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:FerrariFan77 reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: 2024 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: FerrariFan77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245227641 by Cerebral726 (talk) - doesn't matter if other articles have used mid season as the title of that section then that is the right way to do it"
    2. 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Mid season changes */"
    3. 14:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "/* In-season changes */ - other articles call it a mid season driver change despite the change happening before round 6 or round 18"
    4. 18:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245049481 by Marbe166 (talk) - the change didn't happen before or after the season so it is a mid season change."
    5. 18:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245047337 by Marbe166 (talk) it is mid season as it is the middle of a current season"
    6. 17:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1244897256 by Marbe166 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
    2. 19:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "/* September 2024 */ Reply"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 19:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Mid season changes. */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Edit warring, including after warning. Responded with personal attack after finally starting a discussion. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Knowitall369 reported by User:Notwally (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Josef Sorett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Knowitall369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245258633 by Notwally (talk) Gaslighting is not an explanation for your vandalism."
    2. 23:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245258037 by Notwally (talk) Enough. Go back one month and read the whole exhange. Stop vandalizing and stop gaslighting. You've gone too far."
    3. 23:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245257134 by Notwally (talk) Since you have repeatedly vandalized this page, you are fully aware of what's on the Talk page. Read your own excuses for your prior vandalism. Take it to the talk page!"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 23:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC) to 23:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
      1. 23:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245252201 by Notwally (talk) There is an entire talk page section about this content. stop deleting without consensus, see WP:ONUS"
      2. 23:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245252177 by Notwally (talk) There is an entire talk page section about this content. stop deleting without consensus, see WP:ONUS"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Josef Sorett."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 23:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Texting controversy */ r"

    Comments:

    Editor has repeatedly reverted my recent changes, with no response to my comment on the talk page and instead repeatedly accusing me of vandalism. – notwally (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ShmayoAramean reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Güngören, Midyat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC) "Restored to neutral. No Assyrianism, only Syriacs and our church."
    2. 22:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC) "I made a last small correction. I made the link to our church so we can all be neutral and everyone can can accept it."
    3. 18:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC) "We are the villagers from Keferbe. Keferbe has only existed as a village for 800 years. Mor Stefanus was a standalone church without a village around it. Also, these types of villages have no documented books. There is also 0.0% reference to Assyrians so before making such statements, please mention sources in the talk section. If there are none, Syriacs would be another possibility."
    4. 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 22:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Güngören, Midyat."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Violated WP:3RR while edit warring R0paire-wiki (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Someguywhosbored reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: Withdrawn by reporter)

    [edit]

    Page: Mughal dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Someguywhosbored (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. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

    Comments:

    Since I’m the one being reported I guess I’ll give context. Me and padfoot had been discussing on the Mughal dynasty talk page for months now. There was once an RFC on the Mughal empire page which showed that short synthetic dashed labels like “indo-Muslim” have no real place on Wikipedia. Consensus was to remove that term.

    Recently there was another RFC in the Mughal dynasty page after padfoot tried adding the term “indianized” to the page. This ended in no consensus. So padfoot tried adding a different term without gaining consensus. Despite the fact that I had repeatedly reminded him that per WP:NOCONSENSUS, previous content is retained until consensus is reached. In fact I explained to him how the ONUS is on him to achieve consensus because he’s the one who’s trying to add disputed content. Despite the fact that this was explained to him multiple times, and not just by me, he still continued to edit war on the Mughal dynasty page. These edits were clearly disruptive and possibly even a case of vandalism. Which is why I removed it.

    The most interesting thing is that padfoot had already reverted more than 4 times on the Mughal dynasty page[[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]]. And there was 3 reverts within 24 hours as well. for that I considered dropping my own report. But furthermore, he wasn’t removing any disruptive edits, rather he was pushing his POV even after he was told that he needs consensus for these changes. He had been edit warring on other topics similar to this as well.

    Now I think this was vandalism which is why I originally broke the 4th revert rule because I thought it would be fine but I’m willing to revert my own comment if that was a mistake to avoid edit warring. Still despite the fact that I kept telling padfoot to use the talk page and stop adding his preferred edit, he kept doing it. He needs to understand that WP:ONUS is on him because he’s the one who’s adding disputed content. Even when we were discussing this in the talk page, he purposely ignored the fact that WP:ONUS is on him, and wouldn’t respond to this point no matter how many times I brought it up.

    I’m not sure if that changes anything. Like I said I’m willing to self revert if what he’s doing is not actually vandalism, but still he was never supposed to be adding the term “indo-Timurids” to the article anyway because he clearly did not gain consensus after two RFCs.

