Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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 {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    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.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    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.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:2400:1A00:BB20:2506:70DF:A711:1461:1EF0 reported by User:VolatileAnomaly (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: Sandeep Lamichhane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2400:1A00:BB20:2506:70DF:A711:1461:1EF0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 04:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/sandeep-lamichhane-rape-case-innocent-t20-world-cup-nepal-high-court-9331388/ This is the link of news which says he was declared innocent. https://risingnepaldaily.com/news/50553#:~:text=By%20TRN%20Online%2C%20Kathmandu%2C%20Oct,by%20issuing%20a%20press%20release. Sandeep Lamichhane was granted US visa for WCL2 series, whoever is doing this is for defamation, that part is really not needed, if someone has to get warning they are them."
    3. 03:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "He was declared innocent by the court, so that part is really not needed, why to put the stain, can you please stop ultra woke nonsense."
    4. 03:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "Lawsuit and allegation part is not needed, ban whoever is editing this."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 03:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Sandeep Lamichhane */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 03:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:2400:1A00:BB20:2506:70DF:A711:1461:1EF0 "/* Sandeep Lamichhane */ new section"

    Comments:

    Repeated attempts to remove sourced allegations regarding public figure. Notified user of policy on talkpage. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    VolatileAnomaly, please have a look at WP:BLPRESTORE and seek a consensus on the talk page before restoring the disputed content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPN is also a good option in cases like this as they will often provide more nuanced feedback and consensus than simply "all this content should stay" vs "all this content should be removed". At first glance this does look like whitewashing of notable and sourced content, but it does need better review before restoring wholesale.-- Ponyobons mots 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you ToBeFree and Ponyo for the feedback. I happened upon those edits while doing recent changes patrol and will be more cautious in the future before restoring disputed content. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you and no worries ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skornezy reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Phoenix Program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Skornezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]
    5. [6]
    6. [7]
    7. [8]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Phoenix Program#K. Barton Osborne and Talk:Phoenix Program#Yes, the Phoenix Program really did officially begin in 1967; Mztourist is in denial

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

    Comments:
    I asked for more eyes on the page on the Military History noticeboard: [11] and was accused of canvassing by Skornezy: [12]. On top of the earlier personal attack of suggesting I'm dyslexic: [13]. User:The Bushranger warned us both for edit-warring and protected the page, but declined to block because we were attempting to resolve the issues on the Talk Page. I was unable to reach any agreement with Skornezy on changes to this page. Another uninvolved user User:Intothatdarkness gave input: Talk:Phoenix_Program#Blowtorch which Skornezy ignored. Skornezy requested a third opinion here: [14], but then withdrew the request here: [15]. Skornezy then went and made all their edits again: [16], which is a continuation of the edit-war and clear breach of the edit-war warning. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Notwithstanding that there is no WP:3RR violation since the page had been protected for 24 hours, I'm not sure how my recent edits after the page-protection expired can be considered edit warring [17] and the admin who protected the page, User:The Bushranger, at least tacitly didn't think so either because he did not block me when Mztourist asked him to and instead suggested Mztourist take it to WP:EWN [18]; Mztourist in response said that he was "very disappointed" in the admin and accused the admin of apparently "ducking this." [19]
    While I admit, and apologize, that my edits before the page-protection constituted edit-warring and a violation of WP:3RR (as were Mztourist's edits), my recent edits consisted of the addition of reliable sources unrelated to our dispute on when the Phoenix Program began [20][21][22] and objective improvements by correcting the misspelling of a person's name [23]. I also removed an inaccurate citation of Woodruff 2000 [24] that went unnoticed and undiscussed when Mztourist added it to the article in August 2020 [25]. During the period of page-protection, I clearly pointed this out to Mztourist on the talk page that his citation of Woodruff 2000 to state that "Osborne [sic] served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented" is not accurate because Woodruff 2000 itself states that "American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, "Phoenix"! [26] Moreover, I engaged in discussion to demonstrate why I think Woodruff is an unreliable WP:PRIMARY source, [27] including by providing reliable sources with more credentials than Woodruff has that state that Woodruff engages in "revisionist military history"[28], makes erroneous claims, and "ignores the individual experiences of the majority of the soldiers who voluntarily spoke to reporters, participated in ad hoc war crimes hearings, or contacted their congressmen"[29]. Is this not a form of WP:BRD or am I mistaken here?
    I didn't "accuse" you of of canvassing. In that diff I simply asked you: "who did you ping? I suspect you're now trying to improprely [sic] WP:Canvass the article to push your preferred version." [30]
    "On top of the earlier personal attack of suggesting I'm dyslexic"
    Why are you not mentioning that I already I apologized to you for that comment? [31] That comment was wrong and I apologize again; I was frustrated and it was wrong to ask that. Moreover, why are you also not mentioning that you repeatedly violated WP:AGF with comments such as these throughout pretty much our entire discussion? "You clearly have no interest in actually improving the page to accurately describe the evolution of what became Phoenix, rather you just want to just want to reinforce your view that the US military and CIA were systematically torturing and murdering people ... Claiming repeatedly that you have done so is dishonest ... You really are devoting a lot of time to pushing your POV here, rather than actually improving pages ... The anti-US POV that you push across multiple pages. Why am I assuming you're not acting in good faith? ... seems pretty disingenuous ... I don't AGF from you at this point" [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]
    Another uninvolved user User:Intothatdarkness gave input: which Skornezy ignored.
    How did I ignore that user when I clearly responded to him, engaged with his points, [38] [39] and addressed them by providing excerpts from reliable sources? [40] Moreover, as you'll noitce, User:Intothatdarkness himself left the discussion, stating "I'll leave you to your clear misunderstanding of how things work. Sorry to have wasted my time here." [41] Why would you say that I ignored him when I very clearly did not and he left the discussion on his own accord?
    "Skornezy requested a third opinion here: [102], but then withdrew the request here: [103]"
    Okay? I didn't feel it was pertinent, what does that have to do with edit-warring? Skornezy (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure what Mztourist even finds objectionable about these recent edits [42] for it be even considered edit-warring; our main dispute was over when the Phoenix Program began, but those edits have nothing to do with that. Skornezy (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't need to be a 3RR breach for it to be edit-warring. Reinstating your changes as soon as the 24hr protection expired was a continuation of the edit-warring. Mztourist (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, what exactly do you find objectionable about my recent edits? They're unrelated to our dispute over when the Phoenix Program began. I broached the topic with you here [43] when you complained to the admin to have me blocked on the talk page, but you never replied and instead filed this report. Skornezy (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected By The Bushranger Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that was before this filing - the protection had expired and the OP believes the edit-warring had continued, hence their filing. As for why I didn't engage further on the issue - it was largely because when I came across this issue (notified by the OP's posting on WT:MILHIST), both of the participants here were edit-warring and were in fact past 3RR. Given there appeared to be an attempt at discussion ongoing at the article talk page, I decided it would be more constructive to revert the page to the status quo ante bellum and protect it for 24 hours, allowing discussion to proceed. When it didn't resolve the issue, I suggested it come here instead of taking further action as, given the circumstances, I was not entirely comfortable unilaterally taking further action on the issue without input from other admins, and hence here we are. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by User:SatelliteChange (Result: Declined – malformed report)

