Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 15:10, 4 April 2016 (→‎User:Cauleyflower reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: ): The recent editors of this article should get alerts under WP:TROUBLES). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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

    User:Muvendar reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: )

    Page: Naga people (Lanka) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Muvendar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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: diff diff diff diff.

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

    Comments:


    User:Altanner1991 reported by User:F-16 Viper (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    List of fastest production cars by acceleration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Altanner1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713062809 by F-16 Viper If important information was omitted, then you should incorporate it, or fix a source, because otherwise there have been very many considerable improvements throughout the article"
    2. 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713061501 by F-16 Viper (talk) This is a much needed fixing of several issues as going with the attitudes from the talk group."
    3. 18:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713058480 by F-16 Viper sources were outdated, important information had been missing or left ambiguous, notes were inconsistent, layout issues were fixed, fixed redundancies"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 20:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC) ""
    5. 20:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC) ""
    6. 20:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC) ""
    7. 20:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Deleted large swaths of text from page, changed entire layout without discussion/removed notes from page and added text with unreliable sources. I warned him about it on his talk page and undid his edits, he proceeded to edit war. F-16 Viper (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    My working was much needed and is from considerable effort, taking much time to polish which might not be noticed; it brings vast improvements of wording inconsistencies and redundancies and lightly cleans the page. An identical column had been listed twice, in the other table sources were left disattached from their respective times whereas the previous table had them attached to each time, these inconsistencies do not need to be undone, please stop that. If any important information (for example another source or time) was missing it should be added back and you are welcome to reincorporate any as needed. You should not be starting a fight over this and can work with the changes, add any piece of information you think would be important, a note you think should be added back into the page, it is not worth in doing all of the other valid edits. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that you had put so much effort into it but frankly your edits were completely unconstructive. You can't completely change the format of the page and then expect other people to go edit from there, especially when you remove important information like manufacturers times, and verified third party times. This format has been used since the beginning and you cannot just change it willy nilly. The two columns for example were to list verified time and manufacturers given time, these are not redundant columns. You also needlessly removed listings from the page and added times with unreliable sources. F-16 Viper (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Altanner1991 might avoid a block if they will promise to wait for a talk page consensus before changing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, I hope he does accept because I think he can be a valuable contributor if he doesn't do the rash deletions. F-16 Viper (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, you'll find the information will be left alone so that you will find the article remains as you described. Perhaps as mentioned, a talk page can be started in order to first reach a consensus on the disputed changes before they are applied. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    EdJohnston, yes I do promise to not change the disputed text unless consensus on a talk page is reached, and I also apologize for finding this message after making an unrelated correction, which was not related to this discussion. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Only the edits recommended by F-16 Viper in message to me would occur, as contributions inside the box so that yesterday's disputed removal of any notes or columns would first wait until the consensus of a talk page, and the unreliable source will not be used again in the future. Thank you for your explanations. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ferakp reported by User:92.106.216.139 (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [6]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [7]
    2. [8]
    3. [9]
    4. [10]
    5. [11]
    6. [12]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14] [15] See the large discussion at ANI.

    Comments:
    Most of his reverts have been explained to him already on WP:ANI. For example, he again reverts to the sentence "Female genital mutilation (FGM) was an accepted part of Sorani speaking Kurds and Iraqi Arabs in Iraq. ", which makes the false claim that FGM is only a problem of the past, and also the false claim that FGM is also a problem of the Iraqi Arabs (it is not common at all among the Iraqi Arabs, see the UNICEF report). The revert also deletes the fact that HRW said that the law against FGM is not being enforced.

    Reverts 4, 5 and 6 are reverts of additional added material. Revert 6 (and 4), he claims he reverts because of missing ISBN, but a published paper is not a book, hence there is no ISBN.

    Many other users have reported Ferakp for source misrepresentation, edit warring, disruptive editing, see at ANI [16] and see this conclusion at ANI [17]. The user has also been edit warring in this article previously, as well as in related articles and articles related to Kurdish terrorism.

