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:Jayanthkumar123 reported by User:Benison (Result: Article added to existing partial block)

    [edit]

    Page: L2: Empuraan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Jayanthkumar123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 06:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on L2: Empuraan."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 05:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Jayanthkumar123 "/* April 2025 */ @Jayanthkumar123 "I'm aware of the 'contest' and when you ..." [[[w:en:User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum|Factotum]]]"

    Comments:

    Multiple reverts and edit warring on a protected article (which is protected in the first place due to such disruptions). Additionally, they are involved in similar 'contest' is other related articles too. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said on my talk page Sankranthiki Vasthunam is the "second" and L2: Empuraan is the "third" highest grossing Indian films of 2025. Sankranthiki Vasthunam 225-300 value, whereas L2: Empuraan has 266.12 value, in this the 300 crore has the highest value than the 266.12 crore. Even though the earlier film has range, it still has highest value (300. This is followed on every Indian grossing film articles. That is why I have made the respective edits in both the film articles. Why should any discussion be there when this is done on every Indian film article. Some editors might not know this, and thus the situation. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayanthkumar123, There was no rationale given by you in your edits and reverts for the past 3 days. No discussions or no talk page notices or messages. Absolutely nothing. Not even a simple edit summary. You have been blocked for edit warring before too for similar reasons and your current indef is also because of the same attitude that is very much against our P&Gs. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You just made this edit that is not backed by RS. The figure 300 crores is WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRUIT. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The figure is added long back, but you seems to be having a problem because I have made this edit. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayanthkumar123, please read WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both sources are reliable, yet somehow have problem with only "my" edits. There are many film articles, that use "such" sources which only report final gross. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is why, the range of gross is added. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayanthkumar123, I won't be giving any more explanation to you now, but once again I urge you to read WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRUIT. Those reliable sources are using primary sources as their sources, along with other non RS, which is FRUIT. I'll now wait for a sysop to reply now. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I am saying, many Indian film articles uses such "reliable" sources. The sources nowhere mentioned it as the direct figure from the producer, if they mentioned so I won't be adding those in the first place. Range of the figure is thus added based on the figures from "multiple" reliable sources. All the media house sources are "reliable", please check their reliability as discussed here WP:ICTF. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely from the article since it seems to me Jayanthkumar was gaming the system by making just two reverts, waiting 24 hours and then doing it again. The length and limitations of this sanction are admittedly imperfect, a result of the current technological limitations by which making the block sitewide, or limiting it to a short period will override the existing block, and I do not feel comfortable doing that right now as I had nothing to do with its imposition. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OCDD & User:Rfakjunkie reported by User:Jpeeling (Result: Both blocked 48h)

    [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: [1]

    Diffs of OCDD's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff
    6. diff
    7. diff
    8. diff

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

    Diffs of Rfakjunkie's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff
    6. diff
    7. diff
    8. diff


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, link

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff, diff

    Comments:
    Multiple reverts and edit warring between OCDD and Rfakjunkie on this page over the last few days. Both users were warned and OCDD has continued without engaging constructively. OCDD also appears to be in dispute with Ashish 1816 on the same page (see article history) and has been warned (diff) by another user about edit warring on the Rohit Sharma page. JP (Talk) 08:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rfakjunkie has now also continued the edit war despite the warning, so I've added them to this. JP (Talk) 10:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked both reported users for 48h for violating 3RR. OCDD's 4th revert was several minutes outside the 24-hour window, but although I could have just blocked them for edit-warring, I chose 3RR because of the following policy language: "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."--Bbb23 (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leechjoel9 reported by User:Socialwave597 (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [2]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [3]
    2. [4]
    3. [5]
    4. [6]
    5. [7]
    6. [8]
    7. [9]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

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

    Comments:
    Was planning on retiring from Wikipedia until I noticed this user deleted a significant amount of my work with little to no explanation, WP:WIKIHOUNDING. In his edit summaries, the user accuses me of being a "sockpuppet" (without proof of course), I've had previous encounters with this user that led to a block. I think his block record shows he has a history of WP:OWNERSHIP on multiple Eritrean related articles. User has been made aware he has been editing in a contentious topic since March[12]. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This is really something better dealt with at AN/I, as it's outside the usual parameters of this noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:90.243.107.174 reported by User:Braganza (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Reactions to the death of Pope Francis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 90.243.107.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [13]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [14]
    2. [15]
    3. [16]
    4. [17]



    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: [18]

    Comments:
    The user constantly pushes for the inclusion of a royal pretender as a leader of Romania. Braganza (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DanielG.M.S.S.N reported by User:Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (Result: Blocked two weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Spanish Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 23:24, 23 April 2025

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 07:03, 24 April 2025
    2. 09:20, 24 April 2025
    3. 10:47, 24 April 2025
    4. 11:24, 24 April 2025


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:55, 23 April 2025

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:PermanentLink/1287158177#Hegemony

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1287162153

    Comments:

    User has been warned multiple times[19][20][21][22] and even given specific guidance on the WP:BRD cycle[23], which led to them opening a discussion on the article's talk page[24], unfortunately they then continued to edit war[25] after opening that discussion for which they were again warned on the discussion page[26], which they did not heed and continued warring[27][28] fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me, but you started the war by senselessly modifying my legitimate contributions. Everything I've changed is true, and I've started a discussion in the group, which you haven't bothered to participate in. Your attitude is not constructive and undermines the good work of Wikipedia. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On top of that, you're intentionally mixing up "warnings" on different articles to make it seem like they aren't. The first warnings I received, as you call them, were due to my complete ignorance of how editing works on Wikipedia. I beg you to stop tarnishing my good name. And I'm not going to report your misconduct because, unlike you, I believe in dialogue as a method of conflict resolution. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Downzyisaliar reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: DJ Ashba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC) "the source is Ashba's personal verified facebook page. You can't get more reliable than Ashba himself."
    2. 16:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC) "reverting this edit; the source in the article is Ashba's personal facebook page. you can view it here https://metalsludge.tv/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Ashba_Wife_NAtty_Feb_2023_3.jpg"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 23:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC) to 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
      1. 23:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1287075333 by FlightTime (talk): Personal life has information that shouldn't have been removed"
      2. 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "rather than deleting this information, the person should have done a google search and added citations themsleves IMO."
    4. 20:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "undoing revert, minor edits were made to the info box to add the label he was on with Guns N' Roses, ex-spouse and current partner, and adding a more recent image of Ashba rather than a 15 year old publicity photo."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 19:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC) to 20:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
      1. 19:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "rewrote article"
      2. 20:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "minor updates to infobox"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: False edit summary 3."
    2. 20:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* April 2025 */ Misclick"
    3. 20:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "Final warning notice on DJ Ashba."
    4. 20:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* April 2025 */"
    5. 21:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "+ "
    6. 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "Notification: tagging for deletion of File:Ashbaperforminggnr2014.jpg."
    7. 23:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* removing "weirdo" comments on my talk page */ new section"
    8. 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on DJ Ashba."
    9. 23:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* NOTHERE */ new section"
    10. 16:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on DJ Ashba."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 21:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* since "FlightTime" wants a talk discussion about the infobox */ cmt"
    2. 21:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* since "FlightTime" wants a talk discussion about the infobox */ WTF"

    Comments: This flighttime user thinks that Ashba's personal facebook page is not a reliable source of information. He began an edit war trying to remove info about Ashba's divorce. The sources are properly cited. This should be the end of the discussion. Instead, he has constantly vandalized my own talk page and the Ashba wiki article.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1287202561"