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

Disruptive behaviour coming from User:Vlaemink on Talk:Limburgish as reported by User:De Wikischim

On Talk:Limburgish, user:Vlaemink, keeps on putting back their blatant personal attacks towards me, in which they're constantly trying in a very sordid way to defamate my intentions regarding the main subject (see here for the last revert, already preceded by [1]). Please consider at least forbidding Vlaemink to put this PA back again, and/or giving them a (temporary, though I personally believe a more permanent banning would be the best option here after all) banning for the relevant Talk page.

Note: in spite of your standard instructions, I'm not gonna notify Vlaemink separately on their own talk page. I hope this isn't really a very big issue here? First, they should already get an automatic notification. Second, I actually try to avoid them as much as possible. De Wikischim (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC) P.S. Still some more examples of their defamating/derogatory/completely off-topic .etc. comments especially towards me during the last few days: [2] (from "That's beyond childish....") and [3]. This is still not everything. De Wikischim (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The above is taking place within the context of an editing dispute on Limburgish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has recently been fully protected due to a looming edit war and content dispute.

De Wikischim seeks to replace parts of other users' comments with the RPA-tag, despite the comments involved not constituting (let alone blatant) personal attacks as per WP:NPA. The goal is either to annoy or to use the RPA-tags to create the suggestion for casual or (later) involved readers that an actual PA was part of another users comment, often some time (days) after the remark was made and after the discussion has already progressed; or to use term PA to delete publically avaiable information about him, which he does not like. For example, here he claimed that the statement that he has been blocked numerous times for edit warring and is subjected to arbcom measures because of this [4] was a PA, even though this is easily verifiable and a link was in fact provided in support of it [5].

He has been advised and explicitly asked by another user to stop deleting comments and adding RPA-tags and to ″leave it to uninvolved editors who actually see PAs here″. I myself have of course also, repeatedly, asked him to stop his removal of comments and suggesting they are personal attacks, which he has consistently refused; resorting to threats and intimidation at several points. Vlaemink (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:ShawarmaFan07 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

User being reported: ShawarmaFan07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251286308 by Belbury (talk) Please, let's not do that again. I hope I do not get reported, but as Israel and Turkey traditionally eat this, the dish is not limited to the Arab cuisine. We can discuss this instead; I've added a question within the talk question."
2. 20:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251174497 by ShawarmaFan07 (talk) If Israel, Turkey, Armenia and Georgia are mentioned, then why is it deemed only as an Arab cuisine? Please stop, and discuss in the talk page. I asked about this over there."
3. 19:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251104930 by Skitash (talk) Israel is literally mentioned in this article! Same for Turkey! None of which are Arabic countries."
4. 10:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250945459 by Skitash (talk) It is literally eaten throughout the Middle East. Not only Arab countries of that region. Israel is not Arab, neither is Turkey; Shawarma is consumed alot there."
5. 13:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */Shawarma is also enjoyed in Israel, Cyprus, Turkey and even Iran."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC) notified of contentious 1RR topic
2. 19:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC) warned for edit warring
3. 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC) asked to self-revert your latest edit or be reported for edit-warring and violating ARBPIA restrictions

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 14:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC) to 13:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Shawarma

Comments: User is repeatedly changing the infobox cuisine from "Arab" to "Middle East". After being notified that this was a 1RR issue, and also warned for simple edit warring over it, they were explicitly asked self-revert their 19:37 edit. They did that (saying in the edit summary that it was To avoid getting reported), but then restored it ten minutes later with an edit summary rationale for why their version was correct. They restored their version again today after being reverted. --Belbury (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

User:49.195.79.115 reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Already blocked one week)

Page: Abortion in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.195.79.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "more accurate language"
2. 11:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "wording was previously and deliberately misleading, using dehumanising language to describe a vulnerable group of human individuals. A "foetus" is scientifically a human individual, in their foetal stage of development. Unanimously agreed upon by scientists globally."
3. 11:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 11:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "clearer language without key categorical information omitted to dehumanise the human in foetal stage of development"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
2. 11:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Abortion in Australia."
3. 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to a neutral point of view (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated unnecessary POV-pushing and edit warring R0paire-wiki (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

global consensus among biologists: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/ 49.195.79.115 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That is utterly irrelevant. You write in your edit summary that "A "foetus" is scientifically a human individual, in their foetal stage of development. Unanimously agreed upon by scientists globally." Yet you remove foetus because it's "dehumanising" and change to "unborn individual human"? This is blatant disruptive editing. AusLondonder (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

One of their edit summaries since says "... previous edit did not define what species of animal was in their foetal stage of development." is very disingenuous and in bad-faith trying to synthesise a justification. It is very blatant. R0paire-wiki (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This editor also caused a blatant copyright violation. This edit [6] is a complete copy/paste job from the very source they added to the article. Other edits are clear violations of WP:SYNTH in an attempt to push their personal worldview into the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 1 week by Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I will also be leaving a CTOPS alert on the IP's talk page and a notice on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:George Loomis reported by User:ClaudineChionh (Result: Blocked 72 hours and given CTOPS alert)

