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:Montigliani and User:D.S. Lioness reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Super League Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Users being reported:

    Diffs of Montigliani's reverts:

    1. 19:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Canvassing is not allowed though. Anyway, I'm glad you recognize that you're bringing something back that isn't yours."
    2. 19:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Because you are re-editing a blocked user. That's what it's called Canvassing."
    3. 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of D.S. Lioness's reverts:

    1. 19:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240143181 by Montigliani (talk) you don't even know what canvassing is..."
    2. 19:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240138672 by Montigliani (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_and_blocked_editors It is permittable"
    3. 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240133558 by Montigliani (talk) why?"
    4. 18:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* History */ restoring content with some changes"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    • See the block logs of both users and the following warning:
    1. 18:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Montigliani "/* An unproductive battleground */ new section"
    2. 18:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC) on User talk:D.S. Lioness "/* An unproductive battleground */ new section"

    Comments:

    I'm tired of this. I'd now indefinitely block both accounts for persistently misusing Wikipedia as a battleground, but that might be because of their constant attacks against each other including on my talk page,* so I'd prefer to let someone else decide. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    *Search User_talk:ToBeFree/A/6 for their usernames for an overview if desired ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, my number 4 is not a revert. I just adding content who immediately removed
    See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#I_am_prevented_from_adding_content D.S. Lioness (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 13 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
    It is a revert of Special:Diff/1215075851. However, if that's your point, the edit war has a longer history than 24 hours and my concern is unrelated to the three-revert rule. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look again and D.S. Lioness's accusations seem to have been exclusively directed against Michalis1994 who did turn out to be a sockpuppet. I'd say the persistent battleground behavior is from Montigliani, not D.S. Lioness, despite their edit warring, current partial block and previous edit warring block. The warning linked in the report is primarily about Montigliani's behavior, and the persistent accusations on my talk page are not "against each other" but rather one-sidedly from Montigliani against the rest. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised by this comment that I did not see yesterday. If I understand correctly, you are accusing me of attacking everyone else! Let it be. Now I am forced to defend myself. The user I am now in conflict with had called me first when he had a dispute with a known puppet. Then they turned out to be partners. It's tiring to give links all the time to prove myself right. They even tried to delete my clipboard. I won't say any more. I am only sorry for this comment from ToBeFree. Montigliani (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion has not ended here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evangelos_Marinakis#Request_for_comment and the other user adds to the input of the entry, what he himself disputed!
    Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_League_Greece&diff=1240144883&oldid=1240143181 brings back a puppet contribution apparently for revenge.
    Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways#Article_in_sandbox_page trying to delete my clipboard
    Meanwhile the puppet silences him from behind https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evangelos_Marinakis&diff=prev&oldid=1239915156
    These few to give you an idea. Montigliani (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And here to see who she really is
    https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:%CE%9C%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1_%CE%B7_%CE%86%CF%83%CF%87%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B7
    In translation:
    i'm stuck in the b.p. from the wretched Glucken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NikolaosFanaris I'm afraid to talk here now because if he discovers me he'll make me a bully and maybe cause me trouble and I don't want to. let's wait for the user check to finish and we'll see.. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Montigliani (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    one more reversal https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_League_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1240242675 by Montigliani D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring while the report about it is still open, I see. And new attacks on my talk page. Montigliani's approach to Wikipedia conflicts is perhaps best described by their own words:
    If you don't block her, you'll be forced to block me. I appreciate you immensely, but I won't back down. They want to pass the slanders about Marinakis to the Super Liq article. Over my dead body.[1]
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't understand why you are so hostile towards me. I am not making any personal attacks on anyone. I wrote a proverb, which means that if someone does something once, he will do it again. Ok. If you want me to be punished, do it. You don't have to hurt me. I don't forget how much you helped me. Montigliani (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: I would ask the administrators before making their final decision to see how the user User:D.S. Lioness he follows and restores his puppets' edits to the letter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NikolaosFanaris/Archive, where they all deal with the articles Evangelos Marinakis and Super League Greece.

