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 than 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 the 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. |
|
Noticeboard archives
Contents
- 1 User:146.198.193.9 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)
- 2 User:61.244.128.167 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: 24 hours)
- 3 User:A145GI15I95 reported by User:Mooeena (Result: Page protected)
- 4 User:BobNesh reported by User:Josephua (Result: Warned)
- 5 User:SimonATL reported by User:Dreamy Jazz (Result: 36 hours)
- 6 User:16stumps reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: 24 hours)
- 7 User:Maxforwind reported by User:Rsfinlayson (Result: 48 hours)
- 8 User:Angryskies reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: No violation )
- 9 User:NoCoRadioAdvocate reported by User:MB (Result:
24 hoursone week) - 10 User:Partycity reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Warned)
User:146.198.193.9 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)
Page: Ménière's disease ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.198.193.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I requested that this individual not post on my talk page further.[6]. They proceeded to do so twice more.[7][8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Diffs of this user's reverts over the course of a year and a half: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
The user accused me of being responsible for all eight edits that he reverted. This baseless accusation is a grievous personal insult. The WP:OWNing of articles is not allowed, and this user clearly believes that they own this one. 146.198.193.9 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- What I said was "Hum. How many of those is you simple jumping around from IP to IP." These are obviously you.[17][18][19][20]
- And than we have the 9 reverts on my talk page.[21]
- Lots of issues from this user such as[22] on User:Acroterion talk page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- agree w/ Doc James as I have had to revert the IP as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- User:Bbb23 has blocked the IP for a week. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is the Best Known for IP, and they are de facto banned. The nasty attitude is how they roll. Acroterion (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Acroterion: No, they are actually banned [23] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ah good to know thanks. Have raised the issue here regarding if we can do anything more.Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#IP_socking Otherwise I will just start blocking whenever I see them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Acroterion: No, they are actually banned [23] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
User:61.244.128.167 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- List of Disney animated films based on fairy tales ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 61.244.128.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 02:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Disney feature films based on fairy tales */"
- 13:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Disney feature films based on fairy tales */"
- 09:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Disney feature films based on fairy tales */Toy Story is a Disney film based on fairy tales, Chicken Little isn't"
- 09:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Disney feature films based on fairy tales */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 09:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
- 09:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User keeps adding Toy Story and Mulan to the list without a source. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 05:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
User:A145GI15I95 reported by User:Mooeena (Result: Page protected)
- Page
- Feminist views on transgender topics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- A145GI15I95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892613552 by Mooeena (talk) Reliably sourced, relevant. Scrubbing not discussed."
- 04:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892528583 by Mooeena (talk) It's not been discussed. You're now violating BRD."
- 04:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892526873 by Mooeena (talk) Removal of this much reliably sourced, relevant content warrants its own discussion."
- 19:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC) "Re-add "gender critical" w/ cites. Re-order "terf" section around themes. Remove dupe cites."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Edit warring."
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 05:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "/* NPOV terminology */"
- Comments:
User has been re-adding content against overwhelming consensus of other users in the discussion. Topic may also relate to discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Mooeena has hounded me on Wikipedia since we met,[24] continually removing content that I add, while ignoring similar content from other editors.[25] In this case, the diff she links above ("NPOV terminology") was in response to a different editor's repeated and possibly cavalier use of a different term on the talk page (this is difficult to see, because yet another editor forked the conversation). Mooeena is ignoring BRD: She boldly removed reliably sourced and relevant content, I reverted it, and I suggested she open a new discussion. She instead re-removed it a second time last night and a third time this morning. I've now extended the courtesy of opening a new discussion for her regarding this scrubbing."gender_critical"_in_article I'd like to ask that she stop taking such personal interest in me, and she instead re-focus her efforts on building better content for Wikipedia. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I would support a boomerang on Mooeena: she has to all appearances been hounding A145GI15I95 since their conflict over Detransition. Take a look at their editing overlap: [26] This no-edit-summary removal of A145GI15I95's sourced, uncontroversial content on Cultural impact of Star Wars strikes me as particularly inappropriate. gnu57 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- What are my options, please, to respond productively to this situation? I've invested many hours in attempting to reason with Mooeena here on Wikipedia, in edit logs and on talk pages. I've waited many weeks in the hopes that her opinion of me would temper. I've changed my username and locked my social media accounts due to her repeated remarks of my actual or perceived activity outside Wikipedia. What action can I request to resolve this unpleasant situation? Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- You can start by making an attempt at Mediation, or failing that, look at other Dispute resolution options. El_C 20:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with this, I think Mooeena is a good editor and so is A145GI15I95. They need to get over their issues.★Trekker (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- What are my options, please, to respond productively to this situation? I've invested many hours in attempting to reason with Mooeena here on Wikipedia, in edit logs and on talk pages. I've waited many weeks in the hopes that her opinion of me would temper. I've changed my username and locked my social media accounts due to her repeated remarks of my actual or perceived activity outside Wikipedia. What action can I request to resolve this unpleasant situation? Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Page protected. In order to violate 3RR, one needs to make four reverts in the course of 24 hours, which is not the case here. Nevertheless, there is edit warring here, so I've protected the page for one week. Please take the content discussion to the article talk page. As to claims of hounding, there is not enough dated diff evidence presented here for me to evaluate, but at any rate, it may go beyond the scope of this particular report. El_C 20:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Administrator note: I've began concluded the process of redacting A145GI15I95 prior name out of past revisions, so hopefully, at least that would be out of the equation. El_C 22:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions apply to Feminist views on transgender topics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
In addition to this noticeboard a thread is open at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics.
