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:89.180.44.169 reported by User:Combrils (Result: Page semi-protected for 2 day)

    [edit]

    Page: Spanish Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 89.180.44.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]

    Comments: The user appears to be recurrent in using multiple IPs to add assertions without any reference to support it. He tries to vandalize the articles by constantly pushing his POV. Combrils (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both Combrils (Reverts: 1, 2 3, 4) and the IP address (reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are edit warring and have blown past the three revert rule. Rather than blocking both of them, I have semi-protected the page for two days. During that time, I would encourage them both to go to Talk:Spanish Navy and discuss it there. A quick internet search reveals that at least some sources refer to Portuguese supremacy from the 15th century until the late 16th century, so this appears to be a genuine content dispute (even if the IP doesn't know how to cite sources) rather than pure vandalism. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this source is not reliable since it is a PDF presentation and welcome from a company (HHC) that has nothing to do with history studies. I don't see that statement appearing either. However, I think it's a good idea protect the Page, and I'll try to use Talk to address this topic. I recommend also protecting the Galleon and Portuguese Navy pages, as they have also been the subject of the same dispute with the user. Combrils (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If this is an issue that spans across a few pages, with the editor not communicating, then WP:ANI is probably the place.
      Additionally, @Combrils: Please note that you are supposed to notify the IP of threads like these when they are opened, as the instructions on top of this page state. I have done so for you in this edit. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Allan Nonymous reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: Full protection for three days)

    [edit]

