Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
| 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
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.
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:Cmacauley reported by User:Jordi (Result: Warned)
Page: Samuel Fritz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cmacauley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User began discussion on my talk page, but at the same time, he continues edit war and does not respond to arguments.
Comments:
User continues edit warring in spite of ongoing discussion on my talk page. Same procedure on Cambeba. Thx for help.--Jordi (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliable sources for putting into disuse an image, thx.--Jordi (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Result: User:Cmacauley is warned they may be blocked the next time they restore their preferred image to any article File:Samuel Fritz (1654-1725).jpg. It's evident that the image is a copyright violation, and I assume it will be deleted soon at Commons due to lack of a rationale. There is no obligation for the other party to "...provide a reliable source that this illustration is not valid". The WP:ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Fona2000 reported by User:U-Mos (Result: )
Page: Take That (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fona2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [7]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]
Comments:
Continued (and escalated) edit warring following previous 2 week block from the article in question, the first two days after block expired. To their credit, the user has now begun to respond to talk page discussion, but has continued to edit war while doing so despite repeated warnings. U-Mos (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
User:2001:8003:5022:5e01:b9ad:d85b:7a81:6819 reported by User:Ylevental (Result: Articles semiprotected)
Page: Thomas A. McKean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:8003:5022:5e01:b9ad:d85b:7a81:6819 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&direction=prev&oldid=945651974
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&oldid=945651974
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&oldid=945744422
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&oldid=945751583
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_A._McKean&oldid=945785091
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2001:8003:5022:5E01:D888:CA4C:6B7B:F343&oldid=945839549
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: If you check the range of 2001:8003:5022:5E01:B9AD:D85B:7A81:6819 and Special:Contributions/2001:8003:58A3:6C01:7CDF:8174::/64, you see that this IP does a lot of edit warring in general, not including any evidence for COI allegations in some cases. Additionally, they keep following my edits and repeatedly attacking them in general.
This user also admitted that they used another IP 101.186.156.45,
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Thomas A. McKean and others
Comments:
Signing as Ylevental (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging User:Johnuniq for his opinion since he is an admin who commented in the COIN report. I don't like the revert warring about the COI tag. And, if the anon is using more than one IP address in the war, that is hard to swallow under WP:SOCK. Unless one of the parties can offer a path to resolving the dispute, full protection may have to be used. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- More of the IPv6's edits can be seen at Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5022:5e01::/64. This appears to be the same person as Special:Contributions/101.186.156.45. All the IPs are from Australia. Ylevental appears cooperative. User:Praxidicae already discussed COI issues with them at User talk:Ylevental#WP:COI editing. So we have an IP-hopper trying to enforce policy, and a possibly-COI-affected person who is making a good faith effort regarding articles. Though one or both may be overstepping here, and somebody needs to close this one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:Ylevental has now stepped up by acknowledging his connection to the National Council on Severe Autism and adding a link to his own web presence on his userpage. In that message he acknowledges that he is 'heavily involved in autism advocacy'. This goes quite a way toward resolving the problem, though the original AN3 complaint was about his removal of the COI template from Thomas A. McKean. Can anyone propose how to solve that? EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I don't know who is the good guy but I can recognize an editor on a mission to right great wrongs, and that is the IP who miraculously noticed Ylevental's edits and who cannot acknowledge their own personal interest in the topic, as shown in their evasiveness at WP:COIN. I would close this report as no action but invite Ylevental to notify me of any further problems and I will semi-protect articles to prevent disruption where warranted. As I explained at WP:COIN, having personal knowledge of a topic is not the problem that WP:COI addresses, and the only actual problem seems to have been uploading a couple of photos with incorrect licensing—something done a hundred times a day but unlikely to be repeated in this case. I have