In addition a prior closely related archived discussion at ANI was 3 weeks ago Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Transgender-related POV. --Fæ (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- That ANI has already been linked in my first statement above,[27] why add it again here (immediately above) and here[28] (on another thread)? It's challenging and time-consuming to keep up with and respond clearly to all of your contributions that now focus more on my person than on our content. I've gotten the impression that you've begun to hound me too (seemingly refusing anything that appears to come from me,[29] seemingly turning any thread I join off-topic and into trials against my presence,[30] and repeatedly linking diffs of my supposed wrongdoing[31]). Please don't hound me, or at least have the courtesy to open a single case against me in a single, appropriate place. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
User:BobNesh reported by User:Josephua (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Sukhoi Superjet 100 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- BobNesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- None
- Comments:
Bob Nesh keeps putting a source that is not reliable and is against WP:RS. He keeps changing the source that was inputted in the article to what he wanted and does not address the consensus of what his reasoning his, even though we give him reasons why the source he was using was bad and warned him that if he continues doing this, he will be reported for edit warring. Josephua (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- BobNesh will not stop WP:IDHT when you look at their editing pattern. Constant POV pushing. I support a siteban or imposed 0RR. wumbolo ^^^ 21:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Warned. A bit stale for immediate disruption, but I left the user a note. El_C 23:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
User:SimonATL reported by User:Dreamy Jazz (Result: 36 hours)
Page: Notre-Dame de Paris fire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SimonATL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/892632668 Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Special:Diff/892632930 - adds back first Buttresses section
- Special:Diff/892633392 - adds back first Buttresses section
- Special:Diff/892634022 - adds back first Buttresses section
- Special:Diff/892634970 - adds back first Buttresses section
- Special:Diff/892636929 - adds back in similar content, but includes the first Buttresses section as was before, but with a reference (which in the end does not support the information)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Although not warned on their talk page, in Talk:Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire#Citations the SimonATL was pinged twice by myself during the discussion. The first time I pinged them was requesting they stopped adding the material, following the comment by Ritchie333. They did not attempt to discuss this. The second time, after I said that Ritchie333, is what SimonATL has done a violation of the 3RR?
, I then pinged them at 21:40 (Special:Diff/892635562). After this, at 22:51 they carried out the 5th addition of the content. They still have not (at 23:34) commented in this discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussions at Talk:Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire#Citations
Comments: Other editors were also reverting him, so I have not broken 3RR in this case (I reverted them 3 times). He used the edit summary as a way to "respond", such as LEAVE intact until the supporting reference is posted. Return to your video games.
(diff) (this was 3 mins after the first ping). Although this is not a big deal (to me and most likely others), I do think that this was a violation of 3RR and the edit summary shows intent that they were ready to continue to readd the unsourced information (as they did). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. El_C 23:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
User:16stumps reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Serge F. Kovaleski ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 16stumps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892648082 by IanDBeacon (talk) Edit recently proposed in Talk by milkchaser and went unopposed. No valid reason for your revision."
- 23:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Restored exculpatory examples of Trump's common usage of hand gestures, citing trusted source. Omitted reference to visual examples."
- 21:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Restored inclusion of exculpatory examples of Trump using the gesture with non-physically disabled people from reliable sourcing. Milkchaser's talk proposal has gone unchallenged, therefore the edit is valid, and serves to reveal both sides of the controversy instead of just one."
- 19:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892418168 by Binksternet (talk) FNC is considered a reliable source. Both sides of the controversy should receive equal consideration if the goal is neutrality."
