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 Npovshark (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 2 May 2009 (→‎Npovshark reported by Piotrus (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    Reports

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


    Alonsornunez reported by Tennis expert (Result: stale)









    • Diff of 3RR warning: [1]


    This user made seven reversions to the Serena Williams article in a 16-hour period and acknowledged his edit warring objective after the last reversion here. Since at least February 2009, Alonsornunez has a disruptive history of edit warring, despite repeated requests on his discussion page not to do that. See, for example, these requests: (1), (2), (3). Tennis expert (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Addendum: This user made other reversions in the Serena Williams article during this time period that apparently do not count for these purposes because there was not an intervening edit by another editor. None of those "other reversions" are listed above. Tennis expert (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is stale William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    HJensen reported by Tennis expert (Result: stale)







    • Diff of 3RR warning: [2]


    This is not a warning. It is a statement of an opinion. But, on the other hand, User:Tennis expert normally considers his opiinons as the truth. See this diff at the bottom.--HJensen, talk 08:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    As the above evidence shows, this user made five reversions to the Serena Williams article in a 4-hour period. And this is not a "stale" complaint as the current version of the Serena Williams article reflects the edit warring by this user and Alonsornunez and because HJensen clearly does not understand WP:3RR. See, for example, this post by him. Tennis expert (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just a note that this matter is already being discussed concurrently with Tennis expert (himself accused by three editors of violating 3RR) on his talk page (of course, this does not prevent the matter from being discussed here); it is also of note that this incident, of which a majority agree was precipitated by Tennis expert, is part of a larger issue being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert. And of course it is identical to the above report that was rejected as stale. AlonsornunezComments 07:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification. I have never filed any 3RR complaint against Tennis expert, in case one reads Alonsornunez' commets above like that. I have, however, endosed and put forth critical commmentary against Tennis expert's behavior at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Tennis_expert this RfC}.--HJensen, talk 08:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I do not think that this is a 3RR violation. It documents how an honest editor acts when he sees a week's collaborative efforts being disgracefully mutilated through bad faith, intentionally revengeful, lone-editor efforts (in the sense that he sees any cooperation as "tag-team" efforts against him) in strong opposition to consensus. (As for the diff proving my lack of understanding of the 3RR rule, see Tennis expert's incivil, bad faith response to my clafifying question here --HJensen, talk 08:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Stale William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    79.65.91.94 reported by Parrot of Doom (Result: Blocks )


    • Previous version reverted to: [3]


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    There is no single user reverting this page - it is a mixture of anonymous IPs and one newly-registered user. All are visible in the page's recent history. Despite requests to discuss the matter on the talk page, in general they are ignoring our requests for citations, and are reverting to material which does not appear to be verified by the already-present citations. I request that an admin remind these users of Wikipedia policies regarding the use of proper sources, and take measures to prevent further changes. Until such time as these users demonstrate reliable sources which support their edits, I do not believe it is proper for them to continually revert. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The reported IP has been blocked, along with obvious socks. A warning has been put onto the likely sock puppeteer's talk page. Nja247 19:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thankyou for your help on this matter. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again - this blocked user would appear to have returned - see this diff. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Report anymore please (on my talk) as I may need to have a rangeblock done to prevent block evasion. Nja247 22:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mashkin reported by Shuki (Result: grow up children)


    • Previous version reverted to: [5]


    • 1st revert: [6]
    • 2nd revert: [7]
    • 3rd revert: [8]
    • 4th revert: [9]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [10]

    Mashkin accused me of bringing a false report and from a dubious source. The report I made was sourced to a major Israeli newspaper website which quotes a prominent survey company in the media industry. Mashkin, blindly reverts without bothering to even want to confirm or otherwise this fact. Mashkin finally then looks for a more updated source (now suddenly giving credibility to the survey company he had doubted and would not believe) and rv my edit again. My edit which reports about a landmark occurrence for the rabbi's newspaper (even if Mashkin believes is an anomaly) is still part of history and legitimate. Mashkin refuses to allow anything good to be printed in this article. --Shuki (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed it appears that I violated by mistake 3RR and I regret it. Please note that Shuki has knowingly violated 3RR:

    Bad faith notification by Shuki: Shuki put a notice on my talk page [15] pointing out the 3RR and asking me to revert. However, at this time he has already reverted (and performed a 3RR violation) [16] (and f course I could not revert myself). For this action alone he should be blocked. Mashkin (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes indeed, you've both broken 3RR, so you can both have 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    98.199.37.31 & 98.178.141.174 reported by Best O Fortuna (Result: not much)