    Page: 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1239247585 by Allan Nonymous (talk): This seems to have been effectively a revert of the previous work done on the article, with a WP:POINTy edit summary that does not address the rationale behind the changes made. Will open a talk page section to discuss changes."
    2. 04:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "1 is a trivial case of a lot of functions, if you want to add this kind of info, put it in the bottom with the calculations."
    3. 04:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "Frankly these are, to put it lightly, obscure facts that do not belong on a number article."
    4. 04:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "Rewrote this WP:CRUFT lede in favor of a more mathematically sound one."
    5. 03:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2116 (talk): Mass reverting edits with copy paste rationale is generally frowned upon."
    6. 20:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Removed yet more WP:CRUFT."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [[5]] by Johnuniq
    2. 08:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ reply"
    3. 08:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ ping"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User continues to revert war at number articles. With reverts and partial reverts they are now beyond 3RR at 1. They have reverted multiple times in other number articles as well, please see their contributions. Relevant discussions are at AIV and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Help_remove_WP:CRUFT_on_number_articles! and at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TBAN_for_User:Radlrb. The user has received warnings about edit warring on their talk page and wrote to Johnuniq suggesting they did not want to edit war [6] a mere 6 minutes later they reverted again at 1. Polyamorph (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the edit in question after the concern was raised to me. I am not sure if the three edits in question would qualify for edit warring, but granted, I am not wholly familiar with the full technicalities of edit warring. I would also like to note the user did not attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, and wish he had expressed his concerns there before bringing it up here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I messaged you on your talk page here. It was ignored, you continued reverting instead of accepting my offer of collaboration. You were warned by an administrator that you edits across multiple number articles that you were engaged in edit warring so I don't think your claim of ignorance is credible. Polyamorph (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not claiming ignorance, I am just claiming it can be a little hard to tell where active editing of an article ends and edit warring begins. This is why I am asking for feedback from the editors in question. I am more than willing to collaborate with other editors on the subject. I do apologize if I may have worked a bit to hard and fast. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user is still reversing the actions of other editors at 1, see [7]. Note 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. These in part reverts mean this user has flown past WP:3RR. The fact they are still editing this article with this case open is astonishing.Polyamorph (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I rephrased the lede of the article. I don't believe that counts as reverting per WP:RV. Frankly, this sounds like WP:WIKILAWYERING. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You deleted content that had previously been restored after you previously deleted it after it was previously restored after you previously deleted it. It doesn't matter if it's an entire article or one sentence. This is pure disruption. Polyamorph (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Changing one sentence in an article, with rationale to which the only major reverts have been editors mass reverting a bunch of collective edits hardly counts as disruptive. The point of WP:3RR is to prevent ping-pong editing and article instability, not small, constructive changes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no consensus of your reverts thereafter. Plus, you continued removing very valuable information, such as this 1; 1 as first in the list of natural numbers is a classically distinguishable point for 1, in fact part of its very definition (which can also be defined starting with 0, depending on convention). I would return it. Radlrb (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That edit was by another user, and is fine anyway; it just makes the intro of the article more concise. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      True, just noticed. Thank you for relaying this, I thought it was Allan. Radlrb (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      These mass reverts shouldn't continue, in single reverts or continuous relatively small removals, without consensus. On the page for 1, these already technically count way above the limit of 3 reverts, at about 21 in total (in a little less than 2 days, however). Radlrb (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It sounds like a couple of days of full protection might help reach a consensus on talk. Are you OK with that? Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Daniel Case: That would be fine with me. Although note they have just made an edit removing 1228 bytes, some of it sourced content. They did write on the talk page but went ahead with the change before getting agreement which is challenging for me because I am likely to need to restore some of the content they have just deleted. There is also the fact that it's not just this article. Polyamorph (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Daniel Case: I've restored the most recently deleted content. [8] This was removed without agreement. It also removed content which I'd added which built on their own contributions, showing indifference to my good faith attempt at constructive mainspace collaboration. Saying what you're going to do on the talk page and then doing it before anyone has a chance to comment or object is not waiting for consensus. It is continuing the same pattern of piece wise removal of content.Polyamorph (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be perfectly fine with full protect, if it can help with the issue at hand. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      *Comment: To quote their statement, which is relevant given the apparent good-faith in stopping to edit further: I am currently holding off editing any number articles until a consensus is established, the last edit I made at 1 should be the last until we get a good consensus. I hope you can take this as a good faith effort to resolve the issue at hand here 17:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC).
      Their edits earlier today at 1 (a, b, c, d, e) and at 744 (number) (1, 2, 3), where they took out more than 1,200 bytes altogether at 1. Radlrb (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At 744, he made reversals with slight sarcastic tone, seen in their summary edit, NOEIS, NNOPAGE guidelines. A twofer! 1, which are not even guidelines agreed upon yet, meaning they should not be used strictly; not to mention, it is dismissive and disrespectful. While I agree somewhat with the removal of some of the material from the first edit, what was removed was still done without consensus. Radlrb (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case I do not think a "full protection" is merited, since there can be made good additions, rather than deletions of the material at hand. A full protection prevents other editors from adding good material, too. I see why Allan Nonymous might want that, because he is throwing other editors that want to make constructive additions, under the bus. The edits he is referencing at hand, are in fact of their own doing. What do you think of this, @Polyamorph? Radlrb (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, I think, is an ultimatum to stop removing information for the time being, and to commit to first seek consensus if they so wish to, as they promised prior. Things that can be added include notable topics regarding the integer 1 that could still be missing, as well as references that some points still need. Rewordings that are harmless can also be acceptable, as long as core information is not lost, but improved in understanding. So far, the few rewordings done at both 1 and 744 have been, for the most part, deletionist without consensus. Radlrb (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are describing sounds like 0RR, which I don’t think I have the authority to impose on this article unilaterally as it is not within a contentious topic.
    I suggested a full protection because it seems like it’s just one section of the article that’s currently under discussion, and that would give you guys time to work something out. Edits to other parts of the article, if editors feel they can’t wait, can be handled by admins through the usual medium of requests on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Full protection would be good because it would give the time needed to actually come to an agreement. Polyamorph (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds appropriate, then. Thank you, it is at the very least a solution. Radlrb (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected in full for theee days, per consensus above. Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chaselien reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result:User indeffed as NOTHERE)

    [edit]

    Page: The Exodus Decoded (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Verification"
    2. 03:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Verification"
    3. 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Verification"
    4. 03:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 03:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
    6. 03:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Telling the fact, and stand by righteousness against information arbitrary sharing, and the attacks."
    7. 03:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
    8. 13:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
    9. 05:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
    10. [9]
    11. [10], [11], [12], [13]
    12. [14]
    13. [15], [16], [17], [18]
    14. [19]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [20]
    2. 11:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ WP:THETRUTH, WP:VNT"
    3. 03:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [21]

