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:Affinepplan reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: EC protection, warning)[edit]
Page: Later-no-harm criterion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Affinepplan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 02:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222974899 by Aydoh8 (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 01:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) to 01:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- 01:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "removed irrelevant and unrigorous political commentary"
- 01:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "removed irrelevant and unrigorous speculation about election strategy"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 02:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 02:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "/* This article needs serious revision */"
Comments:
Likely use of anonymous IP edits in attempt to evade 3RR. –Sincerely, A Lime 05:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Aydoh8 who warned @Affinepplan. Sorry you got dragged into this :(
- I believe users @64.112.229.118, @47.230.61.20, @Affinepplan are the same person.
- Short timeline:
- @64.112.229.118 attempts to delete portions of article. Reverted by @Ankermast.
- @64.112.229.118 responds by adding a disparaging Template:Multiple issues message insulting authors of the page. Reverted by me @Closed Limelike Curves.
- @Affinepplan (believed to be same user as above) reverts to restore the template. (1st revert.)
- ~1 week passes, with intervening edits from unrelated users.
- I notice the restored template and revert.
- @47.230.61.20 (believed to be same user) reverts to restore the template. (Second revert, first in 24 hour period.)
- I notice the unusual activity and request page protection, as well as warning @Affinepplan. I do not restore.
- @Aydoh8 takes notice and restores the previous version of the page. @Affinepplan restores (Third revert.)
- @Aydoh8 reverts again and informs @Affinepplan their actions may constitute edit warring. @Affinepplan nevertheless reverts a fourth time, ignoring warning.
- –Sincerely, A Lime 06:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Closed Limelike Curves I was going to bring this to AN3 anyway if they kept going. Looks like they've stopped. I also recommend you file a sockpuppet report at WP:SPI as well. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Result: Since User:Affinepplan and User:Closed Limelike Curves have both edited the artice on May 11 I conclude that the edit war is not over. So I have put extended confirmed protection on the article for one month. That will exclude the main warring parties (and any IPs) from editing the article directly. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page and see WP:DR if you are stuck. User:Affinepplan may have been editing logged-out and they are warned not to continue that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Delores Hilll reported by User:Myrealnamm (Result: No violation)[edit]
Page: Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Delores Hilll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1223356038 by 109.76.198.112 (talk)"
- 15:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1223355380 by 109.76.198.112 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 15:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Reverting Edits */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Reverting "good faith" edits by IP users, and only giving them uw4s. Please check. If I'm wrong, and the IPs are vandalising, then that's a trout for me Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the inaccurate information for this notice. I wasn't familiar with the Edit Warring section in Twinkle. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I cannot believe that anyone who has read the diffs or edit summaries of my changes can actually think my edits were vandalism. We all make mistakes sometimes but my edits were made in in a good faith effort to follow WP:UGC and I clearly explained as much in my edit summaries. Thanks. -- 109.76.198.112 (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The user also reverted my good faith edit here (I removed a link from a word that was literally linked in the previous section) and gave me a uw4 here. This is not edit-warring, of course. This should be moved to ANI. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:ADC9:2C9F:7B0:FC19 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Unfriendnow reported by User:108.35.216.149 (Result: Blocked one week)[edit]
Page: Multiple (see below)
User being reported: Unfriendnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [1] is a partial revert of [2] at Agnelli family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- [3] is a revert of [4] at Andrew Cavendish, 11th Duke of Devonshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- [5] is a revert of [6] at William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- [7] is a revert of [8] at Rose Hanbury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]
Comments:
Since being unblocked (after using a sockpuppet User:Namenotimportant00 to conduct a wide-ranging edit war), four of ten edits have been to continue these edit wars. Of the remaining six, one is a revert of precisely the same nature (but it is a first revert, not a repeat of an earlier reverted edit), one is inappropriate canvassing, and one is the same kind of unsourced trivia that resulted in the block in the first place. 108.35.216.149 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Abhishek0831996 reported by User:Pharaoh496 (Result: )[edit]
Page: Narendra Modi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [11]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]
Comments:
- User is removing important edits on the PM of India's page, who is involved in an election currently.
- He has a history of being biased towards editing.
- He has reverted my edits twice, in which great care had been taken to ensure neutrality
- I wrote a message on his talk page and the guy simply removed it!
- This is the first time im filing such a complaint, so please excuse me if Im doing anything wrong; in which case I shall learn and adapt. I see someone disrupting the process and hence have filed this. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
User:I would be bias if it was allowed reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Indefinitely blocked)[edit]
Page: Australian Labor Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: I would be bias if it was allowed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1223227860
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1223457507
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Australian_Labor_Party#Seeking_a_broad_consensus_to_re-situate_the_ALP's_ideology_in_accordance_to_reliable_sources.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1223460616
Comments:
There is longstanding consensus that the fields in the infobox that the editor is editing should not be modified unless broad consensus is obtained in talk. This is evident by another editor previously placing code in the infobox stating <!-- It is important to seek and gain broad consensus on the article talk page before changing this -->. Editor has ridiculously attempted to reverse the onus to obtain consensus in talk by claimed that others need to obtain consensus for why the editor's changes shouldn't happen. TarnishedPathtalk 08:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Notably after the editor was reverted by an admin after the editor's fourth revert, told to not continue, take it to talk and obtain consensus an IP has shown up and reverted three more times (Special:Diff/1223465905, Special:Diff/1223468614 and Special:Diff/1223476797). In the last edit by the IP they left the edit summary "I don't want an edit war, but Labor has a centrist faction" which is almost identical phrasing that the editor uses on the articles talk page in their edit at Special:Diff/1223479083 when they wrote "Simply put, Labor has Centrist factions. I don't want an edit war". I'm not going to open a SPI between a single account and a single IP for obvious reasons but there certainly is some loud quaking. TarnishedPathtalk 13:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Casteiswrong reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: )[edit]
Page: Snell's law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Casteiswrong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]
Comments:
Reported user is actively edit-warring against several editors (includng me) to impose original research in the article and removes srongly sourced content that has been in the article for a quite long time. They have already been warned by an admin for edit warring and also by me, but they keep going on their disruptive path and made not less than 5 reverts within 24 hours.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Not fair, one user alone is charged with edit-warring while a team of editors with the same objective do not cumulatively break the same rule. This is a conflict between two scholars, Selin and Rashed, where the former is more objective while Rashed adds original research not even mentioned in the original manuscript translation. I am happy to remove all content and just stick the primary source, including my diagram derived from Selin's book and its translation. The readers will decide what to make out of it. Casteiswrong (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are putting your own POV and reverting edits before consensus. The editors have warned you multiple times. Furthermore the issue regarding historicity of Snell's law has already been discussed by wikipedians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Snell%27s_law#Elaborate_on_Ibn_Sahl's_authorship_of_the_law You cannot push your pov by going against the consensus of other editors. Hu741f4 (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)