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 LoveMonkey (talk | contribs) at 12:14, 21 October 2008 (→‎Langdell reported by LoveMonkey (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveprotected

    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

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

    24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]
    Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son

    Farcaster reported by Gogino (Result: Both editors blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [6]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [12]

    The user is experienced but behaves often against WP:Etiquette and defies all rules.
    He removed a notification of speedy deletion from his talk page [13].
    I complained and others did too: [14] [15] [16].
    But nothing helps. He threatened me in the edit summary: "If I have to, I will post your talk page here and neither of you will edit on wikipedia again." here. Gogino (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both editors blocked, Farcaster for 31 hours (because of additional threats) and Gogino for 12 hours who as requester has been edit warring as well and actually violated the 3rr rule as well.[17][18][19][20]. The difference in the last edit is marginal. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Closedmouth reported by User:Dexter_prog (Result: Semi-protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [21]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [26]

    The user is filling the article with wrong data (the band has not split up, but is on a hiatus) and continues to revert every edit made by any other user --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 16:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Semi for two weeks. Closedmouth has been reverting an IP vandal who was removing a large section from the article. The four 'reverts' above are not in the form of actual diffs. If the hiatus issue is important, I'd expect to see more discussion of it on the Talk page. Please continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stanazollo reported by Everyme (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [27]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]


    Stanazollo has been edit warring on Zeitgeist: Addendum about referring to The Venus Project, a project promoted in the Zeitgeist:Addendum, as communist in nature. This is a claim the website of the Venus Project itself disputes, yet instead of discussing it on talk, this user instead continually reverts the main article back to his/her preferred version. This user has even blanked the section I started in talk to discuss this and left "no point in discussing this here". Thanks, --Phirazo (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, duplicated a report. However, I would like add another revert diff: [34], --Phirazo (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just came here to do the same. Added to list above as fifth. Everyme 19:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 3RR violation plus removing others' comments from the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    70.68.174.22 reported by Coppertwig (Result: Protected)





    70.68.174.22 (70) added several paragraphs in good faith to the Circumcision article, the first one beginning with "Circumcision of males represents a surgical ‘‘vaccine‘‘ against a wide variety of infections,..." However, 70 is continuing to re-add them against warnings and without talk page discussion(23:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)). Circumcision has the Controversial template on the talk page to ask editors to discuss on the talk page before adding material. Other editors are reverting to the longstanding version, which is supported by myself, Pinkadelica, Pwnage8 and Jakew; no one other than 70 has expressed support for 70's version. Pinkadelica has reverted once; Pwnage8 has reverted 8 times and Jakew has reverted once. Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize: [35] 70 did participate in article talk page discussion. I'm sorry that I hadn't noticed. However, the other things I said still stand. Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I know 8 reverts may seem excessive and irresponsible, but I was the only one keeping an eye on the page at the time. After Pinkadelica reverted the anon's edits, I was alone for a few hours and unsuccessfully tried to get the anon to discuss the changes before adding them. Even the warning messages didn't scare him away, and I had filed a 3RR report, but it just sat there gathering dust, while he continued the disruptive behaviour and I had no choice but to revert back to the right version and try to get him to discuss. Thank goodness Accuzier came along and gave him a warning, since I don't think the anon took me seriously because I was the only one. After that the anon stopped and I withdrew the 3RR report, partly because I was afraid of being blocked as well, and since blocking is a tool to prevent disruption, not punish editors. I guess RFPP would've been a better venue? I hope whoever reviews this case understands that I didn't want to revert so many times. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected 3 days full protection. Editors should try to get consensus on the Talk page before making large changes to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Spector reported by Wknight94 (Result: Stale/Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [36]