    [edit]

    Page: Bratislava

    User being reported: Dasomm

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

    Comments:
    Hello, shortly I’ve made an infobox update of Bratislava which includes some more notable monuments of Bratislava as a capital and historic city. Now, i’m not saying that it should stay like that, but keep reverting my edits and giving explaination like “I prefer it this way better” shows that username Dasomm just wants to edit for his personal pleasure which that not Wikipedia is about. To continue, the old version had 3 pictures that show the st. Martins Cathedral, which is unnecessary and as a person who lives in Austria and Slovakia, knows that there are more valuable monuments to Bratislava infobox. This is the first time I’m writing a complaint and I know we can make it work. We can share and fix what’s bothering but not revert my edits, just beacuse someone perfers his own edit more.

    SatelliteChange — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatelliteChange (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ImagineDragonsFan101 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Partial blocked for one month)

    [edit]

    Page: Fortnite Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: ImagineDragonsFan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Added Information"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC) to 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
      1. 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Song announcements"
      2. 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Important Information about song announcements"
    3. 22:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Added Important Information; with property linking"
    4. 22:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Added Important Content"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Dan Reynolds."
    2. 22:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "re"
    3. 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "re"
    4. 23:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
    5. 23:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "re"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    New user that doesn't seem to be willing to listen to messages, advice and warnings. Assuming good faith, but this is disruptive. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Madhumitha Hegde reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Blocked indefinitely for now)

    [edit]

    Page: The Sabarmati Report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Madhumitha Hegde (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:

    1. 13:47, 23 November 2024
    2. 19:58, 19 November 2024
    3. 15:59, 18 November 2024
    4. 14:52, 17 November 2024



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [45]

    Comments:
    Rampant edit warring for making unexplained reverts despite warnings.- Ratnahastin (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Superb Owl reported by User:MINQI (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: Transnational repression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Superb Owl (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:

    1. [46]
    2. [47]
    3. [48]
    4. [49]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [52]

    Comments:

    At first Superb Owl has removed point from chinese goverment, the news was reported by TDM (Macau), The Paper (newspaper) and Xinhua News Agency, with the reason "these media are state media or not have editorial independence from CCP on political topics", "Chinese goverment's accuse about Transnational repression is not relative to 'Transnational repression'" while he/she/Mx has quoted "News media: State-associated or state-controlled news organisations,…". Later the written about Assange from the resource "Gibbons, Chip - Jacobin" was deleted with the reason "not non-primary source" and "WP:DUE". At last the resolution from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from the resource RFI was exclused with the reason WP:DUE. In short, none accusation on US can appear under his/her//Mx's watch.MINQI (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MINQI, as already pointed out on the talk page, the onus to obtain a consensus for inclusion is on you, not the others. Thanks for self-reverting; please keep it removed unless/until an RFC on the article's talk page is closed with consensus for adding the section. A third opinion is not an option anymore as there are already more than two opinions in the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aihotz reported by User:Skitash (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: 1924 retreat from Chefchaoun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Aihotz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [53]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [54]
    2. [55]
    3. [56]
    4. [57]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [59]

    Comments:

    Aihotz is persistently removing sourced content without a valid reason. They're insisting on using unsourced WP:OR figures they've introduced while claiming that "we cannot know how many are killed and how many are wounded", despite the fact that the body of the article clearly supports the content they're removing. Skitash (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Aihotz and Skitash, you're both clearly interested in discussing the matter; it's just unclear why that has to happen in edit summaries rather than on the talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1259239860"