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 You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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:Ioan.Church reported by User:Anupam (Result: Page protection raised to EC)
Page: Anabaptist theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ioan.Church (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6][7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Comments:
- User:Ioan.Church has been edit warring to include unsourced information that he bases on 7thdaybaptist.blogspot.com. He has created multiple redirects to the non-notable internet group mentioned in this blogspot website that have been nominated by deletion by other editors. After he was warned by User:Ratnahastin, he responded by mocking that user. AnupamTalk 00:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- None of the links you provided show reverts of the article to the exact same conditions it was before because of intermediate edits by other people. Moreover the reverts are not within 24 hours. In order to meet the criteria for 3 revert rule the article will have to be reverted to the exact same condition 3 times within 24 hours. Your best option is to assume good faith and engage in constructive discussion to arrive at concensus. Concensus means a compromise where all disputing parties let go of bruised egos and give concessions. I have shown time and again that I am ready to do that. Most of my edits are on the talk page not on the article. All that is required here is for you to allow due weight in mention of the minority historical opinion which is represented by more than twice the population as the only 1035 Dunkards whose opinion is currently being presented as if it were the majority. Ioan.Church (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)]
- I suggest an admin check to see if @Ioan.Church has made the reversion by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:2C7:67F:7AD0:A89C:36B1:1E0A:7F8D while logged out, and if the brand new user @Emetpodcast is a duplicate account. It seems very suspicious; both came to the page and made reverts without engaging in the talk page. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you would like that done you need to go to SPI, not here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest an admin check to see if @Ioan.Church has made the reversion by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:2C7:67F:7AD0:A89C:36B1:1E0A:7F8D while logged out, and if the brand new user @Emetpodcast is a duplicate account. It seems very suspicious; both came to the page and made reverts without engaging in the talk page. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
No problem, I am happy for a qualified admin to go ahead and raise a checkuser request on all of us. I have nothing to hide and my edits are all in good faith. Ioan.Church (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Page protected I raised the semi-protection imposed earlier to extended-confirmed for the duration so that Ioan will not be able to edit the page and continue to restore poorly sourced content, or content that misinterprets or misstates what is reported in reliable sources, in keep it that way, Ioan. Your attitude hasn't helped your case here). It would, I imagine, help if more of the editors knowledgeable about this sort of thing were recruited to this discussion to make for a stronger consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]
- @Daniel Case Thank you for stepping in. You are correct that "if more of the editors knowledgeable about this sort of thing were recruited to this discussion to make for a stronger consensus." Three editors disputing a topic is slim "community consensus" at best. But the topic is probably unique enough that getting several more truly knowledgeable editors on board the discussion could be difficult.If disruption continues when protection is over, perhaps that would be the route to take. I did something like that some years ago with another article, but forget the process. Mikeatnip (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
User:JudaPoor reported by User:Redraiderengineer (Result: Pageblocked)
Page: SpaceX Starship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JudaPoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Removed {{Disputed inline}}
- 19:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1213725278...
- 20:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1213727720...
- 12:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1213736039...
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 13:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments:
Multiple editors have engaged in edit warring, but JudaPoor has continued it into the next day. After posting the 3RR warning on their user talk page, they responded, "This was not an edit war." Redraiderengineer (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Pageblocked for two weeks by ToBeFree. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
User:172.58.242.206 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Blocked)
Page: Dan Baker (PA announcer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 172.58.242.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1213943276 by Trlovejoy (talk)"
- 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1213942847 by Trlovejoy (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 01:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Gene Honda."
- 01:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
- 01:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dan Baker (PA announcer)."
- 01:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dan Baker (PA announcer)."
- 01:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Robert Ford (sportscaster)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for puffery and removal of sources. Strictly speaking, they didn't hit 3RR. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
User:DeFacto reported by User:T9537 (Result: Declined, stick to AN)
Page: Shooting of Chris Kaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DeFacto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: | Original before reverts
Diffs of the user's reverts: Revert 1 Revert 2 Revert 3 Revert 4
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: | 3RR Warning Previous
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | Talk Page link showing discussion
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: | ANEW Notice
Comments:
Hi,
My apologies if this isn't the right place or done correctly.
I, among other editors / users, have been attempting to add information to a page, namely the "Shooting of Chris Kaba" page. ( Shooting of Chris Kaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ).
Multiple different editors have added information recently released in the news and by the courts, specifically, the police officers name. This, time and time again, has been undone by a specific user, "Defacto" @DeFacto / DeFacto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This information has been added multiple times by multiple different editors, and each time reverted by this specific user. His argument is that there is no sound policy based reasons for adding it and apparently a consensus hasn't been reached. However, 4 people including myself agreed via the talk page it should be added, it is relevant (and a pretty major part of this case, as it's one of the first times a police officer has been named in a case like this), policies support it and there is precedent. It's publically available information with plenty of sources. We all had a good discussion on the talk page and it's only "DeFacto" that doesn't seem to agree with it being added. And while others including myself have reverted his changes and / or added the information back, he removes it again citing policies relating to biographies of living people.
I'm unsure how we can come to any further of an agreement / consensus to this editors satisfaction, but in my opinion, enough interest / agreement has been shown to add the name. Maybe i'm missing something and i'm wrong here, and that's okay, but i believe the situation needs to be resolved.
Please also see that per this users talk page, it actually seems like "DeFacto" has a history of edit-warring & refusal to accept consensus, resulting in bans.
| Previous Ban | Previous Warning #1 | Previous Warning #2
T9537 (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Declined You're already at AN. Pick one forum only. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
User:181.203.82.37 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Blocked)
Page: Nicole Moreno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 181.203.82.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 04:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC) to 04:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- 04:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC) ""
- 04:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 04:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nicole Moreno."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User:Minchuchui reported by User:北京555 (Result: Partially blocked for 2 weeks; nominator blocked for 2 weeks)
Page: List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Minchuchui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 13 March 2024 (UTC) ""Undid revision"
- 23:07, 15 March 2024(UTC) ""Undid revision "
Diffs of the user's reverts:
北京555 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing the pages List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and The Economist Democracy Index directly. Talk page discussions are unaffected.
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
User:RBG8877 reported by User:Patken4 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: Keith Law (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:RBG8877 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [9]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
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:
- User:RBG8877 keeps adding unencyclopedic, unsourced information to an article of a living person. Patken4 (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I have added a link to the living person's own words as a citation. Sorry but if that isnt "reliable" i dont know what is. RBG8877 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is an obvious MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]
- This is an obvious
- Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Mushy Yank reported by User:Counterfeit Purses (Result: Declined)
Page: Shariq Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mushy Yank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [15] reverting redirect (AFD closure)
- [16] revert, no talk page discussion
- [17] revert, no talk page discussion
- [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: [18]
Comments:
The article was redircted as the result of an AFD in December. Since then, another film which includes Shariq Hassan in the cast has been released. Mushy Yank apparently feels that this negates the AFD. They have signaled their intention to edit war in the statement "NO. This is a useless bureaucratic action. The subject"s notability HAS CHANGED. Even the Afd itself makes a case for a standalone page. JUST READ IT and read the guidelines about page recreations. Thank you"
. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:G4and its restrictions. You're practically requesting a G4 deletion in a case that isn't covered by the policy: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." This may well be the case, and discussion instead of speedy deletion (or blanking/redirecting) is the best approach in such a situation.
- If you believe the article needs to be redirected again, please start another deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) +1 I had just finished typing out a long decline saying the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Heh, thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) +1 I had just finished typing out a long decline saying the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
User:FMSky reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: )
Page: Sweet Baby Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FMSky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Multiple, see inline below.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:50, 17 March 2024 Restored a NPOV/POV tag he had added several hours earlier, after it was removed by another editor
- 05:06, 18 March 2024 Partially restored of an earlier version that was reverted for being a close paraphrase
- 15:42, 18 March 2024 Partially reverted text that had previously been removed for proseline issues, as a result partially restoring text from the edit at 05:06, 18 March.
- 18:00, 18 March 2024 Restored the exact same text from the 15:42, 18 March edit after it had been reverted by another editor
- 19:16, 18 March 2024 Removed text that had been added over two edits on 11 March and 14 March
- 19:20, 18 March 2024 Partially reverted to restore text from 19:16, 18 March edit after it had been undone
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 01:43, 17 March 2024 3RR warning yesterday, after a violation of 3RR, resolved by FMSky self-reverting
- 21:54, 17 March 2024 3RR warning yesterday, after another violation of 3RR, edit was undone by another editor and FMSky acknowledged as "already done"
- 18:12, 18 March 2024 3RR warning today, after another violation of 3RR, acknowledged by FMSky as "This wasnt an edit war, i suggested multiple different versions"
- 19:31, 18 March 2024 Second 3RR warning today
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]
Comments:
FMSky has now received 4 3RR warnings in the last 48 hours, made by my count 6 reverts in the last 24 hours, and at least 11 reverts in the last 48 hours. 4 of which were for content removed on good-faith BLP objections (see diffs in warning #1). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- yes like already stated on my talk page, these were all separate issues in different sections of the article. I didn't edit war to restore same versions over and over again. FMSky (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:3RR]
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. 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.
(emphasis from the original). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)- How is it even a revert if I made completely seperate unrelated edits to the page? However, I get that people dont like my edits on this page for whatever reason, and will stay away from the article for the near future --FMSky (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per Help:Reverting
reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version.