    Comments:

    Hell-bent to insert un-WP:V information inside the article. Their motivation is religious, as shown at [22]. They are a fundamentalist POV-pusher. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia has been massively attacked by business backed organisations.
    I am seeking justice on constantly deleted neutral comments I have made. Chaselien (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conspiracy theory. Besides, if I were the only editor to revert you, admins should give you the benefit of the doubt. But you are largely in WP:1AM territory. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seek to put the axe at the root of WP:RS and WP:V. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed, end of the story. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already blocked indefinitely by Doug Weller Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Baratiiman reported by User:Borgenland (Result: Blocked 3 months)

    [edit]

    Page: Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Baratiiman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [23]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [24] Reverted the removal by AlexBobCharles (talk · contribs) of an questionable image
    2. [25] Reverted the removal by me of a questionable image
    3. [26] Reverted the removal by me of a questionable statement
    4. [27] Reverted the removal by Kashmiri (talk · contribs) of a questionable statement
    5. [28] Flagged by Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs). See 3RR warning below
    6. [29] Flagged by Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs). See 3RR warning below



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

    Comments:
    User has continued to deny violating 1RR in restoring a reverted image twice within the past 24 hours when warned on their talk page and has resorted to false accusations of WP:OWN. They have also had a history of poorly-worded and translated edits and a WP:IDNHT response to similar warnings. Borgenland (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Having stumbled across this report, I'd like to add some insights:
    • The user in question has previously been blocked for edit-warring three times, with the two most recent coming within the last year - the most recent block, in April, was explicitly for another ARBPIA 1RR violation.
    • I've interacted with the user's edits more than a few times at the Current Events portal - not to pile on/go off-topic, but their rather inconsistent, sometimes incoherent control of English, combined with the multiple blocks and ongoing denial of violations, has led me to wonder whether WP:CIR takes effect here. A mess created in good faith is still a mess, and in this case it hasn't always been in good faith.
    The Kip (contribs) 06:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2024_April_11&diff=next&oldid=1218364018&diffonly=1 Baratiiman (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't even noticed the spelling error before - the problem is that the entire sentence structure is erroneous, and that's been a recurring issue. The Kip (contribs) 06:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having dealt with the editor in Iran politics related pages (mostly 2024 Iranian presidential election ), I agree with all the accusations said here by User:Borgenland. Issue seems wider than just edit warring AlexBobCharles (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See this recent response as a demonstration. AlexBobCharles (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this user is indeff blocked for disruptive editing on Persian wikipedia ‍‍‍‍AlexBobCharles (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow this user is also imagining that i have the time to do sock puppet ip edits just to mess with him/wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&oldid=1239335977 Baratiiman (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Confused as to what you are trying to prove in presenting this latest version of my talk page featuring this reversion of a vandal which I did not attribute to you as seen in the automated summary. But then again it just further proves WP:CIR on your part and a failure to adequately address the issue to which you have been raised here. Borgenland (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Search the word sock "When I first saw the IP's edits I suspected it was a sock of Baratiiman " Baratiiman (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pity. You could have searched for that revision rather than falsely label the last one I made. It just shows. Borgenland (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Quepor reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet)

    [edit]

    Page: 1999 East Timorese crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Quepor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 10:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Sky meme reverted Pineapplethen

    This edit war is a continuation of an edit war started by Sky meme, but he/she got blocked for edit warring on another page, so new account Quepor continued the edit war.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Pahamas
    2. 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Ckfasdf
    3. 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Ckfasdf
    4. 06:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Pineapplethen
    5. 08:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Toddy1


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. A look at User talk:Sky meme shows a series of edit warring notices and two blocks.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 09:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:T931201 reported by User:Ser! (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: T931201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2025&oldid=1239461233

