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: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: [1], [2], [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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" [12] and assuming in bad faith that I was somehow a "stalker"[13]. 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 [14] 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: [15]

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

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]

My undo's

  1. [19]
  2. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22] There has also been previous attempts to discuss this, with people generally supporting adding references to points-based immigration to the article. [23]


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 [[24]]. 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: [25] and [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [27]
  2. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

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)

User:217.88.75.153 reported by User:slatersteven (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Bacopa monnieri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.88.75.153 (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. [31]
  2. [32]
  3. [33]
  4. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

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

Comments:

No attempt has been made by any party to revolves this on the articles talk page there is a thread at [[36]], and (as you can see) at their talk page. Problem is they are half correct. In that no attempt has been made to justify the addition at the article talk page (I have made some attempt at their talk page) But this is still not a justification for reverting three separate editors a total of 5 times.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw, whilst they did make 4 reverts, the last edit I linked to was not a revert. As I made a cock up I feel this should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC).

Now it is three users, 5 times [[37]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That happens when some users do not wait an adequate time for others (here: me) to finish their edits. What shall I do then? Discard my edits alltogether? I won't. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 31 hours. ST47 (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:JeBonSer reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Electronic harassment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JeBonSer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC) "Adding a related article at "See also" section. An article which is a common tactic done by the secret agencies to the Targeted Individuals (TI)"
  2. 06:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 17:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Electronic harassment. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Electronic_harassment#“See also” section

Comments:

If I had mistaken in:

  1. 17:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC) "" and;
  2. 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC) ""

but the following diffs are reasonable:

  1. 06:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC) "" and;
  2. 09:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC) "Adding a related article at "See also" section. An article which is a common tactic done by the secret agencies to the Targeted Individuals (TI)"

COINTELPRO is a relevant to the article and it is reasonable to be included this on the "See also" section on the Electronic harassment article. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 17:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. The user responded here in an unclear way, but I do not perceive any agreement to stop. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Pmffl reported by User:2605:6000:E948:C100:3996:7073:1DC:46EF (Result: No violation; stale)[edit]

Page: Browser engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pmffl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Browser_engine&oldid=912211939

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Browser_engine&diff=916214238&oldid=915756701
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Browser_engine&diff=921223052&oldid=920646773

Comments:
I'm raising a concern about edit warring on the browser engine article. This report does not concern a 3RR violation.

The only comments regarding the decision to revert are "Was better overall" and "No, you made it worse". —2605:6000:E948:C100:3996:7073:1DC:46EF (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • No violation and stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Mark Schierbecker reported by User:Knowledgekid87 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mark Schierbecker (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. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41] (Reverted [42])

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

Comments:
Argument seems to stem over the "notavote" template that is added to deletion discussions, I am not sure what Mark meant by not adding templates to regulars as this is usually in response to talk page warnings. Mark calling the template "condescending" seems to me like he has an issue with the template? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you count? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I see three to me, your revert of the warning indicates that you have no desire to work this out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I and only I control my talk page. But please continue to make up rules as you go along. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, but dialogue is preferred as I was the one to take the lead rather than revert your edit again and prolonging the edit war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming the moral high ground because you slapped a boilerplate warning on my talk page and then falsely reported me at WP:AN/3? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Three reverts not exceeded. But maybe we should rename the 3 revert rule as the 4 revert rule, for people who don't bother reading the policy page! El_C 01:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Knowledgekid87: Why are you trying to add that template in the first place? {{notavote}} is very obviously not a "standard template". It is only ever used in canvassing situations, when canvassed users (usually SPAs) start flooding a discussion thinking they can influence it, not understanding that their opinion has to be policy-based to count for anything. The template documentation even says "Please do not place this template preemptively. Participants of discussions are usually aware of how consensus is established and don't need a reminder. Only use this template when there is some indication that inexperienced editors were canvassed to this discussion." I don't see how the very specific message in that template can even be thought to apply in any other circumstances. So, it's really puzzling as to why you would be adding it in this context. Bickering about whether WP:DTR applies to non-user talk pages is irrelevant, because the underlying issue is that there are no apparent canvassed newbies for the template to apply to, so you appear to be applying it for either no reason at all, or being condescending to the experienced users who are participating in that discussion (none of whom are "voting" anyway). Sure you both edit warred over it, but it's hard to overlook the fact that the edit war was over an inappropriate template, which was being rightfully removed. Even by the most AGF interpretation, you were still in the wrong simply because the template is not applicable in this situation, and you gave no reason whatsoever that it would be. I genuinely can't comprehend why you thought, even if we decided to action the edit war, that we would sanction Mark but vindicate you. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The essay also states "Take the template as a reminder and/or constructive criticism and just move on.", I stand by my reasoning that it was a huge issue over nothing. There is also the Wikipedia way of not reverting even if you feel you are right, but taking the issue to a discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, WP is not about being right, and it is not about feelings (your even if you feel you are right). If you wanted to take the issue to a discussion then that is what talk pages are for, as well as the template dubious-discuss. In any event once you posted the template you made your point, when he removed he acknowledged your point. There is no reason to revert or continuously post a template which by it's own discussion is of questionable value, and bringing this to the attention of ANI would be an embarrassment, if it were I.Oldperson (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

