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:WickedFanAccount reported by User:Happily888 (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Wicked (2024 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "This is a change I made before you came in. YOU need to start the discussion. Not me. Part I is not a subtitle"
    2. 04:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "No colon as per source AND sequel title"
    3. 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "no colon in onscreen title"
    4. 20:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC) "Onscreen title AND source both use a Roman numeral"
    5. 06:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC) "I did."
    6. 02:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    7. 02:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    8. 02:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC) "Message re. Wicked (2024 film) (HG) (3.4.12)."
    2. 03:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
    3. 04:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wicked (2024 film)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 08:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Wicked Part I or Wicked: Part I */ re"

    Comments:

    persistent vandalism and disregarding of MOS/NC; frequent edit warring. Also WP:SPA. Happily888 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I am pleased to see that the editors have taken this to the talk page. We most definitely do not need a repeat of this. H888 has reverted four times in the last 24 hours, but I don't on the face of things see their last revert as confrontational, since, counterintuitive as it might seem, it is what the cited source says. Whether that's their typo should be allowed to be hashed out on the talk page as well. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shawndmxk reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Shawndmxk (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]



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

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

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

    Comments:
    Declined As annoying as this no doubt must be over the last several days I do not see any evidence that you've attempted to resolve this on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Signofgehenna reported by User:Create a template (Result: Resolved)

    [edit]

    Page: Orbital (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User reported: Signofgehenna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Consistently reverting or adding back that Orbital is a "science fiction" book, even though there is ongoing discussion about whether or not that is a complete and representative description of its genre. He initially added it on 14 November despite not being classified as such for over a month of the article's existence. Their only argument is Razor and the existence of at least one or two MSM outlets calling it "science fiction".

    I added to the talk page that I was removing the classification in the lead, but retained it as one of the genres in the infobox. By keeping it simple as "a novel", this best represented the multi nature of the book as not being a conventional or purely science fiction work. I communicated why I believe this to be the case, to which another person concurred.

    He then proceeded to edit my talk page post, perverting what I had said, and then added the description back multiple times, despite me wanting to find consensus before possibly adding back the classification of "science fiction" in the first sentence of the page. This in spite of me attempting to further explain the weaknesses of his argument in the talk page.

    Initial version which was the standard for at least a month:
    [8]

    His edit on Nov 14:
    [9] "Added genre. Just because it won The Booker doesn't stop it being fiction about science."

    My reversion:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orbital_(novel)&oldid=1257707685 "It isn't strictly that genre"
    along with an extensive argument as to why in the Talk page

    Unacceptable edit on the talk page: [10]

    Their abusive warring:
    [11]
    [12]
    [13] Create a template (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    update: there seems to more willingness to compromise, will wait Create a template (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue somehow self-resolved for now. We can close this. Create a template (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please close. This got heated, but assumed goodwill as per guidelines. Create a template's final edit, which satisfied all elements, is excellent work, thank you. Signofgehenna (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please check the actual chat; at no point did I use aggressive language, unlike Create a template, who has a confusing, misleading handle. Signofgehenna (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheMasterofAllHitmans reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked one week)

    [edit]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    2. 17:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257596133 by Magical Golden Whip (talk) It’s been almost a day ago and so far, nobody else complained or bitched about it. My edits are only minor. You only reverted my edit because one person disagreed with me and you also have not responded on my talk page."
    3. 18:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257561272 by Magical Golden Whip (talk)"
    4. 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257468293 by Geraldo Perez (talk) Saying “it’s better” just shows favoritism and a bit of selfishness. All I did was just mention their last names and added two more commas. Also, iCarly is mostly episodic. There is no “story”."
    5. 01:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257453035 by Geraldo Perez (talk) You're doing too much. There was nothing wrong with my edits. Plus, you need the commas for example: "Carly's older brother, Spencer,"."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1257597414

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at 3RR warning message

    Comments:

    User:60.227.221.174 reported by User:Rift (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Faygo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 60.227.221.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [14]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]
    4. [18]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21] User has not responded to any talk page, article talk page, or edit summary messages.

