Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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:InterComMan reported by User:Adriazeri (Result: Stale)

    [edit]

    Page: 3 (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: InterComMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 09:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "no, they aren't subsidiaries"
    2. 10:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 09:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "are not subsidiaries, but only companies that use the brand"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 11:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 3 (company)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 10:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:InterComMan "/* Three? */ new section"

    Comments:

    The user has a history of baiting people into edit wars and then playing the victim, was warned for it then (linked to the ANI discussion on their talk page). Has done it in this case with me and another user, was warned for it by both of us, and has not paid any notice. Adriazeri (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Stale, and even if this had been considered promptly there's no 3RR violation. I am also not inclined to look favorably on users who allege the reported user "baited" them into edit warring. We do not recognize this as a defense. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thetazero reported by User:Jeraxmoira (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Gukesh Dommaraju (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Thetazero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255216250 by Jeraxmoira (talk)made my point on talk"
    2. 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255210075 by Jeraxmoira (talk) I want to know what is the evidence for circular sourcing? Many of the media outlets sourced in the article and its talk page directly interviewed him and his parents. Nor do they ever mention relying on wikipedia."
    3. 18:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "Restored an older version becuase there is no evidence of circular sourcing as mentioned"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Gukesh Dommaraju."
    2. 19:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Gukesh Dommaraju."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 19:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Gukesh's Origins */ Reply"
    2. 20:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Gukesh's Origins */ Reply"

    Comments:

    User is not very familiar with Wikipedia's policies and they reverted changes without reaching a consensus on the talk page. Around 30-40% of their edits have been reverted out of the 125 they have made so far. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting here that I am involved in this dispute. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2024 (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. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wuerzele reported by User:NatGertler (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Public domain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wuerzele (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. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Public_domain#Public_domain_by_medium

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [5]

    Comments:
    Non-3RR edit warring. Editor is repeatedly placing off-topic material in the article, and their only post to the talk page since disagreements began addresses none of the concerns]. This is not someone who is participating in discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nat Gertler has reverted sourced content four times, not productively contributing and is editwarring. He is displaying ownership issues.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs please? Given that I've only edited that article three times in the last three months and given that one was a revert that had no source, it's a pretty hard statement to push. And the two "sourced" additions were not relevant to the page, as I appropriately brought up on the Talk page. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2024 (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. And it seems like people have rediscovered the value of talk pages here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, this was an edit-warring report, not 3RR. And the individual still refuses to discuss the edits; their only entry onto the page was to a request that I not address his added material, which is not a discussion aimed at settling matters. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes we consider these reports as edit warring outside the context of 3RR, usually if the reporter has framed it that way and explained why. But in this case you offered only three diffs that did not meet the criteria for 3RR. How else did you expect it to be evaluated?
    Anyway, things seem to have calmed down after Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page post. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    well, @Daniel Case, Nat Gertler got what he wanted: He reverted a fourth time. He does not add text, but reverts. Wuerzele (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit summary summed it up as "how was I to know you wanted this to be anything other than a 3RR report?", and I think that what I'd posted here, starting with "Non-3RR edit warring", seems clear. This was a user who was repeatedly reinserting the same material and avoiding discussion. Now you note that he has entered discussion, but not to answer the concerns raised by myself and now an other editor, that the material is not relevant to the topic of the article. His posts instead obsess on whether I am adding text to the article, which is irrelevant to the question at hand and not truly discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you thought of getting a third opinion or some other method of extended dispute resolution, if you feel this impasse exists?
    And I have reviewed many reports where people say something like "While this user hasn't violated 3RR, they ..." That is the kind of language that is helpful. Simply saying "non-3RR edit warring" in the boilerplate is likely to get missed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a third person already in the discussion, now. While Wuerzele's discussion is not in a productive form, has not reinserted the material since the entrance of this third person. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:QuranScholarship reported by User:Ivebeenhacked (Result: 24 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: QuranScholarship (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255430163 by Sodicadl (talk) The previous edits only stated the obvious and clear attestations in the Quran and they were referenced. You did not state what was wrong with the edits exactly. Therefore, the edits will revert to the previous version. Thank you."
    2. 17:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255383415 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) According to West Coast University, original research articles, and hence original research, are is written by the person or people that conducted the experiment or observations. Hence, the research is the primary source itself. Therefore, research that relies on primary sources is not original, but, rather secondary."
    3. 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255336359 by VenusFeuerFalle (talk) With all due respect, you falsely claim that I conducted original research. This is not original research, the source I am citing to is the Quran. You made a judgement that my edit is orignial research without providing any proof for your conclusion.The edit is based on the Quran. This not original research on my part. The sources were cited."
    4. 22:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "I added an introductory sentence regarding the belief in the oneness of God. That is an essential tenent of the Islamic faith and one that should be related early on in the discussion of the religion Furthermore, I removed the part that said Muslims believe Prophet Mohammed to be the "main" prophet. Verses 2:285 and 3:84 in the Quran state that Muslims are not to make distinction between prophets."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:QuranScholarship "ONLY Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.6)"