not seen the IP get any support for their COI accusations. If there is any evidence of an editing problem (promotional editing or poor sourcing etc.) that should be explained at article talk followed by a noticeboard if necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: He is still claiming that I have COI with Thomas A. McKean and Jonathan Shestack by restoring the tags in the past hour. I don't want to give too much detail as to who he is, but he is the type of person that will keep up these attacks for just about forever. Ylevental (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I don't know who is the good guy but I can recognize an editor on a mission to right great wrongs, and that is the IP who miraculously noticed Ylevental's edits and who cannot acknowledge their own personal interest in the topic, as shown in their evasiveness at WP:COIN. I would close this report as no action but invite Ylevental to notify me of any further problems and I will semi-protect articles to prevent disruption where warranted. As I explained at WP:COIN, having personal knowledge of a topic is not the problem that WP:COI addresses, and the only actual problem seems to have been uploading a couple of photos with incorrect licensing—something done a hundred times a day but unlikely to be repeated in this case. I have not seen the IP get any support for their COI accusations. If there is any evidence of an editing problem (promotional editing or poor sourcing etc.) that should be explained at article talk followed by a noticeboard if necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:Ylevental has now stepped up by acknowledging his connection to the National Council on Severe Autism and adding a link to his own web presence on his userpage. In that message he acknowledges that he is 'heavily involved in autism advocacy'. This goes quite a way toward resolving the problem, though the original AN3 complaint was about his removal of the COI template from Thomas A. McKean. Can anyone propose how to solve that? EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Result: No action against User:Ylevental. I'm semiprotecting the articles on Thomas A. McKean, Jonathan Shestack and National Council on Severe Autism. Since 2016 Ylevental has been getting detailed criticism from various Australia-based IPs and the number of coincidences is increasing. This IP may be the same person as the Telstra IP that was active in 2016. (See also User talk:KrazyKlimber. The latter is still indef blocked for evasion). The two parties in this report may know each other in real life, but one (Ylevental) has acknowledged his role openly while the other uses a fluctuating IP, making no admissions at all about their interest in the topic of autism or any real-life connections. If anyone objects to the semiprotection, I suggest that an SPI be opened to consolidate the behavioral data. Thanks to User:Johnuniq for the comments. Ylevental can notify Johnuniq if there are further problems. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- More of the IPv6's edits can be seen at Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5022:5e01::/64. This appears to be the same person as Special:Contributions/101.186.156.45. All the IPs are from Australia. Ylevental appears cooperative. User:Praxidicae already discussed COI issues with them at User talk:Ylevental#WP:COI editing. So we have an IP-hopper trying to enforce policy, and a possibly-COI-affected person who is making a good faith effort regarding articles. Though one or both may be overstepping here, and somebody needs to close this one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Debresser reported by User:You've gone incognito (Result: You've gone incognito blocked)
Page: The Hunt (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [17]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: March 15
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18].
Comments:
Persistent edit warring as well as WP:SYNTH since March 13. User has a difficult time building consensus among editors as he is vigilant to restore content not supported by RS, justifying his edit based on polling. Even though he voluntarily initiated a dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#The Hunt (2020 film) discussion, he continued edit warring as the discussion progresses. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:You've gone incognito reported by User:Debresser (Result: Indeffed )
You've gone incognito is edit warring on this article against my sourced edit, as well as edits from other users. See diffs below. He seems to have a WP:OWN issue. Why he sees a WP:SYNTH issue is beyond me. The thing we always do on Wikipedia when some reliable source says X and other reliable sources say Y is reflect both, which is precisely what I did. I have no idea what You've gone incognito's issue with that is, apart from WP:OWN. Please also notice the talkpage discussion and dispute resolution, which are both stale. In addition, just an hour ago I inquired on his talkpage why we can't resolve this issue amicably, but his arguments are contradictory (sometimes refers to WP:SYNTH, others to WP:FILMLEAD, even for unclear reasons to WP:RS although there are many good sources in the footnote (!), and in general his arguments seem trumped up), showing that IMHO this editor needs to take a step back from this article.
- 07:03, 13 March 2020
- 15:17, 13 March 2020
- 15:54, 13 March 2020
- 06:42, 15 March 2020
- 13:22, 15 March 2020
- 16:10, 16 March 2020
- 11:16, 17 March 2020
Debresser (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't claim to "own" articles as I'm fully aware that anybody can edit Wikipedia, and the reason the discussions were stale is because you made them so. And what exactly did I do wrong in those diffs? It seems that I struck your ego just for having reverted you. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- You may not claim so, but your edits show that you are behaving as though you own the article.
- I deny having made any discussion stale. Have I posted walls of text? Have I told editors not to comment? So how would I have made those discussion stale? A ridiculous accusation.
- What you did wrong is reverting sourced information aimed to be as informative as possible, which is what those diffs come to show. Personal attacks we can do without. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Jesus H Christ, you BOTH need to step away from that article and use the talk page before editing it again. You are BOTH equally culpable here and need to stop. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's not possible when this guy is boldly reverting while a discussion is still ongoing. Let me give an example to illustrate my point: in this latest diff just a few minutes ago, he contested a revert of another editor by reverting back instead of using talk first, a violation of WP:BRD. Instead, revert first and talk second. It strikes me as malicious to do that on an article. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you are unable to step away, then you should both be blocked and neither of you will have any grounds for complaint or appeal. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. I was referring to Debresser's combative behaviour that makes consensus building very difficult to achieve, hence the edit war report. Disrupting articles have never been my agenda. ;) You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Having had a brief look at the various reverts, these edits caught my eye as particularly problematic as the edit summary is clearly untrue – there are numerous sources for the descriptions of the film as horror and thriller in the footnote. Disputes are bad enough without one party making statements like this. Number 57 13:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you are unable to step away, then you should both be blocked and neither of you will have any grounds for complaint or appeal. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's not possible when this guy is boldly reverting while a discussion is still ongoing. Let me give an example to illustrate my point: in this latest diff just a few minutes ago, he contested a revert of another editor by reverting back instead of using talk first, a violation of WP:BRD. Instead, revert first and talk second. It strikes me as malicious to do that on an article. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, both are reliably sourced, but only one of these is the primary genre; it can't be both. WP:FILMLEDE requires the genre under which the movie is primarily classified by reliable sources. The article classifies the movie broadly as thriller because the majority of sources have classified it under subgenres of a thriller film: "satirical thriller", "political thriller", "action thriller", et cetera. I believe this policy was made to avoid this kind of unorthodox edit. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- FILMLEDE is irrelevant to this specific matter. Why did you twice make the claim that it was unsourced when this is clearly not the case? Number 57 14:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please notice this anti-Semitic comment on You've gone incognito's talkpage coupled with his going into retirement. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed that. I hope he is blocked for it straight away, but if he replaces it, perhaps blocking his tp access would be advisable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Indeffed. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed that. I hope he is blocked for it straight away, but if he replaces it, perhaps blocking his tp access would be advisable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please notice this anti-Semitic comment on You've gone incognito's talkpage coupled with his going into retirement. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- FILMLEDE is irrelevant to this specific matter. Why did you twice make the claim that it was unsourced when this is clearly not the case? Number 57 14:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, both are reliably sourced, but only one of these is the primary genre; it can't be both. WP:FILMLEDE requires the genre under which the movie is primarily classified by reliable sources. The article classifies the movie broadly as thriller because the majority of sources have classified it under subgenres of a thriller film: "satirical thriller", "political thriller", "action thriller", et cetera. I believe this policy was made to avoid this kind of unorthodox edit. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Brbjj reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Indef)
Page: Claudia do Val (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brbjj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [21]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]
Comments:
- User claims to be the article subject, having the right to put their links on their page, politely asking me to "please just leave it alone". Wakari07 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely – By Materialscientist as a promotion/advertising account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Yallayallaletsgo reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked)
