Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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:Mypthegoat reported by User:Left guide (Result: Blocked indefinitely after an ignored 48-hour block)

Page: Luka Dončić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mypthegoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Original addition
2. 1st revert
3. 2nd revert
4. 3rd revert
5. 4th revert

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This type of edit has been the subject of editorial controversy across multiple related articles in the NBA project, so there is open ongoing discussion at WT:NBA#Conference finals mvp to resolve the content dispute, which I mentioned in both my edit summary and the user's talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [3]

Comments:
User continues to edit-war in the NBA Conference Finals MVP award into the infobox even though they have been reverted by a total of three different editors. Left guide (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Then don’t revert the edit I made what’s so hard to not understand. I already made my explanation. The player has won the Conference Finals MVP and award should be included in Career Awards and Achievements part. I checked the talk page and consensus been saying yes it should be included too. Jaylen Brown has already that award in their bio too. I mean there’s a sentence which says for Luka Doncic in his wiki page that he won the award yesterday but we can’t show it on his career awards part. Make it make sense. Mypthegoat (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

ToBeFree or any other admin, can this be reviewed again for a possible second block? The user fresh off their first block has immediately returned to restoring the same exact edit they were blocked for edit-warring over. Left guide (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Not even an edit summary from them either. It doesn't seem they understand edit warring yet. —Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the notification, Left guide.  Done.
• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Seems reasonable to have them request an unblock, given the other warnings on their page. —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:Glide08 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: 1989 Polish parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

FeldmarschallGneisenau has already been reported and suspended for a week for edit-warring in this article. The target of the edit-warring is the vote figures; he removed them from the Infobox persistently, citing the fact they exceeded the adult population of Poland as a reason, while ignoring the fact that the electoral system used at the time is multiple non-transferable vote, a system which allowed a voter to have more than one vote.

• Revision as of 01:37, May 26, 2024, before the suspension, where the vote figures were removed from the infobox
• Revision as of 13:23, June 3, 2024, after the suspension, where the vote figures were removed from the infobox

Comments:
The edit war was over the formatting of the lede. I conceded that. My block over that has expired. It did not refer to reverting your changes in the infobox. And the WP is clear: any unsourced statements may be removed by editors at will. I am following Wikipedia Policy.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Out of the seven reverts listed in the initial report, only one (#6) concerned the lede. The remaining six (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #7) concerned vote figures in the infobox. Glide08 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm suspecting User:2A00:F41:1C2C:9632:495C:D69E:7B8C:4686 is an IP address used to circumvent the block. I notified this on their user talk page. Glide08 (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:103.156.142.125 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result:IP blocked for 24 hours.)

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

User being reported: 103.156.142.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ StephenMacky1 Edit war may be from your side think again. Please don't consider anything personal. But whatsoever change is needed. Adipurush will not have any place in The Great Ramayana page. I have provided several links before too but none considered. I request you to remove Adipurush from this list."
2. 12:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "Undo changes. I request "StephenMacky1", "Joshua Jonathan", "NXcrypto" to not make any changes further here as this movie is not at all related to The Great Ramayana. Ref: "https://www.rediff.com/movies/review/adipurush-is-not-ramayan/20230620.htm""
3. 06:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ आदिपुरुष महान रामायण का हिस्सा नहीं है। आदिपुरुष ने महान रामायण और हिंदू धर्म का मज़ाक उड़ाया है। आदिपुरुष ने बहुत विवाद पैदा किया है और हिंदू लोगों की भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचाई है। Person holding indian citizenship can make changes to this article. I suppose some outside the indian region are making undo changes on this article. Kindly refer original Ramayana with research on the topic whether Adipurush to be considered as a part of Ramayana or not. Adipurush is not a part of Ramayana"
4. 05:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ आदिपुरुष महान रामायण का हिस्सा नहीं है। आदिपुरुष ने महान रामायण और हिंदू धर्म का मज़ाक उड़ाया है। आदिपुरुष ने बहुत विवाद पैदा किया है और हिंदू लोगों की भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचाई है।"
5. 04:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ Adipurush is a controversial film in India region. And it is not a part of Ramayana. I kindly request the authorities to remove this name from the list."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ramayana."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor has made more than three reverts by now, despite being reverted by multiple editors. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:YZDMAC reported by User:Woodensuperman (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Template:Foreign relations of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YZDMAC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]
6. [10]

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:
User has continually been reverting removal of flags in navboxes (which go against MOS:FLAG) by myself and others on this and other pages, pretty much the only thing they have done since they joined. --woodensuperman 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Look. Wooden Superman you have absolutely no right to remove the flags on Foreign relations template. The flags help people identify a specific country. Mr. WoodenSuperman has no clue what he is talking about. Period. YZDMAC (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE, the countries are identified by the name of the country, not the flag. --woodensuperman 14:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t explain why they are on Foreign relations templates. On Foreign relations they are easy to identify. So you don’t know what you are talking about Wooden Superman. That’s it for now. YZDMAC (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

They shouldn't be in navboxes, per MOS:FLAG, WP:NAVDECOR, etc., etc. That is why myself and other editors have removed them. --woodensuperman 14:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Has no interest in working collaboratively [14]. Wikipedia not for them.Moxy🍁 15:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:202.166.137.148 reported by User:Theknine2 (Result: )

Page: List of iPhone models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 202.166.137.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

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

Comments:
"List of iPhone models" uses [22] (official Apple information) to indicate the specific iPhone models that have been designated as "vintage" or "obsolete" by Apple, and is indicated as such on the article. Despite this official information, User:202.166.137.148 continuously reverts changes made by various users, claiming that it is incorrect, despite being proven wrong with a simple check of the list on [23]. I have already sent this accurate source + a warning onto their talk page, but this user has still been reverting edits since. Theknine2 (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)