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:Truthmattersalot reported by User:TonySt (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Marthe Cohn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 02:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 02:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Bibliography */"
    4. 02:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Marthe Cohn."
    2. 02:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Adding commentary to an article on Marthe Cohn."
    3. 02:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Adding commentary to an article on Marthe Cohn."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Not sure if this is best for WP:AN3 or WP:AIV. User account only exists to repeat personal allegations against Marthe Cohn on the article for that subject. Flagged while doing WP:RCP. Per WP:3RR I won't be reverting the latest edit since it can be argued that this falls just short of "obvious" vandalism. —tonyst (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s not vandalism if it’s accurate and can be verified. I noticed that whenever you don’t like something that’s been written you call it vandalism. I looked at your history. 2603:8001:B100:F484:F416:E45D:6632:E03 (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not vandalism if it's not clearly being added in bad faith. However, it's edit warring to repeatedly attempt to re-add it—and that's before considering the WP:BLP implications of the claims that are not cited to independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Liyo123 reported by User:S0091 (Result: Sock indeffed)

    [edit]

    Page: Shivangi Joshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Liyo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 06:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291830256 by S0091 (talk)"
    3. 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291828843 by CNMall41 (talk)"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC) to 17:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "These information general information that does not require to be added in lead paragraph. So stop vandalizing or else u will be Blocked."
      2. 17:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "These information general information that does not require to be added in lead paragraph. So stop vandalizing or else u will be Blocked."
    5. 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291794012 by FlakyCroissant (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shivangi Joshi."
    2. 17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shivangi Joshi."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This is only the second time I have filed at EWN so apologies if I did it incorrectly. I reverted once trying to get them to start a discussion on the talk page after two editors disagreed via reverts and left them the "soft" EW notice but their reaction was revert me so I left the hard warning . At the same time they left me a note stating I needed to start the discussion but I am not the one trying include the disputed content. The edit warring stopped yesterday but then they added their changes again today. They were reverted again by another editor (who may have also violated EW but they have not been sufficiently warned) then they requested page protection for "vandalism" (WP:Requests for page protection#Shivangi Joshi). S0091 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Foodie 377 reported by User:Orientls (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: 2025 India–Pakistan conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Foodie 377 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:[1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:38, 24 May 2025 Foodie 377 - Undid revision 1291932964 by Orientls (talk)WP: RHETORIC. Wikipedia does not endorse or encourage rhetoric and strong wording. Rhetoric does not belong in Wikipedia
    2. 10:22, 25 May 2025 - WP:RHETORIC, WP:DRAMA, WP:POPCORN, WP:INACCURACY, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. This hyperbole has no place in Wikipedia.
    3. 11:01, 25 May 2025 - Undid revision 1292133136 by Orientls (talk) Refrain from edit warring. Discuss in Talk page. WP does not endorse WP:RHETORIC, WP:DRAMA, WP:INACCURACY
    4. 11:19, 25 May 2025 Foodie 377 - Undid revision 1292136152 by Wareon (talk) I have started the relevant discussion on the Article's Talk page. Please reach WP:CONSENUS before unilateral edits
    5. 11:37, 25 May 2025 Foodie 377 - Adding text that inadvertently got deleted in the crossfire

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

    Comments:

    The presence of this account on this article has been entirely net-negative. They have falsely labelled constructive edits as "vandalism" while restoring copyright violation[4] which they added themselves.[5] Earlier, they mispresented a source,[6] and then made 2 reverts to retain it.[7][8] Orientls (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A revert had to revert something, not just add it (they seem to be at 3RR right now). Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [[9]] (inaccurate edit summary) [[10]] [[11]] (with an ironic waring about edit warring). , Ohh wait 4RR [[12]]. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The second "R" is for "rule". Being at X "RR" makes no sense. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Michalsenv reported by User:Mellk (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    [edit]

    Page: Khmelnytsky Uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Michalsenv (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]
    6. [19]
    7. [20]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    No response on talk page. Mellk (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mellk, the warning for edit warring specifically was after all the edits, but they don't seem to care anyway, and they'd need to find their talk page before continuing to edit. Czech98006 should have informed the user using {{uw-ew}} or {{uw-ewsoft}} instead of edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I thought this warning was placed before they last edited. Mellk (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry I’m new and I don’t know every guildelines. This won’t repeat again Czech98006 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I didn’t get any warning Czech98006 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the assurance, Czech98006. I have removed your 24-hour partial block. Michalsenv has now also found their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Afm2105 reported by User:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Dawn of the Dead (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Afm2105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    2. 22:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    3. 20:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Went bak to prior version. "Unnecessar" is an OPINION"
    4. 17:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 04:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)."
    2. 04:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 04:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Last prt of plot */ reply"

    Comments:

    User specifically threatened to violate WP:3RR further despite initiating a talk page discussion trying to resolve the issue. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexnewmon2623 reported by User:Fdom5997 (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Mohegan-Pequot language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Alexnewmon2623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&oldid=1292474049

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292383837
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292414385
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292431521
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292451820


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292414385

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fdom5997#Mohegan-Pequot_language

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexnewmon2623&diff=prev&oldid=1292475470

    Comments:
    This user had removed the information on the language page, without any discussion in the talk page with other users (or linguist-users) first before doing so. I tried to discuss with the user that the phonology and grammar was studied and published by a certified linguist who had worked closely with other linguists to do work on the language. But then they kept arguing with me about the info being "outdated" and kept removing the cited info on the language page. Then they even went as far as making false claims that the language revitalization project had "multiple issues with [their] research" and then claimed that the linguist was "let go" because of it. And then they mentioned the name of a linguist who they falsely claimed was doing the core-work of the language revitalization project, but had actually (according to my research) worked on a totally separate language, not this one in particular. Although they (the linguist of the different language) are only *aiding* other linguists in publishing different children's books on this language, not doing the actual core linguistic work.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1292531933"