Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 22 March 2022 (→‎User: ‎Desertambition reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked): Closing). 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:Soibangla reported by User:PackMecEng (Result: editor warned)

    Page: Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Soibangla (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. 18:05, March 19, 2022‎-[1]
    2. 19:01, March 18, 2022‎-[2]
    1. 16:51, March 17, 2022‎-[3]
    2. 15:50, March 17, 2022-[4]
    3. 11:19, March 17, 2022-[5]
    4. 10:23, March 17, 2022‎-[6]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

    Comments:
    The article is under 1RR and they were warned after making 4 reverts just two days ago by Muboshgu here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I plead guilty and pledge to be more careful going forward. soibangla (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This was after an admin JUST warned you and when asked on your talk page you basically told me to shove it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin warned me yesterday two days ago and yet I still forgot today, which is why I plead guilty. I did not tell you to shove it, rather I suggested you could escalate this on the basis of two reverts within 23h 4m. In any event, I am prepared to be sanctioned for my lack of attentiveness and pledge to do better. soibangla (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a travesty. There is at least one other editor who's repeatedly inserted disputed BLP content in the lead at that article, ignoring ongoing talk page discussion, violating the Discretionary Sanctions page restrictions of Consensus Required and 1rr, and leaving uncivil edit summaries to boot. Admin attention is needed to that behavior, not a longtime collaorator who's trying to keep things on an even keel and the article text BLP neutral while the dispute can be resolved on talk. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The text was not a BLP violation. PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't like "hunter puts beans up his nose" but it was contested content about a controversial matter wrt a BLP that has negative implications for the subject. As such it should not have been reinserted in the article. If anyone cares to collect the diffs an AE complaint should be filed against the editor who violated 1RR and Consensus Required. Then we can deal with the 2 complaints in parallel. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is pretty clear cut, but I don’t expect anything will be done about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Any admin response? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Soibangla, if I had seen this earlier I'd likely have blocked you for it. Indeed, Muboshgu warned you for it. But by now the expiration date has pretty much come and gone, and you have apologized for your behavior--blocking now doesn't serve much of a purpose. Please don't let this happen again. And User:SPECIFICO, I just commented about WHATABOUTISM to another editor, hoping they'd get the hint--don't you fall for that trap also. Admins don't like it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IraqiEagle1001 reported by User:Whpq (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Saddam Hussein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: IraqiEagle1001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 09:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1078133024 by Pppery (talk)"
    2. 00:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "Edit was detructive"
    3. 23:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1078108906 by Shortsword (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 22:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC) "Notification: tagging for deletion of File:Saddam Hussein Portrait.jpeg."
    2. 02:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Non-free content */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 02:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC) on User talk:IraqiEagle1001 "/* Non-free content */ new section"

    Comments:

    Also edit warring at Zagros Mountains Whpq (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Fourth revert: Special:Diff/1078286454 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pokojni MareBG reported by User:Pavlov2 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    Page: Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1078249775 by Qwerfjkl (talk)"
    2. 16:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1078249458 by Qwerfjkl (talk)"
    3. 16:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1078249010 by Pavlov2 (talk)"
    4. 16:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1078248467 by Qwerfjkl (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) ‎."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Why were you keep reverting? */ new section"

    Comments:

    3rr on Village pump, using not English and not communicatable. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VisitingSamG and User:Dippiljemmy reported by User:Bsoyka (Result: both partially blocked )

    Page: Death of Arnold Walker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Users being reported:
    VisitingSamG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Dippiljemmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version: [10]

    Diffs of VisitingSamG's reverts:

    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14]
    5. [15]
    6. [16]

    Diffs of Dippiljemmy's reverts:

    1. [17]
    2. [18]
    3. [19]
    4. [20]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (see below)

    Attempts to resolve dispute on talk pages: There seems to have been too much discussion for me to reasonably provide every diff, so current permalinks to all relevant discussion sections are:

