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:Patapsco913 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Cancer Alley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Patapsco913 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts; Reversions on 13 May

    1. First revert to replace table @ 12:17.[2]
    2. Second revert to replace table @ 13:52.[3]
    3. Third revert to replace table @ 16:01.[4]
    4. Fourth revert to restore other just-removed material @ 19:56.[5]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see [7]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

    Comments:

    What is the "other just removed-material" in the alleged fourth revert? It looks like Patapsco just found a better source for which counties constitute Cancer Alley. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Within that edit, for example putting back the "The "alley" later grew to encompass ..." text sourced (as before) to [9], or (wrongly) reverting the word "rebutting" back to "refuting", among other restorations. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I added the table on 27 April 2025 [10] which was removed on the same day unbekownst to me [11] I was cleaning up some Louisana items and stumbled across the edit which used "undue/primary" as the reason so thinking the concern that the table was too prominent, I collapsed it and added it back. Also, the US census is used on nearly every single geography in the US despite being a primary source as it is seen as the gold standard in population data (just look at any city or county). I did not see it as controversial since the section I edited was related to the racial and ethnic makeup of a section examining environmental racism in the geography deemed to be Cancer Aleey. The data I added gives the reader the info on the geography and does not make a value judgment. I did post on the talk page for discussion and he made something up about not using "primary sources" despite a long established practice of doing such regarding the US census.Patapsco913 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can disagree; that's fine. But why did you keep adding the material despite the disagreement? And why then did you go on to blanket revert other edits/improvements I made to to the article – why for example revert "rebutting" back to "refuting"? It's edit-warring where none of the usual exemptions apply. Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a talk page and we were talking. You removed the data supporting what counties Cancer Alley was composed (I presume so my table would then be unsupported since there was no citation for the counties comprising Cancer Alley); and then removed qualatative sources that environmental racism is being alleged (I presume since the racial and ethnic compostion of the parishes involved would not be relevant is there is not allegations of environmental racism).Patapsco913 (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't answer either of my questions. You were aware of WP:EW and WP:ONUS yet went to 4RR and here we are. Again, why did you revert improvements like the rebut/refute correction? Bon courage (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are going to hang your argument on subtle word meanings between using "rebut" and "refute". It was part of a larger edit restoring the list of parishes in Cancer Alley as well as a map indicating such which you dseem to be unecessary.Patapsco913 (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well. let the administrator make his judgment. We have a talk page to discuss this. I disagree with your position on not being able to use census data to show population composition and the requirement that I can only used wholly verified medical references to determine what parishes make up Cancer Alley.Patapsco913 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only issue here is whether you were edit warring in a way not exempted by policy (e.g. to remove defamatory biographical information). The fact you don't seem to care about "subtle word meaning" (actually not subtle) in your haste to reverse my improvements, compounds the issue here, alongside your attempt to personalize and obfuscate.[12] Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 14 May 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. In the strictest sense as I am not quite sure that the fourth edit counts as a revert, and edit warring on the page has stopped since you began sniping at each other about whether you were edit warring here. Which is yet another example of a phenomenon we see here entirely too much—the discussion at the report page which, had it taken place on the article talk page, might have obviated entirely the need or perceived need to file the report.

    That said, I will not be so sanguine, nor do I imagine another admin would be, if this behavior persists from either of you. The above discussion evinces a clear breakdown of the ability to assume good faith on both your parts, and that is never a good thing. If this is what we see more of in the future, sanctions on both of you can be expected. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joshua Jonathan reported by User:58.99.101.165 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Joshua Jonathan (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. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290347965
    2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290345903

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Hello._This_message_is_being_sent_to_inform_you_that_there_is_currently_a_discussion_involving_you_at_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring_regarding_a_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia's_policy_on_edit_warring._Thank_you. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Inadequate_sources

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Hello._This_message_is_being_sent_to_inform_you_that_there_is_currently_a_discussion_involving_you_at_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring_regarding_a_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia's_policy_on_edit_warring._Thank_you.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.99.101.165 (talk • contribs) 14 may 2025 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Joshua Jonathan made two reverts; there seems to be IP address hopping involved. When Joshua Jonathan stopped, Ramos1990 joined and edit warred with edit summaries telling others not to; they're Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The page is semi-protected for a year to prevent further IP address hopping. Neither Joshua Jonathan nor Ramos1990 should restore the disputed content; if it is the result of a consensus, others who helped building it can do this job. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is fair:
    And notice also Talk:Christ myth theory#Non-academic sources, where IP 58 objects against using blog-posts, while none were removed. User:Slatersteven asked "what blog is being talked about?", which reminded me that blogs by Ehrman and Hurtado were discussed at Historicity of Jesus: diff, diff, Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Ehrman and Hurtado. It looks like this IP is not new. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Preventing the other side from editing the article for a year isn't fair enough to your side? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Grownarwahl reported by User:Magitroopa (Result: Blocked 24h)

    [edit]

    Page: Pig Goat Banana Cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Grownarwahl (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]
    5. [18]



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

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

    Comments:
    Prior to my involvement in this, Carlinal had already reverted a few times and warned the user regarding adding unsourced info in the article. Despite this, even when I had begun reverting their unsourced edits within the article, the user is continuing to revert their unsourced edits in without any edit summaries whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Barry Wom and anonymous offender reported by User:2800:E2:B880:799:D89:7175:9869:4321 (Result: IP user's range blocked six months along with reporter as block evader)

    [edit]

    Page: 20 July plot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Barry Wom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and anonymous using different IPs

    Previous version reverted to: [21]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [22]
    2. [23]
    3. [24]
    4. [25]


    Comments:
    I want to report these users who are engaged in this absurd edit war. One can evade blocks as often as they want, and Barry Wom, a longtime user, isn't setting an example by reporting this war and stoops to the level of the offender. It can't be denied that the offender writes well and provides the correct sources, but this war must still stop. There was no attempt at conciliation, nor was there a warning of three edits, not even on the users' pages. Both deserve to be blocked indefinitely. 2800:E2:B880:799:D89:7175:9869:4321 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 6 months. The 179.1.219.192/30 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Otherwise, I consider this report malicious as, since the reporting IP has only made these two edits and resolves to central Colombia as well, I suspect strongly that it is the same block evader (notice the utterly unnececssary praise for the IP who "writes well"—yeah, even without looking at the RevDel'ed edits you can see this is someone who really rises to the occasion) so I will be blocking that /64 as well. (And, yes, reverting a sock of a banned or blocked user is sort of another time it's OK to go beyond 3RR). Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JamesMcCloy11 reported by User:LaffyTaffer (Result: Indefinitely pblocked; subsequently indefinitely blocked sitewide)

    [edit]

    Page: Longmont High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: JamesMcCloy11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [26]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290590873 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"
    2. 18:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290589177 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
    3. 17:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290471509 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
    4. 23:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290433928 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Longmont High School."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Longmont High School "/* Recent additions to the Music section */ new section"

    Comments:

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1290713833"