Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Codf1977 (talk | contribs) at 11:19, 17 October 2010. 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:Tintor2 reported by User:68.55.153.254 (Result: )

    Page: Cloud Strife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Tifa Lockhart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Barret Wallace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Vincent Valentine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Aerith Gainsborough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tintor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Basically, he continually adds the same 1Up.com article back that the consensus agreed to remove.

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cloud Strife

    Comments: The majority of the issue can be found in the talk page listed above. Basically, I had found a fantasy casting article being included in several Final Fantasy 7 character articles about who should play them in a live-action movie. I believed them to non-essential to the pages, and in violation of various policies, which were brought up in the talk above. They were put back and I was asked to achieve a consensus before removing them again. Well, the discussion went on for about a week, with all other users who commented agreeing with my side of the discussion, so that makes it a consensus, and I removed them again, but the user has continually put them back up, sometimes trying to reword them to dodge the problem, but the problem is the article itself, not the wording. I've even tried the dispute resolution of asking for a comment from those outside of the issue. I've put them back several times on some of the pages, and when was warned of getting too close to violating 3RR myself, I consulted the user who warned me and he suggested using this page to help resolve the matter. As of reporting this, several of the edits are still up, but I know at least the ones for Cloud, Vincent, and Tifa have been reverted.68.55.153.254 (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As the discussion contined, the anon brought various issues such as crystal ball (the article says it is not happening so it is not), and being a selfpublished source (1UP is owned by UGO Entertainment and is listed as a reliable source by the video games wikiproject, so it's not). Other users brought reasonable issues such as being undue or trivia, and that's why I modified the article's sources to focus in the reception and keeping them in context with all the paragraphs. However, the anon keeps saying that a fan casting is useless and considers that there has been already a consensus although the current form from the sources do not violate any guideline. Moreover, apparently a sock kept removing the sources, while in later hours, the anon removed one from Vincent Valentine alongside another valuable source, that's why I reverted such edits.Tintor2 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional comments by Sven Manguard

    I was the person that added the 3RR tags to both users in this issue, and it spilled onto my talk page. User:Tintor2 is clearly at fault in this situation. I attempted to explain to him that he was acting against consensus in the matter discussed in the Cloud talk page, and he refused to even acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong. Whereas my interactions with 68.55.153.254 have shown me that he was acting in good faith and was simply unaware of the finer points of 3RR, my interactions with Tintor2 show me the opposite. Tintor2's refusal to be reasonable in the Cloud talk page, refusal to be reasonable in my talk page, and refusal to stop posting on my talk page when I stated that I did not want the arguments in the matter to be aired in my userspace (I believe the proper place for such arguments is here at EW or the cloud talkpage where the rest of the arguments are.) demonstrate that the user does not understand how to cooperate with others or act in a rational manner in content disputes. He was blocked in June for violating 3RR as well, which leaves him no excuse as to his actions.

    • I recommend that 68.55.153.254 not be punished (he has modified his behavior and acted in proper form since the warning, demonstrates remorse, and has no block history)
    • I recommend that Tintor2 be blocked for at least two weeks (he has not modified his behavior, demonstrates combativeness, and has a 3RR block history)

    Also of note, 68.55.153.254 mentioned on my talk page that Tintor2 has been making the same edits recently. I did not check on this, other than to see that he has been editing FFVII pages, but I explicitly warned Tintor2 that he needed to stop edit warring, both by way of the template, and in my talk page where I said it in plain words to his face. If he is indeed continuing to edit war, this concerns me. Sven Manguard Talk 02:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I already accepted my mistake when first adding the sources, but when I told Sven Manguard, he just ignored me and undid my comment from his talk page, not wanting to be involved. I have already stated in the talk page of Cloud Strife about such revision, but the anon keeps calling it "useless". I already explained the reasons for the revert in Cloud and Vincent above.Tintor2 (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not at all true. I undid one of your comments after asking for you to stop making the arguments on my page three times. The third time I explicitly stated that further postings on my page in regards to the issue would be removed. And that is exactly what I did. Your behavior in the issue wore out my patience, and I felt that the only way to get you to stop posting the arguments in my user-space was to remove them. Sven Manguard Talk 02:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If you seriously expect anybody to be sanctioned for edit warring here , you need to provide actual evidence of edit warring in the form of diffs. It is unlikely any admin is going to be willing to wade through all that extended back-and-forth across multiple pages. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I'd agree, but it's literally the most recent changes in every one of the listed articles, just click on history. Do I really need to do 20 diffs for you? You don't have to dig at all. Sven Manguard Talk 03:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that explanation helps. Even so, I looked at the histories and couldn't make out what is going on -- but I'll convert my decline into a comment so that somebody else may take a look at this. Looie496 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TLDR version: The IP is removing fantasy castings by 1UP, per clear consensus at talk:Cloud Strife that there are several issues with having them in the articles. Every time the 1UP castings are removed, Tintor2 puts them back in. Sven Manguard Talk 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I say again, I agreed consensus was right in the first time. As a result, I revised such sources to leave more in context than most of all the other sentences in reception and avoiding violation of undue and trivia, but the anon keeps saying they still violate such guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes, admins "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the page history. This is especially true when you give us half a dozen pages. Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cloud

    #1 #2 #3 #4

    • Tifa

    #1 #2 #3 #4

    • There are also 5 on Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), 3 on Barret Wallace, 5 on Vincent Valentine, and 3 on Aerith Gainsborough. Please do not make me do all of these links.

