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:37.19.109.49 reported by User:Patrick Welsh (Result: 1 week partial block from Tamara Kalinic)

    [edit]

    Page: Tamara Kalinic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 37.19.109.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. Consecutive edits made from 16:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 16:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
      1. 16:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 16:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
    4. Consecutive edits made from 16:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 16:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
      1. 16:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 16:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
    5. Consecutive edits made from 16:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 16:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
      1. 16:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 16:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
    6. Consecutive edits made from 14:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 15:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
      1. 14:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 15:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
      3. 15:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "Not adhering to a neutral point of view (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 16:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Not sure exactly what the problem is here, but the IP has some issue with ethnicity they will not discuss at talk. Patrick (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vestigium Leonis & User:BMWF reported by User:Sariel Xilo (Result: Stale)

    [edit]

    Page: Forspoken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:

    Previous version reverted to: 17:58, 10 April 2025

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:27, 11 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis updated article
    2. 21:20, 11 April 2025: BMWF reverts both Vestigium Leonis & another editor's update
    3. 03:00, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
    4. 13:18, 12 April 2025: NutmegCoffeeTea reverted Vestigium Leonis
    5. 13:27, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted NutmegCoffeeTea
    6. 13:41, 12 April 2025: NutmegCoffeeTea reverted Vestigium Leonis
    7. 13:42, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted NutmegCoffeeTea
    8. 13:58, 12 April 2025: BMWF reverted Vestigium Leonis
    9. 14:02, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
    10. 14:09, 12 April 2025: BMWF reverted Vestigium Leonis
    11. 14:12, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
    12. 14:22, 12 April 2025: BMWF reverted Vestigium Leonis
    13. 14:33, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
    14. 15:43, 12 April 2025 NutmegCoffeeTea reverted Vestigium Leonis

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    I haven't edited much on Forspoken but I did see the edit war reheat & added to FMSky's RPP report. Both User:Vestigium Leonis & User:BMWF blew past 3RR during this edit war; User:NutmegCoffeeTea only made 2 reverts so I included for context but I'm not reporting them. In terms with my experiences with the involved editors, I haven't had any issues previously with User:Vestigium Leonis & they apologized after I added the edit war notice. However, BMWF and I have had content disputes before primarily at Dragon Age: The Veilguard & more recently at Assassin's Creed Shadows. When dealing with BMWF, I've noticed they are quick to revert with anything they disagree with even if consensus disagrees while claiming they are following WP:BRD. In the case of Veilguard, I went to WP:DRN in December 2024 in an attempt to deescalate and they refused to engage; when another editor & I finished the process and I implemented the consensus from DRN, they returned to revert saying we didn't have their consensus (this then lead to an RfC). In general, I've noticed that BMWF does not agree with any policy interpretation if it goes against the edits they want to implement even if multiple editors have explained why something is supported by policy & that consensus does not mean every editor involved has to agree. To me, this edit war at Forspoken appears to be part of a larger pattern of disruptive editing by BMWF while Vestigium Leonis simply lost their cool in a single incident. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC) (Added in ANEW notice diffs Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

    I acknowledge that I went too far with the reverts, there is nothing else I want to add or justify on that part. I’ve dealt with a similar situation on the Veilguard article, which probably played a part in how things went (along with a bad night’s sleep). I agree with Sariel's explanation on here about the way BMWF, and on a smaller scale also the other user NutMegCoffeeTea (who just did the third revert as well), handle the editing on here. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also acknowledge that things went further than ideal. Lowering the temperature here would be beneficial for everyone. BMWF (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One more point I would like to add to my comment — both users have a tendency to just revert everything, which was quite frustrating as well. For example, including the OpenCritic score doesn't require consensus, nor does adding missing sales data of the game's performance in Japan. If there had been an RfC or some kind of ongoing content change restriction, it would be understandable — but that was not the case here. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty much a complete observer here, but upon reviewing this is frankly ridiculous. @Sariel Xilo, you probably should've added NutmegCoffeeTea too, as I'm sure you know it's possible to participate in edit warring without breaking 3RR, and I think this is prime example. BMWF and Nutmeg were just in a whole conflict on the AE board (it was a mess, trust me you're better off not reading it) where this exact thing happened, [1] and so they should be more than aware of edit warring policy. The fact that they both did this flagrantly so recently afterwards either raises legitimate WP:CIR issues of being unable to read the plain text of WP:EDITWAR or is a pretty serious indicator of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I never do this, but unless these guys show up and inform us that they're gonna completely 180º their behavior, this needs to be addressed. Just10A (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just10A is not an observer and has defended FMSky's discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors.[2] BMWF (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, you're incorrect. I have not interacted with any of the content here with anyone. I found FMSky's AE post as an observer, commented on it, and that led me here, equally as a complete observer. If you think I'm misrepresenting, take it to AN. Otherwise, I'd consider TBF letting you off with a warning to be very fortunate and I'd start following policy if I were you. Just10A (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NutmegCoffeeTea, BMWF: Your views on this please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Vestigium Leonis, Sariel Xilo, and Just10A all share content positions. Just10A offered defense for FMSky[3], who was recently topic banned from GENSEX for implying that editors who identify as LGBTQ or showcase pronouns shouldn't participate. FMSky then violated his topic ban with this edit[4], and then Vestigium Leonis reinserted FMSky's edit 7 times. Vestigium Leonis is a significantly more experienced editor and the idea that he just "simply lost his cool" and did 7 reverts, as justified by Sariel Xilo, doesn't sit right with me. It does sound like Sariel is trying to skew the deck and target those he has editing disagreements with. I hope I was able to steer both Vestigium Leonis and BMWF to the talk page. I think everyone here can easily use the talk page and I'd like to see that, as everyone seems smart. I think discussion can resolve anything and there is probably a lot that everyone agrees on. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Before Just10A's comments above, I was unaware there was a larger ongoing conflict between you, BMWF & FMSky (looks like there was a retaliatory sock investigation started by FMSky after they were brought to WP:AE). I'm uninvolved in whatever edits FMSky did to get a GENSEX topic ban & I oppose queer/transphobia. I came across FMSky's RPP request when Twinkle alerted me, saw FMSky participated at Talk:Forspoken#Lead by pinging editors who have been involved in content disputes at the article (talk page also shows both BMWF & Vestigium Leonis discussing/disagreeing with each other on April 11-12 during the edit war), and that they went to an admin's talk to complain about the edit warring at Forspoken.
    I'm hard-pressed to think of what "content positions" I share with Just10A as I'm fairly sure our editing has never overlapped. Vestigium previously agreed with points I made at the Veilguard RfC although I had forgotten about that when I made my report here; otherwise, I don't think we've overlapped much in the areas we edit nor participated in many of the same discussions which would indicate similar editing philosophies. BMWF & I do overlap a bit in terms of video game articles we edit so I've kept an eye on their editing patterns and it seems to me that they are quick to turn things into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I tried to lower my engagement with BMWF after good faith attempts to deescalate didn't go anywhere a few months ago (while no one is required to participate in DRN, I don't think it is great to refuse to participate and then afterwards say they don't agree with the consensus & argue it wasn't the right venue anyway to have a discussion).
    In this case, I saw the edit war at Forespoken and I reported both Vestigium & BMWF because they went past 3RR & didn't report NutmegCoffeeTea because they were at 2 reverts when I initially made the report. At the end of the day, the issue here is less about whether or not the content should be included at Forespoken but more about the immediate jump to edit war behavior when you've been reverted. While BMWF often says BRD in their edit summaries when reverting, WP:BRD-NOT states: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. This applies equally to bold editors and to reverters". (As an aside, please use they/them for me per WP:EDPRONOUNS; thanks!) Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The insinuation that Vestigium Leonis "simply lost his cool" for 7 reverts, while at the same time trying this hard to strike BMWF because they disagree with you on content issues on other articles, is the only example of battleground behavior I'm seeing here. I think everyone just wants to help (myself included!) and I know the talk page can resolve anything that comes up. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For transparency I want to note that Sariel Xilo has a conflict of interest, and that Sariel Xilo, Vestigium Leonis, and FMSky made the same edits on Veilguard, which is another game that has been targeted by GamerGate for perceived diversity. This recent incident on Forspoken was started when FMSky ignored his topic ban to do the same editing. The temperature should be lower and I'm okay with collaborating with Vestigium Leonis on steps to achieve that. BMWF (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick question. I'm not seeing anything that would make the Forspoken article fall under this particular topic ban. There's no content, category, or anything else in regards to the topic ban. I'm not trying to defend others' actions on this topic, but bringing it up here feels a bit misleading. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to leave a record here, my edits at Veilguard clearly show that I'm not acting in support of GamerGate - I not only developed & added the reception paragraph on the queer/trans storylines, I also went to bat to defend its inclusion in the article along with the inclusion of more general reviews by queer/trans reporters/sources. I've been very consistent there and elsewhere that as editors we need to maintain a NPOV which means we include criticism from legitimate sources and otherwise ignore the manufactured social media outrage. The good faith assumption on different editors making similar edits on an article is that is the direction consensus has gone so I'm not sure why BMWF is trying to paint me as part of some coordinated cabal. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everyone. If the article stays as is for now and the discussion on the talk page continues, I think we can close the edit warring report here. I see accusations about topic ban violations and other misconduct above, but these should be handled separately, perhaps at WP:ANI if needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ShayonD19 reported by User:United Blasters (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Disney Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: ShayonD19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 07:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC) to 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
      1. 07:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
      2. 07:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      3. 07:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      4. 08:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */ Removed BTVI as it was never owned by Disney or Star India"
      5. 08:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
      6. 08:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
      7. 08:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
      8. 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 05:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC) to 06:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
      1. 05:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
      2. 05:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
      3. 05:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
      4. 05:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
      5. 05:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
      6. 05:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      7. 05:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      8. 05:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      9. 05:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* International */"
      10. 05:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* International */"
      11. 06:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 08:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 09:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
      1. 08:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      2. 08:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      3. 08:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      4. 08:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      5. 08:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      6. 08:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      7. 08:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      8. 08:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      9. 08:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      10. 08:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
      11. 09:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Upcoming channels */"
      12. 09:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
      13. 09:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
    4. 13:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 06:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Disney Star."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:91.242.155.157 reported by User:LaundryPizza03 (Result: Blocked six months)