    • This user who reported me is probably the same user who reported me to ANI and called his friends. This user with his friends is continuously blackwashing Kurdish articles. All edits the user mentioned are reversed because of blackwashing and that they were clearly not improving the article.

    The problem with the first diff:
    Kurdish women also continue to face numerous problems.. statement was simply wrong because all mentioned problems aren't related to all Kurdish women. So what I did? I edited the statement to make it more neutral and added it back to the leading section. Adding negative statement to the lead section and generalization of things is againt WP:NEUTRAL
    About the FGM: It's not a part of culture. Neither the source confirm it nor other sources support it. I changed it to according to its source and mentioned what the source exactly said. So this edit wasn't improving the article because the source didn't verify it, WP:V and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
    You removed my al-Monitor source and removed all details which said that it is now a law and it is illegal. You replaced it with much older source and details. You simply tried to blackwash the article.
    You changed MICS reported in 2011 that in Iraq, FGM was found.. to In Iraq, FGM is found mostly among the. This is simple against WP:POV. About statistics you added, I told you in the talk page that you can add them if you mention the year of that study and its details, but you didn't.
    Your edit which added ..assessed a 16% rate of female genital mutilation in Western Iran, where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect statement was against WP:V. This is because the source doesn't say anything like that. The source says: The rate of FGM was discovered to be 21 percent in West Azerbaijan, 18 percent in Kermanshah, and 16 percent in Kurdistan, according to field interviews and research conducted by Ahmady and his team. The source didn't say that it is 16% in Western Iran, it said 16% in Kurdistan. What does source means with "Kurdistan" is still unclear. Did he mean all Kurdistan, including Iraq, Turkey and Syria or did it mean only Iranian Kurdistan? If source meant Iranian Kurdistan, then it is not Western Iran as your statement says so, Iranian Kurdistan is officially North Western Iran. However, I assumed that the source really meant 16% in Western Iran even though the source doesn't mention that and I tried to find the claim that it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. However, the source doesn't say anything like that, not even close. The source says that Among the Kurds in Iran, FGM is mainly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect, but not among Sunni Shafie Kurds who speak the Kermanji dialect. So, the source neither verify 16% rate in Western Iran nor that it is mainly practiced by the Kurds in Western Iran. Clearly against WP:V and WP:PROVEIT.
    Your statistics (and exceeding 80% in Garmyan and New Kirkuk) is not valid anymore, one of my source is simply against this statistics. However, as I said, you can add it but mention the year of that statistics.
    Your last edit is simply duplicate.
    The problem with the second diff:
    This edit was simply intend to blachwash the article. If it is illegal and my newest source says so, why you add the old source and say that it is still not enforced? Isn't this clearly disruptive editing?
    The problem with the third diff:
    I told you that your link is dead and I couldn't find the same source anywhere. I said you need a source for it and then you can add it back. You found the source and you added it back. I thanked you for the edit.
    The problem with the fourth diff:
    I told you two times that is it a book, news or publication. I said if it is a book, add ISBN and if not add the link or more details about the source so users can check it. I also told you that I can't find such article or publication and please add the link or more details, but you didn't. I simply can't verify this edit because you haven't added a link or details about the source, so I can find it and read it myself. Also, it is very high claim and it need reliable sources. If the source exists and it really says so, you need to mention that it is from 1996 and not generalize it.
    The problem with the fifth diff:
    I already explained this here.
    The problem with the sixth diff:
    The same problem with the fourth edit. I told you to add link or more details so I can verify it. I said that you need to also mention that it is from 1996 or whatever the source shows. Your latest change was simply removing details. Ferakp (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.162.223.119 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Blocked)

