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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎User:2a02:2168:84d6:4a00:0:0:0:0/64: reducing the lenght of the section title
Tag: Reverted
Line 298: Line 298:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> This IP address has been edit-warring on the Sapphire Rapids page for a week now by removing sources and changing the page link for Intel 7 to 7nm despite all sources saying that Intel 7 is a 10nm fabrication process and that Sapphire Rapids is a 10nm product. Sources ''with quotes'' have been provided explicitly stating that it is a 10nm node but the IP has asserted that it is 7nm in violation of [[WP:VERIFY]]. The IP's edits have been undone by three different editors (myself, [[User:Sahas P.|Sahas P.]], and [[User:HurricaneEdgar|HurricaneEdgar]]) but has continued to revert without going to the talk page. On December 1, I put a [[User talk:2A02:2168:84D6:4A00:92E6:C3C7:463B:2115|warning]] on their talk page, but the following day, they ignored the warning and continued to remove sources and make assertions without evidence. They did the same on December 3.
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> This IP address has been edit-warring on the Sapphire Rapids page for a week now by removing sources and changing the page link for Intel 7 to 7nm despite all sources saying that Intel 7 is a 10nm fabrication process and that Sapphire Rapids is a 10nm product. Sources ''with quotes'' have been provided explicitly stating that it is a 10nm node but the IP has asserted that it is 7nm in violation of [[WP:VERIFY]]. The IP's edits have been undone by three different editors (myself, [[User:Sahas P.|Sahas P.]], and [[User:HurricaneEdgar|HurricaneEdgar]]) but has continued to revert without going to the talk page. On December 1, I put a [[User talk:2A02:2168:84D6:4A00:92E6:C3C7:463B:2115|warning]] on their talk page, but the following day, they ignored the warning and continued to remove sources and make assertions without evidence. They did the same on December 3.
[[User:CristoCalis|CristoCalis]] ([[User talk:CristoCalis|talk]]) 16:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
[[User:CristoCalis|CristoCalis]] ([[User talk:CristoCalis|talk]]) 16:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment by an involved user: Please look at
* {{userlinks|2A00:23C6:7F89:9001:0:0:0:0/64}}
* {{userlinks|LeaveMeB}}
* {{userlinks|2a02:2168:84d6:4a00:0:0:0:0/64}}
* [[Special:diff/1125236374]] by {{ping|Azul120}}
* [[Talk:7 nm process#Intel 7]]
[[User:Visite fortuitement prolongée|Visite fortuitement prolongée]] ([[User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée|talk]]) 16:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:37, 3 December 2022

    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:Fountains of Bryn Mawr reported by User:Some1 (Result: Partially blocked for 2 weeks)

    Page: Milky Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:04, 25 November 2022
    2. 23:12, 27 November 2022
    3. 01:12, 28 November 2022
    4. 21:00, 29 November 2022
    5. 21:58, 29 November 2022

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr disagrees with the RfC close (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#RfC:_inconsistency_with_the_planetary_system_around_Sol). Told them to discuss with the closer at User_talk:Szmenderowiecki#Question_about_RfC_closure. They refuse to open a closure review at WP:AN after being advised to if they still disagree with the closer, and continues to slow-edit war against multiple editors.

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks, from editing this specific article only ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brohman54 reported by User:Archer1234 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Skanda (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Brohman54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [2] (Brohman54's original edit to add an infobox image)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [3] (Brohman54's reverting the reversion of their original edit)
    2. [4] (Brohman54 reverting again to their version with the disputed infobox image)
    3. [5] (Brohman54 reverting again (while logged out using a cellular IPv6 address) to their version with the disputed infobox image)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] (also on Brohman54's talk page: [8])

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9] (also notice on IPv6's talk page: [10])

    Comments:

    I am just looking to discuss the dispute with the user over the inclusion of the image in the infobox, but they have not shown any indication of trying to communicate. Now that the user has resorted to restoring their edits while logged out I think we are at the point that some actions are necessary to bring the user to the discussion (blocking and/or page protection). Thanks. — Archer1234 (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indefinitely blocked. See block log for multiple bases. I have found abusive logged out editing by at least two IPs (listed in block log); unfortunately, they are not amenable to being range-blocked because there would be too much collateral damage, typical, I'm afraid, of this Indian ISP's IPv6's.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it okay for me to revert the most recent edits by the IPv6 at Skanda (general)? I am already up to three reverts myself on that article and I do not want to run afoul of 3RR and get sanctioned. — Archer1234 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for asking, Archer1234. There's no longer a need to, as I have restored the stable revision prior to the edit war and blocked the logged-out participant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Botteville reported by User:Revirvlkodlaku (Result: Declined – malformed report)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [11]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [12]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

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

    Comments:

    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IntrepidContributor reported by User:HAL333 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: IntrepidContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [14]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Initial revert of status quo
    2. Revert #2
    • In multiple piecemeal edits, they readded most of the contested paragraph, using misleading edit summaries like "ce". This was after I asked them to discuss and gain consensus per BRD:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Elon Musk#Russia–Ukraine peace proposal

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

    Comments:
    The issue involves the addition of a paragraph that may be undue weight. IntrepidContributor claimed that there was a consensus per an older discussion where there clearly was none. But the main issue is that this edit warring is simply disruptive. As one can imagine, Elon Musk is a tense article subject to frequent disruptive editing. After I asked the user on their talk page "to please discuss", they responded with this curt response and then proceeded to readd the contested paragraph. Instead of edit warring, I am bringing this matter to you.

