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:Hyunardo reported by User:RachelTensions (Result: Article protected under new name)

    [edit]

    Page: Hwang Hyun-jin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Removed false/ misinformations and misleading parts." (IP)
    2. 05:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Please I delete it because it wrong info"
    3. 05:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "This part is a rumor and incorrect"
    4. 05:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "I deleted wrong part and rumors"
    5. 06:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC "This part was totally unrelated to his career" (likely sock)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 05:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hwang Hyun-jin."
    2. 05:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hwang Hyun-jin."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 05:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Hyunardo "/* October 2024 */ reply to Hyunardo"

    Comments:

    First edited as an IP with this diff: [1] Seems to have made an account after the first revert of content removal, and continued to remove the same content after account creation. Editor has no other contributions other than participation in this edit war. Editor advised to open discussion on talk page, and warned twice to no avail.

    This [2] is likely another sock attempting to remove the exact same content. RachelTensions (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, also reported for sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hyunardo. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one here and here and here and here
    I have a feeling this article is being meatpuppeted by people coordinating off-wiki. RachelTensions (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most likely, judging by the IPs pointing everywhere around the world. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected Extended-confirmed for a week by Goodnightmush under its new name, Hyunjin. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:48f reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: Declined, user retired)

    [edit]

    Page: Romans in sub-Saharan Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 48f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1254349428 by CurryTime7-24 (talk)please do not erase onlly (as you did with a map without requesting discussion and approval).....and don't behave like a typical "BUSCAPLEITO" thanks"
    2. 10:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "I have erased all the DAMAGE to the article done by a "buscapleito"...he has erased sections that are transferred/translated from other wikipedias (where they are accepted without problems) and he has also erased maps without asking a debate"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC) to 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "added original reference"
      2. 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "added translation"
      3. 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 22:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research on Romans in sub-Saharan Africa."
    2. 15:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Romans in sub-Saharan Africa."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */ new section"

    Comments:

    User insists on adding original research to the article. Their edits would be interesting and helpful if they provided citations from citations from reliable sources. The one source they added appears to be from an Italian journal that does not confirm their claim. I have attempted to engage with editor on their talk page as well as the article's talk page, but they apparently refuse to discuss and compromise. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me like they're disagreeing with your removal of sourced content. They mention it was copied from a different language Wiki, which matches you saying its a French report in your summary. They would be entitled to another revert yet before they actually breach 3RR, bringing the article back to its original state before you removed the content.
    It might be best to remove this report and take it to the talk. OXYLYPSE (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the "Rivista of Numismatica", there is no such periodical and it seems improbable that one would bear a name in Italian with an English preposition. The closest thing I could find is the Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini, which does have a volume 6 published in 1893 as cited by 48f. However, upon looking up the source, which is available on Internet Archive, the cited quote was not available. I have attempted to engage them in the talk page, but they instead replied with insults at their own talk page, as well as mine. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with me, user OXYLYPSE: I am totally disgusted by the harassment done against me by this CurryTime to the point that I am no more going to collaborate with the en. wikipedia (as a form of protest). I have written some history books, that I have published in italian, spanish and english language and I have never received the offensive comments and attacks that this CurryTime have done to me. Sincerely, I am shocked by the way this CurryTime behave....and that is why I called him a "troublemaker" or in his spanish language (I think he is from Chile or has Chilean parents) a "buscapleito". Regards. 48f (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined If the user retired (which seems to be a good thing overall given that he seems to be bragging about his incivility), no action need be taken. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bro The Man reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Islam in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bro The Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [3]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Oct 30, 12:55 [4] Restoring preferred text.
    2. Oct 31, 03:39: [5] Restoring preferred text.
    3. Oct 31, 04:44 [6] Restoring preferred text.
    4. Oct 31, 05:27 [7] Restoring preferred version.



