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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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:2001:999:50:31c7:99e7:2536:3719:a990 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)

Page: Long QT syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:999:50:31c7:99e7:2536:3719:a990 (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: [6]

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

Comments:

Also concerns of WP:COI with the IP in question appearing to really like the research by "Määttänen" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Result: 48 hour block to Special:Contributions/2001:999:50:31C7::/64 for edit warring with a fluctuating IP. See WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:EdJohnston. Here is another IP that has been involved with spamming this researcher. User:128.214.89.70. Fairly persistent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP 128.214.89.70 (talk · contribs) has not edited since 20 December, but report again if you notice any continuation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked  Swarm  {talk}  07:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:68.47.64.121 reported by User:Shellwood (Result: Blocked)

Page: Franco-Swedish War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.47.64.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] [13] [14]

Comments: This IP has a history of edit warring and now it's happening again, despite the fact that the IP has been warned not to upload disputed material. I won't make any further edits to the articles in question but they have been loaded with unsourced material and statements that are not supported by the sources used by the IP. The IP refuses to acknowledge that. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid this user refuses to acknowledge that this needs teamwork. My sources are reliable. One even includes the Norwegian royal court.[15]68.47.64.121 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said above the sources you use do not support your statements. I have gone through them all and your arguments, they do not match. It isn't about whether the sources are reliable or not. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• IP, you are already eligible for an edit warring block, but I will hold off pending talk page discussion, where I hope Bonadea will participate as well. If you make the edit again you should/will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:, I understand your willingness to let the discussion progress, however... This IP does not appear to understand sources well (perhaps an English-learner, given his writing?) and seems unwilling to abide by edit warring policy. He's not pushing his recent edit now because he's gone quiet on WP, but will again when he resumes editing. Moreover, he does not appear to understand what reliable sources are, and has a tendency to interpret/synthesize sources. He does discuss, but got a little belligerent on the articles related to Murphy Brown (TV series) and continued to revert to his favored version. I had competence concerns based on that episode alone; these new edits reinforce those concerns. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Umm … ”gone quiet”? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Weeeeellll... He'd gone quiet when I wrote that. I did note he'd be at it again when he started editing. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP does discuss, yes, but they haven't displayed that they have an understanding of the arguments presented to them. That or they disregard any points aimed at them which don't support their own. The discussion on the Murphy Brown Season 11 talk page felt like a waste of time because they wouldn't acknowledge any arguments presented to them and pushed their own agenda. Esuka323 (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I really think there's a comprehension issue. His interpretation of the term "take over" referring to the time slot scanned as though he was talking about the time slot being real estate that the new program coming in owned. It was very odd. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Block I just reversed (I hope) a series of disruptive edits based only on blog stories. If this IP has been a problem before too, it's time to solve the problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week, since the IP continued to revert after the above warning by User:Drmies, which was given at 18:06 on the 27th. The IP editor has been blocked twice within the past week for edit warring by User:MelanieN. They also seem to have made three reverts at Charles XIV John of Sweden. A number of editors believe the IP is not reading sources correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, EdJohnston. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Would you consider a longer block should they edit war again in the future? They were a major hassle on the Murphy Brown pages with their poorly written WP:OR edits and their edit warring behavior. Yes they were blocked twice for this, but they clearly haven't learned that their behavior is wrong if they're doing it again. Esuka323 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:AngeloKonecki reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: 2 weeks for edit warring)

Page

Dove Cameron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AngeloKonecki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 17:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 17:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 17:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sofia Carson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also on Sofia Carson and Cameron Boyce. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked  Swarm  {talk}  07:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:146.115.65.100 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Warned)

