Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 353: Line 353:


:I see no 3RR violation or even edit warring by Jacurek there - those long series of diffs are in fact mostlu one edit, one after another, which is defined by 3RR as one edit, not several. On the other hand, Kurfürst behavior seems to violate [[Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions]], I'd suggest placing him on a formal notice in order to put an end to the creation of further battlegrounds. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:I see no 3RR violation or even edit warring by Jacurek there - those long series of diffs are in fact mostlu one edit, one after another, which is defined by 3RR as one edit, not several. On the other hand, Kurfürst behavior seems to violate [[Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions]], I'd suggest placing him on a formal notice in order to put an end to the creation of further battlegrounds. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:: I'll say nothing more here than Piotrus is involved, as Jacurek is a POV-buddy of his and Kurfürst a POV rival, so the advice is as tendentious as the report. Having said that, the behaviour in this particular content dispute doesn't really merit involving any admins. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


== [[User:Rerutled|Rerutled]] reported by [[User:J|J]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Rerutled|Rerutled]] reported by [[User:J|J]] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 13:16, 3 June 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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.

    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.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • 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 from 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.

    Click here to create a new report

    <?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

    <!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

    Votingfemale0 & VotingFemale reported by Mynameinc (Result: already blocked)

    <!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]

    <!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]

    <!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

    <!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->

    • Diff of 3RR warning (VotingFemale): [6]
    • Diff of 3RR warning (Votingfemale0): [7]

    <!-- Add any other comments and sign your name here --> This edit war was over 50 edits long, reverted, warned, editors start again. Neither editor appears to add constructive content. Thanks, and forgive me if I'm wrong, <span style="background-color:orange;color:;">mynameinc</span><sup><font color="red">Ottoman project</font> Review me</sup> 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MikeWazowski reported by Dlabtot (Result: IP blocked)

    • Previous version reverted to: [8]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: none

    Obviously, both parties are guilty, but the template was only for one user so that's what I did. I did not leave a warning because there are already 5 reverts and I saw the multiple warnings that MikeWazowski left on User talk:67.8.109.183. Dlabtot (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not trying to edit war, but the anonIP was veering into vandalism territory (which, as far as I can remember, isn't covered by 3RR) with the continued insertion of incorrect information, and refused to answer any attempts at communication. Situation seems to have stalled for now. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At first sight, adding the words 'in Nevada' does not seem to be vandalism. Can you clarify how you arrived at your conclusion? Also, if this issue is so important that an immediate revert is necessary, why is there no comment from you on the article Talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, initially it was simple misinformation inserted by the IP - the Nevada location is based on information from the fourth film, which we cannot apply to the original film, and I stated this in my original edit summary. Other information added by the IP (to several articles) was also inaccurate descriptions of events in the films, which I also mentioned in my edit summaries. The third warning text mentioned "continued vandalism", and that, coupled with the editor's refusal to respond (either to the warnings or in edit summaries), is what led me to call the editor's later contributions (after the warnings) vandalism. MikeWazowski (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - User:Ryan Delaney has blocked the IP for vandalism based on Mike's AIV report, and vandalism is a 3RR exception, so there is no remaining case. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AlexanderXVI reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [14]


    <!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


    • Diff of 3RR warning: I warned the user: [19]

    User made several reverts, and according to other users he removed references from the article.[20], [21][22]<b><FONT COLOR="#151B8D"><FONT FACE="comic sans ms">B@xter</FONT></FONT></b><sup> <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">9</FONT></sup> 14:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. User:PZJTF too William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:38.97.74.254 reported by User:GageSkidmore (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [23]


    <!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


    • Diff of 3RR warning: I warned the user: [29]

    User continually reverts article to include unsourced, speculative information. Gage (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)</rev></revisions></page></pages></query><query-continue><revisions rvstartid="293725702" /></query-continue></api>[reply]

    24h. Not that it will work, unless he is a complete bozo William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TheCondor24 reported by PassionoftheDamon (Result: 24h both sides)


    • Previous version reverted to: [30]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [35]

    I recognize that I violated 3RR in this edit war myself and am prepared to accept whatever punishment may be imposed. In my limited defense, I was dealing with a POV pusher who resorted to sock puppetry, routinely blanked statements supported by proper citations, and has made no contributions to this encyclopedia outside the edits in question. Initially, I thought reversions of such edits and editors were exceptions to 3RR. I later learned that this was not the case, but allowed myself to get caught up in this edit war anyway. For my own role in this matter, I apologize.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the apology. Im afraid you get 24h anyway, as does TC24. This really is an absurd level of reverting. Next time (which there won't be, of course) bring it here much earlier William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    resorted to sock puppetry - not obviously. What do you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Balkanian`s word reported by User:Athenean (Result: 55 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [36]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [41]

