< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
(Redirected from Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring)


    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:Barry Wom and anonymous offender reported by User:2800:E2:B880:799:D89:7175:9869:4321 (Result: IP user's range blocked six months along with reporter as block evader)

    [edit]

    Page: 20 July plot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Barry Wom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and anonymous using different IPs

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Comments:
    I want to report these users who are engaged in this absurd edit war. One can evade blocks as often as they want, and Barry Wom, a longtime user, isn't setting an example by reporting this war and stoops to the level of the offender. It can't be denied that the offender writes well and provides the correct sources, but this war must still stop. There was no attempt at conciliation, nor was there a warning of three edits, not even on the users' pages. Both deserve to be blocked indefinitely. 2800:E2:B880:799:D89:7175:9869:4321 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 6 months. The 179.1.219.192/30 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Otherwise, I consider this report malicious as, since the reporting IP has only made these two edits and resolves to central Colombia as well, I suspect strongly that it is the same block evader (notice the utterly unnececssary praise for the IP who "writes well"—yeah, even without looking at the RevDel'ed edits you can see this is someone who really rises to the occasion) so I will be blocking that /64 as well. (And, yes, reverting a sock of a banned or blocked user is sort of another time it's OK to go beyond 3RR). Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, according to you, it's about ignoring Wikipedia's rules to spoil the party for an offender. That's what administrators are like; they annoy someone else while the other offender goes unpunished, doing whatever they want, and pretending to set a good example, but ultimately causing more problems than they claim to solve. 2800:484:738C:FAF0:9D72:6451:F5A2:7B0 (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BANREVERT. It actually says that in black and white, that anyone may revert edits by a blocked or banned user "without regard to the three-revert rule". And if you're an offender, just what party are you supposed to be having? (Not that it's really going to matter what you have to say as I have blocked your /64 for two weeks for obvious block evasion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 reported by User:Gommeh (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    [edit]
    Enough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Page: Kaos (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [[6]]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [[7]]
    2. [[8]]
    3. [[9]]
    4. [[10]]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] Discussed on the person's talk page, it's up to them to justify their edits since they were the one who started it. Edits made no sense to me and the person refused to even attempt to justify them until after they had already received several warnings.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [[13]]

    Comments:

      • This is an inappropriate report. User Gommeh has repeatedly been making unhelpful edits, all without edit summaries. They are trying to impose US terms onto a UK article.
      • User Gommeh has been advised of the valid reasons for the edits yet ignores these and continues with their unconstructive & unexplained edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 (talk)
    • I explained to you why the edits you made were unhelpful on your talk page several times. Additionally you did not bother telling me about the difference in wording until after you had already received several warnings. What you should have done is discussed it on the article's talk page, added it in the edit summary of another edit (which granted you did eventually do but should have done in your first edit) or sent me a message on my talk page. It's up to you (the editor who makes the first change) to justify it in the edit summary, otherwise it is liable to be reverted. The edit warring notice specifically states to not edit war even if you think you're right. In other words, you need to take the initiative to discuss it on the talk page to reach a consensus with other editors, not simply revert back to your preferred version. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You did not make explanations. You made multiple reverts with no edit :*My edits were appropriately explained. You ignored comments on a talk page. You are trying to force a US term onto a UK article. You have made false claims of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 (talk)