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Comments:
    There's a lot happening here, and I'm also coming across it all as an uninvolved third party. It appears that VisitingSamG believes Dippiljemmy's edits are non-neutral, while Dippiljemmy believes VisitingSamG's reverts are vandalism. I haven't looked too far into the specific sources and content myself, but it appears this is an issue across much of the content in the entire article, and each editor appears to believe the other is violating a policy, leading to a lot of edit warring that solves nothing. Bsoyka (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is about a highly controversial police shooting in 2019 that to this day is a source of anger in sections of the community here. I’d be inclined to simply leave it, but the article includes a significant section on a living person and references certain other living people. User: Dippiljemmy continues to add irrelevant/gratuitous negative material on these people, and hide snarky notes in the reference tag names.
    I have tried repeatedly to discuss the specific points of contention on the talk page, but as Bsoyka notes, Dippiljemmy regards all changes as vandalism. The latter user also believes any material should be allowed to stand on the sole ground that it’s referenced. VisitingSamG (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a lot going on here, and will take a little more time to untangle and review properly. I am rather busy with other stuff (and not in great health just at the moment, so brain not at its sharpest), but I've started having a look at it and would like to spend some more time on it and bring in other editors. I would just suggest that the two editors involved hold off editing until at least one other editor (besides self), get involved in the talk page discussions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good luck to anyone who tries to figure this out. I think both parties have some thinking to do about collaborative editing, and I've blocked them both from editing the article for two weeks, to see if cooler heads can prevail--and in the meantime, I see some other editors are working on the article. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Much appreciated. This is definitely complicated, and I second the good luck here; anyone looking to fully untangle this will surely need it. Bsoyka (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User: ‎Desertambition reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Orania, Northern Cape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ‎Desertambition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    • 23:54, 6 March 2022 change from white Afrikaner-only to a white nationalist
    • Deletion of lots of paragraphs 17:33, 21 March 2022

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:29, 21 March 2022 change from white Afrikaner-only to a white nationalist
    2. 22:32, 21 March 2022 revert Emkut7
    3. 22:31, 21 March 2022 change from white Afrikaner-only to a white nationalist
    4. 21:50, 21 March 2022 change from white Afrikaner-only to a white nationalist
    5. 19:41, 21 March 2022 Deletion of lots of paragraphs


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:01, 21 March 2022

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: These issues have been discussed at Talk:Orania, Northern Cape over a period of months

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

    Comments:
    Toddy1 keeps falsely accusing me of edit warring without actually engaging in discussion. They post warnings on my talk page when they disagree with cited claims. As you can see, I am providing detailed edit summaries and explaining why I am doing what I am doing while being open to discussion at any time. Everything I have said is cited and I am frustrated with Toddy1 constantly trying to intimidate me into stopping because evidence doesn't support their claims. I stand by what I have said and the citations back me up. I personally feel like Toddy1 is upset they can't just make me do what they want to. Desertambition (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, as you can see Toddy1 intentionally left out my edit summaries because he knew it would look bad for them. They included it in their last false report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive448#User:Desertambition_reported_by_User:Toddy1_(Result:_). Strange that they chose not to include them this time. Desertambition (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Desertambition: The report isn't false because you did make 4 unambiguous reverts ([22], [23], [24], [25]) in a 24 hour period. Why did you, despite being notified and engaging in talk page discussion? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – 3 days for edit warring. This user only recently came back from an indefinite block, and I am not optimistic about their future on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Quetstar reported by User:185.217.158.63 (Result: no violation/blocking not a solution)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [1077539563, 1076773844, or 1076418636 (all are identical)]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [26]
    2. [27]
    3. [28]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (the version the page should be restored back to)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see entire section)

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29]

    Comments:

    I reported the user to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but he/she "has declined to participate in voluntary moderated discussion", to quote Robert McClenon: <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Linux_kernel_discussion>. Please read that discussion. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is frivoulous, I declined to participate because you were unwilling to compromise on anything. Quetstar (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is ridiculous; Quetstar refuses to participate because he/she knows he/she is in the wrong. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I see is the IP user making tons of edits, many of them unexplained and/or not sourced obviously to secondary sources, and two users disagreeing with the IP. There's talk page discussion, but no consensus. I don't think blocking anyone here is a proper solution. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I added three citations in my edits, and then had to make more edits in order to bring the article in line with those citations, whereas Quetstar immediately reverts my contributions with no good reason, only saying that he/she "disagrees with" them. I have to make many edits to revert to the last good version of the page because I can't revert the page in one single rollback edit like Quetstar. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help you on the last part; you are welcome to create an account, which will make that easier. As for sources--if I see it correctly, you added something, I can't tell what it is from an organizational website, an archived copy of a forum, which is always a no-no, and a PowerPoint presentation, I think--so please don't come here and argue that that sourcing is so strong that your edits must automatically stand. Finally, this board is for 3RR, officially, and obviously these reverts took place over a period of five or so days; inveterate edit warriors can be brought up here too, but that is not the case here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1078662547"