    What is your point? You are just slinging mud to cause blur. You are an SPA and the only care of you is to whitewashing Marinakis. D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange. An ip puppet tells me exactly the same thing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evangelos_Marinakis#Proposal :This is either a joke or, more concerning, evidence that this person is somehow connected to the subject. The version provided below is a blatant attempt to whitewash Vangelis Marinakis. It's alarming that no appropriate action has been taken despite the numerous threats and insults directed at other users. 92.25.44.181 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC) Montigliani (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    a quick look at your contributions can verify what I said - anyone with eyes can see - even a blocked user. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, you're right. Montigliani (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, why you don't fill an SPI request? maybe because of this diff D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kelvintjy reported by User:Wound theology (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: Soka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kelvintjy (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. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]

    On the perennially WP:NPOV article and edit-battlefield Soka Gakkai, Kelvintjy (talk · contribs) has been engaging in a slow-burn edit war, generally restoring laudatory prose and trivia. There are too many edits to really get a sense for what's going on here, so I'll focus on one very strange edit: adding back these numerous superfluous citations. There's probably more but as I said, the page history is a wasteland.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

    Comments:

    • Seeing as this is not a WP:3RR violation given that the edits are spaced months apart, I looked at the edits to see if they were really doing something odd. And, while [8] 1 and 2 merely appear to refbomb a particular line to death, and 3 also refbombs a line to death, 4 appears to not have the same pattern. I'm struggling a bit with how diffs 1 and 2 could be considered NPOV issues more than style issues, since they don't change the article text.
      @Wound theology: I noticed that you submitted this without including a diff containing an attempt to resolve dispute on the article's talk page. Have you tried opening up a talk page discussion on these points before coming here?
      @Kelvintjy: Would you be willing to discuss the aforementioned edits on the article's talk page? I think there might be some style-based objection to the amount of citations needed for a particular line, and it might be helpful if you explain why you believe they improve the article so that editors can come to a consensus on whether or not to include them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, 4 seems to have been an error. About NPOV: this is more so a general problem on the page and with Kelvintjy's edits that I haven't listed here. Here is Kelvintjy removing a controversy because "the investigation went nowhere" (source: SGI). On this page in particular, for example, prose he added claims that [9] that SGI is supported by the United Nations instead of being just another NGO with consultative status. Prose similarly states things like "[SGI] is not only dedicated to personal spiritual development but also to engaged community service", which is flatly laudatory. Most of the citations given there are directly from SGI-affiliated organizations like the Toda Institute. The reason I have not discussed this on the talk page is simply because Kelvintjy does not generally discuss content but prefers to simply revert edits or manually roll things back without explanation. It should be noted that Kelvintjy is an SGI member. wound theology◈ 13:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe that there have been general problems with the neutrality of the page's content, then I would suggest opening discussions on the talk page around the specific parts that you find to be non-neutral, or boldly making edits with the idea that you will discuss them if they are objected to. This noticeboard is not for mere content disputes (the article talk page and WP:NPOVN are), nor is it for allegations of complex behavioral issues (WP:AN/I or WP:COIN, in the case of conflict-of-interest editing). As such, I don't think that this complaint is within the scope of this board. Unless you demonstrate clear-cut edit warring, I will close this with no action as out-of-scope. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Blocked 72h)

    [edit]

    Page: Mahatma Gandhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [10]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:56, 12 August 2024 Restored revision 1239839349 by Fowler&fowler (talk): There was no consensus, just a bunch of editors with no sources that were ganging up on me--the author of the lead. That sentence had stood in the article for quite a few years before that. If you edit was, I will take you to RS/N. I will also sound out admins who were not able to compare the sources last tiem.
    2. 03:15, 13 August 2024 adding the sentence first; will then add the sources
    3. 11:44, 13 August 2024 Reverted good faith edits by Azuredivay (talk): But you haven’t presented any arguments on the talk page
    4. 06:56, 14 August 2024 Reverted good faith edits by Capitals00 (talk): No one had refuted anything. The sentence had been in the article's lead for upward of ten years. Restoring WP:STATUSQUO

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[13]

    Comments:

    Edit warring to add a false claim which was debunked not only now but also more than one year ago. He ended up at WP:AE last time over this misconduct and had promised not to repeat it.[14] However, he is now also making clear personal attacks.[15] Capitals00 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement of Fowler&fowler: The sentence about Gandhi fasting (i.e. going on a hunger strike) in January 1948 to pressure the Indian government to pay out cash assets owed to Pakistan had been in the article's lead since September 2013. I had added it during a revision of the Gandhi page's lead and first several sections. It was done in plain view and discussed on the talk page.

