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:Thehistorianisaac reported by User:Nghtcmdr (Result: Page protected for 3 days)

    [edit]
    The edit warring noticeboard is unsuitable for requesting sanctions beyond those already imposed to stop the edit war in a section already resolved with page protection. WP:ANI is the right place to re-open a discussion in case an earlier ANI thread failed to address an ongoing problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page: People's Liberation Army Rocket Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thehistorianisaac (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]
    5. [6]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

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

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

    Comments:
    The editor is falsely claiming there is no consensus against their edits as @RovingPersonalityConstruct and I have each reverted them three times. Nghtcmdr (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would highly suggest you respond to all your misconduct[9] before shooting yourself in the foot again.
    Your claims of me "making false claims" are utterly false and taken out of context. @RovingPersonalityConstruct has chosen to discuss instead of edit warring. [10] In contrast, you have been using WP:FALSECONSENSUS and cited an UNFINISHED discussion as "consensus". Additionally, you have, on said discussion, made false claims directed to me. In fact, instead of WP:DROP of our previous dispute you have chose to engage in a WP:HOUNDING campaign against me.
    Again, I would highly hope that the administrator read the full context. I am not the one "faking claims" here, it is simply that @Nghtcmdr has decided to ignore the discussion in regards to the context and engage in a WP:SMEAR campaign against me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See the WP:ANI discussion in regards to you.
    User has been engaging in repeated WP:BLUDGEON, WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:NPA, along with multiple false claims.
    Yes, @Nghtcmdr, there is NO consensus, as the discussion [11] has not been complete yet. You are taking my quotes out of context, and have also baselessly spread false claims against me. [12] The user has also edit warred before on multiple occasions [13], has shown ignorance to policies(per all the evidence on ANI), has directed personal attacks and false claims towards me, and has overall been doing disruptive editing and general civility

    Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have protected the page for 3 days due to the edit war. Both parties are encouraged to engage in good faith discussion, and possibly dispute resolution to resolve the disagreement. PhilKnight (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PhilKnight
    Thank you for the page protection. However, I would recommend more immediate sanctions, as the user has taken my quote out of context(I did the revert since the discussion was still ongoing, which they did not mention at all), and the user has a prior history of edit warring, as shown on his talk page.
    I would, again, also suggest any available administrators read the ANI discussion in regards to the same editor [14], as there has been no admin intervention for over several days by now despite said user's misconduct getting worse and worse. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thehistorianisaac, page protection is a reasonable alternative to blocking both involved editors, which would have included blocking you to prevent this from continuing. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive; the only reason to actually add a sanction would be you indicating that you still believe your edit warring was justified and would continue after the protection expires. To clarify: None of what you wrote either here or in your edit summaries justifies your edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying past behavior.
    Additionally, I did not start the edit war - They skipped discussion consensus and took me out of context. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thehistorianisaac It takes two to edit war, and you were a clear participant. Again, as noted above, sanctions are not punitive for past behaviour; they are to prevent future misconduct. The next three days provide opportunity for good-faith discussion at the talk page. It would be a good idea for both parties to engage in civil discussion there about the desired edits to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying regarding sanctions to said user's other behavior. Multiple editors have discussed this on ANI for the past week, yet there seems to be no response. Additionally, I have been involved in the discussion [15], where said user has decided to attack me personally; The main problem was that my edit was reverted without clear consensus, contrary to said user's claim. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:81.96.52.167 reported by User:Epluribusunumyall (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: List of African-American United States representatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 81.96.52.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Stop reverting. The United States House of Representatives website does not include him as an African American Representative: https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Data/Black-American-Representatives-and-Senators-by-Congress/"
    2. 13:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "No where in the article does it say he is "African American". If you type in "adriano espaillat african american" into google it literally states "he is not considered African American". Reverting once again till a source stating he is African American is found."
    3. 12:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Reverting. No sources given that he is African American. If you can find one then it can stay."
    4. 12:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Not African American and was not allowed to join the Black Caucus because he is not Black"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on List of African-American United States representatives."
    2. 13:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Please check the discussion at Talk:List of African-American United States representatives#RfC on the inclusion of Adriano Espaillat"
    3. 14:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of African-American United States representatives."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 13:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "/* RfC on the inclusion of Adriano Espaillat */ new section"
    2. 13:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "/* RfC on the inclusion of Adriano Espaillat */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Have repeatedly tried to bring this up as a conversation on the talk page (including on previous days) however, the IP user seems intend on just reverting their way to a conclusion. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You have continuously added an unsourced edition to a wikipedia article. You have been told, multiple times, to find a source for your addition and, as of yet, have not been able to find any. I have added sources, in the talk page, yet you have not. 81.96.52.167 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation Per WP:3RRNO, unsourced BLP material is exempt, and that's what this is. Also we should let the RFC on the talk page play out ... it seems to have drawn in other editors and opened discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Inherli reported by User:Magic Fizz (Result: Blocked one month)