    Page: John de Lancie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 70.162.223.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [18]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [19]
    2. [20]
    3. [21]
    4. [22]
    5. [23]
    6. [24]
    7. [25]
    8. [26]
    9. [27]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28] (IP has blanked the page more than once)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: added today, but various warnings went unanswered on user's talk (see [29], [30], [31]). Quis separabit? 13:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    AND YET IT CONTINUES ([32]) Quis separabit? 13:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston -- thanks for the three day reprieve from this IP (if he/she doesn't get around it) but I don't think the issue is competence; I think it is COI or fancruft, plus arrogance and bad faith. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cauleyflower reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: )

    Page
    Flag of Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Cauleyflower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC) "The concensus on the talk page is that it is clearly de facto and has not been superceded. This aggressive Irish Nationalist censorship campaign needs to end."
    2. 15:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC) "clarification"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    By KrakatoaKatie

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Three seldom used accounts have seeked to edit the same way on this article in the past three days. RPP was made, KrakatoaKatie declined and gave 1rr warnings under Troubles restrictions, aswell as advising a breach should be reported here. Murry1975 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "reported" for disagreeing with you - how pathetic! I made 1 correction and 1 revert. The recent edits have been more in-line with the talk page than the pure reverts by Irish Nationalist editors undoing corrections. It seems only Irish Nationalists like yourself are making pure reverts and not contributing anything to the article. Now you are trying to game the system to keep the censorship campaign ongoing against anything representing Northern Ireland Cauleyflower (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation of the 1RR sanction has happened here, seemingly. Both parties made one revert after the sanction was put. The history of article shows one editor reverting against three editors, or three editors reverting against one (who really knows?). On the talk page, three editors were discussing the disputed issue (two of them were against Dmcq, as I got). So I think there's only a content dispute here which should be resolved using recommendations at dispute resolution. If the question is that who did the edit warring, the answer will be "both Dmcq and Cauleyflower". Mhhossein (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say User:Murry1975 seems to have just reported here without contributing to the talk page. Since I seem now to be in a minority I will stop. You can look at the start of the article and see what a mess they are making of it and I doubt they'll take advice from me as they seem to think any opposition is from Irish Nationalists and therefore to be ignored. I think it is funny, they probably consider themselves Unionists and yet argue against what the government has said. Oh well I guess that is what consensus has turned out to be here on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmcq: I see that you are good at making RFC topics. Why did not you try that instead of engaging edit warring? I gave the other editor a rather soft warning for the national epithet he directed at you. Mhhossein (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not all that keen on RfCs, they are not good for discussion only for coming to an eventual decision, and on those pages especially I'd prefer that there was some sort of actual consensus rather than more hot air and polarization. Dmcq (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to admin: The case is a content dispute where both parties were engaging edit war by reverting each other's edit and I think they need to be warned against making further such edits. There's a TP topic showing that they had been discussing the issue which led to no clear consensus. This nomination by Murry1975 is flawed because the diff he has provided as the diff of warning is in fact a general sanction notice not directed at a specific editor. As I said above, the 1RR was not violated considering the time of the notice being put on the talk page of the editors (both editors made one revert after the sanction was determined). Mhhossein (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:KrakatoaKatie has placed a WP:TROUBLES banner on the talk page, which serves as a notice of the WP:1RR restriction. In my opinion this case may be closed with no action so long as the following recent editors receive alerts of the Troubles discretionary sanctions:
    – EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Insidious edits from 66.87.118.132 (Result: No violation)

    I noticed a vandal that instead of doing obvious destruction. The person edit numbers etc that are critical to concepts. The user is "Special:Contributions/66.87.118.132". Perhaps it's worthwhile to have a look at the rest of edits from that IP block (66.87.0.0 - 66.87.255.255, SPRINTBWG-2BL). Part of it seems to be related to a high school (Capuchino High School?). The offending edit that got my attention was this. A 32 768 Hz crystal used for digital real-time clocks outputs 2^15 cycles per second not 2^16 cycles. Anyone who designs using that number will see their clock running at half the real speed. Bytesock (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Robert Peterson 753 reported by User:Gala19000 (Result: Protected)

    Page: Syrian–Turkish border clashes during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Robert Peterson 753 (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:

