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:168.12.253.66 reported by User:ButOnMethItIs (Result:24 hours)
Page: OnLive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 168.12.253.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
- Straightforward. Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
User:24.236.68.244 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result:1 week)
Page: Deadbeat parent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.236.68.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 17:02, 3 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 442860365 by N5iln (talk)")
- 17:13, 3 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 442871216 by N5iln (talk)")
- 17:14, 3 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 442871938 by N5iln (talk)")
- 17:17, 3 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 442872165 by Muboshgu (talk)")
- 17:27, 3 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 442872601 by Muboshgu (talk)")
Comments:
- IP user attempting to add possible WP:BLP-violating material as anecdotal example of "deadbeat parent". Example just happens to be a US Congressman. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is some edit warring on the page of said congressman, Joe Walsh (Illinois politician). The IP was just blocked one week, but that might not be long enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Already blocked a week by another admin. I can't see that there's much more to do, especially for a first offence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Haymaker reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Page Protected, talk page warning issued)
Page: Catholics for Choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haymaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Haymaker's first recent insertion of this material - July 22
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He's quite aware that the article is under a 1RR restriction to prevent edit warring, as I've blocked him in the past for violations
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's been extensive discussion over the past few days.
Comments:
The community 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles is meant to prevent edit warring, not to extend it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- At no point did I violate 1RR, it would be helpful if SOV had posted the times on these edits. This has been batted back and forth on the page probably three dozen times in the last 10 days or so and SOV is angry because when he blind reverted the page here and only filed this report after I called him out on it here. There has been extensive discussion on that talk page (which I have been a part of), I probably should have asked for page protection at some point but this is not edit warring. Also, there is a 3 day gap in between edit 1 and 2. - Haymaker (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I reported edit warring, not 1RR or even 3RR. 5 reverts in 12 days generally falls under that heading.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- 5 edits over 12 days on a page that has had around 60 edits in that time and significant talk page discourse sounds like a pretty low bar for edit warring. - Haymaker (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- If 5 reverts over 12 days is a marker for edit warring, shouldn't others on the page also be up for this to.Marauder40 (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The article is under 1RR. Haymaker appears to have responded by reinserting the same disputed material every (24 + n) hours, where n is not very large. That's often viewed as an attempt to game the spirit of 1RR, although it's up to an uninvolved admin to decide if that warrants sanctions here. There may well be others acting similarly; if you think that's the case, then diffs would be useful. MastCell Talk 21:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- If 5 reverts over 12 days is a marker for edit warring, shouldn't others on the page also be up for this to.Marauder40 (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- 5 edits over 12 days on a page that has had around 60 edits in that time and significant talk page discourse sounds like a pretty low bar for edit warring. - Haymaker (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I reported edit warring, not 1RR or even 3RR. 5 reverts in 12 days generally falls under that heading.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hmph, it's an unimpressive edit history. There are indeed other established editors making numerous reversions; in the same time frame quoted by Sarek here I also count four reversions by at least two other editors (User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese. I would suggest a period of page protection would be preferable to picking a single editor out of this mess for a block. Therefore
Page protected (no doubt in the Wrong Version). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Toronto2503 reported by User:PKT (Result: 24h)
Page: Milton, Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toronto2503 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please note that Toronto2503 made a couple of reverts before these 4; the edits listed below occurred within the last 24 hours.
Editor has repeatedly replaced 2006 Census data with unreferenced/uncited newer data. Most recently the editor has implied that the newer data is from the 2011 census, but the results of this year's census have not been released (in fact Census Canada hasn't finished accumulating data yet).
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12] Notice applied by third editor.
Discussion section on the subject editor's talk page: User_talk:Toronto2503#Milton's population
Comments:
I think the foregoing sums things up properly. Please advise if more information is needed. PKT(alk) 00:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Result: User blocked 24 hours by Canterbury Tail. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Deepdish7 reported by User:Kolokol1 (Result: 1 week)
Page: Boris Berezovsky (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deepdish7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [13]
- 1st revert: [14]
- 2nd revert: [15]
- 3rd revert: [16]
- 4th revert: [17]
- 5th revert: [18]
- 6th revert: [19]
- 7th revert (apparent sockpuppet): [20]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page_1: [21]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page_2: [22]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page_3: [23]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page_4: [24]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page_5: [25]
Comments:This dispute stems from independent attempts of myself and user Off2riorob to edit a highly contentious article - as per consensus on the talk page, which has been consistent over years. There were two attempts to edit the lead, and an attempt to remove poorly sourced and potentially libelous sections as advised by the BLP policy. The perpetrator keeps revering to the old contentious version and threatens to do so indefinitely. The matter has been referred to BLP Noticeboard and to ArbCom
--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Normally this would be a standard short EW block, but given the information that the editor is trying to insert, and the use of an IP and a completely obvious sock (which I've also blocked), a longer block is indicated.
