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:Wuerzele reported by User:NatGertler (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Public domain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wuerzele (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. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Public_domain#Public_domain_by_medium

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

    Comments:
    Non-3RR edit warring. Editor is repeatedly placing off-topic material in the article, and their only post to the talk page since disagreements began addresses none of the concerns]. This is not someone who is participating in discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nat Gertler has reverted sourced content four times, not productively contributing and is editwarring. He is displaying ownership issues.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs please? Given that I've only edited that article three times in the last three months and given that one was a revert that had no source, it's a pretty hard statement to push. And the two "sourced" additions were not relevant to the page, as I appropriately brought up on the Talk page. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:34, 3 November 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. And it seems like people have rediscovered the value of talk pages here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, this was an edit-warring report, not 3RR. And the individual still refuses to discuss the edits; their only entry onto the page was to a request that I not address his added material, which is not a discussion aimed at settling matters. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes we consider these reports as edit warring outside the context of 3RR, usually if the reporter has framed it that way and explained why. But in this case you offered only three diffs that did not meet the criteria for 3RR. How else did you expect it to be evaluated?
    Anyway, things seem to have calmed down after Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page post. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    well, @Daniel Case, Nat Gertler got what he wanted: He reverted a fourth time. He does not add text, but reverts. Wuerzele (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit summary summed it up as "how was I to know you wanted this to be anything other than a 3RR report?", and I think that what I'd posted here, starting with "Non-3RR edit warring", seems clear. This was a user who was repeatedly reinserting the same material and avoiding discussion. Now you note that he has entered discussion, but not to answer the concerns raised by myself and now an other editor, that the material is not relevant to the topic of the article. His posts instead obsess on whether I am adding text to the article, which is irrelevant to the question at hand and not truly discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you thought of getting a third opinion or some other method of extended dispute resolution, if you feel this impasse exists?
    And I have reviewed many reports where people say something like "While this user hasn't violated 3RR, they ..." That is the kind of language that is helpful. Simply saying "non-3RR edit warring" in the boilerplate is likely to get missed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a third person already in the discussion, now. While Wuerzele's discussion is not in a productive form, has not reinserted the material since the entrance of this third person. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nat Gertler, you got your reverting will and this entire time you are entirely unproductive on the page. Wuerzele (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WeAreFamily1996 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: WeAreFamily1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 23:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 23:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255618000 by Soetermans (talk)"
    5. 20:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255606777 by Adamstom.97 (talk)"
    6. 19:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255516654 by Adamstom.97 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    New-ish user who claims to work on the show and has repeatedly added a composer to the infobox field. Despite warnings and a talk page discussion, they continue all the same. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit: "new-ish" user, they apparently had to change their username in the past. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Iaof2017 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked 24h)

    [edit]

    Page: 2021 Albanian parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Iaof2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor recently popped up on my watchlist when they carried out significant expansions of two articles. However, the expansions contained multiple issues that I attempted to fix. My attempts to do this were repeatedly blindly reverted, with Iaof2017 reinserting clearly incorrect information into 2021 article several times. They have now violated 3RR on the article despite being asked on numerous occasions to stop reverting.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:01, 6 November 2024
    2. 18:38, 6 November 2024
    3. 18:45, 6 November 2024
    4. 06:39, 7 November 2024

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been repeatedly asked to follow WP:BRD and not blindly revert edits,[6][7][8][9][10] but has ignored most messages and deleted them from his talk page without responding.[11][12]

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

    Comments:

    I have invested significant time and effort into improving the article, with the intention of nominating it for Good Article (GA) status, as I also did with the 1991 Albanian parliamentary election article. Instead of making unnecessary and disruptive edits, such as replacing the detailed infbox, which is more appropriate, and adding the "Notes" section twice, which was both out of place and redundant, I encourage you to recognize the positive contributions I have made. Iaof2017 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Santiegomartin555 reported by User:JeffUK (Result: Blocked one week)

    [edit]

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

    User being reported: Santiegomartin555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
    2. 11:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Added contents"
    3. 10:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Added contect"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ulm."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User not engaging on talk page. Probably just not hearing us! JeffUK 12:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They've just appeared on their talk page, as a new user I've tried to explain why what they're doing is wrong, Technically breached 3RR already but if they don't continue then this can probably be resolved without sanctions. JeffUK 12:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore that! Just realised they edited in the random person yet again. I can't revert this time myself, it's not quite falling under the BLP exemption. JeffUK 12:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Masataka Ohta reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    [edit]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "undo changes ignoring the most recent (in 2023 before my recent change) discussion on talk"
    2. 13:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1256142515. Though I'm not sure what "secure agreement " means, my revision is basedby MrOllie (talk)"
    3. 12:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision claiming (by talk) as if a "binary digit" is a digit and, thus, must be a decimal digit by (talk)"
    4. 11:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "As wikipedia page on Tukey and bit (He attributed its origin to John W. Tukey, who had written a Bell Labs memo on 9 January 1947 in which he contracted "binary information digit" to simply "bit") do confirms a fact"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bit."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 12:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Revisions to lead */ new section"

    Comments:

    User:Jmjfat reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

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

    Previous version reverted to: [14]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]
    4. [18]



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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

    Comments:

    User seems to WP:OWN the page with a past history that has led to WP:COI warnings. Is insisting that court evidence is required to include a discussion of a labour dispute reported in Pravda Ukraine. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not insisting court evidence needs to be provided, I am disputing the reliably of sources that can all be traced back to the same anonymous testimony of a former employee. I demand that the information be either referenced by another independant source, or not mentionned in the article. Jmjfat (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are edit warring and acting like you own the page - you should self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are here to present factual information, not unsubstantiated rumours. Jmjfat (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1256362397"