Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bradv (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 29 November 2023 (User:Pecinta Matematika reported by User:Peaceray (Result: ): Blocked 24 hours (using responseHelper)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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 {{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.

    User:Accura9 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: A. J. Finn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Accura9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1187181048 by Schazjmd (talk) User reversed the correction of a typo and falsely claimed that an edit is not supported by the source - very easy to check."
    2. 23:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) "/* Unreliable narrator */ Deleted 2 statements that were not supported by the sources provided (BBC and Irish Times). Added relevant detail that had been deleted previously."
    3. 15:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1187112931 by Siriaeve (talk)"
    4. 15:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1187102356 by Siriaeve (talk) User siriave, please refrain from making threats. We are all volunteering to make Wikipedia better. You have repeatedly deleted well-sourced information contributed by others. Your fixation with forcing your negative POV on this page is obvious. You can easily add the negative information you are focused on without deleting the well-sourced information contributed by others."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 04:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC) to 04:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
      1. 04:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1186644679 by Siriaeve (talk) User deleted relevant content that was thoroughly sourced."
      2. 04:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1186644313 by Siriaeve (talk) Undoing deletion of appropriate and properly sourced material."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on A. J. Finn."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) "/* a few article problems */ new section"

    Comments:

    User:Truong Gia Bao112 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Page: Native Americans in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Truong Gia Bao112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ""
    2. 15:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ""
    4. 13:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ""
    5. Consecutive edits made from 04:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) to 05:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
      1. 04:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ""
      2. 04:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ""
      3. 04:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ""
      4. 05:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ""
      5. 05:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ""
      6. 05:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ""
    6. 15:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Many warnings on their talk page. They've also just come back from a block for the same offenses. Simply "not here"....not willing to engage with the community. Moxy- 02:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What previous block? It wasn't with this account. (Blocked 24h in the meantime.) —Cryptic 02:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fangz reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: No violation)

    Page: Mongol invasions of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fangz (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]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

    Comments: User repeatedly removing content based on interpretation of historical primary source in non-English language (Classical Chinese). When it became clear that the primary source did not obviously contradict the removed content, user persisted in reverting. Qiushufang (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the "previous version reverted to" is the link you meant to post; it's simply the revision before Fangz's first diff. Or if it was what you meant, this isn't a bright-line violation - it's an initial removal of a disputed paragraph (not a revert) followed by three reverts. —Cryptic 02:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of incorrect content is not a revert. It is just an edit. The version listed as "previous version reverted to" is in fact the version the reporting user keeps reverting to themselves! Above user is unreasonably edit warring - they asked for a source and translation, and then when this was provided, kept reverting anyway. The "primary source" clearly contradicts the removed content. (Not that the source is actually the primary source, it's a secondary source book written in the 15th century, the editor just prefers a tertiary source instead). Anyway reporting user has multiple clear misapprehensions about the material that is also pointed out by other users. -Fangz (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The source is a letter written at the time of the event, is it not? That constitutes a primary source, which is subject to WP:PRIMARY. I maintain that the translated passage provided does not provide a clear contradiction of the deleted content. It is not clear that Li Zangyong is Korean. Heuk Chuk, which appears to be the Korean name here rather than Mongol or Chinese, was the receiver. Anyways, if this does not count as a 3RR violation, then this report is bunk and nothing should be done. Qiushufang (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2023 (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. Both editors made their three reverts and have taken it to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YMVD reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Indeffed as sock)

    Page: Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: YMVD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [9] 12 November 2023 (YMVD added "dictator, marxist" to opening sentence)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [10] 14:29, 27 November 2023 (reverted to restore "dictator" to opening sentence)
    2. [11] 03:48, 28 November 2023 (reverted to restore "dictator, marxist" to opening sentence)
    3. [12] 04:25, 28 November 2023 (reverted to restore "dictator" to opening sentence with edit summary "Added a sweet word for them")

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

    Comments: YMVD is only at 3RR at this point but they have manifestly thumbed their nose at the consensus-building process. See the details linked in my personalized warning on their talk page as well as their final edit summary quoted above. Instead of engaging with the thread I started on the article talk page, they instead simply reverted again and then continued making unsourced changes to other articles.

    Here they are continuing to edit war over unsourced changes to another article (after being warned here about making unsourced changes of this kind): [16][17][18]

    Note also that Moneytrees was kind enough to inquire about their odd request to be indef blocked on my user talk page the other day.

    It's also very likely that YMVD is socking as Horbachs, since that account also reverted to restore "dictator" to the opening sentence at Fidel Castro with the same idiosyncratic edit summary ("Added data") as YMVD often uses: [19]. Compare with e.g. [20][21][22][23]. Generalrelative (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, the more I look into it, the more the socking seems to be an open-and-shut case. Compare e.g. the user pages of Horbachs and YMVD. If the patrolling admin would rather I take this to SPI I would be happy to do so, though the backlog there is rather long. Generalrelative (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DUCK indeed but it looks like Jpgordon beat me to the block EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much to you both! Generalrelative (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Agathiyar654 reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page: List of highest-grossing Tamil films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Agathiyar654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]
    4. [28]
    5. [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

    Comments:

    6th revert: [32] 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours due to the extra reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Outsellers reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Partial blocked)

    Page: Alex Epstein (American writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) "Financial Post is not listed as a reliable source on wikipedia's list"
    2. 18:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC) "not sourced properly"
    3. 18:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC) "Cannot use yahoo news/financial post as a reliable source for highly controversial topic"
    4. 14:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC) "It's using yahoo finance, which is the exact source that is being used in the lede."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. Warning

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Talk:Alex Epstein (American writer)#2023 climate change
    2. Talk:Alex Epstein (American writer)#Yahoo news and/or Freightwaves
    3. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Alex Epstein climate change denial?

    Comments:

    Outsellers was blocked in November 2022 for edit warring at this same article. They have been a single-purpose account, with nearly all of their edits related to Epstein.

    Before the above 3RR violation, Outsellers had also reverted 7 times in the past 4 days, including another 3RR violation on the 25th.

    1. two consecutive edits at 22:12 and 22:13, 24 November: removing climate change denial from the lead
    2. 17:13, 25 November: re-do of #1
    3. 17:32, 25 November: re-do of #1
    4. two consecutive edits at 18:16 and 18:17, 25 Novemeber: partial re-do of #1
    5. As an IP – 00:48, 27 November]: re-do of #1
    6. As an IP – 14:42, 27 November re-do of #1
    7. As an IP – two consecutive edits at 16:06, 27 November: re-do of #1

    Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page discussion with Outsellers is almost impossible - they justify their edits by referencing talk page comments of others that explicitly do not support their actions. They also refer to rules and policies that do not appear to exist anywhere. I don't see any signs that this user will stop acting disruptively of their own accord. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Partial blocked from the article, indefinitely. I have tried to ask them about COI issues on the talk page, but they refuse to answer, so this is the obvious forward path. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also put a CTOPS notice on the article talk page. It's apparent this sort of thing has a high likelihood of recurring. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pecinta Matematika reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Seven Years' War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pecinta Matematika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 1187189939

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. first revert
    2. second revert
    3. third revert
    4. fourth revert

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. first edit warring warning
    2. second edit warring warning

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    • Level-1 warnings were left on User talk:Pecinta Matematika about deleting text without an edit summary, about mistakes that violated MOS:CAPS, & about how to leave an edit summary & how to use preview. A Level-2 warning was left after the editor's first reversion. The editor did not respond to these warnings.
      diff of warnings

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff of Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

    Comments:

    User:Asmodim reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Tunisian Arabic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Asmodim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34] "revert: It uses both arabic or latin script depending on the user"
    2. [35] "Undid revision 1187383604 by Skitash (talk) There's litteraly a whole part about scripts in the page beyond the obvious use of arabizi"
    3. [36] "Undid revision 1187479886 by Skitash (talk) I can use all the sources in the page latin script, just refer to them then"
    4. [37] "Undid revision 1187530252 by Skitash (talk) it does, you are of extremely bad faith, normally that wouldn't even require a source as it is obvious to any user of the language, in written form the latin arabizi form dominates, sources also mention this form so the least would be to mention it but that wouldn't go well with your arab everywhere 99% arabic muslim pov does it ?"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [40]

    Comments:
    Apart from the edit warring and POV-pushing, this user has persistently made personal attacks and casted aspersions on me (i.e. claiming that I have a political agenda), just because I reverted them for adding unsourced content.[41][42][43][44] Skitash (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]