -- see page history EEng 14:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For context, Ritto77777 was an account made to skirt the 1 week block imposed on this IP user: [6] BUjjsp (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely – New account created to evade the block on Special:Contributions/121.88.165.241, per the above. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WrestlerHelper3 reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: 2 weeks)

    Page: WWE Universal Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: WrestlerHelper3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [7]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8]
    2. [9]
    3. [10]
    4. [11]
    5. [12]
    6. [13]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: relevant previous discussion

    Comments:

    Not only has the editor edited against clear consensus and against multiple editors, this is not the first time he's engaged in this behavior, and all in an area where discretionary sanctions are in force. I think a block is needed, possibly indefinitely, as the editor has proven unable to act collaboratively. oknazevad (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for 2 weeks, as this is their third block for edit warring, the previous for 24 hours and 1 week, and the message doesn't seem to be getting through.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lazer-kitty reported by User:GhostOfDanGurney (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page: Arrow McLaren SP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lazer-kitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [15]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [16]
    2. [17]
    3. [18]
    4. [19]
    5. [20]
    6. [21]
    7. [22]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

    Comments:
    User is casting ASPERSIONS and Assuming bad faith, accusing me of "bullying" him [25], even after I have started a discussion on the talk page. User is reverting edits from @SSSB: and the 209 IP as well as myself, taking OWNership of the article GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am well aware I am violating 3RR, please feel free to level any punishment you see fit. I will not kowtow to GhostOfDanGurney's bullying and personal attacks. That's the last I will say on this topic here. Sorry for the churn, I know you all have better things to do. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What personal attacks did I make? Meanwhile, You called me a "lazy editor" in your first engagement with me [26].

    User:31.161.148.196 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: warned)

    Page
    Cannabidiol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    31.161.148.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 07:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "/* Facts removed */ r"
    Comments:

    IP is repeatedly altering the lede and trying to add questionable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a false claim. I will explain in a minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That fourth 'revert' never took place. NorthBySouthBaranof wrote: "Neither of these are reliable sources for facts."[33] That editor intended to remove my sources but accidently removed all of my other edits as well. I did not revert NorthBySouthBaranof's edit. The edit intended by NorthBySouthBaranof is still there (removal of my sources). Rather than reverting NorthBySouthBaranof I have put my sources on the talkpage.
    Please investigate User:Alexbrn's behaviour, accusing me of spamming and instantly reverting without explaining. Now also puts in false 3RR reports. Alexbrn is removing reliable sources and pushing a view. The lead is properly sourced however, none of the sources claim that there is no evidence. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The system shows you (for the fifth time in an hour) editing the lede to try and force your edit. The system does not lie. Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above statement by Alexbrn, clearly trying to trick an admin into banning me, should be enough to investigate this user. The reverts where Alexbrn and I are involved do not exceed three. No other editors are involved. That so called 'fith 'revert' was not a revert either. An author removed Canada because it was not in the given source. I did not change that either. A revert is me putting something back when it was removed on purpose. This only happend between me and Alexbrn. There is no dispute with multiple editors here. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record I have only moved the order of sources in the lead. Alexbrn seems to be claiming that I have removed them [34]. I'm not sure what the problem is, other than me using a public wifi. Could it be prejudice? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned - the IP did indeed perform four reverts, and is hereby warned for breaking the 3RR and edit warring. However, I notice that they have desisted from edit warring on this article since the report here, and they are engaging in a discussion with the OP at Talk:Cannabidiol, so I don't think any further action is required at this point. If the IP resumes the edit war, then they will be blocked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted only three times. Alexbrn claims I reverted five times. Please check again or explain how you have come up with the number of four (rather than three or five). 31.161.148.196 (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This [35] was not a revert, it was in response to this [36]. As you can see they are from the same author but cover a different subject. Rather than removing only my sources, the user accidently removed all of my edits. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never claimed you reverted 5 times (you made 5 distinct edits). As Amakuru says, you reverted 4 times. Saying a revert isn't a revert because you somehow knew the other editor didn't mean what they did is not a very convincing argument. There are very few contexts in which repeat reversion is justified, and guesswork about intent ain't one of them! Alexbrn (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The other user had nothing to do with this and their edit has nothing to do with your report. There is no guesswork. It says literally in the edit summary that the user was removing my sources and why. The reason why is further explained here [37]. Please stop ignoring the evidence. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If there was an edit war, please note that it started with the user calling me a spammer in a blatant revert . I do not think there was an edit war since nobody voilated 3RR, but the user should at least be warned for this[38] personal attack. If you don't then there is no guarantee that the user won't approach people differently in the future. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexbrn is correct. The four links above are clear reverts of the edits of two different editors. Whether you think the reverts are justified or not, and whether they remove text or simply move it around the article, is irrelevant. It is still an edit war. Rather than attempt to re-litigate this, please continue discussing the best way forward and finding consensus on the talk page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NorthBySouthBaranof LITERALLY wrote in the edit summary: "Neither of these are reliable sources for facts". I did not revert that. If I reverted their edit than how is it posibble that the part they removed is no longer in the article? Would you have come to the same conclusion if I was not on a public wifi network? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the edit summary you link above is not a personal attack - the "spam" comment is referring to the website, leafly.com, which most likely doesn't constitute a WP:Reliable source, particularly for the high standards required for a medical article. It doesn't look like a comment directed at you personally.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My source was a legal source that has nothing to do with health. It clearly was a personal attack, but since it was against an IP it probably does not matter. By not warning the user you are only encouraging his agressive style of reverting. No reason to be polite to an IP user, right? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Duroq145 reported by User:IJBall (Result: blocked by checkuser)