    Comments:
    Has also carried on this edit war using accounts Forggot112 and Funify01. Rift (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ErickTheMerrick reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Hasmonean dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Theocratic shouldn't link to constitutional monarchy 1258051719 by Nikkimaria (talk)"
    2. 20:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "Nothing you linked applied here 1258028260 by Remsense (talk)"
    3. 19:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "Added links in government box due to there not being any"
    4. 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "All I did was rearrange them so they were grammatically correct 1258025901 by Remsense (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Belgium."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Currently edit warring across a half dozen other articles simultaneously. User is explicitly refusing to discuss their edits, as in this edit summary: [22] Doesn’t require talk page, its a common sense edit I’m not willing to discuss with you 1258069316 by Nikkimaria MrOllie (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what to do if the editor is not willing to discuss their changes. The immediate impression anyone would get is this editor is simply not suitable for the Wikipedia environment. WP:NOTHERE. Agree edits summaries like the following aren't a good sign I didn't want to discuss it with him due to every talk we have we just disagree and nothing happens. It’s just a back and forth. Regarding this edit, I disagree with nikkimaria’s assertion to this being over linking. Editors are trying to explain as seen at User talk:ErickTheMerrick#New message to ErickTheMerrick.... but they are continuing to revert - this exact point has already been raised on their talk page previously with other editing practices questioned. Moxy🍁 03:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like they're taking part in discussion at their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PerspicazHistorian reported by User:RationalIndia (Result: Blocked from article for a month and given CTOPS alert)

    [edit]

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

    Previous version reverted to: [23]

    . Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [24]
    2. [25]
    3. [26]}}

    despite of edit warning from me and User:Ekdalian [27] [28] ,the user continue to push his POV RI talk 10:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    edit warring was started by @RationalIndia by deleting whole article rather than discussing the issue in talk page. the article has been in existence since 2004, no need to delete whole article. User vandalizing the article. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not deleted anything, I merged it into correct article. Even after my merge , one editor reverted it then I discussed why I did it in his talk , after i continued..
    Multiple times my redirects is verified by Page reviewers as a correct. RI talk 11:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Visit All INDIA VEERASHAIVA MAHASABHA official website, and click three line menu in top left corner choose Veerashaiva option and read what it is written. http://www.veerashaivamahasabha.org/Home/About
    the content related to Panchacharyas in Veerashaiva is merged to Correct title, I am not deleted anything which is well sourced.
    Veerashaiva article redirected to Lingayatism, i did nothing wrong here. RI talk 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one month from the article and alerted to CTOPS (which should have been done a long time ago). Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PlatinumClipper96 reported by User:ShawarmaFan07 (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: East London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: PlatinumClipper96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User repeatedly reverted their preferred edit back into the East London wikipedia page [29]. I asked them to retain [30] original edit until we finally get a consensus, whether it supported their edits or otherwise. I also told them to stop so we can talk about it several times such as [one], but again, they reverted back to their wanted revision.[31]. They must stop reverting and continue with the discussion thread, rather than triggering chaos on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawarmaFan07 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. there have only been two reverts by either party in the past 24 hours and none for a few hours now, so there is no breach of the 3RR. It looks like there is a discussion underway at Talk:East London and I suggest both @ShawarmaFan07: and @PlatinumClipper96: continue with that course, see common ground, and refrain from continuing the edit war on the article. If you can't come to an agreement, use the processes at WP:DR to help you progress. No action taken now, but if edit warring continues then one or both may be blocked.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is slow, but it is an edit war, and it has been going on for months. Both parties have requested administrative action, so I have protected the page and restored a stable, pre-edit war revision for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ShawarmaFan07 reported by User:PlatinumClipper96 (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: East London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ShawarmaFan07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [32] (original bold edit, IP is most likely ShawarmaFan07 based on contribs [33] [34])
    2. [35]
    3. [36]
    4. [37]
    5. [38]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39] [40]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [41]

    Comments:
    ShawarmaFan07 made a bold edit (as an IP user) on 5th August, changing the long-standing wording on East London, which described it as "the northeastern part of London, England", to "the northeastern part of Greater London" [42]. I reverted this new wording here [43], with an explanation as to why this new wording is incorrect.

    The user then reverts my revert [44] rather than initiating a talk page discussion. I reinstated the original wording on 3rd October [45].

    The user reverted my revert again on [46] 17th October, this time starting a talk page discussion [47] (which I did not see and was not pinged into). I became aware of this today, reverting back to the original wording [48] and attempting to engage in a talk page discussion [49] [50].

    They immediately revert again [51], and then again [52], telling me "Please stop. Continue the discussion first before we can check whether or not we can keep your edit or have it reverted". The latest addition to the talk page was mine, made 3 hours prior to their latest revert.

