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:DragionTech007 reported by User:FlightTime (Result:Blocked by Ponyo )

    [edit]

    Page: Cynthia Rothrock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: DragionTech007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Outdated image - Undid revision 1237978648 by FlightTime (talk)"
    2. 13:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237978177 by FlightTime (talk)"
    3. 13:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237429330 by FlightTime (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Disruption 2."
    2. 13:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cynthia Rothrock."
    3. 13:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ + Section header"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: DragionTech007 is now engaging in very obvious WP:QUACK sockpuppetry[1] — Czello (music) 15:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Le Blue Dude reported by User:Hornpipe2 (Result: Warning, Semi)

    [edit]

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

    User being reported: Le Blue Dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC) "Well, how about a compromise? We keep the link but put it behind a trigger warning so that people actually have a warning."
    3. 17:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC) "There is no 'sitewide' consensus about this link. There is probably no other article in this situation where the article does not mention the potential harm that could be caused by viewing the link. It is unfair to include a link that could cause harm without including a warning"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User persistently trying to alter the infobox to remove or alter a link to a site, despite being told repeatedly that this is not how links / infoboxes work Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    sorry I don't know how to use Twinkle I guess! I wanted to add that there is discussion on the talk page about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sinfest#Shouldn't_be_a_direct_link - but that the user continues to make changes despite being told that this isn't how it works Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Elno #2 Le Blue Dude (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    guess you missed the bolded text at the top of WP:ELNO then Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I disagree with your assessment. In the deletion section and also in the talk page this has been discussed and the general consensus is that the link should not be included because the page does not mention the extreme anti-Semitic content of the link in question anywhere on the page. It is harmful to expose people to extreme anti-semitic content without warning. Le Blue Dude (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will let an administrator weigh in on this, but ultimately the back-and-forth is out of control on that page and needs some intervention. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. This is part of why there’s been motion to delete the page. The contents of Sinfest include extreme anti-semitic content and Covid misinformation and the article provides no mention. The sooner an admin sees this and either suspends Wp:or or deletes the article the better. Le Blue Dude (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the consensus of the talk page at all. — Czello (music) 15:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two vs one, and in the delete page more Le Blue Dude (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, Wikipedia isn't a straw poll. Numbers don't mean anything, it's the arguments that matter - and the arguments are particularly weak right now. Secondly I've just waded in, so it's not even 2v1 now. Third, the arguments on the AfD are about deletion, not whether a link should be included. — Czello (music) 15:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now it's 3v2 in favour of inclusion, so that's that. — Czello (music) 15:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FlightTime reported by User:DragionTech007 (Result:Indef partial block of reporter)

    [edit]

    Page: Cynthia Rothrock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237978508 by DragionTech007 (talk)"
    2. 13:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237977812 by DragionTech007 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Disruption 2."
    2. 13:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cynthia Rothrock."
    3. 13:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ + Section header"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: User: FlightTime keeps attempting to revert and insert an outdated infobox image (circa 2018) on Wikipage. Newer image (Jan 2024) has been restored.

    Any passing admin should note that this is clearly a retaliatory report for the discussion above. DragionTech007 is edit warring to insert their own photograph which clearly does not have consensus. — Czello (music) 15:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OP is now engaging in very obvious WP:QUACK sockpuppetry[2] — Czello (music) 15:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Control-alt-delete reported by User:Scope creep (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: German-American Petroleum Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Control-alt-delete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:22:59, 29 July 2024

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:59, 29 July 2024 Addition of unsourced content copied without attribution from another article. Removed it. Left a message on editors talk asking why they were adding unsourced content.
    2. 2 August 2024 Reverted and added back unsourced content.
    3. 00:48, 2 August 2024 Reverted again and added the unsourced content. Removed it. Left a message on editors talk page asking why they are adding unsourced content.
    4. 00:49, 2 August 2024 Left an abusive message on my talk page.
    5. 00:57, 2 August 2024 Reverted again and added unsourced content
    6. 01:03, 2 August 2024 Reverted again and left an abusive message " Still trying to add citations but this moron wants to cause edit conflicts"