    Page: Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Duroq145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [39] (or n/a)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff1
    2. diff2
    3. diff3
    4. diff4

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link1, link2, link3

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure#More sources for finale airing

    Comments:

    Clear case of edit warring, after ignoring what was said on the Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely - blocked by Bbb23 as a sockpuppet.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mcohare reported by User:Thepenguin9online (Result: )

    Page
    Jun Hyeog Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mcohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "CHanged About"
    2. 17:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "edited sections"
    3. 17:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "Removed the Issues template"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Jun Hyeog Lee (taekwondo). (TW)"
    2. 17:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Jun Hyeog Lee. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 12:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality of the Article */ new section"
    Comments:

    User exhibits behaviour that suggests they own the article, including deletion of maintenance notices and refusing to remove or rewrite non-neutral content of the article. Thepenguin9 (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarahconifers1 reported by User:Thepenguin9online (Result: )

    Page
    Brian Jackson (footballer, born 1933) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Sarahconifers1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 16:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC) to 16:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
      1. 16:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "Added the correct information as was wrong and misleading"
      2. 16:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "Correct information added"
    3. 15:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "I Sarah stephenson have now Added the correct information as the information on this page has been wrong and incorrect in many ways for a long time! I am his relative and insist this information is to be correct and right for the world to read ! Please do not change this information as from now on this is completely CORRECT! If you want to discuss this with me please feel free to contact me ."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Ownership of articles on Brian Jackson (footballer, born 1933). (TW)"
    2. 20:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Ownership of articles on Brian Jackson (footballer, born 1933). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 20:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "/* Following the intended procedure */ new section"
    2. 20:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC) ""
    Comments:

    User is a relative of the focus of the article. They are dismissive of advice and have gone as far as to say "I am a very weird person" Thepenguin9 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:106.243.194.140 reported by User:BUjjsp (Result: )

    Page: University of California, Berkeley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 106.243.194.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [40]: one example of many reverts made before the original IP address was blocked
    2. [41]: via the account created to avoid IP address block
    3. [42]: via current IP address to avoid both previous blocks BUjjsp (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    This IP editor has blatantly been trying dodge a block imposed the IP address they were previously editing from [43] as well as by creating an additional account which has also been blocked (User talk:Ritto77777). BUjjsp (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:210.6.209.89 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    Young blood transfusion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    210.6.209.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943837169 by Bonadea (talk) this isn't spam. these edits are factual. this article has many errors. stop reverting. i have messaged you."
    2. 04:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943836378 by Mr. Vernon (talk) this isn't spam. regarding ambrosia, two sources are cited. regarding the young blood institute, I have explained they do not offer young blood transfusions. do not continue reverting. i have messaged you to discuss this with you."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 04:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC) to 04:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
      1. 04:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943834441 by Mr. Vernon (talk) this edit has two sources"
      2. 04:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "/* Young Blood Institute */ the young blood institute does not offer young blood transfusions. they offer plasma exchange with an albumin solution. perhaps this section best deserves to be moved to another page."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 04:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC) to 04:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
      1. 04:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943736685 by Doc James (talk) doc james is biased and incorrect regarding source quality"
      2. 04:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "/* Young Blood Institute */ the young blood institute's treatment is not a young blood transfusion. their website states " we use Human Serum Albumin (HSA), a primary plasma component, produced from healthy donor plasma by large plasma processing companies""
    5. 04:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "/* Young Blood Institute */ the young blood institute's treatment is not a young blood transfusion. their website states " we use Human Serum Albumin (HSA), a primary plasma component, produced from healthy donor plasma by large plasma processing companies""
    6. Consecutive edits made from 11:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC) to 11:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
      1. 11:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "/* Ambrosia */ Ambrosia is currently treating patients"
      2. 11:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "/* Ambrosia */ minor edit"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Young blood transfusion. (TW)"
    2. 04:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Young blood transfusion. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Clear edit warring, continues to do so after warning, also made legal threads on my talk page [44]. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mt Vernon is the one edit warring. I have made factually correct edits to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yoyorajsoni reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

    Page
    Ghazipur City railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Yoyorajsoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 10:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 10:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC) to 10:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
      1. 10:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC) ""
      2. 10:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC) ""
    3. 10:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "Hindi name updated"
    4. 10:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC) ""
    5. 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC) "Allahabad Junction name changed to Prayagraj Junction as per lastest information"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 10:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ghazipur City railway station. (TW)"
    2. 10:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Ghazipur City railway station. (TW)"
    3. 10:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC) "/* March 2020 */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The user seems adamant. I've told them multiple times about the WP:COMMONAME and WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, but the keep on changing Allahabad to "Prayagraj" and adding Hindi script to the infobox. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BlackFlanker reported by User:176.88.143.228 (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: [45]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [46]
    2. [47]
    3. [48]
    4. [49]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

    Comments:

    The user was warned about WP:CLAIM [52] reverted, warned a second time [53] reverted warned a third time [54]. Reverted again, personally attacked me and asked page protection to take ownership of article [55], warned of edit warring, did not respond. 176.88.143.228 (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User was warned in the past of POV pushing in other Russian weapons like in this. [56] 176.88.143.228 (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=943883436"