    All I’m asking is for him to pay attention to the fact that he needs consensus if he wants to add disputed content. And WP:ONUS is on him. There’s a lot of other factors I haven’t mentioned yet but I think I can stop here for right now. Like I said, I’m willing to self revert, although he should probably do the same as both of us seem to have broken the 4th revert rule (Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

    I've not broken 3RR. The last one is from 7 July. I've no intention to ever break 3RR or edit war. All your reverts were within 24 hours, not "months ago" as you claim. PadFoot (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I realized that mistake prior to this comment which is why I removed that part of the comment but nonetheless this doesn’t really respond to everything else I mentioned. Also, it seems that you made 3 reverts(including a Manuel revert) within 24 hours which is indeed edit warring.
    like I said I’m willing to self revert as long as you are. But my biggest issue is that you took it to this venue when it was clear that you couldn’t gain consensus for your recent changes. You ignored me repeatedly when I told you that per WP:NOCONSENSUS, previous content is retained. You ignored me when I mentioned that WP:ONUS is on you because you’re the one who’s adding the disputed content. You kept ignoring me despite the fact that I told you to use the talk page to hash this issue out. And despite getting on the talk page, you ignored WP:ONUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS. It seems that you purposefully ignored this point despite repeated reminders. Which is why I originally thought that this may have been vandalism. You were supposed to self revert once your addition was disputed. “ The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content” [[12]]
    And this isn’t even your first case of edit warring. You edit warred very recently on another page related to the Mughal dynasty which you got a warning for in September 8 2024. User talk:PadFoot2008 Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway I can self revert if that resolves this issue. My guess is that padfoots edit will get reverted anyway because he didn’t gain consensus for it. I would like to see what the administrators say first. But I’d also that recommend that padfoot does the same if I do considering he had broken 3RR as well. Also, the issue of the term “Indo-Timurids” should be resolved in the talk page. We shouldn’t be adding disputed content until consensus is reached. In fact we already had an RFC on the Mughal empire page about this, which ruled in favor of removing short synthetic labels that start with “indo” for various reasons. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC ruled in favour of removing "Indo-Muslim" as a descriptive term for the empire from the lead. PadFoot (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even care to look at the section of my user talk page you linked? There was no edit warring involved at all. PadFoot (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I self reverted my edit to avoid editing warring and at least resolve this issue. But yes you have been edit warring. When you make three reverts in a 24 hour period(your reverts were a few hours separate from each other), your edit warring. I also made that mistake despite the fact that you shouldn’t have been continuously adding this content to due to ONUS and NOCONSENSUS.
    And if you’re talking about your previous edit warring case, yes you were edit warring there as well. [[13]]
    [[14]]
    [[15]]
    you made 3 reverts in 24 hours. Which is why you got the edit warring notice on your talk page in September. Ironically, you had actually given an edit warring warning to one of the other users. Furthermore in that exact same discussion, you were reminded of WP:ONUS repeatedly and ignored it despite the fact that you’re not supposed to making further reverts from that point on. The same issue came up in the talk page of the [[16]]. You’ve been reminded repeatedly of the same offense and still keep doing it. That’s incredibly disruptive.
    I apologize however for the fact that I wasn’t patient enough to wait until the process would fix itself. Instead I mistakenly edit warred thinking this may have been vandalism and thus fine to revert more than 4 times, but perhaps that was the wrong. I’m not really experienced enough to make that kind of a call in a more complex discussion like this. Which was my mistake. My previous points still do stand. But I’ve reverted my edit in the mean time. Considering you were edit warring as well, I’d recommend you do the same. But that’s up to your discretion, not mine. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fenasikerim10 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Kalbajar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fenasikerim10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [17]
    2. [18]
    3. [19]
    4. [20]
    5. [21]
    6. [22]
    7. [23]

    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:

    Last two reverts were done manually without any edit summary. Also, they're not even allowed to edit this article per WP:GS/AA (which they were told [27]). Bonus: WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:BATTLEGROUND, safe to say WP:NOTHERE:

    A childish mentality person reversing that. Labeling as edit war doesn't help. Whoever made this Wikipedia algorithms must be so dumb.

    You are obviously not impartial about this subject.... ...You are nothing a disturbing noise..... ...So find yourself a better hobby.

    Well, an Iranian defending an Armenian to forge Wikipedia articles. That's funny as hell. Is there anyone outside of this gang with healthy mind to look at this madness?

    Anyways, I am asking editors with more rational minds to intervene. Obviously you are not one of them.

    Thanks Bbb23! HistoryofIran (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gamechanger707 reported by User:FromCzech (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: 2024 Kazakhstan Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gamechanger707 (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. 14:36, 25 August 2024 – no Edit summary
    2. 10:12, 28 August 2024 (as an IP) – no Edit summary
    3. 11:52, 28 August 2024 – no Edit summary
    4. 12:36, 1 September 2024 – attempt to explain
    5. 23:09, 7 September 2024 – no Edit summary
    6. 20:08, 14 September 2024 – no Edit summary

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

    1. 12:07, 28 August 2024 – I drew attention to the unfilled Edit summary and potential edit warring
    2. 17:41, 1 September 2024 – after filling out the Edit summary for the first time, I tried to spark a discussion
    3. 19:39, 3 September 2024 – I tried to discuss again, but again no response
    4. 07:31, 8 September 2024 – formal uw-3rr warning, no response. The user basically shows no effort to communicate.

    FromCzech (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of one week from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1245742731"