Wikipedia: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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1135	1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144
1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
462	463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Wicorbottt reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC) "updated Ukraine section"
21:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1218947528 by Pbritti (talk) Every single word is backed up by quotes. Tone is neutral."
20:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC) "restored vandalism by Pbritti"
20:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC) "Ukraine update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

15:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) "/* April 2024 */ Final warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC) "/* NPOV on Ukraine */ new section"

Comments:

Editor was warned for edit warring to restore POV/original research content on the BLP in question. They have been repeatedly warned about falsely accusing other editors of vandalism, an action they have repeated despite these warnings. Further, they engaged in now-oversighted harassment on their talk page. Their only engagement in the article talk page discussion has been to reiterate their accusations of vandalism; after making this accusation, they again restored the content without any consensus to do so. Pbritti (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: regarding the indefinite semi-protection to Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician), I can ping you just in case you miss restoring it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti, a talk page message would be wonderful. I've set up a calendar entry but who knows if I'll still use the same calendar program in a year. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's to all of us being around next year (and remembering!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also set up the W-Ping tool to do it automatically. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:CHARLIE INGRAM reported by User:Saqib (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

07:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "inaccurate personal information misleading."
07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "inaccurate personal information."
06:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "Inaccurate private information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

07:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Original research warning on Fakhar-e-Alam."
07:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Fakhar-e-Alam."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A SPI has been initiated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CHARLIE INGRAM, but the user is consistently removing well-sourced content from a BLP which fails under WP:CT/IPA, leading to an edit war. Blocking the user is necessary to prevent further disruption. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Would it be OK to reinstate the sourced material? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, thanks for asking. I personally wouldn't do so before a talk page discussion (attempt) exists due to WP:BLPRESTORE, but if I had intended to enforce this strictly and technically, I'd have chosen full protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the user probably won't participate in the discussion on the talk page. Plus, there's the issue of it being a sock account. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:2607:FEA8:63A1:AB00:48A8:B4AE:65C8:6EE9 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [1] – my first attempt to streamline the lead.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: One-sided talk page discussion

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:
In the past two weeks, a Canada-based IP has reverted on five occasions the streamlining I've made to the article's lead section. As I've noted at the talk page, their revision is poorly written overall:

"He" this and "He" that for every sentence;
"He is also the former" is nonsensical, as there have been previous undisputed bantamweight champions;
It is bereft of paragraphs for readability, yet has an inexplicable double line break after the first huge chunk of text;
Inoue's athletic intangibles and knockout successes are listed in a highly crufty manner before his numerous – and historically notable – championship achievements;
His nickname is unnecessarily in bold and incorrectly places the quotes in bold too;
The sanctioning organisations (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) should all be fully written on the first instance, per MOS:ABBR;
My use of efn to consolidate the myriad titles Inoue has held is much better than listing each one in separate, clunky year ranges.

I would extend a talk page invitation but they change IPs like a new pair of socks, and they should know about talk pages by now (first time they edited the article was in July 2023). 3RR has not been tripped, but it's a slow edit war nonetheless. DRN is not really an option because of how one-sided it is.

To summarise, my edition of the lead improves readability, is concise, and adheres to various MOS. The IP's edition is an unwieldy, poorly written block of text filled with cruft. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Dreamstate, thank you very much for your discussion attempts at Talk:Naoya Inoue. The unregistered editor would be welcome to join the discussion, perhaps preferably with an account so that their user talk page is usable too. If page protection turns out to be insufficient at achieving this, please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:213.233.104.193 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Page protected)[edit]

User being reported: 213.233.104.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "Has Danish name, his father was Danish, has Danish citizenship, spent a lot of time in Denmark, can speak Danish, he identifies as Danish...some sad lardbucket americucks erase his identity, tragic"
18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) ">has Danish name"
18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "You're unsourced"
18:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "You're the one being a vandal here"
18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "'Murican appropriation at it's finest, he has Danish citizenship, his father ia Danish, his name is totally Danish and he spent a lot of time in Denmark"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Viggo Mortensen."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Ignoring existing discussion about topic on talk page but has commented in it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also same edit warring using Special:Contributions/2A02:2F0F:F20B:9500::/64. Both now blocked for a day and article got a short protect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for three days by Jauerback Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTOPS notice added to talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShakiraFandom reported by User:DefenderNY (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

