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:HouseplantHobbyist reported by User:NebY (Result: page semi-protected, put on 1RR under CTOPS)

    [edit]

    Page: Lucy Letby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Staff and infrastructure issues */ This was before the police investigation and even the first arrest of Letby, it's not a recent doubt expressed."
    2. 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Are you accusing me of creating that section? Because, if you look, I didn't"
    3. 15:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Removed per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper"
    4. 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Statistical errors */ remove totally unreferenced section"
    5. 15:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Statistical errors */ remove sentence referenced to a forum"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    On 29 July 2024, HouseplantHobbyist was blocked for one week block for edit-warring[1], following warnings on on 27 May 2024[2] and 19 July 2024[3], all for this same article, the only one they edit. They've returned today 6 August 2024, and in less than an hour undone editors' work by deleting existing content four times and also edit-warred to reinsert their own material[4]. NebY (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NebY, those aren't reverts, with the exception of this edit: [5]. So, I've done one revert. Those other edits are edits of existing long-term content, some of which has been there for weeks, they're not reversions of recent edits. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the warning you issued[6] says and per WP:3RR: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. On your return today from being blocked, with the edits listed above you deleted content that had been added, restored or substantially edited since you were blocked. NebY (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not true, NebY:

    • This removal I made today: [7], was of content you first added on 28 July, nearly two days before I was blocked, and over a week ago: [[8].
    • Secondly, the content that I removed here: [9] was essentially the same contentiously sourced material that had first been added back on 24 July, two weeks ago: [10], which remains a point of contention on a live and current talk page discussion: Talk:Lucy Letby#Regarding the Private Eye article. Not only was it necessary to remove while it was still being discussed on talk, but it was now not even referenced at all, a serious problem for a BLP. WP:3RRNO outlines that an exemptions to 3RR includes "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". The removal was also in compliance with WP:BLPRESTORE. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirdly, this removal of content [11] sourced to a manifestly unacceptable source on a BLP - a random forum/blog - again comes under the exemption ""Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy".
    • Most importantly of all, WP:3RR clearly states: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". The edits you've listed above are a mostly series of consecutively saved reverting edits with no intervening edits by another user: [12]. So, one revert. Then, I reverted Sirfurboy as he was mistaken in thinking I'd added that entire section in the first place: [13]. Two reverts. The one left over edit from your list [14] was also then part of that block of consecutively saved reverting edits: [15]. So at most it's two-and-a-half reverts, but in any case all the edits I've made today other than the reversion of Sirfurboy were in one block of attempts to improve and reorganise the article, they weren't clear reversions: [16]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those removals of content were also manifestly needed on a BLP, such as this edit which removed content referenced only to a random forum/blog!: [17]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You deleted content that had been added, restored or substantially edited since you were blocked. NebY (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read what I said above, or even Sirfurboy's own acknowledgement below that my edits did not breach 3RR? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So if you're defining reversions as just removal of any existing content, you are also edit warring, as on 4 August you did these three reversions within only 20 minutes, then just after the 24 hour limit was up you did a fourth the next day:

    1. [18]
    2. [19]
    3. [20]
    4. [21]

    HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Although there is not a technical 3RR breach yet today (because your edits were done in two uninterrupted sequences) they are reverts. This [22] reverts content another editor added today. As is this [23]. This [24] reverts to your text from before you were blocked that you added here [25] and when I took it out just now, you immediately reverted it back in. [26] You are aware of WP:ONUS but I reminded you of that on your talk page and asked you to self revert. You did not, but continued removing content (which are all reverts) e.g. [27]. There are others in there. You made a revert to the lead sentence that is good, but is still a revert.
    Now Neby's edits you dredge up also count as a single revert for purposes of the 3RR rule. It is not edit warring, it is a sequence of edits. And that would be true here too - there would be technically two edit-sequence reverts, but the reason Neby will have brought this here is because your very first action after a block for edit warring was to rush through the article - the only article you edit - reverting all the material back to the way you had it before your block, without using the talk page - and immediately reverting your material back in again after it was challenged, without any thought of talk discussion. I think there is a prima-facie NOTHERE case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This removal I made yesterday: [28], was of content first added on 28 July, nearly two days before I was blocked, and over a week ago: [[29].
    • Secondly, the content that I removed here: [30] was essentially the same contentiously sourced material that had first been added back on 24 July, two weeks ago: [31], which remains a point of contention on a live and current talk page discussion: Talk:Lucy Letby#Regarding the Private Eye article. Not only was it necessary to remove while it was still being discussed on talk, but it was now not even referenced at all, a serious problem for a BLP. WP:3RRNO outlines that an exemptions to 3RR includes "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". The removal was also in compliance with WP:BLPRESTORE. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirdly, this removal of content [32] sourced to a manifestly unacceptable source on a BLP - a random forum/blog - again comes under the exemption ""Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy".
    • Most importantly of all, WP:3RR clearly states: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". The edits listed above are a mostly series of consecutively saved reverting edits with no intervening edits by another user: [33]. So, one revert. Then, I reverted Sirfurboy as he was mistaken in thinking I'd added that entire section in the first place: [34]. Two reverts. The one left over edit from the list [35] was also then part of that block of consecutively saved reverting edits: [36]. So at most it's two-and-a-half reverts, but in any case all the edits I've made today other than the reversion of Sirfurboy were in one block of attempts to improve and reorganise the article, they weren't clear reversions: [37]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you accept that my edits today do not breach 3RR. In which case, a complaint alleging NOTHERE should be made through the appropriate channels, not on the 3RR noticeboard. You can’t just come on here and acknowledge that the editor is not in breach of the issue the noticeboard exists for, but while you’re here state your hopes that they get blocked for something completely different. And may I remind you Sirfurboy that you previously unsuccessfully reported me here for edit warring and were instead rightly told that you yourself were edit warring and need to stop: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive484#User:HouseplantHobbyist reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Page protected) HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't comment on that previous case because I was busy. But you will notice that what you called my reverts 3,4 and 5 were, in fact, a single run of 3 edits. They had the effect of changing material, some of which you had put in there, so technically a revert, yes. 6 was not even a revert. So you see that an admin can still determine there is edit warring even when there is no 3RR breach? You were over 3RR there. Maybe not the wisest thing to draw attention to it. And a reminder: I did not report you here in this report. I asked you to self revert in the hope you would avoid a referral here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined After reviewing the above discussion and the most recent back-and-forth on the talk page (and we do mean back … and … forth), I have decided that the article and its editors would be best served not so much by another full protection but by 1RR and the indefinite semi-protection the talk page already indicated it was under. I will be logging this at CTOPS as well. Daniel Case (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarksmanRifle reported by User:Wburrow (Result: Blocked 2 weeks; subsequently indefinitely blocked as a sock)