    This user has recently received a block for edit warring. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They added these [53] "warnings" to my talk page.
    The user has also received several warnings on their talk page for disruptive editing on several other articles. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. as above, there have only been two reverts by either party in the past 24 hours and none for a few hours now, so there is no breach of the 3RR. It looks like there is a discussion underway at Talk:East London and I suggest both @ShawarmaFan07: and @PlatinumClipper96: continue with that course, see common ground, and refrain from continuing the edit war on the article. If you can't come to an agreement, use the processes at WP:DR to help you progress. No action taken now, but if edit warring continues then one or both may be blocked.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is slow, but it is an edit war, and it has been going on for months. Both parties have requested administrative action, so I have protected the page and restored a stable, pre-edit war revision for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:176.113.180.173 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: History of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 176.113.180.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A176.113.180.173&diff=&oldid=1257941683 Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Unexplained reverts"
    2. 14:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Wasn't much of a compromise"
    3. 09:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "Correction"
    4. 23:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Correction"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on History of Africa."
    2. 14:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 08:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Has been reverted by at least four other editors at this point. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy tag @Kowal2701 --AntiDionysius (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also opened a discussion at ANI. Should I request that be closed? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh woops, that's my bad, I didn't mean to duplicate. I think it's probably fine; if/when the issue is resolved in one forum we can just make sure to close the other discussion. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I think their edits are too similar to User:NutmegCoffeeTea's for me to ignore so I might request a check user, although I don't believe it's her Kowal2701 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mut.Greg reported by User:Amakuru (Result: Partially blocked for 2 weeks from 2 articles)

    [edit]

    Page: Rwandan genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Mut.Greg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 13:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision"
    3. 11:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 07:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1258127263 by Indy beetle (talk)"
    5. 06:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257972216 by Wowzers122 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rwandan genocide."
    2. 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "/* November 2024 */ re"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 14:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent edits */ new section"

    Comments:

    These edits have been reverted by several editors and they alter the agreed language and nomenclature on this page as well as altering sourced figures on the death toll and other details. Editor seems to be a WP:SPA with the only edits being to Rwandan genocide and Paul Kagame, all pushing a particular POV that doesn't have consensus. They also made a bizarre edit at Commons, turning a picture of Kagame upside down.[54]  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.184.52.46 reported by User:FifthFive (Result:Article block for editor for 31 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Isles of Scilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 86.184.52.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "added correctly sourced material."
    2. 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Climate */ adding sourced material regarding Isles of Scilly climate."
    3. 22:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Added material supported by multiple reliable sources."
    4. 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1258243354 by Uness232 (talk) rv Vandalism. Stop removing correctly sourced material."
    5. 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1258241139 by Uness232 (talk)rv vandalism and unexplained removal of sourced material."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 22:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 22:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Uness232 "/* Isles of Scilly climate dispute */ Reply"

    Comments:

    The IP opened a discussion at WP:DRN but has continued to add back the disputed content. Uness232, the other editor in the dispute, has also gone past 3 reverts (though they weren't given an appropriate warning). FifthFive (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd add, as an uninvolved editor who has just discovered this dispute in the past few minutes, that this IP editor has at times quite clearly crossed the line into personal attacks too, such as here and here, in the edit summary. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF. Look at the edit history and the other editor. He's adding ludicrous claims that the Scilly Islands, Bordeaux and Istanbul are "sub tropical". It makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. Trewartha's classification clearly states that marine locations have to be frost-free. None of these locations are frost-free. It also defies common sense - have you visited any of these places in winter? They are not subtropical by any stretch. I'll stop editing. But please look at the article history before you pass judgment and enforce the 3RR on the other editor or lock the page. Allowing unsourced claims that places are "subtropical" just makes the platform look silly and untrustworthy. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours The two editors who were edit-warring on this article have been blocked from editing this article for 31 hours. There is an RFC on the article talk page to try to resolve this dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:זור987 reported by User:Dorian Gray Wild (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Erez Da Drezner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: זור987 (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. 1006494532, 04:58, February 13, 2021
    2. 1258371042, 09:24, November 19, 2024
    3. 1258371216, 09:26, November 19, 2024

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1258371216, 09:26, November 19, 2024

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 903690031, 09:33, June 27, 2019

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1258377001, 10:38, November 19, 2024

