Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
create
Line 495: Line 495:
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
[[User:Road Wizard|Road Wizard]] ([[User talk:Road Wizard|talk]]) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
[[User:Road Wizard|Road Wizard]] ([[User talk:Road Wizard|talk]]) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)



==[[User:Collectonian]] reported by [[User:Abtract]] (Result: ) ==

*Page: {{article|Inu Yasha}}
*User: {{userlinks|Collectonian}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InuYasha&oldid=235105265]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InuYasha&diff=235642809&oldid=235635455]18:43, 1 September 2008
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InuYasha&diff=235744743&oldid=235744454]04:37, 2 September 2008
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InuYasha&diff=235747384&oldid=235746543]04:58, 2 September 2008
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InuYasha&diff=235760537&oldid=235757993]06:52, 2 September 2008

*'''Warning'''
There is no requirement to warn this user who is highly experienced

*'''Comment'''
Collectonian has shown an excessive use of the revert "tool" without engaging in discussion on the talk page, only responding to a challenge on her own talk page. Edit summaries were somewhat dismissive. No attempt at compromise (for example she might have allowed one mention of "flopped" especially since she admits its validity [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACollectonian&diff=235760634&oldid=235757638| here]. [[User:Abtract|Abtract]] ([[User talk:Abtract|talk]]) 07:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:54, 2 September 2008

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]

    User:Abtract reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: Stale)




    This particular editor has a long history of edit warring. Earlier today, he started doing it on Baba. He stopped after I distributed a 3RR warning. Then targeted Saiyuki and, despite our past discussion on its talk page, he kept reverting until breaking 3RR. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Query Is this still in force? CIreland (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. I recently took my name off that contract [6]. Don't know if Abtract did the same, but the fact that he is still hounding me remains. All I asked for was a simple talk, but he can't even do that correctly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale I would have blocked both editors for 48 hours for edit-warring but this has gone stale due to not being handled since my query above. I see JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left notes on the talk pages of both editors; that will have to suffice. I could speculate on why so few admins are prepared to deal with this kind of thing but to do so would not provide a solution. CIreland (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    75.82.22.106 reported by Dúnadan (Result: Blocked 12h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [7]


    Please note that the section on Ethnography includes a small paragraph on "Amerindian contribution in the Argentine population", citing two genetic studies. The inclusion or exclusion of this paragraph has been extensively debated, and the consensus was to keep it. He was asked to stop reverting and to debate.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [12]

    --the Dúnadan 23:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has reverted the page 4 additional times, and has been reverted by two other users. Why hasn't this issue been addressed? If this recourse to report 3RR is not working, please advise on any additional place to report this type of unacceptable behavior. --the Dúnadan 15:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, my issue wasn't taken care of either. Both of our reports were made accordingly so I'm wondering why no sysops have taken action. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 12 hours. Would have been 24 but this report was late being dealt with. CIreland (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maurice27 and Mountolive reported by Benimerin (Result:Benimerin blocked 55 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [13]




    This article is always turned as "controversial" bacause of the manners and attitudes of these both users. User Maurice27 has been previously blocked already because of editwarring and breaking wikettiquette.--Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 55 hours Upon examination, it appears that the reporting party is the one violating 3RR and has been blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Benimerin is blocked and has asked that the following content be added to this thread. I have no view as to its merits and don't endorse it. east718 // talk // email // 14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [14]


    Peter Damian reported by Stifle (Result: Handled)


    • Previous version reverted to: No one specific version, but the reverts are all removals of deletion tags so it is fairly clear


    Mcelite reported by All Hallow's Wraith (Result:Both blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [22]