    Thereafter the article with that sentence in the lead was edited by:

    In the summer of 2023, some editors, but mainly one editor user:Abhishek0831996 began to dispute the sentence about the cash assets transfer. I could not place their ideological motive, nor their sources which were abysmally fringe, the worst that I've seen in my 18 years on Wikipedia. They obviously cannot cite to their sources, so they are happy to simply delete the content about the motivations of Gandhi's last fast that cost him his life. When I returned to WP, I merely returned the article to WP:STATUSQUO of 11 years. I mentioned "ominously" in reference to WP:HISTRS, in an edit summary of admin RegentsPark above. I did so because the sources that these tag-teaming edit-warring editors are the very anti-thesis of HISTRS. Here are some examples from Ahishek083196, mentioned above such as this from an Indian online newspaper or this also from an online newspaper but: in another language. user:Azuredivay is another editor who appeared out of the blue on this talk page and then proceeded to edit-war. The fact that two of these editors had not edited the page but appeared swiftly to edit war, make me suspect that this is an instance of WP:MEATPUPPETry.

    I request a boomerang: the three editors user:Abhishek0831996, user:Capitals00 and user:Azuredivay be blocked for a week and the article be returned to this version of 14 August 2024.

    As for me, you can block me for a week, two weeks, month, or three months, as long as you restore the WP:HISTRC-compliant edit of 14 August 2024 I refer to above. As far as I'm concerned it is the WP:STATUSQUO. In addition, I've made a list of: 30 HISTRC-compliant textbooks by widely-recognized scholars of South Asia that also support this edit. (Its a bit like Archimedes and his figure in the sand.) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In particular in the list of 30 sources mentioned above are some of the major historians of South Asia: Percival Spear, Leonard A. Gordon, Ainslie Embree, Denis Dalton, Burton Stein, David Arnold (historian), Lloyd Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Barbara D. Metcalf (former chairperson of the American Historical Association), Thomas R. Metcalf, Sumit Sarkar, Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Deborah Rhode, Caroline Elkins, and Joya Chatterji
    To give you an idea of the scale of undue weight-content these three editors have tried to promote, what they have in opposition is a collection of dubious provenance edited by an Indian civil rights activist, Teesta Setalvad.
    Is this then what Wikipedia is about: it doesn't matter what knowledge you have or what sources, all it takes is three editors with one source in a non-Roman script, to trip you up? The constant refrain of these editors is, "These 30 sources don't discuss the credibility of this false claim." By false claim, they mean the one refuted in the non-Roman script. Go figure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nemov reported by User:Holydiver82 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

    [edit]

    Page: The Acolyte (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Holydiver82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:50, 13 August 2024‎ Nemov talk contribs‎ 143,209 bytes −51‎ Restored revision 1240054731 by Adamstom.97
    2. 00:31, 14 August 2024‎ Nemov talk contribs‎ 143,209 bytes +38‎ Restored revision 1240131389 by Adamstom.97
    3. 11:29, 14 August 2024‎ Nemov talk contribs‎ 143,209 bytes −43‎ Restored revision 1240210818 by BrokenSquarePiece
    4. [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:
    So I am new and have no idea how to use all the linked items for the report. Anyways I tried to link the page and then the 3 different reversions made to the article in under 24 hours. which is part of a larger pattern of refusing to let anyone else edit the article in question, where if you look at the history of the article you will see every single edit made by another user is reverted by nemov. Again not sure exactly how this process works so if any admin can take pity on me and help edit this report to make it look correct. But if you can look at the page in question, and look at the history you will see a pattern of ownership resulting in many reverts, in violation of the 3 revert rule