    Sven Manguard Talk 02:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The last I undo was in Vincent Valentine due to the fact the anon also removed another source. In Cloud's, as you see in his history there were some socks editing the article, removing the exact same source. Moreover, the anon kept saying there was consensus and cited guidelines even though the revised sentences didn't break such guidelines. Additionally, the anon first removed these sentences without even discussing. Even the last ones the users posted were the revised ones which the anon kept reverting saying they still violating guidelines although they were more in context that most of the ones used in the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added various diffs of examples of this happening, and I see they can probably be put in conjunction with Sven's examples as I think he may have done a few I missed. Also, I've noticed the accusations being put out by Tintor of me using sock puppetry or some such dealing, which I've never done during this whole time, nor has anyone else who was involved in the discussion on the talk page during this incident to my knowledge. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The same could be said for your accusations of edit war when there was no consensus regarding revising the sentences, and you removed them. All of those are included in the last diffs you added.Tintor2 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was said or explained to you various times in the talk page that the problem is the article in and of itself, no matter how you word it on the various pages. I'm not going to start arguing with you about this again over here as well. I've given the evidence to the admins that was asked for, and I'm going to let them handle it now. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my f**king god. Both of you have worn out my patience. Tintor2: Stop with the baiting, you're wrong on consensus, and if the 3RR doesn't get you blocked, the baiting will. IP: Stop taking the damned bait. You're going to be seen as being just as guilty if you keep falling into these petty arguments. I swear that if this continues, I will go to ANI and ask for both of you to be blocked for disruptive editing. I'm sure that had this been any number of other users, that step would have already been taken. Stop. Now. I mean it. Sven Manguard Talk 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chesdovi reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: no vio, so far)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [17]

    This is complex. Basically, Chesdovi is insisitng on inserting an unsourced and rather odd claim (that "damascus has been descrbied as one of the four holy cities of Islam") and refusing to discuss this on the Damascus talk page. It's a spillover from Hebron however. Two days ago he removed a reference from the article that Hebron is "holy to Muslims."[22]. On the talk page he briefly explained the removal by saing the only sources he could find on Muslim views of Hebron were in "travel books."[23]. I restored the info on the "holyness" of Hebron to Muslims (which is not controversial anyways -- it's the burial place of Abraham who is refered as a prophet by Muslims only behind Mohammed (1.) and Moses (2.) in importance and included the fact (with source) that in early Islam, the associatione with Abraham made Hebron "one of hte four holy cities." He sought to water this down to "considered by some" with an assertion in the edit summary that this is "contested with Damascus." [24]. He then headed off to Damascus article to make his unsourced change, apparently to bolster his case. This editor recently created an article on "Judaism and Bus stops" (deletion discussion here [25]) and freely admitted in that process that he was making edits to that article as an attempt to set precedents for other articles. He seems to be doing the same thing again.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] [27] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

    Comments:

    Note I can't see how the "1st revert" is a revert. Could you show what it is reverting? In any case I have left an unequivocal warning on the editor's talk page that any any further reversion without discussion will result in a block, regardless of whether it is a legal 3RR violation. Please feel free to contact me directly if it is necessary to follow up on this. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation, but feel free to re-report if reverting continues. T. Canens (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eman007 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: declined/stale)

    Page: San Francisco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Eman007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [29]

    • 1st revert: [30] – 07:30, October 14, 2010
    • 2nd revert: [31] – 22:25, October 14, 2010
    • 3rd revert: [32] – 02:26, October 15, 2010
    • 4th revert: [33] – 06:02, October 15, 2010

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

    Comments:

    The image File:FinancialNorth.jpg is the crux of this edit war. User:Eman007 has removed it four times in 24 hours. Two or three other editors oppose this removal. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note The warning did not come until hours after the 4th revert. If the editor reverts again, please update this report and leave a note. In the meantime, as far as I can see it is not actionable. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined/ Stale No revert since warning. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sulmues reported by User:Athenean (Result: 2 weeks/1RR 6 months)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [36], also see below


    • 1st revert: [37]
    • 2nd revert: [38] (changes wording slightly, but still same source and still in the same spirit as previous revert)
    • 3rd revert: [39] (reverts to above version)
    • 4th revert: [40]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41], his response [42]. Also [43].

