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:7amzah Alblooshi reported by User:Golikom (Result: Blocked indef and page deleted)

    [edit]

    Page: Balush (tribe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 7amzah Alblooshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC) "I am a balushi from al dhahirah do you think you know our origins more than us? I told you about the migration it’s based on the old British documents and the origins are from zahran not al zaffa"
    2. 11:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC) "Bro balush are not descended from zaffa clan it’s just similar names, the stuff I upload are from British documents not from me"
    3. 09:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 09:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Balush (tribe)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 05:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC) on User talk:7amzah Alblooshi "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bani Kaab."

    Comments:

    additionally a lot of the text being added seems to be copyvio from here - https://www.agda.ae/en/catalogue/tna/fo/1016/313/n/288

    Was also warned for edit warring by another user yesterday Golikom (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm that other user - we've seen huge problems generally with UAE family articles (in particular, funnily enough, Al Balushi) where users come in with the 'I'm an xxx from yyy and I know my history' OR arguments. This editor is bent particularly out of shape and I stepped back precisely because reverting (and explaining the reversions) the OR additions was getting us nowhere. So glad another editor has stepped in!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely and page deleted. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sobek2000 reported by User:Acolex2 (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: List of ancient Egyptian royal consorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sobek2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

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

    Comments:

    User:Sobek2000 is reverting the page without completing the discussion on Talk:List of pharaohs.

    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 they also seem to have started discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:903:4000:6960:2AAA:54E:A984:6269 reported by User:QEnigma (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2601:903:4000:6960:2AAA:54E:A984:6269 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262293062 by QEnigma (talk) Again, I provided further details in the talk page. The script is the source. Please read before reverting."
    2. 17:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC) "Added with further details in talk page"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    IP user. Using 2 different IPs. Edit warring and reverting. Please refer to [6] and [7]. QEnigma (talk) 19:52, 10 December 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. Only two reverts, and let's not call them "IP hoppers" when it's clear that, like many IPv6 users, their ISP makes use of that namespace to basically assign them a particular /64 range via dynamic IP. If they do eventually break 3RR or edit war across multiple articles (a possibility suggested by the /64's contributions, all of which focus on the PotC film franchise), then we can and will block the range. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Http iosue reported by User:Mach9Wikia (Result: Blocked one week)

    [edit]

    Page: One True King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Http iosue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [8]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [9]
    2. [10]
    3. [11]
    4. [12]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

    Comments:

    User 'Http iosue' is repeatedly vandalizing and removing information on the One True King Wikipage, even after the page went into protected mode. The user appears to have been suspended before for the same actions and appears have to reverted the same changes 40+ times.

    Mach9Wikia (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Mach9Wikia[reply]

    User:115.147.13.116 reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: Page protected for six months as CTOPS action)

    [edit]

    Page: Carlo Maria Viganò (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 115.147.13.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [16]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [17]



    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:

    In early October, I reported User:CoptEgypt136 for edit-warring over the lead image at Carlo Maria Viganò. My report may be found here. CoptEgypt136 was warned by Firefangledfeathers [18], who then blocked them after they reverted again. A couple of days ago, the lead image in the article was reverted once more, this time by an IP. (See diff above.) The IP only has edits to three other articles, but two of them, List of Filipino cardinals and Pablo Virgilio David, are articles that CopyEgypt136 has recently edited. It is practically certain that the IP and CoptEgypt136 are the same person. I request further action by an administrator to prevent continued disruption. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected for six months and logged at CTOPS under BLP. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beshogur reported by User:Cinderella157 - 1RR applies (Result: Warned user(s))

    [edit]

    Page: Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [19] Revision as of 18:38, 11 December 2024. Edit summary: what an oversimplification without an explanation. restore old revision
    2. [20] Revision as of 06:46, 12 December 2024. Edit summary: please see talk. nothing to do with this. stop misleading people.

