Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:Mondasian Cyberman reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: Doctor Who (series 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mondasian Cyberman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]
  7. [8]
  8. [9]
  9. [10]
  10. [11]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Mondasian Cyberman#June 2017

Comments:

The editor thanked me for one of my comment on their talk page, so they are clearly aware of the discussion but refuse to take part in it, instead going back and reinstating the edits, even another editor reverted them. They are also modifying every instance of the word "Prequel" to "Prologue", which apparently includes source URLs and titles with this edit. -- AlexTW 03:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Am I able to revert the edits without it being classified as edit-warring? -- AlexTW 04:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: Given that they haven't attempted discussion I don't see a problem reverting their most recent edit. Also noting that reverting once more won't put you over 3RR, but any further reverts from them will put them over 3RR. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Despite the warning, the editor has continued their edits: [13] -- AlexTW 12:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
And blocked for 31 hours by EdJohnston about half an hour after you left this comment. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Sro23 reported by User:174.23.179.62 (Result: Identical to Ebyabe report just down below)[edit]

Pages:
J. P. Knight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Huey Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Black Thought (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Questlove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Birds (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)



User being reported: Sro23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous versions reverted to:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._P._Knight&diff=787405484&oldid=787405329
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Lewis&diff=787404548&oldid=787404230
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Thought&diff=787405342&oldid=787404610
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Questlove&diff=787404613&oldid=787404125
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Birds_(band)&diff=787404587&oldid=787404132


Diffs of the user's reverts:


From J.P. Knight:

[14], [15], [16], [17]

Not only breaking the 3rr part of edit-warring, but vandalizing attempts to improve the article, which attempts are to remove redundancy by removing the words "first" and "original" from the statements about invention, since It doesn't make sense to say "inventing the first..." because inventing something already implies "the first...."


From Huey Lewis:

[18], [19]

Not only breaking 3rr in more than one article in quick succession, but also vandalizing good-faith attempts to match these other articles to the pseudonyms section of the manual of style,[20] which states:

"For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:"

   Louis Bert Lindley Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the [[stage name]] Slim Pickens ...


From Black Thought:

[21], [22], [23], [24], [25]


From Questlove:

[26], [27], [28], [29]


From The Birds (band):

[30], [31], [32], [33]

Vandalizing attempts to improve the article according to wikipedia's style standards by changing "The Birds" in prose to "the Birds," as stated: "Capitalization of band names should be consistent with the guidelines for trademarks. The definite article at the start of a band name (such as the Beatles) should be lowercase in running prose/sentence case."


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

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

Comments:


174.23.179.62 (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

See my comments in the section down below about Ebyabe; all my comments down there apply here, as well, including the fact that none of the IP-edits in the last fifty edits to User talk:Sro23 mentions edit-warring. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ebyabe reported by User:174.23.179.62 (Result: Boomerang, all pages semiprotected)[edit]

Pages:
J. P. Knight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Huey Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Black Thought (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Questlove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Birds (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


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


Previous versions reverted to:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._P._Knight&diff=787405484&oldid=787405329
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Lewis&diff=787404548&oldid=787404230
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Thought&diff=787405342&oldid=787404610
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Questlove&diff=787404613&oldid=787404125
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Birds_(band)&diff=787404587&oldid=787404132


Diffs of the user's reverts:


From J. P. Knight:

[34], [35], [36], [37]

Not only breaking the 3rr part of edit-warring, but vandalizing good-faith attempts to improve the article, which attempts are to remove redundancy by removing the words "first" and "original" from the statements about invention, since It doesn't make sense to say "inventing the first..." because inventing something already implies "the first...."


From Huey Lewis:

[38], [39], [40], [41], [42]

Not only breaking 3rr in more than one article in quick succession, but also vandalizing good-faith attempts to match these other articles to the pseudonyms section of the manual of style,[43] which states:

"For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:"

   Louis Bert Lindley Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the [[stage name]] Slim Pickens ...


From Black Thought:

[44], [45]


From Questlove:

[46], [47]


From The Birds (band):

[48], [49]

Vandalizing attempts to improve the article according to wikipedia's style standards by changing "The Birds" in prose to "the Birds," as stated: "Capitalization of band names should be consistent with the guidelines for trademarks. The definite article at the start of a band name (such as the Beatles) should be lowercase in running prose/sentence case."