    Holydiver82, according to your report, it looks like you are reporting yourself for edit warring. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:95.248.34.201 reported by User:Jdcomix (Result: Blocked 1 month)

    [edit]

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

    User being reported: 95.248.34.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240315576 by 93.22.149.127 (talk) Again, 791 no France. Discuss it instead of engaging in vandalism"
    2. 19:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240313579 by Discospinster (talk) But the source says it was created in 791"
    3. 19:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240312581 by Discospinster (talk) Vandalism. France didn't exist in 791"
    4. 19:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240309503 by 93.22.149.127 (talk)"
    5. 11:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240257008 by Freelance Intellectual (talk) The agreement was on 791, when France didn't exist"
    6. 10:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240240861 by Freelance Intellectual (talk) Vandalism, the date is 791, there was no France. Also, there is nothing on the discussion page?"
    7. 20:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240070224 by Freelance Intellectual (talk) Yours? Yes, it is. In 700 AD it was West Francia"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 19:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC) on User talk:95.248.34.201 "Warning: Edit warring."

    Comments: IP is already partially blocked for edit warring. Jdcomix (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:138.88.143.36 reported by User:Jdcomix (Result: 48 hour block)

    [edit]

    Page: Center for American Progress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 138.88.143.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240363844 by Jdcomix (talk)"
    2. 00:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240361567 by Avatar317 (talk)"
    3. 00:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240348266 by Jdcomix (talk)"
    4. 22:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240344821 by Jdcomix (talk)"
    5. 22:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240343604 by Jdcomix (talk)"
    6. 22:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240338776 by Jdcomix (talk)"
    7. 21:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240333239 by MrOllie (talk)"
    8. 20:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240324686 by Marquardtika (talk)"
    9. 20:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240323342 by MrOllie (talk)"
    10. 20:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240323190 by MrOllie (talk)"
    11. 20:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240299748 by Marquardtika (talk)"
    12. 16:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Adding more context and accuracy to "Transparency for funding sources""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:The Art Collector reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Virtual tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: The Art Collector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "are you older than 50 and that is why you do not understand new technologies? read the articles and stop saying it is my opinion please. once more if you do not want to see company names then delete those company names, make the article better. don t be lazy by simply undoing someone s work. And if you delete those new company names delete also google above. thank youUndid revision 1240310624 by MrOllie (talk)"
    2. 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "so now New York Times is not my personal opinion nor are the other references. if you change again please specify your age, it is not because you are not aware of technology of the last years that you should not share knowledge about it. About the companies named here it is not marketing they are written in the articles and they have their own wikipedia pages. if you want to delete these companies delete google in the former article and delete the wikipedia pages on these companies. thank you"
    3. 16:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Please either delete all the company names including google in the original article to be more neutral. Otherwise we should say this article is sponsored by google thank youUndid revision 1240260250 by MrOllie (talk)"
    4. 12:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "in case you want to delete it for brand names and so believe it is marketing for these brands, then delete google in the VR article. Unless you work for google and so your point is to do marketing for google and not for other brands."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 11:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Virtual tour."
    2. 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ Reply"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Vendor list / metaverse section */ new section"

    Comments: There are a few more reverts (not listed) outside the 24 hour window. As you can see above, the response has been ageist personal attacks in edit summaries (and on user talk: [16]) - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yet another painter reported by User:McSly (Result: 24 hour block indef)

    [edit]

    Page: Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Yet another painter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240485497 by Jdcomix (talk)"
    2. 16:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240485086 by PhilKnight (talk)"
    3. 16:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240484566 by Manyareasexpert (talk)"
    4. 16:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240482817 by Slatersteven (talk)"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC) to 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
      1. 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240482192 by Slatersteven (talk)"
      2. 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Civil war in Ukraine */ Reply"
    6. 15:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Civil war in Ukraine */ new section"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 06:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC) to 09:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
      1. 06:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Civil war in Ukraine */ new section"
      2. 09:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Civil war in Ukraine */ Reply"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240485563 by Yet another painter (talk) See WP:FORUM"


