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:Semsûrî reported by User:Dortana (Result: No action)
Page: Melek Taûs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Semsûrî (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: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]
Comments:
Breaking the 3RR within 24 hours. Dortana (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's a sockpuppet investigation going on pertaining to Dortana and I did involve an admin just an hour ago in regard to Dortana's blatant POV-push[9]. Dortana (an two or three dozen other sockpuppets) have been disrupting Wikipedia since at least 2015(!). My frustration with this sock made not aware that I would have reverted a fourth time instead of a third time. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- On another note, there was no 3RR warning from Dortana. Dortana has linked to the notice on my talkpage of this discussion. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- 178.243.110.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I suspect that this is a sockpuppet of Dortana as they just continued Dortana's disruption. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not blocked At this point he hasn't edited the page in a day. Any suspected sockpuppetry should be reported at SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Look at the page history. He has edited the page in a day on 13 June 2022 four times with reverting.[11] Dortana (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- "four times with reverting". Yes, but that's not four reverts of the exact same edit. He made the same revert three times, reverted a different edit twice, and then doesn't seem to have edited the page much since. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Look at the page history. He has edited the page in a day on 13 June 2022 four times with reverting.[11] Dortana (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Karavali Putra reported by User:Tenryuu (Result: No action)
Page: Akola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Karavali Putra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 02:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion (RW 16.1)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User has been persistently adding an item to a list on the article without any sign of it being notable by Wikipedia's standards (unsourced) and seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia is a directory, and has been told otherwise. 1 2 —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not blocked This is really more a spamming issue, and user has not done so since the last time they were warned for that. Their talk page seems to suggest they're giving up. If they resume this behavior, report it at AIV, not here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Guneeta reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: No action)
Page: Sidhu Moose Wala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guneeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Death */ Grammatical correction, and used more accurate and professional English language rather than crude "street talk." @Fylindfotberserk - please note, we want to keep Wikipedia professional and not crude. Let's use English professionally. And don't be an online bully."
- Consecutive edits made from 15:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- 15:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Language was a little violent, neutralized this phrase "shot dead" bot "attacked by armed assailants""
- 15:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Changed language to clearly reflect the reference. These are all assumptions. They should not sound like conclusions. Case is ongoing. As new evidence comes to light, we will be able to change these lines accordingly."
- Consecutive edits made from 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Changed phrasing to give context to make it more factual/neutral. Prior language was biased and decisive."
- 15:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "This line was incorrect. Old Skool was sung by both Prem Dhillon and Moosewala, and not Prem Dhillon alone. I have corrected it and added a reference to the song."
- 15:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "I have neutralized the language on these two sub-section titles. It was previously biased language that assumed a certain stance."
- 15:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "grammar correction. Changed "was" to "were""
- 15:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Neutralized the language. It was biased and slightly incorrect."
- 15:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "We can change his name back, but please don't undo my changes, as I have made other language changes, and added more references. You are undoing all of that. Undid revision 1093101913 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
- 15:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Venkat: please don't undo my changes. I have cleared a lot of controversial language use. You are deleting a lot of hard work when you continue to undo my changes. Also, please look at every news report. Not twitter alone. His name is incorrect. It is not Sidhu Moose Wala. It is Sidhu Moosewala.Undid revision 1093101482 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
- 15:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093100003 by Venkat TL (talk)"
- 14:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "The name was incorrect in the article title and across the entire article. It is "Moosewala" and NOT "Moose Wala." It is the former across his discography, social media pages and news articles. So I have corrected it across the article. Furthermore, in two places I have corrected outdated and biased language to make it more fact-based/neutral."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 15:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sidhu Moose Wala."
- 15:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
- 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
- 15:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 15:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Moose Wala vs Moosewala */"
- 15:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Moose Wala vs Moosewala */"
Comments:
Revert war and disruptive editing. Changing common name of the subject that resulted in syntax error (broken image files, etc). Keeps on changing reliably sourced content in the name of 'neutrality' and 'grammar correction' [12] [13] [14] despite multiple requests to engage in teh article talk page. Also note the accusation here. Seems like WP:LISTEN and/or WP:CIR. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not blocked Guneeta did come really close to the line with that issue of Moosewala vs. Moose wala, and their refusal to discuss outside of edit summaries, but he stepped off it afterwards and as I write has not edited in 12 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
User:محرر البوق reported by User:Cinderella157 (Result: No action)
Page: Battle of Adwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: محرر البوق (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [15] This appears to be a relaively stable version before the edit warring.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [16] This appears to be the oldest relevant edit by the user.
