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:BNParibasguy reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BNParibasguy (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: [7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]
Comments:
User:BNParibasguy and User:GoldenTaurus have been reverting to keep a polity in the successor section of Goguryeo deleted. Both have displayed many similarities including WP tag stacking in accusations, deleting warnings from their talk page while accusing others of vandalism and harassment, same one line statement or variation of "Tang did not succeed Goguryeo", avoidance of participating in the talk discussion except to repeat said one liner. BNP also requested page protection first instead of engaging in the talk discussion for some reason and has done so again now. Qiushufang (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pot meet kettle, you violated the 3RR on 27th June 2022.
- And again on 5th July 2022.
- Despite being warned several times on WP:VAND WP:EW WP:NPA WP:HA [16] [17][18] you continue to show persistent vandalism, edit warring, harrassment and personal attacks. I have requested WP:RPP to prevent the on going WP:VAND and WP:EW. --BNParibasguy (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I initiated calls once asking BNP what the logic was behind the reversion, and again to explain what they meant by vandalism. They never responded. GoldenTaurus made the statement Goguryeo was not succeeded by Tang. in the initial deletion, their only response to talk request was also Tang did not succeed Goguryeo., and now BNP has reverted with the same statement Tang did not suceeded Goguryeo. Their edit summaries and WP tags without any extra substantiation in recent history are also similar: [19], [20]. Qiushufang (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- As a reminder, making 3 reverts to a page on the same 24 hour period is not itself a violation of 3RR. It takes 4 reverts to "violate" that rule, as it is worded that users "[...] must not perform more than three reverts [...]" GabberFlasted (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Would you also mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Traineek. User:GoldenTaurus came into Goguryeo again soon after User:BNParibasguy got into trouble and rv User:Esiymbro: [21]. Their rv behavior and edit summaries are practically identical: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Talk: [27], [28]. Same argument as Traineek: [29], [30]. Qiushufang (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
User:BradVesp reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: Both editors blocked 24h)
Page: List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BradVesp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 16:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC) to 16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- 16:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096615752 by Favre1fan93 (talk) Makes reading easier and doesn't detract from content WP:COMMON"
- 16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "consistency"
- 16:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096614473 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"
- 16:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "WP:COMMON"
- 15:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "reformatted so Bret Dalton's characters are seperated and separate from Min-La Wen's; reads more logically from left to right. Added links to pilot episode consistent with other characters first appearance"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters."
- 16:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 16:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Duplicate links and rowspans */ new section"
Comments:
User has violated 3RR, and the reverts continued after two user talk page warnings, one explanation in one of my reverts about BRD and the burden on the bold editor to start the discussion (along with WP:STATUSQUO), and another revert again after I went ahead and started the talk page discussion (again, trying to leave STATUSQUO while discussing). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- See talk page. BradVesp (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The changes make it easier for someone who is not a wikipedia editor to read the table. BradVesp (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Very clear-cut here. We do not settle discussions like this with edit wars. Favre1fan, you should have heeded GabberFlasted's warning. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
4 users reported by User:171.66.135.95 (Result: Full protection for 3 days)
Page: Bengal tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
FelineThesaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BhagyaMani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tijkil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YusufCatLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [31]
Diffs of the user's reverts: See the history. There are 11 reverts by 4 users in the last 24 hours. It's 18 reverts in 3 days and approximately 30 reverts in the last week.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32] [33] [34]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36] [37] [38] [39]
Comments:
4 users with a half-dozen reverts each. Clearly none of them know anything but the undo button and everyone needs to be stopped. 171.66.135.95 (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Makes more sense to do this with multiple edit-warriors. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi dear Daniel Case,
- Actually i warned the people in the Talk section of the bengal tiger website regarding these 2 users that delete informations, which just come from papers. The reason behind this is serious bias. Can you tell me how i can solve this? Maybe you could read the message i sent in the talk section and follow it in the 9th july to see it yourself. I have a good reputation in other websites (other languages). However if the users keep deleting the parts without any serious reason. Hope you can clear this problem for me and can give a serious warning to the 2 other users.
- Kind regards,
- YusufCatLover YusufCatLover (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi,
- I would suggest you to open the talk section in the bengal tiger thread were i talked about this issue. All i did was originally adding a tiny bit of additional information. However two guys kept deleting those edits without any acceptable reason. I hope you can understand. YusufCatLover (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Drmargi reported by User:Aleenf1 (Result: blocked for 1 week)
Page: 2028 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- 15:04, 6 July 2022 Undid revision 1096768162 by Czello (talk) RFC ongoing; cities always listed with states in US
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 13:16, 6 July 2022 Undid revision 1096750181 by Aleenf1 (talk) Cities are always listed with states.
- 13:28, 6 July 2022 Undid revision 1096761187 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) undothank Tags: Undo Reverted
- 13:32, 6 July 2022 Undid revision 1096761529 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk). INCORRECT.