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

    Comments:
    Bro The Man has performed many reverts at the Islam in Australia article. In the last 24 hours there were four, and Bro The Man has also continued to add more material in the face of multiple editors disputing the new changes because of neutral point of view policy. Bro The Man has removed well-sourced text portraying Muslims in a negative light, and has persistently added text portraying Muslims in a positive light. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    non-involved editor here but may I know what is wrong with "portraying Muslims in a positive light"? Abo Yemen✉ 14:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing is wrong with a balanced portrayal including positive things. The problem is non-neutral changes combined with edit-warring. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per article discussion page: Talk:Islam in Australia#Proposal to remove section: Views on Homosexuality, The admin, Nick-D notes "A problem with this article is that some of its text was added a few years ago by anti-Muslim bigots who had no interest in providing a mainstream account of the topic."
    the article and my user talk has always been and continues to be available for you to explain explicitly why you differ in opinion. Bro The Man (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit [64]: Enforcement/upholding of Admin @Nick-D consensus and saving/rescuing their constructive edits edits. Per article discussion page: Talk:Islam in Australia#Proposal to remove section: Views on Homosexuality
    Nick-D notes "A problem with this article is that some of its text was added a few years ago by anti-Muslim bigots who had no interest in providing a mainstream account of the topic."
    User Consensus that Islam in Australia page was dormant: User talk:LibStar#Edits to Islam in Australia
    Multiple Attempts at consensus:
    Edits referenced:
    Bro The Man (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No attempts at proposals or constructive [additive] edits suggested from both Oblivy and Binksternet. Bro The Man (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was canvassed in by @Bro The Man once the edit warring had begun. Although I had followed the page following some early edits by this user, I was not involved in this content dispute.
    My comments have been deleted from their user page but can be found here and here. In summary I said they needed to use the article talk page to gain consensus for disputed edits.
    User @Binksternet brought the content dispute to the article talk page, which was met with multiple WP:WallofText comments and then a series of edits claiming that consensus had been reached. I saw no evidence of movement towards consensus.
    I stepped in today when the user claimed in an edit summary to be reverting edits but was in fact creating a new version. After that @Bro The Man re-added some good faith edits which I did not revert, but I reverted an edit which in my opinion repeated the same behavior. I believe this editor is sincere but needs to engage with the WP:Five Pillars, study what WP:Consensus means, and stop the battleground behavior. Oblivy (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your endorsement of sincerity, that's actually really great!
    I'm "using battle ground tactics"? You reverted the article way past the record of my first edit, after Binksternet and I stopped after two reverts. I didn't challenge it and moved on. That is when i rescued the additions of other editors and enforced the Nick-D consensus. It's those actions that Binksternet is using in this submission against me that we're discussing now.
    Consensus was "do not use the phraseology that islam came before christianity. That religion settled in Australia". I did not use that phraseology. However the article has pre-existing information about indigenous groups holding islamic beliefs through an exchange of religious ideas after an early contact event.
    I added citations from publications such as: The National Museum of Australia (Agency of AusGov), Australian Department of Immigration, and 2 radiocarbon isotope studies. One of which was retrieved from a muslim burial site in Australia.
    These were placed in the body. However you reverted them, and I since not returned them. I did open a discussion on your talk page to ask for clarification on your objection: User talk:Oblivy#Islam in Australia: You have Conducted 2 reverts: 3rr reminder
    You have yet to reply. Bro The Man (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. Continuing to revert while telling others to use the talk page (in your edit summary) doesn't improve your credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alalch E. reported by User:The Blue Rider (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Tamara (given name) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Alalch E. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}

    Previous version reverted to: 1

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 1
    2. 2
    3. 3

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1

    Comments:

    • User removed a large amount of sourced content, I reverted, and they kept reverting me instead of seeking consensus, furthermore they start harrassing me with bad-faith templates on my talk page threatning me that I will be blocked 1, 2, 3 and 4. I already asked them multiple times to seek consensus in the talk page and instead they do personal attacks to me, such as you have been showing a weak grasp of policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V and Please get a grip. Which shows that they do not plan to seek consensus and will likely continuing edit warring. The Blue Rider 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My response is at Talk:Tamara (given name)#The Blue Rider's mass revert. On the talk page, as I was editing, I was describing some of my edits. Some of the other edits of more self-explanatory nature such as adding the sources which I listed on the talk page were described in edit summaries. I was doing research, adding sources, and making incremental edits to fix what was a thoroughly broken article. During this, without engaging in a discussion, which I had already started on the talk page, and which follows up on concerns and dilemmas about content from other editors, The Blue Rider would simply revert en masse, repeatedly, all of those edits, pointlessly hindering my progress with the article, and not providing any useful feedback, critique or meaningful substantive opposition. From my perspective, The Blue Rider for whatever reason began to like the article the way it is, uncritically, and they had even nominated it for GA even though it was in a truly dismal shape, and had not even been stable, and then began to exhibit WP:OWNERSHIP behavior through wp:Status quo stonewalling—Alalch E. 16:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As further evidence of The Blue Rider's wish to impose their preferred version of the article, I cite how they falsely claimed that there was a consensus in the discussion involving their edit previously being contested Talk:Tamara (given name)#List of names removal, saying: There is a clear consensus, most people who partook in the discussion supported the split. But that was not a true statement. Soon afterwards, multiple editors made it clear to them that there had never been anything resembling such a consensus. —Alalch E. 16:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:OWNERSHIP's claim is definitely not true since I have achieved consensus and agreed with multiple other editors regarding their concerns with the article that can be seen in Tamara's talk page. All I am asking is for Alalch to discuss on the talk page their large removal of sourced content so we can achieve consensus. The Blue Rider 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what happened, and you seem unable to evaluate this matter objectively. After the following talk page sections: Talk:Tamara (given name)#Hindi origin and Talk:Tamara (given name)#Sanskrit origin were started by Altenmann, criticizing parts of the article which you had nominated for GA, you facetiously tried to brush off their absolutely valid concerns and made some very poor edits which you then gave up on, causing nothing but a waste of time of editors interested in improving that article. You now describe your withdrawal from such tendentious behavior as consensus on the talk page. This is why I told you to get a grip. —Alalch E. 16:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC) me[reply]
    I'll point out that both editors are currently pushing up against (but perhaps not specifically violating) the 3RR, and @The Blue Rider has previously been advised by @ToBeFree, after a related edit war unblock discussion, that it'd be best to pump the brakes on participating in name articles for their own good. Obviously they haven't taken that advice.
    Additionally, @Alalch E.'s large adjustments to the article have effectively short circuited what is another ongoing discussion by making such large adjustments to the article that all opposing viewpoints in that discussion have become irrelevant. RachelTensions (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that. I was addressing problems with the prose independently from the question of the list, and they are inherently independent from the list inclusion question. The list thing can't hinder rectification of glaring core content policy compliance problems. —Alalch E. 17:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ongoing discussion concerns one specific question: whether or not the list of name-holders should be included in the article. There was consensus that it should be retained in the encyclopedia, in contrast to TheBlueRider's decision to just delete the long-standing list (introduced in Nov 2006), but there was not yet a consensus as to whether it should be a separate list or part of the name article.
    Quite separately from that discussion, Alalch E. has done stalwart work to improve the quality of the information about the name, which previously mingled information about "Tamara" and about "Tamar", used some unreliable-seeming sources, etc. TBR had previously said that it was hard to find WP:RS: Alalch found RS and improved the article, step by step, with edit summaries explaining each improvement. TBR then reverted 11 well-explained edits to his previous preferred version, with edit summary "seek consensus before removing sourced content, all sentences are cited and there is no OR". Alalch understandably reverted that reversion, and there was another to-and-fro pair of reverts. PamD 22:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that Alalch did stellar work, he mainly just removed sourced content, the vast majority of the current information on the Tamara page was written by me. The Blue Rider 22:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Thanks for the ping; I'll let someone else handle this report though as I'd be interested in others' opinions. I didn't yet look at the conflict again so I really have none.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2024 (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. And please do keep talking (preferably on the talk page); this is a much more civil discussion than we usually see accompany these reports. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SGHAS95 reported by User:Saqib (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Chaudhry Salik Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: SGHAS95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC) "Remove false information, lacks reliable resources"
    3. 18:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC) "It's fake information, which is why I removed it from here. This is not accurate."
    4. 17:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 17:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Controversies */"
    6. 17:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This newbie is continuously engaging in edit warring, despite receiving warnings not to do so. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as a note: I beleive that the user may be using sockpuppets to delete the same information from the article, as evidenced here: [11]. --Lenny Marks (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Blocked indefinitely. I'll take a look at that. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected by Hey man im josh for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also put a CTOPS notice (ARBIPA since he's an active politician) on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bexaendos reported by User:Jenes (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Vitaliy Khomutynnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bexaendos (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. [12]
    2. [13]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

