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:SKINNYSODAQUEEN reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked one week)

    [edit]

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

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6][7]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

    Comments:

    But how do you need consent for FACTS?... If it's as minute as DrKay says it is, why is he so obsessed with it and me? SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like, he can admit that I actually know more about this than him. Pfft. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2003:D3:FF39:641A:5E11:86EB:A88A:8085 reported by User:StefenTower (Result:Fully protected for 3 daysUnprotected due to reporter deciding to retire from Wikipedia over this)

    [edit]

    Page: Louisville, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2003:D3:FF39:641A:5E11:86EB:A88A:8085 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Unreferenced and non-notable"
    2. 19:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Unreferenced and non-notable"
    3. 19:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Unreferenced and non-notable"
    4. Previous to the above, the IP user did a number of edits in a group that constituted a revert

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Louisville, Kentucky."
    2. 18:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ Reply"
    3. 19:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Louisville, Kentucky."
    4. 19:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Louisville, Kentucky."
    5. 19:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Louisville, Kentucky."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 10:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ new section"
    2. 10:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ revise"
    3. 19:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ minor update"
    4. 19:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ revise"

    Comments:

    User keeps removing longstanding content after my repeated requests to discuss on the article talk page. The user is ignoring my requests. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I have been amenable to a number of their changes but have requested that the remaining be discussed. Also, I have agreed to placement of cite needed and other tags. They refuse to discuss. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'm not sure if this is pertinent, but similar edits to the article have been coming from other IPs: 93.216.98.126 and 2003:D3:FF39:64EF:BA24:B799:9067:D53C. All three are coming from Germany. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 20:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the look of it, the IP is removing unsourced content, and StefenTower keeps restoring the unsourced content. Both are edit warring, but the IP seems to be doing needed cleanup. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"...no? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have agreed to useful tagging for longstanding content. The key things here are 1) the IP editor is removing a lot of content without seeing the need to discuss when asked by a fellow editor to discuss; and 2) their reasons for removal are unclear to some degree (e.g. "non-notable" doesn't apply and I can't make sense of "undated"), thus my request for discussion. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their refusal to discuss does not in any way entitle you to edit-war, not in a situation like this where 3RRNO does not apply. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected in full for three days. Per above, and only because I'm being nice. Magnolia is absolutely right. If I didn't look at the users I would think the IP that only started editing today was the user with 20 years tenure and Stefen was the IP just daring us to block them. Stefen, I am really disappointed to see that an editor with almost as much time, and a similar six-figure edit count, as me seems to be of the opinion that it is perfectly fine to repeatedly restore unsourced content. Not once in your edit summaries did you acknowledge this; you just ... kept ... putting ... it back.

    This is the kind of established-Wikipedian arrogance that gives the whole project a bad name on the sort of websites that otherwise shouldn't have the right to be right. Per ONUS as quoted by Magnolia above, per the "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed at any time" warning that used to be prominent in the edit window, it was your responsibility to at least add sources when you reverted. It can never, by itself, be disruptive editing to remove unsourced material, no matter how brusque the edit summary is (uncivil is different), regardless of whether discussion takes place. If you'd restored the material with sourcing and the IP kept reverting on grounds of notability, then this would be a simple report to respond to.

    I do not feel comfortable at this moment giving you your first block in nearly 20 years. But neither am I going to hand you victory in an edit war it is not in the best interests of Wikipedia for you to win for edits that so clearly flout policy.

    So, I have fully protected the page for three days. That's enough time for you to get proper sourcing together, stage it on the talk page and, if the IP has not responded to any attempts on your part to discuss, put those sources in the article. Good luck. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I very much hear you and I should have checked myself. I came to the conclusion that after so many edits, this IP user (really, I believe one person using 3 IP addresses) was acting in an odd manner, seeming to come out of nowhere to chop up this article, and giving nebulous reasons beyond "unreferenced". I honestly don't have the wherewithal to find cites for all this in three days, but I think at least one is easily cited, and I'll just leave the rest gone to the winds until I can find cites (finding sources for many things is very time-consuming). What further concerns me is this result may give the IP user a kind of license to continue chopping up the article and refusing to discuss their edits. I don't have the availability to chase all this chopping and find cites, and I don't like putting all my editing time into one article that was stable for such a long time. I believe I have done good stewardship on this article for two decades, but this kind of disruptive editing makes it into an untenable effort, and I may have no choice but to set this article aside until this other user moves on or decides to discuss changes as a responsible Wikipedia editor should. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 22:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After pondering this more, I've decided to retire. When admins don't see a game-playing IP user for what they are, and let them disrupt stable articles for kicks, it's time to throw in the towel. 20 1/2 years, and I is done. Have fun with the dwindling pool of editors who can still hack it. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that repeatedly removing unsourced material you yourself admit you don't have the inclination to look up sources for constitutes "disruption", even after I gave you three whole days to do it without the pressure of letting your emotions overcome you, then, yeah, you've long since passed the point where you need to call it quits. Wikipedia benefits far more from admins who will enforce policy evenly and fair-handedly no matter how long someone's been editing than it ever would from admins who would accept your view of this situation.
    Since you are, by doing this, basically admitting that the IP editor was right, I will be unprotecting the page since you won't be coming back. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deathying reported by User:PoliticalPoint (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Conservative Party of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Deathying (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

    Comments:

    @Deathying: is persistently edit-warring in an attempt to remove any mention of the various conspiracy theories espoused by candidates of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, including its leader, to remove any mention of the various controversies that candidates of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, including its leader, have been involved in, and to remove any mention of far-right politics of the Conservative Party of British Columbia. All of this is despite multiple editors including @Dan Carkner:, @Moxy:, and @Other justin:, agreeing that all of this should be mentioned in the article and despite multiple reliable sources cited in support of the mentioning it all.

    @Deathying: also made a false allegation of sockpuppetry that was exposed as a lie at sockpuppet investigations, in order to to justify his persistent edit-warring against multiple editors.

    @Deathying: also has a hypothetical scenario infobox at the bottom of his sandbox page that shows the Conservative Party of British Columbia defeating the incumbent British Columbia New Democratic Party and the Green Party of British Columbia, ahead of the upcoming 2024 British Columbia general election, which suggests that this is a scenario that @Deathying: either desires or expects or both and may explain his persistent edit-warring to remove any and all mentions of the conspiracies, controversies, and far-right politics of the Conservative Party of British Columbia.

    --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I made an allegation against you with evidence that administrators didn't deem sufficient enough. It was not a lie, I presented all the evidence I could.
    You have refused to participate in good faith in the talk page, instead persisting by not changing your edits at all and forcing them through.
    I do not mind mentions of conspiracy theories on these pages. In fact, they existed before I got there. I care that you are misinterpreting the sources to promote your own political beliefs with your edits in particular.
    As for my sandbox, I create hypothetical election scenarios for a subreddit. I have created scenarios where other political parties have won. I do not disrupt editing on real pages by doing this. I also have no other way of getting practice with election infoboxes except through my sandbox.
    You are doing this in retaliation. We could have come to an agreement on the talk page as many numerous editors have done.
    Instead, you resort to reporting anyone who gets in your way. Deathying (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not just me, the editor @Ak-eater06 has accused you of edit warring/promoting an agenda through your edits and you responded by reporting him instead of working out a compromise. Talk:John Rustad Deathying (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Blob02 reported by User:ClaudineChionh (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

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

    User being reported: Blob02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* The Time War */Put the supernatural back because it doesn't contain "unsourced original research" as previously claimed. The episodes mentioned literally are linked if you click on it to the Wikipedia article."
    2. 03:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* The Time War */This is all I'm going to add to the supernatural section, if it's not referenced properly, someone else can do it because it is a team effort. I'm not going to waste my time learning how use Wikipedia properly when I'm not going to do another edit after this one. I think that's fair and reasonable. regardless of citation it is atleast 90% done. I cannot see how it is written differently to anything else on this article. The episodes mentioned are real and the events describ..."
    3. 17:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* The Time War */Added back the supernatural section. The argument for deleting it doesn't hold up which was that a bi generation is a more substantial change. This isn't correct because the bi-generation isn't the only unique regeneration. 2 other regenerations are unusual for a Time Lord being the War Games and night of the Doctor. The supernatural is more of a shift as there hadn't been at all up to this point other than things being retconned to be like the toymaker. The supernatural is..."
    • There were also multiple restores of the material by Blob02 on earlier days too. No 3RR violation, but user has now restored their material six times in the last week. added by Meters (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "/* September 2024 */ @Blob02 "I don't like to pile on, but you have co..." [[[w:en:User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum|Factotum]]]"
    2. 02:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "discussion notice"
    3. 02:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)"Warning: Edit warring on The Doctor" A formal edit warring warning after which the user restored the material again. added by Meters (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 03:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who "/* Disruptive editing on The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor */ @Blob02 "this edit summary is disappointing. "Tea..." [[[w:en:User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum|Factotum]]]"

    Comments:

    Discussions and warnings are spread across a few article and user talk pages which I have summarised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Disruptive editing on The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lakshmi Banerjee reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: French language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 03:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC) to 03:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 03:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
      2. 03:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 18:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC) to 18:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 18:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
      2. 18:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
    4. 17:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 03:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on French language."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User persistently adding flags in Infobox on this and other pages despite MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and it being called to the editor's attention on their Talk page; now edit warring over it. General Ization Talk 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Romanthapa8848 reported by User:Arjayay (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    [edit]

    Page: Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Romanthapa8848 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [17]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

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

    Comments:

    - Arjayay (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SamfromAus123 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked indef)

    [edit]

