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 109.154.46.64 (talk) at 12:22, 29 September 2018 (Undid revision 861709030 by Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk)). 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:KaijuFan4000 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Stale)

    Page: List of natural horror films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: KaijuFan4000 (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:

    Editor is repeatedly reinserting unsourced information despite multiple warnings from myself (in this instance) and other editors (in prior cases) and having been previously blocked for doing so. Requests for them to engage at the article's Talk page[8] have been ignored in favor of reverting. DonIago (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ritchie333: My apologies, but I'm not entirely following your reasoning here. The article was last edited by Kaiju under 24 hours ago, so how can this be considered stale? I also don't exactly understand the question, but I'll offer my perspective: the article was tagged for needing citations in 2016. Roughly 20 days ago I posted at the article's Talk page expressing my concerns that as a list article the entries should be sourced per WP:LISTV (which is to say, films were being added to this list without any sourcing to indicate that anyone actually considered them to be natural horror films). When that failed to garner any replies I proceeded to remove the unsourced entries. Without explanation or any attempt to discuss the matter Kaiju summarily undid my removal, a violation of WP:BURDEN, and continued to revert to readd the unsourced entries even when I specifically asked them to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. I would deeply appreciate it if you could provide some clarification regarding how you reached your determination. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody adds unsourced content, it is courteous to look for sources yourself and supply them if you can find them. I think he's concluded "well if Doniago's going to edit war, then bugger it I'm going to do it as well, at least we'll both get blocked". [9]. I see people adding unsourced content on List of Hammond organ players day in, day out, but threatening sanctions over it is like Cnut looking at the waves on the beach and thinking "oh, just go away". It's not realistic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: I see your point, but a) there seems to be an assumption here that I made no effort to find sources, and b) I did start a Talk page thread raising my concerns well before I took any action on the article, and then even while warning Kaiju I did urge them to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page, even beyond the canned template messages that already suggest doing so (certainly the edit-warring advisory does so). I may not have been as courteous as I possibly could have been, but I also don't feel that I was being given anything to work with either, given that Kaiju would simply delete my messages without replying and then go back to reverting the changes. I would note that right now even the work I did of formatting the list into columns to make it a bit easier to read (IMO at least) has been reverted without explanation. In any case, thank you for responding. My apologies if the ping was unnecessary at this point, but I didn't want to take the chance of this being overlooked. DonIago (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, two editors have now spoken at the article's Talk page supporting my removal of unsourced entries from the article. DonIago (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MPants at work and User:82.132.233.249 reported by User:Deleet (Result: Warned)

    Page: Talk:Eugenics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 82.132.233.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Several versions; see below

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    MPants at Work:

    1. 15:40 "Undid revision 861166124 by 82.132.233.249 (talk)"
    2. 16:26 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by Binksternet"
    3. 16:34 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by MPants at work"
    4. 16:45 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by MPants at work"
    5. 16:52 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by MPants at work"

    82.132.233.249:

    1. 15:47 "rv PC activist vandal"
    2. 16:03 "Undid revision 861169974 by MPants at work (talk) WP:NPA"
    3. 16:08 "Undid revision 861171374 by GreenMeansGo (talk) Because of WP:NPA"
    4. 16:18 "Undid revision 861172589 by Binksternet (talk) Why? Why are the leftist pseudoscientists allowed to make personal attacks and box comments?"
    5. 16:44 "Undid revision 861175146 by MPants at work (talk) why does this guy get to call people "white supremacists" and delete talk page comments?"
    6. 16:51 "Undid revision 861176497 by MPants at work (talk) hypocrite. pseudoscientist. lysenkoist."

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not for edit warring, but earlier this month Mpants at work was reported at AE under an arbitration case that covers this article. [10]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not possible, because the talk page is where they're edit warring (and I don't want to get sucked into the edit war).

    Comments:
    In addition to violating 3RR, Mpants at work and the IP both are violating WP:NPA and WP:TPG. The IP is violating NPA with his name-calling in edit summaries, and Mpants at Work is violating it with his accusation in this edit that I'm "pushing a White Supremacist POV". Both of them also are violating the talk page guidelines by removing one another's posts.