- 15:04, 6 July 2022 Undid revision 1096768162 by Czello (talk) RFC ongoing; cities always listed with states in US
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[40]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Unable to honour the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#RFC: What to put in the 'host city' section of the infobox Aleenf1 14:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dmargi has now reverted 5 different editors in a very short span of time - this needs to stop. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked for 1 week; previous history of edit warring blocks, crossed bright line 3RR rule, edit warring against multiple editors, edit warring against apparent consensus, edit warring after clear warnings to stop edit warring. Come on. Last block was several years ago, which is why this is not longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Aniket Singh Bhadoria reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page: Shantel VanSanten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aniket Singh Bhadoria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Edit"
- 14:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Edit"
- 11:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Edit"
- 23:08, 15 June 2022 "Original edit"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (note this is a Level 4 warning after two separate Level 3 warnings)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Shantel VanSanten#Portrait photo in infobox
Comments:
Edit warring warning can be found on their talk page. Not sure why the diff didn't show up in Twinkle. Amaury • 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: User also has a recent history of making some disruptive edits. Kpddg (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The salient point here is the user in question started a Talk page discussion, that I responded to laying out my position (and pointing out the objectionable part of their edit), and then they simply ignored the Talk page discussion that they had started from then on, and never commented again and just repeated the same edit over and over again! I can't think of anything more disruptive than starting a discussion, and then ignoring it to keep reverting! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Juan.h.gonzalez.1 reported by User:Zefr (Result: )
Page: Cannabigerol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096780734 by Zefr (talk) On the wikipedia article it is only stated that the analysis was performed in silico, in vivo and in vitro. No clinical infromation was mentiond. The pharmaceutical claims are quoted directly from the referenced authors"
- 14:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096769568 by Zefr (talk) Zefr is vandalizing this article erasing parts without discussion"
- 14:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096764709 by Zefr (talk) The source was erronously misunderstood as a low-quality journal for unknown reason"
- Consecutive edits made from 09:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC) to 09:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- 09:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096683312 by KH-1 (talk)"
- 09:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "I added an extra reference that mentions the existance of cannabis strains that produce large amounts of CBG"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 13:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cannabigerol."
- 13:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* July 2022 */ Reply"
- 14:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Cannabigerol."
- 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cannabigerol."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 14:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* What a reliable source means */ WP:PRIMARY sources"
- 15:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* What a reliable source means */ r"
- 15:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* What a reliable source means */ r"
Comments:
User is repeatedly warring against two editors, with no consensus established on the article talk page and insufficient justification on the user's talk page. Zefr (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- To put this in context, Zafr wants this phrase removed because he/she believes that such claim requires clinical research published in high impact factor jounral.
- "Some strains, however, produce large amounts of CBG and CBGA, while having very low quantities of other cannabinoids, like THC and CBD."
- I presented a source (a citation of a review published in a journal in with an impact factor higher than 3) that mentions the existence of such strains, but the user considers such information as "unjustified, exaggerated and misleading". These are personal interpretations of the user which should have no relevance for the validity of the source. Since the user was left with no further arguments, he/she preferred harass me through this report. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Solidarityandfreedom reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )
Page: Mayra Flores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solidarityandfreedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Added source and info"
- 20:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Evangelicals don’t have a Sacrament of Confirmation only Orthodox Christians and Catholics do. Campaigning with the support of evangelicals =/= being an Evangelical, Donald Trump is an example of this. Also this article uses tweets a sources for other statements but provides no source for this statement. Her own statements directly refute this.
- 18:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Added information and source"
- 18:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Added information and citation on personal life."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 18:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC) ""
- 20:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mayra Flores."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 18:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"
- 20:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"
- 20:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"
Comments:
This user doesn't appear to be able to edit without edit warring, whether it be adding erroneous, unsourced or incorrect information of varying degrees. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
User:92.10.13.209 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: )
Page: Amanda Lear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.10.13.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 00:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096837089 by Binksternet (talk) Removed WP:BLP violation, I encourage you to read the BLP policy - which this info violates"
- 22:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not a gossip column"
- 20:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096816863 by ZimZalaBim (talk) This is an obvious WP:BLP violaton. I am not going to seek consensus regardless of sourcing, considering the purpose of the info. If someone found sourced information of her social security number that would still be a BLP violation and not what Wikipedia is for. Passport + birth cert info is not Wikipedia appropriate and u know it. You'd delete it on any other article."
- 20:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "This entire section and the ending of last quote is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and regardless of intention serves purely as tabloid journalism on something private - potentially violating the privacy of a living person WP:BLP - as a way of exoticising trans women. Either way, if Lear's trans, then she'd be closeted and this would be a big BLP vio - but she said she's cis constantly. Info about her birth certificate and passport is outrageously unacceptable"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Amanda Lear */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This IP has engaged in edit wars on numerous pages over the past week or so. Amanda Lear, Emily St. James, and others. Attempts to engage on user talk page are met with hostility or blanking warnings. ZimZalaBim talk 00:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Æñøï reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: Simona Halep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Æñøï (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "RV vandalism"
- 18:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096799991 by Wolbo (talk) s"
- 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096795631 by Wolbo (talk) it is ludicrously unencyclopaedic. it is an embarrassment. If you think otherwise, you must not have looked at it."