    User has been sanctioned 4 times already for nationalist edit-warring, twice under his current alias and twice under his old account Arditbido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Edit warring accompanied by incivility (shouting). Highly experienced user, knows what he is doing, treat with severity. --Athenean (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please explain the circumstances of this a bit more? Also, it does not appear that Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs) has always reverted to this version... — Aitias // discussion 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an ongoing debate in that article concerning the last sentence of the lead in Talk:Illyrians#Sources. Basically, Balkanian keeps re-adding the clause about Albanians being the direct descendents of the Illyrians [42], which other users keep removing (for good reasons). His first two reverts [43] [44] are identical, while his third revert [45] includes a couple of other items in addition to the disputed clause but is nonetheless a revert. His fourth revert [46] is identical to the first two. The first, second and fourth revert are partial reverts of this version [47]. All four edits were performed within the space of two hours, indicating clear edit-warring bahaviour. Particularly disingenuous is his admonishment to other users to bring sources, as is this is a question of WP:UNDUE instead of WP:RS.--Athenean (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. Blocked – for a period of 55 hours — Aitias // discussion 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    User:216.249.207.77 reported by Xmacro (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 00:07, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmacro (talk • contribs)
    2. 23:10, 1 June 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 22:20, 1 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Official Clans */")
    4. 22:08, 1 June 2009 (edit summary: "")
    5. 22:10, 1 June 2009 (edit summary: "")
    6. 17:30, 31 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 293816728 by Xmacro (talk)")
    7. 23:10, 30 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 293816728 by Xmacro (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    User does not use log-in, rather they visit Earth Eternal page solely to advertise their in-game clan; user has never visited Discussion page or attempted to talk about their edits. Earth Eternal is a game currently in Beta testing, so no Player-clans have been created. Furthermore, the game developers have stated they will not created official clans, but will leave it solely to Players to create their own clans once the game is released. Thus there are no 'official' clans to speak of, and any Player-created clan can wax, wane, and die. I've asked user to stop repeatedly on game forums, but my request was met by the re-addition of their clan into the article 3 times more, which prompted this report.

    Even the World of Warcraft article does not list player clans, nor should the Earth Eternal page. Finally, there are about 20 or so Player-created 'clans' that have sprung up before the game has been released, yet user did not add any of them to the list. All of the clans are unsourced, unofficial, and exist solely on the forums of an un-released game Xmacro (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Likebox reported by Philip Baird Shearer (Result: 48h)



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    This user has recently been blocked for violation of the 3RR rule twice before the last time 20:01, 5 April 2009 so the user does not need a reminder. PBS (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Howdy, this is likebox. I am trying to resolve the dispute in question. I did not revert as many times as it seems, I just don't know how to "roll back". I should have saved a version in my user space, I put it in the talk page instead. I don't think that this is an edit war, because I tried to find new wordings each time, and discuss.
    The subject in question is the Tasmanian genocide debate, which I was trying to add mainstream sources to. The sources and the versioning, along with comments, are on the talk page. The current version is dominated by a certain fringe movement which is not mainstream within Australia.
    I hope that this debate can be resolved with discussion. PBS has not been willing to discuss the changes in detail, and has erased each of three slightly different versions I put up without comment.
    The points are on the talk page, but they are simple to understand. The Australian history wars regarding Tasmania are not reflective of an international debate, within academia and outside australia the events of 1806-1835 are widely acknowledged as genocide. I believe that undue weight requires this to be said prominently within this section of the article.Likebox (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add, I don't like to be editing this page at all. I feel that I have to, because the sourced material is so biased right now. If someone else would like to take up the editing, that would be great. I'd rather never see or read anything else about this subject ever again.Likebox (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When (s)he was blocked before, Likebox has used a similar type of argument, "I was not edit warring. I just don't know any other way to save the text, which is a pain to type up. Now it is in the talk page.Likebox (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)" [48][reply]
    Further (s)he implies that this is just him/her and me, yet in the last 24 hours 3 different editors have reverted his/her changes.[49][50][51] --PBS (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear enough 4R; 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:5150pacer reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result: 72 hours)

