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 Iadrian yu (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 1 January 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    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:Moya13 reported by User:Cambalachero (Result: Blocked)

    Page: The K money trail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Moya13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: here

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. December 28
    2. December 27
    3. December 25
    4. November 9

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The K money trail#Balance Needed

    Comments:

    This is an article about a money laundering case in Argentina, involving the presidents Néstor and Cristina Kirchner. The scandal was caused by an investigation of a local TV program, but the article is written mainly with news articles from La Nación, which is an Argentine newspaper of record and has no conflicts of interest involved (unlike the Clarín newspaper, it is not part of the same media group of the TV program). Then, several users wanted to add other sources that say that everything is a big lie. Problem is, those sources are basically propaganda outlets of the Kirchner's government, bought, financed and/or forced by the government to push the idea that everything is fine and all the problems in Argentina are someone else's fault. See here, an article by The New York Times, to confirm that I'm not exaggerating. I explained those things in the talk page. They could not do anything to say that their sources are credible, and resorted instead to basic hollow slogans such as "do not delete information", "sources come from several different newspapers", etc. Moya13 even said that Página 12 is the third most popular newspaper in Argentina, but I proved that it's not even in the top ten. So, I'm working in the article, adding more and more information about the case, and from time to time Moya13 reverts everything back to some earlier revision of the article, including all the new things that I included in the meantime. He never did it more than once in a day, so it never became a 3RR, but it's annoying in the long term. Note as well that, when he does so, he created a whole number of new problems as well: he removed images, external links sections and categories, added link rot references, includes huge translation mistakes (such as translating "plata" as "silver" instead of "money"), and even exact translations that may be considered copyright violations.

    And yes, it is correct that the article should include several sources, but that does not mean any sources, nor to include questionable sources just for the sake of variety. The article is still a work in progess, I'm still adding everything noteworthy that La Nación has said, and when I'm done with that I will move to other newspapers or news sources. I do not intend to use only La Nación indefinitely, but for the time being, a single source that is a newspaper of record is better than several varied and unreliable sources.

    Note as well that Moya13 is clearly a Single-purpose account, he only edits this article. His edit summary here, "do not delete important facts that demonstrate the falsehood of the 'news' reports" prove that he edits following a pro-Kirchner agenda. The other users that took part in this discussion or the edit war, Anothernico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GMoyano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Monkeypuzzled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), only made a handful of edits in the last years, all related to this article or the Kirchner's administration. In fact, Moya13 has already been discovered as a sock-puppet account in wikipedia in Spanish, see here Cambalachero (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Bluerasberry (Result: Article protected)

    Page
    List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by JayJay (talk): Rv per WP:BLP. And do not misuse rollback again bud. (TW)"
    2. 18:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Bluerasberry (talk): Again. this content is a BLP vio, so it stays out. BLP is not negotiable for gods sake. (TW)"
    3. 18:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Bluerasberry (talk): Everything is BLP, rv per BLP. (TW)"
    4. 19:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk): Read BLP, and stop now. (TW)"
    5. 19:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Rhododendrites (talk): BLP is not negotiable. (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Darkness Shines has a legitimate complaint which ought to be considered but edit warring is not an appropriate channel for doing this. This user is probably right, but still, no edit warring. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP is an exemption, so no vio, I also used the talk page, unlike the others, asked for page pretection and have brought the issue up on ANI[1] Block away and happy new year. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The four scientists on the list that I checked (first one and last three) all have their published positions accurately represented on the list. These positions are available either in the sources used as references or (for one person) on the website the person authors. I'm not seeing any BLP violations here. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the article is no exception to BLP, and all the editors rolling back the edits being made to restore what appear to be BLP violations are having difficulty discussing the matter on the talk page, let's protect the article. Darkness Shines needs to focus on discussion along with everyone else. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection after article was gutted strikes me as a reward for BATTLE and EW tactics that spit on the arbs' ruling at WP:ARBCC, but your mileage may vary. Various eds are seeking explanation from Black Kite (talk · contribs) at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC) FOLLOWUP, I see you were posting at the article talk page as I posted this tickle here. Thanks for prompt reply. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kingfrogger666 reported by User:Drmargi (Result: Blocked)

    Page: War Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kingfrogger666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [2]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [3]
    2. [4]
    3. [5]
    4. [6]
    5. [7]

    Editor is also actively reverting with no discussion and no edit summaries on a number of other articles related to individual Doctors from Doctor Who. The reviewing admin may find it useful to review his edit history: [8]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] There is a sequence of ongoing discussions on the talk page. Editor refuses to discuss.

