Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RAN1 (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 28 July 2024 (→User:Oleg Yunakov reported by User:RAN1 (Result: ): Withdrawn). 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
    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:Legobro99 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page: Transformers One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Legobro99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236835164 by Catalyst GP real (talk)"
    2. 19:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236834902 by Catalyst GP real (talk) Please stop vandalising."
    3. 19:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236833876 by Catalyst GP real (talk)"
    4. 18:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236788182 by Catalyst GP real (talk)"
    5. 13:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236777250 by HaydenTCEM (talk)"
    6. 11:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236754090 by 2A02:C7C:DACE:F100:9D2A:D459:8459:C74F (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Transformers One."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 20:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Legobro99 */ new section"

    Comments:

    @Bbb23: It looks like a 3RR violation from Catalyst GP real as well. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Quinlan: Thanks for catching that, I don't think I scrolled down far enough. I've blocked Catalyst for 48 hours - shorter because it's a first block for them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:110.78.151.114 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: Blocked 31h)

    Page: Scott Sumner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 110.78.151.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Please discuss, before deleting over 12,000 words, written by multiple editors over years. You should go through each statement, line by line, and provide your reasons for deleting."
    2. 20:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Reverting due to a rogue editor, who continues to remove over 12,000 words, which all appear to be cited from Sumner's blog. Editor oddly claims vandalism."
    3. 20:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 20:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Someone continues to delete large chucnks of relevant information, including Scott's opinions on Covid. Please, do not delete statements that are properly cited. Why are you erasing over 12,000 words?"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources (UV 0.1.5)"
    2. 20:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 22:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "/* BLP edits */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Requesting topic ban for IP. IP has apparently been tendentiously reinserting the same material to a WP:BLP for 1.5 years now, despite repeatedly being reverted by many different editors. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Might be even longer (getting reverted since March 2022) if they happen to be the same person as @Micahrob, which seems possible based on their edit histories. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Be Jain reported by User:ParvatPrakash (Result: No violation)

    Page: Abhinandananatha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Be Jain (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. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]
    6. [6]
    7. [7]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

    Comments:
    This user (alongwith myself) were banned from editing Rishabhanatha for edit warring. The said user is constantly changing images (and engaging in edit wars) without discussing. Other pages where this user has possibly engaged in edit wars are Ajitnatha and Sumatinatha. I stopped engaging in edit wars after learning about the 3RR, but I see this user engaging in edit wars with other users constantly on some specific pages. ParvatPrakash (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:216.15.48.236 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page: Killing of Sonya Massey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 216.15.48.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 00:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 21:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Repeatedly trying to insert a video (that is seemingly fake per an edit summary?) in the page. I'm not trying to assume anything, but this seems like someone who's trying to justify a police killing. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted again as I wrote this, making this even more of a clear cut 3RR violation. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And they've said that they are going to keep changing it back. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And they are indeed continuing. I think it's up to something around 10RR now. Meters (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was directed here by my notification bell. That's not even my IP address. I have only edited from my own username, yet I received a message directing me to the talk page of an IP address I don't own. ExistentialBliss (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fred.jp reported by User:Silver seren (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

    Page: Yasuke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fred.jp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [10]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14]
    5. [15]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

    Comments: Editor has been edit warring in a controversy section in a historical biography with very blatant POV statements being made in their edit summaries (which probably also violate WP:BLP for the history professor they're talking about) and have been reverted by multiple editors (including myself). They were given a 3RR warning and reverted again ten minutes later, as shown in the final diff given above, with their edit summary threatening that they will take the warring to other parts of the article if they keep getting reverted. SilverserenC 02:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bluerules reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: No violation)

    Page: Deadpool & Wolverine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bluerules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 2024-07-25T09:30:42

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 2024-07-27T23:44:49
    2. 2024-07-28T00:37:24
    3. 2024-07-28T00:54:49
    4. 2024-07-28T01:29:31

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning from May 2024, I also warned them after their 4th revert in this discussion where they insist they only reverted three times.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't actually reverted them at all, and after their 4th revert, they finally started a discussion on the talk page.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