Each of the diffs listed above restore the text of the article to an earlier revision of the article, some of those earlier revisions (like for diffs 2, 3, 4, and 6) were edits by yourself from earlier today or yesterday that had themselves been undone by other editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per Help:Reverting
- How is it even a revert if I made completely seperate unrelated edits to the page? However, I get that people dont like my edits on this page for whatever reason, and will stay away from the article for the near future --FMSky (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per
- Sideswipe9th and FMSky, the article would likely benefit from others being able to edit it without interference from both of you, who have reverted and edited quite assertively there in the last days. Can you both step back from the article for a week? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- That was actually what I was originally thinking. A self-imposed 1 week topic ban. Would be better for my health too lmao --FMSky (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm don't think I agree with your reading of the situation here. Yes I've been assertive on my reverts against FMSky over the last two days, but I'm not the only editor who has been reverting FMSky. Yes I've made six reverts in the same time period, however two of those are exempt from the edit-warring policy per WP:BLPRESTORE, and one was because FMSky was adding content against a rough consensus. Only one other editor has been reverted in the same time period, by another editor, for introducing phrasing that was unverifiable to the sources. The issue at play here surrounding edit warring from FMSky in a contentious topic formed part of the basis of his indef AE TBAN from Operation Underground Railroad and Tim Ballard, and his 1 year ANI TBANfrom transgender-related topics. I would argue that this is more of the same behaviour in a closely adjacent culture war topic.
- However if after reading what I've said in the paragraph above you truly think it would be helpful for me to step away from the article for a few days to a week, then sure I'll do so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
adding content against a rough consensus
Just a quick note that this consensus doesn't actually exist and this part was even previously inserted by a user who is on your side of the "culture war" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Baby_Inc.&diff=next&oldid=1213417205 --FMSky (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)- Another example of a recent user complaing about bias on this site: 1. The only people who are still in favor of supressing the information are basically Sideswipe9th and Aquillion. I think an RfC could solve all the problems --FMSky (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
User Rhain just violated 3RR too (1, 2, 3, 4) -- FMSky (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Then it would be a good idea to let him know on his talk page and give him a chance to self-revert. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I also find it a bit concerning that Sideswipe9th seems to want to silence every user not agreeing with their viewpoint, having already filed a report for another user yesterday and proposing excessive topic bans https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1214137303 Its getting increasingly hard to believe this user is acting in good faith --FMSky (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- FMSky is a very blatant POV editor on this topic who has been actively trying to push the usage of unreliable sources on the talk page for a couple days now. They have been edit warring with multiple editors in order to try and push claims in the article proper that are either not supported by the reliable sources used or trying to utilize aforementioned unreliable sources. SilverserenC 00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Tdadamemd19 reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: Sock indeffed)
Page: Solar System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tdadamemd19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "DUMMY EDIT - Robynthehode (talk), the WP:Rollback policy you cite clearly states at the very top that "occasional exceptions may apply". Yet for some reason, you present it as some kind of absolute. This likewise ingnores WP:IAR. The ultimate Wikipedia Policy. I presented very clearly my rationale for reverting. The info continues to be LACKING in this article. Nowhere presented visually."
- 17:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214384087 by Remsense (talk) Talk Section added. Please read the argument for keeping this before anyone here acts on any urge to revert this vital info. Alternatively, if anyone has a better image to convey this info, I would be ALL FOR THAT. The argument is that something is better than nothing."
- 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214382646 by Remsense The entire world has visceral experience with a football field. A soccer pitch is essentially the same size. And a yard is not a foreign concept either, as it too compares quite closely with a meter. As for being unencyclopedic in style, I suggest to all that this is a WORTHWHILE compromise, until such a more 'professional looking' image is made. The INFO is far more valuable."
- Consecutive edits made from 16:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) to 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- 16:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Distances and scales */ It has been a decade since this image was published to Wikipedia. It is a rare depiction of BOTH sizes AND distances shown to scale. This is information which has been lacking in this article. Images presented to the public here have shown only one or the other. Never both. It is high time that this image be included here. This is VITAL info to be included in this article. It is one thing to say it in words, but quite another to actually show it visually."
- 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Distances and scales */ Adding link to an article which explains how the human eye sees, with background objects toward the distant 'vanishing point' appear much smaller than objects in the foreground."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User:Rambling Rambler reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: )
Page: Haiti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rambling Rambler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]
Comments:
User's consistent removal of cited work in
Furthermore, upon user's third reversible, instead of engaging in the article's talk page with me, user was preoccupied making an edit change to another article I had recently edited by altering my wording which is in direct relation to the aforementioned article. (See: Jimmy Chérizier user's edit], my edit). Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is no violation of the 3RR here, because it's only on the 4th revert that it becomes a technical infringement. Furthermore, I agree with Rambling Rambler that the added material is not of sufficient importance to include in the lead of this sovereign state article. I suggest you engage with the dialogue on the talk page and refrain from re-adding it unless there's a consensus. — Amakuru (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)