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

    Comments: After adding the material in the first diff of this report, Sulmues restores it after I removed it (1st revert). Another user removes it, so he re-adds it in slightly different form (2nd revert). Though he has changed the wording somewhat, he has restored the source and the spirit is the same. When another user removes the material again, Sulmues restores it again (3rd revert), and then again (4th revert). With the last revert, Sulmues has clearly crossed deep into WP:EDITWAR territory, as he is edit-warring against multiple users against consensus. Even worse, he leaves hostiles templates on the talkpage of the last user who reverted him, accusing him of "vandalism" and threatening to report him [45] [46] [47] (even though he has been warned in the strongest possible terms from calling users who merely disagree with him "vandals" [48]). Even though he discusses on the talkpage, he discusses and reverts, making a mockery of the discussion process, and is also hostile and trolling ([49] "I would expect you to jump with joy at 'wild-looking Albanians'"), calling my single revert "usual" [50].

    I should note that this is an experienced user (20k+ contribs), who is careful enough to game 3RR without actually breaking it, about which I have warned him: [51]. Yesterday he was at it at Kastoria [52] (an rv back to this version [53] [54] [55] (which are reverts to this version [56]), and today this [57] (rv back to this version [58], a partial rv, as he restored "Albanian" after I had changed it to "Muslim" in accordance with the source [59]). Technically no violation but that's 4 reverts (to different versions) in 25 hours. And just a few days ago he was gaming 3RR at Theodore Kavalliotis [60] [61] [62].

    Again, this is an experienced user, but with a history of disruption (edit-warring and incivility, see WP:ARBMAC sanctions log [63] and block log), and was until recently on 1R revert parole which expired at the end of June. In the last month or so, he has greatly increased the frequency with which he reverts. He really ought to know better by now. Some form of ARBMAC sanction may well be appropriate. Athenean (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Mkativerata (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • With the agreement of the closing admin, and under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, I'm reimposing Stifle's restriction, as follows: Sulmues (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period on all articles relating to Balkans subjects, broadly construed, for six months, effective upon the expiration or lifting of the current 2-week block. Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page in a minimum of 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert. This sanction may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:140.163.254.157 reported by User:Diannaa (Result:48 hours)

    Page: Cyrillic alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 140.163.254.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [64]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

    Comments:
    --Diannaa (Talk) 00:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CanberraBulldog reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: No action)

    Page: Murray-Darling Basin Authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 12:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 08:54, 15 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "update")
    2. 22:45, 15 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* The Murray-Darling Basin Plan */ - updated the wording to reflect a more future tense then a past tense.")
    3. 11:36, 16 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Wikipedia hasn't done a lot of things and it isn't claimed that they did do the plan, I don't get your point? Please do not change without forming consensus in the discussion page. Cheers")
    4. 11:58, 16 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* The Murray-Darling Basin Plan */ Changed back to originally wording until Consensus is formed on discussion page. Cheers")
    • Diff of warning: here

    It is clear that the user also has a point of view and ownership of the article.

    —Bidgee (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - No action. Per this edit and this one, CB seems to have agreed to stop warring. Report again if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.85.214.167 reported by Walter Görlitz (talk) (Result: )

    Page: Talk:Ubuntu (operating system) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 217.85.214.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 20:01, 16 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 390941492 by Walter Görlitz (talk) DO NOT DELETE ENTIRE SECTIONS OF DISCUSSION WRITTEN BY OTHERS")
    2. 20:09, 16 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 391112497 by Yworo (talk) Wikipedia is not censored and this is about improving the article")
    3. 20:21, 16 October 2010 (edit summary: "Stop censoring this talk page, you will both be reported for this!")
    4. 20:30, 16 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 391115099 by Walter Görlitz (talk) You are the vandals here.")

    —Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not blocked Editor seems to have given up, and all contribs from this IP are from Oct 16, so there doesn't seem to be any pointing in blocking unless the editor reappears here and continues edit-warring. Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jsrogers24 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Already Blocked)

    Page: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jsrogers24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsrogers24&diff=prev&oldid=391135208 [link]

    Comments:Edit warring across 3 related articles.

    User:Ling.Nut reported by User:Timmccloud (Result: )

    Page: Quid pro quo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ling.Nut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [72]

    • 1st revert: [73]
    • 2nd revert: [74]
    • 3rd revert: I want to report it before it gets this far
    • 4th revert: [diff]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75] [76]

    Comments:
    I want a discussion about this topic, many editors and I feel this section provides necessary context to the article. It is *not* a trivia section, it is showing the prevalence of the concept in our culture. That's not to say it can't be improved, but improvement and wholesale section deletion / reversion are not the same things. Timmccloud (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation The purpose of this page is not to give warnings, it is to sanction violations that have already occurred. The two reverts listed were over a week apart. Not asserting that the behavior was okay, but that this is the wrong place to handle it. Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Humaliwalay reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: )

    Page: Lebanon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 05:08, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ Included sources of 1991 and 1996")
      05:11, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ arranged sources and added the very latest and reliable one of PEW Research center which was deleted.")
      05:24, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ added Graham and Francke estimates")
      05:28, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ arranging sources")
    2. 08:21, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 391195584 by George (talk) - USER GOING ABUSIVE")
    3. 10:36, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 391209938 by Elie plus (talk) biased edit reverted")
    4. 10:59, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 391217626 by Codf1977 (talk) consensus already acquired for Graham fuller report at RSN refer talk-page")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Codf1977 (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=391219930"