    Comments:

    @PhilKnight:, new Sock just appeared Half of Europe lay down under Hitlar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    The sock and master have been indeffed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Singbad82 reported by User:Jursha (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: The Last of Us Part II Remastered (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Singbad82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [17]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [18]
    2. [19]
    3. [20]
    4. [21]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]

    Comments:
    Apologies if I've messed up this report. I'm not directly involved in this dispute, though I did throw my two cents in on the Talk page. I have a feeling that Singbad82 is an alt account of Big Goose23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Jursha (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Just10A reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Blocked from editing articles for 48 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Project 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Just10A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]
    4. [28]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

    Comments:

    Yeah, I think this user is mistaken. A user tried added some disputed info, and we went back and forth trying different edit ideas, and I ultimately recommended we go to the talk page and reverted the sentence at issue to it’s pre-dispute state. This was per WP:NOCONSENSUS, saying that disputed additional material should be removed until consensus was reached. That’s it. This reporting user wasn’t involved in the discussion, and to my knowledge no parties involved have had issue with the events. You can all go look at the talk page and full chain of events on the article page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just10A (talk • contribs) 01:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, as I was still confused. These 3“reversion” edits aren’t the same revert, and are a little ambiguous. The “reverts” are not reverting the sentence to the same state. As between these edits, more work had been done of the sentence by editors working with me, so when I say “brought back to previous state” I’m not reverting it to the same state as the other “reversions.” As you can see, the resulting sentence is different at the end of my edits. They are not all reversions to the same state. Like I said, I think this user is just mistaken. Just10A (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Just10A: You need to actually read 3RR. You are limited to 3 reverts (full or partial) on an article in 24 hours; they do not have to be reverts of the same edit or to the same state. The point is that you've undone multiple other editor's changes multiple times in a short period. That's edit warring. Skyerise (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But they weren’t literal reversions, again, the editors and I were just engaged in normal discourse, and I was changing it to different possible wording version. I only undid one edit, not 3. If this creates some sort of technical violation, I apologize and it was inadvertent. However, given the actual timeline of the edits, this wasn’t edit warring behavior. I think the fact that none of the editors I was supposedly “warring” with have spoken up is pretty indicative. This was all good faith, acceptable editing. Just10A (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simply not true. It doesn't matter whether you use "undo" or not, you've returned a part of the article to a previous state repeatedly: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Skyerise (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Skyerise, do you prefer a specific revision? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no particular revision that I prefer. I agree with other editors on the talk page about the problems with this editor's version, which seems to be some form of synthesis intended to imply support for a particular POV, which none of the sources themselves explicitly state. Just10A seems to be close to breaking 3RR on Unitary executive theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well, pushing the same POV there. Skyerise (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don’t think the UE theory debate needs to spill over into here, but again, I’m afraid you’re incorrect. The position is supported by the current Harvard Law review source and cited case, (primary sources are more allowed per MOS:LAW for context). The only possible “synthesis” is me calling 5-4 opinions “narrow opinions” if that’s a synthesis, feel free to change it, but other than that it’s all supported. Again, I apologize for any inadvertent technical violations, but this behavior did not produce any issues, and seems to be a little pedantic given the context. I’m not pushing any NPOV at all, and this is reflected in the totally normal, civil talk page discussion currently taking place on the page about the topic. Just10A (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're interpreting the source: I read it and what I take away is not what you are saying but rather that the theory is highly debated. I also find it odd that even though that article is readily available on the web, you've not linked it in the citation. I'd say you need to provide a direct quotation from that article on the talk page that supports your wording. Skyerise (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so these people don't have to go to the talk page: "Writing for a 5–4 majority on the constitutional question in Seila, Chief Justice Roberts adopted much of the unitary executive theory’s reasoning." On the exact page in the citation listed. Just10A (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main point behind my question was to ensure that Skyerise wasn't just reverting administratively without any content-related reason, as doing so without actually technically preventing further reverts with a block or protection often just fuels the fire. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from editing articles only, not from discussing on article talk pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I should of brought this up earlier but just noticed it. My "violation" of the 3 reversion rule that was the basis for the warning/ban was not an actual violation to result in a warning because they did not occur within 24 hours of one another. Thus, it was not a violation of the rule. I'd like for the result to be fixed, and did the appropriate protocol on my talk page. Thank you! Just10A (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The three-revert rule seems to invite a form of edit warring that barely escapes it, including complaints about edit-warring-related blocks where 3RR might not have been broken. I generally don't even evaluate whether there has been a 3RR breach. I check if there has been edit warring, if it's likely that it would continue sooner or later if nothing is done about it, and then try to take an approach that doesn't prevent the user from discussing the matter unless the probability of disruption (e.g. through incivility) is higher than the probability of constructive content-based discussion on article talk pages. I'm very thankful for PhilKnight's short and clear answer to this type of complaints. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry but I'm a little confused, the edit warring page clearly states that the standard for edit warring is the 3R rule, which I did not break it says:
      There is a bright line (aka "clearly defined standard") known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.
      The only exception to this is the "gaming the system" exception, which clearly doesn't apply as I didn't even notice that the edits were more than 24hrs apart until after the dispute was over. I'm truly not trying to be argumentative, but how can edit warring be separate from the 3R rule when the edit warring page clearly says that it's bright line standard for it is the 3R rule, which I did not break? Just10A (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The edit warring page states quite the opposite: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Put simply, in the Venn diagram, 3RR violations fit entirely within the circle of actions that are edit warring, but there are other actions that are edit warring that are not 3RR violations.
      Further, your sanction only applies to article space, so you are still able to discuss the situation at the article's talk page. In other words, it is steering you toward discussion—which should have been used more extensively—instead of editing the article, and you may ultimately be able to build consensus toward a change and have another user make it for you, even while blocked! —C.Fred (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I originally believed that was just an exception to the rule, apologies. Just10A (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Igoumenitsa1992 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: blocked, 31 hours (disruptive editing))

