Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Off2riorob (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 403: | Line 403: | ||
Surely this is as clear as it needs to be -- 5 separate reverts in the space of four and a half hours. |
Surely this is as clear as it needs to be -- 5 separate reverts in the space of four and a half hours. |
||
—[[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
—[[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
* - '''reply''' - This is a tag teaming report. This user reporting has made three edits today - one to revert against me - one to make this report and one to tell me about it. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:13, 24 November 2011
| Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
|---|---|---|
|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
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.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||
User:WilliamJE reported by User:Lhb1239(Result: 31h)
Page: Juli Inkster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Juli Inkster
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
- Comment: All of the above edit warring was done during and after the same editor had placed the following personal attacks on the talk page of editor he had the dispute with:
He has also been reported to the Wikikette board here.
- Two editors, crunch and the above one, keep editing out the following
LPGA Tour playoff record (6-4)
| No. | Year | Tournament | Opponent(s) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1984 | Nabisco Dinah Shore |  Pat Bradley
|
Won with par on first extra hole |
| 2 | 1986 | Lady Keystone Open | Cindy Hill, Debbie Massey
|
Won with par on first extra hole |
| 3 | 1988 | Crestar Classic | Rosie Jones, Betsy King Nancy Lopez,
|
Won with eagle on first extra hole |
| 4 | 1988 | Atlantic City Classic | Beth Daniel
|
Won with par on first extra hole |
| 5 | 1992 | Nabisco Dinah Shore | Dottie Mochrie
|
Lost to par on first extra hole |
| 6 | 1992 | U.S. Women's Open | Patty Sheehan
|
Lost 18-hole playoff (Sheehan:72, Inkster:74) |
| 7 | 1997 | Samsung World Championship of Women's Golf |  Helen Alfredsson, Kelly Robbins
|
Won with birdie on first extra hole |
| 8 | 2000 | LPGA Championship |  Stefania Croce
|
Won with par on second extra hole |
| 9 | 2007 | SemGroup Championship |  Mi-Hyun Kim
|
Lost to par on first extra hole |
| 10 | 2008 | SemGroup Championship | Paula Creamer
|
Lost to birdie on second extra hole |
That wasn't in the player's article Until the last day[10] and for the citations, they aren't done in win boxes. Crunch knows that, why isn't a citation added here when he edited a win box here[11] when that box was just added[12] today? That edit he did was done before the Inkster reverts.[13] I'm being consistent, putting in legit material, and people are reverting without looking at what they're doing and or at the same time conveniently forgetting their own edit histories.- William 02:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The editor making the case against me really is so wrong and he keeps making incorrect statements which I challenged on his talk page. Look at his first listing of me violating 3RR
- 1st revert: [14]
Carefully study that edit. Do you see I put in new information aka a playoff results chart that's seen in golfer articles from Tiger Woods down to Marty Fleckman. I can list 30 edits similar to this one where I put in playoff boxes for golfers. I'll list every single one of them, including this one[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beth_Daniel&oldid=461638402} where Crunch wrongly reverted my work. Ask editor Tewapack, who have had run-ins with, if what Crunch did was right or wrong? His answer seems apparent, he made structural fixes to my edit but left it up.
When editors accuse me of 3rr for violations after a warning and falsely accuse me of a reversion that never happened., I get a very strong opinion of people arranging a kangaroo court. Especially when you consider this editor's own actions of deleting the playoff box himself and then accusing me of 3rr on his talk page after I was warned. That didn't happen, check my history.