- most recent at time of report
Numerous intervening edits
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
}}Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle of Adwa#Italian casaulties version at time of making report Opened by this editor.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]
Comments:
I am not an involved party. The other involved party is Agilulf2007. I am filing a separate report wrt this user. There is an near continuous exchange of edits/reverts between the two editors save for five by an IP, which directly relate to the same content - see revision history.
- Not blocked It seems from the article talk page that discussion has been successful. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Agilulf2007 reported by User:Cinderella157 (Result: No action)
Page: Battle of Adwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Agilulf2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [18] This appears to be a relaively stable version before the edit warring.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [19] This appears to be the oldest relevant edit by the user.
- most recent at time of report
Numerous intervening edits
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle of Adwa#Italian casaulties version at time of making report No response by this Agilulf2007.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]
Comments:
I am not an involved party. The other involved party is محرر البوق. I am filing a separate report wrt this user. There is an near continuous exchange of edits/reverts between the two editors save for five by an IP, which directly relate to the same content - see revision history. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not blocked It seems from the article talk page that discussion has been successful. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Dove's talk reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: Asjad Raza Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dove's talk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC) "You are now edit warring and pushing an agenda, stop it now, you need to prove from multiple sources that Asjad is the Grand Mufti of India."
- 17:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093288998 by Praxidicae (talk) oops, again praxidecay , removed the so called blog now"
- 16:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC) "You need multiple good quality sources to make any extraordinary claim such as Grand Mufti of India, from Jagran it is clear that his position is disputed. Also we have separate article in Grand Mufti of India."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 17:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Asjad Raza Khan."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
yet again, we are back here about the same article and Dove's talk's unwillingness to engage with anyone - they claim none of the sources are reliable but refuse to explain which, despite a consensus (per WP:RSP that they are) and in fact, after their absence, which was caused by several warnings on this exact matter, they immediately returned to also add a spam blog, and now they're trolling me on my talk page, trolling the article and accusing anyone who questions their edits of an agenda while continuing to remove sourced information. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not to mention that 7/9 sources there call him the Mufti, and several others that aren't included, including this one. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: (edit conflict)
yet again, we are back here about the same article
. When were we here before?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)- I thought I'd previously reported them when they were on an edit warring binge before they were warned by TNT, but I guess not. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: (edit conflict)
- Can you explain which source have you added for an agenda which you were pushing? Also per my knowledge of English wikipedia I have not violated Wikipedia:3R.
Admins please note that she is abusing me with words such as bullshit and all.
Many thanks. Dove's talk (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)- I have no agenda - but feel free to substantiate your claims that I do. And feel free to link to any abuse, calling your harassment of me bullshit by copying my exact wording in a comment and templating me when I've only edited the article two times, especially after you've been warned by TheresNoTime for this exact behavior previously, is not abuse nor was it unwarranted. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty silly, I thought you might know about the difference between a Mufti and Grand Mufti. In your edits you were repeatedly restoring Asjad being Grand Mufti of India without providing any source for such an extraordinary claim. Hope I am clear now. Dove's talk (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have no agenda - but feel free to substantiate your claims that I do. And feel free to link to any abuse, calling your harassment of me bullshit by copying my exact wording in a comment and templating me when I've only edited the article two times, especially after you've been warned by TheresNoTime for this exact behavior previously, is not abuse nor was it unwarranted. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bbb23 after a quick look at this, copying someone's boilerplate straght back to them (with comment) [21] and referring to Praxidicae as "Praxidecay" [22] are IMO indistinguishable from trolling, frankly ... Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Echoing back comments isn't new (ref this) for them.. — TNT (talk • she/her) 17:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Black Kite please also see the warning from TNT a month ago about this exact same thing that they did to them. Copying and pasting their comments...and indeed it does feel a lot like trolling, especially given their edit warring previously to restore a blacklisted source. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Black Kite and now they've continued on with their baseless attacks and accusations of an agenda in the discussion, which they've finally decided to join but have failed yet again to point out what sources are "not reliable" and are in fact still denying that it's in said sources I provided, which came from the latest AFD discussion in 2021. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bbb23:} Praxidicae is again accusing me of bad behavior. What to do? Shall I step back? Dove's talk (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked for one week, but not just for the complaint about the user's edit-warring on this article. A fuller description of the user's disruptive behavior may be found in the block log and on the user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
User:TheRealSerenaJoy reported by User:Throast (Result: No action)
Page: Ryan Kavanaugh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRealSerenaJoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1092967237
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Special:Diff/1093301322
- Special:Diff/1093419822
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1093313579, Special:Diff/1093306481 (edit summary)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1092969142
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1093423746
Comments:
Although a discussion was initially started on the talk page by the editor themselves, they've repeatedly reintroduced the disputed material in the meantime on grounds that their version is the "accurate" one. The talk page discussion is ongoing, and consensus appears to move contra to the editor.
