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:Squared.Circle.Boxing reported by User:bennyaha (Result: Malformed)[edit]

Page: Claire Hafner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claire_Hafner&diff=920398958&oldid=920332847 Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claire_Hafner&diff=920827737&oldid=920827101


Comments:
I created this page a while about a week ago Claire Hafner. User:Squared.Circle.Boxing starts making edits removing half of the citations of the page, removing notable information and and reverting edits multiple times. We are now in an editing war.--Bennyaha (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Edits corrected errors that contradict WP:BOXING/MOS: Notable wins or opponents should not be included in the lead section, as that does not represent a concise overview of the article; it does not present a neutral point of view; and there is no objective way to determine what makes a victory notable; Also states only top ten rankins from The Ring, ESPN, TBRB and BoxRec to be mentioned in lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squared.Circle.Boxing (talkcontribs) 04:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:bennyaha also seems to think because New Zealand use the dmy format, it should also be used on a page for an American-Canadian individual, instead of mdy, as is standard in America and most common for English speaking Canadians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squared.Circle.Boxing (talkcontribs) 04:18, 12 October 2019 (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.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon reported by User:101.176.22.6 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John from Idegon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 17:51, 12 October 2019 (Reverted 1 edit by 101.176.22.6 (talk): Discuss on talk (TW))
  2. 19:13, 12 October 2019 (Reverted 1 edit by 101.176.22.6 (talk): New content requires consensus. get it prior to changing the article again. (TW))
  3. 19:47, 12 October 2019 (Reverted 1 edit by 101.176.22.6 (talk): Yup. gain consensus. that's how it works. (TW))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 20:56, 12 October 2019 (→‎Discussion on 12 October 2019 edits)


Comments:

Won't discuss consensus. This was a snarky comment to me, it's like Yup, I keep undoing your edits for my own gain, that's how it works. I did say to John that London was unsourced but tells me New content requires consensus. No word as of later 101.176.22.6 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. You need four not three reverts to violate 3RR, IP. Although the onus is on you to gain consensus for the edit which you are introducing — John, you also have an obligation to provide a citation for an unsourced item that you are restoring. El_C 22:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep that *4*th revert in check for next time El_C. 101.176.22.6 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Doublehelixguy reported by User:BigDwiki (Result: no violation OP blocked for one week)[edit]

Page
Waterman–Smith Building (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Doublehelixguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC) "Remove personal references in violation of WP:BLP, added pertinent information regarding the services provided by the referenced HVAC contractor as the issues were mentioned bu no clarification on what the final outcome of the service or present condition is."
  2. 16:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 920903542 by due to inaccuracies and violations of WP:RS BigDwiki (talk)"
  3. 02:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 919989092 by BigDwiki (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 19:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Comments on October 2019 editing dispute */ re"
  2. 20:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Comments on October 2019 editing dispute */ re"
Comments:

User continues to violate 3RR while an active discussion is ongoing on the talk page. BigDwiki (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Only three reverts, by each user — you need four to violate 3RR. And the user reported is invoking the BLP exemption, anyway. El_C 23:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week, OP. That 4th revert on the OP's part resulted in them having exceeded 3RR. El_C 23:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:183.90.37.89 reported by User:McSly (Result: blocked/sprotected)[edit]

Page: Oriental Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 183.90.37.89 (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. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]

A couple more reverts since I started filing the report

  1. [7]
  2. [8]


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

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

Comments:
Edit warring by IP who doesn't want the article to be changed to a redirect as it is treating the same subject as the redirect target McSly (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Material being repeatedly inserted is basically promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of indefinite. Latest IP also blocked. El_C 16:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Sha8ao reported by User:General Ization (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sha8ao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921057563 by General Ization (talk)"
  2. 15:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921043849 by Semsûrî (talk)"
  3. 15:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921056142 by AntonSamuel (talk)"
  4. 15:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921056142 by AntonSamuel (talk)"
  5. 15:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921056142 by AntonSamuel (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rojava. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 16:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Editor subsequently requested and received rename to Rojavaloveshumanity88. Documenting here for future reference. General Ization Talk 16:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is the userlinks template for their new account name: Rojavaloveshumanity88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Incnis Mrsi reported by User:Leitmotiv (Result: warned/protected)[edit]

Pages:

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

Previous version reverted to: [10], [11], [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16]
  5. [17]
  6. [18]
  7. [19]
  8. [20]

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

Comments:

I began a tautological edit of "Underground tunnel" amongst other tautological edits. Along the way I learned some things, however out of the blue, Incnis Mrsi interjected himself in a conversation I was having about rollercoasters tunnels, suggesting I had an "agenda" [21] and assuming in bad faith that I was somehow a "stalker"[22]. Incnis Mrsi, quickly wikihounded me on three unrelated articles (listed above). They reverted three of my edits without supplying a reason, only linking back to my rollercoaster talk page discussion. I reverted after reviewing each of his reverts and determined my edits were perfectly fine. Incnis Mrsi then supplied two sources for two of the articles. I reviewed the articles and they made no specific mention as claimed, so I reverted. Another revert followed from Incnis Mrsi, stating no reason other than to stop edit warring. I would like to point out that the language used was incendiary as noted by a previous discussion that [led to a 1-month blocking] a little over a month ago [23] Leitmotiv (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Out of curiosity, why are my personal comments being edited out by the accused, and not by a third-party admin? I may be ignorant on the matter, but I'd enjoy an answer. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@El C: ? (see above) Leitmotiv (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) IMHO it would be an unnecessary strain for “a third-party admin” to inquire whether was one Incnis_Mrsi ever banned on Wikimedia sites. A random remark with a misspelled name in it, of course, is not a proof of such an event. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you expect me to say, Leitmotiv. It seems that Incnis Mrsi felt your inaccurate statement constituted an attack and opted to remove it. Then, they decided to supplant it with the correct information. Not much more to say beyond that summary. Why was it not removed by someone else (admin or otherwise)? Probably because no one really noticed the mistake aside from the user whom the comment was about. Whether it ought to have been unilaterally redacted or simply pointed out to you is somewhat moot at this point. I wouldn't expend any further energy on this front, at any case. El_C 20:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@El C:That was me that put the correct info in there. Thanks for responding. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg WarnedPictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of one week. Reported user has exceeded 3RR (by about an hour), but since discussion is taking place on the article talk page, I'll err on the side of leniency. But Incnis Mrsi is strongly cautioned against edit warring and especially to the point where 3RR is breached. Any further violations would result in a block whose length will be especially extended. El_C 20:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Leitmotiv also exceeded 3RR: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun-type_fission_weapon&action=history&offset=201910131920&limit=8. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I am unable to tell what the first edit is a revert of. El_C 20:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unaware about the loophole in the policy. It is a pity that it doesn’t equate run-by pushing like this to making reverts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
There's no loophole — four reverts need to be established to have taken place within 24 hours. It is the same as it always has been. As for underground tunnel, if you disagree with the user's mass changes, you are free to revert them (though an attempt at discussion would probably be due). El_C 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: is it normal that the user posts to WP:Administrators'_noticeboard (not AN/I)? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to view AN and ANI as mostly interchangeable for these type of reports. El_C 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Haxonek (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: RAISE Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts: The users undo's

  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]

My undo's

  1. [28]
  2. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] There has also been previous attempts to discuss this, with people generally supporting adding references to points-based immigration to the article. [32]


Comments:


I think it's important to note that this user has a long history of trying to drive a narrative judging by their talk page [[33]]. They regularly ignore the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page as well, calling a link to a WSJ letter from a Senator a "sh*t source" and according to other users they've removed sources to Fox news and other reliable sources.Haxonek (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a paywalled opinion piece, not an RS. They are primary sources and ones with a clear point of view. And you have reverted three times as well. I suggest dropping it. ST47 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – So far neither party has broken WP:3RR. Please use the talk page to resolve any issues still in dispute. If you want to characterize this bill, it is better to find third-party sourcing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes reported by User:KasimMejia (Result: Self-reverted)[edit]

Page: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34] and [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [36]
  2. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
User has violated 1RR, and even though I explained him with detail the 1RR violation he believes he has made no violation. KasimMejia (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I am ready to self-revert, but the filer refused to explain what exactly his edit I reverted in diff #2. There was a lot of editing on the page, since this is a current event. I am also not sure that my edit #1 was revert. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you reverted me or somebody else, you cannot make two reverts under 24 hours according to 1RR. In this case both your reverts were mine, and I shared both of my edits and both your reverts at your talk page. Even though I am not required to since any revert more than 1 under 24 hours violates 1RR. KasimMejia (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
User self reverted, thanks. And hope we don't have to do this next time and can solve it quicker. KasimMejia (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: I don't see what's unclear here. Please self-revert while you still have that option. El_C 18:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting, My_very_best_wishes. El_C 18:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)