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 Anon551055 (talk | contribs) at 12:33, 4 February 2018 (→User:Anon551055 reported by User:AntonSamuel (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:DuncanHill reported by User:Andrew Davidson (Result: Article protected)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

    Comments:
    The user broke 3RR, was asked to self-revert and stated plainly that they would not do so. They have reverted a warning placed on their user page and so this seems to be the necessary next step, alas. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply by subject I have not received notification of this report, despite the large, bright red, warning at the top. There is no prohibition on reverting warnings on talk pages. I have not reverted anything on the Dorothy Tarrant page since the warning from Andrew. This is essentially a content dispute - a couple of editors are tag-teaming the Dorothy Tarrant page to insert a wording which is not supported by the sources, despite request for them to respect the BRD cycle. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Protected until such time as consensus is reached on the talk page. Start an RFC for goodness sake folks. I could have handed out blocks all around; this has been going on almost a month. Instead of that, lets talk about it, get outside input, and achieve a consensus. When we have a clear result of that discussion, I will unprotect it. --Jayron32 16:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Indigowestern reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Indef blocked as a sock)

    Page: "Polish death camp" controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Indigowestern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff1
    2. diff2
    3. diff3
    4. massive revert with insulting edit summary


    Comments:


    In addition, the user behaves extremely aggressively, accusing people of vandalism and anti-Polonism, instead of discussing content disagreement in article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dude. The page had a consensus. Everything was fine. You literally took out chunks of the article and tried to push your own POV. You vandalized, edit warred, and made unconstructive edits and now you want to claim to be a victim and report me? You're the vandal, not me. I don't know what you expect to get from this. Just stop vandalizing and POV pushing. You're also acting extremely childish. -Indigowestern (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No. This controversial page is being actively edited and discussed. YOU did not discuss it. Staszek Lem (talk)

    User:Beshogur reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: )

    Page: Turkish military operation in Afrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Beshogur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8] (revert of this)
    2. [9] (revert of this)

    Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [10] and [11]

    Comments: This user was recently blocked by Coffee (talk · contribs) due to their violation of the 1RR on SCW-related articles. And that's not the one and only time they've been blocked for this very same violation as indicated by their block log. Turns out, there's a violation of it again as mentioned above. I must also say that some of these reverts themselves are rather disruptive and appears to be pushing a strong POV. This particular modification just shows where the user stands on these matters. But of course, POV-pushing is a discussion to be had in another forum. Nevertheless, I did want to point it out to any of the admins here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize, I didn't knew that deleting a part of a article was count same as a revert. Beside that both source are unreliable.
    Also you've reverted 3 times in 24 hours.
    Also I've added the content back. [12] Beshogur (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mine are consecutive reverts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.105.65.167 reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page
    Lip balm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    76.105.65.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 01:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
    3. 01:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
    4. 00:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
    5. 00:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
    6. 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
    7. 00:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
    8. Consecutive edits made from 16:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC) to 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
      1. 16:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
      2. 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable brands */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 00:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Lip balm. (TW)"
    2. 01:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding spam links on Lip balm. (TW)"
    3. 01:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lip balm. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:Jytdog reported by User:77.174.91.92 (Result: Reporting IP blocked 48 hours)

    User:Jytdog is engaging in bad faith with me, reverting my edits, and even accusing me of being someone which I am not on the talk page.

    Talk:Aerotoxic_syndrome

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Aerotoxic_syndrome&action=history

    77.174.91.92 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang please. See page edit history. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Holy Logician reported by User:AlAboud83 (Result: Warned user(s))

    Page: Flag of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Holy Logician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [13]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [14]
    2. [15]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:

    There was a consensus since 2013 that the Assad Government has lost it legitimacy as the sole government ruling Syria,when the Syrian National Coalition was recognized by multiple of countries,and for us to not get confused and note that the Assad Government is not the only legal government in Syria,we used the term Assad Government since 2013 (we used the Libyan Precedent as an example for Syria) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Libya&oldid=441902580 ,occasionally IPs and new accounts with Pro-Assad bias,vandalized the section "Flag used by Syrian Interim Government" by either removing it or outright vandalizing the article.In 2018 a new user Holy Logician began reversing the term "Flag used by the Assad Government",when a user began urging him to open a discussion,he opened a discussion about the issue.But he didn't even wait for the discussion to be over and and he straight went into violating the 1RR rule,as shown above.Alhanuty (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also,I have a suspicion that he might be an old editor here on wikipedia,since on the talkpage he has mentioned me,even though he is a new user.Alhanuty (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spshu reported by User:2607:FCC8:6250:0:643B:F6DF:E239:88C2 (Result: No violation)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [17]

    Spshu's trying to edit war with me on Super RTL. I have him reported. }}Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [18]
    2. [19]
    3. [20]
    4. [21]

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

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

    Comments:

    User:Anon551055 reported by User:AntonSamuel (Result: )

    Page: Christianity in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Anon551055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [23]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [24]
    2. [25]
    3. [26]
    4. [27]
    5. [28]
    6. [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've tried to ask him in the comments to stop removing credible informaton without success. 

    [30]

    Comments: The user has repeatedly removed sources and information, I've asked him in the to respect WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE and WP:BESTSOURCES, but he keeps removing the sources and information on the page.

    Reply by Subject: I re-added the sources you listed, along with 3 other sources, and put the number as "Approximately 10%" to account for all sources, as most reports/sources/estimates put the number at 10%, to account for the different sources as there has not been a census since the 1960s, it should be "Approximately 10%" Anon551055 (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=823952744"