Page

Gang Starr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

146.115.65.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 18:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 875715651 by JesseRafe (talk)"
3. 14:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC) "It doesn't matter. Premier left the group too. No one in the group at any time was from Brooklyn."
4. 23:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC) "DJ Premier is not a founding member. The group started in Boston not Brooklyn."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 18:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Gang Starr. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has no intention of building a collaborative encyclopedia or reviewing the rules about what gets included and where, insists on reverting only. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Result: 146.115.65.100 (talk · contribs) is warned for edit warring at Gang Starr. But if the city of origin of this group is so important, why is there nothing about it on the talk page? And the article states that the performer known as Guru got his start in Boston in 1986, and was using the 'Gang Starr' name then. So why should Brooklyn be credited as the city of origin of the group? EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Johnnysama (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

List of fabrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Johnnysama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:15, 28 December 2018‎ (UTC)
2. 23:23, 28 December 2018‎‎ (UTC) "No."
3. 23:29, 28 December 2018‎ (UTC)

I've had so many wiki disputes in the past, and I've tried to remain calm, but this blows my stack for Roxy the dog to think that Polyester is not a fabric, when it is. She just rolls it back w/o explanation. UGH. This is just the most arbitrary thing to do. We went through this nonsense a few months ago.

See Archive -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Even so, you gave no reason as to why it is not. Johnnysama (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

So, what would you like Admins to counsel me to do? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like a second opinion from someone else, for sure. I don't know why you're doing this, but I don't find your archived post funny. Johnnysama (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read it properly then. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? Johnnysama (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I answered your question truthfully. I am correct. Now I'm going to bed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You just scoffed at me, and that's it. Johnnysama (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Polyester is a fiber, not a fabric. Fabrics are made from woven fibers. A polyester shirt is made from a fabric that contains a ‰ amount of polyester fibers, but the fabric is not polyester, the fiber is. The fabric will usually have another name depending on its composition. This is clearly explained in the relevant articles. This should not have to be explained to anyone who is capable of reading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then. Case closed. I'm sorry I lost my cool there, I just wanted a second opinion. Please close this dispute down. Thank you. 00:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Polyethylene terapthalate is a polymer. We know it as Polyester. it is made into fibres, yarns, pop bottles, fabrics of many types, knitted, woven, non-woven, polar fleece etc. etc. Itself it is not a fabric Goodnight. Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you win. I'm closing this now. I'm done with all this dealing. Good day. Johnnysama (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

User:79.107.134.94, User:Tidewings, User:Gmantakis reported by User:TaivoLinguist (Result: Semi, block, warning)

Page: History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.107.134.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tidewings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gmantakis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17] IP (Tidewings)
2. [18] IP (Tidewings)
3. [19] IP (Tidewings)
4. [20] Tidewings
5. [21] Gmantakis
6. [22] Gmantakis
7. [23] Gmantakis
8. [24] Tidewings

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25], [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:
It is crystal clear that the anon IP, Tidewings, and Gmantakis are the same editor pushing a POV (see the edit summary for Tidewing's last contribution). --Taivo (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not the user User:Gmantakis. And I also assume that user TaivoLinguist and Chewings72 is the same person. I am open to discuss further and prove I am not Gmantakis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Your four reverts as the IP and as Tidewings is still a violation of WP:3RR and is still subject to a block on your account, since it was created for the sole purpose of skirting around the 3RR rule to continue your edit war (without opening or continuing a discussion on the Talk Page). --Taivo (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

My intention was to promote truth. Furthermore I still try to figure out how to enter the talk page dialogue because this is my first ever account. Taivo I think was too early in reporting me. Tidewings talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It was your intention to avoid the WP:3RR rule and push your POV without a discussion. Your "first ever account" argument is suspicious because you opened it immediately after I requested page protection and right after your third edit as an IP. I don't believe you for one minute that this is your first experience in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist it is clear that you want to ban my comment because it contradicts your position furthermore more this is my first account ever. And if you show me how to enter in the talk page I will make these clear. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

