Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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:Control-alt-delete reported by User:Scope creep (Result: Declined)

Page: German-American Petroleum Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Control-alt-delete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:22:59, 29 July 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:59, 29 July 2024 Addition of unsourced content copied without attribution from another article. Removed it. Left a message on editors talk asking why they were adding unsourced content.
2. 2 August 2024 Reverted and added back unsourced content.
3. 00:48, 2 August 2024 Reverted again and added the unsourced content. Removed it. Left a message on editors talk page asking why they are adding unsourced content.
4. 00:49, 2 August 2024 Left an abusive message on my talk page.
5. 00:57, 2 August 2024 Reverted again and added unsourced content
6. 01:03, 2 August 2024 Reverted again and left an abusive message " Still trying to add citations but this moron wants to cause edit conflicts"

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: [diff]

Comments:
Left two messages warning the editor over attribution and adding unsourced content. Editor has WP:CIR issues. Editor has been unncessarily abusive. scope_creep^Talk 00:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

From the get-go this user left very passive aggressive remarks to me. I am still actively adding the citations that are needed. I am thankful that this user spotted the need for citations, however continuously rolling back my edits whilst I am literally in the middle of adding them is highly obstructive. Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 00:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Scope creep, Special:Diff/1238073380 and Special:Diff/1238074434 have probably not been necessary, and the former lacked an explanation. Special:Diff/1238073057 appears to be inaccurate ("Every sentence that is added to Wikipedia needs a reference", "illegal") and unnecessarily hostile (if there are competence issues, merely informing the user about their existence is unlikely to cause any change).

Control-alt-delete, "this moron" is rather actively aggressive, so I guess you're now even.

I think whether administrative action is needed depends on whether Scope creep is fine with the result of the edits that followed the edit war, or if there is still disagreement about the inclusion of that paragraph. In that case, I'd enforce WP:ONUS (and potentially WP:BURDEN), requiring Control-alt-delete to gain a consensus for the addition on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everything you're saying. I admit, I did call him a moron in response to his own tone. I am now finished editing. I have done my best to add good citations, but I would be happy to improve them if needed. I copied some citations from existing citations on existing Wikipedia articles. I have also added 2 new ones from the US military. Please do let me know if you see something I could improve further. Many thanks Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 00:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that @Scope creep claims that this is "his article" and he "doesn't want other people working on it". Tough! That's not keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. I have been a user for probably a decade or two. I rarely edit, but I do not lack the competence. He is far too attached to "his" article. See my talk page for his ridiculous standpoint: User talk:Control-alt-delete - Wikipedia Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"Articles I worked on" is a bit different than "my article", and the indirect ownership claims are a relatively small concern to me in this discussion. I'd be more concerned about the wording "low-quality junk", but at the moment, I primarily wonder about Scope creep's opinion about the current state of the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This is also telling: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive394#c-DovidBenAvraham-2019-08-17T17:08:00.000Z-User:Scope creep reported by User:Lqqhh (Result: both editors advised, discussio Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"I've experienced scope_creep's over-protectiveness of articles" from another user in the same thread Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been dozens of issues with this user previously, including issuing him bans:

scope creep - Search results - Wikipedia Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Control-alt-delete, enough please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The editor shouldn't be editing articles. They are not competent. The editor edit-warred to restore unsourced, unlinked, non-attributed content twice instead of discussing it when it was reverted, like normal folk. This is egregious and a clear competency issue. Not being able to interact is problematic. Since I stopped doing anti-vandalism work and stopped working in afc/npp/afd and coin, I tend not to check my watchlist too often and it was sheer chance that I looked at it. It would have sat there unsourced even now, if I hand'nt seen it and left a comment about it. Editors who have to be forced to do the correct thing, shouldn't be on here. The content was copied across really quickly and I think the refs haven't been checked, which are a complete mess, which I'll need to fix on Sunday. The articles now reads 1938 stuff, 1945 stuff, back to 1939 stuff. No attempt to integrate the new content. It has bare urls in a fully cited article, hanging sentences with no closing clauses, a main article tag with no section header. "The introduction of Stutthof concentration camp" with no attached context. I don't even know why that is there. No units for the barrels of oil. It is mess. I will need to fix this. Some stuff will be removed. The editors nature is try and force it through. Its Ani the next time and a block recommendation. The comments above are really really shabby. It sadden's me. The editor jumped to try smear me instead of focusing on the content. Its not a laughing matter. I have no time for this editor. 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)

I have tried to add information to the article, as there was nothing in it about their history during WWII. I did try to talk to you about this on your talk page, but you did not want to talk, you reverted continuously instead - whilst I was actively trying to edit it, you forced multiple edit conflicts. You caused the disruption, you appear to have a history of causing disruption, and you continue to cause a disruption. I am not "forcing content in", I am trying to add key information to the article where there is a gaping hole. I would be pleased to have some help with rewording it, and I am keen to see your results on Sunday, so thank you. Please don't think this is a personal attack that I've edited your article, I hold no grudges, I am just trying to improve your article. Relax - life is good! Sincerely, Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 23:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Declined Ordinarily I'd be blocking both editors, but here C-a-D said in their edit summaries they were planning to add cites in the next edit ... which did nothing to deter Scope Creep from reverting within minutes. This is not how to assume good faith.

