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:Likebr 20/User:Like56d reported by Ninixed (Result: Protected )

    [edit]

    Page: Brazilian Portuguese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported:

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. page entirely rewritten [1]
    2. [2]



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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [5] [6]

    Comments:
    these edits were evidently disruptive. And they were reverted in pt wikipedia.

    Page protected I have escalated the semi-protection already in place to full-protection until 5 July. Please seek dispute resolution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheIceman8910 reported by User:102.17.119.8 (Result: 72 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: United States invasion of Panama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TheIceman8910 (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. [7]
    2. [8]
    3. [9]
    4. [10]
    5. [11]
    6. [12]
    7. [13]


    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: They have made the same unexplained deletions at The invasion of Panama seven times and been reverted by several editors. The first two edits were by IP but they then created an account and have reverted five times. They are also doing identical edits at Spanish–American War (Five reverts) & United States invasion of Grenada (Four edits). The accounts only edits are disruptive editing to these pages.

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drsaskhistorian reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)

    [edit]

    Page: Khedivate of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Drsaskhistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [14]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

    Comments:

    Long-term edit-warring by same user, attempting to add the same POV to the lead each time. After the initial edit-warring and discussion, they now seem to be waiting and repeating the edit every few days. They haven't made any other constructive edits in the meantime. R Prazeres (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DacianScholar reported by User:Traumnovelle (Result: Warned; Mrballs000 partially blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: .tf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DacianScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), there is also a dynamic IP, template won't support it.

    Stable version before edit war: [23]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [24] Mrballs000 restores content
    2. [25] DacianScholar restores deleted references
    3. [26] IP removes content
    4. [27] DacianScholar reverts
    5. [28] IP reverts
    6. [29] DacianScholar reverts
    7. [30] IP reverts
    8. [31] DacianScholar reverts
    9. [32] IP reverts
    10. [33] Mrballs000 restores but with different wording.
    11. [34] IP reverts
    12. [35] Mrballs000 reverts
    13. [36] IP reverts

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [39] DacianScholar [40] IP

    Comments:
    DacianScholar registered his account today and this is basically his only action on Wikipedia. Despite being new he references WP:NOR and editing disputes from several months ago so clearly has been editing Wikipedia for much longer. I have not included the IP in the userlink template because Userlink won't let me. The IP is a good-faith user but DacianScholar is quite clearly here to be disruptive. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    DacianScholar has stopped after a warning; Special:Diff/1298690485 is their latest edit. Warned.
    Mrballs000 continued for them after being warned on their talk page and replying to the warning: [41], [42], [43], [44]. Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. If this continues after the two weeks, which I'm afraid might happen because Mrballs000 does little else on Wikipedia since October 2024, I'll re-block without automatic expiry.
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello ToBeFree,
    There was no warning on my page—the "warning" was from a non-administrator. It was easy to tell because of the ad hominem accusations thrown toward me when I've been nothing but civil. Regardless, the "edit war" is a two-way road—we need an arbitrator to settle it. My explanations with my edits aim to clear up any confusion with their purpose. Let me be clear: I have done my part in providing my case for the edit, which, in my opinion, cannot be said for the opposing members of the "edit war". Please review the case.
    Kind regards. Mrballs000 (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. you don't have to make an assumption on whether I'll continue to warrant being blocked after two weeks due to my history of using this site. I must politely suggest that we resolve this matter before jumping to any conclusions.
    Kind regards once morem Mrballs000 (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I must mention that I was not notified that I was being reported—rather, it was DacianScholar as the subject. Mrballs000 (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Mrballs000, you were aware that edit warring is not an option. Anyone can inform other users about policies. You also don't need administrative help to discuss article content on the article's talk page, and your block doesn't prevent this either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello ToBeFree,
    Okay, now I understand your point. Indeed, I was aware of the "three-revert" automatic blockage rule—though I believed my case was different as I provided just cause in the edit messages in response to an editor who I believed did not provide thought-out explanations in their three reversions. Regardless, in lieu of my blockage, I will reiterate my points on the article's talk page to achieve consensus and hopefully a passerby will pick up where I left off in terms of adding information to the article in the meantime, once a consensus is determined. Thank you so much.
    Kind regards, Mrballs000 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Editking100 reported by User:83.179.19.166 (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Shubhanshu Shukla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Editking100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [45]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:40, 27 June 2025
    2. 03:20, 28 June 2025
    3. 04:08, 3 July 2025
    4. 12:15, 3 July 2025
    5. 20:20, 3 July 2025
    6. 11:18, 4 July 2025

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [48]

    Comments:

    Clear-cut violation of WP:3RR. 83.179.19.166 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all admins please have a look at this ANI which confirms that this is a multiparty content issue (with 9 editors and 6 IP's involved, including the IP who reported me) rather than a single user issue as been reported here [[49]].

    The IP User:83.179.19.166 is highly contentious [[50]], [[51]] and has been used only to edit in this page since been created a few days ago, as can be confirmed by the users contribution history here [[52]]. The IP 83.179.19.166's questionable edits in this page is also raised in the above ANI, as can be verified under the 'Examples of Camp 1's edit summaries' here [[53]]] The same IP was also requested to be blocked by another user citing disruption [[54]]. Even this IP was reported to change content against the consensus here itself by another user [[55]].

    Firstly, as can be confirmed by the Diff links provided above, Diff 3, 4 and 6 are DIFFERENT (and NOT IDENTICAL) with other information being constructively added/modified also, which can be seen by scrolling the full 3, 4, 6 Diff links throughout. Even the other Diff 1 and 2 were on different dates (since then there have been 200 more edits in the page by multiple users). So it doesnt qualify even for a 3RR.

    Secondly, i was reported here in bad faith and a possible grudge, shortly after i along with other editors requested for a page protection due to repeated instances of IPs (including the above IP) involved in multiple disruptive editing [[56]] which was granted today [[57]] by a admin. This is second instance of the page block on this page, as even previously IP editors edit-warred and did disruption.

    As seen in my edit summaries Dif 1,2,3 i have reverted above IP and a new account NovaEditor which also suprisingly has made edits only in this page [[58]] both reverted against what was decided in the talk page as can be confirmed by the [[59]].

    Lastly i'll also prove discrepancies in the Diff provided, Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff [[60]] was provided by same new user [[61]] who's activities was reported by me here in points 7,8) [[62]], where I was proved to be not-guilty by the admins. This user later apologized to me wrt their conduct as can be seen here [[63]]. So it doesnt stand valid as per the apology stated above by the user itself.

    As can be seen here [[64]], i have given detailed explanation to the user multiple times regarding the issue and have been supported by other users too. Also i have made 1500+ edits in various pages (including explained 20 edits in this page, which were all kinds of edits including adding sources, fixing spelling and spacing errors and adding wikilinks to name a few). But this is completely opposite for the IP who reported me above, who has edit warred and solely reverted content against consensus (that to only in this page) since the IP id was created a couple of days ago. So i plead NOT-GUILTY here wrt to the information i provided above and also now since the multi-editor content dispute is registered in ANI for this page (so lets wait for admins to settle this issue out there itself).

    The above statement by me is also attached here to refer [[65]] in case, if there is any word-count limitation here. Thank you. Editking100 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 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. This is after I protected the page yesterday, so the IP should not be a problem. And really, this should stay at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BigPoppaNole reported by User:Onorem (Result: Indef block)

    [edit]

    Page: Carson Beck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC) "/* 2023 */Truth hurts feelings and this page is full of lies"
    2. 18:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC) "/* 2023 */Fixed incorrect information."
    4. 12:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC) "/* 2023 */Context. Had untruthful information"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Carson Beck."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Go D. Usopp reported by User:Carloseow (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Sokoban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Go D. Usopp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [66]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: [67]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
    Talk:Sokoban — Lead wording about creator and release date
    Talk:Sokoban — Lead that frames the article

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [69]

    Comments:

    Hello. There has been an ongoing disagreement over the wording of the lead section.

    After reverting a bold edit with a descriptive edit summary, this user reinstated their version without initiating discussion on the talk page, which is not in line with BRD.

    To avoid participating in an edit war, I started two extended talk page topics, and later I participated actively on it.

    After discussion for about 3 days, and without consensus, I reverted back (mentioning this in the edit summary). Now, the user reinstated their contested version again.

    Additionally, in an edit summary and on the talk page, this user has made comments that might be considered non-collaborative:

    Comment 1: "This is WP:OWN territory to disregard others' edits".

    Comment 2: "Boldly reverting others".

    Carloseow (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For both comments, I was reminding you about the policies of WP:OWN and WP:BADREVERT. Your constructive edits and knowledge on the topic are appreciated, but reverting my edits to dispute every small detail isn't a good way to facilitate conversation. I appreciate reversions of my good faith edits with reason, but this is on a level beyond what I consider reasonable. It's frustrating to edit this particular page when all of my edits are scrutinized by minute detail, instead of editors improving on each other's edits for the benefit of Wikipedia. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:141.8.109.93 reported by User:Czello (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: German-occupied Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 141.8.109.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 08:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC) "There is a consensus for three maps because the three maps indicate the German-occupied countries much better."
    2. 16:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC) "The content of the article supports the maps because it mentions much more countries occupied by Nazi Germany than those indicated on the green map."
    3. 13:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC) "These maps should reach consensus because they indicate the German-occupied countries much better."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 12:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC) to 13:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
      1. 12:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 13:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC) ""
      3. 13:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC) "These two maps are much better because they indicate almost all countries occupied by Nazi Germany and they were present on many previous versions of this Wikipedia article."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 11:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC) to 12:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
      1. 11:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 11:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC) ""
      3. 11:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC) ""
      4. 11:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC) ""
      5. 12:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC) ""
    6. Consecutive edits made from 11:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC) to 11:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
      1. 11:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 11:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1298876758"