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 2800:484:7391:3b20:c81:a136:2268:c25f (talk) at 16:03, 25 January 2022 (→User:Dora the Axe-plorer reported by Anonymous IP: new section). 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:Hunterb212 reported by User:NEDOCHAN (Result: No action)

    Page: Ciryl Gane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hunterb212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

    – — Preceding unsigned comment added by NEDOCHAN (talk • contribs) 22:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    So I'm being accused of edit warring but the user reporting is also engaging in edit warring and also reverting my edit which uses a reliable source with accurate information. He is doing this because of his own personal preference of Sherdog for all MMA stat purposes which has been proven time and again to not be the total authority on MMA. Plenty of cases of inaccurate information on there have been seen in the past yet this user deems that Sherdog should be used over all other sources such as ESPN or the UFC website which are clearly accurate and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterb212 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You're being accused of violating 3rr. Could anyone explain if I have made a technical mistake with this report that's led to no-one having addressed it?NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NEDOCHAN: I'm not sure why the report sat unaddressed. Backlog? Since the edit warring has ceased, I'm inclined to take no action. Hunterb212 is reminded to use the talk page, rather than to edit war, as they may not be so fortunate in avoiding a block if they were to be reported again. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: so my question is what is the reasoning for not using ESPN as a source for height or weight when it is accurate and can be cross referenced with the official UFC website and other sites confirming that? ESPN and the UFC site list him at 6'4" while only Sherdog lists him at 6'5". Just because they have a contract with the UFC to show their PPV's on a streaming service does that mean they aren't considered an independent source or somehow invalid? I don't understand the logic to use a less accurate source when multiple more reliable ones are available. Hunterb212 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this report was due to a breach of 3rr. It relates to edit warring.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hunterb212: The ESPN/Sherdog sourcing dispute is a content dispute and outside the scope of this noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TrangaBellam reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: Caution)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [10]

    4 mass reverts in 24 hours:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11] 16:24, 22 January 2022
    2. [12] 17:05, 22 January 2022
    3. [13] 17:56, 22 January 2022
    4. [14] 08:40, 23 January 2022 (Blanking this edit [15] made by me 30 minutes earlier, previous version reverted to: [16])

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] And on User talk:TrangaBellam: [23] [24]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]

    Comments:
    User:TrangaBellam started by wholesale blanking 6 edits of mine [26], restoring his spelling mistakes, grammar issues, deleting newly added refs, and then starting to add his own content. I tried to restore 2 times, while discussing on Talk Page, but he repeatedly reverted my content [27][28]. Then I added new content (a whole paragraph), but he again reverted me [29]. User does not seem to want to understand what collaborative editing is about. User also has a stunning habit of mass-deleting content and blanking whole articles he doesn't like, in total disreguard of proper procedures, and in total contempt of the work of other editors [30] [31] [32].पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    restoring his spelling mistakes, grammar issues, deleting newly added refs, and then starting to add his own content - Absolute nonsense and he knows that; see the tacit admission at my talk-page. I had reverted him but then manually self-restored his edits including correction of spelling mistakes, grammar issues.
    It was clearly pointed out to him that I had restored every bit of his edit except what he was unable to justify at the talk-page discussion like a misleading paragraph on Nezak Trakhans or citing a 960-page book without page number or replacing sfn with bare refs. His replies (both at my t/p and the article t/p) make it clear that he is not keen in bettering our article but rather being bureaucratic.
    I am also inclined to view of this as a revenge filing - the OP has opposed a series of merge requests, moved by me, on spurious grounds and none of the discussions seem to be going their way (Discussion 1, Discussion 2 and Discussion 3). TrangaBellam (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply to OP. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User also has a stunning habit of mass-deleting content and blanking whole articles he doesn't like, in total disreguard of proper procedures, and in total contempt of the work of other editors - The OP does not get to decide what is proper procedure; WP:MERGE says,

    No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted).

    I think Kautilya3 might want to state something, having partaken in most of these merge-discussions and in light of an old discussion where he had commented on the OP's habit of railroading discourse.
    FWIW, the mention of this irrelevant point only adds evidence to my claims of this being a revenge-filing against merge discussions not going their way. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Both parties are cautioned against reverting again at Nezak Huns without first getting consensus on the talk page. If they are unable to do so, the next step might be full protection for the article. The above discussion looks like a dispute as to who makes the better quality of edits or who has the better motives ("..mass-deleting content and blanking whole articles he doesn't like..") If you guys care so much about the fine points you should spell them out individually and use WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2600:1700:C760:1C50:C953:8527:8317:3993 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page: Allen West (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2600:1700:C760:1C50:C953:8527:8317:3993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */1.) Personal page is not the place to debate treatment success/efficacy

    2.) Talking about a treatment not having a track record of success creates the precedent of editing all covid vaccine references and stating that they don't stop you from catching covid 3.) I'm sorry all of your biases against different treatments blind you so much"

