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
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.
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:2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:94FA:AA89:547C:C365 reported by User:Lol1VNIO (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page: Ana Marcela Cunha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:94FA:AA89:547C:C365 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5][6][7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I tried discussing on my talk page but user continued with really disruptive edit summaries. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 13:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Blocked 48 hours by NJA ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 13:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Ficaia reported by User:NikolaosFanaris (Result: Partial block for 72 hours)
Page: Lauren Boebert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ficaia (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13][14]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]
Comments:
Several users have attempted to discuss issues related to the page, but the user continued reverting others - resulting in more than 10 reverts in less than a few hours. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- And what punishment do you suggest? I think anyone looking at the page history will see I've edited constructively and in good faith and tried to reach a compromise at the talk page. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ten reverts in a few hours? This is edit-warring as other users already pointed out. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours This applies only to Lauren Boebert, where while Ficacia has not violated 3RR per se, their reverts have been disruptive enough to foul the discussion on the talk page (which they are still free to contribute to) which is not conducive to reaching consensus. Since Ficacia has also been editing other articles without any issues during this time period, I do not see a sitewide block as necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case Sorry to be pedantic but Ficaia did indeed violate 3RR. Even when counting serial reviews as one collective revert, the following were made on Jule 3: 1, 2, 3, 4. Arguably, this is also a revert. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to err on the safe side and not invoke 3RR except where the exact same revert was made three times in 24 hours, so as to forestall argumentative unblock requests. You might be right about that one serial revert, and maybe the combined diffs would reflect it ... I just didn't feel like I had the time to select both of them and compare. I know 3RR is not that rigid. But the point to me is that "edit warring" is not synonymous with 3RR, and I felt it inarguably had occurred here (especially given the ongoing talk discussion), and that was a stronger ground for the block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will agree with @EvergreenFir on this - it was a defacto 3RR without any ongoing discussion taking place in the talk page of Lauren Boebert. Instead, Ficaia presented this argument several times in several synopses to justify his reverts. I don't understand why this is not a violation. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @NikolaosFanaris I think the partial block is perfectly sufficient for this case. Daniel Case makes a good point about other concurrent constructive edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. The disruption has been stopped, which is the purpose of blocks. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will agree with @EvergreenFir on this - it was a defacto 3RR without any ongoing discussion taking place in the talk page of Lauren Boebert. Instead, Ficaia presented this argument several times in several synopses to justify his reverts. I don't understand why this is not a violation. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to err on the safe side and not invoke 3RR except where the exact same revert was made three times in 24 hours, so as to forestall argumentative unblock requests. You might be right about that one serial revert, and maybe the combined diffs would reflect it ... I just didn't feel like I had the time to select both of them and compare. I know 3RR is not that rigid. But the point to me is that "edit warring" is not synonymous with 3RR, and I felt it inarguably had occurred here (especially given the ongoing talk discussion), and that was a stronger ground for the block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case Sorry to be pedantic but Ficaia did indeed violate 3RR. Even when counting serial reviews as one collective revert, the following were made on Jule 3: 1, 2, 3, 4. Arguably, this is also a revert. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:CLalgo (Result: Protected, 72 hours)
Page: François Gauthier-Drapeau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [16]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of the user's reverts in article Shady El Nahas:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23][24]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]
Comments:
The user is removing medals from the infoboxes of the two Canadian judoka, medals that appear in the infoboxes of most judoka articles. The user has deleted previous warning recieved [27][28], engaging in Ad hominem [29][30], and after (see times) warned by me, threatened to report me as an edit warrior [31][32][33][34][35][36]. Please, stop this edit warrior before things escalate. CLalgo (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pot meet kettle. You have blindly been reverting as well after receiving multiple warnings. The only revert after discussions started in two places [37] and [38] (mind you, I started both discussions to stop this from a back and forth), was this revert [39], because it had factually incorrect information, which was pointed out to you on your talk page [40], yet you still went ahead and reverted the edit [41] without acknowlding the factually incorrect information, and added back the wrong info. You are the clear edit warrior here, blindly reverting edits to your preferred version without even attempting a discussion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly have issues collaborating with other editors, as evidenced by your previous block in August 2021. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Friend, everyone can see the times you were warned in, the warning you deleted and the order of reversions. Meanwhile, here is a fresh revert by you, of another Canadian judoka's article: [42]. CLalgo (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- This edit was before a discussion started, keeping in mind you just reverted my edit again while a discussion is taking place. You have been warned multiple times, yet you continued your edit warring ways after the discussions started. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Friend, everyone can see the times you were warned in, the warning you deleted and the order of reversions. Meanwhile, here is a fresh revert by you, of another Canadian judoka's article: [42]. CLalgo (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly have issues collaborating with other editors, as evidenced by your previous block in August 2021. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: I know that WP:BRD is just an essay, but it's good advice. You've made bold edits. They've been reverted. You've asked for discussion at a project-wide level. I suggest you wait for that discussion to proceed—as there does not appear to be any standard across all sports currently—before continuing to make these edits. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The other user made the bold edits, which I reverted. Which is exactly what is happening. As pointed above, my only revert after the discussion I started has been to fix factually incorrect information that is easily verifiable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: Why have you not been updating the references to go along with the corrected information? —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only reference is already linked twice as external links on the article. [43] If you scroll to results and click on Junior Pan American Championships 2016, its there. I don't think linking to the event page is a good reference at this time. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not following. The reference currently in the article says the competition was in Cordoba.[44][45] Why are you changing away from what's in the cited source? —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The source in the infobox [46] says Buenos Aires. The IJF is the governing body and takes precedence imo Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here is another source [47] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The source in the infobox [46] says Buenos Aires. The IJF is the governing body and takes precedence imo Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not following. The reference currently in the article says the competition was in Cordoba.[44][45] Why are you changing away from what's in the cited source? —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The only reference is already linked twice as external links on the article. [43] If you scroll to results and click on Junior Pan American Championships 2016, its there. I don't think linking to the event page is a good reference at this time. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: Why have you not been updating the references to go along with the corrected information? —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The other user made the bold edits, which I reverted. Which is exactly what is happening. As pointed above, my only revert after the discussion I started has been to fix factually incorrect information that is easily verifiable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, the start of this thread has reverted five of my edits on the article on question in under 24 hrs. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Since the parties seem to have such basic disagreements about facts, the page is fully protected. You will need to civilly discuss changes and reach consensus at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, C.Fred. I do want to emphasize that while in the case of François Gauthier-Drapeau the two main primary sources disagree on the location of the 2016 Pan American Junior Championships ([48][49]), the main issue was and still is Sportsfan 1234's blanket removal of medals from the various judoka infoboxes. CLalgo (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
User:BNParibasguy reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BNParibasguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [50]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]
Comments:
User:BNParibasguy and User:GoldenTaurus have been reverting to keep a polity in the successor section of Goguryeo deleted. Both have displayed many similarities including WP tag stacking in accusations, deleting warnings from their talk page while accusing others of vandalism and harassment, same one line statement or variation of "Tang did not succeed Goguryeo", avoidance of participating in the talk discussion except to repeat said one liner. BNP also requested page protection first instead of engaging in the talk discussion for some reason and has done so again now. Qiushufang (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pot meet kettle, you violated the 3RR on 27th June 2022.
- And again on 5th July 2022.
- Despite being warned several times on WP:VAND WP:EW WP:NPA WP:HA [65] [66][67] you continue to show persistent vandalism, edit warring, harrassment and personal attacks. I have requested WP:RPP to prevent the on going WP:VAND and WP:EW. --BNParibasguy (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I initiated calls once asking BNP what the logic was behind the reversion, and again to explain what they meant by vandalism. They never responded. GoldenTaurus made the statement Goguryeo was not succeeded by Tang. in the initial deletion, their only response to talk request was also Tang did not succeed Goguryeo., and now BNP has reverted with the same statement Tang did not suceeded Goguryeo. Their edit summaries and WP tags without any extra substantiation in recent history are also similar: [68], [69]. Qiushufang (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- As a reminder, making 3 reverts to a page on the same 24 hour period is not itself a violation of 3RR. It takes 4 reverts to "violate" that rule, as it is worded that users "[...] must not perform more than three reverts [...]" GabberFlasted (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Would you also mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Traineek. User:GoldenTaurus came into Goguryeo again soon after User:BNParibasguy got into trouble and rv User:Esiymbro: [70]. Their rv behavior and edit summaries are practically identical: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. Talk: [76], [77]. Same argument as Traineek: [78], [79]. Qiushufang (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
User:BradVesp reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: Both editors blocked 24h)
Page: List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BradVesp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 16:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC) to 16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- 16:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096615752 by Favre1fan93 (talk) Makes reading easier and doesn't detract from content WP:COMMON"
- 16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "consistency"
- 16:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096614473 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"
- 16:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "WP:COMMON"
- 15:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "reformatted so Bret Dalton's characters are seperated and separate from Min-La Wen's; reads more logically from left to right. Added links to pilot episode consistent with other characters first appearance"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters."
- 16:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 16:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Duplicate links and rowspans */ new section"
Comments:
User has violated 3RR, and the reverts continued after two user talk page warnings, one explanation in one of my reverts about BRD and the burden on the bold editor to start the discussion (along with WP:STATUSQUO), and another revert again after I went ahead and started the talk page discussion (again, trying to leave STATUSQUO while discussing). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- See talk page. BradVesp (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The changes make it easier for someone who is not a wikipedia editor to read the table. BradVesp (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Very clear-cut here. We do not settle discussions like this with edit wars. Favre1fan, you should have heeded GabberFlasted's warning. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)