    Keeps adding:

    ", and yet still accomplish nothing other than beating up on Texas Tech in both sports."
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    I kept waiting for someone else to step up and put an end to this nonsense. Just one more reason why I don't think the present model for Wikipedia is working. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More vandalism than 3RR. I'll block the latest IP, but it will do no good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fanoftheworld reported by Alexrexpvt (Result: 72h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [17]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [25]


    User was blocked before for the same reason. Many of the above reverts were of edits made by someone called in to give a third opinion. Alexrexpvt (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.206.24.96 reported by User:Offliner (Result:Protected )

    • Previous version reverted to: [26]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]

    Offliner (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP has changed, so I have protected for a week. Kevin (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FreddyPickle reported by BOZ (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [34]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

    New admin here, looking for some guidance. This user has been posting that the subject was insane based on his own suppositions. He reverted before I insisted he bring it to talk, reverted me, and after a warning from myself and another admin he reverted yet again without further discussion. BOZ (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He didn't receive an adequate final warning. I have left him one now. Let's see if he continues to revert. This is both edit warring and BLP nonsense, so he shouldn't get much slack. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I don't have my warnings down yet and was looking for the templates when I stumbled across this page. :) Fortunately it is not actually a BLP since the subject is deceased, but that doesn't make it any less wrong to make bald assertions about a person without any verifiable sources to reference. BOZ (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning removed, but so far no further vandalism (unless you count an IP who did something different). BOZ (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - No action for now. Consider a block if the 'insane' comment is restored again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Harrelson (result: warned)

    Edit war between an anon and a User whose User name is the same as that of a person who the subject is accused of having murdered. The anon may be the same as Loonjustice (talk · contribs) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow edit war, no vio, warned William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ltpas2009 reported by hellswesties (Result: 24h)

    • User Ltpas2009 is a well-known cyber-bully, who is adept at starting and prolonging flame wars on several internet sites with several users. User Ltpas2009 has also engaged Mr. Pascal in a documented argument on his official site (adampascalmusic.COM Note the similarities in URL to the flame site), and has gone so far as to impersonate Mr. Pascal on Twitter.
    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    KeltieMartinFan reported by 87.69.176.81 (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to: [40]


    Please notice that while I've been trying to engage this user in a constructive dialogue, all they have done in return was to either try and dismiss my points as "ridiculous nonsense" or outright spew as many insults at me as they could (see below in "reaction to the {{3RR}} template"), not to mention several reverts with empty edit summaries on other pages...

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [45]

    I'd like to point out this user's reaction to my {{3RR}} template, which can be found here. I've reported it to the main admin board – figured you guys here could give it a glance or two. Thank you so much in advance. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment): This specific reversion just says that 87.69.176.81 is the vandal. ESpublic013 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. If you look closely, it was KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs) who reversed "unit" to "until," because I simply made a typo in my initial addition and fixed it right afterward. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - The information that the IP editor is warring to insert is:

    In the South Park episode More Crap, her name is used to create a fictional measure unit for weighing fecal matter.

    Obviously our article on Couric will be seriously incomplete without this important information. Sorry for the sarcasm, but there are only three reverts here, so WP:3RR is not violated. You've managed to submit the same complaint at two different noticeboards, ANI and AN3. See WP:FORUMSHOP. You've not made any effort at Talk:Katie Couric to get support for including this key fact, which I imagine will not be easy to get. No violation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and obviously, adding this information will utterly ruin the article and Wikipedia in whole. Better hide your internets 'cuz it will burn all your hard drives and rape your goldfish... alright, enough with the sarcasm, you catch my drift. Obviously, you have not been particularly helpful. There was no WP:FORUMSHOPPING because I have two separate issues with this user: edit warring with mostly empty edit summaries (which I've reported here) and particularly aggressive personal attacks (which I've reported on WP:ANI). You have obviously chosen to turn a blind eye to some facts here, so I am requesting a review by another admin. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As another uninvolved administrator - No, sorry, this is junk, and if you keep trying to add it you'll be blocked. Don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for what exactly? Please remember to be wp:civil. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Olahus reported by Squash Racket (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [46]



    User disregarding others' edits, views, edit warring, POV pushing. Read also Talk:Central Europe#Recent Changes for another editor's opinion on his overall behavior at that article (BTW Olahus reverted his edit too). I've made a single revert in the past two days, otherwise only introduced new material that he too frequently changed. Squash Racket (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kasaalan reported by Enigma (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: link



    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    If that's not enough, see contributions. [47], [48]. Said editor also edit-warred against the result of an AfD, refusing to allow the article to be redirected. Instead, editor created yet another new page by moving it in direct violation of the AfD discussion. Enigmamsg 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No technical vio; 1st revert is well out of 24h. Also I don't see talk from Nudve justifying his reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.233.122.127 reported by Xenophrenic (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: link



    Users Eleland, Decltype and Sherurcij have reverted the above reversions, and left various warnings on his user page, but he continues. Now his blind reverts are undoing recent grammar fixes, etc., as well. This editor also has a slow revert-war going on the Jonny Gomes article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Flipper9 reported by Abecedare (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flipper9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 16:10, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "Adding inappropriate tag: Wikipedia is not a news source")
    2. 16:21, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 287073733 by ThaddeusB (talk) While this is notable, it contains unverifiable information")
    3. 18:12, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 287092906 by PigFlu Oink (talk) Article contains unverifiable info. Stop removing tag")
    4. 18:24, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "This article is unencyclopedic because it includes non-noteworthy AND non-veriafiable information. Suspected and unconfirmed information is both unencyclopedic and non-verifiable.")
    5. 18:41, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "I am merly adding a tag that disputes whether this article is encyclopedic. Threatening me on my talk page is inappropriate.")
    6. 19:00, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "This is not a disruptive edit. It is an appropriate tag for an article with unencyclopedic information, and should be properly addressed in the discussion page, not squelched as you see fit.")
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [49]

    Repeated addition of inappropriate tags against consensus on this and other high-profile articles on the 20009 swine flu outbreak. Note that he is also edit-warring at 2009_swine_flu_outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), {{2009 US swine flu outbreak table}} and {{2009 US swine flu outbreak table}}. Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Npovshark reported by Piotrus (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [50]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [55] (left just know)

    Please note that the image from last diff is identical (but has a different name) to the images from the previous three reverts. Compare: File:Historical German linguistical area.PNG and File:German language in 1910.png. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think Piotrus or anyone else called the user a Nazi, rather just noted that the map that is being discussed was 1) used as Nazi propaganda and 2) (this one by me) was uploaded by a user who, in my understanding, got blocked for pushing Nazi POV. It may very well have been that Npovshark was not aware of the history of the map and the edit summaries were meant to explain that (of course this is assuming that this user is not independently aware of the history of the map here). Still, he kept going.radek (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Radek, I was referring to a map, not an editor, who btw shows no signs of remorse, and responded to the 3rr warning with a personal attack/"I am innocent, you are bad" claim. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your attitude towards this map and the way you went about raising an objection to it repuslive. "Oh, I don't like it, I'll just delete it without conversation" As for reverting three times, that is a lie. I went back to the previous version which YOU changed Radek. Then, after seeing what your problem was with the map (note how you made no mention of the problem with a vague statement like "it is nazi propaganda/user was banned") I went and found the original map, which gives a source -- Dr. V. Schmidt and Dr. J. Metelka - and changed the subtitle to reflect that this was not a map of 1925, but 1910. It also appears that the "work" of Rex Germanicus, the banned user, is not his work at all. He only made a copy of this file. So it appears you did not do your homework. I have contacted the original creator of the map for clarification on the file. Thanks for telling me this discussion was going on, too. Nothing you are doing is right here, so you better believe I will come here with the "I am innocent, you are bad claim".--Npovshark (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus, this is completely unacceptable: [56]. You remove mention of Poland bombing Silesia, which means the statement of "these were the first few bombings of the war" is no longer accurate, and an article about bombings during world war II has false information. Good job.
    Then, you add that the purpose of bombing Wielun was not to test bombing but to "simply" test bombing. Don't you dare cry to me about me pushing pov with this kind of garbage.
    Then, you added an unsourced and actually untrue statement about Germany "leading the bombing" early on, although the facts suggest otherwise. Britain attacked many many sites in Germany before Germany opened up the air war over Britain. This is a FACT. Scroll down further in the article and you can read the summary of attacks.
    Also, your edits, buried deeeeeeeeeep in the article history, have totally messed up the text, and I refuse to sort through them.
    For you to run here and complain about me trying to get down to the bottom of things regarding this map is completely absurd.--Npovshark (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=287463966"