    Comments:
    The edit summary of the user, as well as his immediate edit war, are not accepted. I am not "dumb" and I do not "troll" anyone. I explained well why SD should not apply upon the article, and the user has to accept it instead of bullying me. --DgwTalk 10:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Here I add this diff: 1258377246, 10:41, November 19, 2024, which has the edit summary: "Complete nonsence". --DgwTalk 10:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No edit warring was done. This rude user wanted to cancel my purposed deletion of his article, about an anonymous Israeli person which even don't have an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia, and that his encyclopedic importance is doubtful. He also tracking me in the Hebrew Wikipedia and posting his results in the English Wikipedia, and tends to flood the English Wikipedia and another languages Wikipedia with article about disability in Israel, which most of them have no encyclopedic importance, such as that article that I wanted to purpose deleting it. זור987 (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Malik-Al-Hind reported by User:Someguywhosbored (Result:

    [edit]

    Page: Maurya Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [55]
    2. [56]
    3. [57]
    4. [58]
    5. [59]
    6. [60]
    7. [61]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63] and [64]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [65]

    Comments:
    Theres been a lot of discussion on the mauryan empire page about the maps that are currently in use. Malik-Al-Hind made 7 reverts over a very short period of time. I had attempted to solve this on the article and user talk pages. I sent him a warning and despite some back and forward arguing, he did claim that he would refrain from edit warring in the future. I thought that would be the end of it, until he decided to revert another edit without attaining consensus on the talk page first. Which is why I finally decided to bring this here. Worst part is, he had actually recieved another warning less than 24 hours prior for edit warring. Requesting administative intervention. Forgive me if I made any mistakes in the process of filing this report. First time I've brought an issue like this here. {Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

    Edit warring is when you revert someone's edit thrice. I will be honest here, I did commit edit warring yesterday, I accept i didn't have a count on my reverts and I accidentally reverted for the 4th time, For which i apologized here.[66] and my apology was accepted by numerous experienced editors here [67] including by @Someguywhosbored himself here.[68]. I did promise to not engage myself in edit warring again, which was accepted. I should had made a count on my reverts, and I didn't revert anything again after that and continued seeking a consensus in the talk page. So there was no need for @Someguywhosbored to report me after this agreement.
    The thing went wrong here [69] when @Edasf added a map after seeking an agreement in the talk page [70] [71] [72]. And I did nothing except for adding WP:RS sources and fixing the errors in it. [73]. @Someguywhosbored then reverted the edit when it was literally posted by the agreement of several people. To which, i reverted his edit back.
    Now Let us check the definition of "edit warring"

    There is a bright line 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.[74]

    If you revert someone's edit thrice in 24 hours, you have commited edit warring. Thus I commited no edit warring here since I reverted only once, because the change was made by someone else after an agreement by several editors in the talk page. I felt like there was no reason for him to revert the changes made by @Edasf. I did commit edit warring yesterday by breaking the three revert rule yesterday by accidentally reverting for the 4th time, but i apologized to not repeat the same mistake (which I didn't repeat.) and all the editors including @Someguywhosbored himself accepted the apology. So there was no need of him to report me today.
    He reverted an edit and a change which was made after the agreement of several editors, for which he got criticized by few editors too like [75][76]. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, a lot to unpack here.
    “ himself here.[68]. I did promise to not engage myself in edit warring again, which was accepted. I should had made a count on my reverts, and I didn't revert anything again after that and continued seeking a consensus in the talk page. So there was no need for @Someguywhosbored to report me after this agreement.
    The thing went wrong here [69] when @Edasf added a map after seeking an agreement in the talk page [70] [71][72]. And I did nothing except for adding WP:RS sources and fixing the errors in it. [73]. @Someguywhosbored then reverted the edit when it was literally posted by the agreement of several people. To which, i reverted his edit back.
    Now
    If you revert someone's edit thrice, you have commited edit warring. Thus I commited no edit warring here since I reverted only once, because the change was made by someone else after an agreement by several editors in the talk page.”
    For one, you did revert an edit after the warning. See the last diff of the report. Secondly, I don’t quite follow your last point. You’re saying you didn’t edit war because you only made one revert after you were warned? That’s not how it works. You still made a 7th revert in the same article. You were warned multiple times and instead of taking it seriously, you continued to edit war.
    “ someguywhosbored himself accepted the apology. So there was no use of him to report me today.”
    I only reported you when you decided to revert an edit on the same article despite being warned. You told me you’d stop, but than you did the exact same thing.
    “He reverted an edit and a change which was made after the agreement of several editors, for which he got criticized by few editors too.
    I made a bold edit which I didn’t push after being reverted the second time. That’s a far cry from edit warring, nor was it even disruptive. But regardless, that’s quite irrelevant.
    “ And I did nothing except for adding WP:RS sources and fixing the errors in it.”
    You mean you added a map despite not gaining consensus for doing so? See BRD. ONUS was on you for gaining consensus, so you should have never reverted anybody in the first place.
    It was clear that nothing was going to change until I took this issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "For one, you did revert an edit after the warning. See the last diff of the report. Secondly, I don’t quite follow your last point. You’re saying you didn’t edit war after the warning because you only made one revert? That’s not how it works. You still made a 7th revert in the same article. You were warned multiple times and instead of taking it seriously, you continued to edit war."
    This is not how edit warring works. As I showed you the literal definition of edit warring which is to make 3 reverts under 24 hours. I apologized and promised to not "edit war" again [77], I didn't say i wouldn't revert your edit if it is against the consensus by the editors. I was warned by you, and I took the warning seriously and didn't engage in edit war at all. As I proved, I only made 1 revert in 24 hours. Which is nowhere close to edit warring. So yes I didn't edit warring after getting warned.
    "I only reported you when you decided to revert an edit on the same article despite being warned. You told me you’d stop, but than you did the exact same thing."
    I promised to stop "edit warring", which I did really stop from doing. When did I say i wouldn't revert someone's edit in the page if it's really needed? Moreoever you were the one who reverted edasf's edit first who literally made the change after having an agreement of several editors who were involved in the previous discussion.
    "I made a bold edit which I didn’t push after being reverted the second time. That’s a far cry from edit warring, nor was it even disruptive. But regardless, that’s quite irrelevant."
    It is not irrelevant though, you were making a change in the article without seeking a consensus, you were making a change to the long standing map which was there in the article since 2004. It is not 'irrelevant". Other editors criticized you for doing that.