User:108.168.14.239, User:76.70.27.63 and User:72.139.52.226 reported by User:Marnevell (Result: )[edit]

Page: Stephen Woodworth (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.168.14.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and other IP addresses

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Woodworth_(politician)&oldid=919161569

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Woodworth_(politician)&oldid=919301802
  2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Woodworth_(politician)&oldid=919744253
  3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Woodworth_(politician)&oldid=920777689
  4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Woodworth_(politician)&oldid=921486425

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] ... (I'm not sure what to put here? I made comments on the user pages, see below.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Posts were made on User_talk:76.70.27.63 and on [[43]]. No post yet made on [[User_talk:72.139.52.226] since that was the most recent IP.

Comments:

This one appears to be coming from multiple IP addresses -- not registered users -- all performing the same action. By the looks of things, it's a campaign team trying to sanitize their candidate's page. Not sure if it's one person using a work computer / a mobile phone, or if it's multiple people from the same campaign. I'm not sure if I'm reporting this properly -- maybe locking the page to edits only from registered users would be the right course of action here? Also, please let me know if I've done anything wrong with this report, this is my first time :) Marnevell (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

{{subst:AN3 report|diffs=# 05:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921499048 by Walter Görlitz ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk])) And yet the article does just that. It states a series of stages that are not sourced (except in your head) and conflict with a published UEFA document."

  1. 02:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921483122 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Again: ANNEX B of the referenced UEFA publication outlines qualification for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. It specifically contradicts your assertions of how qualification will work."
  2. 00:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921472137 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Try reading the reference. It outlines the qualification for 2022 World Cup including dates. That was a lazy rollback."
  3. 22:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC) "/* UEFA */ From UNL regulations. These are yet confirmed but are more accurate than the old version"|warnings=# 22:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  4. 00:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. (TW)"
  5. 02:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. (TW)"|resolves=|pagename=2022 FIFA World Cup qualification|orig=|comment=|uid=165.225.114.210}}

User:Alexbrn reported by User:Guarapiranga (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  3. [47]

Similar content reverted on another page:

  1. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50] [51]

Comments:

A cursory search for this user on these talk pages indicates this is not the first transgression. The user seems to have a very strict agenda to defend regarding this topic, continually imperilling WP's NPOV. Guarapiranga (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No evidence of a breech of 3RR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I can personally attest to these violations. @Alexbrn has in the past prevented my efforts to improve Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The reverts are baseless and represent an effort to prevent new / updated information being added to the linked WP article. See: [52]

Hotpass105 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

User:隐世高人 reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: 24 hours one week)[edit]

Page: KN-08 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 隐世高人 (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. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56]
  5. [57]
  6. [58]
  7. [59]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:隐世高人#October 2019

Comments:
While I am using the exemption of the 3RR rule to explain my own reverts, ("Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", since Cut and paste moves are not allowed as per policy), I attempted to explain to the editor, first in an edit summary, then on their talk page, how this is not allowed, and what process they must follow, but the editor refused to engage. Might be a language barrier issue. Onel5969 TT me 14:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: block increased to one week due to block evasion. El_C 15:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Tibbidoe reported by User:Eagles247 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Template:Washington Redskins roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Tibbidoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "https://nfltraderumors.co/redskins-sign-rb-josh-ferguson-to-practice-squad/"
  2. 18:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "https://www.redskins.com/team/players-roster/, https://www.rotoworld.com/football/nfl/player/8743/jehu-chesson, https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/2001872/jehu-chesson"
  3. 18:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 18:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "Chesson is on IR (can't be on PS and IR at the same time). The person who keeps changing it back clearly doesn't understand."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Chesson */ new section"
  2. 18:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "re"
  3. 18:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Template:Washington Redskins roster. (TW)"
  4. 18:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC) "/* October 2019 */ re"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See user's talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

See also previous discussion at User talk:Dissident93#Chesson discussing same issue regarding official roster designation with another editor that I tried referring Tibbidoe to. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)