Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
| 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:DMSBel reported by User:NuclearWarfare (Result: 72h)
Page: Abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DMSBel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned after the second revert by myself and a another editor
Abortion is on 1RR. DMSBel is aware of this. The lead is in a very active state of discussion; nearly the entire talk page and much of a recent archive is dedicated to discussing this. He has edit warred multiple times regardless. There are other editors whose conduct might ought to be examined; see the article history. NW (Talk) 18:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmation that DMSBel is aware of the 1RR restriction at that article (in addition to the edit notice). I have edited abortion-related articles, so I am leaving this open for someone else. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
User:08OceanBeach SD reported by User:AlexCovarrubias (Result: 24h)
Page: North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 08OceanBeach SD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [4] (Adding text about Mexico being part of Central America, forking the use of the term Middle America and putting it upfront)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
A whole discussion was started last night at the talk page and there was consensus among editors. This morning user 08OceanBeach SD refused to recognize it and started edit warring. After his first revert, we were surprised he didn't respect consensus and was notified by user Karnifro that an agreement was reached [12]. He refused to respect the majority, and reverted and reverted.
User is well aware of 3RR as you can read here [13], where he uses it as a threat in a previous edit war started by him.
Comments:
It would be nice for an administrator to warn this user because of his incivility by not respecting consensus and previous agreements reached by editors at the article North America, because this is not the first time this happens. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
User:HudsonBreeze reported by BlueLotusLK (Result: 24h for both)
Page: Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]
Comments:
User is adding incorrect terminology to the page and reverting my neutralization of a passage. BlueLotusLK (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- You too involved in Edit Warring and pushed your own agenda on a sensitive page like Alleged War Crime on Sri Lanka without any consensus on talk page.HudsonBreeze (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
User:HudsonBreeze reported by BlueLotusLK (Result: 24h for both)
Page: War rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]
Comments:
User does not understand what constitutes valid sources and is pushing a POV. BlueLotusLK (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The sources are enough to support the details on the "War Rape" on Sri Lanka context, but you haven't taken sufficient time to read, but want to revert.HudsonBreeze (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
User:WhereTimeStandsStill reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: No Violation)
Page: Three Cups of Tea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WhereTimeStandsStill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
NOTE: While the editor did not revert a total of four times, his actions indicate to me that he is knowingly edit warring. Further, because of this addition to my talk page, [29] his actions also indicate he is possibly attempting to game the system.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30] Editor was warned. Warning has since been removed by editor.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] User was also advised of policy regarding redlinks and warned not to edit war in edit summary made by me. User then proceeded to revert back again in edit warring fashion (and this time without an edit summary). His previous revert of the same stated, "if you want to create an article about David Relin, feel free to do so. Until then, piping should stay off".
Comments:
This user (who has edited as an IP and as User:Lgmagone) has a history of edit warring (as the IPs and as his previous user name) at all pages connected to the author Greg Mortenson. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
With this latest addition to my talk page (which he has been asked to stay off of previously) [32], I believe he has not only been trying to game the system, but has been intentionally engaging in baiting behavior. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted twice. LHB1239 reverted the page three times today. Not sure why I am the one accused of reverting when he has reverted more tha me. The first "revert" shown was the original edit, and the next two entries were my actual reverts.
- No attempts were made to resolve this on the talk page. LHB1239 didn't discuss the change until after I made the final edit and he decided to take me to the 3R noticeboard. He also did not provide a link on my tak page with the actual complaint. I had to get the automated response from the bot to see the issue. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Jamelia reported by User:Strikerforce (Result: 24h)
Page: Find Me (Sophia Montecarlo song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jamelia (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: [38] (A courtesy informing the user that they were close to violating 3RR), [39] (The warning itself)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40] (Note on the user's talk)
Comments: 4th and 5th reverts are not necessarily related to 1-3, but show a pattern of refusing to work with other editors or understand policies.
StrikerforceTalk Review me! 15:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Δ reported by User:Nightscream (Result: No Violation)
Page: Breen (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [41]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]
Comments:
User:Δ claims that the image he keeps removing from the article does not have a fair-use rationale for that particular article. I have tried repeatedly to point out that this is false in my edit summaries [47][48], but as the aforementioned diffs of his reverts show, he simply ignores this, and repeats the same boilerplate warning over and over again in his edit summaries: "ll non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for more information; one or more files removed due to missing rationale FAQ". I tried to ask him for clarification on his talk page:
Is there some particular reason you cannot simply clarify what the problem is with a given image, and why instead, you simply say the same thing over and over again? Did you not see my edit summary, in which I stated that the photo has a rationale for article in question? If this is wrong on my part, why not respond to explain why? Why do you make no attempt at clear communication with image uploaders? Can't you see how this can be seen as non-collaborative, and possibly disruptive? Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
And all he said in response was:
That is where you are wrong, it does not have a rationale for where it is being used on. --ΔT The only constant 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
As you can see from the image's page here, it indeed has a rationale, which is specifically indicated for the Breen article. Because of this, I naturally reverted his removal of the image from the Breen article twice, and as a result, User:Δ has warned me that I am "edit warring". Keep in mind that good-faith reversions of unambigous policy violations, such as removing content without a valid rationale on the part of users who refuse to discuss the matter with others is not a 3RR violation. By contrast, User:Δ's three-time reversion, which he has engaged in without responding clearly and openly to discussion, most certainly is, since his statement that the image lacks a rationale for that article is false.