    [edit]

    Page: 2026 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1995hoo (talk): Pot kettle black"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 18:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) to 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
      1. 18:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1995hoo (talk)"
      2. 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 18:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 18:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Unnecessarily changing between British and American English on 2026 FIFA World Cup."
    2. 18:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.5)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Also specifically warned about violating 3RR on 3 Aug Wburrow (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Celjski Grad reported by User:അദ്വൈതൻ (Result: Reporter blocked 72h)

    [edit]

    Page:2018 Kerala floods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

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

    Diffs of the User's reverts

    1. Revision as of 15:34, 6 August 2024 [43],
    2. Revision as of 17:00, 6 August 2024[44],
    3. Revision as of 20:46, 6 August 2024 [45]
    4. Latest revision as of 22:27, 6 August 2024[46]

    These reverts are edit warring over style before the user's third reverting(as listed above) I have notified the user for disruptive editing at user's talk page here Revision as of 20:01, 6 August 2024 [47] Also at the article's talk page under the section which the user started, I have explained the valid cause as the following before the user's third revert WP:MOS specifically states

    Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. … Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.[c] Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted

    see the MOS for the respective footnotes. The entire article uses million in parenthesis. Considering that fact and the WP:MOS guidelines I am again reverting to match the consistency of this article. as seen here Revision as of 19:57, 6 August 2024[48]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:(after user's third revert) [49]


    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

    അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff one is not a revert, it is my initial change. The remaining three are in response to your reverts while the issue is undergoing discussion on the talk page and pending WP:3O. Celjski Grad (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celjski Grad: Arguably in this instance your first edit was a revert from the state of the article in June when അദ്വൈതൻ changed it to lakh. Putting that aside for the moment, a third opinion has since been provided by IOHANNVSVERVS. In addition all other editors who've commented have supported the "million" position. അദ്വൈതൻ, it seems to me that you are refusing to abide by consensus. I am unwilling to block Celjski Grad in this scenario. I am more inclined to block you for edit-warring against consensus. Please respond here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23 user named Celjski Grad
    sought third opinion at its platform on Revision as of 22:25, 6 August 2024 [51] and the opinion came at Revision as of 22:26, 6 August 2024[52] at the article's talk page all after Celjski Grad made celjski's third revert(as I listed above). അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @അദ്വൈതൻ: I'm aware of that. I'm asking you if you're willing to abide by the consensus of using million?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23 this[53] is the version of the article before the user Celjski Grad made changes. There it is provided as About ten lakh (a million) million within parenthesis concurring with MOS:INDIA. MOS:RETAIN says When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.
    What exception do exist to change ten lakh (a million) to a million when this article has strong national ties to Kerala a state within India that uses Indian Numbering System? What ambiguity exists when the Western numbering system is provided in parenthesis? So consensus should have been obtained prior to changes by user Celjski Grad, how does the onus of obtaining consensus fall on me?
    As Wikipedia editor, I am supposed to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
    അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Holydiver82 reported by User:Nemov (Result: Declined; better handled at AN/I)

    [edit]

    Page: The Acolyte (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Holydiver82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [54]
    2. [55]
    3. [56]
    4. [57]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [60]

    Comments:

    Editor has been warned to stop edit warring and find consensus but continues to make contentious edits. Nemov (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    trying to figure out how adamstom97 can make multiple reverts of edits based on no consensus but he is not the one edit warring. apparently he did not like his WP:OR being removed
    n Holydiver82 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemov: Holydiver has reverted only 3x in the last 24 hours; the other revert you listed was on August 5. And I think Holydiver has a point about Adamstom.97. Although they too have not violated 3RR, they have been edit-warring with multiple users over the last several days and rather combative on the Talk page in a discussion with you and another editor who bowed out because they didn't like Adamstom's insistence on being correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you, I even went out of my way to simply change the wording based on the sourced article rather then just revert back to nothing. but Adamstom.97 has basically claimed ownership of the article and if you look at the recent edits pretty much reverts any edit he does not do. also the Nemov even posted in the talk page about the problem with Adamstom.97 taking ownership of the article and not looking for any consensus. the page in question has most often been reverted by Adamstom.97 who refuses to allow any other editors to contribute to the page, as you said some editors just announcing they are leaving rather then fight with him Holydiver82 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23I warned the user over a month ago and the reverted edits go beyond 48 hours on a issue that's currently under discussion. They keep adding back anyway. Nemov (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the section in question was only added on 8/5. how could you have warned me a month ago about edits the have been made within the last 2 days. again trying to figure out why you have no problem with Adamstom.97 constant reverts, edit warring, and ownership of the article Holydiver82 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been warned against edit warring. Something you continue to do while there are discussions going on and you're changing the article without finding consensus. Nemov (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a note to other admins in case someone thinks I'm going to act here: I'm not. I'm not particularly satisfied with Nemov's response or Adamstom.97's lack of one, but I'll let another admin decide what sanctions to impose, if any.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure how you can look at the edit history on that article and this discussion and think that the editor's actions aren't disruptive. Two experienced editor have warned, reached out to the editor's talk, and engaged the article's talk. They're still ignoring the discussion. As you mentioned, I haven't agreed with Adamstom.97 on some things at that article but at least they're working in good faith. Nemov (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As was pointed out before. Adam was edit warring not only with me with constant reverts but with multiple other editors. The fact that no one bothered to report him or call him out on it does not make him editing in good faith. Getting other editors to give up and leave an article because of constant reverts is not a good faith edit. Holydiver82 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      it's rather odd how he Adam doesn't bother to say a word yet nemov has taken such an interest in his behalf. Especially after nemov said in the talk page of the article that he agreed that Adam was not acting in good faith and was attempting to take ownership and not find concensus. And now making reverts on behalf of Adam since Adam could not without hitting 3 reverts. Odd Holydiver82 (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Awesome, more accusations. Thanks for helping make my point. Nemov (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      it was not subtle Holydiver82 (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologise for my latest few reverts, it was late and I was growing frustrated. I'm not sure why there are comments here questioning my reasoning for not responding as this thread has not been open for that long. I have been asleep, if you must know.

    Holydiver82 has made it clear at the talk page that they are not editing in good faith, insisting on making edits based on their personal bias against the show rather than following Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. They started a discussion to complain about some sources I added to the viewership section, sources that are reliable and have long been accepted across WP:TV articles. When multiple editors explained why these sources should not be removed, Holydiver82 decided to just remove them anyway and I reverted those changes as going against the established Wiki consensus and having no support at the talk page discussion. Again, sorry for my part in the edit warring, I should have taken other steps rather than jumping to reverting so many times. Still, I reject any claims that I feel WP:OWNERSHIP over the article and am happy to justify my edits with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and links to talk page discussions. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope I am not intruding in this conversation. Regarding the claim that Adamstom97 behaved as the owner of the "The Acolyte" article, I vehemently disagree. I have been keeping up with the events for a while now. Adamstom97, it seems to me, made the page better. Whenever someone on the article disagreed with their edits, they seemed to always seek consensus. Considering that they never shied away from talking with other editors, I would not classify that as acting like the owner of The Acolyte article. When there is disagreement, it is also the duty of other editors to debate this. And in a calm manner, which, in my opinion, is not what occurred with Holydivers82. Several editors have called out Holydivers82 on several occasions through time. They do not seem to be able to come to an agreement, they disregard the opinions of other editors if they disagree with their own, and it seems they made some personal attacks. Their edit history reveals that they frequently concentrate on "The Acolyte" article. However, they never add anything useful from what I can see; in my opinion, their only goal is to make the article look bad because they hold a grudge against the television series. I doubt they are here to improve Wikipedia, unlike the two other editors they have called out. Good day. Higher Further Faster (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I concur with Bbb23 that while there’s really nothing here for this board, there is still something. Holydiver is showing all the signs of tendentious editing, and really AN/I might be a better place to hash this out. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.161.49.73 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Range blocked 2 months; article semi-protected 3 months)

    [edit]

    Page: Koenigsegg Jesko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 75.161.49.73 (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 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC) to 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
      1. 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Jesko Absolut */"
      2. 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Performance */"
    2. 19:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 18:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 15:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Koenigsegg Jesko."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Ongoing vandalism to this article by a user under various IP addresses. Has been reverted and warned by multiple editors, but continues the disruptive behavior. Bahooka (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues to edit war as shown here. Bahooka (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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. [61]
    2. [62]
    3. [63]
    4. [64]

    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: )

    [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. [[65]] 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 [66] 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 [67]. 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]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1239364512"