    IntrepidContributor was blocked for edit warring related to Taiwan and China just last month. They should know better. Please address this. Thanks, ~ HAL333 07:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not want to make any unbased accusations, but it is of note that the IP cited in the discussion for consensus is located in the same nation as IntrepidContributor. This may be purely coincidental. ~ HAL333 07:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple consecutive edits count as 1 edit, you are experienced enough to know that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be 3RR, but it it is edit warring. What was I supposed to do? I tried to initiate discussion and compromise and they reverted twice more. If I had reverted to the status quo again, they certainly would have reverted again. IntrepidContributor has already been blocked for edit warring, so so this kind of behavior shouldn't be happening at all. ~ HAL333 14:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you bringing up a past block? Is it supposed to persuade an administrator that I am a bad person? I expanded the peace proposal in the politics section exactly as you suggested as a compromise. I still think it deserves a subsection of its own but I am fine with the compromise of putting it in the politics section. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no connection with that IP, so it is very much an "unbased" accusation, just like your accusation that I was edit warring. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Statement by IntrepidContributor

    On 14 October I wrote a new subsection about Musk's proposed peace plan in the "Views and Twitter usage" section of his bio [23]. On 28 October, HAL333 boldly removed the content, claiming "massive undue, weight, duplicated info, poor sourcing, present in subarticle", which as I noted earlier today in the talk page, wasn't entirely true [24], before restoring it to the page [25]. Instead of arguing with HAL333 on whether the section merits its own subsection after he reverted my restoration, I took him up on his offer for a "compromise" [26] and incorporated a highly summarised form of the content in the politics subsection, where it was already being covered.

    Now, Slatersteven has removed the content completely [27], which I don't think was ever HAL333's intention, so I have posted it to the NPOV noticeboard [28]. The story was very widely covered by reliable sources I'm very unimpressed with the lack of collaboration from these editors and the spurious accusation of edit warring.

    It is probably also worth mentioning that when I restored the content this morning, I added yesterday's New York Times article about Zelensky inviting Musk to Ukraine to rethink his peace plan, and I started a discussion on the talk page, explaining that the story now satisfies WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.

    IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    NOne of which would excuse edit warring, if you are revert4ed you make a case, not rerevert. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no edit war. I added it twice [29] [30] and HAL333 removed it twice [31][32]. In their edit summary, HAL333 insisted that the content be removed while we discuss it, but failed to participate in the discussion beyond accusing me of edit warring. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You added it thrice! And during an ongoing discussion. The onus is on you. You were reverted on this issue back in October, and you did not have a consensus then and you do not have a consensus now. And to the contrary, I was actually civil and didn't directly accuse you of edit warring in that discussion.~ HAL333 16:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not add "it" thrice. The third set of edits was expansion of the allegation in the politics section, as I have now mentioned thrice here. You suggested this as a compromise yourself and added the Putin contact accordingly, as you said here [33]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't propose that entire paragraph as a compromise.... ~ HAL333 16:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I didn't write that entire paragraph. In my third set of edits, I reordered paragraphs of the section, rewrote parts of the Ukraine-related paragraph for clarity and added three sentences to it, as any administrator should be able to see in the diffs [34]. If you object to the sentences I added, this isn't the right venue to discuss that. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actualy wp:3rr is not a right or upper limit. An edit war is "editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions", so technically it was an edit war. However (as I pointed out above) you did not violate 3RR, I am just pointing out that none of what you said justifes reverting back to your preferred version once reverted. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation It seems the discussion on the talk page has reached a consensus that discussing the peace plan at the level of detail IC believes it should be is beyond what summary style requires at this time. This consensus has only been clear for a couple of hours, well after IC's last revert, so I do not consider it edit warring.

