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:Quenreerer reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Blocked for 36 hours, reverted to prior version )[edit]

Page: Battle of Dak To (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Quenreerer (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

  • In my opinion, this is a Wikipedia: BRD misuse. The changes are very limited. And I gave my reason on the talk page. The article is easier to consume to someone (like me), who is interested in which units partook in the battle. I was careful not to overload the infobox and i didn't make changes that are very dissimilar to a multitude of Vietnam battle pages. Quenreerer (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Quenreerer ignored WP:BRD and only engaged on the Talk Page after edit warring and after I made this complaint. Mztourist (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Mztourist accused me of overloading infobox. I feel like i edited in a way very similar to other battle of ... pages. Examples

And numerous other examples. I also gave the reason why i added the info. It's easier to consume. Not every person wants to read the whole article and just wants to take a look at which units participated. Mztourists only source is the bad faith use of BRD, with which he tries to force endless "discussion", with no intent of accepting any arguments. My changes in the infobox have precedent. He can't accept that so he revert wars miss using BRD. Quenreerer (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Also were issues here. Restored to stable version. User:Quenreerer ask for further input on the appropriate Wikiproject. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Borja95 reported by User:ShadowRangerRIT (Result: Protected for a month.)[edit]

Page
Reconquista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Borja95 (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, 22 November 2019 (UTC) "I removed unrelated content."
  2. 11:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 927419737 by Iñaki LL (talk)"
  3. 05:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC) "Removed unrelated content."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC) "→‎Warning: new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Warned directly (by Kansas Bear) after three attempts to delete content were reverted (by two different users), deleted content again two hours later (a third user, not myself, already reverted that latest edit). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 15:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a month. Appears there have been ongoing issues on this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Timothyvail reported by User:Doc James (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [9] Nov 21st 20:39
  2. [10] Nov 21st 20:44
  3. [11] Nov 22nd 15:18

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:
This page is under a WP:1RR which the user was informed of before their last revert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring has continued after this report; added new diff here. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've removed the 4th diff, which was a repeat of Diff #3.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Walidou47 reported by Doc James (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Gastritis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walidou47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [15] 22 Nov 14:18 (reverted by User:Trappist the monk)
  2. [16] 22 Nov 17:42 (reverted by me)
  3. [17] 22 Nov 20:05 (reverted by me)
  4. [18] 22 Nov 20:11 (reverted by me)
  5. [19] 22 Nov 20:10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:Johnbod (Result: Both parties edit warring. Protected for a week.)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [23]
  2. [24]
  3. [25]
  4. [26]
  5. [27]
  6. [28]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Arabesque#Terminology

Comments:
Note also the misleading edit summary "Oxford Dictionary" he gives at diff #2 above, but adding nothing from any Oxford source. The OED was already in a reference in the article, contradicting the stuff he added. In the talk section he later gives refs to online Oxford and Merriam-Webster, which both agree with what was already in the lead, and have nothing of the stuff he added. I provided a compromise version, keeping the incorrect information he was edit-warring to preserve, and reconciling to the better stuff already there, but then he starts edit-warring over that. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a week. Both parties edit warring. Would restore it to how it was originally but it is unclear if there is agreement on bits of the rest of the changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Fine to restore it to the original, which was at least fully correct, unlike the current version. But I now quite like the compromise version, retaining his stuff, but pointing out is is an over-simplification. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod is persisting on removing sourced content ([30][31][32][33]) and is continuing to do so even after I started a discussion in the talk page asking them to stop. QuestFour (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Please you two. Work something out. Or at least each craft a version and bring it to a RfC for wider input. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)