    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:
    Left two messages warning the editor over attribution and adding unsourced content. Editor has WP:CIR issues. Editor has been unncessarily abusive. scope_creepTalk 00:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From the get-go this user left very passive aggressive remarks to me. I am still actively adding the citations that are needed. I am thankful that this user spotted the need for citations, however continuously rolling back my edits whilst I am literally in the middle of adding them is highly obstructive. Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 00:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Scope creep, Special:Diff/1238073380 and Special:Diff/1238074434 have probably not been necessary, and the former lacked an explanation. Special:Diff/1238073057 appears to be inaccurate ("Every sentence that is added to Wikipedia needs a reference", "illegal") and unnecessarily hostile (if there are competence issues, merely informing the user about their existence is unlikely to cause any change).
    Control-alt-delete, "this moron" is rather actively aggressive, so I guess you're now even.
    I think whether administrative action is needed depends on whether Scope creep is fine with the result of the edits that followed the edit war, or if there is still disagreement about the inclusion of that paragraph. In that case, I'd enforce WP:ONUS (and potentially WP:BURDEN), requiring Control-alt-delete to gain a consensus for the addition on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with everything you're saying. I admit, I did call him a moron in response to his own tone. I am now finished editing. I have done my best to add good citations, but I would be happy to improve them if needed. I copied some citations from existing citations on existing Wikipedia articles. I have also added 2 new ones from the US military. Please do let me know if you see something I could improve further. Many thanks Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 00:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to point out that @Scope creep claims that this is "his article" and he "doesn't want other people working on it". Tough! That's not keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. I have been a user for probably a decade or two. I rarely edit, but I do not lack the competence. He is far too attached to "his" article. See my talk page for his ridiculous standpoint: User talk:Control-alt-delete - Wikipedia Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Articles I worked on" is a bit different than "my article", and the indirect ownership claims are a relatively small concern to me in this discussion. I'd be more concerned about the wording "low-quality junk", but at the moment, I primarily wonder about Scope creep's opinion about the current state of the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also telling: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive394#c-DovidBenAvraham-2019-08-17T17:08:00.000Z-User:Scope creep reported by User:Lqqhh (Result: both editors advised, discussio Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I've experienced scope_creep's over-protectiveness of articles" from another user in the same thread Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been dozens of issues with this user previously, including issuing him bans:
    scope creep - Search results - Wikipedia Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Control-alt-delete, enough please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree: The editor shouldn't be editing articles. They are not competent. The editor edit-warred to restore unsourced, unlinked, non-attributed content twice instead of discussing it when it was reverted, like normal folk. This is egregious and a clear competency issue. Not being able to interact is problematic. Since I stopped doing anti-vandalism work and stopped working in afc/npp/afd and coin, I tend not to check my watchlist too often and it was sheer chance that I looked at it. It would have sat there unsourced even now, if I hand'nt seen it and left a comment about it. Editors who have to be forced to do the correct thing, shouldn't be on here. The content was copied across really quickly and I think the refs haven't been checked, which are a complete mess, which I'll need to fix on Sunday. The articles now reads 1938 stuff, 1945 stuff, back to 1939 stuff. No attempt to integrate the new content. It has bare urls in a fully cited article, hanging sentences with no closing clauses, a main article tag with no section header. "The introduction of Stutthof concentration camp" with no attached context. I don't even know why that is there. No units for the barrels of oil. It is mess. I will need to fix this. Some stuff will be removed. The editors nature is try and force it through. Its Ani the next time and a block recommendation. The comments above are really really shabby. It sadden's me. The editor jumped to try smear me instead of focusing on the content. Its not a laughing matter. I have no time for this editor. 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
    I have tried to add information to the article, as there was nothing in it about their history during WWII. I did try to talk to you about this on your talk page, but you did not want to talk, you reverted continuously instead - whilst I was actively trying to edit it, you forced multiple edit conflicts. You caused the disruption, you appear to have a history of causing disruption, and you continue to cause a disruption. I am not "forcing content in", I am trying to add key information to the article where there is a gaping hole. I would be pleased to have some help with rewording it, and I am keen to see your results on Sunday, so thank you. Please don't think this is a personal attack that I've edited your article, I hold no grudges, I am just trying to improve your article. Relax - life is good! Sincerely, Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 23:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Ordinarily I'd be blocking both editors, but here C-a-D said in their edit summaries they were planning to add cites in the next edit ... which did nothing to deter Scope Creep from reverting within minutes. This is not how to assume good faith.

    Scope, not everyone likes to add cites with the text. If someone says they're going to do it in their next edit, give them a little time. Don't revert away like some malfunctioning cyborg. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:104.218.69.202 reported by User:Bsoyka (Result: Blocked 24h)

    [edit]

    Page: Rachel Cruze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 104.218.69.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238189408 by Bsoyka (talk)"
    2. 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238085879 by Bsoyka (talk)"
    3. 02:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238085879 by Bsoyka (talk)"
    4. 01:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Rachel Cruze."
    2. 15:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ reply"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 02:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC) on User talk:104.218.69.202 "Warning: Disruptive editing on Rachel Cruze."

    Comments:

    I'm also convinced this might be vandalism, especially based on this edit. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Воскресенский Петр reported by User:Altenmann (Result: Already blocked, as noted)

    [edit]

    Page: Olga Tobreluts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Воскресенский Петр (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [3]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [4]
    2. [5]
    3. [6]
    4. [7]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

    Comment: While I was filing this report, the user was blocked for other violations, but I decided to keep this as a record. - Altenmann >talk 18:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    - Altenmann >talk 18:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked  for a period of 72 hours by Cullen328 for persistently adding unsourced content and making false accusations of vandalism. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TurkeyAndHungry reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: 2024 England riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TurkeyAndHungry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts: August 2-3

    1. 1
    2. 2
    3. 3
    4. 4
    5. 5 (since report)
    6. 6 (since report)

    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:
    New single-issue editor is edit-warring despite warning on talk page and discussion opened on article page. CNC (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    He made a list of changes that he wanted implemented on the TalkPage, so I added all of the changes he asked for and updated the article. Beyond that he has not said why he dislikes my changes after already catering to his requests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkeyAndHungry (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I am not in violation of the 3R rule because I basically implemented all the changes he wanted. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no, you literally clicked the "Undo" button 4 times. It's hard to find a clearer 3RR violation than that. C F A 💬 00:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone point out if I should bother to respond to that? It's not clear if it's worthwhile. CNC (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... And now you're up to 6 reverts. C F A 💬 00:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2403:6200:8864:3F0A:D214:1FDF:9873:D95F ; User:2403:6200:8864:3F0A:A017:3E60:F586:E5F2 reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: Range blocked one week)

    [edit]

    Page: ...I Care Because You Do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2403:6200:8864:3F0A:A017:3E60:F586:E5F2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Though clearly the same user as 2403:6200:8864:3F0A:D214:1FDF:9873:D95F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [9]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [10]
    2. [11]
    3. [12]
    4. [13]
    5. [14]
    6. [15] (since notice of report here)

    (+ similar IP)

    1. [16]
    2. [17]
    3. [18]
    4. [19]
    5. [20]
    6. [21]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23] and [24] Cambial — foliar❧ 13:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1238380224"