    [edit]

    Page: Souliotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Igoumenitsa1992 (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. [32]
    2. [33]
    3. [34]
    4. [35]
    5. [36]
    6. [37]
    7. [38]
    8. [39]
    9. [40]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]

    Comments:
    WP:NOTHERE; WP:NATIONALIST; WP:EDITWARRING; WP:SPA; WP:DISRUPTIVE. Jingiby (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lordseriouspig 10:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vestrian24Bio reported by User:Thewikizoomer (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: 2027 Cricket World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by Sxnxtxn (talk) to rev. 1240435486 by Vestrian24Bio: Vandalism (UV 0.1.5)"
    2. 10:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by Sxnxtxn (talk) to rev. 1240411300 by Vestrian24Bio: Vandalism (UV 0.1.5)"
    3. 07:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by 2402:8100:2064:819E:E007:11D:AEE6:E762 (talk) to rev. 1239616698 by CommonsDelinker: Vandalism (UV 0.1.5)" (legit revert of vandalism, exempt from 3RR —C.Fred (talk))

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 11:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2027 Cricket World Cup."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User found to be violating the three revert rule. Appears to be an experienced editor. Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sxnxtxn is the one who's been making vandals across 2027 Cricket World Cup, 2019 Cricket World Cup, 2011 Cricket World Cup, 2023 Asia Cup and 2025 Asia Cup; see their talk page for the warning messages I left. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please go through 3RR as it is more than one instance. Thewikizoomer (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the first instance too -
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aranmanai_3&diff=prev&oldid=1232009082
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aranmanai_2&diff=prev&oldid=1232008995
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aranmanai&diff=prev&oldid=1232008818 Thewikizoomer (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICC_Men%27s_T20_World_Cup&diff=prev&oldid=1231472938
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICC_Men%27s_T20_World_Cup&diff=prev&oldid=1231495961
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICC_Men%27s_T20_World_Cup&diff=prev&oldid=1231502837 Thewikizoomer (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thewikizoomer Just so you know, edit warring is if it was done on the same page within 24 hours (usually between same editors). Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1240686316"