Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 194: Line 194:
::*{{AN3|b}} – 72 hours by [[User:Favonian]] for disruptive editing. This editor, besides warring on the article, also reverted an RfC close three times on the talk page on March 7. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
::*{{AN3|b}} – 72 hours by [[User:Favonian]] for disruptive editing. This editor, besides warring on the article, also reverted an RfC close three times on the talk page on March 7. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


== [[User:Saiful Trismegistus]] reported by [[User:MarshallKe]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Saiful Trismegistus]] reported by [[User:MarshallKe]] (Result: Warned) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Cat meat}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Cat meat}} <br />
Line 218: Line 218:


Added latest revert [[User:MarshallKe|MarshallKe]] ([[User talk:MarshallKe|talk]]) 21:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Added latest revert [[User:MarshallKe|MarshallKe]] ([[User talk:MarshallKe|talk]]) 21:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' [[User:Saiful Trismegistus]] is '''warned''' they may be blocked if they revert again at either [[Cat meat]] or [[Dog meat]] without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. The user should also be aware of our policy on [[WP:No legal threats]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


== [[User:Cristiansr 99]] reported by [[User:Emir of Wikipedia]] (Result: Blocked) ==
== [[User:Cristiansr 99]] reported by [[User:Emir of Wikipedia]] (Result: Blocked) ==

Revision as of 19:35, 9 March 2022

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

    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.

    User:JMwins19 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Warned)

    Page: Sour (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: JMwins19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075421466 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
    2. 16:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "The work that this article covers has nothing to do with that world event, it is not mentioned lyrically to any capacity. So no, it is not."
    3. 15:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "Completely unnecessary information to include i. the opening paragraph. Shall we also include how it was recorded during the 2020 US Presidential election and the Beirut explosion? The intro paragraph is for information key to understanding the topic. Talking about whatever world events were taking place at the time is not necessary for a pop album with no lyrical mentions of them."
    4. 23:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC) "This information in this clause is better suited for the background section than the introductory paragraph."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sour (album)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Disputing content in the lede of the article, and decides to restore instead of taking to the talk page for further discussion about the content they are removing/changing. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment After seeing this edit summary, as well as the contents of the user's user page, are there any female-identifying experienced editors who would be willing to mentor the reported editor? I maintain that gender doesn't make a bit of difference in editing capability, but this is a rare case where a female voice could go a long way in building a constructive editor. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to point out that this editor is trolling/threatening editors (See 1 and 2) who try to correct them, and uses uncivil words (3). The second link, especially, has made me very uncomfortable after I translated it to English. ℛonherry 03:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I get the feeling the user is not exactly to collaborate constructively. Threatens users and often argues the point she is being oppressed by male editors. Based on Ronherry's links, this goes back to at least 2021. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danosauruscreck reported by User:General Ization (Result: Warned)

    Page: South Lebanon Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Danosauruscreck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075481187 by General Ization (talk) see talk page"
    2. 01:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "It says "Opponents". Read before reverting."
    3. 01:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "Unsourced and incorrect. UN, Ireland and Netherlands not enemies of SLA."
    4. 01:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "Absurd. Ireland an enemy? Yeah, sure. The UN was a neutral party."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on South Lebanon Army."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 01:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Opponents */ re"

    Comments:

    3RR violation after LV4 warning. Also note that the article South Lebanon Army is subject to active arbitration remedies, including 1RR (which I acknowledge even I did not notice until after the edit war stopped). General Ization Talk 01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is also subject to a 30/500 edit restriction, criteria that Danosauruscreck does not meet. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the edit because of the Battle of At-Tiri. I know many of the veterans of the battle. The SLA tortured and killed two Irish soldiers. Eagleye1001 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LVTW2‎ reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: LVTW2‎ (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: Talk:Taiwan#location description

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

    Comments:


    Not their first time edit warring on Taiwan, however the disingenuous use of a preferred "status quo" vs the actual status quo that is their justification for this edit warring means that this can't be ignored. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @User:Horse Eye's Back has refused to compromise with other editors in several occassions over the talk page and arbitrarily impose his version that many editors has disagreed about. What I am trying to do is to sidestep the issue and refrain from lingering into senseless edit conflicts, and making more constructive move for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LVTW2 (talkcontribs) 05:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That first revert is of User:ImChessFan21 not myself and I don't believe that I am the author of the status quo version although I've been editing that page for a long time so I could be wrong about that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Besides, I made the descriptive change to the lede on 21rd February [8], which has since remained stable for the past two weeks, until a rapid altercation raised by @User:ImChessFan21 and then @User:Horse Eye's Back in the last 24 hours for their attempts to revert back to the disputed version. I did not intend to cause any edit war, and in every single one of my edits, I have described in details about my purpose in edit summary . LVTW2 (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CanadaLibertarianAccountablility reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: blocked indefinitely)