- 07:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC) "Cited news article from reliable source showing multiple examples of Trump using the same arm gesture with healthy subjects, only as a means of denoting frustration. This addendum adds needed clarity to Trump's public defense against claims of intent to mock Kovaleski's disability and therefore should not be censored. Removing this important context strengthens those unsubstantiated claims and exposes ideological bias on the part of the censoring editor."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Serge F. Kovaleski. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Was blocked previously for WP:3RR violations. IanDBeacon (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 23:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Maxforwind reported by User:Rsfinlayson (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Islam in New Zealand ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maxforwind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [32]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]
Comments:
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. El_C 01:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Angryskies reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: No violation )
- Page
- Stagecoach Group ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Angryskies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 11:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892568212 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Rv. no reason to remove factual information"
- 11:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892551423 by Charlesdrakew (talk) This is no rule. No consensus has ever been reached"
- 13:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892338248 by Charlesdrakew (talk) RV. please cite Wikipedia rule."
- 13 April
- 12 April
- 12 April
- 11 April
- 10 April
- 10 April
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
A pattern of edit warring while just avoiding 3 reverts in 24 hours on various articles while making no effort to justify their changes at talk. Again at Virgin Rail Group 3 reverts of two other editors in 3 days to push their version without discussion. At Arriva UK Bus the same pattern of reverting another editors who points out that we do not use UK in addition to the country of the UK. Charles (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Although frankly I'm tempted to block the pair of you for such a lame edit war. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Update: I have warned Angryskies to stop following you around and reverting you, otherwise he can expect a block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- The article had UK at the end for over 2 years. Until this edit
- Update: I have warned Angryskies to stop following you around and reverting you, otherwise he can expect a block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I simply changed it back. Then Charles has been reverting back to this edit and also removed additional edits that I made to the article and has been inconsistent with the reason for reverting:
- UK is not needed or wanted per consensus.Not an improvement. - pointed out there is no consensus
- See Wikiproject UKGeography - no rule on Wikiproject UKGeography
This user has now been following my edits reverting them, including removal of factual information such the article on Virgin Rail Group where Charles has removed the operating subsidiary and replaced it with former subsidiaries, but using the reason of UK not needed per general consensus . [41]
If you look at my previous history of edits, creation of articles and reporting of vandals, I have only made edits which are factual. If I am being warned, then Charles should also be warned too.
I look forward to your reply. Angryskies (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- My reply is simply, edit warring is edit warring, regardless of content (with very limited exceptions such as reverting blatant vandalism, which this isn't). "My edits were right, so I wasn't edit warring!" is no defence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
User:NoCoRadioAdvocate reported by User:MB (Result: 24 hours one week)
- Page
- KBPI ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- NoCoRadioAdvocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892790360 by Mrschimpf (talk) You need to stop. Your contributions are disruptive to the page."
- 22:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892790228 by Mrschimpf (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on KBPI. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
At least 3 reverts under username, likely more as IP, despite warnings on user's talk page. MB 22:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Been trying to cleanup this page to meet our standards for radio articles per WP:WPRS (including adding callsign meaning and cleaning up the format section which included a 'these bands don't belong on this station' scold that shouldn't be there), along with removing a non-notable heavy schedule section; there are several other things, including a mention of a station personality's murder, that I would love to expand on, but I haven't been able to get to that. The editor above has not taken any of my advice at all to heart, including bouncing to another IP to restore their article version (and a suspicion from me they were using a community college IP to start the issue yesterday before account creation). They also continue on insisting that K300CP, a Denver translator of the main station, should have its own article, despite all of its information about its five year history (mainly involving re-tunes to various Denver area AM and HD Radio subchannel stations) fitting comfortably in the KBPI article. I have also told them several times that if a station doesn't broadcast HD Radio, we simply don't mention it, but they insist on adding a line which comes off as annoyed that they do not do so. Finally, they added an inappropriately licensed version of the station logo to Commons; a properly-licensed local version I uploaded was removed. Nate • (chatter) 22:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 23:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Has now hopped to 69.11.193.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to wind past 3RR. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one week. Block evasion. Article and redirect semiprotected for six months. El_C 00:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Partycity reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Greendale High School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Partycity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 02:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892739926 by John from Idegon (talk)"
- 12:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Greendale High School. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Three different editors have reverted this poorly sourced content. Reported user keeps re-adding. It goes on back well into last month. John from Idegon (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Warned. Left the user a not about starting to use the article talk page and ceasing from edit warring. El_C 03:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)