Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Do you have questions about this page? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

Administrator instructions
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Content
User
Other
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
You must notify any user you report.

You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • 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.
  • A 3RR report helper tool is available, which assists in diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.
Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than 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 the 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.
You can use Twinkle to report edit warring now, which will handle diffs for you automagically!
Click here to create a new report
If you do not see your report here, you can search the archives for it.

Contents

User:MarcosPassos reported by User:Kevin McE (Result: Blocked)

Nothing more to be done or discussed here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: MarcosPassos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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:
A glimse at the relatively new editor's history reveals an extraordinarily aggressive mode of addressing other editors. Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: MarcosPassos is aggressive and has been wrong on more than one occasion. I'm not sure if a block would be beneficial in reducing this behaviour or if it would turn the editor away from editing. Perhaps the editor could explain.
I don't know that the editor was warned before 3RR was crossed and has not been formally warned on their talk page, per standard practice. There was a discussion, which the editor has participated in, on the article's talk page. To the editor's credit, he (I'm assuming male from the name and attitude, but would be happy to change the gender if informed otherwise) has not continued to edit war since being informed of 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is a kick in the teeth of my theory. If MarcosPassos is "not a new user" as he claims, then it's not clear if he knows about 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, I do know about the 3RR, but I thought that that was a case of vandalism, since the other WC articles do present the Stadiums' names with their respective namings rights as in 2006 FIFA World Cup or 2005 FIFA Confederations Cup. I will be more careful about using the term vandalism again from now on and I apologise to you all. But I confess I can't really understand why we can use the stadiums' naming rights in some article and not in others. MarcosPassos (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I had already demonstrated to you that the edit I made was in accordance with authoritative sources, and I was restoring the article to the long standing text: you had no grounds to assume that it was vandalism. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of two weeks. The block is for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
And the sockpuppetry block has now been lifted: where does that leave the 3RR breach exacerbated by extreme bad faith? Kevin McE (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I see no point in reopening this just because the user's sock puppet block was lifted. Any block now, to the extent it was warranted, would be punitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Please clarify the result of the ANEW. Was MP considered in breach or not? If it is now assumed that the sockpuppetry block was not justified, is it to be considered that the c.20 hour ban was sufficient for the 3RR breach. And please clarify why changing the header is inappropriate when the action that rendered judgement moot on the 3RR breach was reversed while the 3RR remained unconcluded. Kevin McE (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
We have a lawyer in our midst. When a report is "concluded" is determined by admins, not by you. Similarly, admins put in a result, not you. Just in case it's not clear that this is now over, I'm formally closing this report. Please move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fluppy reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Warned)

Page
Adolf Hitler (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported
Fluppy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Jun 15 2013 0:49 ""
  2. Jun 15 2013 0:23 ""
  3. Jun 14 2013 20:28 "Changes as per Jimbo to eliminate British English from US http://en.wikipedia.org/"
  4. Jun 13 2013 20:17 "per Jimbo"


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Jun 15 2013 0:36 "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adolf Hitler. (TW★TW)"
  2. Jun 15 2013 0:54 "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adolf Hitler. (TW★TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The article has a template that it must be in British English. This editor keeps reverting the word "centre" to American English edit-warring disruptively and without responding to messages on his talk. He is showing no signs of stopping his tendentious disruption. He is also expanding the same concept to other articles: [8]. Perhaps there should be an ANI report after this one if this behaviour continues. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Warned. Not an actual 3RR violation. If the user continues to revert between British and American spellings on any page without getting consensus first, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Ed. I know it was not a 4RR but the speed of the reverts was alarming, hence the report. I'll keep an eye for future violations. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:2008jordancfc reported by User:Pseudonymous Rex (Result: Blocked)

Page: Chester F.C. (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: 2008jordancfc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff
  5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 6 June diff 15 June diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

Comments:

The user has reverted without any discussion about 10 times this month, including 5 times in the last 24 hours. I posted in my edit summary and on the user's talk page a link to where consensus against their addition is demonstrated, and invited the user to start a discussion to show if consensus has changed. I was reverted without discussion. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As one of the interested parties in this, I feel I ought to throw my hat into the ring. The user in question has consistently ignored advice from established editors and apparently believes that the Chester F.C. article is his own private domain. People abuse their editing privileges on Wikipedia all too often, and I believe we take too light-handed a stance on this. Give him a decent block. – PeeJay 18:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Fangorn-Y reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Fangorn-Y blocked; Ohconfucius warned, later blocked)

Page: Edward Snowden (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Fangorn-Y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13] (after warning)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14], he replied here.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Edward_Snowden#Status_of_White_House_petition.