    Comments: Worth noting that Bluerules has previously been blocked for 3RR, but it has been over a decade apparently. I wouldn't have reported it given they state no intention to continue, but they deny violating 3RR, so here we are. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:49, 28 July 2024 (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. As is often the case here, "making an edit and then reverting to it three times in 24 hours" has been conflated with "making the same revert four times in 24 hours". If they continue this behavior, that might be different, but they have not yet and say they will not further revert. (I'd also note that the "previous version" you linked to when warning them they had violated 3RR (which they couldn't have with that edit as it was two days before that first one) was by another editor). Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be adding a CTOPS notice per WP:CT/CID to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case The previous version had the infobox contents as Bluerules reverted it back to. I was not stating any other editor had reverted it, only that this was how the infobox had appeared just two days ago, so all four edits by Bluerules provided as diffs above are, in fact, "reverts" per WP:3RR: The term "revert" is defined as any edit ... that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. In this case, the first revert was a "manual" revert (in part), while subsequent reverts utilized Undo. The edit he was reverting/undoing was this edit (2024-07-25T09:32:21). The only temporal requirement of 3RR is the reverts themselves, and all four occurred within a 24 hour span. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous version did not have the same infobox contents as my first edit. The previous version has a note in the starring parameter that reads, "Per credits billing order on the theatrical poster. Do not change until it can be changed to the film's actual credits order." In my edit, the note in the starring parameter reads, "Per billing block." The previous version does not identify the location of the David H. Koch Theater in the starring parameter. In my edit, the starring parameter identifies the David H. Koch Theater as being in NYC. The gross parameter is empty in the previous version. In my edit, the gross parameter contains information about how much money the film has made at the box office so far. And there's a minor punctuation difference in the note about 20th Century Studios not being a production company or a distributor. These differences make it clear that my edit was not how the infobox appeared just two days ago. Help:Reverting defines a partial reversion as "restoring one part of the page to a previous version" and my edit did not restore the starring parameter to a previous version, let alone the entire infobox. Bluerules (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluerules, this is not about help page wording; Locke Cole, this shouldn't be about technicalities.
    Yes, Special:Diff/1237062304 is arguably a revert of Special:Diff/1236553654. No, the 3.5 reverts didn't lead to a block. Bluerules was edit warring, which is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule, and the main reason why I dislike even evaluating whether there has been a 3RR violation is that people start arguing about completely unnecessary details in such discussions. Bluerules has stopped edit warring, removing the preventative need for a block. If it continues, that would be different. It doesn't matter whether it continues within 24 hours.
    This is closed and can be archived; content discussion is currently active at Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine § The starring parameter of the infobox. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oleg Yunakov reported by User:RAN1 (Result: )

    I didn't read the CT awareness requirements thoroughly enough and I think WP:AE would be the better venue for this, so I will be refiling there. Please consider this withdrawn. RAN1 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page: Majdal Shams attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Oleg Yunakov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 21:57, 27 July 2024

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. NSFW: 13:15, 28 July 2024: Oleg Yunakov reinserts a graphic war image.
    2. NSFW: 17:48, 28 July 2024: Oleg Yunakov reinserts the image again.



    Diff of WP:CT/AI 1RR warning: 22:34, 7 June 2024

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extended discussion

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 18:43, 28 July 2024

    Comments:
    The user User:RAN1 has already been told by another user on his talk page in section "RAN1#WP:1RR_at_Majdal_Shams_attack" that the reason for his removal is invalid. But he didn't listen and insisted to continue protesting and to remove the image claiming the copyvio as a reason when it was shown that there is no proof for a copyvio. Then I have also explained to him in a detailed conversation and sumarized here and here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What is 13:15, 28 July 2024 a revert of? I'm unable to find it in the edit history.
    For the reviewer, note that RAN1 has violated WP:1RR removing this image, and has refused to self revert:
    1. 15:19, 28 July 2024
    2. 15:42, 28 July 2024
    I’m also not seeing any request for Oleg to self-revert; such a request is expected to be made in this topic area, given the strictness of 1RR, prior to any report being made. BilledMammal (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, from my side the first edit was not "reinserting" and not reverting but adding (I didn't see that the image was removed before). I have created the article about it in ruwiki and another user added the image there. When I saw it I have cropped the image and then saw that we have no such image in enwiki and added it here as well. Then RAN1 started to argue about copyvio as the reason to remove and was explained that there is no such issue. After the new (for me) reason about aleged "unnecessarily gruesome picture" I didn't reinsert or revert. And will open the talk section to discus if there are indeed issues with "unnecessarily gruesome picture" on a blurred image. Also the point here "Diff of WP:CT/AI 1RR warning: 22:34, 7 June 2024" is referring to a case when there was no issue. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The talk page section is titled "Cover photography is too graphic". RAN1 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And? Anyone who reads from your ping to me and down will see that there we all only spoke about copyright issues. And your removal reason during the conversation was clearly stated as copyvio here. After we have explained to you that there are no copyvio issues and then there was one revert from my side with notification on the talk page again for the same copyvio reason. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lovely dolphin reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: )

    Page: Widest path problem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "The rule is "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, ...", https://github.com/mike-liuliu/Algorithm_4 is the official code of Algorithm 4. So it is an acceptable external link. Undid revision 1237223434 by XOR'easter (talk)"
    2. 17:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Python code of Algorithm 4 can be found at https://github.com/mike-liuliu/Algorithm_4. It is the fastest algorithm for solving the all points path distance (APPD) matrix by far. If you know a faster or earlier O(n^2) time algorithm for calculating the APPD matrix than Algorithm 4, please provide the URL of the code implementation of the algorithm. Undid revision 1237199479 by David Eppstein (talk)"
    3. 12:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Please show the URL of the code so that people can verify your claim. Undid revision 1237130479 by David Eppstein (talk)"
    4. 01:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Really? "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." Undid revision 1237075058 by David Eppstein (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

    Comments: Another one since this report was filed: 19:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC). --JBL (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1237229617"