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 Martin Lee Smith1 (talk | contribs) at 05:31, 1 October 2018 (→User:Martin Lee Smith reported by User:Jingiby (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: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: Both editors blocked for edit warring by Cullen328 - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

    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]
    No doubt you're trying to tell us something.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly using Google translate to edit. Not competent to edit English Language Wikipedia. Therefore, indefinite block. I don't think they understand what's happening and why their edits are being reverted. --RAF910 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think both editors should be blocked. WP:BOOMERANG - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:109.154.46.64 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Already blocked)

    Page
    Nicholas Bond-Owen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    109.154.46.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 12:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 861706615 by David Biddulph (talk)"
    2. 11:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 861702833 by David Biddulph (talk)"
    3. 10:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 861693413 by David Biddulph (talk)"
    4. 15:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 787902255 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Stop adding a call to an image which no longer exists */ new section"
    2. 11:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Stop adding a call to an image which no longer exists */ edit-warring warning"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:95.160.176.197 reported by User:Roddy the roadkill (Result: Stale)

    Page: Warsaw Uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 95.160.176.197 (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]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See comment below

    Comments:
    I’m honestly confused on how to properly report this. 95.160.176.197 has started an edit war with me on the Warsaw Uprising article whilst unironically claiming that I started it. He is also using an alternate user 95.160.177.162 to respond to me on the talkpage while the other IP address reverts. I even have reason to believe that the anonymous users are actually LechitaPL based on the fact that while the anon responded to my latest edit on the talk page, it was LechitaPL who reverted it. This is in addition to LechitaPL making identical statements to the anonymous users in past discussion on the Warsaw Uprising talkpage, such as Dirlewanger suffering 3,000 killed when the figure actually refers to total casualties(LechitaPL states this in the section “German Casualty Count”, and the anon states this in the section “Anon will not stop edit warring”), as well as calling anything he disagrees with a “brazen lie”. Presumably he is using anonymous accounts so he can revert me more times, or possibly to hide the fact he is Polish and avoid accusations of bias. I have stopped the back and forth of reverting for now by allowing him to make the last revert, but he has not responded to reason at all or my latest post on the talkpage. I have not put a warning because he is using multiple different users to prevent himself from going over 3 reverts. I’m somewhat baffled by all this. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit war looks stale, honestly, so I don't think any sanctions are needed and advise all interested parties to discuss the issue on the talk page with an eye to reaching a consensus. Incidentally, let me add that, had the edits not been that old, this request might have resulted in a boomerang, seeing as you were edit warring as well. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect Salvio, did you read the talkpage? Firstly it’s true I became a participant, but unlike the other user I stopped reverting, like I said. I admittedly justified participation at first because of him completely ignoring any arguments I put forth and simply calling me a liar, and because he is an anonymous user with no previous contributions. Secondly, I stopped reverting and tried to discuss this on the talkpage, but he has failed to respond for 10 days, which is why the edits are “old”, after he was able to revert using a different account. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, please do not accuse other editors of sock puppetry; if you think another editor is violating policy, please raise the issue, with evidence, in the appropriate forum. Other than that, if the other party does not discuss on the talk page, follow these steps. Nobody is going to be blocked for edits that were made ten days ago, such a block would be punitive and, therefore, would run counter to the blocking policy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn’t presuming a block, just intervention in the form of a moderator reverting him as he has failed to respond in the talkpage and has used factually false statements as his reasons for reverting. I went to General Ization for a third opinion, and he recommended that I should come here to report it, which I did. I basically just copied what I said to him and then added more detail before reposting it as a comment here. I apologize if the way I’ve handled this has been obnoxious, but the whole situation is complicated.
    I bring up the idea of him using multiple users because the User ID is different for the one responding on the talkpage and the one reverting my edits. Also in the last reversion of me the response came from an Anonymous user in the talk page, but the actual revert was by LechitaPL who didnt give an edit summary. If a presumption of “sock puppetry” can’t be made here, then I ask you to please undo that reversion, as LechitaPL gave neither an edit summary or a response. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For my money, I wouldn't describe the way you've handled this as obnoxious, you probably were given a bad bit of advice, because it was something of a bad idea to take this dispute here: this noticeboard is meant to deal with behavioural issues, not with the underlying content dispute. As I have already suggested earlier, you should follow these steps. If the other editor continues not to engage with you on the talk page, my advice would be to try to get a second opinion or to try and get consensus at WP:RSN. In general, reverting another user's edits without discuss is frowned upon, but, as I said, this edit war is stale. Also, I'm not going to undo LechitaPL's edits, because, to be entirely frank with you, I don't know who's right and would prefer not to get involved in the dispute. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Famartin

    I am having a dispute with user:Famartin. I disagree with the notion that red leaves on Norway maples are atypical, and so I provided a source which tells that the amount of red leaves is related to the health of the plant, so damaged trees and dying trees have some amounts of red leaves. In the tree's native range it is quite typical to see old and dying trees. However, not even this was acceptable to Famartin who simply reverts me. Could other editors please have a look at this? I am not interested in engaging in an edit war with this editor.--Berig (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FifthHouseGuy reported by User:GSS (Result: blocked)

    Page
    Naveed Qazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    FifthHouseGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC) ""
    4. 17:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC) ""
    5. 17:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Disclosure required */ new section"
    2. 17:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Disclosure required */ new section"
    3. 17:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing {{subst:afd}} templates on Naveed Qazi ‎. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    An possible undisclosed paid editor constantly removing the AfD notice from Naveed Qazi he created and blanked his talk page to remove warnings. He was previously blocked by Dlohcierekim for creating spam articles and he starts it again and failed to disclose COI. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours There are some possible paid-editor issues to be resolved, but the user was already blocked for persistent removal of the AfD template. —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dlohcierekim earlier asked him to follow WP:COI and WP:PAID and I also left two reminders on his talk page but instead of replying to my messages he blanked his talk page and start edit warring. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=861951092"