    1. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:

    Page protected – 3 days by User:Lectonar. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:LjL (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Earth Similarity Index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 00:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713431526 by Tom.Reding (talk) No we don't. Only for opinions, not for facts. See WP:TWITTER. Sorry."
    2. 00:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713430208 by Tom.Reding (talk) It's a preprint server. There is no peer review. Sorry."
    3. 23:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713386234 by Tom.Reding (talk) we need peer-reviewed papers. Not unpublished preprints."
    4. 05:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713299716 by Davidbuddy9 (talk) Not a good rationale. This version vetted by experts. Take it to talk."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 00:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring on Earth Similarity Index */ new section"
    2. 00:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Disruptive editing"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 20:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "/* "Vetted by experts" isn't a rationale */ new section"
    2. 21:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Improvements to the article */ It may not be self-published in the first place"
    Comments:

    This editor has been somewhat aggressively removing content from various articles related to the concept of "habitable exoplanets", based on a (disputed) claim that the sources involved as self-published and that they are an WP:EXPERT and that others, like me, lack the WP:COMPETENCE to judge the sources. I invited them multiple times to take their sourcing issues to the WP:RSN, but instead, there seems to be a complete rubber wall against any attempt to keep article content, to the point of responding to my detailed edit warring warning explanation with "Do you have a degree in physics or astronomy?". I find it very important to note that, although it's not a revert, their edit after the last revert was, in my opinion, basically pure vendetta/disruption by calling the article's subject "the wholly invented ESI". This last edit is the actual reason I resorted to reporting. LjL (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for stepping over the line of 3RR and commit to not doing that ever again. I am trying to improve the article with the help of some astronomers who are interested in improving Wikipedia for public knowledge and was getting a little frustrated at the seeming article owners replacing poor content. Still, I think we are making progress with doing a better job at getting what exactly this subject actually is covered by Wikipedia. I do think there is a problem here with people not working with experts, as has been documented in previous news stories and such books as "The Cult of the Amateur". I am trying to work in good faith with editors here, and I understand they might be upset that their sources are being impeached by Wikipedia standards, but I would prefer to work together rather than fight! jps (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to extend the olive branch to this user here. I think we need to work in such a fashion so that normal Wikipedia-based research can compliment the best academic perspective on these topics. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The commitment to avoid edit warring is appreciated, I just hope it doesn't mean that instead of doing technical reverts you switch to spiteful edits like the one after your last revert, which while not being a revert, looks like an attempt to WP:GAME by doing something equally as disruptive as a revert.
    I replied to your message asking me to cooperate, but as I pointed out in my reply, I do not actually have a "vested interest" in this subject: I only have a vested interest in Wikipedia being used properly. Wikipedia can use contributions by experts and academics, but only as long as they do not expect to be able to trump normal policies and the normal consensus-reaching just because they are WP:EXPERTs. Consensus doesn't trump policies, as you sometimes mentioned; but even deciding whether a source is reliable or not (and it needs to be, per policy) is something that needs to be done by consensus if there isn't agreement. LjL (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Jps is warned for 3RR. Per the above exchange, the editors seem willing to discuss. The article now accepts relevant Arxiv preprints and a website as references, without any snarky language such as 'the wholly invented ESI'. Continued reverting may lead to admin action. You know that WP:RSN is available for this kind of question. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the need for a WP:RSN answer considering WP:ONUS. Shouldn't the people wanting to include the problematic content be the ones asking? I think it's pretty clear that a self-published website and a preprint need to be treated carefully in science articles per WP:PSTS. Asking for "input" for such a straightforward point seems needless to me. I won't stop anyone else from posting the question, obviously. jps (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gala19000 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )

    Page: Syrian–Turkish border clashes during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gala19000 (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:
    This has been going on for awhile...

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Otherwise not involved.

    Comments:

    Robert Peterson 753 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have stopped since my posting of an 3RR notice on his page. Jim1138 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=713524775"