    [edit]

    Page: Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edits by JaierRT (talk)"
    2. 11:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by JaierRT (talk): Promotional blog and children's encyclopedia are unreliable sources"
    3. 10:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296793967 by JaierRT (talk) A children's encyclopedia and a blog post from a travel booking website are not reliable sources"
    4. 06:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1296516760 by Kefren2002 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Spain."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]


    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours per above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ​This is Inherli's third block for edit warring in only 247 edits, and they were edit warring at other pages besides Spain recently too (see my comment above). 24 hours seems very short, their last block was 2 weeks and apparently failed to make the issue clear. Would ANI be a better venue for future issues? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I had neglected to look at the block log since this was a pretty clear-cut case. I have extended the block to a month. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.17.145.49 and User:2A00:23C7:848B:B801:842B:3B0B:C5C7:510 reported by User:Czello (Result: Page extended-confirmed protected for a year under CTOPS

    [edit]

    Page: 21st century genocides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 82.17.145.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Israel */ Unfounded allegations, just accusations from unreliable sources"
    2. 22:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Israel */ Israeli propaganda"
    3. 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Israel */ Removed accusations of Palestinians genociding Israelis on October 7th only a single biased source (Times of Israel)"
    4. [21] (as 2A00:23C7:848B:B801:842B:3B0B:C5C7:510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    5. [22]


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 21st century genocides."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User clearly switched to editing on mobile as 2A00:23C7:848B:B801:842B:3B0B:C5C7:510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) after receiving a 3RR warning. Note that this topic (Arab-Israeli conflict) is under CTOPS and the user is not permitted to make more than one revert in a 24 hour period. — Czello (music) 21:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    now thip 71.212.119.156 is editing 21st century genocides which the ip is not post to edit. Untamed1910 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    StandardRossoneri99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has now joined in the edit war. Potentially the same user, as their only edits are to this article. — Czello (music) 06:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected by ToBeFree for a year at the extended confirmed level under WP:CT/A-I Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, StandardRossoneri99 has previously been told of the EC requirement, and previously made the same edits under StandardRossoneri. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2402:E280:3D27:638:C635:1CD3:C61E:D994 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: 72 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Press TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2402:E280:3D27:638:C635:1CD3:C61E:D994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [23]
    2. [24]
    3. [25]
    4. [26]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

    Comments:

    Basically keeps attempting to add their own commentary at Press TV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:190.22.213.119 reported by User:TonySt (Result: Already blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: List of Kosovo Albanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 190.22.213.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297033908 by TonySt (talk) Restored the corrected names, the last user didn't provide any argument to mantain the old names, stop vandalism or you are will be reported. - Source: https://archive.org/details/video_20230720"
    2. 20:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297032844 by TonySt (talk) Restored the corrected names - Source: https://archive.org/details/video_20230720"
    3. 19:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297032569 by Joyous! (talk) Restored the corrected names."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on List of Kosovo Albanians (level 2) (AV)"
    2. 20:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of Kosovo Albanians."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Please see diffs. I am not an expert in this subject (found this via AV), but I understand this topic is contentious. The subjects in the list are pretty consistently referred to in their own articles as being Kosovar. The name of the article is "List of Kosovo Albanians." The article links (still) Kosovo Albanians in the lead. I believe this is vandalism but I do not have the requisite knowledge to confidently revert more than twice. — tony 20:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thehistorianisaac reported by User:Nghtcmdr (Result: Both users blocked 24 hours)

    [edit]

    Tactical Police Vehicle: Tactical Police Vehicle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Thehistorianisaac: Thehistorianisaac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [29]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [30]
    2. [31]
    3. [32]
    4. [33]


    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:
    The user's reverts are part of their wider pattern of harassment [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] directed against me. Nghtcmdr (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nghtcmdr
    You have made edits that are, blatantly, disruptive(and are, in very high likelihood(and ironically), targeted against me) or lack proper sourcing. Reverting bad edits is not WP:HOUNDING. If you are mad at me reverting YOUR disruptive edits, then don't vandalize wikipedia in the first place.
    By the way, Nghtcmdr has a history of incivility which needs to be addressed [41] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Will put a note at the AN/I about this, although I doubt it will resolve the issue. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A01:CB08:85D:5D00:9D46:FDCD:EB72:132 reported by User:Magic Fizz (Result: Article protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Kim Novak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2A01:CB08:85D:5D00:9D46:FDCD:EB72:132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297089702 by 90.60.239.214 (talk) stop vandalism"
    2. 02:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297082060 by 81.250.233.186 (talk)"
    3. 02:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297077012 by 2A01:E0A:578:1E60:C52B:1070:8B7A:6A98 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 03:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kim Novak."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Repeat edit warring from multiple IP addresses (?potentially being used by the same person), see also

    90.60.239.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:cb08:85d:5d00:9d46:fdcd:eb72:132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    81.250.233.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:e0a:578:1e60:c52b:1070:8b7a:6a98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:cb09:b04b:1a17:25cf:3b78:db0e:86b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2001:861:8b81:e7b0:1c2:9daa:64aa:ef22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:cb08:85d:5d00:bc4e:5b15:3f4c:1f67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    88.182.121.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:cb08:8806:3f00:f93d:ecea:8393:bd56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2001:861:4c00:8bb0:e276:d0ff:fe13:5712 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:cb09:8002:9bd:256e:d8dc:ca52:372b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a02:842b:8c7d:401:548c:5446:65b0:d312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:e0a:32f:2100:d43f:6b84:c072:b373 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:cb08:85d:5d00:60db:d48f:1419:6aeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:e0a:edc:a250:295c:1fa8:e96d:3b89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:cb06:8048:2a86:5dcb:745:2912:dfb0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    77.151.110.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a02:8424:a524:fb01:3c39:2b47:8fe4:fe02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:cb04:79b:7700:992:b10d:4fbd:10e1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    2a01:cb06:a076:5ef3:94b1:be53:2cc4:a78f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Magic Fizz (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sayuuuto reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Political status of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297175165 by Skitash (talk) it's not me who did an edit, it's M.bitton, he created a topic in talk page about it."
    2. 15:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297174512 by Skitash (talk) stop edit warring, there is ongoing talk on this."
    3. 15:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297172730 by M.Bitton (talk) Please refrain from edit warring and bring it to talk page"
    4. 15:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297151119 by M.Bitton (talk) We agreed to stick to official sources. please refrain from editwarring and make a discussion topic."
    5. 07:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Not an RS, should bring a official source from Paraguay like for Kenya Undid revision 1296209723 by M.Bitton (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Political status of Western Sahara."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Please note that their first reported edit (number 5) is a revert of an edit that was made last week. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How convenient to not mention that on the talk page. Nor on the revert itself.
    I thought that was your edit and I was the one reverting it, and now you're framing me like it's the opposite.
    It doesn't mean that I'm okay with what's in your edit, What I mean is that I wouldn't have reverted you if I knew. you played me really well good job. Sayuuuto (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Skitash, I don't understand the edit summary of Special:Diff/1297175165 given that material is added rather than removed with it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree: Sayuuuto had already violated 3R (4 reverts) by that time, and to be honest, they were edit warring for no reason whatsoever (given that the content was copied from the main article). M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    M.Bitton, I said nothing about that, nor would that alone have given Skitash a reason to revert. I'm just wondering about the inversion of ONUS when someone cites it while adding material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake; I misspoke earlier about ONUS. What I meant is that once an edit is reverted or contested, the editor should seek consensus rather than keep pushing it through (per WP:BRD). Skitash (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. While BRD itself is an optional process, you're right, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sayuuuto, you made five reverts while telling people not to edit war in the summaries of these reverts. Do you see how that is an issue independently of who started? Could you follow your own advice in the future? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1297289730"