Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
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
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:Snowstormfigorion reported by User:Selfstudier (Result: Blocked from page for a month
[edit]Page: 1948 Arab–Israeli War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snowstormfigorion (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: [2]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [4]
Comments:
In response to a request to self revert, reported editor commented on my talk page that I was being disruptive, see here. I have made exactly one revert on the page and otherwise have not edited the article in 2024. Editor clearly has no intention of arriving at a consensus and simply wishes to impose their view on the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- As stated in the talk page discussion, the article in question is a WP:CTOP, WP:ARBPIA article. An editor has made a major change, a valid, WP:BOLD one at that, to the article on the second. As per WP:CON, I objected to the change and restored to status quo providing a reasoning in the edit summary and the talk page. This was preceded by another editor undoing my revision and rightfully so due to not providing a rationale then. From there, a consensus-building process commenced in the talk page. In the midst of the former, Selfstudier implements one of the options discussed claiming that "consensus on the talk page seems clear" when only a handful of editors were involved and discussion was just in its beginning phases regarding, again, a major change to a high priority article, which should involve wide community and editorial consensus, and accuses me of long-term edit warring. As for the latter, whether I'm to blame for or not is up to the reviewing admin(s) to decide. As for their claim of me merely wanting to impose my view, it's utterly untrue. And concerning the disruptive annotation, it was as per WP:NHC pertaining to Selfstudier disrupting the consensus-developing procedure, which as stated in the article's talk page, may lead to a WP:RFC. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Given that this article is, due to its long-term CTOPS status (and, not noted above, but this is intensified by the above dispute involving the infobox, another contentious topic area), the best resolution I see at the moment is to go to 0RR regarding the infobox image. No reverting without consensus. Get other editors involved in this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Snowstormfigorion, you tell Selfstudier on Talk that "it’s not your jurisdiction to decide that consensus has been reached in an ongoing discussion". But nor is it in your own jurisdiction to decide that 9 days of discussion (sic) between 6 editors is not enough. To implement the five-to-one (with you being the one) consensus at that point seems reasonable to me. And disagreeing with you, as all the other editors on Talk do, is not equivalent to "disrupting the consensus-developing procedure", however long you would like it to go on for. Nobody has violated WP:3RR, but I have blocked you from the article for a month for disruptive editing. I came here to tell you so, but found Daniel Case had already gone to 0RR. Do you wish to maintain that restriction, Daniel, now that Snowstormfigorion is page blocked? IMO it's only Snowstormfigorion, nobody else, who has been reverting against consensus. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC).
- Alright, I was unaware that you had chosen that route. With one editor barred from it the problem won't be happening for a while. So I will lift that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: the former file existed as the article's infobox image for nearly two decades, so yes, changing it, as Daniel Case have suggested, should involve a wider community consensus; and again, given the article's CTOP and ARBPIA position. Also, if consensus is determined towards a collage, which images to be used should be also. Since, as mentioned in the article's talk page, one of the images is a cropped duplicate of one already in use in the body, and a picture of soldiers smiling and chatting isn't a fitting choice for representing a war of such scale and magnitude in my opinion, either. As everyone knows, this topic gets a lot of people riled up, so many editors choose to skip the former procedures, which the purpose of my reverts was to realize. Now, I understand if it came across as malicious or edit warry, but that was truly not my intention. If you feel it warrants blocking me from the page for a month, then fine, I won't contest that, but the only thing I ask for is at least for the infobox image to be restored to the former version in order for appurtenant consensus, on all regards, to be made. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, I was unaware that you had chosen that route. With one editor barred from it the problem won't be happening for a while. So I will lift that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Snowstormfigorion, you tell Selfstudier on Talk that "it’s not your jurisdiction to decide that consensus has been reached in an ongoing discussion". But nor is it in your own jurisdiction to decide that 9 days of discussion (sic) between 6 editors is not enough. To implement the five-to-one (with you being the one) consensus at that point seems reasonable to me. And disagreeing with you, as all the other editors on Talk do, is not equivalent to "disrupting the consensus-developing procedure", however long you would like it to go on for. Nobody has violated WP:3RR, but I have blocked you from the article for a month for disruptive editing. I came here to tell you so, but found Daniel Case had already gone to 0RR. Do you wish to maintain that restriction, Daniel, now that Snowstormfigorion is page blocked? IMO it's only Snowstormfigorion, nobody else, who has been reverting against consensus. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC).
