Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Batreeq (talk | contribs) at 04:04, 8 April 2023 (→‎User:Batreeq reported by User:Leechjoel9 (Result:Both blocked 24 hours )). 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:Itsmehiimyourbestieitsme reported by User:Edwordo13 (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Scream VI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Itsmehiimyourbestieitsme (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]
    5. [6]
    6. [7]
    7. [8]

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

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

    Comments:

    The user keeps on adding numerous large plot additions to the article, and were reverted as I seem that these are good faith edits. In addition, the user has also verbally attacked me and accused me of being "disruptive" on my talk page, as seen here [10] and here. [11]

    • Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:142.67.89.165 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Colonial empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 142.67.89.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [12]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [13]
    2. [14]
    3. [15]
    4. [16]
    5. [17]
    6. [18]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19],[20]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21],[22],[23]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

    Comments:
    [25],[26] Editor indicates they have no intention to stop. Has been on a slow revert war since 28 March [27], which has escalated in last 24 hrs. Please note that I stopped at 2RR yeterday but they reverted an earlier edit of mine given the impression of 3RR [28]. See edit history [29]. WCMemail 07:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours If they carry on edit-warring after the block expires, let me know and I'll issue a longer block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Has now registered an account Mario98765 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and carried on in the same vein [30],[31]. Notified Ritchie. WCMemail 07:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tekrmn reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Declined)

    Page: 2023 Covenant School shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tekrmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 2023-04-06T04:19:48
    2. 2023-04-06T04:50:15
    3. 2023-04-06T05:08:12
    4. 2023-04-06T06:13:01

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2023-04-06T05:09:44

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2023_Covenant_School_shooting#Deadname

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

    Comments:

    Given their short editing history here, and the fact the account was created a few months ago with one edit, I have to wonder if this isn't just a sleeper troll account/WP:SPA and if we should just skip to an indef block for WP:NOTHERE. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This user did certainly pass 3RR after having been given a warning, but the accusation of being a sleeper troll or WP:SPA is wholly unsupported by their contributions thus far. All have been constructive — this is an edit war over a disagreement in the reading of policy in which you are the other party, but there is no evidence that it is motivated on their part by trolling or editing with a single purpose. To that end, an immediate indef block is absolutely not a sensible next step. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:2C3E:9128:A991:DBC1 (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for commenting. I did not understand how important this rule is to Wikipedia's functioning until doing more reading after my latest revert. I have seen a lot of templates on articles and did not realize the seriousness of this particular template at the time. While I think that the edits I made reflect the MOS, I have edited the article again to show Hale's birth name where Locke is arguing it belongs. I understand that editing in the manner I did is considered an edit war and is not an appropriate way to handle disputes. I will not do this again in the future and will continue to do my best to follow all of the rules of Wikipedia. I created this account to make what I feel are positive contributions that fall within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I am not trolling, I am not single-purpose editing, and I am only interesting in using Wikipedia as it was intended. I apologize for engaging in an edit war and for taking up time with this report. Tekrmn (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tekrmn partially self-reverted at 06:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC). ––FormalDude (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully self-reverted at 07:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC). 2600:1700:87D3:3460:2C3E:9128:A991:DBC1 (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined per above discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Batreeq reported by User:Leechjoel9 (Result:Both blocked 24 hours )

    Page: Asmara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Batreeq (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:

    2023

    1. [33]
    2. [34]
    3. [35]
    4. [36]

    2022

    1. [37]
    2. [38]
    3. [39]
    4. [40]

    2021

    1. [41]
    2. [42]
    3. [43]
    4. [44]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