- Consecutive edits made from 16:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC) to 16:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- 16:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096659084 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"
- 16:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096646249 by Fyunck(click) (talk) if there is unencyclopaedic shit like this in other articles, it should be removed from them. There is no justification for restoring such rubbish here."
- 10:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096577846 by Fyunck(click) (talk) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines##4:Career says otherwise"
- 08:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "/* 2022 */ I don't think every single tournament needs mentioning, especially not in a badly-presented list riddled with grammar and style errors."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Simona Halep."
- 00:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC) "/* July 2022 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Multiple editors keep trying to stop this content removal.... so far to no avail. We have asked it be brought to talk, even though I doubt any editor would agree with this blanking. That also has not happened. This is a high profile page right now with Halep in the semifinals and this disruptive editing is something we don't need. Warnings and explanations on the personal talk page were ignored. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
User:192.181.85.245 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )
Page: Bucharest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 192.181.85.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
- 04:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 05:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bucharest."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
See also them acting in the previous days. It seems they particularly hate the Turks, see their other edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Theknightwho reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: )
Page: NATO phonetic alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theknightwho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [41]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]
Comments:
Not a 3RR violation, but edit-warring nonetheless. Seem to be POINTy edits. Theknightwho removed some unsourced wording [48] (common enough statement in the lit, but not one I have a ref handy for), and I cleaned up the result by restoring the subject of the paragraph. Theknightwho then edit-warred over deleting the subject, claiming it was "redundant". Of course, you don't want the topic of a para to be a pronoun, because if someone copies the para, it won't make sense out of context. Theknightwho seems to object to the wording "spelling alphabet", but that follows from the lead and is well-sourced.
Anyway, it's late, I'm tired and am going to bed. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: The full context of this hasn't really been explained, and is cross-project because it involves a disagreement that has mostly happened at Wiktionary. I know we're only concerned about Wikipedia here, but some of the Wiktionary stuff is necessary to understand what went on here.
- The issue is over the term "phonetic alphabet", which has two meanings: it can refer to phonetic transcription (e.g. the IPA) or spelling alphabets (e.g. the NATO phonetic alphabet). @User:Kwamikagami considers the second usage to be incorrect and thinks we should always call those alphabets "spelling alphabets", which I consider to be prescriptivist. I think they're just synonyms, and in any event a prescriptivist tone is explicitly disllowed on Wiktionary (and frowned upon here, so far as I'm aware).
- Kwamikagami added the paragraph in question back in March 2021[49], and made similar edits to the "phonetic alphabet" and "spelling alphabet" entries at Wiktionary[50][51] a few hours later. That paragraph was then used by someone else to add a similar note to the "phonetic alphabet" Wiktionary entry in May 2021.[52]. This issue came to my attention yesterday, when I noticed wikt:Template:phonetic alphabet had just been moved by Kwamikagami to wikt:Template:spelling alphabet[53] on the basis that
these are not phonetic alphabets
. We then had a lengthy discussion in which we managed to come to some level of agreement at a few points, but which was ultimately frustrated because (from my perspective) it didn't really feel like Kwamikagami was arguing in good faith, but instead wanted everyone to follow their preferred terminology, irrespective of whether their arguments actually made any sense when taken as a whole. However, the paragraph in question is one of the things that started that discussion in the first place (yes, I did check the WP article history
), so I changed it to something more neutral when it seemed like Kwamikagami had at least conceded that what mattered was how a term is used, and not what they personally deemed correct.[54] - In that context, Kwamikagami changing the wording from
Although called "phonetic alphabets"
toAlthough spelling alphabets are commonly called "phonetic alphabets"
[55] felt like an attempt to insert prescriptivism in by the back door by implying that one is more correct than the other (and also a bit of WP:OWN, to be honest). I reverted it on the basis that it's redundant (which it is as the referent is obvious), but also because I didn't want to reignite things based on a hunch by making an accusation after one revert. However, after it was reinstated[56] I then explained why it was a problem[57]. Kwamikagami then added their wording for a third time on the basis that I should take it to the talk page and stop edit warring,[58] which felt like pretty obvious bad faith given the discussion we'd already had (and their own edit-warring behaviour). Their warning on my talk page was anything but an attempt to resolve the issue,[59] and just seemed like a way to throw their weight around while insulting me. - Honestly, I'm not happy that any of this happened and wish I hadn't got involved, but I'm really unimpressed with the actions of an editor that has this much experience. Theknightwho (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)