    Comments:

    1RR applies to this article. It is a c-topic (WP:ARBAA2 and WP:GS/AA) it is also related to the Syrian civil war (broadly construed) which is similarly designated. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My first edit was not a revert if you look carefully. I took stuff from an old revision. You're trying to getting me blocked? Also you're misleading people with the disputed region thing. I wonder how other users didn't address to that. Beshogur (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beshogur: If you're restoring an old revision, how is that not a revert? Cinderella157, can you please point out the version Beshogur is supposedly reverting to in their first edit?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't restored an old revision, I took stuff from an old revision. Also this user's edits are very erroenous, comes directly here without even using the talk page. Beshogur (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, this is the version that existed before I made any edits to the page. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cinderella157: That's not what I asked for.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are substantially reverting to the territorial changes and location parameters as reported in that version. Save that one dot point is omitted it is (as far as I can see) a verbatim copy of that text. Their initial edit was manual. I do not know what version they copied this text from or if there is a version which excludes the third dot point. It is nonetheless a revert in part (almost totally) to an earlier version for these two parameters. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a version that's nine months or so old. Unless they had reverted to that version specifically, wiping out all the intervening revisions, it's a little hard to count that as a revert based on what you've said so far. A poorly-advised change, no doubt, but not the same thing.
    All the same, I would point out that since the edits involve the infobox, an additional contentious topic area (WP:CT/CID) is implicated. So there's not a lot of latitude here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A series of amendments (including addition of a new section to the body) concludes with this edit Text for the two parameters has been stable since, without change until now. The version I linked represents the status qou for these parameters before the change. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the status quo. This article is years old, stood like this until you removed it to "simplify" things. I haven't been following this article for a year maybe, just checked and saw that those got removed. As I explained your edits were wrong, I restored some stuff. The confict didn't happen in Nagorno-Karabakh (ie. disputed region) alone, and the 73% is totally wrong. See the talk page. You didn't even bother to reply. Beshogur (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beshogur has partially reverted Special:Diff/1216610007 from April in Special:Diff/1262492981, including exact reference syntax/code I found through WikiBlame ("Azerbaijan regains control of 5 cities..." is identical). Their edit summary indicates awareness of having (partially) restored something that was later removed, (partially) undoing someone else's contribution. The article has the required editnotice about the one-revert restriction and Beshogur is formally aware of WP:CT/A-A since having been notified in Special:Diff/1060998642. Thus, this is a 1RR violation and Beshogur is warned for it. Not with a formal entry at WP:CTLOG (unless this is further disputed, in which case I'll do so to clarify that I really mean this, and to allow formally appealing the warning). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I haven't reverted any edit of Cinderella157 or checked, so it's not a revert. I took stuff from a random diff. I saw some stuff was missing and misleading, so I restored some. It's not that I targeted Cinderella157's edits. I later found out that Cinderella157 did those edits. Anyways, another user also pointed out that Cinderella157's 73% and location things are wrong.[21] Beshogur (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beshogur, this isn't even about intent. According to the policy against edit warring, An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. By taking content from a previous revision to re-add it to a page that currently lacks it, you are inevitably undoing the removal. When this is reverted on a page with a one-revert restriction, you may not revert the revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree: that's nonsense. The first edit was not a revert, per Daniel Case's comment above.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, Daniel Case's main argument seems to be the age of the original revision, which doesn't seem to be a policy-based exclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I never said that was categorically not a revert. All I was trying to say was that based on the vague information we have been given, I couldn't clearly see the original edit as a revert. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously announced, I have now logged this as a formal warning which can be formally appealed if it seems unjustified. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why this needs to be logged. Also another user pointed out as well that Cinderella157's edits were not correct. It stood here for months. And why is appealing so complicated? Beshogur (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter whether the edit has been correct. It doesn't matter how old the reverted edit was. Compared to these basics, I have to admit appealing is complicated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tataral reported by User:Golikom (Result: Warned user(s))

    [edit]

    Page: Anti-gender movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Golikom: Revert disruptive POV edits and the false claim of bizarre, long-winded, and poorly constructed framing of gender-critical feminism (the article's actual title) as 'radical critiques of transgender rights within certain feminist discourses' being 'established.' This framing is not established; it was literally added just days ago with the misleading edit summary 'Minor changes,' and is only pushed by the new editor."
    2. 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC) "fix pov edits by disruptive new editor"
    3. 16:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262205121 by Golikom (talk). Unhelpful rewriting by new account. Take any proposals to talk."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Anti-gender movement."
    2. 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Anti-gender movement."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 03:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Lead */ new section"