- Given that this article is, due to its long-term CTOPS status (and, not noted above, but this is intensified by the above dispute involving the infobox, another contentious topic area), the best resolution I see at the moment is to go to 0RR regarding the infobox image. No reverting without consensus. Get other editors involved in this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Factfinderrr reported by User:Remsense (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
[edit]Page: Central Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factfinderrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1246392264 by Fyrael (talk) discussed on talk page, page consistency must be maintained"
- 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Religions */ Improved article consistency-Afghanistan is already discussed in the body of this section. Consensus reached through precedent established in section body approved of and included by other users.Sorted order from highest to lowest demography."
- 16:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1246368620 by Mann Mann (talk) consensus reached based on page consistency and precedent stated in other sections of article and related central asia articles mentioning afghanistan. Discussed further on Talk page"
- 14:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1246243890 by Fyrael (talk)Afghanistan has been referenced numerous times throughout the article. Canadian, New zealand and australian governments class afghanistan as central asian.https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/media/3216, https://aria.stats.govt.nz/aria/#ClassificationView:uri=http://stats.govt.nz/cms/ClassificationVersion/ys69SsOCPi6Mc4jR,https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/classifications/australia"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 11:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Bamyan and Balkh populations */ Reply"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 11:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Bamyan and Balkh populations */ Reply"
Remsense ‥ 论 12:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Offender and adjacent co-editors have a repeated history of not fairly assessing the discussion points brought by users on the talk page of Central Asia Article. As a result stalemate has been prevalent for years, as offender continues to act in bad faith by failing to consider the arguments posited by myself and other users over the years. One user cited 20 credible sources to validate their claim but their argument was rejected with minimal explanation offered. Similarly, I cited 4 government authorities with the offer of providing more but claim was rebuffed with no explanation. Offender is not actively seeking to engage in discourse and purposefully hindering the evolution of the article as well as impairing consistency and accuracy, which was further discussed in the Talk section. Unsure of how to proceed as offender refuses to assess claims fairly or by merit. Offender also removed previous prejudicial remarks from talk thread.
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Courge Marvel reported by User:BOZ (Result: No violation)
[edit]Page: Captain America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Courge Marvel (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:
Comments:
Courge Marvel has been edit warring with User:Morgan695 who put a lot of work into getting Captain America to WP:GA status. They reverted me today saying "Please don't change it or else there will be going to be a war edit." I am only reporting this here because they made a threat to continue edit warring. BOZ (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- This feels like I'm engaging in a very "could Goku beat Superman" type of debate, but: for context, the subject of this dispute is over whether the subject of this article possesses superpowers. Per my comments here, the source currently cited in the article states unambiguously that the character does not possess superpowers. Courge Marvel claims the contrary, ironically citing the exact same source. Morgan695 (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
No violation Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
User:174.234.164.132 reported by User:FifthFive (Result: Pages protected)
[edit]Page: Elkhorn High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.234.164.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 23:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC) "Created the page (stop editing it)"
- 23:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC) "Created the page (scoured for two days, found no relevant information/pages)"
- 23:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC) ""
- 22:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 23:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC) on User talk:174.234.164.132 "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- This anon has switched to using 174.201.104.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to continue this disruption. Page protection may need to happen here, especially on the redirect's target, Elkhorn Public Schools. Jalen Barks (Woof) 19:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Page protected for 3 months. Both redirect and target. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Dcheagle reported by User:WizdomT (Result: Reporter indefinitely blocked)
[edit]Page: Oklahoma State Cowboys and Cowgirls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcheagle (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.[8]
2.[9]
3. [10]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: User completely blew past the 3 reverts rule. I messaged him after he reverted my edit the first time, he ignored the message and continues to remove my edits without responding to me on his talk page, even after I had warned him. This user also has a history of abusing [sockpuppets and abusing the 3 edit rule]
- Each revert was undoing the removal of Reliable sources of which WizdomT doesn't agree with, WizdomT also seems to think removing the sources is ok because the source is located within a link article. And even after explaining the reason for the revert's on my talk page continues to call for their removal.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 05:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- You did not explain the reverts before you blew based the 3 reverts rule. In addition, there is already reliable sourcing in the “football” section of the page. No other college athletics wikipedia page includes opinion