    • Your user talk page specifically says the reverts were made because they were perceived to be vandalism. After you received your first one, if you believed your edits were correct then you should have calmly explained "we use a different word in the UK" in your reply or in your subsequent edit summary instead of simply calling my reverts unhelpful and careless, as you did at [14] and [15]. See our policy on assuming good faith. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did not make explanations. You made multiple reverts with no edit. My edits were appropriately explained. You ignored comments on a talk page. You are trying to force a US term onto a UK article. You have made false claims of vandalism. You are edit waring. You have exceeded 3RR. You are trying to Gaslight me: the errors rest with you, not me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:d3:ff31:2cdd:8bc1:5095:92a0:8828 (talk)
    • 3RR does not apply to perceived vandalism. The multiple warnings I added to your user talk page should have been more than sufficient for you to know what was going on and why your edits were reverted -- they seemed disruptive. Which you responded to by trying to accuse me, who has spent a significant amount of my time on Wikipedia combating vandalism, of vandalism. Instead of calling my edits unhelpful, an acceptable response to them could have been something like "hey, just wanted to let you know that the UK uses a different word, sorry if you didn't know the difference, have a nice day." "Reverting an unhelpful edit" is in itself not helpful without context or an explanation - while your edits (after I did some research) seemed correct with regards to the wording used to describe what we in the US would call a season of a TV show, you needed to have said so in your edit summary; something like this would have been perfectly OK: "reverting - we use a different word for that here". Your comments were mean. Once again, I'll mention WP:AGF. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pleaee stop trying to gaslight me. My edits were valid and supported by edit summaries. Your edits were unsupported by edit summaries, and you made false claims of vandalism. And giveh my edits were not vandalism 3RR does apply. Mean comments??? Such as false accusations of vandalism made by YOU.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:d3:ff31:2cdd:8bc1:5095:92a0:8828 (talk)
    Please start signing your posts with ~~~~ Taffer😊💬(she/they) 19:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @user:2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 please use the four ~ characters to sign your edits, or use the reply link. WP:sighow MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SIGHOW, weird that wp links don't like lowercase Taffer😊💬(she/they) 19:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I am not edit waring with 'someone else'. Note, my edits were supported with edit summaries. Note user Gommeh made multiple edits without supporting edit summaries. Note user Gommeh made false accusations of vandalism. Note I have made appropriate comments about edits on my talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 (talk)
    • The IP shows no sign of slowing down and attempting to be WP:CIVIL even after I set up a talk page section for them to explain the change, and after the reporting editor said that they no longer object to the change IP is warring over. The insistence on not using Reply or inserting a signature here suggests WP:CIR. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For convenience:
      Diff of reverting edits before realizing the editor agreed with them [16][17], they have since apologized to Ivebeenhacked for what it's worth, but not to Gommeh.
      Article talk page section containing more IP incivility and apparent inability to sign their posts after repeated instructions on how to do so. Talk:Kaos (TV series)#Whether to use 'series' or 'season'. If I'm to take them at their word that their disruptive behavior is unintentional, I have to agree with CIR. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 21:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. While their edits were in good faith, and even turned out to be correct, their incivility towards me and inability to abide by basic Wikipedia guidelines can't be overlooked. At best, WP:CIR applies here; at worst WP:VANDAL. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 22:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Kellycrak88 reported by User:Tieonetwo (Result: Declined OP blocked for socking)

    [edit]

    Page: Baronage of Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kellycrak88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff 1290701421 → 1290699314

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff – 16 May 2025 13:49


    2. diff – 16 May 2025 02:05


    3. diff – 16 May 2025 02:05


    4. diff – 16 May 2025 02:04


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kellycrak88&oldid=1290713028

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tieonetwo

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kellycrak88&oldid=1290760727


    ---

    Comments: User has made four reverts in 24 hours, reverting good-faith improvements without discussion. These edits are not based on policy or consensus and appear aimed at enforcing a personal version of the article.

    This is not an isolated case — the user has engaged in similar disruptive reverting behavior on multiple occasions, often weekly, targeting the same article and other users' contributions without constructive dialogue. A pattern is forming that violates not only WP:3RR but also the broader spirit of WP:EDITWAR and WP:CIVIL.

    User:72.86.246.107 reported by User:NacreousPuma855 (Result: Blocked 1 year)

    [edit]

    Page: List of programs broadcast by ABC (American TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 72.82.246.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [18]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [19]
    2. [20]
    3. [21]
    4. [22]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [N/A]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

    Comments:
    Constantly adding unsourced material. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.20.112.81 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Stale)

    [edit]