    Standard single-purpose account POV pushing, blindly reverting, discussing nothing, pushing some political agenda on several political bio articles. Have a funny feeling a permablock is at the end of this road. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. A paradoxical case. A single-purpose POV-warrior, the guy is technically over 3RR, received a timely warning, but has not continued to revert since 03:58 UTC on 19 October. So a block is deserved, but would not be preventive, and the edit war seems to be over. It seems that he may have been persuaded to stop by a discussion on his Talk page. I'll let someone else close this. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale User has gone dormant apparently, refile if it comes up again--Tznkai (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I left him a real final text warning. Telling him that I won't block just as long as he no longer edit wars. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Forayhoray reported by Mike Doughney (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [44]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [49]


    Single-purpose account pushing modifications to opening paragraph of article; previous version reflected consensus built over a number of weeks; this particular change, frequently attempted by anonymous contributors, has been consistently reverted by various editors. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected One day. Forayhoray is a relatively new editor who stopped reverting after the 3RR warning. The article itself is being chaotically reverted by all and sundry. There have been sixty article edits since the last Talk posting; most edits are reverts. Please take the active disputes to the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't a semi-protection suffice? This blocks out virtually all editors because of the actions of a few mainly IP editors and apparently one relatively new editor. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To justify semi-protection it helps if you can show vandalism, socking or strongly POV editing from the IP side and not from the logged-in editors. Do you believe that is the case? EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some recent diffs from IP editors that have been reverted: [50]; [51]; and [52]. The editors with user names that were reverted were new accounts. Thanks for your consideration, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, reduced to semi-protection, with a duration of one week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Amwestover reported by dave souza (Result:blocked for 12 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [53]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [59]

    In this BLP of Joe Wurzelbacher, the editor was repeatedly deleting the subject's own words as reported in an interview with a reliable source, KARE11, October 16, 2008, Copyright 2008 by NBC. I've therefore blocked the editor for 12 hours.[60] dave souza, talk 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm confused. Did you just report your own block?--Tznkai (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, I realise how procedures are tending to be tightened up and put the reasoning behing the block here. You're welcome to review it, I notice that a request for unblock has been declined. . dave souza, talk 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Was just confused, not suspicious.--Tznkai (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were, only trying to explain myself. Just being cautious about a block in connection with a bit of a hot topic. . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Haiduc reported by Ottava Rima (Result: Blocked for 24 hours, Reporter warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    • 1st revert: [61] 11:16 - 11:52, 19 October 2008
    • 2nd revert: [62] 16:33, 19 October 2008
    • 3rd revert: [63] 16:56, 19 October 2008
    • 4th revert: [64] 17:17 - 17:47, 19 October 2008
    • 5th revert: [65] 18:35, 19 October 2008


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66]

    This is not the first edit war the user has been involved in on that page within the past ten days, but edit warred over the inclusion of the individual in the category "History of pederasty". The user is persisting in promoting a fringe theory as something that is more than a fringe theory. The major scholars in the field feel that there is just not enough information for various claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the substance of all 5 edits was to the same purpose -- trying to recast theories or speculation on the part of sources to unqualified statements of fact -- I concur with this report. Haiduc is an experienced editor and is well aware of our policies, so he should have known better than to do this. Nandesuka (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not comfortable with this block. Haiduc's reversions were not of the same material, though they were all in the same "genre". There's a bit of a discrepency here between Haiduc's actions (and he block) and Ottava Rima's actions (and no block). Tznkai, would you revisit? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment on Haiduc's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Reviewing: 2nd and 3rd are plain reverts to parts of the first revert, looking to confirm revert 1, 4 and 5 are a bit fuzzier, but probably constitute edit warring. Reviewing other involved editors conduct now.--Tznkai (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursIts like opening a can of Pandora's personal leviathan catching worms in there, but Haiduc has definitely edit warred. Haiducs behavior here is troubling, but not vandalism, Ottava Rima is asked to be more careful with that particular piece of jargon, and the interaction between the two of them is very troubling, with several reversions from Ottava Rima as well. All in all though, Haiduc has crossed the edit warring line with both feet, while Ottava has not. Each of the first four cited edits is an example of edit warring by obvious reversion or by substance, mostly fighting over the word "speculate," the last is moderately lame, but not strictly speaking a reversion. Ottava Rima is reminded that this is not in anyway an invitation to use the next 24 hours to go on a reverting rampage.--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentFinal comment: Ottava is at, by my count 3 reversions himself, and is warned that he is close to having violated 3RR himself--Tznkai (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Acknowledged, and I don't plan on reverting that page anymore, as hopefully this will draw enough attention to the page to snip this in the bud in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Longhair reported by User:BrianBeahr (Result: Reporter blocked )


    • Previous version reverted to: [67]


    • 1st revert: [68]
    • 2nd revert: [69]
    • 3rd revert: [70]
    • 4th revert: [link]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    The User Longhair has only started making minor changes and editing the information I added to the St Kilda Football Club article after I added something that was a valid piece of information to a template some articles that longhair edited uses. The St Kilda Football Club article has been being edited by me for months without Longhair even touching before and jnow they keep chaning back to an inferior version they copied and mademinor changes to – despite the fact that I have been adding new information. Clear case of adding a dot to another persons article to attemptto get more comtributions listsed that are actually made.

    [71]

    The above link is the version of the page before contribution accumulators started changing dots to increase their contribution numbers.

    BrianBeahr (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was actually reverting your poor edits, which everyone else agrees are below standards. -- Longhair\talk 23:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh oh. Longhair, as you're involved in the situation you really shouldn't have blocked. Regardless though of the COI, I endorse the block. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never added one drop of content to the SFC article. My involvement goes as far as reverting the nonsense edits to this article. -- Longhair\talk 00:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't matter about content. And any involvement is still involvement. The pure fact that you consider his edits "nonsense" indicates bias. I won't challenge the block but I'm just pointing out for your future reference. :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia_talk:AFL#Pre-season_comp. It's not me who considers the edits as nonsense, it's a collective of the WikiProject members saying so. My role is keeping the article clean per what the AFL community actually wants, not forcing my preferred version, but theirs. Anyway, you're kinda right. From now on I'll just report this chap and let another admin do what needs doing. He's worn out my keyboard as is. -- Longhair\talk 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A State Of Trance reported by DocKino (Result: 48 hours)

    Subsequent revert cuts of invasion assessment passage:

    Subsequent revert cuts of human rights passage:

    (Several of the reverts cut both passages, and so are recorded twice).

    DocKino (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours User:A State Of Trance seems to believe he is reverting vandalism with these edits. There is some question in my mind about the sources that the other editors are repeatedly adding back, and he is again removing. But I don't think we give exemption from 3RR to removals of sources that you question. This editor had two blocks in September. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ecemaml reported by RedCoat10 (Result: 48 hour block )

    Despite calls for consensus and rational discussion by multiple editors (who have all requested that the article be returned to the 19th October version), the user has continued to revert and has now violated the three-revert rule. This is also not the first edit-war the user has been involved in on that page within the last few weeks. I think he needs to cool down. Thanks, RedCoat10 • talk 17:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Ecemaml for 48 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Westie Boy reported by Hi540 (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [72]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    Hi540 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Liam2012 reported by Duribald (Result: 24 hour block )


    • Previous version reverted to: [77]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [82]

    Keeps adding non-notable info to Natalie Portman article. -Duribald (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Joecooooooool reported by Roguegeek (Result: 24 hour block )

    • Previous version reverted to: [83]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [88]

    This is a pretty simple one. Since it's so current and there are a number of editors watching it, I have a feeling I'll be adding a 5th and 6th revert soon as well. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - I have blocked Joe for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ward3001 reported by wontonkok (Result: warned)

    My apologies for being unable to decypher this form, I can't even figure out how to report this abuse any other way.

    Yesterday and now today, Ward3001 has endeavored to engage in an edit-war, repeatedly adding information regardless of WP:NOT and the consensus of multiple users that the information he insists on adding is completely irrelevant.

