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:97.181.253.59 reported by User:GSK (Result: Blocked )

    [edit]

    Page: Tron: Ares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 97.181.253.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288016296 by MikeAllen (talk) Stop It!"
    2. 21:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287932774 by MikeAllen (talk)"
    3. 06:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287900180 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    4. 03:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287854795 by Rusted AutoParts (talk)"
    5. 21:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287761691 by MikeAllen (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    The ip is also edit warring on 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple as well Untamed1910 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It might help if you pinged Acroterion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've converted it to a site block. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alex_21 & User:81.104.94.127 reported by User:Rambling Rambler (Result: Stale)

    [edit]

    Page: Lux (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Alex_21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 81.104.94.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Alex_21

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]

    81.104.94.127

    1. [5]
    2. [6]
    3. [7]
    4. [8]

    Continued behaviour after report [9]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10] Diff of Alex_21 warning IP editor. Presume this would have same intended meaning as a 3RR notice in this instance.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11] Making Alex_21 aware of breach, has edited since without undoing their breach.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12], [13]

    Comments:

    Users edit-warring on article over ratings data. In case of Alex_21, while there is no formal 3RR warning the user has chosen to make what seems to be an implied accusation of myself being the IP editor "logged-out" to edit war which clearly demonstrates a knowledge of the policy [14][15]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambling Rambler (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor has continued to force the edit even during a content dispute discussion; first revert [16], second revert [17], third reverted performed during discussion [18]. The editor was reverted by another [19] for the addition of an unreliable source and reverted by the same editor [20] for their continued addition of unsourced content. There is a clear dispute between all four editors involved. No such accusations were made as claimed above; two separate editors were referred to in the same edit, the filing editor has simply taken it upon themselves to take it as an attack despite already being told otherwise [21]. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has continued to force the edit even during a content dispute discussion
    Not interested in rehashing the ongoing content dispute but this is quite simply untrue. The claimed "third reverted performed during discussion" was adding to the lead mention of a completely separate cited statistic that hasn't been disputed and is present in diffs from prior to the current dispute (The episode received overnight viewing figures of 1.58 million, the lowest broadcast ratings in Doctor Who's history) [22], and is an edit that did not undo any part of a recent edit so isn't a revert. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It related to the content being discussed at the time. It therefore contributes towards edit-warring; almost all reverts can be counted in an edit-war, but not everything in an edit-war needs to be a revert. (All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.) As I said: there is a clear dispute between all four editors involved, so I think we need to take a step back and get clarification on the policy being discussed (as has already been suggested). -- Alex_21 TALK 00:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. The dispute is around the consolidated ratings and referencing historical lows for that, which I have not edited in the article about since discussion was opened in Talk. The untrue claim about a supposed "third reversion" was around the overnight broadcast ratings, a completely different statistic that you have only just now claimed was a "reversion" even though such content was not present in any of the previous interactions between myself and TheDoctorWho you've referenced ([23][24]). Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I made in the widest possible interpretation a total of two reversions (one reverting in good faith believing a source to be reliable when there was unknown to me consensus that it wasn't, and a second potential reversion adding a reliable source and believing that solved the highlighted issue). Once discussion at Talk was opened I discussed in good faith about the issue and have not attempted to reintroduce the disputed content.
    Maybe instead of trying to prosecute myself for a different unrelated matter you focus on the actual subject of the report. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made my response and claims here, based on my view of the content dispute. I will not be getting into a third argument with you and will leave the administrators to do their work here, as per my latest response at the content dispute discussion. Hoping you respect this. Thank you. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex 21, in response to [25]: Unsourced content is not generally vandalism, especially not the kind of "obvious vandalism" that may be freely reverted at any time. You say it's original research? Fine, but not exempt from the policy against edit warring.
    Also, the term "logged out" may seem to imply that there is an account that has been logged out from. You mean "unregistered", "IP" or "without account", many say "anonymous" although in my opinion IP editing is less anonymous than account editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted. Thank you for the explanation, I'll take heed of it. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale. Page semi-protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @ToBeFree: Taking a quick look at this IP's user talk page, is it fair to say that they're WP:NOTHERE? Prior to this thread they have had 7 warnings (three of which are level 3 or final warnings), over the span of two months. Despite these notices, they clearly continue to be disruptive to the site. Although not technically a violation of the 3RR (barely currently), they've gotten into a pseudo-long term edit war on Fourteenth Doctor, and a check of their contributions show that they refuse to take part in any discussion (here or elsewhere). Seems like more could potentially be done here? TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      IPs can't really be NOTHERE. The person behind them can change over time, so we almost never make the indefinite block that determination results in. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm. TheDoctorWho, it doesn't depend on the warnings. Warnings can be unjustified. If there is evidence (in form of diffs) for persistent disruption from a specific IP address, WP:ANI would be a good place to report it and a long-duration {{anonblock}} can be placed. At the moment, from a quick look at their contribution list and the amount of non-reverted edits there, I personally see no need for action beyond the page protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vofa reported by User:84.251.164.143 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Uralic languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Vofa (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. [26]
    2. [27]
    3. [28]
    4. [29]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

    Comments:

    84.251.164.143 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:84.251.164.143 Hi, my name is Vofa.
    I want to briefly cover the timeline of events leading to ANI:
    You have reverted my edits on the page of Uralic languages on 29 April 2025 stating „this is not an acceptable way to deal with uncertainties about Samoyedic“
    I followed up with attempting to start a discussion on your talk page (assuming you had one), however I did not find a talk page belonging to you. Then I decided to followed up with restoring the previous version of the page, thinking that it would be difficult to reach out to you, hoping that a discussion would be initiated on the articles talk page and that I would receive the ping.
    Two edits were made on the same day by a different user.
    Soon after, my edits were reverted again by a different user, stating “Two editors do not support your changes. Discuss or be reverted.”
    I deemed the threat unconstructive. Anyhow, I tried to reach out to this new user, assuming he had a talk page. I did not find a talk page dedicated to the user, thus failing to communicate with them. After a few hours, I reverted his edit viewing it as potential vandalism, considering the user had his first (or second?) ever edit on WP at Uralic languages.
    On April 30 2025 my restoration was undone, with a user stating “Restore stable content”
    Shortly after restoration, I tried to see if he had created a talk page for himself. He did not. However, unbeknownst to me he had already opened a discussion at Uralic languages. Unfortunately I did not receive any notifications of his messages at my talk page and the article’s talk page until hours later.
    He had messaged me on my talk page stating “Please do not mark reverts as "minor edits" as you did in Uralic languages, and stop edit warring. Thanks,”
    I replied with “Hello, I was not pinged for your message (you should have started a new discussion)
    I did not mark any of my edits as minor since at least last fall. I did not try to engage in edit warring.
    Outline any issues that you see with the recent version of the article.”
    My initial thoughts were that a new dispute formed based on my supposed marking of the edits.
    However, I knew that I did not mark any of my edits as minor since at least last fall if I remember correctly, based on previous discussions against it. I proceeded with restoring the previous version of the page, thinking that the previous dispute is no more and that the issue was with my marking, which I knew were not minor. I had hoped that the dispute would be solved after my response.
    After some time, I receive at least two mentions in notifications, seeing that I was accused of engaging in edit warring and that a Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion was initiated. I started by writing a response to him at the article’s page and followed up with this response on ANI.
    I am ready to co-operate with all parties in this noticeboard.
    Vofa (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that this is not an acceptable way to deal with uncertainties about Samoyedic and Two editors do not support your changes. Discuss or be reverted are not my edit summaries, but there is another IP involved. Vofa should be experienced enough to know that the content discussion goes to article talk page, so the excuses about missing user page are irrelevant. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Third revert in the above list is marked as minor. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 2A02:587:450A:2300:490A:CEC9:CAAF:EAD7 reported by User:Celjski Grad (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Riemann–Hilbert problem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2A02:587:450A:2300:490A:CEC9:CAAF:EAD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34]
    2. [35]
    3. [36]



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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

    Comments:

    User is repeatedly adding original research and refusing requests to include sources or discuss the changes on the article talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celjski Grad (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ssgk15 reported by User:Sophisticatedevening (Result: User indeffed as NOTHERE)

    [edit]

    Page: Kazi Nazrul Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Ssgk15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288422992 by CharlesWain (talk)"
    2. 14:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288418586 by CharlesWain (talk)"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 13:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC) to 13:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 13:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288146711 by CharlesWain (talk)"
      2. 13:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288147251 by CharlesWain (talk)"
      3. 13:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288073182 by CharlesWain (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kazi Nazrul Islam."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Their protestations on their talk page aside, they never backed away. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shink77 reported by User:Faster than Thunder (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: International Villager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Shink77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288471140 by Annh07 (talk)"
    2. 21:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288470960 by Annh07 (talk)"
    3. 21:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288470550 by Annh07 (talk)"
    4. 21:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288470228 by Annh07 (talk)"
    5. 22:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Yo Yo Honey Singh"
    6. 21:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Yo Yo Honey Singh"
    7. 21:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Yo Yo Honey Singh"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User's disruptions are seemingly understandably in good faith. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 21:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1288474689"