[9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[10]
[11]

Other Attempts of the user's disruptive reverts:

[12]
[13]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grizi fu reported by User:Remsense (Result: Warned)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

08:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219679141 by Remsense (talk) talk page hasn’t agreed on anything yet + user is edit waring"
Consecutive edits made from 13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC) to 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
1. 13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC) "I exchanged a confusing term for foreign audiences and exchanged it with simpler English"
2. 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC) "I clarified the term I used. I used a more western term because this page is made for western audiences and only using Chinese terms is not good for western audiences"
10:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219536179 by Remsense (talk) user is removing edits in good faith"
10:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219535678 by Remsense (talk) I did give a reason so it wasn’t in good faith, the talk page never agreed on anything"
10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219533598 by Remsense (talk) the talk page never agreed on anything"
Consecutive edits made from 09:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) to 09:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
1. 09:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1218041209 by 78.104.180.89 (talk) just because the Chinese government didn’t use this term doesn’t men it’s wrong"
2. 09:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC) "It’s completely useless to point out that a Chinese president had a Chinese passport. It however helps more to say that he was a politician, that’s why I changed it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

05:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Introduction box */ Reply"
08:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Introduction box */ Reply"

Comments:

Presently stonewalling in favor of what is obviously unacceptable prose, after a pattern of edit warring that began several weeks ago but kicked into gear yesterday. Remsense诉 08:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite literally never got a good reason to remove my edits. My edits were randomly removed, without a proper reason dragging me into a stupid edit war, where I have tried to make the situation better by changing my edits to compromise. And the first edit skirmish I had, was never resolved as the user I had the skirmish with never responded, thus not allowing there to be a solution. Grizi fu (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I agreed to calm down and accept the other position. Grizi fu (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warned given that Grizi fu has agreed to "calm down and accept the other position", I don't think further action is required at this point. I urge all parties to continue the discussion at Talk:Deng Xiaoping and look for compromises / find consensus for the way forward. However, there was a clear WP:3RR breach here, so Grizi fu you need to stop reverting now and concentrate on dialogue. Further edit warring will be met with a block. — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:92.10.136.207 reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: )[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:

User:Gabrielasirwatham‎ reported by User:Metta79 (Result: )[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:

The editor has also been filed for a sock puppet report here:

[29]

However, the edit warring seems to be continuing unabated, hence why I have also reported the user here. The user did 4 reverts on the 17 April 2024, and potentially much more if the sock puppet report comes back positive. Metta79 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ObsessedWithStarship II reported by Me Da Wikipedian[edit]

Just about all contributions are edit warring/insisting why they are not. Refuses to listen, has been warned, etc. Pinging other users who have been dealing with them @Redacted II, @IlkkaP, and @Andyjsmith Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a description of all eleven of ObsessedWithStarship II's edits:

Edit 1: Claimed IFT-3 was a failure, despite the (disputed) closing of the RfC, which declared it a success. Reverted by Andyjsmith

Edit 2: Undid closing of previously mentioned RfC. Reverted by Andyjsmith

Edit 3: Claimed IFT-3 propellant transfer results were still pending, despite numerous sources calling the prop-transfer a success. Reverted by me.

Edit 4: Claimed IFT-3 was a partial failure, using misinterpreted source. Reverted by me.

Edit 5: Unreverted Edit 3, citing outdated source. Reverted by Me Da Wikipedian.

Edit 6: Unreverted edit 4, again interpreted source. Reverted by IlkkaP.

Edit 7: Removed statement on Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles describing IFT-3 as a success. Reverted by me.

Edit 8: Removed statement on Starship HLS stating IFT-3 successfully reached the desired orbit. Reverted by me.

Edit 9: Response to my Edit Warring warning, denying wrongdoing while accusing me of edit warring.

Edit 10: Another response, further accusation.

Edit 11: Unreverted edit 5. Reverted by me. Redacted II (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ObsessedWithStarship II reported by User:Redacted II (Result: Indefinitely blocked)[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [30][31][32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

Comments:
Every single edit by the reported user has been to push the IFT-3 failure narrative, with the only two exceptions being reponses to my edit-warring warning.Redacted II (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]