    Superjail! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 5150pacer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 16:21, 26 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 16:25, 26 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    3. 16:29, 26 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    4. 19:08, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    5. 19:01, 29 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    6. 19:02, 29 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    7. 19:06, 29 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    8. 15:57, 1 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    9. 15:29, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    10. 21:33, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    11. 21:34, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    12. 21:35, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    13. 21:45, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "")
    14. 22:04, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Onorem♠Dil 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues edit war to add unsourced original research against several editors. Recent edits to my talk page make it clear that they intend to continue with these edits. --Onorem♠Dil 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Aitias // discussion 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    R7604 reported by Cactusjump (Result: No violation)

    • 1st revert: 1
    • 2nd revert: 2
    • 3rd revert: 3

    Disagreement to add a See Also section in the article pointing to related article Kate Gosselin, User:R7604 reverted three times without discussion. Attempts at discussing with user were met with a curt reply. I notified user that if he made no attempts to discuss, I would get a WP:Third opinion, and gave him 3RR warning on his talk page. Also filed WP:Third opinion. Cactusjump (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. — Aitias // discussion 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    194.124.140.39 reported by dave souza (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [52]



    IP repeatedly deleting an increasing amount of sourced material. . . dave souza, talk 09:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    48h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zntrip reported by Alan (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [57]



    The article is a list of circulating currencies. On 2nd June 2009, I made an edit, in which I provided more information about the special situation of the Hong Kong dollar. As I have been living in Hong Kong for a long time, I am confident that I am quite familiar with the Hong Kong dollar. However, Zntrip, who has no knowledge about Hong Kong, immediately deleted my contribution to the article, and replace my contribution with one short (factually wrong) sentence. He then insisted on invoking an edit war, with no sincerity for any discussion on the talk page. This is clearly a violation of the three-revert rule. I suggest that disciplinary action be immediately taken. - Alan (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you warn the user? I'm not seeing any sign of a warning, and we usually don't block users who haven't been warned at some point about the rule. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jacurek reported by User:Kurfürst (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [62]



    Continued personal attacks on article talk page:


    This user's behaviour was characterized by continued, repeated reverts in the last two weeks to removed verifiable, referenced information from reliable secondary sources about strategic bombing in Poland during World War II. Absolutely no attempt was taken to find a sort of consensus, engage in a discussion or to refrain from incivility despite requests by several editors. Previously the user was repeatedly blocked for 'Editwarring. Blocked previously without effect'. Despite allowing some one week 'cooldown' period, and offering mediation, even suggesting on the 26 May that on my behalf I will stop editing the disputed article, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II&diff=292551478&oldid=292551360 the editor only saw this as a 'green light'] and an new opportunity to continue removing referenced statements from the article the next day. The last series of 'edits' early in this morning shows the situation is deteriorating, instead of improving.

    Kurfürst (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To the admin. looking at this case: User Kurfürst just comes back from the block for Edit warring on this article and records this false report. Please check his block log. His controversial edits (Joseph Goebbels diary as a source for example or citation pretending to be a source etc.) are also against consensus with all other editors. Please check the talk page on Strategic bombing during World War II for more info. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no 3RR violation or even edit warring by Jacurek there - those long series of diffs are in fact mostlu one edit, one after another, which is defined by 3RR as one edit, not several. On the other hand, Kurfürst behavior seems to violate Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions, I'd suggest placing him on a formal notice in order to put an end to the creation of further battlegrounds. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say nothing more here than Piotrus is involved, as Jacurek is a POV-buddy of his and Kurfürst a POV rival, so the advice is as tendentious as the report. Having said that, the behaviour in this particular content dispute doesn't really merit involving any admins. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rerutled reported by J (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [85]

    Over the weekend, User:Rerutled began an effort to change the lead of the article for Montréal to include a reference that Kinshasa is a larger "Francophone city." (Discussed several times in the past, see here and here for starters.) Consensus has held that reliable sourcing indicates Montréal is the "second largest primarily French-speaking city." Rerutled believes differently, and despite the fact that there has been no consensus to alter the heretofore stable lead to his preferred language, he has now reverted twice more to include his lead, with no support for doing so from the ongoing discussion. Given his two reverts this morning, it looks like he now plans to enforce his change to the lead, regardless of consensus or lack thereof. (I have not warned the user against edit warring, as I suspect he will not accept it as sincere or objective coming from an involved editor.) user:J aka justen (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=294165024"