    More diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14]

    More diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I was uninvolved, but see [15], [16], [17], and [least one discussion about numbering issues on talk]. I hope I have done this right.

    I hope I have done this right, sorry if I broke something. Matty.007 19:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I seem to have reported the same user as Drmargi, but I will leave this here for the diffs. Thanks, Matty.007 19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is edit warring across numerous articles and has become extremely disruptive. If a response to these two notices could be taken ASAP it would be a benefit to the project. MarnetteD | Talk 21:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User is now blocked for 72 hours. Thanks to Barek. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Norden1990 reported by User:2QW4 (Result: Malformed report)

    Norden1990 insists in reverting a redirect link instead of expanding an article that I created:

    Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    [19] And also on other articles he revertes sourced text related to the war-criminal and anti-semite Miklos Horty.

    calling vandalism while he actually is deleted sourced information about this war-criminal.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[20]]

    With his edits (can be cataloged as anti-semite) Norden1990 reverts sources text about the war criminal Miklos Horty.

    And, YES, he was blocked before for edit-war:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Norden1990

    15:03, 14 July 2013 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked Norden1990 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of the three-revert rule: John Hunyadi)

    2QW4 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Other edit-war 3 times edit-war, see Hungarian discrimination against Roma

    2QW4 (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also using proxy IPs ; 195.89.201.254 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.89.201.254 2QW4 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:182.189.116.34 reported by User:Wtwilson3 (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Asin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    182.189.116.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
    2. 14:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
    3. 14:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Asin. (TW)"
    2. 14:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Asin. (TW)"
    3. 14:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Asin. (TW)"
    4. 16:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User is not responding to warnings on his talk page and is just reverting. Since it is unsourced content and removal of references, but not blatant blanking or vandalism, I decided to come here instead of reverting again. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 16:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tdadamemd reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tdadamemd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Continued WP:GS/BO violation [21]
    2. Revert of removal [22]
    3. Revert of removal with edit summary describing removal as WP:VANDALISM https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama,_Sr.&diff=588593139&oldid=588592691


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warnings: [23] [24] [25] [26]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    [27] and more (see history)

    Comments:

    They're up to at least 4RR after a 3RR warning. I'll provide the diffs in a moment. Note that this editor's problems go beyond just edit warring; there is a separate report at AN/I - Wikidemon (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here it is
    1. [28] claimed they were restoring a discussion that had been closed; in actuality, cut-and-pasted a duplicate unhatted version of hatted discussion from the talk page archives; also restored material that had been deleted as BLP vio
    2. [29] undoes attempt to close discussion; also restores BLP violation (unsourced and apparently untrue fringe material regarding statutory rape involved in Obama's conception)
    3. [30] reverts removal of archive duplication and BLP vios
    4. [31] - reverts removal material that was deleted for WP:BLP / WP:TEND grounds; calls removal "vandalism" in edit summary.
    The last one was after a 3RR warning I left.[32] They're also at 3RR (but haven't exceeded it) at Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ithinkicahn reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