- articles with championships listed. WizdomT (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- And like I have said to you on my talk page, edit notices, article talk pages and here, everything needs a source even if it's listed in two different places within the same article. But this isn't about that, this is about me reverting your removal of a source of which you yourself don't agree with, all because you view it as an unreliable opinion piece. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yet no other college athletics wikipedia page includes opinion articles when it simply lists championships. Go to ANY other college athletics wiki page and it simply lists the national title season and nothing else. WizdomT (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's a reliable third party source, the only one viewing it as unreliable is you. Then those articles need to be tagged as needing additional sources to back up the infromation found within them.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Then by all means, go ahead and start tagging each one as needing additional sources. I’ve taken care of OSU, good luck taking care of the others. WizdomT (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's a reliable third party source, the only one viewing it as unreliable is you. Then those articles need to be tagged as needing additional sources to back up the infromation found within them.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- And it’s not me viewing it as such, it’s what it is. An opinion piece that with outdated, (and false) information has no place being on a list that simply states national title years in various sports. WizdomT (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- While it might be outdated as it is an article from 2016 the information within was corrrect at the time of publishing and is being used to source the awarding of the 1945 championship and its reasioning behind the awarding as well.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Luckily for the both of us, I’ve found a better source that properly lists a summary of all national titles won by Oklahoma State, and none of them are in the form of an outdated opinion article that fails to source any of the content. WizdomT (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- While it might be outdated as it is an article from 2016 the information within was corrrect at the time of publishing and is being used to source the awarding of the 1945 championship and its reasioning behind the awarding as well.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Oklahoma Sooners wikipedia page lists 30 national titles without a single source, I’m expecting you to fix that soon, right? WizdomT (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out, as such I have tagged the section as needing sources and will begin locating reliable third party sources to back up the information found within the section.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yet no other college athletics wikipedia page includes opinion articles when it simply lists championships. Go to ANY other college athletics wiki page and it simply lists the national title season and nothing else. WizdomT (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- And like I have said to you on my talk page, edit notices, article talk pages and here, everything needs a source even if it's listed in two different places within the same article. But this isn't about that, this is about me reverting your removal of a source of which you yourself don't agree with, all because you view it as an unreliable opinion piece. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- WizdomT blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Scatman.27 reported by User:Zacwill (Result: Partially blocked 1 year)
[edit]Page: Randolph Churchill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scatman.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [12]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
See: Talk:Randolph Churchill#Avoiding edit war
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]
Comments:
This user has taken exception to a phrase in the Randolph Churchill article that he deems to be excessively humorous and has engaged in a slow-motion edit war in an effort to remove it, in spite of a consensus in favour of inclusion. His edits have been reverted by five other users. Zacwill (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Scatman.27, this is neither vandalism nor trolling; it lacks bad faith. You've been doing this for years as shown in the diffs above; please find something else to contribute about. You have made your point. The Task Center and the community portal contain helpful ideas for improving the encyclopedia by editing one of the 6,885,961 other articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Zacwill, I hope someone else than you performs the next revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Partially blocked – for a period of 1 year ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- This has been a very tedious episode. I've just added some more comment to the talk page after opening another book.Paulturtle (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Themiromusic reported by User:162 etc. (Result: Declined – malformed report)
[edit]Page: Fernando Garibay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Themiromusic (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]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [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:
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Necatorina reported by User:Zefr (Result: )
[edit]Page: Tetrachloroethylene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Necatorina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "I think I have explained myself several times. Stop edit warring."
- 00:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "It is regarded as a toxin by American govt organisations, not a neutral point of view. Adding American-only sources do not improve the article. Undid revision 1247361764 by Zefr (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 23:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC) to 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- 23:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247284481 by 65.206.92.82 (talk)"
- 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Health and safety */There are many chemicals used in dry cleaning. Just because some dry cleaners got cancer, doesn't mean that tetrachloroethylene caused it. They are also normal people, so they do smoke and drink alcohol. Both are known to cause various types of cancer. Animal researches aren't reliable for humans (remember : chocolate is toxic for dogs but not for humans)."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 01:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing fringe theories on Tetrachloroethylene."
- 01:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tetrachloroethylene."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Industry Bias */ Reply"
Comments:
User has the adverse opinion that respected scientific government sources are not valid sources, and has warred far beyond the 24-hour 3RR. User is further ignoring mainstream science. User has not attempted to build consensus on the talk page, and instead has taken combative, uncivil positions that opposing editors using reputable sources have a wrong interpretation of the affirmed toxicity of the substance discussed in the article. Zefr (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Government organisations cannot be reliable for scientific matters. It is not "uncivil" to remove biased text with unreliable sources. Necatorina (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)