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 Njdeda Rlase (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 17 September 2016 (→User:Njdeda Rlase reported by User:TouristerMan (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:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Already blocked)

    Page
    Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lysimachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
    2. 14:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 21:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Han Chinese. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent mass addition of tags */ reply"
    Comments:

    User is constantly POV pushing and editing against consensus. Has been previously warned but is continuing the behaviour. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    With repeated reverts ([1], [2], [3], [4]) User Lemongirl942 consistently added back unsourced materials (which have been tagged by citation needed for over a month), added unsourced information ("Some sources refer to Han Chinese as "Chinese" or group them with other Chinese peoples."), and remove citation needed tags for questionable sources. For example, as shown in the discussion on the article talk page, Lemongirl942 did not propose any source for "655,377" Han Chinese in Japan, but Lemongirl942 kept removing the citation needed tag for that number. Lysimachi (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to let you know that others have reverted Lysimachi's edits as well [5], [6]. Lysimachi has a different understanding of policies than others. The problem here is not the content but the behaviour: a refusal to understand what WP:CONSENSUS is and total lack of disregard for WP:BRD. This is disruptive and sucks up a lot of time. I'm honestly sick and tired of it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Verifiability and No original research are the core policies of Wikipedia. What kind of behaviour is it to repeatedly remove citation needed tags, preventing others from improving the article, and to repeatedly add unsourced materials without any consensus, showing at the same time total disregard of WP:BRD (which by the way is not even a policy or guideline)? Lysimachi (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You have been told to stop reverting. What you are doing is blatant WP:OWN behavior. What part of WP:CONSENSUS don't you understand? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Already blocked, so I guess this particular report can be closed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:240:C901:FD00:5459:89C:81CA:CFE4 reported by User:CCamp2013 (Result: Withdrawn)

    Page
    America's Got Talent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2601:240:C901:FD00:5459:89C:81CA:CFE4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739611291 by CCamp2013 (talk) There was no consensus decision present on the Talk page before it was added the first time. YOU talk about it before removing it again!"
    2. 19:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739609750 by CCamp2013 (talk)Justification added to Talk page. Deleting the table DELETES INFORMATION"
    3. 19:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738401653 by CCamp2013 (talk) This provides information nowhere else in the article; the judges are repeated in THEIR golden buzzer table; why not Guest Judges?"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on America's Got Talent. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 19:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duplicate guest judges table */ reply"
    Comments:
    • NAC Comment - This should be closed as they're both discussing it, The IP has been adding content and CC's been reverting however I've reverted and asked both to discuss[7] which they are so at this present time this report is premature and it's only going to rile the IP up, The IP (as well as CC) have been given the options of either RFC or 30) so as I said at the moment whilst they're discussing this there's no need for blocks (unless you or the IP plays silly buggers which I'm hoping you's won't), Ofcourse if the IP does revert I would personally just go to RFPP however everyone's discussing and hopefully everyone will come to some sort of agreement without any admin intervention, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I filed this before seeing Davey2010's reply and the IP only starting discussing after I filed this. Chase (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC) I am willing to withdraw pending the IPs behavior. Chase (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • CCamp2013 - I thought you and CC were completely different editors ... turns out you're the same person! , Anyway I had wondered if you never saw the reply, Ofcourse if the IP does revert then I'd happily support blocks & the report but for now it's perhaps best to let the discussions continue :), Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bgc7676 reported by User:CCamp2013 (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Big Brother 15 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Bgc7676 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 19:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC) to 19:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
      1. 19:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
      2. 19:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
      3. 19:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
    3. 18:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
    4. 21:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Big Brother 15 (U.S.). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 18:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC) ""
    Comments:
    Blocked – 48 hours. This behavior looks similar to what was reported in an earlier 3RR report which was closed in August with a warning. User has 416 edits but hardly ever posts on talk pages. Many of these edits are puzzling, which is why talking would help. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:77.58.11.198 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: No action)

    Page
    Davos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    77.58.11.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "The edit was is not mine. *Harry Clarke, 1819-1931, Illustrator and stained artist, resident of Davoa 1929-1931, tuberculosis patient, president of Irish Society of Davos."
    2. 01:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739645846 by ZH8000 (talk) Please note- Harry Clarke was president of Irish Society of Davos - resided in Davos for approximately two years."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 00:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC) to 00:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
      1. 00:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "*Harry Clarke, 1889–1931, Irish illustrator and stained glass, tuberculosis patient, lived in Davos intermittently 1929-1931."
      2. 00:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "Added entry about Harry Clarke."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Davos. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Davos */ new section"
    2. 01:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Davos */"
    Comments:

    User:Rms125a@hotmail.com reported by User:Mjbmr (Result: Warned )

    Page: March 27 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs:

    1. Special:Diff/739650768
    2. Special:Diff/739651447
    3. Special:Diff/739723345
    4. Special:Diff/739723903
    5. Special:Diff/739726714
    6. deprecated revision #739726714
    7. Special:Diff/739727704