    Comments:

    Violation of 3rr. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:601:C82:2F10:74EC:8C48:FF7A:75EA reported by User:Czello (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Wig (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2601:601:C82:2F10:74EC:8C48:FF7A:75EA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Please don’t revert; they changed their name"
    2. 12:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Please don’t revert; they changed their name"
    3. 12:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Please don’t revert; they changed their name"
    4. 12:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wig (song)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    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. Daniel Case (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kandaris reported by User:Czello (Result: 72 hrs)

    [edit]

    Page: 2024 United States elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Kandaris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255769628 by Czello (talk) I am in the UK and The Guardian uses the Tabloid format and therefore by extension is a tabloid."
    2. 15:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255766148 by Czello (talk) Have removed as sources not reliable, neutral and no actual evidence, Guardian is a tabloid newspaper, Al-Jazeera is questionable notwithstanding both organisation are known to be either at best anti-Israel and at worse antisemitic."
    3. 15:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255761669 by Czello (talk)"
    4. 14:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Election interference */ Have removed as sources not reliable, neutral and no actual evidence."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Contentious topics alert */ new section"
    2. 15:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2024 United States elections."

    Comments:

    Note that the user has deleted both the edit warring warning and the CTOPs alert from their user page; links are still above. User has been directed to WP:RSP in regards to the reliable sources they are deleting and asked to discuss on the talk page, but this has gone unheeded. — Czello (music) 16:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: the user just attempted to delete this report. — Czello (music) 16:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nathan2718 reported by User:GiantSnowman (Result: indef-blocked for edit warring and an uncollegial attitude)

    [edit]

    Page: Riyad Mahrez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nathan2718 (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]


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

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

    Comments:
    This is a new SPI who is edit warring at a long-established article, refusing to engage. All I want is for the article status quo to be restored so that the issue can be resolved at the talk page. GiantSnowman 21:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor continue to edit war with other editors, see this after the AN3 discussion started, reverting @BrazilianDude70:. I am concerned with the editor's attitude in their edit summary, and increasingly concerned about their editing/approach here in general. GiantSnowman 22:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NB that an editor with the same name is simultaneously making identical changes to the French-language article. GiantSnowman 22:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nathan2718 has been indeffed by @Drmies:. GiantSnowman 22:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Epok in town reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Kaylia Nemour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Epok in town (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 01:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC) to 23:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
      1. 01:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
      2. 23:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 01:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. Consecutive edits made from 01:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) to 01:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
      1. 01:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
      2. 01:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 01:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kaylia Nemour."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 01:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Incorrect use of minor edits check box on Kaylia Nemour."
    2. 02:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Persistent unjustified changes */ new section"
    3. 00:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Persistent unjustified changes */ new section"

    Comments:

    Edit warring across multiple articles (to impose their POV) while refusing to seek consensus for their changes, or even explain why they're doing them. They removed the 3R warning and my comment from their talk page and reverted all the edits that have been challenged (see example, there are way too many to cite here). M.Bitton (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to fix something that was not etiquette in the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context. Epok in town (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Either you don't understand the rules or you're just pretending not to (blanking your talk page like you did speaks for itself). Either way, there is no excuse (none whatsoever) for you to impose your POV through an edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not even thinking about reverting the edits as a way to impose my point of view. Epok in town (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you thought of it like that, I understand. But I'm just telling you I didn't see it that way. Epok in town (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only interested in what you did and I have provided the diffs to prove it. M.Bitton (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WeAreFamily1996 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: WeAreFamily1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 23:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 23:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255618000 by Soetermans (talk)"
    5. 20:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255606777 by Adamstom.97 (talk)"
    6. 19:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255516654 by Adamstom.97 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    New-ish user who claims to work on the show and has repeatedly added a composer to the infobox field. Despite warnings and a talk page discussion, they continue all the same. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit: "new-ish" user, they apparently had to change their username in the past. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Iaof2017 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked 24h)

    [edit]

    Page: 2021 Albanian parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Iaof2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor recently popped up on my watchlist when they carried out significant expansions of two articles. However, the expansions contained multiple issues that I attempted to fix. My attempts to do this were repeatedly blindly reverted, with Iaof2017 reinserting clearly incorrect information into 2021 article several times. They have now violated 3RR on the article despite being asked on numerous occasions to stop reverting.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:01, 6 November 2024
    2. 18:38, 6 November 2024
    3. 18:45, 6 November 2024
    4. 06:39, 7 November 2024

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been repeatedly asked to follow WP:BRD and not blindly revert edits,[14][15][16][17][18] but has ignored most messages and deleted them from his talk page without responding.[19][20]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

    Comments:

    I have invested significant time and effort into improving the article, with the intention of nominating it for Good Article (GA) status, as I also did with the 1991 Albanian parliamentary election article. Instead of making unnecessary and disruptive edits, such as replacing the detailed infbox, which is more appropriate, and adding the "Notes" section twice, which was both out of place and redundant, I encourage you to recognize the positive contributions I have made. Iaof2017 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1256041216"