    Page: Book of Enoch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: SamfromAus123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. Added sources for unsourced claims in the article. Used Please see our policies WP:RS and Wikipedia:Citing sources"
    2. 23:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. Added sources for unsourced claims already in the article."
    3. 22:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. Source is provided in the text with the reference. I even paraphrased it for someone too lazy to check the source."
    4. 08:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Added references for Ezekiel, and Maccabees. Don't delete this or you risk getting blocked from wiki."
    5. 05:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid deletion of mine. Vandalism."
    6. 04:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249660717 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC) to 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Add Maccabees reference about sword"
      2. 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Added references for the 70 shepherds judged and the 7 men"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 07:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Book of Enoch."
    2. 23:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Book of Enoch."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 22:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Book of Enoch "/* 10 weeks prophecy */ reply"

    Comments:

    Severely lacks WP:CIR. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My edits are in accordinace with Wikipedia:Competence is required. You lack Wikipedia:Competence is required. Most of the article is unsourced so I added reputable citations, and you delete it. Read Wikipedia:Banning policy. I suggest a ban for you. SamfromAus123 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilarious! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Our Panjāb reported by User:APK (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Sukerchakia Misl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "WP:Hijack still not providing the quote!! Ok Cant handle it anymore because on the serious node user taking this matter lightly"
    2. 09:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "after the judgement of moderator, reinitiating to the last good version of article before the edit warring inorder to hijack the article 1249868367"
    3. 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "Copy vivo editing WP:CASTE, arrogantly chanting unreliable x infinite and making self presumption, showing your true colour toward WP:CASTE In the end warraich Jat reference is much vibrant than a baseless Khushwant singh claim"
    4. 07:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "Persistent WP:Vandalism Personal attack I am literally obscured the all source and this person literally vanishing anything just by comment "unreliable", does it make anything special"
    5. 21:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Ya you are absolutely right I am the one who adding solidarity material, please avoid this paper if possible by so far before your intervention its much better indeed 1249793103 by Jassu712 (talk)"
    6. 21:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Recklessly False acquisition you are doing on purpose but the think almost every formalised abstract is powered by wayback engine, without any blogpost or third party extension please go ahead and get some knowledge about archive functionality as you said and bulk of the source added Maplesyrupsushi which you trying to gaslight for some kind of personal COI 1249789029 by Jassu712 (talk)"
    7. 20:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Newcomer!! Kindly elaborate what do you mean by unreliable without repetition don't matter in your own hands dude 1249787127 by Jassu712 (talk)"
    8. 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Added tag using Helper 3.5.0 Stabilising to last regime for better resemblance 1249783819 by moderator (talk)"
    9. 11:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Its my Last resort don't force me to invigilate with my moderate account, 1249700787 by Jassu712 (talk)"
    10. 10:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Resettling the best stable version prior to gaslighting attempt to exaggerate historian Khushwant singh as an whole using Wiki (helper3.5.0)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 08:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sukerchakia Misl."
    2. 10:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sukerchakia Misl."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 08:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Our Panjāb "Warning: Edit warring on Sukerchakia Misl."

    Comments:

    Large number of reverts in the past 24 hours. Both parties were given a general warning. After continued edit warring, I left a final warning for each. Our Panjāb has continued. Jassu712 has said on their user talk page they won't continue for now. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP has appeared removing some of the content the two users are fighting over. Take that as you will. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Imorvit reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Imorvit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [25]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

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

    Comments:
    Brand-new account is engaging in a disruptive edit war on a featured article, removing content that is cited in the body and replacing existing wording with a worse version. While they have not breached 3RR yet, they are actively aware they are edit warring, but have said they will continue to revert back to their edit. Toa Nidhiki05 12:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Injusticewtf reported by User:Rsjaffe (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Incidents of necrophilia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:29, 7 October 2024‎ Injusticewtf [?] talk contribs‎ 32,245 bytes +574‎ Undid revision. It wasn't an edit just a pop culture fan bias. Their undo rationale was a rant and a bias. 1249929572 by YoureWrong46 (talk)
    2. 13:20, 6 October 2024‎ Injusticewtf [?] talk contribs‎ 32,245 bytes +574‎ Restored back. The undo rationale does not match the definition at the top of the page, which is: Necrophilia is a pathological fascination with dead bodies, which often takes the form of a desire to engage with them in sexual activities, such as intercourse. ... This definition is defined by the desire not the actualUndid revision 1249783442 by Justlettersandnumbers (talk (A))
    3. Consecutive edits made from 19:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC) to 20:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 19:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249718659 by 114.122.117.212 (talk) The subject matter is a fantasy of necrophila. This is in the Wikipedia definition. Perhaps rJaffe missed the "F**k her corpse" in the quote."
      2. 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Added an actor with his quote of fantasies of necrophilia as described in the definition for necrophilia."
      3. 20:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision as original entry was reverted but did not appear when I checked 1249780600 by Injusticewtf (talk)"
    4. 02:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "I re-added Johnny Depp with a citation."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 02:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC) to 02:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 02:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "I added Johnny Depp and his infamous text about necrophilia."
      2. 02:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "proofread and removed duplication of former entry"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Incidents of necrophilia."
    2. 15:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Incidents of necrophilia."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    See also Special:Diff/1249779244/1249825532 and user's previous comment on User talk:Rsjaffe. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1249958821"