    The IP has already been blocked 48 hours, but he made only one more revert than Mpants at work did. In addition, all five of the reverts from Mpants at Work were removing others' talk page comments, while half of the IP's reverts were restoring his own comments after Mpants at work removed them. They both appear guilty in this situation. Deleet (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned The reverting has stopped, and blocks are not punishment. Seriously, though Pants, if somebody calls you a div, just let it go, man. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to disagree, Ritchie, but if your expect me to feel bad about reverting tp comments that did nothing but screed against another editor and make personal attacks... Well, I'm not. In fact, I'm pretty sure the policies Deleet claims I violated explicitly makes an exception for those kinds of comments. As for claimingi violated NPA: Deleet admits to being a white supremacist all over his blog. How is that a personal attack? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 11:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you agree that blocking you now would be punishment and counterproductive, though? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but I stand by everything I've said here (and now at the IP's talk page). I think warning me is ridiculous, considering the nature of the stuff I was reverting. This was pretty clearly a retaliatory filing for me referring to Deleet as a WS (by the way, there are also numerous RSes attesting to that, including the SPLC who monitors his blog). Honestly, Deleet needs an indef, considering that he's yet to make an edit to this project that wasn't either pushing a racist, WS POV or bickering with editors who push back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that IP was just here for personal attacks and disruption; MPants at work was right to try and keep that nonsense off the talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NSNMN reported by User:Meatsgains (Result: Warned)

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

    Previous version reverted to: See below

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    Comments:

    Meatsgains(talk) 18:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the reply - is this not enough? BoogieWithStu posted on his talk page to try and resolve. Meatsgains(talk) 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sci fli889 reported by User:Neurorel (Result: Indef)

    Page: Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sci fli889 (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. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    • There have been multiple reverts --I am losing track.There are several editors who seem to be tag teaming the article. It needs to be locked down ASAP. The admin who was helping out appears to be on vacation. Neurorel (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Already blocked - Blocked indef as a sock by User:Someguy1221. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thor Lundstrum reported by User:Martinevans123 (Result: 24 hours )

    Page: Tracey Curtis-Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thor Lundstrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [18]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [19]
    2. [20]
    3. [21]
    4. [22]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Thor Lundstrum

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ---

    Comments:
    User repeatedly adding unsourced information. No attempt at explanation via edit summaries. A WP:SPS source has now been provided, by an unknown IP, so problem seems to have been resolved. User would be well advised to engage, via Talk page discussion, in future, instead of blindly reverting.

    Thank you. A simple response at the Talk page could have avoided this. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I emphasised that in the block notice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ralph11 reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Daniel Andrews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ralph11 (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 edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Ralph11

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Daniel Andrews

    Comments:

    User:Mey3am1376 reported by User:Jmertel23 (Result: 24 hours)

    Page
    2018–19 Tractor Sazi F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mey3am1376 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 15:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 12:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on 2018–19 Tractor Sazi F.C. season. (TW)"
    2. 15:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on 2018–19 Tractor Sazi F.C. season. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Has removed categories multiple times in the past month or so, and twice this morning. I don't want to get sucked into an edit war, and so will not continue to revert the content removal, so am opting to report here instead. Thanks. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ritchie333: An editor using only an IP address (I assume the same user, but of course don't know for sure) has since gone in and removed the content again. What would you suggest be done? Thanks you for your help with this. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:77.29.22.217 reported by User:TheDragonFire300 (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Macedonian referendum, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    77.29.22.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "Removing false info and reverting. I have politely tried in the talk page, but to no ears. The other side is edit warring as well, but seems to have more backup."
    2. 23:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "Removing false info. I am not edit warring, just removing false stuff.There is a clear argument for this in the Talk page, with the original source, that contradicts this paragraph. The referendum is on Sunday and a lot of media organizations will be reporting on it and reading this article. It should not contain false info that were distributed as propaganda during the campaign."
    3. 23:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "The original source is in the talk, which is in contradiction to this paragraph. There is nothing more to discuss. You can consider rewording the paragraph, it in line with the truth."
    4. 20:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "Removed false info. Please take it to the talk, I am removing this sentence because it is blatantly false."
    5. 19:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "Reverted previous revision, because of false information. Here is the link of the cable: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08SKOPJE491_a.html . What was acceptable is for international use only, not internal use."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Macedonian referendum, 2018. (TW)"
    2. 23:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Macedonian referendum, 2018. (TW))"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 23:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "→VMRO never accepted North Macedonia as a constitutional name."
    Comments:

    As an uninvolved party who has come across this editor on recent pages patrol, this user has repeatedly said that the information was false, and even though third opinions on the talk page have advised against removal, this editor has still persisted. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Junior5a reported by User:Lojbanist (Result: )

    Page
    Template:Deprecated template (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Junior5a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Lojbanist (talk): Why you just didn't stop? (TW)"
    2. 03:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Lojbanist (talk): Why are you keep this icon also you didn't use with discussion. (TW)"
    3. 00:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Lojbanist (talk): Why you think about better icon? (TW)"
    4. 22:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "You think about useful icon? They are think about because you always changing pointless about better icon you would better stop it."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:Deprecated. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    3RR violation over an icon used in a template, of all things to edit-war over. How pointless... Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 04:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is unclearly explained about he did with i was told him about changing icon he anything looks would be isn't be beautiful being without discussion he changed unless icon like this Wouldn't be better icon and unless ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 04:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=861709050"