    Since it was first added on Aug 25, the information in question has been added and deleted numerous times, but until yesterday, it had been present for only 4 days out of the 53 days since its initial creation, or 2 days in the 51 days since it was first deleted.

    He has repeatedly threatened me (see my talk page) with administrative action and has refused every single attempt (I lost count after 10) I have made to resolve the situation in some other manner than being attacked.

    At his insistence, I created an RFC, which so far has come to the consensus that the information in question does not belong, yet he refuses both to abide by the current results and to allow multiple comments to be made, preferring instead to reinitiate another edit-war.

    The informataion in question is completely irrelevant, makes judgments solely on heresay, and is potentially damaging to the reputation of the person it pertains to in the way the information is presented. (I realize that for you or I, being labeled "Republican" is no big deal, but for someone who works in a place where "conservative" is a dirty word, it is indeed damaging.) It is this third reason that I must insist that it stays off the main page until the conflict can be resolved.

    In short, he is bullying, ignoring the rules he bludgeons others with, and his actions border on vandalism.

    I trust an admin's judgment in this situation so I'll keep my comments to a minimum (but I'll respond to any questions). I wanted to acknoweldge that both Wontonkok and I are guilty of incivility, and I'll accept any consequences an admin decides is appropriate. I also wanted to correct some falsehoods and exaggerations by Wontonkok. I did not give him a 3RR warning; that was done by another editor. I have not violated 3RR, and I'll let an admin decide if either or both of us have edit warred. I did not insist that Wontonkok set up an RFC. I did not even ask Wontonkok to do so, although I do not object to his doing it. (Indidentally, the RFC was not set up properly, as it did not show up on the RFCbio list. I'll try to fix it when I have more time, unless someone else prefers to handle that). I have not vandalized or violated WP:BLP. I re-inserted one sentence in the article that is properly sourced and, by most standards, minimally controversial (attending a fundraising dinner for John McCain). It certainly is not "hearsay"; it's in a reputable source. The sentence had been removed several days previously without an edit summary; it was in the article when the RFC was set up. My only goal was to get the article as it was when the RFC was set up and then let the RFC run its course. But I can see clearly that Wontonkok will remove the information at any cost, so I don't care to continue this conflict, and I'll wait for the RFC to finish (after it is set up properly). I'll stop there and let an admin do what needs to be done. I'm happy to answer questions. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned – for the record, both users are edit warring. That said, the text that was added is not supported by the reference, as the article says nothing about a donation; so, I understand the claim to the biographies of living persons policy (incorrectly sourced information is still unsourced information) and therefore the exception to the rule; for, unsourced information is better removed from the article than allowed to remain in it. Since there is an ongoing RFC regarding this information, I highly suggest keeping it off of the article until the assertion matches the source; and, then, if there is consensus to add it from the RFC, then do so; if not, then don't. --slakr\ talk / 04:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:300wackerdrive reported by guyzero | talk (Result: 24 hour block )

    Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 300wackerdrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 18:53, 20 October 2008 (edit summary: "")
    2. 18:58, 20 October 2008 (edit summary: "Take it to Talk and get consensus for these edits that you've made over the weekend.")
    3. 19:01, 20 October 2008 (edit summary: "Take it to Talk and get consensus for the edits you made unilaterally over the weekend, LotLE")
    4. 21:00, 20 October 2008 (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */ Since we now have consensus, I am not edit warring. This is the new consensus version")
    • Diff of warning: here


    —guyzero | talk 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - I have blocked 300wackerdrive for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Langdell reported by LoveMonkey (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    Langdell has engaged in an protracted editwar on the article gnosis this the second time Langdell has engaged in a 3rr this appears to be a WP:OWN. User Langdell also abused WP:policy by placing WIKI warning on my talkpage [92] which appears to be an attempt to frustate. (LoveMonkey (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=246706264"