Keep in mind that User:Δ has a habit of deleting images from articles without clear attempts to discuss the matte or respond to queries from uploaders, templating regulars (which many in the community feel is wrong), and has a history of being brought to ANI for the tendentious manner in which he approaches enforcing NFCC, which has included having edit restrictions imposed on him.
Another user stated: "SOmeone, after Delta's removal, your revert, and his rerevert, fixed the image to make it say "Breen (Star Trek)" correctly. the wikilink to the Breen article was outdated, due to a previous page move. I don't know if this is indeed User:Δ's rationale, since he refuses to speak. If so, he needs to be cautioned, not only about his 3RR violations, but because he refused to speak with clarity about the situation, and presumed to accuse someone else of 3RR, simply because the name of an article had changed, and made the wikilink in the rationale on the image's page out of date. Nightscream (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just a few notes, WP:3RR exempts WP:NFCC enforcement from the policy. At the time of my removal the file did not have a vaild rationale for its usage see at time of removal. In my edit summary I link to two different pages a guideline on how to write rationales and a FAQ both of those and WP:NFCC#10c require the exact name of the article where the file is being used included in the rationale which it wasnt in this case. Nightscream is trying to make a point to get me blocked against policy due to their recent block due to their breach of WP:CIVIL and NAP directed at myself and others enforcing the NFCC. I think a good {{trout}} headed their way should solve this. ΔT The only constant 21:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- One more time: Why did you not tell me, even when I asked, where the problem was? Those pages you linked to are filled with LOTS of different criteria for proper rationales. How am I supposed to know which criterion was wrong?
- You are not exempt from edit warring if you refuse to speak to the other user. I tried to open a dialogue with you, and you repeatedly refused to give me a straight answer as to what was wrong with the rationale, and that's a fact, as shown by the article's edit history and my attempts at discussion on your talk page, where all you would say was "That is where you are wrong, it does not have a rationale for where it is being used on." You are clearly not interested in working with others on this project, preferring to self-righteously delete material so you can sit back and watch others scramble as they try to preserve their work. You have a history of this sort of behavior, and your edit warring with me over this is clearly motivated by a personal grudge over the previous matter with templating regulars. Nightscream (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you actually read them instead of saying TL;DR Wikipedia:Fixing_non-free_image_problems#LINKCORRECT is exactly what happened in your case. The street works both ways, if you refuse to read the information that I provide or fail to understand the problem ask, dont ingore the issue edit war and re-insert files against policy. ΔT The only constant 21:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)While the image did technically have an invalid rationale, in that it linked to Breen instead of Breen (Star Trek), a much better solution would have been to just point the link to the right article, rather then remove the image from the article that would fit with the NFCC rationale. That said, given the NFCC exception to edit warring, given even without the exception there wasn't a 3rr violation here, and finally given that both sides now accept the inclusion of the image after the rationale was fixed, does any action really need to be taken here? Monty845 21:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are not exempt from edit warring if you refuse to speak to the other user. I tried to open a dialogue with you, and you repeatedly refused to give me a straight answer as to what was wrong with the rationale, and that's a fact, as shown by the article's edit history and my attempts at discussion on your talk page, where all you would say was "That is where you are wrong, it does not have a rationale for where it is being used on." You are clearly not interested in working with others on this project, preferring to self-righteously delete material so you can sit back and watch others scramble as they try to preserve their work. You have a history of this sort of behavior, and your edit warring with me over this is clearly motivated by a personal grudge over the previous matter with templating regulars. Nightscream (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- No violation At the time, the file unambiguously failed the NFCC, and so its removal was exempt from the 3RR anyway. Whether or not Delta could have been more responsive is another matter, but it is clear that his edit summary did provide all necessary information. As everyone is now happy with the result, there does not need to be any action taken here. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I think Delta has been guilty of edit-warring here. Reversion should be the last resort, not the first resort. At the bottom of this was something that was at most a technical failing -- linking to a dab page, rather than the actual use page. There was a clear failure to communicate that simple information to Nightscream here. Failing to communicate, and instead merely repeating and re-repeating removal with an unhelpfully unspecific generic edit-summary falls well short of the behaviour we expect here. We expect editors to act like human beings here, not automata. Even worse is the apparent belief, after the event, that because there was a technical failing in the rationale, this kind of unhelpful minimally-communicative behaviour is acceptable. Masem has previously suggested that Delta would benefit from a spell of being placed on 1RR for image work, to try to instill a habit of appropriately interactive discussion and communication that at the moment appears to be lacking. I can only see this most recent occurrence as adding further weight to the sense in that suggestion. Jheald (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- It wasnt a failure to communicate, but rather a failure to understand on the part of Nightscream. ΔT The only constant 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jheald, by saying that there was no violation, I do not mean to say that the situation was handled perfectly- it probably wasn't. However, clearly, Delta did not break the 3RR. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- 3 reverts is not an entitlement. You don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring -- edit warring is a pattern of behaviour and an attitude.
