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: VenusFeuerFalle reported by User:CherryPie94 (Result: No violation)
Page: Laylat al-Raghaib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VenusFeuerFalle (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: [5]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]
Comments:
Any constructive, well sourced additions are mass reverted without this person distinguishing bits they actually object to from bits they don't. They might have misunderstood Original research because that is their excuse for repeatedly mass reverting everything. They are simply keeping the version they like. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Update: They have been reported time and time again for edit warring and pushing their own narrative that is not back by sources see prior reports, Report 1,Report 2, Report 3. They still keep doing it although they have been warned and blocked. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Gaz84avfc reported by User:NebY (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: Robert Black (serial killer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gaz84avfc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Susan Maxwell */"
- 13:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Susan Maxwell */"
- 10:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Susan Maxwell */"
- 21:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Susan Maxwell */"
- 10:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Susan Maxwell */Added information from Shane Meadows Wikipedia page."
- 18:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Susan Maxwell */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 11:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Robert Black (serial killer) */ see Talk:Robert Black (serial killer)#Shane Meadows"
- 11:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 20:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Shane Meadows */ new section"
- 11:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Shane Meadows */ not for inclusion here"
Comments: Reported editor has not engaged on article talk page or own talk page. NebY (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
User:BoeingEngineer reported by User:Mys 721tx (Result: Warned user(s))
Page: Type 052D destroyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BoeingEngineer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "There are 4 references all stating the same numbers. You cannot discredit all the references."
- 16:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "Why not? Daily Mail is reliable."
- 16:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "The references clearly stated the numbers."
- 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "More references are added that satisfy RS"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Type 052D destroyer."
- 16:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Type 052D destroyer."
- 16:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Type 052D destroyer."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Previously User:RovingPersonalityConstruct noted a problem with unreliable sources (Special:Diff/1107545675). Mys_721tx (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Mys_721tx, you have not warned the user about edit warring. I'll do so for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
User:2a00:23c8:ab80:8001:85ca:64c7:5d2:e5f1 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Warned)
Page: Wepwawetemsaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a00:23c8:ab80:8001:85ca:64c7:5d2:e5f1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Anon now appears to have a new account: Marmo59 (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:
- 10:06, 31 August 2022
- 10:00, 31 August 2022
- 09:51, 31 August 2022
- 09:45, 31 August 2022
- 09:42, 31 August 2022
- 09:34, 31 August 2022
- 09:27, 31 August 2022
- 05:32, 31 August 2022
- 05:30, 31 August 2022
- 05:27, 31 August 2022
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EW notice on anon's talk page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
Removing assessment of archeologist Kim Ryholt that an article is of low quality. ES of "Neutral facts only. This is now damaging your reputation why are you unable to and refusing to abide by explicit wiki rules?", and others. Adakiko (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's pretty bad but I have semi-protected the article and will watch for a while, and will advise the IP and the new account about how things work. @Adakiko: If problems continue, please ping me from article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Opinions of references authors are not relevant. It goes against neutrality and it is not acceptable. No other article would allow this so why this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Well go on tell me how it does not go against neutrality to write that? Why is it needed? Why can it not just be described as a stele like other articles do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Stoarm reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: Lori Greiner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stoarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107717505 by Praxidicae (talk) For starters, source 6 (Parade): "Greiner has invented more than 600 products"; source 8 (ABC): "She is recognized as one of the most prolific inventors of retail products of our time." Read the others. Her notability stemmed from her inventions, which led to her being an entrepreneur and Tv personality."
- 14:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107716342 by Praxidicae (talk) Unacceptable edit summary, with no logical objection stated. Take it to the talk page with your friend."
- 13:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "If you do not understand the very clear edit summary, nor the difference between an entrepreneur and an inventor, then you should stop edit anything relating to them. Protocol is to list the individual facets of one's notability.Do not continue edit warring over undisputable content that's been included in this article ever since this article was created 10 years ago. Take it to the talk page and get consensus if you want to discuss it."
- Consecutive edits made from 01:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) to 02:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- 01:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107561512 by ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) Please educate yourself on the difference between the two. They are completely separate. Although one can most certainly be both, most entrepreneurs are not inventors, and many inventors are not entrepreneurs."
- 02:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "l/c"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lori Greiner."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Persistent edit warring, see also their history of edit warring as an IP (self declared here) PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
User:TE(æ)A,ea. reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)
Page: FBI search of Mar-a-Lago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TE(æ)A,ea. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of 3RR warning: [14] [15]
Diff of attempt to resolve: [16] [17]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]
Comments: 5 reverts in 24h, had been repeatedly warned by other users for edit warring. Andre🚐 17:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- There was also this from just a few days ago (diffs in thread): Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago#Opinion when a lot of reverts were happening without (prior) discussion. Luckily that conflict seems to have petered out, but I agree that conversation beforehand and WP:Consensus building would be more productive than reverting the work of others without discourse (beyond simply the back and forth of edit summaries). Thanks everyone. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from editing the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Litch reported by User:Jauerback (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page: Truman State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Litch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "animal rights"
- 19:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "animal rights group controverys"
- 19:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Animal Rights"
- 21:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC) "Restoring widely discussed section on their attempt to reject an animal rights group"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Ts4221 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: Wepwawetemsaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ts4221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- This appears to be a continuation of #User:2a00:23c8:ab80:8001:85ca:64c7:5d2:e5f1 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Warned) above.
- Also see "Article neutrality" on wp:AN
Previous version reverted to: state reverted to by Johnuniq I subsequently fixed a ref, added a page no, and isbn.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 04:54, 1 September 2022
- 04:51, 1 September 2022
- 04:45, 1 September 2022
- 04:38, 1 September 2022
- 04:34, 1 September 2022
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:18, 1 September 2022
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of attempt
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 05:18, 1 September 2022
Comments:
This would appear to be a continuation of a previous edit war as mention at the top. Attitude of Ts4221 appears similar to that anon and new editor. Adakiko (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked. Either WP:MEATPUPPET or WP:SOCKPUPPET. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Adakiko: While this was an obvious case, technically you were edit warring as well. There is never a good reason to do that even if the revert is exempt from WP:3RR and there is no exemption for this case. What is the point of reverting someone is obviously going to revert you back? Please avoid that in the future and just report it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
User:2604:2D80:D70C:D300:1BE:9E65:8133:791E reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: Dodge Journey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2604:2D80:D70C:D300:1BE:9E65:8133:791E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [19]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at Talk:Dodge Journey#The Image & Successor Details
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]
Comments:
IP editor has violated 3RR after being warned and despite acknowledging in an edit summary an awareness of the edit warring policy. IP editor is also edit warring at Dodge Durango. - Aoidh (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours /64 range. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Sapedder reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: Declined)
Page: Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sapedder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 04:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107724466 by Srijanx22 (talk) See talk, don't reinstate until you finally explain yourself. IDL doesn't apply when I'm listing actual policies you are now knowingly breaking. This is more like WP:ILIKEIT, which also applies to this supposed "consensus" in which you ignored all counterpoints and made no amendments"
- 12:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107699456 by Accesscrawl (talk) already sourced, read WP:BALANCE and stop ignoring issues in talk"
- 10:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Pending disputes, the last stable lead stands. Unaddressed WP:BALANCE/NPOV issues already known to the editor in talk remain unacknowledged and unrectified. Debatable re: labels (inline citations for one). This is 3x redundant and the source is already incorporated. And comments are as long as needed ty"