    Page: Politics of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: CanadaLibertarianAccountablility (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 07:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Partisan Censorship fixed with viable source added"
    2. 07:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC) ""
    3. 07:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Fixed partisan vandalism by Walter, PPC is a growing party that was in participation in the recent federal election, making it viable to be listed under these conditions."
    4. 07:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Even though the PPC had not elected a member in parliament , The PPC is a fast growing party in Canada, regardless of Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's partisan opinion."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 07:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Politics of Canada."
    2. 07:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Politics of Canada."
    3. 07:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Unnecessary political bias */ new section"
    4. 07:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Unnecessary political bias */ +"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    I have also informed WP:AIV that the editor is not here to create an encyclopedia but to win political points. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Fortunately, Materialscientist (talk · contribs) stepped in to revert one of the four edits so I am at three reverts, granted it is appears that CanadaLibertarianAccountablility's edits could constitute vandalism as I explained on the editor's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially blocked for 48 hours, but following a personal attack directed at Walter, I extended the block to indefinite. PhilKnight (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Hsynylmztr (Result: No violation)

    Page: Nader Shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [9]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [10]
    2. [11]
    3. [12]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20][21]

    Comments:
    I added the word 'Turkoman' before the name of the Afsharid dynasty. It is also mentioned on the Afsharids[22]. But this user was angry at that and reverted my edit even though ı had sources. So I opened a talk page and another user agrees with me on 'nothing is wrong with this brief mention', but he keeps deleting it and reverted it 3 times without any consensus. He asked me to reach a consensus but in fact, I opened the section, and he made the constant reverts.Hsynylmztr (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not a violation of the 3RR rule. WP:OUCH, I will be reporting this user to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's WP:EDIT WARRING. Not a violation of the 3RR rule only because of it was not done within a 24-hour period. Yet, that's still an edit warring.Hsynylmztr (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll let the admins explain it to you. Also, enjoy [23]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Atlantico 000 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Lukas Podolski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Atlantico 000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075776850 by Walter Görlitz (talk)VANDALISM! Lack of content + the user himself got a warning for withdrawing content in the discussion. See discussion."
    2. 16:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075771857 by Walter Görlitz (talk) per: MOS:ETHNICITY, more: I saw your application and addressed it in the form of an objection. I do not understand your problem, since compliance with Wikipedia policy (MOS:ETHNICITY) has been established, and you yourself wrote that you have no problem with it (hence my surprise)."
    3. 07:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Two times renewed readiness to implement changes + compliance with the MOS: ETHNICITY policy. (see discussion)"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 21:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC) to 21:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
      1. 21:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "remove nationality per MOS:ETHNICITY + per consensus reached in here Talk:Lukas_Podolski#Revived_in_2022"
      2. 21:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "ref for Podolski's birth name"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Lukas Podolski."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 02:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Revived in 2022 */ r"
    2. 16:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Revived in 2022 */ +"

    Comments:

    Editor is attempting to be WP:POINTY and refusing to back-down. The editor is also reverting WP:GF edits along with the point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Objection, please read the discussion about Lukas Podolski. There, for many days, there has been a discussion about whether to remove the footballer's nationality from the lead. It has been shown that nationality should be removed in line with Wikipedia policy. There had been no consensus before; and I was deliberately waiting until the end of last week to make changes, and there was no vote against. It is more the user of Walter Görlitz who should be banned from further editing (per not referring to the arguments, forcing his point of view). Atlantico 000 (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor warned me that I was edit warring and then went on to make the fourth revert. The editor seems to know the policy, yet elected to walk over the line. I am not sure how an objection can be offered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you don't break the rules, what is currently on Podolski's website will be in line with Wikipedia's policy, the content of the discussion and the practice (per Matty Cash). Why write "the removal of nationality suits me well" (my paraphrase of your statement), and then be offended in a matter that is cosmetic and obvious. Atlantico 000 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I broke no rules. You were bold and made a claim to apply what you thought was the consensus. I reverted you and asked you to wait for an uninvolved editor to determine (which is what just happened).
    I would like to remove nationality from all biographies. I think it breeds division and hatred (as you have demonstrated quite well) but I believe that consensus is more important than my own opinion. The project has determined that nationality is important (in some cases) and so I fall back to what the group want, not I want.
    Now that the editor has commented, would you like to self-revert and avoid a block? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, abstaining from editing the article, I will opt for the changes while debating the discussion of the article. Atlantico 000 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The request was not to abstain from editing the article, it was reverting to the earlier revision, which is an option discussed at 3RR. By the time I posted here, that would have been difficult due to a single, intervening edit, and within a few minutes, impossible without a lot of effort due to two others. You then edit warred to remove the uninvolved editor's closing of the thread, three times, and found yourself blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saiful Trismegistus reported by User:MarshallKe (Result: Warned)

    Page: Cat meat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Saiful Trismegistus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]
    4. [28]
    5. [29]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

    Comments:
    User has also been making repeated reverts on Dog meat. MarshallKe (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Added latest revert MarshallKe (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cristiansr 99 reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: Blocked)

    Page: List of most-followed Twitch channels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Cristiansr 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075996565 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)"
    2. 20:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075994740 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)"
    3. 20:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "Restored deleted column. Do not delete, add sources instead"
    4. 20:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Restored deleted column without any real reason. Do not delete, add sources instead"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "/* March 2022 */ trim"
    2. 20:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of most-followed Twitch channels."
    3. 20:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "/* March 2022 */"
    4. 20:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of most-followed Twitch channels."
    5. 20:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "/* March 2022 */ fix indent level"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 20:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Vandalism in this page */"
    2. 20:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Vandalism in this page */ Rename to Unsourced country data"
    3. 20:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Unsourced country data */"
    4. 20:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Unsourced country data */"

    Comments: Blocked by Ponyo. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikiwikiguyguy reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )

    Page: Japanese domestic market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Wikiwikiguyguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Some of it is actually sources and referenced,

    Some.of it would be sourced by now of people didn't mess.around with this page so much.

    I am trying to fix this.page but people keep.deleting information.

    Why not help find sources instead of being.lazy and deleting everything?

    I will just keep adding info and.sources no.matyer how often people delete it.

    Which is hard with the time.I spend at work and how often people delete things or add false information to this pages.

    However I will kee..."

    1. 15:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC) ""
    2. 14:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Japanese domestic market."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This user continues to add largely unsourced swaths of text that are either redundant or unencyclopedic to the aforementioned article. CUPIDICAE💕 16:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Page: NGK (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2409:4073:181:516:54A5:A7FF:FE6A:E1EA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1076140957 by Emir Shane (talk) Revert vandalism. Check properly"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 15:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC) to 15:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
      1. 15:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075943249 by Xplore Master (talk)"
      2. 15:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075943165 by Xplore Master (talk) Vandalism"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on NGK (film)."
    2. 16:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on NGK (film)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Dmford13 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Dmford13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1076149941 by Moxy (talk)"
    2. 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1076147839 by Moxy (talk)"
    3. 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1076146524 by Moxy (talk)"
    4. 16:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1076141138 by Moxy (talk)"
    5. 13:30, March 9, 2022 (UTC)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Washington, D.C. */ new section"
    2. 16:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Washington, D.C. */"
    3. [33] 3RV warning

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "/* User:Dmford13 */ new section"

    Comments:

    Not sure what more I can do...have linked the policies in question to no avail. have talk ongoing on there talk page...and article talk (with a few others). Think all done in good faith but the are causing serious accibility problems to the article as per WP:SANDWICH and WP:GALLERY. Also adding odd linking to catagories for section see also links. FA arrticle not the place to learn the Wikiways. Block or page protectioin? Just need them to understand what they are doing and join talks over just editing Moxy- 17:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I tried to discuss and reason with the user but they're only here to push their own edits, regardless of whether they're good, bad, in between and does not wish to collaborate as per their statements on their talk page: I have worked hard to improve an article that lacked detail and information. I will go through it and will update it to improve it. But people like you are why some articles are so weak. You won't let us improve them. Dmford13 (talk) 1:40 pm, Today (UTC−5) and then Block me if you want. CUPIDICAE💕 18:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring per the simultaneous complaint at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]