Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.


Feed-icon.svg 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.
  • 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 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:Mazing107 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Battle of Wadi al-Laban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mazing107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 14:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "Please go to the Talk page. Thank you."
  2. 13:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 13:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC) to 13:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    1. 13:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "Manipulation of sources by the users Askelaadden and M.Bitton. Please stick with what the sources say."
    2. 13:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC) ""
    3. 13:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "Manipulation of sources by the users Askelaadden and M.Bitton."
    4. 13:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC) ""
    5. 13:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 13:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC) to 13:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    1. 13:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "Please stick to what sources says"
    2. 13:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 12:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC) to 12:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    1. 12:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "Only one source says it was "rather" inconclusive, but the majority opts for a Moroccan victory"
    2. 12:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC) ""
    3. 12:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC) ""
    4. 12:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC) ""
  6. 12:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "It's a Moroccan victory, described by the majority of the sources. British French or Arabic"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 13:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Battle of Wadi al-Laban."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 13:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Result */"
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Mapswourld (Result: Mapswourld blocked 24h)[edit]

He is blind reverting my edits and refuses to discuss and even removed my discussion request in the discussion page! look carefully https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakhmids&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lakhmids&action=history intervention is needed asap--Mapswourld (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Mapswourld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

WP:OUCH. User is edit warring against two veteran users. At first he wanted to push a worse looking map onto the article [1] [2] [3]
Now he has simply resorted to removing/altering random stuff in order to provoke a reaction [4] [5]
Also violated WP:NPA; besides here, he has also called me or/and LouisAragon 'blind' and in a condescending manner called me 'Mr.History' [6] and 'mr iranian history'.
Clearly WP:NOTHERE.
--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the reporter for 24 hours. It's a bit early to say that Mapswourld is NOTHERE, although we may get there later. There have been no personal attacks. Mapswourld did not call anyone "blind". They said that editor(s) were "blind reverting", which clearly meant "blindly reverting". Nor is calling HistoryofIran "Mr.History" an attack. We're dealing with an editor whose English is not all that good.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


User:Kekule450 reported by User:ScottishFinnishRadish (Result: No action for now)[edit]

Page: Gina Carano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kekule450 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 00:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029438726 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) Disruptive editing )"
  2. 00:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029437888 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) the sources say “mocked” without proving it and giving link to only 1 tweet, which doesn’t mock it (that’s not an interpretation, that’s the fact). Stop linking misleading sources then"
  3. 00:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029436764 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) al the links, claiming that Gina “mocked” the use of masks refer to only 1 tweet, which i linked"
  4. 23:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029430602 by Sangdeboeuf (talk)"
  5. 22:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "Edited inaccurate info about Gina Carano's tweet, also attaching a link to her original tweet. Gina Carano's tweet is first and foremost an obvious satire on the results of the U.S. election taking place at the time. If she was mocking the wearing of face masks, which has no objective evidence, that is clearly not the primary purpose of Gina's tweet."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 00:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gina Carano."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note The warning came very slightly after their last revert and they have ceased since then. Per WP:NOPUNISH I suggest no block is necessary at this time, unless the user reverts again. I am watching the article. --Chris (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

User:AditiB00 reported by User:SunDawn (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Corruption in Mauritius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: AditiB00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "The letter was never made public and if you are not willing to take my word for it, then you should get in touch with the Ministry of Land. Continuing to post this article with the new knowledge that the Ministry of Land ACCEPTED its mistake is not an absolution of a crime. The whole affair was simply a media circus with no basis for which no charges were ever put against the DPP and no arrest completed. This is defamation. You are not reporting facts correctly."
  2. 11:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "This was a highly politically motivated action which brought prejudice to the DPP and his family. The Ministry has provided SUN TAN with a letter confirming that the mistake was an administrative mistake on the part of the Ministry and the matter has been redressed. You are basing yourself on one-sided media article which have not given the full picture - because once the mistake was admitted as being that of the gvt, no further media attention was given to fuel the fake story."
  3. 10:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "Removed this article from the wikipedia page as factually outdated. The Ministry of Housing sent a letter to SUN TAN confiming their actions and re-affirming that the decision and consequences thereof had some from them."
  4. 10:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "removal of this paragraph - this is outdated and lends prejudice to the DPP."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 11:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Corruption in Mauritius."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 11:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Sun Tan Hotels, Palmar and Crown Land lease scandal (DPP Boolell) */ new section"

Comments:

User keep adding in unsourced materials to the article. SunDawn (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. @SunDawn: unfortunately I don't see a 3RR exclusion for your edits as this does not appear to be simple vandalism. --Chris (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

User:74 observer reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked one week)[edit]

Page: The Troubles in Rosslea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74 observer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [8]
  2. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#'The Troubles in ...' articles: list entry criteria. and Talk:The Troubles in Rosslea#Murder of Douglas Deering in 1977 - notable incident, no consensus to change the existing inclusion criteria at present.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [11]

Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction per WP:TROUBLES. The editor was specifically warned here not to edit war their preferred version on that article, and was blocked after ignoring that warning. FDW777 (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Note they have chosen to remind me the article is subject to 1RR, three minutes after their own 1RR breach. FDW777 (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, my understanding is I'm entitled to revert my good-faith change once in 24 hours under the 1RR rule and have I not breached it. 74 observer (talk)
Secondly, the change promotes the article from incomplete/stub status which some editors are motivated to hold it in. It is now accurate to the article title. The change completes the short list as per WP:CSC, it provides encyclopedical value. It is a progressive and constructive change. The original list criteria was arbitrary (the original author used it as a stop-gap as they were not in possession of a complete list at the time of creation). 74 observer (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thirdly, the article has been discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#'The Troubles in ...' articles: list entry criteria.. The conclusion was update however it seems FDW777 will never accept that for his own reasons. 74 observer (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
What 74 observer really means when they say "the conclusion was update" is they personally decided to conclude the discussion with the decision they wanted. FDW777 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Not the case, there are two update approvals out of the four responses and one of the other responses was off-topic (delete-all is another/different discussion). 74 observer (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Quite clearly the case, as the diff shows. You decided on the result of the discussion you started. FDW777 (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Look at the discussion above that change - four update responses and one of the other responses off-topic. Hence the conclusion to update. 74 observer (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@74 observer: consensus is weighed by a neutral, third-party editor; you certainly do not get to judge the consensus of your own discussion (unless by way of you withdrawing it). ——Serial 13:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with that - a neutral, third-party editor would be no problem here from my point of view. 74 observer (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Mapswourld (Result: Declined – malformed report; Mapswourld blocked one week)[edit]

i was blocked for 24 hours in the previous complaint and since my opponent has violated the same rule I was punished for, now want HistoryofIran to be blocked for 1-violating 3 revert rule, check: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakhmids&type=revision&diff=1029401748&oldid=1029370025 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakhmids&type=revision&diff=1029368810&oldid=1029368723 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakhmids&type=revision&diff=1029366400&oldid=1029366141 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakhmids&type=revision&diff=1029364732&oldid=1029363438 four reverts also he deleted the discussion section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALakhmids&type=revision&diff=1029368928&oldid=1029368487 also called my contribution a vandalism a thing its clearly not https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakhmids&action=history it is a personal attack

so to sum it up, 1-he violated 3 reverts rule..2-he deleted the discussion section and still insisting to force his ideas thru reverting and asking friends to help him in his job 3-he accused me with vandalism and it is a personal attack 4-he would not allow any of my contributions whatever I write.. so do rules apply for "veterans" as he calls himself and give them amnesty to do whatever they please.. i dement immediate block for (talk) this message is for you (talk) i hope you get notification for it--Mapswourld (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mapswourld "opponent" is not a word to use here, even if you are in serious disagreement. Perhaps you may wish to spend a little time cooling off and then reconsider how you go about this please. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
He considers me an opponent at lest its how i perceive it, just check how he reverts every contribution i do just check the links above--Mapswourld (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg 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. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 22:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I blocked Mapswourld for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)