If you are experienced enough to push your POV in the article and write POV-pushing and insulting comments in the edit summary, then you know perfectly well how to edit on the Talk Page. You are a classic example of a WP:SPA who has come to Wikipedia (not for the first time) to push a Greek POV against established WP:CONSENSUS in articles related to Macedonia. You came straight to this article, pushed your POV, came to three reverts, registered as a new account, and continued to push your POV thinking that no one would notice. --Taivo (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not write POV pushing, you did. Furthermore I entered where ever I could when a red icon appeared in my account. It is obvious you want to ban me cause my position contradicts clearly yours. What is your connection with Chewings72? Let me enter the talk page. At the.moment I copy what I see on this dialogue to defend my self. Your haste to report me shows a tendency in pushing your positions with various means. From the moment I saw I could not keep my own position posted I thought to create an account to make it permanent. I still have not read the DDD section about the internet war or warring or how you call it. Tidewings talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You were the one writing insulting comments the first place. Tidewings talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

OK now what? Do we enter the talk page?. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys please let me know. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Also in my last edit, in the section where I provide the reason for the edit, the syntax in the phrase/sentence is incorrect due to auto correct use in my mobile. The correct phrase is 'Furthermore I can sense true passion to erase the truth by both of you editors. Why?'. Do we continue this chat or what? I need to go. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 13:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Really, why don't you answer me?? Can I log out, are we done? I need to know of what is going on while I am online and not offline. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys I log out. I will be again online later, and when I will I will leave a message here for you to know. If you don't give me the chance to further defend while being online my self from the moment this is my first account and since I asked so many times for a further discussion and talk here, it will be a kind of bias towards me as I see it. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's why I don't believe that you have come to Wikipedia to improve the encyclopedia, but to push a Greek nationalist POV in a controversial topic. Let's say that you are new (I don't believe that for one second, but just for the sake of discussion). 1) You went straight to a controversial topic, a controversial article, and made exactly the edit that has pushed a Greek nationalist POV in the past and been the subject of much discussion and compromise in order to maintain a neutral point-of-view throughout Wikipedia. 2) When your edit was reverted by not one, not two, but three experienced Wikipedia editors, you did not ask why, you did not start a reasonable discussion on the Talk Page, but edit warred, continuing to push your POV without discussion in your blind belief that you were right. 3) You have done absolutely nothing whatsoever in any other article, the perfect definition of a single-purpose account. You have shown no evidence whatsoever that you have come to Wikipedia to improve the encyclopedia, but only to push your Greek nationalist agenda, accusing experienced editors of bias simply because we didn't bow to your Greek POV. If you and Gmantakis are not the same person, then he/she was sitting right beside you in the internet cafe and you were tag-teaming the article to push your POV.

If the administrators reading this thread don't want to block you outright for your disruptive behavior (as they blocked Gmantakis), then I suggest that you be subject to a topic ban that prohibits you from editing any article on the topic of Macedonia until you prove that you are a productive and community-minded editor here for Wikipedia and not just here to plant the Greek flag in controversial articles. --Taivo (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Finally, despite all your protestations here that you don't know how to get to the article's Talk Page, you had no problem whatsoever finding your user Talk Page with the link that led you here. You even created a new section on your own Talk Page and made a comment there. If you can find your way to your user Talk page, then you have zero excuse for not finding your way to the article's Talk Page and participating in a discussion there. --Taivo (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing the text at WP:3RR it became clear that the last edit by Tidewings also counts as part of the edit war--resulting in five reverts on his part, not counting the three reverts by Gmantakis. --Taivo (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"my position contradicts clearly yours." And for those of us who are not mind-readers, could you describe your position? Dimadick (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page was semiprotected, User:Gamantakis was blocked by another admin. User:Tidewings is warned. Please report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:79.104.200.101 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

Page

Botai culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

79.104.200.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 875933237 by Ifnord (talk)"
2. 00:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 875931820 by IronGargoyle (talk)"
3. 00:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 875921912 by Joe Roe (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by Materialscientist -- Scott (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)