    Comments:

    Editor repeatedly restoring their reverted edits to the established lead using misleading edit summaries. Ignores WP:BRD. has not responded on talk Golikom (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • User:Golikom is engaged in edit warring to change gender-critical feminism (the article's actual title) to "radical critiques of transgender rights within certain feminist discourses", a phrasing that is is not "established" (like they falsely claim), is very poorly worded and was literally added days ago with the blatantly misleading edit summary 'Minor changes," and is only pushed by that editor. Instead of bringing up their proposals on talk, they have chosen to engage in edit warring, also after repeated warnings. --Tataral (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What rubbish. I started a discussion on talk - you did not respond but continued to revert. The lead has ben like that for three weeks, and that's not the only change you are making with your edits either. You've ignored WP:BRD throughout. Golikom (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, you made multiple reverts with no discussion (all of these without any discussion: [22], [23], [24], [25]), to change the phrasing to a very poorly constructed one (instead of the article title). The changes you are edit warring to enforce were only added recently with a blatantly false, deceptive edit summary, and the content you are removing has been in the lead for literally years. You need to bring your proposal to change that up on talk instead of edit warring. --Tataral (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I started a discussion. You have ignored it and continued to revert, and only contributed after being reported for edit warring here. What you're restoring is not the lead that's been there for years, you're making edits to the current version that has been stable for several weeks, and you're adding undue material.
      I agree that the edit summary when the lead was revised looks disingenuous, but that wasn't by me, so it's not really relevant here.
      Again, you've ignored WP:BRD throughout Golikom (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are the only editor pushing these edits, which are very bad, very poorly worded, and introduced deceptively only recently, so the edits are your responsibility. I have told you to bring it up on talk. You did finally start a discussion after about four reverts, and I have responded to that. --Tataral (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are the only editor pushing the change to the revised lead. You're not restoring what was there before. You made no effort to discuss in talk or observe WP:BRD but tried to bludgeon your changes through by edit warring and a load of dubious edit summaries. Golikom (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to make sense of the edit history on that article. It does seem to have had some really quite bad edits recently which I am trying to work out. Tataral is trying to get things back on track and Golikom should have stopped trying to defend an obviously bad text with obfuscation/euphemism and blind links over clear and specific writing. I think more needs to be reverted too. That said, nobody should be breaking the 3RR even when they are obviously in the right over the actual content. --DanielRigal (talk)
    I don't acutally have an issue with that part of the revision - it's the undue emphasis of far right being added in the lead - which I discussed in talk and which was completely ignored by Taratal when she finally contributed to that discussionGolikom (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.100.32.210 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Page already protected; blocked 24 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Luigi's Mansion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 75.100.32.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262877032 by 1ctinus (talk) See previous revision of mine"
    2. 09:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262827927 by Sjö (talk) See previous revision of mine"
    3. 09:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262817368 by Sjö (talk). There is a legitimate chance of confusion between "Luigi's Mansion" and "Luigi Mangione" due to the similarity between the names! Hence the disambiguation."
    4. 08:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262799671 by ThomasO1989 (talk)"
    5. 04:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 09:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Luigi's Mansion."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User did not try to use article talk page and did not respond on own user talk. Sjö (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The page was already semi-protected at the time of the report. I have added a 24-hour block on the IP address as the same edit had been made to other pages too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MoeTheMan2015 reported by User:Rillington (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: ITV Sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: MoeTheMan2015 (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. [26]
    2. [27]
    3. [28]
    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:
    I tidied up content added by MoeTheMan2015 to the ITV Sport article as I felt it was long-winded and that poor grammar was being used. The content, whilst mostly accurate, is also fully unsourced. MoeTheMan2015 reverted the changes, and also reverted other changes that I made to try to accommodate the content, but in a more precise manner. This user also leaves aggressive comments regarding the reverting of my edits. This editor has already acknowledged that this editor is edit warring so I feel that here is the correct place to ask for an intervention to resolve this.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1263066360"