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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:JimKaatFan reported by User:Jauerback (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
It's my understanding that in a BLP, "Contentious material about living persons... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." At issue is whether David Clarke is a member of the Democratic Party. Currently, there are three reliable sources that confirm that Clarke refused to join the Democratic Party, and publicly declared his refusal himself. Yet, the box in the article under his picture declared him to be a Democrat. There are exactly zero sources that say he joined the Democratic Party. I would say, then, that the label of "Democrat" is a contentious one, and thus qualifies as a BLP issue. I believe the editors who reverted my edits are in the wrong, for they did not seek to talk on the talk page about a BLP before re-adding the contentious material. I was the one who started the discussion, and I did that after my 2nd revert. If I have misunderstood the BLP policy, I apologize, but I've read it a few times now and I don't think it's ambiguous on this point. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Jauerback removed my comments just now from this page! Check https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=946701464&oldid=946701445

How is that acceptable? I re-added them just now. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your comments until now. I thought I had screwed up the template somehow and I thought I reverted a mistake I had made, hence the edit summary "How did I do that?". It turns out the mistake was yours, not mine. Apologies on that one. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action at this time, but the issues are unclear, and another admin might have considered sanctions. User:Jauerback wants to add 'Democratic' to the infobox, but WP:BURDEN applies to this idea. The person who wants to *add* the material has to provide the sources, so Jauerback's comment on talk that there is no source that he *left* the Democratic party appears unpersuasive. If you think it's vital that the infobox report a party affiliation, consider opening an WP:RFC on what wording should be put in the infobox. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:, I'm totally fine with your response, but just for clarification, I'm not trying to add "Democrat". It's been there since 2015. The other user is trying to remove it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a BLP, "Contentious material about living persons... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That seems perfectly clear to me, so I don't know why anyone would need clarification. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since reverting continued on this article after my original no-action closure, I have fully protected the article for five days. It would be most natural to block both parties, but I'm reluctant to do that when one side (JimKaatFan) sincerely believes their edits are protected by BLP, and their argument isn't entirely bogus. Though myself, I actually don't see the BLP defence. (Well-sourced material in the article text clarifies Clarke's relationship to the Democratic party, and none of it is unsourced defamation. I.e. no 3RR exemption exists). The more puzzling situation is why User:Jauerback feels entitled on some grounds to keep restoring the 'Democratic' line to the infobox. Their change looks to me to be plain edit warring. But in any case, people can take five days to discuss before the protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gizapink reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Warned)

Page: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gizapink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946659506 by Shawn in Montreal (talk) If you revert again you will be reported"
16:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946658966 by Shawn in Montreal (talk) Please read wikipedias article ownership, and revert, discuss cycle"
16:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946658000 by Shawn in Montreal (talk) I disagree"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

21:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

17:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC) "/* Removal of "regionalisms" */"

Comments:

Controversial change with consensus against. Although a discussion emerged, I also saw some incivility in various locations among the two main users involved. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a snake bite a rosy pyramid complex for invoking three of my favourite things: Intimidation, cycles and that album that tried to warn us about "Don't Go Outside", " Sit/Stay" and "Sick of the Sun". Trippy. I say we should all apologize and slowly back away before this all burns down (sorry). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Gizapink is warned that they may have violated WP:3RR on 21 March. Please wait for consensus before removing any more regional details about the coronavirus outbreak. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:61.102.135.60 reported by User:Ke an (Result: Semi)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
Anonymous user 61.102.135.60 is invloved in edit warring and most likely is using other IP addresses - 211.192.49.151 and 211.196.75.162 Ke an (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. Let me know if other articles are similarly affected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fona2000 reported by User:U-Mos (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

Escalating edit warring following months of disruptive editing and a previous block on this page. Support required. U-Mos (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of indefinitely Unresponsive editor, WP:CIR blocked indefinitely. @U-Mos: you were right in this case but you might just want to bring issues to the attention of admins instead of going for tit-for-tat edit warring (even if you feel they are right), my two cents. qedk (t 心 c) 15:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.140.43.116 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Radhe Maa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.140.43.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

10:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Radhe Maa. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked 31 hours for BLP violations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viraltux reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: 24 hour pblock)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

Edits are contrary to a lengthy, just closed RfC. Editor has made it clear in edit summaries that they will not stop. O3000 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at User talk:Viraltux. I very rarely warn users about 3RR, but Wikipedia:Free speech and Godwin's law have become involved here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I did a partial block. If it starts up elsewhere, I guess you should let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More likely it will restart in the same place in 24 hours. But, one step at a time. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:95.10.237.36 reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: Semi)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:The editor just deletes the climate of Cizre, and this several times and with no explanation. The first revert was of a tweet on the 23rd of March on a add of the 22nd of March. But all removal off content was on the 23rd of March. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tzowu reported by User:Creffett (Result: )

Page: Canton 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tzowu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 947019460 by 89.164.212.222 (talk)"
18:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946791964 by 89.164.212.222 (talk)"
10:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946780034 by 89.164.212.222 (talk)"
10:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946777972 by 89.164.212.222 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Canton 10. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring between Tzowu and an IP editor (last seen at 89.164.212.222) on Canton 10 and West Herzegovina Canton. Dispute seems to revolve around the use of coats of arms on the two pages. I gave both an edit warring warning, but on further review (seeing that this edit warring is cross-page and has been going on steadily for several days), just going to bring this here. No evidence of talk page engagement by either party. Since both parties have just been reverting the other for several days, recommend short blocks for both parties, possibly backed up by semi-protection of the pages for the duration of the block (since the anonymous editor might change IPs in that timeframe). creffett (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute has been going on for some time now. I should have opened a topic on the talk page earlier. I'll do one now (the issue is same for both cantons so I'll do just one). Tzowu (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:51.171.157.166 reported by User:Valenciano (Result: Range blocked)

Page: Sophia Myles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 51.171.157.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

17:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946801819 by 2601:183:CA80:6530:7C64:108:8474:484C (talk)"
23:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946838398 by 2601:183:CA80:6530:7C64:108:8474:484C (talk)"
01:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946877626 by FDW777"
15:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946895059 by 2601:183:CA80:6530:7C64:108:8474:484C (talk) She did)"
17:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946966405 by 2601:183:CA80:6530:84C3:A760:7D61:24F9 (talk) https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/sophia-myles-and-harvey-weinstein-attend-a-vip-screening-of-news-photo/135510685"
00:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 946994320 by Valenciano (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

19:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC) "(3rr warning)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is persistently adding the claim that Sophia Myles dated Harvey Winstein. After edit warring and being asked for proof, they responded with a photo of the two together. I reverted this on the grounds that a photo of two people together does not show a relationship. The ip continued regardless. They also added the unsourced claim that a prominent politician suffered from an illness and had spoken publicly about it, something which does not appear in any sources, reliable or non-reliable, so looks like a made-up claim. Valenciano (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 51.171.156.0/23 rangeblocked one month by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domskitect reported by User:Drt1245 (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Domskitect is edit warring to add his personal opinion to the article on Panic buying:
drt1245 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MehranMoradi1379 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

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

Comments:

User:99.229.46.16 reported by User:Piramidion (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

Hi! I see no point in discussing this on the talk page: I decided to remove the controversial word from the sentence as shown in the last diff, but the user insisted on edit warring for no reason, which I perceive as a clear sign of disruptive behavior. Also, if someone has access to the source, it would be nice to do a fact-checking. There's an information war going on (just saying) --Piramidion 22:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned There had been no messages whatsoever left for the IP. Accordingly, I've warned them about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards