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:Fdom5997 reported by User:Mazamadao (Result: Full-protected for three days)

    [edit]

    Page: Rade language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_language&diff=prev&oldid=1273844739

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_language&diff=prev&oldid=1273845371
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_language&diff=prev&oldid=1273822246
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_language&diff=prev&oldid=1273702667



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fdom5997&diff=prev&oldid=1273847447

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fdom5997&diff=prev&oldid=1273852474

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Where's "can also be heard as" and "may be heard as" in the source?. Thank you.

    Comments:User talk:Fdom5997 repeatedly reverted my edits with no justification other than "it's my wording choice" or "I like to write it that way". They repeatedly failed to add inline citations and stop using subjective languages unwarranted by the sources they're refusing to cite properly. When all failed, they resorted to making this threat in the edit summary: Stop reverting and just concede. Keep this up and I will report you to ANI:Noticeboard, clearly demanding me to capitulate to their bad behavior. During our exchange to resolve the issue, they repeatedly misrepresented my argument, insisting that I was forcing them to "quote verbatim" the sources, even though I only asked them to stop using unfounded subjective language and cite sources properly.Mazamadao (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected In full for three days. I'd tell you to go to the talk page, but it's clear from that discussion on Maz's talk page that that's no longer going to be productive, as you're both digging in and losing good faith. So ... for the love of wiki, get some other people involved so you can reach a consensus on this very lame edit war. If you don't, and just go back to what you've been doing when the protection expires, I see no choice but to recommend to anyone looking over this record that the two of you be blocked from the page for some certain time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah it was lame, it was like arguing with a toddler on reddit. I've finally figured out why I couldn't get through to this person given how he just kept repeating the same lie again and again. Dude was so emotional he could barely read an entire response, and just kept skimming to the most triggering parts to clip quotes out of context to point out my "inconsistency" as some kind of gotcha. I even had to check by asking him whether he even read my responses or not or he was just eager to get angry and typing, and apparently I was right. He was already dead set on his opinion that I was forcing him to "quote verbatim" the sources, and he wouldn't budge on that. Mazamadao (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but maybe if some other people see things the same way, they might change their minds. As long as it remains just the two of you, you need to remember that old adage about wrestling with a pig. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:U-Mos reported by User:Lado85 (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: The Simpsons season 36 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: U-Mos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1]

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

    Comments:
    Unfortunately the user failed to notify me of this report, but I have come across it in their contributions. Lado ceased replying on the article talk page so I considered the matter resolved and restored the content in line with secondary sources. This prompted him to re-engage, and I am again giving time for the discussion, with his reversion standing pending that discussion. The process is thus working, and there's no issue here that I can see. U-Mos (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned you on your talk page, this is your notification. But you had ignore an delete my warning. Lado85 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:190.215.204.82 reported by User:Esowteric (Result: Blocked two weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 190.215.204.82 (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. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff
    6. diff



    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:
    Persistent disruptive editing against consensus by Chile-based dynamic IP engaging in years' long long term abuse (LTA) in spite of advice, repeated warnings, blocks and range blocks. Pushing the same agenda on many film-based articles, especially Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts.

    Inexhaustive and dated list:

    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks The IP's lengthy history of blocks as an open proxy doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:152.58.249.24 reported by User:Garudam (Result: Blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Vijayanagara Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 152.58.249.24 (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 16:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC) to 16:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
      1. 16:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC) "Telugu and Brahmin dogs survived under the foot of kannadigas.kannadigas survived under the foot of Delhi sultanate.."
      2. 16:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC) "Telugu beggar dogs and Outsider stealer Aryans they slavery for kannadigas they survived only under the foot of kannadigas.... Provide proofs for Sanskrit and telugu. Telugu Nayaks is slave of vijayanagara they are not kings only kannadigas throw bone for those telugu dogs ..Don't steal our kannadiga history"
    3. 15:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC) "Telugu and Sanskrit is not official language in vijayanagara.telugu Nayaks only under the foot of kannadigas"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
    2. 17:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Vijayanagara Empire."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    To add more, the IP has been passing WP:PA & racial slurs [2][3][4]. – Garuda Talk! 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – Five days for personal attacks. Referring to groups of people as 'dogs' in edit summaries. See also the edit summaries quoted above by the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johanes1980 reported by User:Hy Brasil (Result: Blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Susan Solomon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Johanes1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1274586639 by Iiii I I I (talk)"
    2. 05:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1274586544 by Iiii I I I (talk)"
    3. 05:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1274586218 by Iiii I I I (talk)"
    4. 05:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1274582593 by Iiii I I I (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 17:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC) "/* Removed material that blatantly violates BLP */ Reply"

    Comments:

    User has been inserting disputed content into a BLP. Refuses to discuss on talk page Hy Brasil (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    == Your recent edits on ArticleName ==
    Information icon Hello, I'm Johanes1980. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to ArticleName have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Johanes1980 (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m beginning to think, based on the above, and other edits by the reported user, that it may be a matter of WP:CIR or just plain WP:NOTHERE Hy Brasil (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    To elaborate further, Johanes1980 has been persistently trying to add poorly-sourced information critical of Susan Solomon to her article. There is discussion on the article talk page, but the general gist is that this user has cited non-peer reviewed articles published in a vanity press and an editorial that has nothing to do with Susan Solomon, all written by the same person, Krzysztof Sienicki. Despite several warnings, Johanes1980 continues to re-add the same information. --Iiii I I I (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest a partial block from the article since this user still inserts the same information despite warnings from other users. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come on. Get real. Your claim that the editorial 'has nothing to do with Susan Solomon,' when referring to a scientific article published in a scientific journal, is in fact entirely about Solomon's book and the controversy it caused. Johanes1980 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the link to the journal is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_of_the_American_Meteorological_Society and reads "The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) is a scientific journal published by the American Meteorological Society. BAMS is the flagship magazine of AMS and publishes peer reviewed articles of interest and significance for the weather, water, and climate community as well as news, editorials, and reviews for AMS members. BAMS articles are fully open access; AMS members can also access the digital version which replicates the print issue cover-to-cover and often includes enhanced articles with audio and video. Johanes1980 (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already outlined my issues with your citation at Talk:Susan Solomon. Your AI-generated comments don't address anything I said. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you read and understand what kind of journal BAMS is, the one I have cited? BAMS is a scientific journal, and all the materials published in it are peer-reviewed, including Sienicki's article about Solomon. Johanes1980 (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BAMS is the flagship magazine of AMS (American Meteorologcal Society) What else you need? Johanes1980 (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At least I'm using ChatGPT instead of your DeepSeek Johanes1980 (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Johanes, please do not use ChatGPT or other Generative AI models such as DeepSeek to write your comments in both the talk page discussion and this page, see WP:LLMTALK. We want to hear, and value, what you - as a human, have to say about these meteorology sources, but LLMs are robots and are prone to making hallucinations, mistakes or presenting things in an overly verbose way that makes things harder for human editors who are putting in effort to help reach an agreement. Thank you! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 08:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, just a reminder that this noticeboard is for conduct issues related to edit warring. Please keep discussion of the content dispute about whether the journal is a reliable source in the talk page discussion, or consider starting a WP:RSN discussion. Because being right isn't enough and you have undoubtedly crossed the bright line of WP:3RR, it no longer matters if the journal is reliable or not - the reason you are here, and what matters, is demonstrating to the community that you have an understanding of what edit warring is and will cease edit-warring in WP:BLP-violating content without a need for sanctions. Thanks! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 09:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:103.163.248.126 reported by User:Technopat (Result: Blocked one month)

    [edit]

    Page: Southern Redbacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 103.163.248.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC) "Only warning: Page moves against naming conventions or consensus on Southern Redbacks."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    IP user with similiar behaviour to other IPs. Technopat (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:205.254.166.96 reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Blocked from article 72 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Karan Kayastha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 205.254.166.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC) "Who’s edit warring? Links shared by me for the cited sources grant full view access for the page no’s supporting the added content (not an issue of snippet view either), restoring sourced details"
    2. 07:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC) "Have you gone through the source cited? how can you assume it’s original research"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 03:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC) to 03:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
      1. 03:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC) "Go through the source, everything is mentioned in it, restored sourced information"
      2. 03:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC) "Page number in the source for the content added"
      3. 03:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC) "Page no"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Edit warring in violation of WP:ONUS. The content that was being removed was added by them from another IP before. [6] - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article. They didn't break 3RR but look like they're trying to stay under that radar.

    User:Widsither reported by User:Ermenrich (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Widsith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Widsither (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]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

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

    Comments:

    This user began as an IP and then registered an account. They have not made any effort to use the talk page or reacted to the edit warning label on their talk page.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have provided the article copyright-free sources for my edits. Many readers find Widsith poem mainly from wikipedia and it's now there provided copyright-free. You send me message five minutes before saying I havent made any effort to use the talk page or warning label. Please be patient before making accusations. Widsither (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that Widsither now, having made whatever edits he wanted at Widsith without bothering to use the talk page to discuss them, has started some shenanigans about retiring [14]. They clearly have no real interest in collaborating on an encyclopedia, even beyond the edit warring so far.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't edited since then. Let's see if he sticks to that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GREATEST98 reported by User:Technopat (Result:Blocked )

    [edit]

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

    User being reported: GREATEST98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Muthuraja."
    2. 12:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    I stumbled across this user before I saw this partial report, but they are now blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1274707546"