He called me a fool for correcting mistakes. I called him an imbecile for repeatedly not looking at what he is doing and repeating the same mistakes. One time is a accident, 4 times(3 of which happened in a very short time span) is a clear pattern.- William 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Blocked — 31 hours. Editor has reverted four times in 24 hours. (The edit history shows him removing 5810 bytes from the article four times since November 20). He was asked to promise to stop warring and apologize for personal attacks, on his talk page. Neither occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
User:96.32.129.220 reported by User:Ute in DC (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Backyard Brawl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.32.129.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [15]
- 1st revert: [16]
- 2nd revert: [17]
- 3rd revert: [18]
- 4th revert: [19]
- 5th revert: [20]
- 6th revert: [21]
- 7th revert: [22]
- 8th revert: [23]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25], [26]
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. IP blocked by JamesBWatson for "Disruptive editing: over a prolonged period". Minima© (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Emerson 07 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 31h)
Page: History of the French line of succession (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Emerson 07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Slow but persistent edit-warring on several articles, just below 3RR:
On History of the French line of succession
- 18 Nov (rv to 17 Nov)
- 19 Nov (partial rv; removal of material previously re-added by FactStraight (talk · contribs))
- 21 Nov, 11:46
- 21 Nov, 22:57
- 22 Nov, 00:49
On Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist)
- 3 Nov
- 8 Nov
- 9 Nov
- 9 Nov
- (17 Nov; possible sock IP, see SPI case)
- (17 Nov; possible throwaway sock account, see SPI)
- 17 Nov
- 18 Nov
- 21 Nov, 23:26
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]
Comments:
Emerson 07 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account [29] who has been persistently pushing for a fringe-within-the-fringe political position on French royalism. He persistently misuses talk pages for arguing the "TRUTH" of his agenda ([30], [31], [32], [33] [34]), uses disruptive WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS tactics to push his views ([35], [36], [37]), and has upheld a slow but persistent revert-war over several related articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — Also, clearly edited while logged out after being warned of edit warring on the main account. --slakr\ talk / 05:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Blusts back at it on Glücksgas Stadium talk page
User:Blusts reported by User:Jhortman (Result: )
Page: Talk:Glücksgas Stadium (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blusts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: orig revision by Jhortman
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None (see comments)
Comments:
This user currently only has 1 revert on this round, but has a long history of edit warring on Glücksgas Stadium and Talk:Glücksgas Stadium. he adds the same machine-translated, unsourced content over and over, then engages in a revert war without any discussion when his edits are changed in any way. He also randomly deletes items on the Talk page. He has been blocked multiple times for this behavior in the past, so I am reporting it again in the hopes of nipping this in the bud.
- You are dealing with a sock of User:Fox53, aka Kay Körner, who keeps reappearing uner differnt user accounts from time to time, gets blocked and reappears again after a break. He tends to edit the same group of pages, associated with East Germany, especially the SV Dynamo. Most of the times nowadays he behaves himself, compare to the old times at least. If he gets blocked on this account he will just come back on another. Calistemon (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment if this is a sock, it should be reported at WP:SSI or WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Dominus Vobisdu reported by User:Robertcurrey (Result: Self ban for a week accepted)
Page: Scorpio (astrology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: - 03:17, 22 November, 2011
- 2nd revert: - 15:16, 22 November 2011
- 3rd revert: - 17:37, 22 November 2011
- 4th revert: - 18:17 22 November 2011
Comments:
The editor has a history of blanking astrology-related content, proposing that the subject has no authorities and arguing that “Deletion is the best option when it is reasonable to expect that adequate sourcing will never be found”. [38]
Other editors have responded that the sources used are not problematic in reporting what astrologers or those who write about the subject believe. [39]
He refuses to allow attempts to improve content in the section on the mythology on Scorpio (astrology), and is constantly reverting information that is well known, widely reported and reliably sourced. His edits leave the page with only a brief inclusion of poor quality content, which is disputed for its accuracy and lacks reliable references.
The editor has been warned that his attitude is antagonistic and has a history of causing offense to other editors working on pages related to astrology, by his insistence that the subject is “complete and utter fraudulent bullshit” and its sources are as worthless as “used-ass-wipe”.
He has been asked to specify what sources he objects to and why, but refuses to do this, while claiming in his edit summaries that other editors should ‘see talk’. Robert Currey talk 08:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I appear to have lost count. Changes were made to two sections of the article, and I didn't realize the latter also reverts reverted material that I had already reverted in my first reversion. The latter three reverts were made in response to an ip hopper that reverted 5 times with no discussion on talk page. I reverted three times and stopped, thinking that I had reached my limit at that point.
