Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
| Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
|---|---|---|
|
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
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.
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.
| ||
User:Csw99 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Decline Sock blocked)
[edit]Page: Common gull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Gull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Marco Pierre White (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Sara Haines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Csw99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1][2][3][4]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]
Comments:
This user has spent weeks edit warring on these pages. I found their knowledge of Wiki-specific terminology suspicious for a newer user, so I asked whether they had edited under another account. They refused to answer and suggested it was uncivil to ask that.[7] KyleJoantalk 08:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Declined The editor could certainly stand to benefit from civility lessons. But they have engaged in talk page discussions, and valid points that they seem to have made have not drawn any response yet. One could just as easily report the other editors involved. In fact it seems like it would be a more viable option to full-protect at least some of the pages (common gull, especially) that we might bring other editors into the discussion to better reach a consensus. If you want that, I'll do it.And, really, ANEW is no more the place to make stealth sockpuppetry allegations than SPI is the place to report edit warring. If you think they're a sock of a specific editor, go to the former page and report your suspicions there; if privacy is involved, contact a Checkuser privately. Otherwise, AGF requires that at best you see them as trying to make a clean start. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- The edits summaries and dickish commentary made it clear that this is WP:BKFIP and the technical data bears this out. Blocked indef.-- Ponyobons mots 19:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Ozone742 reported by Objective30000
[edit][8] [9] [10] [11]
All four edits were today during TP discussion, two reverted by an admin. I placed an edit warring warning on their TP suggesting they self-rvt.[12] Response was: I suggest you kick rocks. You know I'm 100% in the right. Try following Wikipedia's polciies sometime instead of threatening people for making important edits.
[13] Never heard of kicking rocks. Think I'll try it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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) 01:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Ozone742 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked one week)
[edit]Page: Tim Walz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ozone742 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 00:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "Pot calling the kettle black. Correcting misinformation on Wikipedia isn't unacceptable."
- 00:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "Previous edit was unacceptable. The rank that Walz held while in the Army National Guard is a contentious topic that many see as important. Including Walz, since he's used it in his political campaigns for years. Labeling CSM as conditional and MSG as retired rank seems the most accurate."
- 23:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "Again, the highest rank Walz attained was Master Sergeant. Not Command Sergeant Major since he failed to fulfill the conditions to hold that rank."
- 23:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "Every source on this matter confirms the fact that Walz only held the rank of CSM conditionally, and he failed to meet those conditions. This is objectively true. Do not change unless you have the ability to change the past. https://apnews.com/article/walz-military-record-national-guard-minnesota-harris-8a74ff39f0a698247b28bf4266f20773"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Snowstormfigorion reported by User:Selfstudier (Result: )
[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: [15]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]
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)
- 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)
User:Factfinderrr reported by User:Remsense (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
[edit]Page: Central Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factfinderrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1246392264 by Fyrael (talk) discussed on talk page, page consistency must be maintained"
- 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Religions */ Improved article consistency-Afghanistan is already discussed in the body of this section. Consensus reached through precedent established in section body approved of and included by other users.Sorted order from highest to lowest demography."
- 16:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1246368620 by Mann Mann (talk) consensus reached based on page consistency and precedent stated in other sections of article and related central asia articles mentioning afghanistan. Discussed further on Talk page"
- 14:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1246243890 by Fyrael (talk)Afghanistan has been referenced numerous times throughout the article. Canadian, New zealand and australian governments class afghanistan as central asian.https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/media/3216, https://aria.stats.govt.nz/aria/#ClassificationView:uri=http://stats.govt.nz/cms/ClassificationVersion/ys69SsOCPi6Mc4jR,https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/classifications/australia"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 11:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Bamyan and Balkh populations */ Reply"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 11:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Bamyan and Balkh populations */ Reply"
Remsense ‥ 论 12:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Offender and adjacent co-editors have a repeated history of not fairly assessing the discussion points brought by users on the talk page of Central Asia Article. As a result stalemate has been prevalent for years, as offender continues to act in bad faith by failing to consider the arguments posited by myself and other users over the years. One user cited 20 credible sources to validate their claim but their argument was rejected with minimal explanation offered. Similarly, I cited 4 government authorities with the offer of providing more but claim was rebuffed with no explanation. Offender is not actively seeking to engage in discourse and purposefully hindering the evolution of the article as well as impairing consistency and accuracy, which was further discussed in the Talk section. Unsure of how to proceed as offender refuses to assess claims fairly or by merit. Offender also removed previous prejudicial remarks from talk thread.
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Courge Marvel reported by User:BOZ (Result: No violation)
[edit]Page: Captain America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Courge Marvel (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:
Comments:
Courge Marvel has been edit warring with User:Morgan695 who put a lot of work into getting Captain America to WP:GA status. They reverted me today saying "Please don't change it or else there will be going to be a war edit." I am only reporting this here because they made a threat to continue edit warring. BOZ (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- This feels like I'm engaging in a very "could Goku beat Superman" type of debate, but: for context, the subject of this dispute is over whether the subject of this article possesses superpowers. Per my comments here, the source currently cited in the article states unambiguously that the character does not possess superpowers. Courge Marvel claims the contrary, ironically citing the exact same source. Morgan695 (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
No violation Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