Scope, not everyone likes to add cites with the text. If someone says they're going to do it in their next edit, give them a little time. Don't revert away like some malfunctioning cyborg. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:104.218.69.202 reported by User:Bsoyka (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Rachel Cruze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 104.218.69.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238189408 by Bsoyka (talk)"
2. 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238085879 by Bsoyka (talk)"
3. 02:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238085879 by Bsoyka (talk)"
4. 01:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Rachel Cruze."
2. 15:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC) on User talk:104.218.69.202 "Warning: Disruptive editing on Rachel Cruze."

Comments:

I'm also convinced this might be vandalism, especially based on this edit. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Воскресенский Петр reported by User:Altenmann (Result: Already blocked, as noted)

Page: Olga Tobreluts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Воскресенский Петр (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

Comment: While I was filing this report, the user was blocked for other violations, but I decided to keep this as a record. - Altenmann >talk 18:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

- Altenmann >talk 18:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 72 hours by Cullen328 for persistently adding unsourced content and making false accusations of vandalism. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:TurkeyAndHungry reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 2024 England riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TurkeyAndHungry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: August 2-3

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5 (since report)
6. 6 (since report)

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: diff

Comments:
New single-issue editor is edit-warring despite warning on talk page and discussion opened on article page. CNC (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

He made a list of changes that he wanted implemented on the TalkPage, so I added all of the changes he asked for and updated the article. Beyond that he has not said why he dislikes my changes after already catering to his requests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkeyAndHungry (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

So I am not in violation of the 3R rule because I basically implemented all the changes he wanted. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, you literally clicked the "Undo" button 4 times. It's hard to find a clearer 3RR violation than that. C F A 💬 00:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Could someone point out if I should bother to respond to that? It's not clear if it's worthwhile. CNC (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

... And now you're up to 6 reverts. C F A 💬 00:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:2403:6200:8864:3F0A:D214:1FDF:9873:D95F ; User:2403:6200:8864:3F0A:A017:3E60:F586:E5F2 reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: Range blocked one week)

Page: ...I Care Because You Do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2403:6200:8864:3F0A:A017:3E60:F586:E5F2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Though clearly the same user as 2403:6200:8864:3F0A:D214:1FDF:9873:D95F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]
6. [13] (since notice of report here)

(+ similar IP)

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21] and [22] Cambial — foliar❧ 13:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Comments:

• I've blocked the /64 range for one week for vandalism. Unnecessary for me to examine the reported edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Imperfect strategist reported by User:RangersRus (Result: Sockmaster indefinitely blocked)

Page: Indian 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Imperfect strategist (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. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]
6. [28]
7. [29]
8. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

Comments:

Comment - user is engaging in obvious sock puppetry, so I reported the sockmaster and all socks to AIV. Jdcomix (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the master and two socks at an SPI report filed by another user, which would have been a better way to go, Jdcomix, than at WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Got it, will note that in the future. Jdcomix (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:DrLurve reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34] - note edsum
2. [35] - note edsum
3. [36] - note edsum
4. [37] - note edsum
5. [38] - edsum still assumes bad faith
6. [39] - note edsum
7. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]

Comments:

After the 3RR warning, they continued to revert. A user gave them a last warning on their user page and they reverted again 3 minutes after replying to that warning. They have made several more reverts since those. Please note that I think their edsums might potentially need revdelling. They make accusations aganst the BLP subject that go beyond the evidence and are definitely not in good faith. Likewise their contribution on the talk page may need revdelling. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• While they have undoubtedly been edit warring, in addition to the above edit summaries, posts on the article talk page plus these on their user talk page[44][45] suggests a WP:NOTHERE indef should be considered. DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Would agree, frankly almost took them to AIV last night before the latest round of spamming. Clearly NOTHERE Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Btw, for any non-UK admin that may look at this, this may help (second definition) for the British slang/tabloid term the user has deployed repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is the latest in a long line of articles where a user has argued that the sex offence convictions must be mentioned in the opening sentence, or better still in the first few words. This is usually rejected, because Huw Edwards has a Wikipedia article as a result of his career as a BBC broadcaster that stretches back many years, not because he was convicted of a sex offence in 2024. I'm also worried about AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Mishradeepanshu027 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

Page: Ranbir Kapoor filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mishradeepanshu027 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238139369 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
2. Revision as of 18:15, 30 July 2024
3. Revision as of 18:36, 30 July 2024 "Undid revision 1237625673 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) It's making the filmography more better and has all the details regarding ranbir kapoor's filmography"
4. Revision as of 18:43, 30 July 2024 "Undid revision 1237628498 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) It's making the filmography more better and has all the details regarding ranbir kapoor's filmography"
5. Revision as of 13:43, 1 August 2024 "Undid revision 1237733673 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) do not act as a journalist so please do not change this I work in wikipedia as software developer, hence you will be banned forever @Krimuk2.0"
6. Revision as of 10:12, 5 August 2024

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:34, 2 August 2024 "Warning: Edit warring on Ranbir Kapoor filmography"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 10:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) to 09:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Ranbir Kapoor filmography

Comments: Slow burn edit warring by this disruptive trying to game the system. Fails to abide by WP:FILMOGRAPHY guideline and doesn't seem to be interested in discussion / WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD when reverted. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Tried to threaten user User:Krimuk2.0 here, claiming to be a 'software developer' working for the 'wikipedia'. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Sky meme reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: )

Page: Overseas Indonesians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Better use newest data"
2. 15:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC) "better use newest data"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Consecutive edits made from 10:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC) to 22:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Sky meme

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Immediately returning to the exact same two edit wars after coming off a block for edit warring. CMD (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)