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:223.29.234.202 {Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: Lancia Thema (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 223.29.234.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive user not knowing the difference between model years and production years, stubbornly adding "production" as a descriptor for common model years.

    Previous version reverted to:

    1. [1]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [6]

    YBSOne (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Same IP and the related 202.47.32.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are edit warring on numerous Lancia pages, also at Lancia Flaminia. Not here to work in a collaborative manner.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined You have not warned them in any way that I can see that they are edit warring. No wonder they keep doing it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I thought that Template:Uw-ew was to inform of a noticeboard. YBSOne (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: please see the case again, this time with numerous personal attacks and violent outbursts. YBSOne (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did take note of them this time but ... since this morning (my time, at least), they have stopped editing the article and have made edits to others that have not been reverted yet. Maybe they are taking the hint. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep you posted then. YBSOne (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gymrat16 reported by User:Brotherbenz (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_rink
    User being reported: Gymrat16 (talk · contribs)

    Previous version reverted to: [7]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

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

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

    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) 18:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SoNotBietin reported by User:GSK (Result: Blocked 24h)

    [edit]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252263508 by Masem (talk)"
    2. 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252261501 by GSK (talk): Some people will actually value it."
    3. 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252260658 by GSK (talk) 𝕏 is the official text character in the X logo. I don't want to go to edit war, but please—it IS the official character."
    4. 15:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252258206 by Masem (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Twitter."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Instructed the editor in edit summary and on their talk page to take their issue to Talk:Twitter.

    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ontheloop reported by User:Pentapotamialord (Result: Already blocked)

    [edit]

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

    Previous version reverted to: [link to your edit or stable version]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Link to their recent edit
    2. [link to another of their reverts, if applicable]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [link if applicable]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [link after you notify them, if applicable]

    Comments:
    User Ontheloop has engaged in edit warring by repeatedly reverting my contributions to the article Bhatti without justification. This behavior violates the three-revert rule and disrupts the collaborative editing process. I believe this warrants administrator attention. Pentapotamialord (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Orexin reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Joseph Stalin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 11:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252442931 by Remsense (talk) continue to not explain why he revet additionally criticism of something is not netural by default remisse cannot keep quoting vandalism clauses and other things without providing justification why if he has problem it better to go in talk part page explain what is whe the problem with my edits the edit are improve neutrality and correct inaccuracy in 1st paragraph"
    3. 11:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252440584 by Remsense (talk) Has not explained how it violate neutrality there isn't person opinion on there threatens me policy violation when he violating it himself by being bot that automatically doing reverts faster than is humanly possible account should be reported resimmise unless he can give a real reason as to why revet aren't constructive threating me in my talk page hassassing me to"
    4. 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252437852 by Remsense (talk) remsense said it was unconstructive edit and did not specify why or how was the case more over give the revet was in under a minute there no way he read it unless he's bot"
    5. 10:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Adjusted article by ensuring neutrality. Improved accuracy."
    6. another edit since this report
    7. another revert

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ Reply"
    2. 11:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ Reply"
    3. 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Joseph Stalin."
    4. 11:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "re"

    Comments:

    At one point the user deleted the whole article, though I've not mentioned it above as it's not reverting the same edit but is more of a WP:CIR issue.

    User has also engaged in personal attacks / cast aspersions[14][15][16] — Czello (music) 11:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:187.37.0.114 reported by User:Waddie96 (Result: Blocked 24h)

    [edit]

    Page: Caged IBC tote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 187.37.0.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252476882 by Waddie96 (talk)"
    2. 11:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Caged IBC tote."
    2. 14:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Banana box."
    3. 10:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Proctoscopy."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Also at Proctoscopy and at Banana box waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours since they did this on several articles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Blue Rider reported by User:RachelTensions (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Fiona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: The Blue Rider (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. Fiona: [17] - original large amount of content removal
    2. Fiona: [18] - revert
    3. Fiona: [19] - revert (editor was blocked after this one)
    4. Fiona: [20] - right after after block lifted, redo of the same contentious large amount of content removal
    5. Fiona: [21] - first revert after block was lifted
    6. Tamara: [22] - original large amount of content removal
    7. Tamara: [23] - revert (last revert before block)
    8. Tamara: [24] - right after after block lifted, redo of the same contentious large amount of content removal
    9. Tamara: [25] - revert



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: based on previous block being upheld for edit warring and conversation here: [26] and here, the editor is well aware.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tamara: [27] Fiona: [28]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29]

    Comments:

    Editor was blocked for 1 week for WP:LOUTSOCK (they participated in contentious reversions while logged out, which was apparently an accident on their part.) On appeal, the 1-week block was kept in place by @CactusWriter due to the related issues of personal attack (calling one person asshole), disruptive editing (I assume due to people's votes from RM discussions), and edit warring.