    Page: Creature Commandos (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 92.20.112.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290788914 by Alex 21 (talk)"
    2. 02:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "TV articles do not typically include genres in the lead, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:TVGENRE"
    3. 02:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290787367 by Alex 21 (talk) sorry has to be undone"
    4. 01:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "it's a rule that you cannot add the word superhero to the televison shows which is stupid but that's just what i've been informed of."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Creature Commandos (TV series)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    IP has been warned plenty of times and has edit warred at various superhero television articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined as stale. While 3RR was violated on Creature Commandos (TV series), the IP has not made any edits since being warned about edit warring by both you and me. If either editor resumes edit warring, I think blocks are more than justified. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want him to be bitten as a newcomer, so I didnt want him to be on ANI. I do think I might be a good idea to check if its sockpuppetry just incase as he is locked deep in one subject and with certain behavior (of course not evidence but just precaution).
    I misread the talk page, I thought you were another victim but you were just doing the same as me. I wouldn't have sent as stern warning as a message but it is still justified. JamesEMonroe (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. This is why vandalism runs rampant. Two accusations of potential sockpuppetry, but it's "stale" after only six hours. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only other IP address I've seen mentioned in today's discussions as being potentially the same editor hasn't made an edit for almost two months. That's not exactly evidence of sockpuppetry. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry, someone can make a report at WP:SPI. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update about the IP: they stated in their talk page that they will stop editing (diff: [25]). To be honest I don't quite understand this person's ideas and intentions, or why they were so defensive regarding their edits. Anyhow we will see how that goes. The Sophocrat (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Sophocrat: Thanks for the update. I don't really know either, and I am not sure whether this was their first time editing, but if they were new, they were not exactly welcomed by the community (see WP:BITE on explaining reverts, assuming good faith, etc.). The determination that a user is a sockpuppet or vandal should depend on evidence rather than it being the default assumption for new users. Also, plenty of helpful contributors started off with some pretty rough edits. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that definitely didn't happen; proceeds to edit less than four hours later. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Alex 21, the page is currently protected until 20 May 2025; the most recent edits have not been reverted. Does a need for administrative action remain? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A page protection should certainly help. Many thanks. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:77.161.162.69 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 77.161.162.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Stop spreading non sense and fake news just because it's "sourced". Make your due diligence or don't touch on subject you don't understand."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 09:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) to 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 09:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "See previous explanation"
      2. 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Mix of game engine not technically exist, stop spreading false information"
      3. 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. Consecutive edits made from 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC) to 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Like it or not, there is no such thing as using two engine, it wouldn't compile. You don't have the knowledge to argue obviously so why modifying without substantiated data?"
      2. 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Development */"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC) to 16:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 16:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "It's retarded to think/claim that a game is made with two different game engines."
      2. 16:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered."
    2. 04:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    IP user that doesn't understand that a video game uses two different video games engines. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring continues. The bit that the game uses two engines is sourced, one for gameplay and for graphics. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously have zero knowledge on the subject and I already told you that "sourced" doesn't mean truth. You are knowingly spreading fake news at this point. I already explained to you that a game cannot run on two engine. You don't know the difference between a framework and an engine, that is your problem. Ignorance isn't an excuse. 77.161.162.69 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    77.161.162.69, fortunately, we don't need to discuss individual users' knowledge when discussing Wikipedia content, as Wikipedia is built on secondary sources and doesn't publish personal knowledge. If secondary sources known for their editorial oversight report something, we can add it to Wikipedia articles relying on their interpretation. If something factually wrong seems to have been added to an article but is properly sourced, you'll need to contact the source and get it changed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bon courage reported by User:P. M., Cat Appreciator (Result: OP page blocked two weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bon courage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=prev&oldid=1287284055 ] Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [26]
    2. [27]
    3. [28]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29] he warned ME actually on my talk page, but i warned him that i would "take this to some authority" here: [30]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: reference to earlier discussions and requests for justification in earlier diffs on main page, and he replies with 'yup', 'as before'

