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:86.160.247.245 reported by User:Iiii I I I (Result: Blocked from articles for 72 hours)

    [edit]

    Pages:

    User being reported: 86.160.247.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1279149070 (March 6, 2025)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:TVR#TVR's status since 2013

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1279559659 (March 9, 2025)

    Comments:
    At the advice of S0091, I'm reporting User:86.160.247.245 here for edit warring on both TVR and TVR Griffith. The most recent one (Special:Diff/1279224488) came after requests from me not to remove sourced information, and talk page warnings from two other users.

    I don't know if this is needed here, but to summarize the content dispute: TVR is a car manufacturer that went defunct in 2013, and was then bought and revived with plans to create a new version of the TVR Griffith. The IP apparently does not believe this is relevant to the articles and has removed mention of the revival from both pages. --Iiii I I I (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It was not revived at all. There were and are no plans to create a new Griffith. There was only an unfinished show car, built eight years ago by Gordon Murray Automotive, which Les Edgar used to con deposit-payers and the Welsh Government out of a lot of money. No R&D was ever done, the show car was never road-registered, not one single development car was ever built, and no customer car was ever delivered. The factory has been repossessed by the Welsh Government, and the premises to which the various TVR companies are still registered at Companies House is no longer owned by Les Edgar either, having been sold last year. TVR is deader than John Cleese's parrot! 86.160.247.245 (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A failed revival is still worthy of mention, especially when covered by multiple reliable sources. IP seems likely to continue edit warring and is WP:NOTHERE. Iiii I I I (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The failed revival is still mentioned in the main TVR article. I didn't remove any content from that. All I removed was the "second generation" from the Griffith article, which gave the false impression (based on poorly sourced information) that there ever was a second-gen Griffith on the road. Which there wasn't. The fact is that TVR died in 2006 (not 2013) and isn't coming back. It's gone for good. If the failed revival really merits an article of its own, then start one for the separate company Les Edgar created, or for the 2018 Griffith concept car. It does not belong on the main Griffith article. 86.160.247.245 (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the articles. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no case for blocking me. My edits remain in situ and remain accurate. Other editors have reviewed my edits and left them in place. 86.160.247.245 (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So? You kept reverting when you were asked to discuss. Edit warring is not about whose edits are right (save in some BLP situations) but who edits responsibly and with respect for others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theonewithreason reported by User:SigillumVert (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Prince Marko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Theonewithreason (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]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

    Comments:
    User has repeatedly inserted information about Livno being a part of medieval Serbia despite that being contradicted on that by every single scholarly source in the article and even the ones they themselves presented in the talk. Overall hostile and combative editing, combined with unfounded accusations sockpuppetry. Blatant disregard for wikipedia policy on sourcing and verification of content.

    Speaking of which I am not the one who started with edit warring and also I am the one who first started talk on tp [[8]], which SigillumVert ignored, they also ignored WP:onus and started attacking me which is obvious by their comments on the tp [[9]], [[10]] as for edit warring , here are the diffs that show that this editor is the one who started with them.

    User:SigillumVert edit warring on Prince Marko page

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [[11]] "Warning: Three-revert rule."
    2. [[12]]
    3. [[13]]

    As for hostile and combative editing, as presented above [[14]], [[15]] the editor SigillumVert has neither shown a will to reach consensus or willing to cooperate instead insulting, therefore this should be a case of WP:boomerang also this report is filled incorrectly, since the editor left the warning note on my page and then immediately reported me [[16]], [[17]] which implies on WP:gaming Theonewithreason (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Theonewithreason: What's the basis for your allegation that SigillumVert is socking?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My warning was implied on removal of sourced content which I mentioned that they did on Prince Marko page, the note of warning of wp:sockpuppetry is used as standard warning of wikipedia policy, as mentioned as others like WP:or or WP:synth which also were also included. [[18]] Theonewithreason (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theonewithreason: It is not a "standard warning". Do not include allegations of violations of policy that don't apply. What you did was a personal attack, and if you do it again, you risk being blocked for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What consensus is there to be reached when one editor is clearly wrong according to all available sources and his additions to the article contradict the cited references? You insist on having it your way when you have been proven wrong. Hardly the spirit of building an encyclopaedia. SigillumVert (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Technical glitch cut me off) I invite all to verify and examine the references to my edits on Livno not being part of Serbia. Page 229 of White's book and page 211 of Fine's. In the infobox and on the talk. Please, do check and verify. SigillumVert (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this is not an insult. Hill to die on is a common English idiom meant to signify a pointless struggle.
    Quote from wiktionary: An allusion to the instances where a military doggedly pursues a goal or defends a position no matter the cost or (lack of) benefit SigillumVert (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However, remember, guys, you're in a contentious topic area. I will be leaving a notice to that effect on talk. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But edit warring is a violation regardless of whether or not the 3-revert rule applies. Hence this noticeboard is for both edit warring and the 3 revert rule. It is stated here that there are more than one definitions of edit warring and it shouldn't be limited to such a narrow and robotic definition. What happened here was an edit war and there should be a resolution on that.
    The topic may be contentious, but the sources are very clear on the matter. And correct me if I am wrong, but we should abide by the scholarly consensus and reliable sources – not whims of a very determined editor. SigillumVert (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that under some circumstances edit warring is blockable even without four reverts in a 24-hour period ... 1RR, for instance, but that doesn't apply to this article at the moment. And if the reported user had been gaming the rule by, say, making two or three reverts separated by at least 24 hours each time, then yes, I'd have blocked them, as I have done on such occasions in the past. And when people keep making the same revert days apart over some extended period of time, I think at least blocking them from the article for some time is an option.
    You only provided three diffs. While for once these actually are reverts (too many people reporting here include the "edit being reverted to" as a revert), that's not enough by itself to trigger action.
    And honestly, if "edit warring is a violation regardless of whether or not the 3-revert rule applies", then what by that definition wouldn't be edit warring? To be a fair process notice is required of what conduct will be acceptable and what will not be. Without clear lines that comes down to an administrator's whims. That is not a rule of any Wikipedia most of us would want to be part of.
    Edit wars are to be resolved on the talk page, as it seems you have been doing in this case, and in fact it does seem like there has been a resolution.
    As for the last part of your post, this noticeboard does not concern itself with the substance of the dispute (unless, per 3RRNO, we are dealing with unsourced or clearly dubiously sourced negative information about a living person), only the conduct of the editors involved. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well we did manage to avoid the conflict by just removing the content that sparked this from the infobox. However me (and ever single scholarly source) still disagree with editor on his position on Livno being a part of the medieval Serbian kingdom. Who is to say this dispute won't just escalate into another edit war on the Livno article page since the editor is clearly not backing down?
    I don't even think he should be blocked. I would just argue for a topic ban on Livno, if such a thing is even possible. Best regards. SigillumVert (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:188:C580:78D0:8A1:F63:F4DE:8161 reported by User:Hirolovesswords (Result: Blocked one month)

    [edit]

    Page: Demoulas family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2601:188:C580:78D0:8A1:F63:F4DE:8161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Arthur T. Demoulas */Restored edit that hiroloveswords removed"
    2. 15:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "Restored changed"
    3. 15:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Arthur T. Demoulas */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on Demoulas family."
    2. 15:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2601:188:C580:78D0:8A1:F63:F4DE:8161."
    4. 15:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Edit warring and repeated introduction of factual errors. Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tony Mejia reported by User:162 etc. (Result: Blocked from article 72 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Cam'ron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tony Mejia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [19]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

    Comments:
    User persists in changing Cameron Giles' birthname in the Cam'ron article, despite citing no sources at all, and being reverted on several occasions. No response on talk page. 162 etc. (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I support this user being at least blocked from editing that page. Also, given how many of their edits to other pages have been reverted I think they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. For example, they deleted the entire external links section and all the categories from the Texas Attorney General page (diff here) and the references section (diff here). G o m m e h 17:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Whirlingmerc reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Ark of the Covenant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Whirlingmerc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [27]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    • March 10, 15:21. [28] Texas IP inserts extensive non-neutral analysis with an incoherent sweeping conclusion. Not a revert.
    1. March 10, 16:20. [29] Texas IP reverts to preferred version.
    2. March 10, 16:53. [30] Whirlingmerc reverts to Texas IP version.
    3. March 10, 20:52. [31] Whirlingmerc reverts to preferred version, then expands on it 20 hours later.
    4. March 11, 21:31. [32] Whirlingmerc reverts to preferred version.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

    Comments:
    Whirlingmerc has been edit-warring at various biblical topics, including logged-out activity through the Texas IP Special:Contributions/47.187.234.103 and the Texas IP range Special:Contributions/2603:8080:AE00:1615:0:0:0:0/64. This person has difficulty communicating clearly, and their writing is incoherent. The issues that concern them appear trivial to others. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps we can temporarily block the username from article space, and block the Texas IPs. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected for three days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good news though: the disputants are already discussing the dispute at the article's talk page, here as well as in another thread. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.64.132.13 reported by User:Technopat (Result: 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Anti-Canadian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 70.64.132.13 (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:

    1. 07:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking."
    2. 07:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing that article. If the IP evades the block and continues disruption, drop me a note and I'll semi protect the page for much longer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cdvbfgb reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 72 hours )

    [edit]

    Page: University of California, Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cdvbfgb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [36]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [37]
    2. [38]
    3. [39]
    4. [40]
    5. [41]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

    Comments:

    Please note that Cdvbfgb is a new editor who is only editing this article, is editing with a very clear POV (to portray the University of California, Davis in a negative light), and is edit warring with at least four different editors. ElKevbo (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from editing the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mael700 reported by User:Alachuckthebuck (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Shapur II's Arab campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Mael700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 20:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC) to 20:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
      1. 20:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC) "Arab nationalist trying to rewrite history. Can’t even speak proper English"
      2. 20:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC) ""
      3. 20:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 18:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC) to 18:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
      1. 18:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 18:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    See user talk for additional warnings. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indefinitely blocked. This complaint should have been brought to WP:ANI. Certainly there was not an edit-warring violation (the user reverted twice), but I blocked for disruption. See the block log for details.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bens dream reported by User:Chrisahn (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    [edit]

    Page: List of vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bens dream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Old revision of List of vegans

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Special:Diff/1280183679
    2. Special:Diff/1280256488
    3. Special:Diff/1280257155
    4. Special:Diff/1280259232
    5. Special:Diff/1280266299 Note the edit summary: "I have more than enough time to keep doing this."

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1280263728

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1280264743

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1280268423

    Comments:

    Multiple editors have asked the user to stop edit-warring. The user has been blocked before. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shahzar.okayrelax reported by User:Technopat (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Ted Arcidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Shahzar.okayrelax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 16:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC) to 16:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
      1. 16:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1280269539 by Technopat (talk)"
      2. 16:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC) ""
      3. 16:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Done in official powerlifting full meets: */"
    2. 11:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. Consecutive edits made from 11:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC) to 11:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
      1. 11:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 11:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Done in official powerlifting full meets: */"
    4. 10:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Professional wrestling career */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Editing tests on Ted Arcidi."
    2. 10:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Editing tests."
    3. 11:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism."
    4. 11:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1280270998"