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:73.172.168.34 reported by User:OXYLYPSE (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
[edit]Page: Fresh and Fit Podcast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.172.168.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250784385 by OXYLYPSE (talk)"
- 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC) "Re-written to provide a non-racist, balanced perspective. Alot of you biggots are showing hate, while critique is fair, bias is not welcomed on this platform."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Fresh and Fit Podcast."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 23:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC) on User talk:OXYLYPSE "/* fresh and fit page */ Reply"
Comments:
I am attempting to avoid becoming involved in an edit war with users 73.172.168.34, Xlifter9000, and 2601:153:900:3C9:0:0:0:1009.
They are continuously attempting to remove cited material from Fresh_and_Fit_Podcast in favor of their opinion/original research. This appears to have been ongoing since at least 25th Sept: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fresh_and_Fit_Podcast&diff=1247713138&oldid=1247712669 OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that all of the "users" are the same person, but I didn't technically check. They just behave the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fairly sure they're the same person based off the replies. OXYLYPSE (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
User:De Wikischim reported by User:Vlaemink (Result: No violation)
[edit]Page: Limburgish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: De Wikischim (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: [2] (by Austronesier)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3] (= initial new talk page section), [4] (=entire discussion so far)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [5]
Comments:
This user is mainly active on the Dutch-language Wikipedia, where he has been blocked for over 45+ times [6] and is subjected to various arbcom restraints [7], many of them related to edit warring. I am aware that past behavior on other Wikipedia-projects should have little relevance here, but I mention it anyway to show that this user is intimately familiar with the 3RR and edit warring; something he himself confirmed here when he was warned that he was engaged in an edit war by Austronesier, stating that there was "no need" to notify him as he was "already very familiar with the rules/guidelines here."
By making his 4th revert less than a day after having reverted 3 times in the previous 24 hours, he's just gaming the system at this point.
For the sake of transparency; I myself have reverted this user twice ([8], [9]), whereas another user involved, Austronesier, reverted him once ([10]). Vlaemink (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Vlaemink: IMHO, while WP:BRD is not a policy, a 3RR-report when you're the one who made an undiscussed split first is not a good idea. WP:ONUS is still on you to explain why we need a stub-quality fork. –Austronesier (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Austronesier:: With all due respect; no exceptional claim was made here. This was an edit, and not a particularly bold one at that, for which I immediately provided additional context on the talk page [11]. You yourself have stated that the claims behind De Wikischims reverts (that 'flagrant changes were made') were ridiculous and you too have reverted his edits. I reverted his edits twice, was that wise? No. Should I have handled that differently? Yes. But that's not what this request is about.
- Frankly, I don't care if he's blocked or not; but I do hope that the admins will see enough reasons listed here to send a very clear signal to this problematic user warning him to stop this kind of behavior right now; because this is wrong and should not be excused by my or your own mistakes. Vlaemink (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Declined First because there's no 3RR violation and I don't find a repetitive pattern of avoiding it, second because the user has been discussing it on the talk page, and third because of the CLEANHANDS issue noted by Austronesier above. I also do not find the user's record on nlwiki directly relevant to just this incident; clearly their behavior over there has not gone unsanctioned and they seem to have avoided those problems in their minimal editing here. If there is more to this than meets the eye reviewing the instant incident, AN/I would be better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't care if he's blocked or not; but I do hope that the admins will see enough reasons listed here to send a very clear signal to this problematic user warning him to stop this kind of behavior right now; because this is wrong and should not be excused by my or your own mistakes. Vlaemink (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Knight De Roy reported by User:Patodonald1818 (Result: No violation)
[edit]Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:33, 27 July 2023
- 15:46, 27 July 2023
- 14:19, 3 August 2023
- 12:50 8 August 2023
- 21:16 13 October 2024
Comments:
This user insists on arbitrarily removing references in the articles Monroy (surname) and de Monroy without there being a consensus. Since last year he has been removing references and only leaving the reference that he considers academically valid according to his personal criteria, but his reference is not a book, just a website, the same argument that he uses to insist that said surname is Spanish. The user confuses a Spanish city called Monroy with the linguistic origin of that surname that does not have Spanish grammar, because Monroy in Spanish does not mean red mountain, it is not linguistically of Spanish origin.
For example these historical characters have a version of Monroy like last name, but their linguistic surnames are not Spanish, mon is my in French and Roy meaning king derivate of Norman English and Roi in French:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Albrecht_von_Monroy
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Monroy
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_von_Monroy
This user also whitewashed his talk page in the past. Which is also against Wikipedia regulations:
Please I request this user to stop deleting references just because he doesn't like them. I do not delete their references, and it is also against Wikipedia regulations to delete references without prior consensus.
Thank you so much.--Patodonald1818
- No violation. Knight De Roy edited the page once yesterday after not having touched the article in over a year. Patodonald1818 has made no attempt to discuss the content with the other user, nor have they notified them of this (malformed) report.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
User:2601:247:C682:BD90::/64 reported by User:CodeTalker (Result: Blocked for a month)
[edit]Page: Anoaʻi family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:247:C682:BD90::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC) ""
- 05:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC) ""
- 01:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC) ""
- 01:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC) ""
- 01:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 07:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Anoaʻi family."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Repeatedly adding the name and other information about a minor to Anoaʻi family. Has done the same on Sika Anoaʻi but has not broken 3RR there yet. CodeTalker (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one month The /64, since the article is under WP:GS/PW. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
User:ShawarmaFan07 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 24h)
[edit]Page: Shawarma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ShawarmaFan07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251286308 by Belbury (talk) Please, let's not do that again. I hope I do not get reported, but as Israel and Turkey traditionally eat this, the dish is not limited to the Arab cuisine. We can discuss this instead; I've added a question within the talk question."
- 20:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251174497 by ShawarmaFan07 (talk) If Israel, Turkey, Armenia and Georgia are mentioned, then why is it deemed only as an Arab cuisine? Please stop, and discuss in the talk page. I asked about this over there."
- 19:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251104930 by Skitash (talk) Israel is literally mentioned in this article! Same for Turkey! None of which are Arabic countries."
- 10:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250945459 by Skitash (talk) It is literally eaten throughout the Middle East. Not only Arab countries of that region. Israel is not Arab, neither is Turkey; Shawarma is consumed alot there."
- 13:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */Shawarma is also enjoyed in Israel, Cyprus, Turkey and even Iran."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC) notified of contentious 1RR topic
- 19:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC) warned for edit warring
- 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC) asked to
self-revert your latest edit or be reported for edit-warring and violating ARBPIA restrictions
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User is repeatedly changing the infobox cuisine from "Arab" to "Middle East". After being notified that this was a 1RR issue, and also warned for simple edit warring over it, they were explicitly asked self-revert their 19:37 edit. They did that (saying in the edit summary that it was To avoid getting reported
), but then restored it ten minutes later with an edit summary rationale for why their version was correct. They restored their version again today after being reverted. --Belbury (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)