Comments:
Notified here. VQuakr (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I also warned User:Ohconfucius (|talk|history|links|watch|logs), but they have not edited the page again since the warning. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I've blocked Fangorn-Y.
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I've warned Ohconfucious that if they edit the article in any way that could be interpreted as a revert in the next five days, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Ohconfucious ignored my warning and has been blocked for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User: 2.220.52.201 reported by User: SonOfThornhill (Result: Locked)

Page: Star Trek (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: 2.220.52.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the IP's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff

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

Comments:
Unregisted editor has made repeated changes despite issue still being discussed on the articles Talk page. He has been warned not to make further changes or reverts until the issue is resolved and consensus reached but continues to do so. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of the SonOfThornhill's reverts:

  1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=560073797&oldid=560073404
  2. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=560082834&oldid=560076990
  3. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=560084177&oldid=560083119

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek&diff=560077295&oldid=560076556

Comments:
User:SonOfThornhill has reverted my edits after I had attempted to tidy the definitions to a sense of uniformity, however it is clear that after having tried to reason with them that they do not understand the source material and the context of the definitions.2.220.52.201 (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Not the point. The issue was still being discussed on the article's talk page. You was warned not to make any changes until consensus had be reached by the editors, yet you continued to make changes and reverts. And you are still doing it, making yet another revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=560087938&oldid=560084177 That is 4 times now and not how things work here. Editors discuss and agree on such major changes before making them in the article. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:109.78.213.182 reported by User:Mathnerd 101 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported
109.78.213.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Jun 16 2013 3:55 AM "Undid revision 560133299 by Finnegas (talk) Arbitrary deletion of relevant biographical information"
  2. Jun 16 2013 4:08 AM "Undid revision 560136825 by Finnegas (talk) Demonstrate the SF policy on copyright that has been violated and the deletion stands"
  3. Consecutive edits made from Jun 16 2013 4:29 AM to Jun 16 2013 4:56 AM
    1. Jun 16 2013 4:29 AM "Undid revision 560138282 by RashersTierney (talk) Now referenced to National SF website"
    2. Jun 16 2013 4:56 AM ""
  4. Jun 16 2013 9:40 AM "Undid revision 560167925 by RashersTierney (talk) Republication permitted. No copyright whatsoever"
  5. Jun 16 2013 10:05 AM "Undid revision 560175411 by Mathnerd 101 (talk) What source. Permission to republish is there on the Donegal SF website. See link"
  6. Jun 16 2013 10:19 AM "Undid revision 560176999 by Mathnerd 101 (talk) Go right ahead but be sure to explain why you are insisting on leaving a page vandalised in error"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Jun 16 2013 10:12 AM "Warning: Edit warring on Pádraig Mac Lochlainn. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See talk page.

Comments:

Continues removing copyright violation tag. Characterizes reverting edits as "vandalism", as seen here. -Mathnerd 101 17:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Reinthal reported by User:Narom (Result: Blocked)

Page
Dates (TV series) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported
Reinthal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Jun 16 2013 8:08 PM "/* Series 1 (2013) */ As I said, this was not revealed until ep3. Behave yourself."
  2. Jun 16 2013 7:49 PM "Not known until ep3"
  3. Jun 16 2013 7:46 PM "Undid revision 560187542 by Narom (talk)"
  4. Jun 16 2013 7:37 PM "Undid revision 560180811 by Narom (talk)"
  5. Jun 16 2013 6:44 PM "Undid revision 560171587 by Narom (talk) Sorry these are spoilers and should be avoided.."
  6. Jun 16 2013 5:15 PM "/* Series 1 (2013) */ rm spoilers"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Jun 16 2013 6:48 PM "no"
  2. Jun 16 2013 7:48 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dates (TV series). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Jun 16 2013 6:48 PM on User talk:Reinthal "Notice: Don't delete or flag potential 'spoilers' in Wikipedia articles on Dates (TV series). (TW)"
Comments:

Initially I reverted edits with good faith, proceeded to revert it 3 times and after warning edit page to make it look like not breaking 3RR.

Another user has also warned them off removing spoilers.