- 14:40, 28 August 2022 Sapedder +902 restore longstanding neutral opening per WP:BURDEN, move pov to appropriate area. several editors now have had a problem with this recent edit (which is not even what was finally proposed in talk) and no one actually gave "consensus" there. you were clearly made aware of a slew of contradicting existing sources by Chomskywala, but you never actually reconciled your edit with those sources as asked, knowingly contravening NPOV to skew the lead. and yes, mind contentious labels. +add source)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 12:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 13:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Not militant */"
Comments:
This user is edit warring against consensus and assuming bad faith in edit summaries. This POV pushing based on WP: IDONTLIKEIT is being carried out by this user for years.[26] Srijanx22 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – @Srijanx22: Sapedder, though flirting with the limit, does not seem to have broken 3RR. I took a look at the article and, unless I'm misunderstanding the history, it looks like they are restoring the long standing version. Rather than admin action, perhaps this requires dispute resolution?--RegentsPark (comment) 15:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: You are probably correct about dispute resolution, especially since in their haste to revert Sapedder, Srijanx22 has introduced
an errora change to the subject's date of birth without adding a new source.[27] —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC) revised 20:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC) - @RegentsPark: It is seemingly beyond disruptive to claim that Jarnail Singh Bhinderanwale was not a "militant", given his own biography and his role in Operation Blue Star. In that case, Sapedder is just trying to right great wrongs. Those 3 reverts came under 18 hours so he is clearly edit warring. I added the diff from 2020 when Sapeddar was edit warring to remove the term "militant" since he is engaging in this POV pushing for ages. The consensus version exists against his POV and I don't think dispute resolution will go well with him given his long term POV pushing and intended bludgeoning in this area. Also, take a look at the ANI thread from last year where he was warned for assuming bad faith and edit warring like he is doing now.[28] There was consensus on talk page about 1 month before Sapedder started to edit war by 15 August because he does not like the term "militant" for this subject. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Declined If there is to be any action or resolution it will probably have to be at AN/I, or through some more formal dispute resolution mechanism than the talk page. Reviewing the most recent history of the article, while Sapedder did revert three times within 24 hours, that has happened only once so far and that is itself not a violation of the rule. It seems from both the above comments and the talk page that Sapedder also has some support from parties not regular editors of the page, and also that Srijanx has not come before us with clean hands. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Srijanx22, stop with the constant deflections. Now you've conjured up this new "militant" strawman that no one has even spoken of. You know full well that the main issue is not "militant," it is the two distinct narratives of the relationship between JSB and the "Khalistan movement," in relation to which you are clearly violating WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE to push the view you like at the expense of the other. It is clear to anyone who reads the talk discussion that you refuse to touch that issue.
- Since you have just now created this "militant" issue out of thin air, I will put it to rest so you can stop ducking the actual problem. The lead already reads that he "grew to be a leader of Sikh militancy." Did you not read past the first sentence, on which you are fixated to slant the intro? I selected that sentence for inclusion myself! The term in question per LABEL was "terrorist," not "militant." This is a relatively minor point though.
- So your strawman is dead on arrival, your attempt to shut down the discussion has been recognized, your desperate block attempt has flopped, and you should finally start addressing the central issue of balancing the two narratives per NPOV, instead of desperately trying to avoid recognizing how your edit violates policy.
- RegentsPark and C.Fred, I would be willing to engage in dispute resolution, but if Srijanx22 is only going to revert, create strawmen, file frivolous cases like this, and do everything possible to avoid having to discuss balance (you can see that on the talk page discussion), I don't see it going well. I would recommend that the page be restored to its long-standing version (excepting the birthdate if sources are presented C. Fred) if and locked there pending further talk page discussion first. That may force him to eventually explain his edit within the framework of BALANCE, which is the crux of the matter, instead of trying every maneuver to evade proper discussion and mischaracterize the disagreement. That would be a start, then we can go with AN/I as the next step. Sapedder (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Declined If there is to be any action or resolution it will probably have to be at AN/I, or through some more formal dispute resolution mechanism than the talk page. Reviewing the most recent history of the article, while Sapedder did revert three times within 24 hours, that has happened only once so far and that is itself not a violation of the rule. It seems from both the above comments and the talk page that Sapedder also has some support from parties not regular editors of the page, and also that Srijanx has not come before us with clean hands. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: You are probably correct about dispute resolution, especially since in their haste to revert Sapedder, Srijanx22 has introduced