    • User:Mcelite has spent most of their time at Wikipedia adding "is of Native American descent" and the "Native American" categories to as many pages on African-Americans as they can seemingly find. I don't know whether the information is true or not, but it is never properly sourced. Sometimes Mcelite adds it without any sources at all (i.e. the article in question, Joanna Hayes - [23], stating in their reverts "find a source or remove (every cat.) that isn't supported", "biased", "be helpful and fin[d] one then"), and sometimes citing IMDB biographies and trivia that were written by unknowns (and many of which were similarly amended to say "of African American and Native American" descent by the same IMDB user, freemca, who is almost certainly Mcelite themselves). When adding these IMDB references, Mcelite usually titles the reference "Amazon.com" (as if that would be a reliable biographical source) and states in her edit summaries things like "printed by Amazon. with credited writer", when of course, the reference is to the IMDB. Sometimes they cite one of seemingly millions of random celebrity websites that get their trivia from the IMDB or Wikipedia and never credit writers or sources, i.e. "Celebrity Index" here. Sometimes they give misleading edit summaries, like "it's been cleared" or "that's common knowledge" [24]. User:98.206.111.54 (contributions) is almost certainly a sockpuppet, and indeed Mcelite has been blocked for sockpuppetry before, as well as for 3rr, a personal attack and "Repeatedly inserting uncited information that contradicts article" (block log). They've certainly been warned about adding reliable sources, i.e. [25]. Anyway, Mcelite violated 3rr again on Joanna Hayes, continually reverted the "Native American" categories back into the article without any indication of a source. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Mcelite has violated 3RR in my opinion, doing 4 reverts in a 24-hour period. However, in the past few days it's been only these two users editing the article. All Hallow's Wraith has done 3 reverts in 24 hours, 5 reverts in 48 hours. There is no discussion on the article talk page. I suggest putting arguments there to support your edits, referring to policies and guidelines such as for example general categorization guidelines points 7 and 8 in particular; Wikipedia:Categorization of people; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Verifiability, etc. You may also find it useful to use dispute resolution such as third opinion. Please don't use this noticeboard page for discussion. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors Blocked, Mcelite for 31 hours seeing as he has a history of edit warring and All Hallow's Wraith for 24. Tiptoety talk 04:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mcelite reporting All Hallow's Wraith

    All Hallow's Wraith is not being helpful. I've been trying hard to find reliable sources for numerous articles and it's been extremely hard. One source I did find was completely legit and useable. An expert clearly talking about people that clearly have Native American traits not African nor European. All Hallow's Wraith just removing it saying it's opinionated when this is an expert clearing things up. Also he will only remove Native American categories, and will not remove African American or other categories that are not sourced either. Then he has the nerve to say well the source doesn't support this and that when if it doesn't apply to native heritage than it shouldn't apply to African heritage either. I added the AFrican American categories and the Native American categories for LL Cool J. He removes only the Native American categories so I said why are u doing this and not removing the other categories since he obviously has a problem with them. He doesn't even try to help find sources stating people having other heritage. Aaliyah is very well known to have both African American and Native American heritage. However, it's been difficult to find that information from quote "a reliable source". Also i'm not socketpuppeter he's guessing.Mcelite (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The reliable source Mcelite is talking about is a writer who says that "You can see" the "Native American features",[26] which results in Mcelite's Wikipedia edit stating "is of both African American and Native American descent".[27] Turning the speculation in that reference into fact was already discussed with Mcelite by another editor ([28]), a comment Mcelite promptly removed from their talk page.[29] This page (LL Cool J) is in fact another 3rr violation, 20:58, 29 August 2008, 07:29, 30 August 2008, 18:07, 30 August 2008, 18:22, 30 August 2008). Oh, and as for the sockpuppet, 98.206.111.54 they would appear to have the same penchant for adding IMDB references that were titled "Amazon.com" [30]. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That person is an expert one of the main complaints on an article that is currently being worked on. The expert clearly states that he has features that are Native American clearly. You can't get those traits mixing African American and Caucasian together. It's so simple and All Hallow's is making this a big fight. He has added things were people have called someone African American and the person didn't call themselves AFrican American the interviewer did which isn't better than an expert that works on the subject consistently pointing out features that are Native American. Therefore if that source has to be removed than I say All Hallow mush remove information from a article which the person herself doesn't state she is African American but the interviewer does. That's like me interviewing James Earl Jones saying the African American actor when he is of African American, Native American, and Irish descent. Also IMDB is not independent they are owned by Amazon therefore they fall under Amazon's copyright.Mcelite (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Walterelyon reported by Shannon Rose (Result: stale)


    • Previous version reverted to: [31]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [38]

    Edit history is a mess due to relentless reverting day after day after day. Edit warring has been going on since the 25th of August. – Shannon Rose (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The 3RR warning is after the last revert. Walterelyon is a new user (editing since Aug. 25). The diffs span more than 24 hours, (the first 4 on Aug. 28 and the last 2 on Aug. 30) and the 4th diff is by a different user, so no 3RR violation can be established using only these diffs. The "previous version reverted to" you've supplied is simply the version just before the first diff. You should provide a previous version that contains the same material being reverted to, in order to establish that they're reverts rather than new edits. You may need to supply a different "previous version reverted to" for different reverts if different material is being reverted. You should state the time of each diff and the time of the "previous version reverted to". Walterelyon has been participating in talk page discussion; I encourage Shannon Rose to also participate in that discussion rather than reverting without explanation. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale; the edit-warring's calmed down. east718 // talk // email // 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Concretecold reported by JAF1970 (Result: Both blocked 24h)



    Okay, this guy has been obstinate about reverting to a subject that is irrelevent to the article (stores charging $2 for the Spore Creature Creator. I've told him over and over that it doesn't belong; for instance, GameStop and Amazon's deals were not used because they're not relevent, either. He's created a username and has just been a general NUISANCE, and it's tiring. I warned him, he does a tit-for-tat and decides to warn me on my talk page. He's got loads of attitude and mod DMacks had said he'd protect the page IF this continues, but I'm not sure protection works anymore.