    Page
    Gülen movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ithinkicahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "Additions and intro cleanup with sources"
    2. 20:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "I wouldn't consider linking to Turkey in the intro of this article to be overlinking, would you?..."
    3. 02:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 588581095 by Walter Görlitz (talk) This movement is based in Turkey, so linking a single more VITAL thing isn't going to kill WP:OVERLINK."
    4. 02:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "What is your problem? Don't get me to break 3RR because you consider linking to Turkey, the home nation and main focus of the movement, to be an overlink. Here, I removed a less vital link and kept Turkey. Happy?"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 02:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "STOP"
    2. 02:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Gülen movement. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    I tried to explain WP:OVERLINK but to no constructive end. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02
    23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    I have responded on the talk page. In the middle of writing my (not too long) response, this user reported me within a few seconds. He seems to be overly eager in enforcing WP:3RR on an article that barely has any intro links as it stands, and in removing the home and most relevant country (Turkey) of a religious and political movement. I'd say there are more constructive uses of everyone's time rather than to enforce guidelines as hard law (as it stands, those guidelines on WP:OVERLINK do not even advise to not link to nations); I would say having a link to a nation on this page's intro would be akin to having a link to a home nation of a political party: necessary. Indeed, it appears this user seems to be fishing for an edit war; even one of the few links on his userpage discusses the 'unfairness' with which another one of his apparently overzealous reports to the admins of an alleged edit war resulted in the "perpetrator" not being sufficiently punished to his liking. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I reported when you reached four edits within 24 hours. Sorry if you feel that was too soon. WP:OVERLINK is clear and there is no reason to link to the nation. If it started in a specific city, linking to that would be acceptable, and that's what I wrote on your talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded on my talk page. WP:OVERLINK is in fact not "clear" and does not mention the word "nation" once; it says "*major* geographic features and locations". As I explained before, there is plenty of reason to link to the nation; have you read the article itself? It is not centered in any one part of nation, so I see no harm in having one link to Turkey. Like I said, political parties almost always have links to whatever country whose government they are involved in. I would think the same would go for civil society organizations and political movements that are so vitally and fundamentally attached to one country; in this case, the Gülen movement is fundamentally attached to the nation of Turkey in that it sprang from its political system, population, civil society, speakers of its sole national language, and citizens of its government. Perhaps I am doing this argument against this too much of a favor by attempting to prove a point that should be common sense to any passer-by, but I'm in disbelief that someone would be so litigious as to try to follow guidelines as natural law and choose the word of the law over the spirit of the law and common sense. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that a nation is not a major geographic location? I'd be happy to hear your explanation for what you think a nation is. Many take OVERLINK to exclude superfluous linking of common cities such as New York, Los Angeles, London and Paris.
    Besides, the issue is not OVERLINK, it's not discussing and simply changing content without discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that an article focused so heavily on one country (Turkey) should at least have a link to it in a lengthy intro. Turkey isn't the United States or the United Kingdom; it is not as identifiable to an English speaker. The point is, you seem to be extremely zealous in reporting people for "overlinking", 3RR, and edit wars for simply breaking technical rules. Like I said before, it is obvious that other admins noticed this behavior from you before, for example in this article, where you also reported a user for breaking the 3RR and then complained when the admins decided that his reversions of your edits were done with good intentions and that your reporting was obsessively overzealous. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure why you're brining up an article where I tried to resolve an edit war and did not participate in it, and instead I tried to act as mediator, to show that I'm a problem. The issue is simple: don't link the nation of Turkey in tangentially related articles, and when someone shows you a guideline, discuss, don't edit war. 09:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

    User:Zmflavius reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34]
    2. [35]
    3. [36]
    4. [37]
    5. [38]

    User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:GameLegend (Result: )

    Page: Zwarte Piet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 588617007
    2. 588611342
    3. 588602153

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=588617923&oldid=588617610

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zwarte_Piet#2011_protesters

    Comments:
    After posting 3RR warning on his talk page, user removed the warning. GameLegend (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted, but had good reason. Editor was removing a dead link saying that the material was unreferenced and that a primary source said it differently. Well of course the police report wouldn't report the reason of the protest! Reporting editor is also guilty of breaking 3RR:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588592668&oldid=588480888
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588601944&oldid=588601850
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588609465&oldid=588602153
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588615055&oldid=588611342
    WP:BOOMERANG! Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record, I just found a university journalism article that supports the material in the dead link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paradoctor reported by User:Tweedledee2011 (Result: )

    Page: Talk:Monty Hall problem (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Paradoctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=588638556&oldid=588638517 Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [39]
    2. [40]
    3. [41]
    4. [42]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Comments:
    Most of my efforts to dialog with paradoctor and avoid edit warring took place in on his talk page here

    User:92.238.171.3 reported by [[User:{{subst:iadrian_yu}}]] (Result: )

    Page: Cluj-Napoca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 92.238.171.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [45]
    2. [46]
    3. [47]
    4. [48] (4th revert in 24 hours)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user is trying to do something against consensus on wikipedia, he was informed of that on several occasions via history. [50], [51]

    Comments:
    This user is making strange edits (of the same type) on several articles: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], on many of them engaging in edit warring. Also I suspect that this Ip user User:195.89.201.254 is related to the reported user since they make same edits and sometimes even use the same comments (WP:DUCK). Adrian (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=588659866"