    Comments:
    Persitent one topic edit warring. User did not reach consensus in 2021 in adding arabic as native language in the info box, has been consitent with edit warring the article since then. User has been reported before for the same issue.Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ad this is happening yet again, and you're both edit warring. You're also both now fully aware of CTOP procedures, and I will be putting a formal warning in the WP:AELOG for both of you. Courcelles (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Courcelles: what are CTOP procedures? Where was I informed of them? I am not aware of what that is. Furthermore, I attempted to engage in dialogue on the article's talk page to no success. I was ignored and then told by the edit warrior, but in an edit summary which is not appropriate (WP:REVTALK), that I need consensus to restore that revision (not true - WP:CONS). Then a block follows as a punishment - WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. I am extremely disappointed and was unjustly blocked. This issue really is a result of the other party refusing talk page dialogue. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 04:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:User10281129 reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    Page: Joseon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User10281129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [47]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [48]
    2. [49]
    3. [50]
    4. [51]
    5. [52]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [55]

    Comments:

    Per previous edit war report. User immediately went back to reinstate their changes after block period ended. There's also substantial evidence that they are a sock: [56]. Qiushufang (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Aoidh (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive reported by User:Throast (Result: Page protected; Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive blocked as a sock)

    Page: The Super Mario Bros. Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, diff

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WP:ONUS

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

    Comments:

    New editor with an evident lack of understanding of core policies and topic-specific guidelines. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 19:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore and PostTrak (include both if available), may be used and placed in the appropriate release or reception-based section, depending on the available context, but the content is not required to be in a "Critical reception" section." You yourself sent me this, I followed the rules, you're just contradicting yourself at this point (as I also wrote in my last post-edit explanation to The Super Mario Bros. Movie), I don't even know why we're making such a problem about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summaries are not the place to carry out content disputes. The quote you are citing is not the one I cited, and it is irrelevant to the dispute. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, this must be some kind of joke, because it's written right here, this is the link you sent me: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Audience_reception Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    EvergreenFir, the subject of this report has been reverted not only by me, but by at least three other editors. Not a single editor was in support of the offending editor's changes, so one could argue that there is already consensus not to include the disputed material. The subject has also turned out to be a sock, see below. Considering these circumstances, I'm not sure if dispute protection is necessary. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 20:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the update re: sockpuppet. I'll undo the protection EvergreenFir (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vipz reported by User:VQuakr (Result: )

    Page: Far-right politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "Returned the pre-Special:Diff/1148403070 lede image, moved the previous one to /* France */, replaced the duplicate in /* United States */ with another. On the talk page at the present - 2 in favor of the Unite the Right lede image, 1 in favor of the France one, 1 stating the France one just meets criteria, others in favor of including an example without clear preference."
    2. 19:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1148697195 by Beyond My Ken (talk) please, never revert without an edit summary."
    3. 14:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Removing the image from lead section altogether, like was done on Far-left politics and discussed on its talk page. Lead images should be fully representative of the topic and one carries an implication such as "<Far-right politics> is *this* (shows what looks like a peaceful demonstration on streets)". Moved that image to the relevant section /* France */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Far-right politics."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 23:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Lead image removal */ re"

    Comments:

    No technical breach of 3RR yet, but clear continuation of edit warring plus lawyer-y behavior, after warning, in a WP:ARBAP2 article. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I will proceed not to touch that article or at very least the lede image in the future. Take into consideration that the 3RR warning by the reporter was placed after the revert asking for edit summary, which I think was unwarranted. –Vipz (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR isn't an entitlement; you shouldn't have made a 2nd let alone a 3rd. VQuakr (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, 2nd and 3rd what? Revert? 3 diffs listed above are all 3 edits in total I have made to the article. 1 was the mentioned revert, 2 were different bold changes. –Vipz (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those three edits are all reverts which you would know if you'd read the notice I gave you after the 2nd one. VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.143.120.165 reported by User:Ɱ (Result: )

    Page: Polyface Farm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 69.143.120.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Warned about removing content numerous times, and attempted to discuss, while further reverts are taking place: User talk:69.143.120.165

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

    Comments:

    Requesting an IP block for this user continuing to remove valid cited content despite a multitude of warnings, different users reverting, and attempts to discuss. ɱ (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1148758678"