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:]] reported by User:KitoMaxi (Result: Declined as reporting user already blocked.)

    [edit]

    Page: Africa (Roman province) & Algerian Air Force & Algerian Civil Defence & Ancient Libya & Traditional Berber religion & other pages]] 
    User being reported: Skitash (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: [10]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

    Comments: edit war past 3rd warning, user is mass undoing edits across several articles 12345..etc, the user is doing this before a verdict is issued on an open case accusation of sockpuppetry, which violates wikipedia WP:DISRUPT, users cannot mass undo sourced edits based on suspicion alone and without justification KitoMaxi (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potymkin, where Skitash has accused the original creator of this of sockpuppetry in this case. Departure– (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for attaching a link to the investigation. It's very obvious that it's a block-evading sock, and I'm not surprised they're denying it, considering they've consistently done the same with every other sockpuppet account of theirs.[12][13][14] I reverted their edits per WP:BLOCKEVADE (including restoring edits made by their prior sock account). As for the one article where I've made four edits within 24 hours without realizing, I've self-reverted my edit until the sock gets blocked. Skitash (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock or not, your assumptions have not yet been verified, and you repeatedly used the rollback tool to revert changes @Skitash. There was no imminent need to be doing so instead of allowing the SPI to play out. Instead, you misused rollback across a number of articles while you both engaged in entirely unnecessary edit warring. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't participate at this board typically, I think both of those involves should be blocked based on the WP:3RR violations at Massylii. Obviously both have behaved entirely inappropriate and were engaged in edit wars across multiple articles, but the linked one is a clear violation from both. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    4 diffs for each of them from Massylii:
    KitoMaxi: 1, 2, 3, 4
    Skitash: 1, 2, 3, 4
    Again, neither was imminently necessary, and it clearly spread to other articles as well (or spread here from elsewhere). Either way, clear inappropriate behaviour by both editors with a clear and defined line being crossed at this article. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for edit warring and violating WP:3RR. I was trying to uphold WP:BLOCKEVADE against a sock, but I see now I should've held off until the investigation was over. It won't happen again and I'll use my rollback permissions carefully and more appropriately next time. Skitash (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On that note, could you please take a look at this? I'm pretty sure that's a personal attack, and it comes at a time when even other editors are realizing really obvious patterns from their interactions with the editor. Skitash (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The block-evading sock (KitoMaxi) has been confirmed. Skitash (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Already blocked indefinitely by Izno per above. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:P Aculeius reported by User:209.204.20.98 (Result: filer blocked 24 hours)

    [edit]

    Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
    Romani ite domum User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).P Aculeius

    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:

    • I've been reverting what I consider to be repeated vandalism by this IP editor to the article in question—two other editors have done the same. The article in question has been the subject of repeated vandalism over the last two years, always focused on the same paragraph: a statement that a notable author has used a particular film scene to illustrate an issue in arguments over LGBT issues. I started a discussion on the article's talk page, attempting to explain why it was there, and documenting the instances of vandalism. If it is vandalism, my understanding is that the 3RR does not apply. However, I did ask for clarification on this point from the editor who most recently reverted the same edits and posted a warning on the IP editor's talk page. P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Boomerang block or warn here seems appropriate - beside the malformed report, the reported editor has been reverting vandalism in demonstrable good faith based on an admittedly loose interpretation of WP:3RRNO, and the reporter has been the main initiator of the edit war. A proper AN3 notice was not lodged. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 14:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by User:2607:FEA8:7221:F600:583F:397:5F08:7637 (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: [[15]]
    User being reported: [[16]]

    Previous version reverted to: [[17]] [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [18]
    2. [19]
    3. [20]
    4. [21]
    5. [22]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[23]] [link]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[24]] [diff]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [[25]] [diff]

    Comments:User is a rogue admim

    The user apparently has administrator power and he apparently has been doing this on multiple pages. I urge that you intervene quickly, so that he is stopped, or that his adminship is revoked. 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:583F:397:5F08:7637 (talk) 20:28, 20 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, Mike should be aware, if he is not already, that even though his edits may be in line with policy they are not covered by WP:3RRNO. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this user failed to notify me on my talk page about their bringing this issue up here. Instead, I discovered this when reviewing their contribution history.
    Further, note that the "attempt to resolve issue on talk page" links to a section that I added, not this user.
    This user has accused me of being a rogue admin and [vandalizing] multiple pages and violating WP:3RR when I am not and have not.
    At what point does WP:BOOMERANG apply? -- mikeblas (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment declining their report as not a violation is the most we should do. As you pointed out, they left a lot to be desired in their report.
    Nonetheless, as an admin you are presumed to know what 3RR is so the absence of a warning would not be a reason not to enforce it—if you had violated it, which you didn't, and to be fair I think that's because you are aware of where the line is. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:58.111.101.186 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Mashin Sentai Kiramager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 58.111.101.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [26]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [27]
    2. [28]
    3. [29]
    4. [30]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

    Comments:

    User:Marvel2406 reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Both editors blocked 72 hours and alerted to CTOPS)

    [edit]

    Page: 2026 Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Marvel2406 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 11:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 11:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    4. 10:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Manual of Style related issues (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 12:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 11:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Marvel2406 "/* March 2025 */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Continual addition of flags to infobox in violation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS and against the existing consensus. Tried initiating discussion, but replied this. Vestrian24Bio 03:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours and alerted to WP:CT/CID. While Marvel clearly indicated on their talk page that they intended to disregard MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS because "it looks prettier that way", that attitude did not give Vestrian the right to revert endlessly as while policy was on their side that kind of reverting is not allowed under WP:3RRNO. Protection should have been requested, at least. I have also alerted both of to WP:CT/CID, which this comes under. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.31.65.89 reported by User:Speederzzz (Result: Blocked one month)

    [edit]

    Page: Karen White case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 81.31.65.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Stop wasting time editing articles you admit you know nothing about."
    2. 11:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Restored, as person objecting has admitted he knows nothing about this matter and has no basis for objecting"
    3. 11:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281605072 by Speederzzz (talk)"
    4. 11:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "That debate has already been settled - the name is in the article already. I'm simply pointing out that it should be right at the start."
    5. 11:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "His real name is a matter of public record - and is already in the article anyway."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 11:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Deadname in lede? */ new section"

    Comments:

    Warning given on talk page by User:CipherRephic Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 11:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User attempted to remove this entry. How they think this will help their case remains a mystery to all. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 12:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one month due to not only their edit warring, but their incivility, general bad attitude, and BLP violations requiring multiple RevDels. On top of that I had to put project banners, CTOPS, and other notices on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Real estate investment professional reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked indef as a SOA)

    [edit]

    Page: Kennedy Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Real estate investment professional (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "No Mr Ollie, you are the one making the changes to perfectly neutral information, so until you get consensus from a user unrelated to you, the text remains."
    2. 16:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Strongly disagree with MrOllie and want to initiate larger discussion on this."
    3. 15:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Restored introductory paragraph, summarising the company's operations in non-promotional language as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_blatant_advertising"
    4. 17:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    5. 17:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    6. 17:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "I noticed this was reverted by MrOllie - Please note this is not promotional material, this is clearly describing the company's investment profile as per the cited sources."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Kennedy Wilson."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Reverts to return promotional language */ new section"

    Comments:

    Single purpose editor edit warring to force promotional language into an article on a company. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    cool can we have more people review this please? Real estate investment professional (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply updated introductory paragraph as per more recent information and Mr. Ollie is dubbing as 'forcing promotional language' and is deleting all content of introductory paragraph bringing to a much pooper state than the previous version. Real estate investment professional (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Real estate investment professional: do you have a WP:COI with this company? It would seem you have some connection with it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, with all due respect again, I don't.. I work in the industry and I've been fixing or updating information on real estate articles every now and then when I see it. I just only recently decided to create an account. I feel like I've been attacked this time and just taking it a bit personally now.
    Can we please look at this in an unbiased manner and just look at the information I updated/contributed to judge if it is promotional? Again I know there is a whole thread about "what about article X", but all company wikipedia articles outline what the business does in the opening paragraph (which by the way was also the case in this article - I simply just updated it to the latest information..)
    Please let's not turn this into a personal thing, I come with the kindest intentions and my apologies for starting this edit war, but can we please just objectively look at the text in the context of all real estate related articles? Real estate investment professional (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely as a promotional-only account. The edit warring and combative mentality didn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does the edit imply promotion? I see additional, useful information added by the user with legitimate reasons to revert. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First, broadly, see WP:YESPROMO. Second, they insisted on adding in the lede more specific information about what their firm does that is, on Wikipedia, usually left to the body of the article. Third, apart from all this they promoted nothing so much as complete disregard for our edit-warring policy. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum re "legitimate reasons to revert": See WP:3RRNO. That does not come under any of those exceptions. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1281816984"