Although 3RR has not yet been broken, the editor has explicitly stated their intention to do so here in order to get editors to "concede". Additionally, the editor has insulted editors involved in the dispute, implied COIs on their part without evidence, accused them of bad faith (edit summary), and of "collaborating on misinformation" and discrediting the subject of the article. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I also hope that the purely retaliatory decision by the editor to report both Popoki35 and me below is taken into account. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not blocked C.Fred seems to have had an effect with this edit summary, for now. While TRSJ's tenacity, bordering on tendentiousness, exasperated the other editors in the discussion, most of their edits were to that discussion and only a couple to the actual article. Those latter do not yet rise to the level of block-worthy edit warring, IMO, although as I think even TRSJ realizes here they were headed that way if they continued.
Frankly the whole episode might well reach LEW if it goes far enough (Edit-warring over, in part, the wording of the short description?) Since I assume good faith, I take TRSJ at their word when they believe that they are interpreting policy correctly. I think a higher level of dispute resolution, probably an RfC, might be effective here where the voices of five very involved editors have not been so far. When everybody's calmed down a little. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- No action whatsoever (not even a strongly worded talk page message by someone with actual authority?) seems unreasonable looking at the toxicity I laid out in the second paragraph above. I'm afraid editors involved with the article will have to endure much more of that, if not worse, if the editor is not reined in somehow. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Throast & User:Popoki35 reported by User:TheRealSerenaJoy (Result: Declined)
Page: Ryan Kavanaugh
User being reported: Throast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Popoki35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1093179064
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page discussion
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Special:Diff/1093216109
- Special:Diff/1093306481
- Special:Diff/1091096628
Diff of ANEW posted to users' talk page: Special:Diff/1093434441 and Special:Diff/1093434441
Comments:
I hope I've done this correctly as I've never had to report anyone as my experience in Wikipedia so far, has been pleasurable. I *really* hate to even be involved in this, but I did not initiate an editing war. I did not insult anyone, but asked same questions that were asked of me and stated my personal observations on the page activity clearly and honestly. I initially made typical cleanup type edits to what I've learned is a contentious page. The edits were all in good faith. The two editors immediate accused me of COI among other things.
Popokie35 accused me of trying to "take over" the Ryan Kavanaugh page rather than engage in discussion with me about the page in question and instead asked GOCE editors to "do something" to which I responded clearly and accordingly to explain my participation in the dispute. I responded to all on my talk page, as well as the BLP talk page.
I made some additional relatively minor edits to the content to correct misinformation, placing full and detailed explanation in the edit summary and the talk page The talk page discussion and those edits were reverted. I then reverted them and now I have four editors who won't agree to fact on a page of a BLP, and in the various discussions, I noted several guideline violations. Four editors collectively agreeing to misinformation does not equal consensus nor accuracy. Is that a tactic to control content here? Just ignore facts? I don't believe that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work...
Four editors on BLP page appear to be collaborating to prevent 'any' edits to the page regardless of how accurate — and/or how benign those edits are. Denying the facts written in reliable sources is not unbiased. Reverting good edits multiple times and then complaining about edit warring they've begun is improper. I've presented neatly, clearly facts to support all of my edits, which they've taken turns reverting. It appears that all editing on this page is not unbiased as evidenced by some of the minor, yet accurate changes I've made which have been reverted. I welcome admins input if they are willing to check it out. Please feel welcome to ask any questions as some of the discussions are hard to read/follow without clean formatting. Thank you in advance.The Real Serena JoyTalk 16:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)}}
- Declined This is a purely retaliatory report. If any action were to be taken, it would be full protection of the article to stop The Real Serena Joy's one against many reverts—which TRSJ would not like, because in their eyes, The Wrong Version would be protected. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
2001:56a:7431:ce00:6de8:2014:8039:b342/64 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: )
Page: Crystal Pepsi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:56a:7431:ce00:6de8:2014:8039:b342/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
Previous version reverted to: [23]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring warning: [27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
User:HaT59 reported by User:DrKay (Result: )
Page: Malawi (1964–1966) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HaT59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [29]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]
Comments: