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:Katanicx reported by User:Nswix (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: List of undefeated mixed martial artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297162546 by Nswix (talk) he is 17-0"
    3. 06:07, June 24, 2025 (UTC) "no.. he is 17-0"
    4. 04:20, June 23, 2025 (UTC) "This is simply not true. Sherdog's score is wrong because his match was overturned to win and not NC."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of undefeated mixed martial artists."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:User has made it clear they don't care what consensus was reached in their edits. Going to a talk page to have them tell me the same thing isn't going to change it.


    Comments:

    Per a consensus reached on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts, we use Sherdog for records and results precisely for this reason, because different sites list things differently and using one cuts down on this. Katanic knows this, they just want this person to have a better record. Nswix (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of one week From article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OCDD reported by User:Servite et contribuere (Result: Partially blocked 3 months)

    [edit]

    Page: Virat Kohli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 08:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 08:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    4. 14:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC) "Color keys are used all over Wikipedia."
    5. 14:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC) "Then remove third place from the list"
    6. 14:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC) "That’s your opinion. A world existed before WTC."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    These are all different reverts, but it is the same user constantly reverting any content that they add that gets reverted. I previously warned them here [1] but they blanked the page later. They have been warned by so many editors from the Cricket community about so many issues and have continued to edit war and get very defensive and appear to be unwilling to collaborate. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The same can be said about you then? Your blatant obsession with every single edit I have made has been baffling. You wake up everyday and check every edit I have done just so you can revert them. Case of targetting to say the least. Also, I have heard feedback and been okay with many changes. You on the other hand have made several assumptions and mistakes without checking facts. OCDD (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OCDD Please cite (Provide a link to) where you have heard the feedback please. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And this comment here just feels like the tip of the iceberg: [2]. It feels like they are projecting themselves on others. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't care what narratives you want to set. I am not the one actively going out of my way to revert every edit you make each day. That's what you are doing. And acting like the victim won't change it. OCDD (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Edits to Virat Kohli is where OCDD should be discussing, rather than reverting- I did already mention it on their talkpage. I see no evidence they wish to engage in discussion or collaboration, only WP:OWNing this page and making it how they like, against WP:CRIC standards and the general WP:MOS. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That talk page link SEC provided is eye-opening -- constantly trying to get OCDD to discuss at WP:CRICKET (three times in separate comments by my count) and instead they double down. SEC later starts a productive discussion there with other editors. —tony 22:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BlackAfrican2006 reported by User:Skitash (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Islamic State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BlackAfrican2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [3]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "Ok here's a new edit. I added stuff like "countries around the world" and stuff so this is a brand new edit. I'm not edit warring because this isn't reverting anyone's edit, this is a brand new edit that fixes the page after Skitash reverting me twice and rolled back 20-40 edits instead of removing the infobox manually. They edit warred and dragged me into it."
    2. 18:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297819132 by Skitash (talk) Per MOS:TERRORIST. Your edit violates Wikipedia's rules. I'll remove the infobox for the proto-state. Don't revert this unless you're willing to discuss on talk page."
    3. 17:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "Can everyone please stop ruining the page. The proto-state is already mentioned. We don't have to say "proto-state" again in the first paragraph but "the state" for short. Can't even take a nap for 2 hours without the page looking terrible again"
    4. 04:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "Got this idea from another user on talk page a few days ago"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