    As soon as the 1-week block was lifted, the editor's first actions were to return to making the exact same undiscussed large amounts of content removal on Fiona and Tamara (name). The large amounts of removed content were restored and the editor again advised to reach consensus on the talk page before removing such large amounts of content. Instead of engaging on the talk page, the editor again removed the content from the two articles.

    In a nutshell, editor's 1-week block is upheld for disruptive editing and edit warring (among other things), and the first actions they take after the block is lifted is to re-engage in the same contentious edits on the same pages. RachelTensions (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me correct your text:
    Editor was incorrectly blocked for 1 week for WP:LOUTSOCK (they participated in contentious reversions while logged out, which was apparently an accident on their part.) On appeal, the 1-week block was kept in place by @CactusWriter due to the related issues of personal attack (calling one person asshole), disruptive editing (I assume due to removing people's votes from RM discussions), and edit warring. No administrator either accepted or rejected the appeal and it is still standing today if you go look into The Blue Rider's talk page.
    As soon as the 1-week block was lifted, the editor's first actions were to return to making the exact same undiscussed large amounts of unsourced content removal on Fiona and Tamara (name). The large amounts of unsourced removed content were restored and the editor again advised to reach consensus on the talk page before removing such large amounts of unsourced content. Instead of The Blue Rider engageding on the talk page, the editor again removed the content from the two articles.
    In a nutshell, editor's incorrect 1-week block is upheld for disruptive editing and edit warring (among other things), and the first actions they take after the block is lifted is to re-engage in the same contentious edits on the same page. The Blue Rider 21:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And don’t try to play the victim here. I’ve already provided the relevant policies to justify removing that unsourced, irrelevant, and indiscriminate disambiguation list from the article—it has no place on a page about a feminine given name.
    Now you’re running here, reporting me for edit warring, which sure, I’m doing it. But let me make something clear: if I get blocked for it, so will you. You seem to think you’re so right, but you’ve been edit warring across three different articles—Fiona, Tamara (name), and antisocial personality disorder. You’re not going to get off just by painting me as the “bad editor” here. If administrative action is taken, don’t kid yourself—you’re getting blocked too. Have fun. The Blue Rider 22:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll point out that the editor in question is also editing the content of other people's comments on this very page: they've edited the content of my report here. Not sure what needs to be done for them to get the clue that editing or removing other people's comments is not kosher. RachelTensions (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now they're reverting my efforts to restore my comment to its original state before they edited it: [30] RachelTensions (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that the above user is very purposely portraying misinformation about me on multiple occasions that I called people assholes that opposed the rename move, when in reality I called a single person asshole on a whole different page and the diff provided by Rachel clearly shows that it was in the singular and not plural. The Blue Rider 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user continues to edit my comments and revert my efforts to restore my comment's original form. If you can believe it, they appear to be attempting to engage in an edit war on the Edit Warring noticeboard itself.
    [31] [32] [33] RachelTensions (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, let's make it clear, you are very aware that you are spreading misinformation, you refuse to accept it, you revert my reverts to correct your misinformation and then act like a victim. Oh dear, you are also edit warring and you will also get block for it. Hope you enjoy your off-wiki days to watch some clouds. The Blue Rider 22:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you disagree with the way I worded my comment then say so in a reply (as you have), but you're not authorized to edit someone else's comments. WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS states you're never to edit someone else's talk page comments to change the meaning, and what's worse is that you've again shown willingness to engage in an edit war by continuously reverting my efforts to restore my comment's original form. RachelTensions (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's funny because WP:TALKNO states that a behavior that is unacceptable is misrepresentation of other people. The Blue Rider 23:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1252786246"