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:Barefoot through the chollas reported by User:Sol505000 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page: Spanish language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Barefoot through the chollas (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: [4]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]
Comments:
The talk page link links to Help talk:IPA/Spanish as that is the appropriate place to solve all issues regarding IPA transcriptions of Spanish. Furthermore, at the time I started the thread nobody was edit warring yet. At the top of the Help:IPA/Spanish guide, it says Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here; do not change any symbol or value without establishing consensus on the talk page first.
and below that it says For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ].
At no point in the guide does it say that we need to duplicate the transcriptions. The reason I consider their behavior to be edit warring is that they refused to reply to my reply to their first message in the thread after I moved it back where it belongs (they moved, or rather copied and pasted the thread to another talk page without my permission). At that point I was done and just reverted them back as I've just wasted about 30 minutes on writing a response to them only to get ignored. Then, predictably, they revert me back, now falsely citing For terms that are more relevant to regions...
quoted above (Castellano is clearly not that, I mean look at this). As of now, there still has not been any meaningful response to my lengthy reply to them. Sol505000 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Warned both users. You are both edit warring; I was tempted to block you both, but since you are currently discussing the issue, I have decided to cut you some slack and only issue warnings. Please, both of you, stop reverting each other until a consensus has been reached. Salvio 20:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Salvio:, thanks for making the effort to try to help out. I've tried to conduct a civil conversation with Sol505000, but it turns out to be impossible. Please review thoroughly his multiple rv tactics, as well as his record of "contribs". The issue regards the Spanish language page, not Help talk:IPA/Spanish, beginning with his deletion of text (accurate text, not placed there by me) on 26 June, for no expressed reason other than "IPA spam", which the transcription that he removed obviously was not. I restored the deletion, as it's uncontroversial useful information for readers. From there we were off to the races, attempts at civil discussion to arrive at consensus failing miserably. It seems to me that the solution is to restore the text to what it was before he started this incident with the mysterious "IPA spam" deletion. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is what is known as a content dispute and which should be solve through discussion first between the two of you, but also involving neutral editors. Administrators do not solve content disputes, but only tackle behavioural issues, such as edit warring or vandalism. They can contribute to discussions in their capacity as editors, if they are knowledgeable enough on the subject matter – and I confess that is is an issue I'm not really familiar with. So, I can't really help you that much. The edit war has stopped and I urge you both not to revert each other again, until a consensus has been reached. It may take a while, but, then again, there is no rush. Salvio 14:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Salvio, thanks for the clarifications of the understandable limitations. Level-headed consensus was what I was shooting for, to no avail. Pace e bene. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is what is known as a content dispute and which should be solve through discussion first between the two of you, but also involving neutral editors. Administrators do not solve content disputes, but only tackle behavioural issues, such as edit warring or vandalism. They can contribute to discussions in their capacity as editors, if they are knowledgeable enough on the subject matter – and I confess that is is an issue I'm not really familiar with. So, I can't really help you that much. The edit war has stopped and I urge you both not to revert each other again, until a consensus has been reached. It may take a while, but, then again, there is no rush. Salvio 14:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User:2601:84:4501:5B21:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:12.145.98.24 (Result: No violation)
Page: Big Rig Bounty Hunters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:84:4501:5B21:0:0:0:0/64 (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:
- Can't seem to come up with one
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Nothing, really.
Comments: Let's try this again: There goes StealthForce again. He's also editing under SportsSucks55 now. He's also been continously rude and abrasive since at least 2015. 12.145.98.24 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- No violation It sounds like sockpuppetry is the true allegation here, and that's not our department. The reported range has indeed been making the same revert regularly over the past couple of months, never coming near 3RR. That could have been enough to justify a block, but with such an indifferent attitude to initiating a discussion and warning the user reported I cannot consider this to have reached an actionable level. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
User:2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:94FA:AA89:547C:C365 reported by User:Lol1VNIO (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page: Ana Marcela Cunha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:94FA:AA89:547C:C365 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13][14][15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I tried discussing on my talk page but user continued with really disruptive edit summaries. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 13:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked 48 hours by NJA ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 13:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Ficaia reported by User:NikolaosFanaris (Result: Partial block for 72 hours)
Page: Lauren Boebert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ficaia (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21][22]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]
Comments:
Several users have attempted to discuss issues related to the page, but the user continued reverting others - resulting in more than 10 reverts in less than a few hours. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- And what punishment do you suggest? I think anyone looking at the page history will see I've edited constructively and in good faith and tried to reach a compromise at the talk page. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ten reverts in a few hours? This is edit-warring as other users already pointed out. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours This applies only to Lauren Boebert, where while Ficacia has not violated 3RR per se, their reverts have been disruptive enough to foul the discussion on the talk page (which they are still free to contribute to) which is not conducive to reaching consensus. Since Ficacia has also been editing other articles without any issues during this time period, I do not see a sitewide block as necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case Sorry to be pedantic but Ficaia did indeed violate 3RR. Even when counting serial reviews as one collective revert, the following were made on Jule 3: 1, 2, 3, 4. Arguably, this is also a revert. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to err on the safe side and not invoke 3RR except where the exact same revert was made three times in 24 hours, so as to forestall argumentative unblock requests. You might be right about that one serial revert, and maybe the combined diffs would reflect it ... I just didn't feel like I had the time to select both of them and compare. I know 3RR is not that rigid. But the point to me is that "edit warring" is not synonymous with 3RR, and I felt it inarguably had occurred here (especially given the ongoing talk discussion), and that was a stronger ground for the block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will agree with @EvergreenFir on this - it was a defacto 3RR without any ongoing discussion taking place in the talk page of Lauren Boebert. Instead, Ficaia presented this argument several times in several synopses to justify his reverts. I don't understand why this is not a violation. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @NikolaosFanaris I think the partial block is perfectly sufficient for this case. Daniel Case makes a good point about other concurrent constructive edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. The disruption has been stopped, which is the purpose of blocks. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will agree with @EvergreenFir on this - it was a defacto 3RR without any ongoing discussion taking place in the talk page of Lauren Boebert. Instead, Ficaia presented this argument several times in several synopses to justify his reverts. I don't understand why this is not a violation. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to err on the safe side and not invoke 3RR except where the exact same revert was made three times in 24 hours, so as to forestall argumentative unblock requests. You might be right about that one serial revert, and maybe the combined diffs would reflect it ... I just didn't feel like I had the time to select both of them and compare. I know 3RR is not that rigid. But the point to me is that "edit warring" is not synonymous with 3RR, and I felt it inarguably had occurred here (especially given the ongoing talk discussion), and that was a stronger ground for the block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case Sorry to be pedantic but Ficaia did indeed violate 3RR. Even when counting serial reviews as one collective revert, the following were made on Jule 3: 1, 2, 3, 4. Arguably, this is also a revert. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:CLalgo (Result: Protected, 72 hours)
Page: François Gauthier-Drapeau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of the user's reverts in article Shady El Nahas:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31][32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]
Comments:
The user is removing medals from the infoboxes of the two Canadian judoka, medals that appear in the infoboxes of most judoka articles. The user has deleted previous warning recieved [35][36], engaging in Ad hominem [37][38], and after (see times) warned by me, threatened to report me as an edit warrior [39][40][41][42][43][44]. Please, stop this edit warrior before things escalate. CLalgo (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pot meet kettle. You have blindly been reverting as well after receiving multiple warnings. The only revert after discussions started in two places [45] and [46] (mind you, I started both discussions to stop this from a back and forth), was this revert [47], because it had factually incorrect information, which was pointed out to you on your talk page [48], yet you still went ahead and reverted the edit [49] without acknowlding the factually incorrect information, and added back the wrong info. You are the clear edit warrior here, blindly reverting edits to your preferred version without even attempting a discussion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly have issues collaborating with other editors, as evidenced by your previous block in August 2021. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Friend, everyone can see the times you were warned in, the warning you deleted and the order of reversions. Meanwhile, here is a fresh revert by you, of another Canadian judoka's article: [50]. CLalgo (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- This edit was before a discussion started, keeping in mind you just reverted my edit again while a discussion is taking place. You have been warned multiple times, yet you continued your edit warring ways after the discussions started. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Friend, everyone can see the times you were warned in, the warning you deleted and the order of reversions. Meanwhile, here is a fresh revert by you, of another Canadian judoka's article: [50]. CLalgo (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly have issues collaborating with other editors, as evidenced by your previous block in August 2021. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: I know that WP:BRD is just an essay, but it's good advice. You've made bold edits. They've been reverted. You've asked for discussion at a project-wide level. I suggest you wait for that discussion to proceed—as there does not appear to be any standard across all sports currently—before continuing to make these edits. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The other user made the bold edits, which I reverted. Which is exactly what is happening. As pointed above, my only revert after the discussion I started has been to fix factually incorrect information that is easily verifiable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: Why have you not been updating the references to go along with the corrected information? —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only reference is already linked twice as external links on the article. [51] If you scroll to results and click on Junior Pan American Championships 2016, its there. I don't think linking to the event page is a good reference at this time. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not following. The reference currently in the article says the competition was in Cordoba.[52][53] Why are you changing away from what's in the cited source? —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The source in the infobox [54] says Buenos Aires. The IJF is the governing body and takes precedence imo Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here is another source [55] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The source in the infobox [54] says Buenos Aires. The IJF is the governing body and takes precedence imo Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not following. The reference currently in the article says the competition was in Cordoba.[52][53] Why are you changing away from what's in the cited source? —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only reference is already linked twice as external links on the article. [51] If you scroll to results and click on Junior Pan American Championships 2016, its there. I don't think linking to the event page is a good reference at this time. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: Why have you not been updating the references to go along with the corrected information? —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The other user made the bold edits, which I reverted. Which is exactly what is happening. As pointed above, my only revert after the discussion I started has been to fix factually incorrect information that is easily verifiable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, the start of this thread has reverted five of my edits on the article on question in under 24 hrs. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Since the parties seem to have such basic disagreements about facts, the page is fully protected. You will need to civilly discuss changes and reach consensus at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, C.Fred. I do want to emphasize that while in the case of François Gauthier-Drapeau the two main primary sources disagree on the location of the 2016 Pan American Junior Championships ([56][57]), the main issue was and still is Sportsfan 1234's blanket removal of medals from the various judoka infoboxes. CLalgo (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)