    Comments:
    This editor has been repeatedly reinstating their contested edits while framing them as "new edits" when they're effectively reverting content back to their preferred version. Their edit summaries[7] indicate they're gaming the system.
    This edit essentially restores their infobox (which has been extensively opposed on the talk page), this constitutes a revert of this edit, while this is a restoration of this edit. They have been slow edit warring on this article for a few days now. Also, this comment and their user page tell me they're not here to abide by WP:AGF and WP:NAT. Skitash (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Now you're trying to get me banned? I'm not "gaming the system". Why would I try to make multiple edits for my edit count, I already have over 10 edits and four days. Second off someone proposed I move the infobox to another section and everyone was opposing replacing the old infobox, so I was seeing if people would oppose moving the new infobox to a new section. Last of all I wasn't re adding contested edits, In my edit summary I explained how they were new but kind of similar but they were brand new. And you were also edit warring, you reverted my edit twice, something I was dragged into because your revert violated MOS: TERRORIST so I had to revert you twice too but in my edit summary I told you I was going to remove the infobox right afterwards I had to revert you twice though because your edit violated Wikipedia rules. Hopefully that clears everything up administrator please don't ban me im new to editing BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way I am a Black nationalist but I promise to abide by Wikipedia:Nationalist editing. I don't just edit black history sometimes I edit something else. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BlackAfrican2006, would you mind stopping to mention your "nationalism" wherever it is irrelevant, and stopping to edit where it is relevant? "Wikipedia:Nationalist editing" is an essay; see WP:PGLIST for an list of actual policies and guidelines. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You want me to remove nationalist from my bio? BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BlackAfrican2006, on your user page, it might be a helpful conflict of interest disclosure. In this discussion here or regarding the Islamic State, would you say it's relevant? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read Conflict of interest. It says "Conflict of Interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." I'm not part of ISIS, my friends aren't, clients and employers aren't. I hate terrorism, I just wanted to put an infobox for the quasi-state because the page would've looked better. I'm not Muslim at all but Catholic and Islamic history, and the history of my race, the Black race is interesting. Just because I find topics interesting doesn't mean I support Islamic terrorists or African dictators, the topics are just really all I think about. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry! BlackAfrican2006, I should have been more precise, and the link to the conflict of interest guideline misled you a bit.
    What I was trying to say is: There are surely situations where being a nationalist of any kind influences your editing in ways you may not even notice, yet which may be non-neutral/problematic. It is fine to openly provide this information on your user page, as it helps other users to notice such situations. This is a bit like someone openly disclosing which company they work for on their user page: In case they edit an article about their employer, others can then quickly notice that it's a problem, and ask the user to stop.
    What I was not trying to say is that you'd have any connection to the Islamic State. That part of my question was almost rhetorical. I was wondering why you mentioned your Black nationalism in this discussion here at all. How it would be relevant to the topic at all. If I understand correctly, it is not relevant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned it because Skitash, the person who reported me, said I violated WP:NAT in their first message on here. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. My fault. I had overlooked that or didn't notice it as causing your then-pretty-understandable response. Please disregard my message from 22:10. I had seen Carlinal's message on your talk page about it and was confused by the term "nationalism" too; it always seemed to come with a perception of superiority but I've had a look again and it doesn't necessarily do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wiki edit sp reported by User:Hemiauchenia (Result: Partially blocked, then blocked for sockpuppetry)

    [edit]

    Page: Steven Pinker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wiki edit sp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 15:44, 26 June 2025

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:37, 28 June 2025
    2. 14:50, 28 June 2025
    3. 14:56, 28 June 2025
    4. 21:44, 28 June 2025



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:56, 28 June 2025

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Steven_Pinker#Pseudocontroversies

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 22:02, 28 June 2025

    Comments:

    User:Emmafrost131 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: House of Wisdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Emmafrost131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision, changed wording 1297854272 by Remsense (talk)"
    2. 22:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297853990 by Remsense (talk)"
    3. 22:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision, as no explanation provided. 1297853423 by Remsense (talk)"
    4. 22:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision, as it references information as presented in a Cambridge lecture on the topic. Not copy-paste of any other information. Please read before removign again. 1297850445 by Remsense (talk)"
    5. 22:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision, as this is the exact language from a verified source as cited. 1297848130 by Remsense (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on House of Wisdom."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 23:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"

    Comments:

    Constant Edit Edit Warring to add copyvio Untamed1910 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Untamed1910 What is the copyvio that is being inserted? The YouTube video is published by Darwin College, where the lecture took place. Given that, I would say that both editors are way over 3RR now... Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the copyvio being added [8] Untamed1910 (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Untamed1910 Yes, that was what originally being inserted (and quite correctly being reverted), but the last five reverts have been of this [9] and I don't see an exemption from 3RR for that, unless I'm missing something. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have now asked Remsense to join this discussion here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The same copyvio, trimmed to the first sentence. Remsense 🌈 论 02:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Remsense, The House of Wisdom was open to both men and women isn't a copyrightable statement by itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe a court would agree. Was I really meant to interpret the weird trim and citeswap move as anything but trying to get away with the same process of copying text from one tab into the article, but less immediately noticeable? I understand it was in good faith, but it's pretty clearly still willful theft, so are we supposed to revert that on sight or not? In context of not getting the message before or after you get why I'm frustrated here. Remsense 🌈 论 03:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand I am new and did not know all of the rules.
      When I asked help from the user with references of what should be changed he did not reply.
      When I fixed both the quote to have different wording e.g. "library accessible to both men and women" and also changed the cited reference to a Cambridge university lecture, that's also been removed.
      I'm not sure what you would like me to do? How can the noted detail be added in please?
      The particular note I tried to add provides important context to the equity in the society at the time. It seemed relevant to be added in. Emmafrost131 (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1298063587"