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 AeronPeryton (talk | contribs) at 14:06, 17 November 2010 (→User:AeronPeryton reported by User:JHunterJ (Result: ): Re; Back your statements up with fact.). 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


    User:Pfistermeister reported by User:Ekwos (Result: nom blocked 72h; protected 1 week)

    Page: Id, ego, and super-ego (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pfistermeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

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

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

    Comments:

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.175.89 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 72 hours For edit warring and personal attacks such as this in the edit summary; Page protected for a period of 1 week. T. Canens (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kevorkmail reported by User:HD86 (Result: Both 48h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [5]

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


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

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

    Comments:

    The user has been warned about edit warring and the three revert rule:

    I have an old dispute with him. He didn't want neither to discuss nor to even write an edit summary. I asked him first in my edit summaries to explain his edits. He didn't respond so I wrote on his talk (a little bit aggressive):

    This is also another user who has the same complaint:

    I tried to talk with him many times, but he refuses and responds with swearwords and personal attacks. He now writes edit summaries, but still refuses to discuss in talk pages and reach consensus. I tried having the third opinion to solve the dispute [13], but they told me to go to the Wikiquette alerts. I used that, but the guy there told me it was my fault. So basically I had no option but to edit war with him since he refuses to talk even though I tried many times talking with him. I don't mind being blocked if you're going to block me. At least I always use the talk pages to resolve disputes. I never force my edits on anybody.HD86 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - 48 hours to both for edit warring. This is not the first block for either editor, and neither one behaves well in this dispute. I'm warning both parties against further personal attacks. (See the article talk page). The report above may serve as an unwitting source of humor for this noticeboard: "basically I had no option but to edit war with him.." I suggest that both parties read some policy before editing this article again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:89.211.65.21 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Royal Commonwealth Pool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 89.211.65.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:89.211.65.21

    Comments:
    Please note that the 7th and 8th reverts were made after I had added a citation from a reliable source (The Guardian) to support the disputed information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    BMK. I am not disputing the Guardian as an RS. I am disputing that the author is using 'RC Pool' as a nickname. Very much so. The cited text does not support the disputed information. As has been pointed out, if it were a nickname like, for example, 'Commie' then you'd find planty mention of it. Just find RS cited text that supports your position. Source is fine, you know I am not disputing that! --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    The anon isn't the only editor reverting on that article, and if you see the talk page he is trying to enforce verifiability on a particular point. I can't defend his methods, but I hope he isn't the only editor who ends up being sanctioned. Betty Logan (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Betty - long time no see. Still carrying a grudge? Look, I foolishly let this IP get under my skin and got carried away for a bit, but I stopped myself in time. The IP has reverted two other editors, and carried on reverting even after I provided a reference -- and their talk page argument is patently ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    'Patently ridiculous' to you. The other editors don't really bolster your case given that one revert suggested I not be allowed to 'get away with it'. Whatever. The facts - and the consensus - do not support 'RC Pool' as a nickname. That may change, but thus it remains for now. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not out to get you banned, but I think it would be rough if the IP got punished in the circumstance. The IP is at least trying to discuss it on the talk page, and there might be a potential solution if you head over there yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't do much good, the IP just knows it's wrong. I guess he personally asked all 450,000 people in Edinburgh, and none of them ever uses that nickname. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say I looked for this, and I found lots of mentions of "Commie Pool" and its acronym "RCP" in lots of local media but nothing for "RC Pool" apart from that Guardian article. I don't know if you're confusing "RCP" (which is often referred to on local government websites) and "RC Pool", but it is an important distinction. Betty Logan (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now who's being 'spolit'?! It is wrong. That's why there's no source suggesting this as a nickname. Or... stop whining and find one. So much for 'I stopped in time'... Holy crap.. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Betty Logan seems to have a fair opinion here, I stand by BMK though the IP was being disruptive to start with, and had things turned out differently, should be punished for edit warring and igniting another edit war shortly after the ANI thread, of course if we were to be fair and punish both parties that would probably involve me getting blocked as well since i was heavily involved in the earlier war but I,ve stayed out of this one so please don't block me and BMK--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I strenuously dispute that I was being disruptive. BMK was, for seemingly personal reasons, trying to re-insert inaccurate information into a wiki. He has variously resorted to lies, smears, name-calling and sarcasm as he could find neither consensus nor a reliable citation. Worryingly, in his mind, his citation from the Guardian was unimpeachable despite the fact that it didn't actually support his position. Its rejection by me and others meant, in the world of BMK, that I was rejecting the Guardian as an RS. Playing the man, not the ball, yet again. Overall, I wanted the wiki to be accurate, and it is - for now. BMK wanted to revert the wiki to an inaccurate standpoint, seemingly because I had 'upset' him (poor lamb), not for objective reasons. When he didn't get his own way, the toys came flying out of the pram at an alarming velocity with puerile asides. A number of his comments reflect this. If I am to be punished then I should not be alone. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hunterda reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24 hours )

    Page: Template:Airlines of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hunterda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [23]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

    Comments:

    Single purpose account is also edit warring on Manx2 to push his bizarre opinion that Manx2 is not an airline, despite it being one according to the BBC and other sources. O Fenian (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IPhilCI reported by User:Biker Biker (Result: No action)

    Page: List of outlaw motorcycle clubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: IPhilCI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [29]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

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

    Comments:
    Editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Motorcycling have established consensus that only notable clubs should be added to this list. This can be seen in the comments added at the start of the article stating "Additions without verifiable, reliable sources will be deleted. Additions must have some notability beyond just having their own web site. This should be an independent, reliable source.". This user persists in adding the same club. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Good Doctor Fry reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Sunset (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: The Good Doctor Fry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [34]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

    Comments:
    Aforementioned user refuses to continue engaging in discussion and continually reverts to his version of the article, despite being contentious. Falcon8765 (TALK) 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rangeview reported by User:George (Result: blocked 1 week)

    Page: 2006 Lebanon War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rangeview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [41]

    This article falls under the 1RR following this discussion.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:03, November 15, 2010 by Jiujitsuguy

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Jiujitsuguy and myself have been discussing the issue here; the editor in question, Rangeview, has continued to revert without joining that discussion.

    Comments:


    Simply put, Rangeview and Oneworld777 have been edit warring this line out of the article for the last week or so. I think it's blatantly obvious that Oneworld777 is Rangeview's sock or meat puppet (Oneworld777 only has one edit to any other article, ever). This article is under 1RR following this discussion, of which they were warned yesterday by Jiujitsuguy; their first edit following that warning was to revert again, a little under 28 hours after their previous revert. ← George talk 05:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Namiba reported by User:Jerzeykydd (Result: page protected)

    Page: Maine gubernatorial election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Namiba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comments: Namiba is out of control. I tried to warn him on his talk page, but he reverted twice. He has been in constant edit wars over the past months. If he is not blocked, than he will continue this behavior.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, I was not notified of this message by the user. As to the issue at hand, User:Jerzeykydd has a long history of edit-warring and issuing personal attacks against me, for which he was blocked from editing for a month. Moreover, he reverted my own actions on my talk page, a highly improper practice. To the point of the Maine gubernatorial election, what he does not point out is similar regular reversions of another editor and a refusal by he and the other editor to continue in discussion. As as can be seen here, I have repeatedly called for outside help with the article and urged the disruptive editors to engage in discussion. This situation is getting impossible and I have tried to solicit outside help on multiple occassions in multiple forums, yet admins have not stepped up to help end it. I would really appreciate outside, uninvoled help with ending this.--TM 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see, Nambia is trying to make me the problem here. Yes, I have been blocked, and I have apologized. That, however, does not excuse Namiba for edit-warring, battling, or disruptive editing. Again, Namiba believes he has done nothing wrong, and if he is not blocked these edit wars will continue until eternity.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he doesn't allow me to post anything on his talk page: #1, #2, and #3.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Jerzeykydd, it is perfectly within their remit for Namiba to remove messages from his/her talk page once they have been read (see WP:BLANKING). Reverting the removal and calling it vandalism is certainly not going to help diffuse the situation. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, nevermind then.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With all of this being said, I am fine with a mutual (Jerzeykydd, Toa Nidhiki1 and myself) cool down period from this article of 3-5 days with an outside arbitrator stepping in and ending this petty disagreement for good.--TM 15:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.8.177.172 reported by User:KarlM (Result: blocked 2 weeks)

    Page: Haole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 173.8.177.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [46]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

    Diff of self-promotion warning by another user: [54]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

    Comments:

    User is repeatedly spamming the article with a link to his/her video, which is irrelevant to the content. Refuses to engage in discussion on either the article talk page or their own page. Only checks in every few days, so technically not in violation of 3RR, but has now done this six times over two weeks and is becoming very tiresome. KarlM (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aryamahasattva reported by User:Medeis (Result: )

    Page: Armenian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Aryamahasattva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    These reverts show repeated deletion of sourced reference to Greek author Xenophon which the editor admits is relevant material in the edit summaries, but claims is "POV" and began to delete only after his reference to fringe theories of a 2,300BC date were challenged and removed when no support could be found:

    The article was blocked at this point and the editor formally warned by an admin.

    These reversions are subsequent to the block being removed:

    • 6th revert: [61]
    • 7th revert: [62]
    • 8th revert: [63] (back to adding unsourced competing claims)


    User has been warned several times Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    • [64] (my first warning)
    • [65] (my second warning)
    • [66] (my third warning)
    • [67]Warning of General Sanction by Admin Courcelles

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68] this section is about the user's addition of and multiple restorals of references to the naram sin stele. He provided no sources, and the only sources I could find after tagging the claim and searching to support it for a day were Armenian nationalist ones. (The only scholarly reference I can find speaks of a city named anything from halman to armani and makes no mention of armenians) This talk section [69] is on Xenophon.

    Note that the editor has not once commented on the discussion page. His edit summaries are also interesting in their invalid and contradictory arguments. He was invited to discuss his ideas on the talk page [70] before he was ever formally warned of his actions. He has never done so.

    Comments:

    The author was formally notified of this complaint here

    The editor is apparently an Armenian nationalist. While deleting references to Xenophon, who is the author of the oldest surviving texts mentioning the Armenians - as POV (!), he has repeatedly added unsourced references to much older supposed attestations, including the fringe nationalist Naram Sin theory mentioned above, and now an unsupported reference [71] to the Hittites. He has been warned several times. The article has been frozen to no effect. His edits are reverted by editors besides myself for going against consensus.

    μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AeronPeryton reported by User:JHunterJ (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [72] 08:03, 16 November 2010

    Then I cleaned the page citing WP:INTDABLINK, WP:PIPING, fragments, early links, etc. in my edit summary.

    • 1st revert: [73] 15:47, 16 November 2010

    I entered a series of edits with explicit edit summaries for each change. Next edit was a partial revert, so not numbered:

    Previous version reverted to: [74] 22:50, 16 November 2010

    I tagged the page for cleanup so that other members of the disambiguation project could take a look. [75] 23:00, 16 November 2010

    • 2nd revert: [76] 23:44, 16 November 2010
    • 3rd revert: [77] 23:49, 16 November 2010

    User:Jwy and User:86.180.255.89 provided some clean up edits.

    • 4th revert: [78] 08:56, 17 November 2010

    User:86.180.255.89 tried a minor change.

    Previous version reverted to: [79] 09:49, 17 November 2010

    • 5th revert: [80] 10:01, 17 November 2010


    Diff of previous edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

    Diff of previous 3RR block: [82]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

    and: [84]

    but rather than discuss on the article talk page: [85]

    which is a pattern too: [86]

    Comments:

    JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    JHunterJ has a visible lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy. I know I'm no shining member of the community, but my edits conform to the style guidelines of Wikipedia and the Disambiguation Project. There may be need to further review by someone familiar with the MOS:DAB, however my attempts to get JHunter to criticise my work after I painstakingly explained which of his edits did not conform to policy have fallen on deaf ears, page reverts, and disingenuous comments to allude that the page should go against the Manual of Style. Review of his edit history will find him no less guilty of the "charges" he brings against me for improving the pages in question.  æronphonehome  13:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was further review by someone familiar with MOS:DAB, but you reverted Jwy's edits too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He did a revert, not a review. Citing that your edits were more accurate because they were done one at a time (?). I've contacted him requesting clarification and am awaiting a response.  æronphonehome  13:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he reviewed the edits and re-implemented the correct ones. You are acting as if you WP:OWN the article, reverting multiple other editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review of the style guidelines disagrees with almost all of the changes you made. I do not own the article, more to the point, neither do you. If you feel my edits are in error, show me why just as I showed you. That was what I said to you before you ceased speaking to me. But at this point, an impartial Admin needs to step in regardless.  æronphonehome  14:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=397304702"