    Comments:
    He is referring to WP:DOY on Special:Permalink/739728003 that says "Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles" which the policy doesn't {{specify}} what are the requirement for that, I can refer to many articles that are already on March 27 and on my opinion they don't meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles, for example Gilberto Loyo or Oleksandr Sorokalet (volleyball) which they are on the the current version of the page, the first article is just one line article without any references, the second article not only doesn't have any references but also the person was not even born March 27. Also the user called me "nonsense" which is offensive while I'm trying to figure out what the requirements on his opinion, I actually don't mind if the articles I'm writing should not be on date pages but he is trying to force his opinion as a policy. Mjbmr (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see that rms has gone over the 3RR threshold, though he's close to it, so I've dropped some advice on his talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the 411. I didn't think I had violated 3RR which is why in my last reply to @Mjbmr I specifically pointed out that I was not going to edit war with him/her. I was hoping reality would sink in because I didn't want to have to open an ANI case either but since that is done, so be it. Quis separabit? 19:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I advised @Mjbmr that, in accordance with "Also, being the subject of a Wikipedia article is only a minimum requirement for inclusion in a Wiki-calendar article. Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles" (see [8]), it was my considered opinion that YouTuber Stuart Edge did not qualify. What do you think, @User:Ritchie333?? Much ado about nothing in any event, I guess. Quis separabit? 19:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't ask me, I'm just the janitor with the mop and bucket! I wasn't aware there were extra criteria to be on the days of the year articles (though I know there are for the On This Day section of the main page) but if there are, and Mjbmr is okay with that, then that's your answer I guess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't think, and I certainly do not know, if @Mjbmr is "okay with that". Quis separabit? 22:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: May 22 fully protected for two weeks)

    Page: May 22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [9]

    Diff of ANI notification [10]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14]
    5. [15]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

    Comments:
    For some reason Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z is engaged in a campaign to remove name he feels are insufficiently notable. I understand this as I have been engaged in the same as part of the same thing following Deb's DOY project.

    The difference is that I am not fixated on one date (out of 365), and more importantly, if someone disagrees with me about a particular entry, I am not going to dispute it. Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z ignores my messages on his talk page and edit summaries indicating I am seeking consensus. He reverts my edits, and seems to think he can do whatever he wants. I am not seeking that he be blocked -- I just want him to acknowledge that when someone contests an edit, he needs to interact and try to seek consensus. Quis separabit? 04:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I have been engaged unfortunately in an edit-war with rms and yes, I have taken his comments into account and even tried to restore someone he mentioned. I don't think I can just do whatever I want, please stop putting words in my mouth, thanks. I did not ignore your messages. I responded to all his messages.

    Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on the Gary Webb page

    User:174.17.79.52 reported by User:rgr09 (Result: )

    Page: Gary Webb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:174.17.79.52


    Previous version reverted to: [18]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 06:12, 11 September 2016 [19]
    2. 02:08, 15 September 2016 [20]
    3. 06:14, 15 September 2016 [21]
    4. 23:31, 15 September 2016 [22]
    5. 23:39, 15 September 2016 [23]
    6. 22:56, 16 September 2016 [24]
    7. 00:05, 17 September 2016 [25]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] (Put up by Hello71)


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27] (Current as of 17/09/2016)

    Comments:

    The Gary Webb page is changed as often as three or four times a month by anonymous users who either want to say Webb was murdered or who think there is some sort of controversy, debate, or dispute about Webb's death. This has been a regular problem with the Webb article for years, with the claims put in often grossly false, such as Webb being shot in the back of the head.

    In the current dispute, the user found a simple statement at the beginning of the article that Webb committed suicide unacceptable. Instead, he repeatedly changed the text to read "Webb died on December 10, 2004. His death, by two gunshots to the head, was ruled a suicide." On the article's talk page, his justification for this is that "this is probably the most notable fact in the whole story." The article is of course not just about Webb's tragic suicide, but about his career in journalism and the content of and controversy over his "Dark Alliance" series and the four investigations that were launched into the series' claims.

    In the past, Webb's suicide was mentioned in the article in two place; the first was a simple statement in the lead that Webb killed himself, and the second was a later section which gave the sources for the statement that Webb killed himself, described the circumstances, such as the two gunshots, and gave the reaction of Webb's family. The article was essentially chronological, so this discussion occurred later in the article. It reflects the conclusions that the coroner, Webb's family, and Webb's biographer all reached and sources were provided for all of these.

    User:174.17.79.52 first did multiple reverts, including 4 in 24 hours, to remove the simple statement that Webb committed suicide and replace it with an evasive circumlocution, and now has changed the simple statement at the beginning of the article from "Webb committed suicide" to "Webb committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the head" and put in multiple footnotes that duplicate the sources in the later section. This is consistent with the user's belief that the two shots Webb killed himself with are the most notable fact in the whole story. The point is to emphasize this by moving the claim up to the beginning of the article and burying the circumstance in footnotes. Why is the fact that Webb shot himself twice the most notable fact in the whole story? Seems straightforward POV pushing to me. More work toward a consensus can be done on the talk page, but the edit warring is a waste of everyone's time and should stop; since the user does go to the talk page, I suggest a warning, rather than a ban. Rgr09 (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "Most notable fact in the whole story" may be overstating it but it's certainly notable, notable enough that there is a Wikipedia page dedicated to multiple gunshot suicides where Webb is one of a few examples. Why not mention such an interesting fact in the intro?174.17.79.52 (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of 3RR

    I was — stupidly, and unknowingly — involved in an edit war with User:Factdefender. I was informed that I was edit warring when I went to the Help desk, and upon receiving a warning immediately stopped further edits to the page, and took advice posted there. However, User:Factdefender violated the 3RR well after our mutual warnings were posted, was given a chance to rescind their edit, and has not done so. Thanks. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have attempted to inform user User:FuzzyGopher to abide by Wikipedia rules regarding valid sources and negative bias on multiple occasions. I have even made edits as per User:FuzzyGopher requests/opinions, but this person insists on reverting my edits even when they are valid and accommodating. --User:Factdefender (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Above user is in violation of the 3RR after warning, did not do a second-chance grace 4th revert after request, and has no engagement on any talk page. Sole contributions smack of violation of WP:YOURSELF, COI, and lack of understanding of WP:BLP/H and WP:PROUD. User has not "attempted to inform [me] to abide by Wikipedia rules regarding valid sources and negative bias on multiple occasions". Has never even touched a talk page. I immediately stopped after my own warning and followed all admin advice and went to articles' talk pages. I am being complacent here. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on Plovdiv page

    User:Murku reported by User:Realsteel007 (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [28]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14 Sept
    2. 14 Sept
    3. 14 Sept
    4. 15 Sept
    5. 16 Sept


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


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

    Comments: User:Murku is a newly registered used with a single purpose of vandalizing Plovdiv page. Editing the page is his only contribution to Wiki so far. I have left a warning message on his talk page and also started a discussion on Plovdiv's talk page but he did not reply to either of these. He obviously does not agree with the text in the history article for which I have used reliable reference. I showed him the exact page of the book on the web, but he refuses to stop editing the page and reverts to his version.--Realsteel007 (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:79.181.118.18 reported by User:DonCalo (Result: )

    Page
    Sidney Sonnino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    79.181.118.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "'Jewish descent' means his ethnicity, not religion."
    2. 01:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "'Jewish descent' means his ethnicity, not religion."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 00:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sidney Sonnino. (TW)"
    2. 00:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Luigi Luzzatti. (TW)"
    3. 00:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
    4. 00:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* September 2016 */"
    5. 01:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* September 2016 */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. See Talk:Sidney Sonnino and Talk:Luigi Luzzatti
    Comments:

    User does not respond on his Talk Page. Seems to be a single purpose account similar to User 109.66.154.183. DonCalo (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Njdeda Rlase reported by User:TouristerMan (Result: )

    Page
    BOL Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Njdeda Rlase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "User as not removed edits without discussion."
    2. 14:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "reverted TouristerMan's disruptive edits. It is you who should discuss first before removing days' work of edits"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 11:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC) to 11:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
      1. 11:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "It is an article about BOL and my edits were not related to scandal."
      2. 11:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "spacing"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 12:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent Editing */"
    2. 13:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent Editing */"
    3. 15:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent Editing */"
    4. 15:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent Editing */"
    Comments:

    User is SPA. He wants to remove all mention of controversy from this article even though the "controversy" is the only thing that makes this failed network pass WP:GNG. User was warned by an admin about WP:BRD and was told that edit warring will lead to blocks. User is stonewalling on the TP and instead of engaging in discussion he is simply reverting me claiming that "he ws here first". It should also be noted that I have already added all the information that was not WP:UNDUE to the article in a concise manner. So this user cannot claim that his reverts are such that bring back information. TouristerMan (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear wikipedia administrators, I have not broken brightline three revert rule. I was shown this rule by wikipedia administrator Denis on my talk page messages and I promised him that i will not break this rule. I know I am on the brightline as well just like tourister man but I have not broken it and I will not revert more than now. Touristerman has made false report because in 24 hours I have only made three reverts not more. I was shown BRD rule, according to that I have made edits from last 2 weeks and tourister man show up today forcing his own version again and again. Every time he reply on talkpage he also insert his own version. This false claim is attempt to get admin against me only because i am new but he himself is new too. Wikipedia admins should lock the article or block TouristerMan who is breaking BRD reverting each time with reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it fair to report editor instead of following rule yourself?

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=739902851"