    However, now that consensus has been reached, IC is advised that any further attempt to restore it will not/should not/cannot be given the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of his last, piecemeal revert, an action arguably prejudicial to good faith, and will be so notified on his talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2403:6200:8871:2336:995:A96A:489C:7FC2 reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Talk:Elizabeth II (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2403:6200:8871:2336:995:A96A:489C:7FC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Special:Diff/1124933307 for first revert, same /64 range.
    2. 08:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1124934863 by Hut 8.5 (talk)"
    3. 08:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1124933612 by Ianmacm (talk)"
    4. 09:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 08:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Elizabeth II."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 08:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by 2403:6200:8871:2336:995:A96A:489C:7FC2 (talk) to rev. 1124934863 by Hut 8.5: Vandalism (UV 0.1.3)"

    Comments: Lemonaka (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Why you removing {{blp}} template from talk page of article about living person? 2403:6200:8871:2336:995:A96A:489C:7FC2 (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    E II has died for nearly a month, are you sure she's still alive? Lemonaka (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know her death news was fake. 2403:6200:8871:2336:995:A96A:489C:7FC2 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing to say, just Lmao. Lemonaka (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked 48h for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ascertain2022 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Ron Kalifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Ascertain2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [35]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1125091683 by General Ization (talk) Example of similar other blog posts by American consultancy Gartner that is cited across Wikipedia: https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3956304. What's different here? Size? Australian consultancy risible? Explain criteria better."
    2. 04:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1125090970 by MrOllie (talk) Please read my replies on your Talk page ""
    3. 03:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1125088163 by MrOllie (talk) Asked on your talk page to kindly differentiate this citation from Gartner blog posts, cited widely across Wikipedia. Is the criteria merely the multinational span of consultancies, or that they are American/British/European?"
    4. 03:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1125087543 by MrOllie (talk) Ron Kalifa is a consultant. What is going on here? This reiterates every recent criticism of Wikipedia editors that I'd thought of as made-up scare-stories"
    5. 03:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1125083788 by MrOllie (talk) Legitimate link. (Why 'Spammy?' )"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 04:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ron Kalifa."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Refer to my replies on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascertain2022 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Now moot as the editor has been blocked indef for persistent promotional editing, edit warring and personal attacks. General Ization Talk 04:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:198.30.181.12 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: )

    Page: List of roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 198.30.181.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1125111362 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 20:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC) to 20:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
      1. 20:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1124923196 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"
      2. 20:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1124921911 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 06:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Repeated violation of WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL by adding projects that haven't begun filming to Ms Ranaut's filmography Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maoye237 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: )

    Page: Telecentric lens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Maoye237 (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. 13:55, 3 December 2022 Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing.
    2. 13:49, 3 December 2022 Undid revision 1125338726 by Adakiko (talk))
    3. 13:38, 3 December 2022 Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing.
    4. 13:08, 3 December 2022 External links Dead link
    • First edit on article:
    1. 12:30, 3 December 2022 External links, marketing link with inaccurate description

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

    A telecentric lens is a rather unusual optic. Finding a pure non-commercial source of information that is freely available is difficult. Edmund Optics' tutorial and Telecentric lenses tutorial from Opto Engineering are well written, and do not have pricing nor direct marketing on their tutorials. Removal of these without another good source of information would be a loss and they should be retained until a pure non-commercial source is supplied.

    Adakiko (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ryanwarriorzz reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indef)

    Page: Ferhat Mehenni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC) ""
    2. 15:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC) "The source is also talking about the MAK. No clarification needed."
    4. 21:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC) "The source is very specifically talking about the MAK. Stop the bad faith, because you won't win, we are on a neutral platform and misinformation has no place."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ferhat Mehenni."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 22:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC) "/* December 2022 */ new section"

    Comments:

    See the first edit of Ryanwarriorzz (whose username sets the tone for what's coming). They are now misrepresenting a source and edit warring over it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked indefinitely Given their troll-like conduct right out out of the gate, I've bliocked indef. Acroterion (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:User:2a02:2168:84d6:4a00:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:CristoCalis (Result: )

    Page: Sapphire Rapids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported:

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Template:Diff1
    2. 15:28 UTC November 25, 2022
    3. 18:15 UTC November 26, 2022
    4. 21:18 UTC November 27, 2022
    5. Template:Diff5
    6. Template:Diff6
    7. Template:Diff7
    8. Template:Diff8
    9. Template:Diff9
    10. Template:Diff10
    11. Template:Diff11
    12. Template:Diff12

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:33 UTC December 1, 2022

    Comments:
    This IP address has been edit-warring on the Sapphire Rapids page for a week now by removing sources and changing the page link for Intel 7 to 7nm despite all sources saying that Intel 7 is a 10nm fabrication process and that Sapphire Rapids is a 10nm product. Sources with quotes have been provided explicitly stating that it is a 10nm node but the IP has asserted that it is 7nm in violation of WP:VERIFY. The IP's edits have been undone by three different editors (myself, Sahas P., and HurricaneEdgar) but has continued to revert without going to the talk page. On December 1, I put a warning on their talk page, but the following day, they ignored the warning and continued to remove sources and make assertions without evidence. They did the same on December 3. CristoCalis (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by an involved user: Please look at

    Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1125363147"