    [edit]

    Page: Chucky season 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 91.242.155.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [5]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Initial edit
    2. [6]
    3. [7]
    4. [8]
    5. [9]
    6. [10]
    7. [11]
    8. [12]
    9. [13]
    10. [14]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by CycloneYoris

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

    Comments:
    Violation of MOS:EUPH: changing "have sex" in an episode summary to "sleep together". Multiple users reverted them, including myself on the eighth edit. The user does not use edit summaries, and continued after receiving a disruptive-editing warning from CycloneYoris between the ninth and tenth edits, which is why I don't think communication on the talk page will be productive. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of six months Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:141.154.49.21 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Page County, Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 141.154.49.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: revert by Adakiko, 12:00, 3 April

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:23 13 April ES: Not unsourced, as I will explain in talk. By the way, when you start an edit war you're the one that needs to stop before 3 reverts
    2. 21:34, 11 April ES: Undid revision 1285127896 by Gaismagorm (talk) All of these claims are cited in the huge table below, as I said before. Claim 1 is cited by the Virginia election maps, Claims 2 and 3 are both cited by the table below.
    3. 21:22, 11 April ES: Feel free to list the exact claims that need to be cited (there really aren't any) or add citations yourself. This is simply an analysis of the Virginian election map. And if you bothered to check the citation, you'd find that it's Virginia as a whole - meaning that my claims are, in fact, cited.
    4. 21:05 11 April ES: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. If you look at the numbers, 76% > any other of the numbers listed. Crazy, right? The other parts, namely that the south was democratic before becoming republican, is fairly well known. If you would like to add citations yourself to this widely known phenomenon, go ahead
    5. 16:53 11 April ES: The giant sourced table directly below the words is the source.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:56, 12 April

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Page County, Virginia#Politics section edits on 11 April 2025

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: AN3 notice 04:28, 14 April

    Comments:

    Anon does not appear willing to discuss, just tells others they are wrong. Reverted twice by Gaismagorm (talk · contribs) and thrice by Adakiko (talk · contribs)
    Anon did finally add sources here - 23:48, 13 April 2025 no ES, after their last revert, but without discussion nor any attempt to get consensus.
    Some of the anon's content is sourced, other appears to be (or was) unsourced, OR, or synthesis. I find some of the anon's other edits dubious for similar issues. Adakiko (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1285590166"