Blocked – for a period of 1 week Black Kite (t) (c) 12:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
User:71.226.23.207 reported by [[User:Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)]] (Result: )
Page: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.226.23.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [26]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]
Comments:
For several months, this anonymous and single-purpose editor (who fails to sign his posts) has been operating under several IP addresses (71.203.85.14 and possibly 99.103.174.55 for example)while taking the position that he is the sole person who will determine what is appropriate to this article and what is not. He threatens and attempts to intimidate this editor to promote his POV. He stated, "In short, I'll just bury the criticism with the opposite effect to bring balance....and we can make the article ridiculously long.", and "....unless you can drum up a consensus for keeping the material I will be deleting all entries- sourced or otherwise- that deal with mere individual acts that do not affect the agency as a whole." In my opinion, making these statements have no place on Wikipedia.
This editor has refused to register and sign his posts. Further, he seems unable to properly post citations and simply embeds links.
Certainly, ATF as an agency is under severe criticism at the current time (see Fast and Furious). Inappropriate actions of individual agents and the agency reaction to these incidents directly reflect on the agency as a whole.
I've attempted to compromise with this editor, but to no avail. Reverting postings not backed up by the citation is met with immediate reverts.
If I'm editing inappropriately, then please let me know and I'll back off. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- There's no requirement for a user to register to edit. There is, however, a requirement for all editors to abide by Wikipedia policies when editing. Looking at the edit history for the article, the IP editor appears to be keeping just outside the strict limits of WP:3RR, but to me, that's WP:GAMING the system. And the commentaries are certainly not consistent with collaboration or collegial editing. So while possibly not violating the letter of 3RR, there's definitely a violation in its spirit. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Kpwinter reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: )
Page: Luke Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kpwinter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: diff
- 2nd revert: diff
- 3rd revert: diff
- 4th revert: diff
- 5th revert: diff
- 6th revert: diff
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Single purpose reverting without end one day account - I also suspect the account a quacking sockpuppet of User:Pepe1958 - I have offered to remove the report if they self revert. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- You are generous - massive iterated WP:BLP violations by a "new editor" should arouse hackles. Once an editor has seen that the folks at BLP/N are in agreement - that should have stopped the reverts. Collect (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Occasionally I am generous.... The disputed content has been removed and the reported user seems to have accepted the position so there seems to be no need for administration here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
User:NYyankees51 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: declined)
Page: Susan B. Anthony List (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [31]
- 1st revert: [32] 17:20, August 4, 2011. Adding quote "could test the bounds of free speech."
- 2nd revert: [33] 20:48, August 4, 2011. Restoring quote "could test the bounds of free speech."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List#Fox_quote
Comments:
The article is under 1RR sanctions on abortion topics. The editor NYyankees51 was previously blocked for 1RR violations on this same article on May 31, 2011, for 72 hours. The edit warring warning was issued after the violation, of course, because of the nature of 1RR. Same with the attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the 1st revert listed above, was that a situation in which he reverted another editor by adding the quote about testing the bounds of free speech? Or was this an edit in which he was adding something new and original to the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- The first edit was new and original material. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Surely adding information to an article and then reverting to that version once is not breaking 1RR. Am I missing something obvious here? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have the same question. If I'm in violation I'd be happy to revert myself, but I don't see the violation...NYyankees51 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Declined ...and official 1RR sanction violations are probably better reported at arbitration enforcement. --slakr\ talk / 06:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
User:99.65.186.186 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: )
Page: South Carolina Gamecocks football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.65.186.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [35]
Page: Stephen Garcia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.65.186.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [41]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46] [47]
Comments: Anonymous user has been disruptively editing numerous articles and IP hopping (other IP being used is User:216.117.11.39) in an attempt to avoid 3RR violation, which as can be seen from the evidence presented here, user clearly no longer cares about. User deleted warnings from talk page (and talk page of IP sock) regarding relevant Wikipedia policies with edit summaries of "rv troll" and "get serious, n00b". One article has already been placed under full protection due in large part to the disruptive behavior of this user, and the other probably needs at least semi-protection to prevent this user from simply using other IPs to continue edit warring should a block be placed on the IP being reported.
GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- You do realize you're up for a block after your display, too? LOL-worthy. 216.117.11.39 (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- You forgot to report yourself, along with 129.252.69.40. But that would've required a non-biased approach to Wikipedia. Oops! 216.117.11.39 (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)