    He has been obstinate and I finally reported him - which of course he tit-for-tatted and reported me, despite the fact I've already told him to take it up in the Development of Spore talk page. Then he tried to bargain his Spore (2008 video game) editing in exchange for Development of Spore (see Spore (2008 video game) talk page. Huh?

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

    JAF1970 (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I believe JAF has violated 3RR on the article as well. If Concretecold gets blocked for 3RR, then JAF should as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TipPt reported by Avraham (Result: 2 weeks)




    • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been previously blocked for 3RR, and is ipso facto cognizant of the violation.

    User is a single purpose account whose self-avowed purpose is to prevent physical great pain and sexual harm which he believes is caused by circumcision. The user's edits show a directed and concentrated focus on adding POV based edits to Circumcision and related articles. In the 40+ pages of archives of the talk page, consensus has been shown to be against this user on a regular basis. Regardless the user continues to try and insert improper, undue-weight kinds of edits to further his point of view and use wikipedia as a soapbox. The user's history of incivility is also problematic. An RfC/topic ban may be called for, but certainly I believe a block is needed to prevent further impropriety to the circumcision article. I would apply it myself, but having been recently incvolved with this user, I feel it more appropriate that other eyes investigate. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for two weeks. east718 // talk // email // 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Berby reported by User:Traditional unionist (Result: Page protected )




    Two different accounts with obvious socking going on. Sock report pending, but disruptive editing continuesTraditional unionist (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Even if no sockpuppetry were involved, Berby has violated 3RR. (non-admin opinion.) Ovlem, Berby and MiddleEastlands are deleting the words "the Republic of" before "Ireland". The revert by MiddleEastlands was the first edit on that account. Four editors have been reverting in the other direction; Mooretwin may have done 4 reverts in 24 hours but perhaps this is excusable given the sockpuppetry; the others did only 1 or 2 reverts each. Ovlem has now been blocked by Jza84 for 48 hours for 3RR violation. I've added two reverts and other information in italics to the above report. Coppertwig (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected for 15 days. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    JimBobUSA and IP 76.173.161.184 reported by Professor Marginalia (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [44]


    User:JimBobUSA:


    User:76.173.161.184


    IP reverts over past 2 weeks by user:67.120.59.46 to same article follow pattern of user:76.173.161.184. I left earlier warning on 2nd IP involved in the slow speed edit war [56].

    Professor marginalia (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tmtoulouse reported by The7thdr (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    I have left messages on the users talk page and comments on the articles talk page but the user insists on reverting wityhout discussion here The7thdr (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see no set of reversions occurring within a 24 hour period. Kuru talk 22:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Report

    Onelifefreak2007 reported by TAnthony (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [61]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [68]

    I am almost embarrassed to call attention to such an inconsequential "dispute" as this (disagreement over a date), but despite all advice and warnings this editor insist on constant reverts without edit summary or discussion, in several articles, over totally unimportant factoids. The bulk of his recent edits actually involve this article and List of One Life to Live cast members (also fraught with, in my opinion, bad-faith reverts). Nearly all of the activity in these articles lately has been back-and-forth edits like this. I do not even know who is "correct," and another editor is usually involved, but Onelifefreak2007 seems to be the one not acting in good faith. I'm not an expert with the rules, but I certainly can recognize inappropriate behavior, language and attitude. — TAnthonyTalk 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    reporting 69.158.149.30

    69.158.149.30 reported by Deor (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [69]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [75]

    Deor (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is regarding the simple BOLDING of America in the lead of the article of the same name (Americas), something which is prevalent in Wikipedia. Deor points me to the Manual of Style as a reason not to do it, but it doesn't support his position and then said user doesn't clarify, and reverts as well. BS. 69.158.149.30 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    report 68.40.196.41

    68.40.196.41 reported by Road Wizard (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [76]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [82]

    Road Wizard (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Collectonian reported by User:Abtract (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [83]
    • 1st revert: [84]18:43, 1 September 2008
    • 2nd revert: [85]04:37, 2 September 2008
    • 3rd revert: [86]04:58, 2 September 2008
    • 4th revert: [87]06:52, 2 September 2008
    • Warning

    There is no requirement to warn this user who is highly experienced

    • Comment

    Collectonian has shown an excessive use of the revert "tool" without engaging in discussion on the talk page, only responding to a challenge on her own talk page. Edit summaries were somewhat dismissive. No attempt at compromise (for example she might have allowed one mention of "flopped" especially since she admits its validity here. Abtract (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=235768350"