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:Snowstormfigorion reported by User:Selfstudier (Result: Blocked from page for a month

    [edit]

    Page: 1948 Arab–Israeli War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Diff 1
    2. Diff 2
    3. Diff 3
    4. Diff 4



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [4]

    Comments:

    In response to a request to self revert, reported editor commented on my talk page that I was being disruptive, see here. I have made exactly one revert on the page and otherwise have not edited the article in 2024. Editor clearly has no intention of arriving at a consensus and simply wishes to impose their view on the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As stated in the talk page discussion, the article in question is a WP:CTOP, WP:ARBPIA article. An editor has made a major change, a valid, WP:BOLD one at that, to the article on the second. As per WP:CON, I objected to the change and restored to status quo providing a reasoning in the edit summary and the talk page. This was preceded by another editor undoing my revision and rightfully so due to not providing a rationale then. From there, a consensus-building process commenced in the talk page. In the midst of the former, Selfstudier implements one of the options discussed claiming that "consensus on the talk page seems clear" when only a handful of editors were involved and discussion was just in its beginning phases regarding, again, a major change to a high priority article, which should involve wide community and editorial consensus, and accuses me of long-term edit warring. As for the latter, whether I'm to blame for or not is up to the reviewing admin(s) to decide. As for their claim of me merely wanting to impose my view, it's utterly untrue. And concerning the disruptive annotation, it was as per WP:NHC pertaining to Selfstudier disrupting the consensus-developing procedure, which as stated in the article's talk page, may lead to a WP:RFC. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this article is, due to its long-term CTOPS status (and, not noted above, but this is intensified by the above dispute involving the infobox, another contentious topic area), the best resolution I see at the moment is to go to 0RR regarding the infobox image. No reverting without consensus. Get other editors involved in this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowstormfigorion, you tell Selfstudier on Talk that "it’s not your jurisdiction to decide that consensus has been reached in an ongoing discussion". But nor is it in your own jurisdiction to decide that 9 days of discussion (sic) between 6 editors is not enough. To implement the five-to-one (with you being the one) consensus at that point seems reasonable to me. And disagreeing with you, as all the other editors on Talk do, is not equivalent to "disrupting the consensus-developing procedure", however long you would like it to go on for. Nobody has violated WP:3RR, but I have blocked you from the article for a month for disruptive editing. I came here to tell you so, but found Daniel Case had already gone to 0RR. Do you wish to maintain that restriction, Daniel, now that Snowstormfigorion is page blocked? IMO it's only Snowstormfigorion, nobody else, who has been reverting against consensus. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Alright, I was unaware that you had chosen that route. With one editor barred from it the problem won't be happening for a while. So I will lift that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen: the former file existed as the article's infobox image for nearly two decades, so yes, changing it, as Daniel Case have suggested, should involve a wider community consensus; and again, given the article's CTOP and ARBPIA position. Also, if consensus is determined towards a collage, which images to be used should be also. Since, as mentioned in the article's talk page, one of the images is a cropped duplicate of one already in use in the body, and a picture of soldiers smiling and chatting isn't a fitting choice for representing a war of such scale and magnitude in my opinion, either. As everyone knows, this topic gets a lot of people riled up, so many editors choose to skip the former procedures, which the purpose of my reverts was to realize. Now, I understand if it came across as malicious or edit warry, but that was truly not my intention. If you feel it warrants blocking me from the page for a month, then fine, I won't contest that, but the only thing I ask for is at least for the infobox image to be restored to the former version in order for appurtenant consensus, on all regards, to be made. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.234.164.132 reported by User:FifthFive (Result: Pages protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Elkhorn High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 174.234.164.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC) "Created the page (stop editing it)"
    2. 23:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC) "Created the page (scoured for two days, found no relevant information/pages)"
    3. 23:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 22:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC) on User talk:174.234.164.132 "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    Page protected for 3 months. Both redirect and target. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scatman.27 reported by User:Zacwill (Result: Partially blocked 1 year)

    [edit]

    Page: Randolph Churchill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Scatman.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [5]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [6]
    2. [7]
    3. [8]
    4. [9]
    5. [10]
    6. [11]
    7. [12]
    8. [13]
    9. [14]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    See: Talk:Randolph Churchill#Avoiding edit war

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

    Comments:

    This user has taken exception to a phrase in the Randolph Churchill article that he deems to be excessively humorous and has engaged in a slow-motion edit war in an effort to remove it, in spite of a consensus in favour of inclusion. His edits have been reverted by five other users. Zacwill (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Scatman.27, this is neither vandalism nor trolling; it lacks bad faith. You've been doing this for years as shown in the diffs above; please find something else to contribute about. You have made your point. The Task Center and the community portal contain helpful ideas for improving the encyclopedia by editing one of the 6,885,961 other articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zacwill, I hope someone else than you performs the next revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been a very tedious episode. I've just added some more comment to the talk page after opening another book.Paulturtle (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Themiromusic reported by User:162 etc. (Result: Declined – malformed report)

    [edit]

    Page: Fernando Garibay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Themiromusic (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. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]



    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: [diff]

    Comments:

    @Bbb23: Apologies for the malformed request. A look at the article history will confirm what I'm referring to. 162 etc. (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The warring goes back over a month it seems. With no talk page discussion. It looks more like a candidate for full protection or maybe a 1RR restriction. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Necatorina reported by User:Zefr (Result: partially blocked 24h)

    [edit]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "I think I have explained myself several times. Stop edit warring."
    2. 00:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "It is regarded as a toxin by American govt organisations, not a neutral point of view. Adding American-only sources do not improve the article. Undid revision 1247361764 by Zefr (talk)"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 23:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC) to 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      1. 23:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247284481 by 65.206.92.82 (talk)"
      2. 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Health and safety */There are many chemicals used in dry cleaning. Just because some dry cleaners got cancer, doesn't mean that tetrachloroethylene caused it. They are also normal people, so they do smoke and drink alcohol. Both are known to cause various types of cancer. Animal researches aren't reliable for humans (remember : chocolate is toxic for dogs but not for humans)."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing fringe theories on Tetrachloroethylene."
    2. 01:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tetrachloroethylene."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Industry Bias */ Reply"

    Comments:

    User has the adverse opinion that respected scientific government sources are not valid sources, and has warred far beyond the 24-hour 3RR. User is further ignoring mainstream science. User has not attempted to build consensus on the talk page, and instead has taken combative, uncivil positions that opposing editors using reputable sources have a wrong interpretation of the affirmed toxicity of the substance discussed in the article. Zefr (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Government organisations cannot be reliable for scientific matters. It is not "uncivil" to remove biased text with unreliable sources. Necatorina (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours from editing only the tetrachloroethylene article. The rest of Wikipedia is still availabe for Necatorina to edit. I will add: If you are going to argue against established Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:MEDORG, then you should do so on the guideline talk page, not by edit-warring or making statements on talk pages and edit summaries that fly in the face of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JerrySlimefeld reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked two weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Nicholas Alahverdian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Talk Page discussion of this edit has already occurred. If you would like to contribute, go to the talk page. Continued Vandalism will result in a ban from editing."
    2. 18:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "If you would like to discuss the potential for putting a picture of the former Vice President in the article, please go to the talk page. Wikipedia is about collaboration so don't be afraid to speak up."
    3. 16:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Please go to the talk page if you would like to discuss the addition of a picture of Mike Pence to this article."
    4. 16:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Removed vandalism by user Just Step Sideways. Please post on the talk page why you think a picture of Mike Pence is appropriate for this article (it is not)."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nicholas Alahverdian."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Image of Alaverdian with Mike Pence */ new section"

    Comments:

    Reverting back to this version. MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lazered 99 reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Minato Namikaze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lazered 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: original redirect page (redirect to List of Naruto characters).

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. First edits by edit warrer
    2. revert by I dream of horses
    3. revert to preferred version by Lazered
    4. revert to redirect by me
    5. revert to preferred version by Lazered
    6. second revert by me
    7. third revert to preferred version by Lazered
    8. third revert to redirect by me (see note below)
    9. final revert by Lazered



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17] (not technically a uw-3RR, but plain text with the same gist.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18] (note on user's talk page rather than article talk page, explaining why the edit was inappropriate (mostly for WP:N and MOS:INUNIVERSE problems).

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

    Comments:

    Note: I did technically revert this user's edits 3 times, but the third time was to revert what I perceived as a simple page blanking (here), but the user had restored their content before my revert, resulting in an edit conflict and somewhat confusing page history. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1247550205"