- FWIW, this is my first time I've been brought to #RRN. I'm very careful about not exceeding 3RR. I offer a voluntary self-ban from the article for the period of a week.
- As to the charge that I have not discussed this on the talk page, there is a discussion about this section on progress on talk page concerning sourcing and other issues, and a clear consensus that the section would not be added until adequately sourced. I spent a good bit of my own time finding additional sources and posted them in that discussion.
- As for calling astrology "bullshit", the language was perhaps a bit colorful, but accuarate and does not cross the civility boundary in my opinion. No personal attacks were made. Nevertheless, I stopped using colorful language when I was asked to by the editors involved a week ago. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The sudden appearance of several reverting anons on that page is disturbing. Semi? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, please. I was going to request one myself but didn't have time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Not blocked'Result:' "I offer a voluntary self-ban from the article for the period of a week." This offer is accepted (since there appears to be an apology as well, and its a first offence). Violations of the self ban should be brought back here. I have semi-protected the article for 3 days only. --BozMo talk 13:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Natty4bumpo reported by User:Weazie (Result: blocked 48 hours)
Page: Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Natty4bumpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [40]
- 2nd revert: [41]
- 3rd revert: [42]
- 4th revert: [43]
- 5th revert: [44]
- 6th revert: [45]
- 7th revert: [46]
- 8th revert: [47]
- 9th revert: [48]
- 10th revert: [49]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]
Comments:
These are a cluster of partial reverts. But demonstrate a pattern to prefer edits/reverts rather than discussing on talk page. --Weazie (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Niel Mokerjee reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 31 hours)
Page: Bāngāli BRAMHāN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niel Mokerjee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [52]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57], [58], [59]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
A new editor, who created a page for a subject that already has an existing article Bengali Brahmins. Another editor than myself redirected their preferred name, full of unorthodox capitalizations to say the least, and informed them at their talk. The offending editor worked at the actual article for a bit, until it became clear that they couldn't use their alternate spelling in the article[60]. User has yet to acknowledge a talkpage or edit summary message and are edit warring to keep the duplicate article with their preferred naming. Heiro 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Their alternate spelling seems to be to push this religiously based Facebook page or group, which seems to be the only use of this spelling (besides us now) according to Google. Heiro 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Fatima.new edit-warring with the SDpatrolbot
User:Fatima.new reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: )
Page: Ahmed elSeyoufi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fatima.new (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: [65]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
It's not a content dispute. Maybe this is the wrong place to report it? User is edit-warring with the bot over removal of speedy deletion template.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
User:Webwires reported by User:Hollyckuhno (Result: )
Page: SkyCable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Webwires (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [66]
- 1st revert: [67]
- 2nd revert: [68]
- 3rd revert: [69]
- 4th revert: [70]
- 5th revert: [71]
- 6th revert: [72]
- 7th revert: [73]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]
Comments:
- Comment: This user acts as if he/she is the only one that could improve the article. Guess what, this user reverted my edits just because for his opinion his version is better. I thought wikipedia is a collaborative program? - Hollyckuhno (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Off2riorob reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: )
Page: Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 15:36, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 462229191 by Packerfansam: stable versaion - brd. using TW")
- 19:12, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Jayjg (talk): This weight as regards his jewisn ness or lack of it was discussed over length andf I am in my rights to brd it - the talkpage is whewre youy should make your cas...")
- 19:32, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Plot Spoiler (talk): Please do no t tag team - the stable version was discussed at lenfghth - BRD is on the talkpage. using TW")
- 19:49, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Plot Spoiler (talk): Please stop tag teaming - BRD - well discussed content - the talkpage is where you should make your case. using TW")
- 20:01, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nomoskedasticity (talk): No - WP;BRD is ihn action- on the talkpage - stop tag teaming without discussion. using TW")
Surely this is as clear as it needs to be -- 5 separate reverts in the space of four and a half hours. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- - reply - This is a tag teaming report. This user reporting has made three edits today - one to revert against me - one to make this report and one to tell me about it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)