    "You mean you added a map despite not gaining consensus for doing so? See BRD. ONUS was on you for gaining consensus, so you should have never reverted anybody in the first place. It was clear that nothing was going to change until I took this issue here."

    What do you mean "you added" it was Edasf who added the map after an agreement by several editors who engaged in the previous discussion in MEM. [78] [79] [80] At this point you are just doing this because you simply don't agree with the said change.

    Again, I did accidentally broke the 3 revert rule by reverting for the 4th time, for which i apologized and other editors including you yourself accepted the apologies. I promised to not edit war again, which i genuinely didn't, so there was no need for a report which just got filed after more than 24 hours of the said discussion (where you yourself along with several editors gave it a chance by letting it go).. Just because I reverted your change today once it doesn't mean it was edit warring, I simply reverted back to the change Edasf made after an agreement in the talk page. Since edit warring is when you revert someone thrice in 24 hours, this is neither edit warring, nor disruptive . Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is what you’re not getting. By reverting for the 7th time(or first time after your warning), you’re continuing to edit war. You need to read 3RR one more time.
    “ 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. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below exemptions.”
    The warning doesn’t absolve you from your previous edits.
    If you make 4 edits in 24 hours, that’s edit warring. If you make a 4th revert outside of the 24 hour mark, that’s still edit warring especially if combined with other edit warring behavior. Yes that’s probably something you missed. A 4th revert outside of the 24 hour mark is still considered edit warring. It’s not 3 reverts in 24 hours and the counter resets. That’s not how it works. And getting warned doesn’t reset the amount of times you reverted previously. So by reverting again, right after getting warned, you’re continuing to edit war.
    I think I made it pretty clear. If you can’t accept that, than I don’t know how to convince you on this matter so I’ll just wait until an administrator or experienced editor informs you on how it works.
    “ What do you mean "you added" it was Edasf who added the map after an agreement by several editors who engaged in the previous discussion in MEM. [78] [79] [80] At this point you are just doing this because you simply don't agree with the said change.”
    Again this is probably not a matter for the edit warring noticeboard. Regardless I’ll make this quick. Both you and Edasf tried adding a map without gaining consensus. Once you’ve been reverted, per WP:ONUS, the burden is on the editor who is seeking to include disputed content. For example Fowler and me both had issues with it. Fowler didn’t even think a second map was necessary, let alone a third one. Regardless, once your edit was reverted, you’re supposed to gain consensus before reverting or adding the disputed content again which you didn’t do. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway I’d rather just let an admin decide on what to do than continue to argue about this. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Malik-Al-Hind: FYI, while three reverts in 24 hours is a bright line rule, it doesn't mean that you have to break it to violate the edit warring rule. From the policy page 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 (Note: this is not a comment on the report.)RegentsPark (comment) 15:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1258406712"