Page: Klik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yallayallaletsgo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]
Comments:
This is a repeated effort to make the candy named "Klik" have the undisambiguated article title Klik. I am unable to pull up the prior example, as there have been some page moves that have confused the history. However, prior to me, another editor undid the user's attempt to replace Klik, which had been a disambiguation page, with the material from Klik (candy) while moving the disambiguation page to Klik (disambiguation) His latest attempt includes in the edit comment "per discussion at Talk:Klik (disambiguation)", but if one goes to the Talk page, one will find that of the three editors that have expressed themselves in current discussion, the other two (one of whom is myself) feel that the disambiguation page should be returned to Klik; the candy is not the most commonly-accessed article with that name (barring the last two days when there has been editing activity over this.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I ran into Klik at WP:MALPLACED, and it will take me some time to sort out this cut-paste mess. Block is to assure my cleanup work will not be disrupted. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Mr. D. E. Mophon reported by User:SchroCat (Result: 48-hour partial block)
Page: Laurence Olivier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [33]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]
Comments:
The editor tries to bring in the sub-standard changes every six months or so, which is tiresome. The fact they don't base their changes on any existing policies or guidelines (or at least, they don't explain which ones they think they are applying, if they do think they are using them). He has edit warred with both me and DrKay on this, and DrKay has explained why the grammar was so poor, but this was ignored. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- As this is absolutely clear-cut warring but appears to be confined to a single page, I've given a 48-hour partial block from Laurence Olivier to force Mr. D. E. Mophon to either discuss the matter or let it go, without restricting him further as he appears only to be causing problems at a single page. If this re-starts and he hasn't made a genuine attempt to discuss why his preferred version is an improvement, we'll if necessary take it further. ‑ Iridescent 21:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Detailed Edit reported by User:Doc James (Result: one week, partial)
Page: Mercury poisoning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Detailed Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [41]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]
Comments:
Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 01:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
User: Sid95Q reported by User:Princepratap1234 (Result: )
Page: Sidharth Shukla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sid95Q (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [48]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]
Comments:
Comment Sid95Q had not been warned about 3RR prior to the filing of this report and self-reverted their last edit. Princepratap1234 was warned about their own violation of 3RR contemporaneously with this report.If both parties are willing to refrain from further reverts and discuss at the talk page, no action is needed. Otherwise, a partial block would be in order, just for the article page, for either editor—including the one who filed the report—who reverts again. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
User:MarkH21 reported by User:98.153.5.170 (Result: No violation)
Page: Philippine Spanish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarkH21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments:
No violation MarkH21 has only reverted twice, and that was over a week ago. Number 57 16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @98.153.5.170: You have now reverted four times, albeit over several days. Can I suggest you stop reverting until you have gained consensus to have a separate article. Number 57 16:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
User:DD1997DD reported by User:StanProg (Result: Page protected)
Page: Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DD1997DD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [54]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]
Comments:
DD1997DD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been recently blocked for 3RR violation for a week [61], but it seems that this block was not enough for him to understand that edit warring is not a way for solving a dispute. Ha basically deleted half of the content of an article with some "consensus" (2 editors supported him to do changes, not knowing what the exact changes will be), but it seems that the majority of the editors does not support the dractic removal of content and started a discussion, reverting the article to the stable version. Unfortunately instead of discussing the changes, he continues to remove the content. I asked him on several occasions to revert the article to the stable version and discuss the removal of this content, but all ended (and continues) as an edit warring with other contributors, in which I'm just a humble witness. I'm also having doubts if this account is created with the noble thought to contribute to Wikipedia.
Page protected I can't see any 3RR violations here, but there is clearly a major content dispute. I've restored the last version before the dispute (which involved very significant changes to the article) and fully protected it for ten days. Once the protection expires, if anyone makes any further significant changes without talk page consensus, let me know and I will block them. Number 57 16:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}