    1. 18:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Wtf is meat/sock puppet? Also it's sourcing doesn't matter if the info is irrelevant. This is a personal page, not somewhere to argue about the success of covid treatments. If this is OK then any reference of the vaccine should be edited, "though this does not prevent you from getting covid". I'll point you back to Wikipedias page on relevancy."
    2. 21:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */I've added to the talk page but there is no reason for this irrelevant information to be up at all. Not only is it irrelevant to the article itself, it's also not cited as there are absolutely no sources used that say his treatments are "unapproved" (even though they are by some). ✌"
    3. 21:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */It's irrelevant because it's about what treatments he used, not if they're approved or not. Secondly the citation article used includes no mention of them being unapproved or by who. I can do this all day"
    4. 16:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Removed irrelevant information. Again"
    5. 06:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */I never once "denied covid", if you actually read what i said you'd know that. All I'm saying is that the info you're peddling is untrue as you never state who this treatment is unapproved by, irrelevant because it adds absolutely nothing to the article itself and disruptive because you continually add it back despite its blatant irrelevance"
    6. 03:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Undid revision by Zaathras. Information added by Zaathras is A.) Untrue as it doesn't state who these treatments are or are not approved by, B.) Irrelevant as they do not pertain to the page and C.) Disruptive, as this (untrue and irrelevant) information has been added multiple times despite it not belonging here."
    7. 02:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */You can't just change the page because you disagree with it Ruslik. Secondly, the phrase "neither of which are approved treatments for the disease" is not relevant to the article to begin with and it shouldn't be included"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. Diff of warning

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Diff

    Comments:

    User:Wudini00 reported by User:Cryptic (Result: Indeffed)

    Page: Caleb Wu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wudini00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34]
    2. [35]
    3. [36]
    4. [37]
    5. [38]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [41]

    Comments:
    New user removing {{blpprod}} after adding only unreliable sources and sources that don't mention the article subject. I've probably got a block coming too; I misremembered the BLP clause on WP:NOT3RR as applying to all of WP:BLP, not just contentious material, and had thought my fourth reversion was only my third besides. —Cryptic 05:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MrOllie reported by User:Stix1776 (Result: No violation)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [42]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [43]
    2. [44]
    3. [45]
    4. [diff]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

    Comments:

    Obviously circumcision is a controversial topic, so I'm sorry to rope you guys in. The newish user named KlayCax made some problematic edits which I reverted. Here [52] and here [53] were pretty WP:RECKLESS, and this [54] was specifically counter to the listed source.

    My reverts were reverted because MrOllie says "I see no good reason to blanket revert". WP:BRD isn't required he says. I mention WP:UNRESPONSIVE, WP:CAUTIOUS, and WP:RECKLESS. Also I did ask KlayCax before to please edit more carefully [[55]].

    So I actually made a list of 10+ problems with the edits here [56]. There's 3 obvious failures of WP:MEDRS, one obvious failure of WP:RS/AC, many cases of removing high quality sources, adding text not in the source, removing clearly sources material, and changing the text from newer sourced to older sources against WP:AGEMATTERS.

    Like I showed in the diffs, I requested 4 times for a dispute resolution if they weren't using WP:BRD. MrOllie is still holding on to bad edits despite clearly being shown the issue. What do you suggest I do? I'm not a very experienced editor and I'm at a loss for what to do. Maybe you don't need to impose a block, but can you suggest another alternative that isn't reverting. Is arbitration a solution? Because these editors aren't giving any.

    Am I allowed to mention that MrOllie has had other problems with edit warring [57], [58]

    User Alexbrn is in the pro circumcision POV camp, although he's not part of the edit warring.

    Comment - It appears there is robust discussion on the talk page, so at this point WP:BRD should be the path that is taken. Try breaking your edit into smaller pieces, and gaining consensus for individual changes or reverts, rather than as one large revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually very pro WP:BRD. The question is if the originals should be reverted, or my reverts should be reverted? I suspect that this will a point of contention with other editors. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, someone made an edit, you reverted, a second editor reverted you, and a third editor expressed support for reverting you. At this point, it appears that consensus is against you. Again, at this point I suggest you seek consensus for individual small reverts rather than a blanket revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I appreciate it. Stix1776 (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is certainly no violation by MrOllie, who made three reverts over nine days. Please compare WP:3RR. Stix1776, I hope ScottishFinnishRadish's advice above is useful to you. FYI, yes, you're allowed to mention your opponent's history if it's relevant. But going back nine years to do so is not to the purpose, and does not make a good impression. Bishonen | tålk 05:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    User:93.22.38.147 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: )

    Page: Al-Tirmidhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 93.22.38.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [59] 21:28, 24 January 2022‎ (Added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
    2. [60] 21:25, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
    3. [61] 16:30, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
    4. [62] 19:27, 24 January 202 (Added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
    5. [63] 16:30, 24 January 2022‎ (Added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
    6. [64] 15:27, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
    7. [65] 15:25, 24 January 2022‎ (added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
    8. [66] 15:13, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
    9. [67] 15:11, 24 January 2022 (added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
    10. [68] 13:59, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
    11. [69] 13:58, 24 January 2022‎ (added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
    12. [70] 12:24, 24 January 2022] (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
    13. [71] 11:51, 24 January 2022 (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
    14. [72] 10:41, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed "Persian")

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
    2. 14:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Said IP keeps removing the long-standing and well-sourced mention of the word "Persian" backed up a renowned Cambridge University Press source (The Cambridge History of Iran). I even added a direct quote from page 471 for readability, yet the IP continues to falsely accuse the multiple editors who revert him of "it is not written he was Persian on page 471",[73]-[74] as well as "Persian propaganda"[75] and "We can not check the source".[76] While trying to remove both the source and the word, said IP persistently tries to insert the word "Arab" accompanied by a non-WP:RS source. Said IP has been reverted and warned on several occasions, unfortunately to no avail. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dora the Axe-plorer reported by Anonymous IP

    Page: Armero tragedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [77]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067776643&oldid=1067776193
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067774860&oldid=1067771187
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067728257&oldid=1067699616
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067776193&oldid=1067774860

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

    Comments:

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1067874468"