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

User being reported: George Loomis (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 12:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC) to 13:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   2. 13:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 12:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC) to 12:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "His actual birthplace is in Kishtwar Area of Kashmir."
   2. 12:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "His actual birthplace is in Kishtwar Area of Kashmir."
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC) to 12:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added Content"
   2. 12:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   3. 12:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   4. 12:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
5. 11:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
6. Consecutive edits made from 11:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC) to 11:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 11:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Birthplace is Kishtwar in Kashmir."
   2. 11:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   3. 11:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   4. 11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   5. 11:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   6. 11:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Nagasena."
2. 12:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nagasena."
3. 12:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nagasena."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

repeated addition of unsourced birthplace claim ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Will also leave CTOPS notice on talk and alert on user talk. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Ole7777 reported by User:Johnjbarton (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Dispersion (optics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ole7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251539510 by Johnjbarton (talk)"
2. 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251537524 by Johnjbarton (talk)"
3. 16:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 14:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Please stop. */ new section"
2. 17:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dispersion (optics)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "/* WP:Undue content Generalized formulation of the high orders of dispersion – Lah-Laguerre optics */ Reply"
2. 17:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2001:4BC9:A40:60E4:E5B7:79D0:E11B:684F (talk) to last revision by Johnjbarton"
3. 17:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "/* WP:Undue content Generalized formulation of the high orders of dispersion – Lah-Laguerre optics */ Reply"

Comments:

Please let me know if there is something else I should do in such cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24h. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:ProfMoustafa reported by User:Ixfd64 (Result: pending)

Page: Lucas–Lehmer primality test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ProfMoustafa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. link
2. link
3. link
4. link
5. link

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments:

ProfMoustafa (talk · contribs) keeps adding claims about a new Mersenne number primality test to the Lucas–Lehmer primality test article. I am not familiar with this person's work and do not claim to know how accurate his claims are, but the section was removed because it has nothing to do with the Lucas–Lehmer test and that we have a policy against original research. He has now re-added the removed content up to five times. Although I'm an administrator, I probably shouldn't be the one to take action against this user because I'm one of the people who have reverted his edits, and I want to avoid conflicts of interest if possible. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The additions are straightforward self-promotional citespam. --JBL (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional (and identical) cite-spamming was later performed on a more popular page (and soon to become much visited because of the newest latest find after ~6 years with no primes) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mersenne_prime&diff=1251551296&oldid=1247518036 . Same result, same behavior.

BTW, I acknowledge my received "‪WP:CIVIL‬" message and will adjust accordingly; I could have done better. Serge Batalov (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, in the last 26 hours he's now on 6 reverts restoring his self promotional stuff. Checked the article and found it there again this morning. – Mesidast (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe he should be blocked clearly WP:NOTHERE. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 09:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Tredanielsunf reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: )

Page: Raven's Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "show has ended, no talk page active to discuss this change. Sixth season cycle notes can be found in production section."
2. 03:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "show has ended and line remains irrelevant to introduction."
3. 02:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251613209 by Magical Golden Whip (talk) no revision notes or reasoning"
4. 19:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251513618 by Magical Golden Whip (talk) still no notes from previous revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Raven's Home."
2. 03:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Raven's Home."
3. 04:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Final warning notice."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring over Six Season still being deleted was reverted a few days ago as well. Mainly reverted due to WP:Not Broken then WP:DE due to the first warning I gave. Didn’t apptepte to come to a sense on talk page. I did release after my last revert I went over my limit and was my mistake, but was mainly trying to just restore the page with the sixth season being there as in my opion it was fine and not an issue. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Magical Golden Whip: While I do agree that the other user is bring disruptive, with all due respect, as you do a lot of good work here, I would kindly suggest you use caution from here onward, as you are just as guilty in terms of edit warring and could easily see yourself blocked as well, which I do not want to see for you. Whether you're right or wrong is up to consensus on the article talk page. However, while there are some exceptions to continuously reverting another user or IP, your edits do not fall under said exemptions, as listed at WP:3RRNO. Add: Also, given the nature of this, it probably would have been better to let someone uninvolved start this since, as I mentioned earlier, you are involved and just as guilty in terms of edit warring. Amaury • 07:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:223.29.234.202

Page: Lancia Thema (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 223.29.234.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive user not knowing the difference between model years and production years, stubbornly adding "production" as a descriptor for common model years.

Previous version reverted to:

1. [7]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [12]

YBSOne (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Same IP and the related 202.47.32.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are edit warring on numerous Lancia pages, also at Lancia Flaminia. Not here to work in a collaborative manner.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)