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

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

Comments:


174.23.179.62 (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, multiple users have concluded that you're evading a block, which if true, means that 3RR doesn't apply, and whether or not that claim is true, the fact that several other editors disagree with you means that there's consensus against your edits. For another thing, you're quite obviously going far, far past 3RR on several of these articles; it doesn't matter if you use one IP address or several, because 3RR applies to humans using accounts or IPs, not the accounts or addresses themselves. And finally, you don't appear to have attempted to resolve this dispute on any of the article talk pages (aside from these edits, none of the talk pages have had any non-automated edits all year), and out of the last fifty edits to User talk:Ebyabe, none of the ones made by IPs said anything whatsoever about 3RR, whether consisting of a warning or otherwise. Some of the pages have been semiprotected already, and I've semiprotected the rest of them. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:NANGA reported by User:Fram (Result: blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [51] 25 June 2017, 23.21
  2. [52] 26 June 2017, 04.18
  3. [53] 26 June 2017, 05.08
  4. [54] 26 June 2017, 05.33
  5. [55] 26 June 2017, 09.48


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] 26 June 2017, 07.17


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57] plus discussion at my talk page with user NANGA.

Comments:
Three editors (including myself) have reverted NANGA's dubious POV additions and spam ("has gained tremendous life wisdom from his career successes and losses which he now shares in his work as a Motivational Speaker and Entrepreneur", "a pivotal milestone in Hayes’ career as a triple life champion (Hollywood actor, professional boxer and motivational speaker)." In previous versions of the article he was a nearly Olympic but missed it because of injury boxer (completely unverifiable). All evidence points to editors using Wikipedia to promote this person (and using IMDb and so on to get "good" references for their promo talk), and not caring one bit about Wikipedia rules and purposes. Block, revert, page protect is the best solution here. Fram (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Fram I am updating your report by notifying you as well that we had already edited the page again according your instructions by deleting the date of birth which we were told was falsified by Pinkbeast and we have also simplified the page by delete some to the previously updated content. We have been told our feedback to your instructions was "Junk" it seems like this vocabulary is not considered waring by Wikipedia. At this point we are only concerned about meeting the guidelines with our updated page. Once again let us know if the new changes are acceptable or not. Respectfully! NANGA (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Continued edit warring after the block expires will result in a longer duration. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User: NightShadow23 reported by User:Gial Ackbar (Result: )[edit]

Page: My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NightShadow23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [58]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [59]
  2. [60]
  3. [61]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

User repeatly tries to remove airdates for episodes of an US TV series which aired in non-US contries before they aired in the US. While I am sure that this user edits in good attemts, his edit war without a consensus violates WP:BRD. Gial Ackbar (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(Appednd: User had been wared for edit waring before: [64], [65] Gial Ackbar (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC))
It was a long time ago. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
See WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I count a total of 4 revverts of you here, but appearently, you reverted yourself twice... Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Koala15 reported by User:Emily Alexander (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Shimmer Lake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&oldid=787505603
  2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&diff=786997892&oldid=786989957
  3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&diff=786727416&oldid=786637538
  4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimmer_Lake&diff=786401252&oldid=786290684


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koala15&action=edit&section=134

Comments:


I've looked at Koala15's talk page, and it's clear that this is not the only case of disruptive editing. This particular editor is non-responsive to attempts to talk and has had several complaints lodged against them.

The other changes are incorrect. Adam Saunders is the first listed producer, not Britton Rizzio. Additionally, the character name changed is DAWKINS, not HAWKINS as Koala15 has edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily Alexander (talkcontribs)

(Non-administrator comment) Please see also the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Koala15. General Ization Talk 20:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Per my comment at User talk:Emily Alexander, I'm concerned that the filer of this report, Emily Alexander, may also be operating the User:SaraCrewe account and might be associated with Footprint Features, the production company which is credited for Shimmer Lake. (Sara created the Footprint Features draft). Both Emily and Sara have edited Shimmer Lake which is a no-no, and socks should not file 3RR reports. COI editing may be a concern as well as usage of multiple accounts. I hope that Emily will clarify. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – Possible usage of multiple accounts and COI editing by the filer. I am hoping that the problem is settled by the conversation at User talk:Emily Alexander. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Futurepilot1999 + User:SempreVolando reported by User:Pmbma (Result: )[edit]

