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:Irruptive Creditor reported by User:Dahawk04 (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Newsom v. Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Irruptive Creditor (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 00:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC) to 00:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
      1. 00:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "First off, again, the Insurrection Act was not at issue. Second, beyond the fact primary sources should not be used, an amicus brief carries no water and is not a court order. Third, the newly-added news sources still don't exist, and even if they do, are not very reliable as it's clear they're opinion pieces. So much original research and synthesis here."
      2. 00:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Removed improperly added primary reference."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 19:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC) to 19:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
      1. 19:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Removed primary source citation, and for User: Cbls1911, that redundant since it is implied by the express statement that the President likely was within statutory authority, as the memorandum wouldn't be within statutory authority if it was issued contrary to the procedures thereunder."
      2. 19:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "External link not appropriate, that’s not a final judgement on the merits, and so is unnecessary to include per the MOS for law articles"
    3. 01:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC) "Again, the Insurrection Act was never invoked, that's fake news. Rather that was 10 U.S.C. 12406 as the Presidential Memorandum "Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions" issued on June 7, 2025 clearly states: "I [President Trump] hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel." Mentioning Perpich v. DOD in "See Also" is OR."
    4. 01:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC) "Removed fake news. First, 10 U.S.C. 12406 was authority invoked, not the Insurrection Act. Second, there is no “10 U.S.C. § 252” of the Insurrection Act, as that isn’t the Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. 253 is. Finally, title 10 of the United States Code is a positive law title, so 10 U.S.C. 253 is the Insurrection Act and the Insurrection Act is 10 U.S.C. 253, they are synonyms but the same thing."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"
    2. 23:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"
    3. 00:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"
    4. 00:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Intervening edits by I and other editors were made between the most recent edits, of which there was only one revert of your edits. Moreover, @Jmik92 and I were not trading barbs. Many of the purported sources you had added (like this one linking to WSJ) do not even exist. It does not exist on the WayBack Machine, it does not exist on Archive.today, or otherwise. I can find no evidence even suggesting that such ever existed at all, quite literally fake news or a hallucinated citation as far as can be seen. In addition, there are also serious problems with original research and synthesis, take this paragraph of yours from one of your edits there for example:

    Secondly, the state argues that the order was procedurally defective because the President transmitted it to the adjutant general rather than “through the governor” as § 12406 requires. Finally, California invokes federalism principles: involuntary federalization of a state militia, it says, violates the Tenth Amendment and the anti-commandeering doctrine articulated in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.

    That paragraph cites this, which is an amicus brief submitted by a third-party. It is not part of the court's decision or arguments by the named parties and cannot be attributed as part of the reasoning therein. Then there is this mess:

    In addition, the deployment of active-duty Marines as crowd-control forces is alleged to breach the Posse Comitatus Act, with California citing Bissonette v. Haig for the rule that military personnel may not perform "direct" law-enforcement functions.

    I have no idea where you got this from, but the case, Bissonette v. Haig, appears nowhere in the corresponding citation for the claim made in that paragraph above. I checked the whole document, it is not even mentioned once (the order even has a handy list of all the precedents being cited and that case is not one of them). This and many other errors, are why your content was removed, it was not an edit war. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Irruptive Creditor — just to clear the air:
    • The “missing” Mattis story wasn’t fabricated. Mattis’s open letter was published on 3 June 2020 in *The Atlantic*. During the June 2025 L.A. protests several outlets recycled that 2020 text as though it were new and (mistakenly) credited it to Military.com. When the error was caught the pieces were pulled, so every link to them now 404s. Snopes documents the mix-up: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-la-protests-mattis-statement/.
    • Other dead links = paywall/link-rot. The WSJ, NYT, and WaPo items cited in the draft moved behind subscription gateways or were rejiggered in later CMS migrations. That is ordinary link-rot, not source invention.
    • Four reverts in 24 h (→ 3RR)
    01:26 19 Jun 2025 “Removed fake news …”
    01:32 19 Jun 2025 “Again, the Insurrection Act was never invoked …”
    19:04 20 Jun 2025 “Removed primary source citation, and for User: Cbls1911 …”
    19:09 20 Jun 2025 “External link not appropriate …”
    Four reverts inside a single day exceeds the three-revert rule.
    • Tone / direct address
    * “@Dahawk04, look, **many of your sources** 404-ed, or worse don’t even exist at all …” (20 Jun 2025 18:49 UTC)
    * “First off … the newly-added news sources still don’t exist … So much original research and synthesis here.” (21 Jun 2025 00:25 UTC)
    Using second-person (“your sources”) and labels like “fake news” shifts discussion from content to contributors, which bumps against WP:CIVIL.
    Dahawk04 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Various edits were made, but there were only two edits which are marked by page logs as reverts, the first was for obvious vandalism involving a fabricated quote, see here. The second is here. As for the edits made on June 19, those were made two days ago and not within a 24 hour time period, let alone 48 hours, see the UTC timestamps and are thus irrelevant anyhow. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Złotyzłoty33 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Central Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Złotyzłoty33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Stable version"
    2. 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296208670 by ZH8000 (talk) Minority view and in conflict with the article"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Central Europe."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 12:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Repeated reversion by Złotyzłoty33 */ new section"

