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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:22, 7 February 2013

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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:AdamDeanHall reported by User:MyLeftNut (Result: Warned)

Comments:
This user is engaged in an edit war over 666 Park Avenue, and has reverted over three times in 24 hours.

I would have to second this motion. AdamDeanHall reported the other party he was edit-warring with and the other party was blocked and he so far has gotten away with it. As for the user who made this report, i would leave that up to those with user rights i lack to address. As for what AdamDeanHall and Wattlebird have been edit-warring over, both the broadcaster's Facebook notice and the scifinow.co.uk article are now out-dated sources for broadcast of the episodes as the broadcaster's website has the episodes in question on their schedule starting next Monday not today or three weeks ago. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an sockpuppet investigation against MyLeftNut (talk · contribs) due to the newness of his account after the block of Wattlebird. I don't think any action should be taken on this request (or the one below) until the SPI is resolved. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Lord Roem, as per my comments below. This smells loudly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) iwas about to suggest that something sounded fishy about two AN3 complaints popping up in quick succession. I am not privy to the tools the Checkuser has, but I think it is highly curious that less than an hour after the block of Wattlebird, MyLeftNut (pretty much a red flag of a sock, to be sure) files a complaint against both of the people W's been arguing with. New user, knowing their way around AN3? Not likely. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Submitter blocked indef for username by User:Gamaliel. I reopened this complaint per the statement below, and will leave a note for AdamDeanHall. It does appear that *official* Facebook pages are acceptable as sources. ADH has been revert warring to exclude the use of Facebook as a source. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean a second report would need to be submitted for ADH edit-warring on 666 Park Avenue? I would think the merit of the report would not be negated because of the questionable circumstances of the one who filed the report. ADH basically used this noticeboard to get his opponent in the edit war blocked while hoping noone noticed he was the other party to the edit-warring. Technically ADH has 6 edits to the area in dispute in 23hr 59min and with the other party to the edit war now blocked the edit-warring seems to have ended but that wouldn't negate his participation in it. Its just that i came here to report it only to find him already reported by a now blocked & suspected sockpuppet of the person he was edit-warring with and whom he reported before he could have a report filed on him. A second report for the same criteria seems silly but letting him off because he was the first to file a report seems not right either. I think this is why i usually avoid things like this. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war was over use of http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=592475164111262&set=a.232962533395862.78734.137131239645659&type=1 and goes back to a previous post from http://www.facebook.com/FOX8 as well as whether the original anticipated Australian broadcast dates of 7, 14, 21, and 28 January were reliable and even appropriate for inclusion (before they became known to be incorrect). The immediate edit war and discussion revolves around whether official facebook pages of tv broadcasters are acceptable sources and if FOX8's page is an official page. The most recent facebook notice was an estimate of the re-revised broadcast schedule. The scifinow.co.uk source had been correct when published but since things beyond FOX8's control prevented broadcast of the episodes as noted in that article it became out-dated and inaccurate yet ADH kept reverting to its use. All of that is now out-dated sources per FOX8's formal schedule which has the episodes in question being broadcast starting next Monday night. The timeline isn't too hard to follow. The edit-warring has been going on since about the time word of the forthcoming Australian broadcast of the episodes hit the interwebs some four weeks ago and really got intense in the past 36 hours or so. It didn't help that Warner Bros. kept delaying delivery of the episodes to the Australian broadcaster.
As for what prompted ADH to file the report here on Wattlebird i really shouldn't have speculated but it does appear to not have been as pure in its intent as one submitted by anyone else would seem. I can understand why Wattlebird might feel jilted by a one-sided block in an edit-war but that doesn't mean i condone all actions it appears he subsequently undertook.
My advance apologies to whomever undertakes a review of this due to how much of it there is to go through. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Warned. Too much time has passed to issue a block, but ADH is warned not to keep removing links without getting consensus. It seems there is a bona fide issue of whether official Facebook pages can be cited. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iranian Space Monkey and User:Zemlja snova reported by User:Sokac121 (Result: both indeffed)

Comments:

User:Iranian Space Monkey and User:Zemlja snova, removed images same as it did CrnoBelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1] It was solved with help of EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [2] [3],

User:Iranian Space Monkey and User:Zemlja removes Hungarian and German links [4] IP (79.175.105.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) ,

and German and Hungarian names for villages in Serbia [5]

Here [6] Iranian Space Monkey threatens me (I have this suggestion for you: stop that shit for articles on northern Serbia on the English Wikipedia) They only contribute to the removal, I think that these four accounts are connected--Sokac121 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is some sort of content dispute. All parties (including Sokac121) are edit warring across multiple articles, and all of them (including Sokac121) should be blocked.--В и к и T 15:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked. User:Zemlja snova indeffed by User:EdJohnston; User:Iranian Space Monkey indeffed by User:DeltaQuad. Both editors blocked as sock puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

67.169.46.25 reported by User:Martin of Sheffield (Result: No action)

Page: Is This a Zombie? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.169.46.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) LoneWolf1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_This_a_Zombie%3F&diff=536601105&oldid=534098479

Comments:
I have only become involved in this due to an appeal for help on my talk page from user LoneWolf. LoneWolf and the IP are disputing a fact and it is threateneing to degenerate into an edit war (17 changes in fortnight, all reverts or counter-reverts). Yesterday I warned both users about their behaviour and LoneWolf has come back to me asking for more help. The IP has been previously blocked by User:Materialscientist to whom I mentioned it yesterday. As a relatively junior editor I feel this needs to be escalated and so am "passing the buck" up the chain of control.

I have posted AN3 warnings on both users' talk pages. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the parties resposible for this. I wasn't aware of the three revert rule and I have stopped once told. I have been on here for a while but, I'm still getting the hang of lots of things and have never violated a rule like this before so I didn't realize. I am sorry and have again stopped. LoneWolf1992 (talk 19:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action. Both sides have stopped reverting for the moment. If this resumes, let us know. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nickst reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result: No action)

1st revert: 1st
2nd revert: 2nd
3rd revert: 3rd
4th revert: 4th
5th revert: 5th
6th revert: 6th
7th revert: 7th

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

I should add he already received a final warning at his talk page for removing speedy deletion templates here before I made this entry. C 679 17:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
User:Nickst is edit warring to remove CSD tag on "own" page, has been on Wikipedia for four years so I am sure he knows about 3RR. My understanding of CSD policy is that it is up to an administrator to review the case for CSD and not the author of the page. C 679 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends. It is not repost. It is a new article with new sources. 11 interwikies and speedy deletion? See new AfD for this article. WP:SD is not needed due to WP:AfD considerartion. NickSt (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion nomination is not prohibited due to an active AfD over the article. As an administrator, I ask you to please stop removing the CSD template. I'm willing to let this go, but consider this a very stern warning from me. I also would have no qualms if another admin decides to take further action given just how bad the 3rr violation was here. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Result: No action. User has given up their revert campaign. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:بیکار reported by User:Debresser (Result: Final warning)

This editor added a paragraph in bad English, and when I remove it, he undoes. I posted on his talkpage, but he simply doesn't care about the fact that his lines are not acceptable as is. Please explain to him that his edit is not up to standards, and that he should not simply edit war. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller dropped a warning on their talk page, Debresser commented further, and I reverted the editor's poorly phrased contribution again. I left them a final warning: if it continues, a block is the immediate solution. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's something else. Look at this, an edit by بیکار to a project by Espiral (talk · contribs). Then compare بیکار's edits to Espiral's, especially this one]: they are the same editor, it seems to me. Dougweller, Debresser, I gotta run off: I hope that one of you will take the appropriate action. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI raised. Looks like a duck though. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ricojellyfro reported by User:Cavann (Result: One-week block)

Page: Genetic history of the Turkish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Archaeogenetics of the Near East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ricojellyfro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and IP's 93.33.243.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 151.66.209.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 93.33.250.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 93.34.1.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (most certainly the same person)

Previous version reverted to: Complex case stretching couple of months. The user and the IP's add fake information and WP:OR and deleting sourced information. Eg: [7]

This person is deleting sourced material and replacing it with OR. Examples: [8] [9]. Explanation of how he is inserting OR and deleting sourced material: [10] [11]. He was warned by me and and an admin [12], but still continues same behaviour [13]. The page was protected due to sock puppet IPs [14]. Recent revert:

- [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16] [17] [18] [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people#User_Ricojellyfro [20]

Comments:Seems a clear case of long-term edit warring by an SPA editor with a POV they can't control. Will block for a week: return to the previous behavior should result in an indef block. I'm also going to semi-protect Archaeogenetics of the Near East. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.53.24.135 reported by User:Drmies (Result:Blocked 24 hours )

Previous version reverted to: [21]

1st revert: [22]
2nd revert: [23]
3rd revert: [24]
4th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Grunge#the_swans_influence

Comments:I'd have blocked this person already, but I've edited the article (a little bit) and I think they're a bit hard of hearing and should hear this from others too. It also seems to me that they are likely to return to this matter, perhaps with a different IP address. Note: I have just reverted their utterly unhelpful edits again, which puts me at 3, but this simply cannot stand, certainly not in a Featured Article. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 24 hours, but if they come back we can look at other options. Killer Chihuahua 18:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jean-Jacques Georges reported by User:KillerChihuahua (Result: Blocked 12 hours )

Previous version reverted to: [27]

1st revert: [28]
2nd revert: [29]
3rd revert: [30]
4th revert: [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32] (after third revert, before fourth)

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:
User:Jean-Jacques Georges has made substantial edits to the lead of Creationism, resulting in this version, which he has been edit warring to keep. He was warned but chose to remove the warning with a dismissive edit summary that he "knew the rules." Please examine the 4th revert carefully: he left the first bit of the original lead, but added much of his rewrite after, and removed a sourced and replaced the source with a citeneeded template. Killer Chihuahua 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And he's removed the notice of this discussion, but I did post it. Killer Chihuahua 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please take note that KillerChichuahua has been quite agressive with me ("incredibly poor verbiage"), and that I am now discussing calmly with Dave souza on the article's talk page. I have not "ignored" KC's message, just removed it from my talk page, as I am entitled to do. Also, after removing his message, I have not been edit warring. If his idea of discussion is complaining to the admins, that's his problem. But as I said, I have no interest of a conflict with him. Should he present arguments, I'd just appreciate to have a relaxed talk. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, please take note that, in the fourth link, I have not been edit warring : this edit was limited to removing a source which I find misleading and insufficient, and replacing it with a "citation needed" tag. If you "examine carefully" the link, you will see that I did not add any parts of my rewrite : the text after the tag was the original one, which I did not alter. My reverts have been limited to three. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may have misread my post. I did not say you'd "ignored" my notice, I said you'd removed it, which is neutral and accurate. As I am required to notify you of this discussion, and you had removed it, I was merely adding the dif so that the administrator who reviews this could easily verify that I'd complied with that requirement. Killer Chihuahua 18:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Anyway, as I said above, I did not break the 3-reverts rule, have not been edit warring since, and am not interested in a conflict with you, or with anyone for that matters. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is technically four reverts and a block should be considered. JJG has been reverting the lead of this article since November 2012. His edit summary then was "dubious - we can't have an intro that states flatly, "creationism is the belief that God created the universe" : that's not the general use of the word. We can't just equate "creationism" and "religion"". I see no indication that he is now willing to accept talk page consensus if the decision goes against him. Perhaps he can confirm that willingness now. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)If there's any doubt that 3RR was broken, there was clearly an all-out edit war underway and I see at least 4 removals of a source. Blocked 12 hours for edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:112.198.130.242 reported by - Mr X (Result: 31 hours)

User being reported: 112.198.130.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

02:50, 7 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
03:09, 7 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
03:19, 7 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
03:29, 7 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
03:37, 7 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
03:50, 7 February 2013 (edit summary: "")

Diff of warning: here

The user is also a suspected sockpuppet. —- Mr X 03:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:Materialscientist for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zorglub reported by User:Cruks (Result: Cruks warned)

Warned. Putting aside that this is a malformed report, I've warned User:Cruks that the material they are insisting be included in the article is a WP:BLP violation and cannot be reinserted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Utgirl1990 reported by User:PRONIZ (Result: )

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

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

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

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

Comments:

User:Armughanpk1 reported by - Mr X (Result: )

User being reported: Armughanpk1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)