Also proceeded to WP:PA myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reinthal&diff=560189183&oldid=560188176 Narom (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I blocked for both the WP:3RR violation and the attitude. In addition to the personal attack ("pommy bastard"), the editor thumbed their nose at the warnings ("Ooh scary!"). That said, @Narom, I have some advice for the future. First, you should have stopped at 3 reverts or earlier; you actually violated WP:3RR before another editor "took over". Perhaps you miscounted, but be more careful. Second, edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. I see absolutely nothing on the article talk page. That is the place to discuss content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah oops. As you can see i did mention it on his talk page, i'll try and remember to put it on the talk page next time. Thanks. Narom (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:71.105.111.52 reported by User:Leaky caldron (Result: article semi-protected)

Page
Anjem Choudary (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported
71.105.111.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Jun 16 2013 9:22 PM "/* Views and marches */"
  2. Jun 16 2013 9:18 PM "/* Views and marches */"
  3. Jun 16 2013 9:15 PM "/* Views and marches */"
  4. Jun 16 2013 9:10 PM "/* Views and marches */"

plus 2 further identical reverts making 6-7 so far.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Jun 16 2013 9:19 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I amend his initial change to utilise his reference in the correct place (with ref to his will to promote Sharia). IP has subsequently re-inserted entire block without checking changes that were made, nor taking in the edit reasoning I left behind. Talk page has turned to personal attacks and accusations, turfing to reddit and user harassment (also promoting harassment via reddit).[15] I have reverted 3 times and have stopped. Koncorde (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User now edits under LAwestsideguy (talk · contribs), same problem. jonkerz ♠talk 08:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I had already added semi-protection to the article before seeing this report. LAwestsideguy is Pictogram voting keep.svg Already blocked (by Rschen7754). BencherliteTalk 09:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:LoveWaffle (Result: indef for Rusted Auto Parts)

Page: Captain America: The Winter Soldier (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [17]
  2. [18]
  3. [19]
  4. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

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

Comments:

I yet again find myself with no choice but to report User:Rusted AutoParts for his conduct on the page for the film Captain America: The Winter Soldier. While there is an attempt to talk this out on the talk page, the user's conduct has been marked by incivility.
LoveWaffle (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, I disagreed with Waffle's insistence. The issue is being discussed on the talk page, this is merely someone who wants to be correct. Rusted AutoParts 21:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I resent the bad faith characterization of my edit.
LoveWaffle (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What else could it be? You insist the source outweighs the makers of the movie. Rusted AutoParts 21:32 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to continue discussing this, you need to do that on the article's talk page, and not here.
LoveWaffle (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I will, but since you felt the need to try and get me blocked, I felt the need to defend myself. Rusted AutoParts 21:38 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't Rusted Auto Parts's first block for edit warring, nor has he been blocked for every occurrence of edit-warring in his history (he's one of those editors that edit-wars up to the first warning, and thn backs off). Combined with history of personal attacks, I don't see any particular reason to hope that RAP will suddenly become a productive editor. Indefed.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna reported by User:SergeWoodzing (Result: )

Page: Swedish Royal Family (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Surtsicna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: article talk page (same link as below)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

It has been recommended here that I report this after several days of trying to figure out how and/or get help from someone witrh experience. I don't know if I'm doing this right. To me, forms like this are dizzying and it takes a long sitting to get things right, trial & error, trial & error, trial & error, many times over and over. In all these years, I've never experienced anything like this. And I hope never to see it again. That's why I asked and hoped for help. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC) -->

PS Just found out that this is a second reported violation by this user.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that all of those diffs are reverts. Even if they were, none would count as a revert for the purpose of the 3RR, per the last of the exemptions listed here (removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) does not count as a revert for the purposes of 3RR). I've explained that at Talk:Swedish Royal Family. SergeWoodzing insists that his "common sense" trumps verifiability, something I strongly disagree with, especially when it comes to biographies of living persons. I also have point out at how sad it is to see a user call for block of another user seven days after the dispute ended. Blocks serve to prevent further disruption, not to provide vindictive users with an opportunity to spite others. Surtsicna (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My notification on this user's talk page was immediately removed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Which I was entirely allowed to do. Your obligation was to notify me and my right was to remove the notification. Anyway, as Huon neatly put it at Talk:Swedish Royal Family: "... there's no edit warring to be stopped any more, and secondly, Surtsicna clearly acted in good faith and may well have been within the bounds of the BLP exception. Reporting him may well result in a WP:BOOMERANG." There has been no "edit-warring" for the past seven days, so the only purpose of this report could be to spite me. Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also untrue that you have "never experienced anything like this" "in all these years". In 2012, you also wrongly reported a user for breaking the rule. Why would you claim otherwise? Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)