What worries me most here is that Delta still doesn't appear to perceive that there has been any problem. Jumping to re-revert may be necessary as a last resort for unquestioned breaches of NFCC in the face of clear and wilful inappropriate behaviour. Instead what we have here was an accidental technical breach by an editor of good standing and good faith who, given only Delta's unspecifically generic edit summary to go on, was (as Delta notes above) unable to understand what the problem was that Delta had picked up with the image. When that happens, it is not acceptable simply to reiterate the exact same automated terse, unhelpfully unspecific, utterly generic edit summary, like talking louder to a foreigner.
The fact that Delta jumps straight to the path of reversion and confrontation, rather than communication, and thinks even in retrospect that that is perfectly appropriate behaviour, shows that there is an entrenched behavioural problem here. I don't know what the answer is; but I do think Masem's suggestion of a spell of 1RR parole, initially for a short fixed period, but then repeated and extended if necessary, may be a good one and may be worth some serious consideration. Jheald (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delta was correct to remove the image, but on the second or third revert when the other editor clearly didn't understand the issue, it wouldn't have killed to write "the FUR is for Breen, not Breen (Star Trek) so needs to be adjusted"; linking to rules doesn't necessarily aid an editor in identifying the problem. Clearly no action should be taken against delta as there was no 3RR violation, but hopefully he will see he could have been a bit more helpful in this case which would have been in the best interests of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- 3 reverts is not an entitlement. You don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring -- edit warring is a pattern of behaviour and an attitude.
- Jheald, by saying that there was no violation, I do not mean to say that the situation was handled perfectly- it probably wasn't. However, clearly, Delta did not break the 3RR. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- It wasnt a failure to communicate, but rather a failure to understand on the part of Nightscream. ΔT The only constant 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jheald, Nightscream, Betty Logan: Delta removes an image with a long edit summary - the edit summary points to several policies/guidelines/essays. I am sorry, if I see someone remove something with a long edit-summary, then my first thought would be 'there is something wrong' - I could have a look, and if I did not understand or consider that everything is actually correct, I maybe would revert - then the same edit is performed again - I don't know about you guys, but to me that would be reason to consider the possibility that there actually is something wrong .. maybe that image does have a problem there, but I don't understand. What would I do .. go to the editor: 'I don't understand what you mean, what exactly is the problem?' Would I revert: NO, because maybe the other editor sees something I do not see. People, we are here looking at a problem which is under a foundation resolution - this is not just removing unsourced information (Nightscream: diff, [49] - all you are doing there is bringing pages in line with policy - your edit summary is similar to ∆'s - pointing to policies and guidelines, what, I would argue that ∆'s "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page .." is more explaining the problem). Not understanding the problem with some edit is never a reason to edit war about it. Here there is, at the time of edit, a proper link to the article missing in the rationale, something that is relatively easy to fix (especially for an editor knowledgeable in the subject). Can we next time first ask ∆ (or other editors) what is the problem - we know that edit-summaries are not the best way of communicating, but repeatedly reverting an editor who tries to explain (and the problem is exactly "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page" - it may be as minor as a typo, but most cases are less obvious than that) - do we really continuously have to assume that ∆ (or I, for that matter) is wrong in their removals, or can we also assume that maybe there is something wrong with the display of the image, and that maybe something needs fixing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
As I, maybe cynically or sarcastically, remarked on my talkpage in a similar discussion:
I've got another one: diff .. how are we to know that the image contains Thomas Clarkson, and not Thomas Clarkson .. It is simple to solve for those that know, but for me? But it should be clear to me that this logo is for IBM and not for IBM, and it is clear that this logo is for DSM (or is it for DSM, no, wait, it is for DSM. Nooo .. I got it .. it is for the DSM - oops, no, that one does not exist anymore .. then it must be depicting the DSM .. you've got me here. I am at a loss, obviously I get it all wrong (but these are not non-free logo's anyway, what am I rambling about?)).
._Clarkson_-_Leigh.jpg&diff=435973469&oldid=435972229){kind=link}
- Yes, there are blatantly obvious mistakes sometimes, but often the mistakes are not that obvious - if an image get removed with "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page" - then there may be something wrong like this, it is, often, obvious to 'you' (i.e., the editor knowledgeable on the subject), but not to us. Still - the rationale is not valid, a requirement per a Foundation Resolution. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)