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 9 Aug, 13:24
    2. 9 Aug, 14:29
    3. 9 Aug, 15:24
    4. 9 Aug, 16:43
    5. 9 Aug, 17:18
    6. 9 Aug, 22:19
    7. 9 Aug, 22:33
    8. 9 Aug, 22:35
    9. 9 Aug, 23:33
    10. 10 Aug, 9:08
    11. 10 Aug, 11:17


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by another user and by me

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Repeated attempts here, user reverted through this

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

    Comments:
    Pretty clearcut 3RR violation, user continued to revert even after being informed of 3RR. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am assuming that only a short block is needed. I may be wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) And to compound this, they've now breached 3RR on this very page, by removing the edit-warring report four times. That's a new one! They've been blocked by an admin for 24 hours, but I do wonder if the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour we've seen really makes them a good fit for the project. @T931201: when your block expires you need to do much better than this, collaborate with your fellow editors and stop edit warring.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:178.51.222.215 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Leaky gut syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 178.51.222.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Re-added state-of-the-art scientific literature about the leaky gut syndrome"
    2. 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "These PubMed-indexed articles are relevant and were not cherry-picked. The fact that the hypothesis is debated is acknowledged in the sentence. If relevant, please add state-of-the-art articles that contradict the hypothesis."
    3. 08:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "These PubMed-indexed articles are relevant to the "Leaky Gut Syndrome" page, as they describe the potential link between leaky gut (excessive intestinal permeability), the leaky gut syndrome, and autoimmune diseases."
    4. 08:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "These PubMed-indexed articles are relevant, as they describe the potential link between leaky gut, syndromes and autoimmune diseases. Fixed broken DOIs and PubmedIDs."
    5. 08:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Backed by 3 relevant PubMed-indexed articles"
    6. 07:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Added PubMed-indexed references regarding the potential role of the leaky gut in the pathogenesis of syndromes and inflammatory diseases"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 09:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Leaky gut syndrome."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 08:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Leaky gut syndrome ≠ Leaky gut */ new section"

    Comments:

    User:T931201 reported by User:Ser! (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: T931201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2025&oldid=1239461233

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 9 Aug, 13:24
    2. 9 Aug, 14:29
    3. 9 Aug, 15:24
    4. 9 Aug, 16:43
    5. 9 Aug, 17:18
    6. 9 Aug, 22:19
    7. 9 Aug, 22:33
    8. 9 Aug, 22:35
    9. 9 Aug, 23:33
    10. 10 Aug, 9:08
    11. 10 Aug, 11:17


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by another user and by me

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Repeated attempts here, user reverted through this

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]

    Comments:
    Pretty clearcut 3RR violation, user continued to revert even after being informed of 3RR. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am assuming that only a short block is needed. I may be wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) And to compound this, they've now breached 3RR on this very page, by removing the edit-warring report four times. That's a new one! They've been blocked by an admin for 24 hours, but I do wonder if the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour we've seen really makes them a good fit for the project. @T931201: when your block expires you need to do much better than this, collaborate with your fellow editors and stop edit warring.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pizzigs reported by User:LilAhok (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Doping in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pizzigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:[35]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 9 Aug, 20:48
    2. 9 Aug, 20:50
    3. 10 Aug, 06:41
    4. 10 Aug, 09:31
    5. 10 Aug, 11:48
    6. 10 Aug, 20:45

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by 10 Aug 07:38

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]

    Comments:
    The user resorts to personal attacks WP:NOPA and labeling to justify their edit warring and neglect of the talk page. Also, uses personal labels to dismiss opposing views. WP:BATTLEGROUND - Engages in battlegound behavior. Comments for edits are very aggressive and combative.

    User has demonstrated edit warring behavior on a different article:World Anti-Doping Agency 4 edits in less than 24 hours.

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Doping in China, WADA, USADA, Doping in the United States for more context on the issues in question and the group of editors seeking to undermine the veracity and neutrality of these articles by pushing a one-sided version of the ongoing WADA vs USADA conflict. Pizzigs (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [38] talk page that addresses users concerns, but refuses to engage in consensus building. Uses labels to dismiss talk page. Users edits are not neutral. User is copying and pasting same info across several articles. Nevertheless, 3 revert rule was violated. LilAhok (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1239697647"