    Comments:
    I rewrote the article, which previously contained separate statements and facts. I will continue to refine it in the future. The last amendment is a generalization of the range of political meetings held by the politician. All statements have a link to the media. Before that, there was information about only one meeting. User:Bexaendos prevents the development of the page, holds on to random wording and cancels the refined wording. He ignores the offer to proceed to a constructive discussion. Jenes (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have always been as much as possible benevolent with you, but already it seems that you are trying to fool the whole community. You have been notified countless times (to which it is obvious that you have a WP:COI on this article, including you have cleaned all available versions of this article).
    You say you are going to perfect this article, but let's tell the truth that other than whitewashing this article you do nothing.
    The last change you have made is obviously removing well-referenced information and adding irrelevant information to the article, which generally has no place in the article. From the beginning I understood the strategy (because the editors who tried to clean up this article before you were less familiar with wikipedia). And after I blocked them you appeared in the article and in the same way try to clean up the article!
    I avoid making any attacks by being polite until the end. Once the responsible team will deal with this case I will provide more details and explain. And until then I avoid to give you any more comments because I did until now but as we see it was pointless... Bexaendos (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page looked like a set of facts. I managed to put together an article from it. Some sentences are imperfect. This is what the statement about one political meeting looked like, which I refined and got a broader picture. For what reasons such wording causes your indignation, we could find out on the Talk-page, and does not bring the case to arbitration. Jenes (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I only see 2 reverts, no edit war warning, and no new talk page discussion in almost 2 months, what's up with that? (Non-administrator comment) RachelTensions (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, I didn't play in further recoils. A suggestion for discussion is contained in the rollback comment. As you can see from Bexaendos comment, he deliberately ignores them. That is why we need an additional look at the situation. Jenes (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:England 3-4 Germany reported by User:Gaismagorm (Result: Indeffed)

    [edit]

    Page: Iberian Pact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: England 3-4 Germany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 06:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 13:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    6. 06:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User consistently removing sourced information with no explanation given. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kaloyan34-FR reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: One partially blocked, one warned)

    [edit]

    Page: List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kaloyan34-FR (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. [16]
    2. [17]
    3. [18]
    4. [19]



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

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

    Comments:

    Whilst typing this report they reverted again [[22]]. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Slatersteven, what is the point in [23] and [24]? Preventing an edit warrior from having the latest revision on a page in the dispute? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of two weeks from article by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, but the question and the report are still open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was undoing the edit warriors undiscussed changes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, but if I understand correctly, you have edit warred for the sole purpose of dealing with an edit war. Creating a report about it is fine, reverting once is fine, reverting three times without providing any reason other than "you are edit warring" is not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, how could I create a report if I had not reverted them, would that not mean they would have in fact not breached 3RR, and thus edit warred their way to success? Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, I think Special:Diff/1254746752 is fine if you agree about Taagepera1997 being a more reliable source than larousse.fr, for example. You could say so in the edit summary, and especially if you already notice a conflict, create a section on the article's talk page like this:
    ==Greatest extent of the Second French colonial empire==
    I think International Studies Quarterly ([https://doi.org/10.1111%2F0020-8833.00053]) is a more reliable source than larousse.fr for the greatest extent of the Second French colonial empire because … ~~~~
    You could then invite Kaloyan34-FR to the discussion using {{Please see|Talk:List of largest empires}} on their user talk page.
    If they revert in response, WP:DISCFAIL contains further advice. I understand that edit warring can be a convenient method to escalate a situation to the point where a noticeboard report can be made, but that's not the point of the noticeboard, and you'll need to find a way to avoid edit warring yourself. I personally don't evaluate the three-revert rule and think reports about an edit war shouldn't be declined just because there have not been four reverts within 24 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So (In essence), ignore WP:ONUS and wp:brd)? And was I not the first to revert them, that is why they breached 3RR and I did not. They had been told by another user to take it to talk, and they decided not to (as I said in breach of policy). Sorry, but this seems to be to in fact reverse policy and put the onus on those objecting to an addition to make the case for exclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, BRD is not policy and there's no policy preferring the status quo over a new revision just because it is the status quo. WP:ONUS does not apply to a dispute where a number and a reference are changed; it would apply if the dispute was about the inclusion or exclusion of verifiable information, and it would prefer a revision where the disputed content isn't present. You can invoke "ONUS" when removing something, not when replacing it by other disputed content. I'm also not saying that the other editor's behavior was policy-compliant; I wouldn't have blocked if their behavior had been acceptable. All I am saying is that if you edit war for the sole purpose of dealing with an edit war, you contribute to the issue rather than fixing it and may be blocked for the same reasons as the other user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Resolved
    One editor partially blocked, one editor warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.104.130.88 reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Blocked, page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Richard Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 68.104.130.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "/* In media */"
    2. 00:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "These are sourced claims."
    3. 00:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "More info on his birth"
    4. 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Death */"
    5. 21:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Death */"
    6. 12:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 01:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Ram112313 reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ram112313 (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. 03:01, 31 October 2024
    2. 23:18, 31 October 2024
    3. 14:36, 1 November 2024
    4. 17:57, 2 November 2024



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [27]

    Comments: Rampant edit warring by this editor to remove content contrary to WP:JDL. He is engaging in WP:IDHT and only repeating himself with his AI-assisted responses. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Revirvlkodlaku reported by User:76.65.74.178 (Result: Blocked for 60 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Black Box (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Revirvlkodlaku (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. [28]
    2. [29]
    3. [30]
    4. [31]



    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: [32]

    Comments:
    User with at least two previous blocks for edit warring and displaying some serious ownership issues with the article. It started with an unexplained revert. Then the editor started to give out some dubious reasons in his second revert such as not liking the new edit and also not wanting to engage with unregistered users. Since the litigious sentence is unsourced to begin with, I have decided to simply remove it to attempt to find a middle ground. But even that wasn't enough for the edit warrior, who performed two more reverts to restore his preferred version (and unsourced content) . And the editor in question is attempting to justify his broken of 3RR with reasons that don't even fall in the Exemptions category. The editor clearly has no desire to stop his edit war and obviously hasn't learned from his previous blocks. . 76.65.74.178 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Not the first time I've blocked this user, so that factors into the longer time. I have accounted for the 5 hours taken off the previous block as well. Issues with sourcing must be resolved on the talk page, not in edit summaries. I am also not very impressed with a) telling the user to use an edit summary nearly an hour and a half after they had done exactly that, b) telling them "when you're ready to become a registered user, we can talk", an attitude very contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, for which the IP justifiably rebuked Rev and c) claiming "protecting the page from your disruptiveness" as a reason for continued reversion when this clearly does not come under the limited exceptions enumerated at 3RRNO.

    At the same time I should warn the IP they are not blameless here, even if I chose not to sanction them. Your edit summaries—accusing Rev of ownership, reminding them of their previous blocks while telling them they had broken 3RR before they actually had (something that only happened on the last edit)—could easily support an impression that you weren't ever assuming good faith here, and inevitably when that happens a battleground mentality such as we see in the edit history results. Think about that next time, registration or not. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evafancy38 reported by User:LaffyTaffer (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Ikwerre people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Evafancy38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
    2. 18:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
    3. 15:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
    4. 13:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
    5. 09:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining original history of Ikwerre"
    6. 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
    7. 23:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
    8. 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ikwerre people."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 19:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Notification */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Violation of 3RR several times over. Little to no effort to use talk pages to reach consensus despite multiple warnings. Other editors are also involved in this edit war who did not appear to make good faith attempts to communicate, but Evafancy38 seems to be where the edit war started. LaffyTaffer (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1255023002"