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

    Comments:
    On 24 April the user User:Bon courage removed paragraphs of material referenced and attributed to studies by federal agencies, references to these studies in newspapers of record, systematic reviews in very reputable journals, etc., with such comments as "over-emphasis in lede" (without moving to lower section) and "nothing here is accepted knowledge" in the aftermath of a talk page discussion some months prior, in which no consensus to remove the material was reached, such that there was no discussion in the article of dose-dependent neurotoxicity of fluoride to young children. I restored the material, and the user User:Julius Senegal reverted me with "there is no consensus to keep it" (that is not how this works !!!) - the same user in December of 2024 removed entirely the reference to a recent National Toxicology Program with the comment "please abstain from your POV editing". Apparently by 1 February a "consensus lead edit" had been agreed to, and there was no edit warring until, as I mention, in April, User:Bon courage removed paragraphs of referenced material, which I restored three days ago with examination and discussion of previous events "removing paragraphs of referenced material due to 'over-emphasis' without moving/replacing and without consensus"; "did not achieve consensus, and made this edit hours BEFORE starting new discussion at WP:FTN", whereupon the same User:Julius Senegal also reverted me, so that it would remain out of the article. I engaged both users in discussion in revision comments (asking for justification etc) and received brusque replies and reference to earlier comments. The above mentioned users refuse to actually provide justification for exclusion of these studies from the article. P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Policy dictates and pertains, P. M., Cat Appreciator. FAOWN, ONUS, V, CON and EW all come to mind. The OP has failed to discuss major changes to a Featured Article (FAOWN); check. The OP has repeatedly inserted material they know to be controversial (ONUS); check. The OP has repeatedly inserted poorly sourced material (V); check. The OP has failed to seek consensus on the talk page, even though there s an open discussion (CON); check. They have edit warred over a period of days against multiple editors (EW); check. BonCourage, how much else will they be allowed to get away with, I wonder? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My hope is they will move to the article Talk page rather than attempt to proceed through a combo of reversion and dramah board. Bon courage (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to report this "new" user P. M., Cat Appreciator for edit warring myself. Now he is abusing the system in sense of WP:GAME. Efforts for talking to him failed as usual.
    Can we checkuser this "new" user for repeatably bad faith attempts?
    I see no intention for a collaborative work, instead he wants to push his POV and if he again is banned, a new user name will appear repeating this game. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have evidence of socking, including another user/account, take it to WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on the boomerang, in context Bon courage's conduct merits a trout at worst but P. M., Cat Appreciator's conduct looks much more like problematic edit warring... Especially as Bon courage appears entirely willing to have a talk page discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the reporter from editing the article for two weeks and am unwilling to block an experienced editor for dealing with a new account's violations of WP:ONUS in a featured article, so someone else can make a final decision and close the report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rosaelisil4 reported by User:Mikejuliao (Result: Wrong Wikipedia)

    [edit]

    Page: Campeonato Sudamericano de Fútbol Sub-17 de 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rosaelisil4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=166923896

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=166853094
    2. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=166923896
    3. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=167073950
    4. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=167349458

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=167269441

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025#c-Mikejuliao-20250517203200-Reversiones_injustificadas_y_posible_vandalismo_por_parte_del_usuario_Rosaelisil

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Rosaelisil4 == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == [[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.

    Comments:
    The user has carried out multiple reverts (undo) of my edits without providing valid justification, neither in the edit summaries nor on the article's talk page. Specifically, they are removing links to stadium pages that have been a standard practice in all editions of this tournament on Wikipedia, across all languages. Their argument of “saving code” has no editorial basis and is not supported by any style guideline. I believe this behavior disrupts collaboration and may constitute a violation of the edit warring policy. Mikejuliao (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    El usuario ha realizado múltiples reversiones (undo) de mis ediciones sin dar justificación válida, ni en los resúmenes de edición ni en la página de discusión. Particularmente, está eliminando enlaces a páginas de estadios que han sido práctica común en todas las ediciones del torneo en Wikipedia, en todos los idiomas. Su argumento de “ahorrar código” no tiene fundamento editorial ni está respaldado por políticas de estilo. Considero que esta actitud entorpece la colaboración y puede constituir una violación de la política de guerra de ediciones. Mikejuliao (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2600:387:F:6C31:0:0:0:4 reported by User:JavaHurricane (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Bounce (Aaron Carter song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2600:387:F:6C31:0:0:0:4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Aaron's Party (Come Get It)"
    2. 17:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Aaron's Party (Come Get It)"
    3. 20:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Aaron's Party (Come Get It)"
    4. 20:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Aaron's Party (Come Get It)"
    5. 20:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Aaron's Party (Come Get It)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bounce (Aaron Carter song)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Similar disruptive edit warring at Special:PageHistory/I'm All About You and Special:PageHistory/Oh Aaron (song). JavaHurricane 21:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1291019870"