Page: Birmingham Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Futurepilot1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) SempreVolando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787648624&oldid=787632920
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787648925&oldid=787648624
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787648972&oldid=787648925
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649142&oldid=787648972
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649338&oldid=787649142
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649459&oldid=787649338
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787649539&oldid=787649459
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787650180&oldid=787649539


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABirmingham_Airport&type=revision&diff=787656626&oldid=787655219
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birmingham_Airport&oldid=787658576#Seasonal_flights

Comments:
I can see two editors reverting each others' edits. I really have no idea what to do about it or even what the correct outcome should be, but it seems rather unproductive. Perhaps a wiki-admin can step in to try to resolve this ?

From the discussion at Talk:Birmingham Airport it appears that User:Futurepilot1999 disagrees with the consensus found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Seasonal flights for what constitutes a seasonal flight. This does put him at risk of a block for edit warring. If there truly is a consensus you shouldn't keep reverting against what it requires. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston Can I just put my point across here? There is no real "consensus" been reached. On the talk page you refer too, the only person agreeing with this "policy" on seasonal flights is SempreVolando who is on the other side of this argument. Is it my word versus his. No one else is backing him up! On the talk page only he has suggested this idea and he has admitted himself that this has flaws. He has even suggest changing this. But this is by no means the consensus. They all agree if the break is less than a month (4 weeks) then it's year round but any more is seasonal. These Jet2 flights in question stop for over 5 weeks. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Futurepilot1999, you can avoid a block if you agree to make no more edits on this article without first getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If I blocked, it would only be fair to block both of you are you are both edit warring. User:SempreVolando: This is not vandalism and is not exempt from WP:3RR. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that this report could be closed with warnings to both Futurepilot1999 and SempreVolando. In particular, Futurepilot should be aware that if he reverts against the current project definition of seasonal flight (on any articles) he may be blocked, unless he first gets a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User:FrankCesco26 reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Religion in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
FrankCesco26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC) "No sourced explanations to keep Eurispes data, I saw talk page. Doxa data is better for the sourced teasons I gave in talk age. Do not revert without motivations"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 07:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC) to 07:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    1. 07:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Demography */ No explanations to keep Eurispes data, as I said in talk page"
    2. 07:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC) "small fix"
  3. 21:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC) "Absolutely unexplained removal of sourced data." (Belied by discussions on the article's talk page.)
  4. 09:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC) "Let's talk firstly, than revert. For now, that is the most reliable source. 19 million people are more rapresentative than 1.120 people. If you'll find a better source, write it in the talk and then revert, but for now leave as it is."
  5. 05:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC) "Do not revert until we discuss on the source. Do not start an edit war."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Religion in Italy."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Please see "We should use a different source for catholics in the table" section per "Comments" section below.

Comments:

This is an ongoing, slow edit war with the user refusing to WP:LISTEN to other editors and achieve any form of WP:CON for major content changes. I left a 3RR warning on the user's talk page which was blanked. The user has displayed exactly the same behaviour on articles surrounding religion in a given nation-state in the past, and has been blocked for edit warring, but it doesn't seem that they've learnt anything and keep reverting multiple editors. Extended discussion with other editors can be found on the article's talk page here. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You keep reverting my changes without logical argomentations in favour of Eurispes data (the old one there were on the page) that, as I explained in the talk page with four sourced argomentations, is less reliable than Doxa data I introduced. You are moved by your religious convintions so you try to remove all data that you don't like without logical explanations. This is not the first time you make these edit wars, I will give you a list of pages where you made edit wars for the same motivations: Religion in Ukraine, Religion in Belgium, Religion in Russia and now also Religion in Italy. It is not a mature or adaptive behavior to make an edit war and ten report a person just because they do not think like you.FrankCesco26 (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have examined this situation, read all the recent discussion at Talk:Religion in Italy and am convinced that a block is warranted. Blocked for one week. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)