    Comments:

    User:QueenEmeraldFang reported by User:Consarn (Result: )

    [edit]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296683705 by TonySt (talk)"
    2. 15:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296680982 by Consarn (talk) bullying"
    4. 14:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296680287 by Consarn (talk) Vandelism"
    5. 14:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296673082 by Soetermans (talk) Vandelism"
    6. 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296664973 by Soetermans (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Palworld."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Applaused reported by User:Audit2020 (Result: Blocked)

    [edit]

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [diff 09:33, 20 June 2025 ]
    2. [diff 10:04, 20 June 2025]
    3. [diff 14:42, 20 June 2025]
    4. [diff 14:42, 20 June 2025]
    5. [diff 08:26, 21 June 2025]
    6. [diff 14:29, 21 June 2025]



    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:
    Initially user unwilling to discuss in the talk page, and the user also broadcast his/her intention to not discuss about it in an edit summary such as here. There multiple editors already engaged in the discussion before the edit warring which the user not responding even though already pinged multiple times Audit2020 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Applaused has continued reverting despite exceeding the three-revert rule (3RR), often using the same edit summary repeatedly. On the talk page, the user has used unnecessary capitalisation and language such as “shameless,” “bias one,” and comparisons to theft, which do not align with Wikipedia’s civility guidelines. I respectfully request that an administrator review the situation and provide guidance where appropriate.
    Applaused now insists on reverting the page to a version from January. I have advised the user that any such major amendment should first be discussed on the talk page, in accordance with Wikipedia’s consensus-building processes, rather than unilaterally enforcing personal preferences.
    For reference, the last protected version was version 1280917070, protected by administrator Daniel Case on 17 March 2025 at 05:01 (UTC), while the last stable version prior to the recent dispute was version 1293711063, dated 3 June 2025. On 20 June 2025, Applaused began reinstating significant amendments without first engaging in discussion on the talk page, and the subsequent edits have substantially exceeded the three-revert rule (3RR)--Native99girl (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ttocserp is conducting an edit war on List of culinary herbs and spices (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page:List of culinary herbs and spices
    User being reported: Ttocserp

    Comments:

    Ttocserp is engaged in disruptive editing WP:DE - a pattern of editing that blocks progress towards the improvement of an article — in this case the List of culinary herbs and spices. Continuing this disruptive editing is considered as vandalism. WP:VANDAL He/she is making repeated reversions of any edits that are being made to expand and improve the level of detail to this. Alternative ways forward have been suggested, without any engagement at all with the suggestions. I have given a "Stop edit warring" alert WP:WAR WP:3RR that I believe has been breached.

    A request to Chicdat has been made by me to arbitrate and pull a resolution together.

    Ttocserp is acting in a completely unreasonable manner by making knee-jerk reversions of edits that are being made to improve this list article and is not making any positive contributions at all.

    For further info, please refer to the latest changes to the talk and View history pages of the "List of culinary herbs and spices".

    Can you restore the last version of the page before Ttocserp made the significant 3rd reversion and then put a temporary block on further edits until the issue of disruptive editing, that has now constituted vandalism, and edit warring has been resolved.

    Please will you step in to resolve this matter.




    N.B. This pro-forma, though well-meaning in giving a standard format, is not readily discernible and is not supported with explanatory notes. Can it be restructured to give this?

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    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:

    User:Thehistorianisaac reported by User:Nghtcmdr (Result: Page protected for 3 days)

    [edit]
    The edit warring noticeboard is unsuitable for requesting sanctions beyond those already imposed to stop the edit war in a section already resolved with page protection. WP:ANI is the right place to re-open a discussion in case an earlier ANI thread failed to address an ongoing problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page: People's Liberation Army Rocket Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thehistorianisaac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]
    5. [6]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

    Comments:
    The editor is falsely claiming there is no consensus against their edits as @RovingPersonalityConstruct and I have each reverted them three times. Nghtcmdr (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would highly suggest you respond to all your misconduct[9] before shooting yourself in the foot again.
    Your claims of me "making false claims" are utterly false and taken out of context. @RovingPersonalityConstruct has chosen to discuss instead of edit warring. [10] In contrast, you have been using WP:FALSECONSENSUS and cited an UNFINISHED discussion as "consensus". Additionally, you have, on said discussion, made false claims directed to me. In fact, instead of WP:DROP of our previous dispute you have chose to engage in a WP:HOUNDING campaign against me.
    Again, I would highly hope that the administrator read the full context. I am not the one "faking claims" here, it is simply that @Nghtcmdr has decided to ignore the discussion in regards to the context and engage in a WP:SMEAR campaign against me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See the WP:ANI discussion in regards to you.
    User has been engaging in repeated WP:BLUDGEON, WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:NPA, along with multiple false claims.
    Yes, @Nghtcmdr, there is NO consensus, as the discussion [11] has not been complete yet. You are taking my quotes out of context, and have also baselessly spread false claims against me. [12] The user has also edit warred before on multiple occasions [13], has shown ignorance to policies(per all the evidence on ANI), has directed personal attacks and false claims towards me, and has overall been doing disruptive editing and general civility

    Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have protected the page for 3 days due to the edit war. Both parties are encouraged to engage in good faith discussion, and possibly dispute resolution to resolve the disagreement. PhilKnight (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PhilKnight
    Thank you for the page protection. However, I would recommend more immediate sanctions, as the user has taken my quote out of context(I did the revert since the discussion was still ongoing, which they did not mention at all), and the user has a prior history of edit warring, as shown on his talk page.
    I would, again, also suggest any available administrators read the ANI discussion in regards to the same editor [14], as there has been no admin intervention for over several days by now despite said user's misconduct getting worse and worse. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thehistorianisaac, page protection is a reasonable alternative to blocking both involved editors, which would have included blocking you to prevent this from continuing. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive; the only reason to actually add a sanction would be you indicating that you still believe your edit warring was justified and would continue after the protection expires. To clarify: None of what you wrote either here or in your edit summaries justifies your edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying past behavior.
    Additionally, I did not start the edit war - They skipped discussion consensus and took me out of context. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thehistorianisaac It takes two to edit war, and you were a clear participant. Again, as noted above, sanctions are not punitive for past behaviour; they are to prevent future misconduct. The next three days provide opportunity for good-faith discussion at the talk page. It would be a good idea for both parties to engage in civil discussion there about the desired edits to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying regarding sanctions to said user's other behavior. Multiple editors have discussed this on ANI for the past week, yet there seems to be no response. Additionally, I have been involved in the discussion [15], where said user has decided to attack me personally; The main problem was that my edit was reverted without clear consensus, contrary to said user's claim. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:81.96.52.167 reported by User:Epluribusunumyall (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: List of African-American United States representatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 81.96.52.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Stop reverting. The United States House of Representatives website does not include him as an African American Representative: https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Data/Black-American-Representatives-and-Senators-by-Congress/"
    2. 13:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "No where in the article does it say he is "African American". If you type in "adriano espaillat african american" into google it literally states "he is not considered African American". Reverting once again till a source stating he is African American is found."
    3. 12:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Reverting. No sources given that he is African American. If you can find one then it can stay."
    4. 12:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Not African American and was not allowed to join the Black Caucus because he is not Black"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on List of African-American United States representatives."
    2. 13:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Please check the discussion at Talk:List of African-American United States representatives#RfC on the inclusion of Adriano Espaillat"
    3. 14:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of African-American United States representatives."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 13:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "/* RfC on the inclusion of Adriano Espaillat */ new section"
    2. 13:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "/* RfC on the inclusion of Adriano Espaillat */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Have repeatedly tried to bring this up as a conversation on the talk page (including on previous days) however, the IP user seems intend on just reverting their way to a conclusion. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You have continuously added an unsourced edition to a wikipedia article. You have been told, multiple times, to find a source for your addition and, as of yet, have not been able to find any. I have added sources, in the talk page, yet you have not. 81.96.52.167 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Inherli reported by User:Magic Fizz (Result: )

    [edit]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edits by JaierRT (talk)"
    2. 11:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by JaierRT (talk): Promotional blog and children's encyclopedia are unreliable sources"
    3. 10:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296793967 by JaierRT (talk) A children's encyclopedia and a blog post from a travel booking website are not reliable sources"
    4. 06:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1296516760 by Kefren2002 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Spain."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]


    Comments:

    User:82.17.145.49 and User:2A00:23C7:848B:B801:842B:3B0B:C5C7:510 reported by User:Czello (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: 21st century genocides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 82.17.145.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Israel */ Unfounded allegations, just accusations from unreliable sources"
    2. 22:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Israel */ Israeli propaganda"
    3. 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Israel */ Removed accusations of Palestinians genociding Israelis on October 7th only a single biased source (Times of Israel)"
    4. [21] (as 2A00:23C7:848B:B801:842B:3B0B:C5C7:510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    5. [22]


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 21st century genocides."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User clearly switched to editing on mobile as 2A00:23C7:848B:B801:842B:3B0B:C5C7:510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) after receiving a 3RR warning. Note that this topic (Arab-Israeli conflict) is under CTOPS and the user is not permitted to make more than one revert in a 24 hour period. — Czello (music) 21:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    now thip 71.212.119.156 is editing 21st century genocides which the ip is not post to edit. Untamed1910 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1296914379"