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:Kellymoat reported by User:Autorefiller (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Walls (Kings of Leon album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellymoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


21:52, 26 May 2017 Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

  1. 19:51, 27 May 2017‎ "Undid revision 782531797 by Autorefiller"


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:24, 27 May 2017‎ "Discussion: Changed rating to "generally positve critical reception". Why "mixed" before? Positive metascore (and Wikipedia tends to grade accordingly), two Reviews in 2star-range, a lot of three stars and some 4-stars. Then a year-end NME-accolade."
  2. 11:37, 27 May 2017 "Reverted good faith edits by Autorefiller: That's what "mixed" means - average, so-so, some good some bad. 62 out 100 is failing in school. 3 out of 5 is neither good nor bad. 4 out of 10 is less than half."
  3. 11:48, 27 May 2017‎ "Thank you for a "good faith"-edit. Still, your argument seems subjective. Firstly, 62/100 is not failing in a lot of school Systems. Secondly, one of the sources is the biggest musicaggregator-website featuring positive as a predicate for the album."
  4. 12:32, 27 May 2017‎ "Reverted 1 edit by Autorefiller (talk) to last revision by Kellymoat."
  5. 12:45, 27 May 2017‎ "Undid revision 782519919 by Kellymoat (talk) Please provide arguments then if you edit. 2,5/5 would be average, 3/5 thus slightly above average. 62/100 on metacritc = further source for positive."
  6. 12:49, 27 May 2017‎ "Reverted 1 edit by Autorefiller (talk): Edit summaries are not where you have discussions."
  7. 13:09, 27 May 2017‎‎ "Undid revision 782521551 by Kellymoat (talk) Noted. Then I will refrain from backing up the reasoning behind the edits here."
  8. 14:08, 27 May 2017‎ "Reverted 1 edit by 2003:80:E44:DC78:501F:32F4:4A14:A088 (talk) to last revision by Kellymoat."
  9. 14:26, 27 May 2017‎ "Undid revision 782529493 by Kellymoat (talk) Reverted to former version. FMI, see "talk"-section."
  10. 19:51, 27 May 2017‎ "Undid revision 782531797 by Autorefiller"



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


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

Talk:Walls (Kings of Leon album)

Dear Everyone, Recently the subject of the correct application of either the term "mixed" or "positive" concerning this album has surfaced. I will hereby make the case that the album should be classified as "generally positive" as this is founded on more sources than the application of "mixed". So far, having 10 sourced individual review-scores on wikipedia, the album features five reviews giving it 3/5 stars, one giving it 4.5/10, one giving it 2/5 stars, two giving it 4/5 stars and one giving it a B+. The album also features a metascore of 62/100, indicating "generally favorable" reviews in terms of the site´s duct.

1. The first argument against the term "mixed" is that reading 3/5 as "mixed" or "average" is not right in terms of definition. The term is equivalent to median in statistics, and in colloquial language, an average is the sum of a list of numbers divided by the number of numbers in the list, as wikipedia itself states. On a 5-star review-scale thus an average would be 2,5/5, not 3/5. 3/5 can thus be colloquially and statistically be read as "slightly above average" in terms of definition which counters the term "mixed" in a sense of "average".

2. "Mixed" could denote a discrepancy of some sort between the reviews, p.e. a certain number of reviews in 5-star-range and a certain number in 1-star-range. So far, five reviews were in 3-star range, three in 4-star range, two in 2-star-range. A drastic discrepancy can thus not be noted since half of the reviews feature the same score and the other reviews cancel each other out to about a level of the other revviews. Thus, if all reviews were charged against each other, counting B+ as 4-stars and 4,5 as 2-stars, the equasion would be 3x5 + 3x4 + 2x2= 31. 31 divided by the ten review-items would then equal 3.1 which is clearly above the 2,5-average provided before. Again, "mixed" cannot be applied.

3. Thirdly, metacritic, which serves as an aggregator for reviews and (on wikipedia) is listed above all individual reviews to put a generalized idea of critics´ response to an album into focus, calculates a score of 62/100 for the album based on 23 reviews. This means "generally favorable" in the website´s terms and thus a "positive" reception in colloquial terms. This "generally favorable" is sourced and can thus not be excluded from the reception-process of the album, driving home the point that the album is in fact "positively" reviewed, not "mixed".

Thank you for reading.

Autorefiller (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Autorefiller Comments:

Hello to everyone, As you may see from my editing-style, I´m fairly inexperienced with editing complexer topics on Wikipedia. I did not intend to edit complex topics, either. However, today I have stumbled about the review-section in the article for WALLS which struck me as odd with the predicate "mixed reviews" as the metascore and my personal, definitory understanding of the predicate "mixed" indicate otherwise. I have thus edited the article multiple times as it was in turn reverted by the the other user mentioned in this article. I was not aware of edit-warring at this point, but I was reported by another user for it and this fair. Still, I would very much like this issue to be resolved as I laid out my case plain and comprehensible in the talk-section of the article, yet never received an answer by any other user there. The user Kellymoat was kind enough to both inform me that my first edit was noted for "good faith" and that I should use the talk-page for discussing the topic, yet still, even though I laid out every reasoning behind my edits in the edit-summaries and started a topic on the talk-page to make the matter open for discussion, no other reaction than still reverting my edits without argumentation was the result. I would thus ask for a resolution of this matter and I stand behind the points made in the talk-section of the WALLS-article which is why I would kindly ask the community to check into the matter. Thank you for reading, Autorefiller (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Autorefiller


You've used two IPs and an account in the process. And while admitting to not knowing what you are doing, you've ignored valid reasons for being reverted and continued to attempt your edit.
Yet, you knew enough to send me a "warning" and to start an ANI. Kellymoat (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You see, these valid reasons you claim are just not there. I´ve edited once, then you good-faith edited me and backed it up by the higly subjective "school-failing"-reasoning and that 3/5 is deemed absolute average in your understanding. I then edited again, laid out my reasoning in the summary. You then told me in the summary that the summaries are not where this should be discussed, notably you did this WITHOUT any reasoning, you did not bother with even a short insight into your edit. I then edited again, but followed your advice and created a whole talk-topic which you did not even bother to discuss since you in turn just edited again. Furthermore, I´ve read in hindsight that users should be informed when they are in danger of violating the 3RR. You did not inform me, I did not inform you, we both violated that. Since you are a veteran-editor, I do think that an information on your part could have been in the range of possibilities. To clarify: Yes, I´ve used two IPs, unknowingly, only because I was away form the desktop once and forgot to log in. The time-stamps clearly show that there was no ill intention or deceitful intent as I still replied in person and that I still violated 3RR any way, so the whole reasoning behind me using a second IP would be naught. Concerning your last argument, that I "clearly know enough": At this point, I did not know about edit-warring, I only reacted with the "warning" and this post after the events. I don´t know why I should be faulted for informing myself of the procedure once I got notified of my behavior being perceived as edit-warring.

Autorefiller (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said things were unresolved and not handled well a week ago. Kelly wasn't properly admonished, and the disruption has persisted. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Officialrajuparas reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: One week)[edit]

Page
Ramgarh, Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Officialrajuparas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "Added content"
  2. 08:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Attractions */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 08:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC) to 08:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. 08:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 08:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Attractions */"
  4. 07:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Attractions */"
  5. 07:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  6. Consecutive edits made from 08:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC) to 11:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. 08:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 11:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring - repetitively adding promotional links in violation of EXT and 3RR, continuing after two final warnings. — kashmiri TALK 13:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 11:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Morty C-137 and User:Rjensen reported by User:Cjhard (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: United Daughters of the Confederacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Morty C-137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Rjensen (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]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Morty: [8] Rjensen: [9]


Rjensen has attempted to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments:

Morty has been warned for edit warring previously: [11] In the discussion prompted by Rjensen, Morty has been accused of breaching WP:CIV. There also appears to be a failure of good faith on Morty's part. Cjhard (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like User:Rjensen is trying his best to deal with a new editor that is not familiar with our RS policies. --Moxy (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment I will add User:Morty C-137 has previously been warned on his talkpage[12] about civility and personal comments - the comments were directed at me, but the warning came from MelanieN Seraphim System (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

my basic complaint is that Morty c-137 made an OR statement about the topic of the article (UDC) and put it in the lede. He stated "In its early incarnations the group was closely associated with the white supremacy movement and white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan" That is false history--did not happen--and is not supported by any RS. He is confused about the history of the KKK and says he is talking about the 2nd kkk, which was founded in 1915--20 years after the UDC--and which is not linked to the KKK by his sources. Worse, he attacked me personally, suggesting I have some sort of "attachment" to the kkk which is totally false. (I was a PhD student of the leading scholar on the era, C. Vann Woodward, who was a champion of civil rights.) He refused to withdraw the calumny. Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. You need four reverts to violate 3RR—each user made three reverts. Morty c-137 warned for personal attacks. El_C 11:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:86.209.130.34 and User:90.4.92.62 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )[edit]

Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

As 86.209.130.34
  1. [13] (The Vampire Diaries)
  2. [14] (The Originals (TV series))
  3. [15] (Jane the Virgin)
  4. [16] (Jane the Virgin)
  5. [17] (Jane the Virgin)
  6. [18] (The Originals (TV series))
  7. [19] (The Vampire Diaries)
  8. [20] (Reign (TV series))
  9. [21] (Lucifer (TV series))
  10. [22] (The Last Man on Earth (TV series))
  11. [23] (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
  12. [24] (Gotham (TV series))
  13. [25] (Gotham (TV series))
  14. [26] (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
  15. [27] (Sleepy Hollow (TV series))
  16. [28] (New Girl)
  17. [29] (Glee (TV series))
As 90.4.92.62
  1. [30] (The Originals (TV series))
  2. [31] (The Vampire Diaries)
  3. [32] (Reign (TV series))
  4. [33] (Glee (TV series))
  5. [34] (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
  6. [35] (Falling Skies)
  7. [36] (Falling Skies)
  8. [37] (Grimm (TV series))
  9. [38] (The Vampire Diaries)
  10. [39] (The Originals (TV series))


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The above IP editors, which I would assume that it's safe to say are one and the same person, are determined to add ratings tables to articles of multiple television series; it is not standard practice to add such templates to articles with too many episodes, as it becomes cluttered and more detrimental than beneficial. They have been reverted by multiple editors, including MPFitz1968, Favre1fan93 and Ebyabe, and yet the IP editor continues to revert without reason. I began a discussion on the talk page of their first IP 86.209, and they replied once, but since they, they've refused to continue the discussion with any further replies, deciding it best to continue reverting. -- AlexTW 07:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:217.32.208.237 reported by User:Nick-D (Result: )[edit]

Page: Canberra-class landing helicopter dock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.32.208.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [42]
  2. [43]
  3. [44]
  4. [45]
  5. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not attempted as this is an edit warring only IP account previously blocked for the same conduct: they wouldn't notice the talk page discussion, or engage with it. The editor has made no attempt to discuss the matter.

Comments:

This account has been blocked repeatedly this year for block evasion and disruptive editing. This edit warring commenced shortly after a 1 month block for 'Persistent addition of unsourced content' expired, and is a continuation of this conduct. I'd suggest that a lengthy block is in order to prevent this disruption from re-emerging. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Vabi28 reported by User:ZLEA (Result: )[edit]

Page
Jayraj Salgaokar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Vabi28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782815847 by Usernamekiran (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

sorry only one revert is selected, I'm using twinkle, go to the page to find out the real number of reverts ZLEA (Talk,Contribs) 12:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I think the accused doesnt even know about 3RR (he openly confessed about COI; ignorance). The reverts were of PROD tag. I have nominated the article for deletion (AfD). —usernamekiran(talk) 12:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Evandro321 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: )[edit]

Page
Equipment of the Serbian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Evandro321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782667027 by Thomas.W (talk)"
  2. 11:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782662130 by 91.148.91.31 (talk) Please no edit."
  3. 10:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782652466 by 91.148.91.31 (talk)Equipment of the Serbian Army"
  4. 06:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782590570 by 91.148.91.31 (talk) "Equipment of the Serbian Army" Including: Ground forces,Air forces-Air Defence,and River Flotilla vessels,do you understand."
  5. 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782558520 by 91.148.91.31 (talk) This is Equipment for Army not for only ground."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Equipment of the Serbian Army."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit-warrior gaming the system by first reverting repeatedly on multiple articles for two days, then after being given a 3RR-warning waiting 24 hours before starting again, as if waiting 24 hours meant they were free to continue their disruptive behaviour... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Paris1127 reported by User:Ceylonpedia (Result: )[edit]

Page: List of conflicts involving the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paris1127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Paris1127 has been engaging in an edit war with me. I stated the reason in the talk, but he kept changing it back to previous version. So please check this out and if possibly warn him to stop the edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_conflicts_involving_the_United_Kingdom#First_kandyan_war

User:DantODB reported by User:Nickag989 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Alexa Bliss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
DantODB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782942923 by HardcoreWrestlingFan (talk) It's as reliable as the "Cleveland" ref. So, what's the truth?"
  2. 03:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782935021 by HardcoreWrestlingFan (talk) A reliable source, as in the one that you removed?"
  3. 03:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782925701 by HardcoreWrestlingFan (talk) Reverted unexplained removal of nickname."
  4. 01:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782909335 by HardcoreWrestlingFan (talk) Lexi isn't anywhere else in the article, therefore it should be annotated."
  5. 23:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782889340 by Nickag989 (talk) This is a special case because "Lexi" is not part of her common name, and isn't annotated anywhere else in the article."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alexa Bliss. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor keeps reverting to the version which includes her nickname "Lexi" with a source provided by ohio.com. However even that source is aware that "Lexi" is just a shortened name for Alexa. Nickag989talk 08:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)