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)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Woovee reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Trouts all around)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

– 7 Sep, 21:48 UTC – [2] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page
– 7 Sep, 23:00 UTC – [3] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page
– 7 Sep, 23:20 UTC – [4] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page
– 8 Sep, 00:29 UTC – [5] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page

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

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

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

Comments:
Woovee has been removing the helpful display of talk page example text under discussion on the talk page, with the result that newcomers must take an extra step and examine a diff to understand or comment on the issue. My take on the situation is that Woovee is editing tendentiously, trying to make the process more difficult in order to influence the result by attracting fewer comments. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet didn't file the rfc, Lynchenberg did it. Consequently, Binksternet doesn't have any right to rewrite it and add a dubious long text to support Lynchenberg's view. Binksternet takes this issue personally as they had advised Lynchenberg earlier [9], & judging their reply, they want Lynchenberg's view to win. The current rfc version [10] includes the question "Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included?" which was written by Lynchenberg, and as Lynchenberg forgot to include the diff, it looks like a good compromise to add "refering this edit" with a wikilink including the diff, under the question of this rfc. May I add that Lynchenberg doesn't revert the actual presentation of the rfc, as one can see it in the history of the talk. So the edit warring is largely due to Binksternet who doesn't want to compromise. Woovee (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Woovee. Regardless of the correctness of your intentions, you seem to have broken WP:3RR on this article's talk page. There may still be time for you to promise to stop reverting the talk page. Otherwise, a block seems possible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:EdJohnston, Binksternet has done three reverts in 24 hours on that talk page: it is edit warring as well. They didn't have any right to add a dubious long text in the presentation to support their friend's claim - this rfc was not theirs. This rfc is presented in a manner that doesn't present well the issue to my view, I will ask Lynchenberg to rephrase it tomorrow. Woovee (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woovee argues that I should not have touched Lynchenberg's clumsy RfC post, as only Lynchenberg had the right to do so. Two contrary actions by Woovee speak against this argument: The first is that Woovee accepted my taking the RfC out from the end of one post where it was buried, and giving it its own section with a Level 2 header. The second is that Woovee made their own modification of the RfC text, changing "this material" to "this edit".[11] So it's clear that Woovee accepts that good-faith editors are allowed to modify an RfC to make it more presentable.

The non-neutral thing that Woovee is doing is making it more difficult for newcomers to understand and comment on the issue. Woovee is trying to prevent a new consensus from forming, and is impeding the process. Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring must be avoided, but I strongly disagreed with the appendix you put below the presentation. I did 4RR in a row, you did 3RR in a row.Woovee (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

to both of you; too trivial to issue blocks. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:HiChrisBoyleHere reported by User:Joplin201017 (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:29, 8 September 2021: [13]
11:29, 8 September 2021: [14]
11:30, 8 September 2021: [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:
I discussed with HiChrisBoyleHere that there is a consensus from Wikipedia on how COVID-19 statistical charts should be presented to allow friendly visualisation of the charts for mobile users and also to avoid unnecessary scrolling on the statistical charts. Most Wikipedia pages maintaining statistical charts of the COVID-19 pandemic in their respective countries (please see Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina and Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil for reference) maintain statistical charts in linear format that allow visualisation of them in any device without too much detail on them. @HiChrisBoyleHere: has not provided alternatives to these issues discussed on their talk page, argumenting that the page has been maintained in their decided format for more than 2 years and ignoring previous consensus on how to maintain charts for the COVID-19 pandemic in Wikipedia pages of individual countries. He has reverted every of my edits including my update on statistical data today. Joplin201017 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of my sentences you don't understand? I'm okay with less-than-950-width charts IF you could fix the dates issue (I've tried myself and didn't work). The problem is you couldn't do that, could you? Have you seen how horrible are the charts without spaces between the dates? And also which consensus saying that? Why didn't you send me the link? Why out of million of people who have seen the article, only you who make big fuss about it? I only agree if the suggestion improves the articles (such as splitting the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia into two parts (2020 and 2021)), but this one makes it worse (AGAIN, it could be better if you COULD fix the dates, which something you couldn't do). The articles you send look great because they have spaces between the dates. HiChrisBoyleHere (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HiChrisBoyleHere: I have fixed the dates of the Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia page as you requested so now all the charts are in linear format for better visualisation on mobile with the dates being displayed in months. If you revert these contributions from other users as stated in this Wikipedia policy, including any updates of statistical data from reliable sources, you might be blocked due to edit warring. Thanks. Joplin201017 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saiteja1705 reported by User:Bovineboy2008 (Result: Blocked 12 hours)

User being reported: Saiteja1705 (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:

13:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Konda Polam."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is removing the poster of the film, either by just removing it from the infobox entirely or trying to replace it with non-free images uploaded to Commons improperly. BOVINEBOY2008 00:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:150.101.89.147 reported by wolf (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Straight 4RR vio. There was an attempt at discussion with this user, but engagement from them is limited to curt, single-sentenced comments that are basically of the; "this is how it is cuz I say so" type. The user was also provided information and links to relevant guidelines, which given the timeframe and their blunt, uncooperative replies, it would seem they didn't read the guidelines or just chose to ignore them.

They were also apprised of wp:Consensus and wp:Dispute Resolution, but instead chose to continue edit warring. They given no indication of a willingness to discuss, and also given every indication of an intent to continue edit warring. - wolf 05:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a brief reading of the article. You on the other hand failed to do this. I also took this to the talk page. Thanks.150.101.89.147 (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. The IP reverted 3x in a 24-hour period. The fourth revert listed above occurred two days earlier. Thewolfchild also reverted 3x, although only twice in a 24-hour period. I strongly urge the parties to resolve the content dispute on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahmed88z reported by User:Cinderella157 (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 05:36, 21 July 2021 GreenC bot

Diffs of the user's reverts (from most recent):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

See also: The editor was blocked for edit warring: Revision as of 17:11, 5 August 2021 Ponyo (talk | contribs) (→‎Block notice: new section)

The editor was further blocked for block evasion: Revision as of 17:19, 11 August 2021 Favonian (talk | contribs) (You have been blocked from editing for abusing multiple accounts.)}}

Regarding the victory of Italy, Italy did not win this war decisively, as it advanced and took control of the city of Sidi Barani only and for a short time, after which the British forces attacked the Italian forces and captured a large number of them, and even occupied Cyrenaica in Libya and then Italian Libya fell--Ahmed88z (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments:
The scope of the article is an invasion that occurred between 9-16 September 1940 with the capture of Sidi Barrani. While the Italians were subsequently expelled from Egypt in December of that year, that operation is outside the scope of the article. There is no dispute in the sources that the invasion was an Italian victory (even if short-lived). The guidance at MOS:MIL and at the template documentation is quite explicit on the subject of the result parameter. It has been put into place to avoid such quibbling. The editor has been referred to the guidance on multiple occasions - both in talk posts and in edit summaries. However, it would appear to me to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It may be asserted that, because of their prior block, the editor was reasonably aware of 3RR (and the consequences) prior to the most recent notification. The actions of the editor, beyond 3RR, appear to me to be tendentious and disruptive. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ADOS Pride reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "."
Consecutive edits made from 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC) to 21:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
1. 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 21:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo fix"
3. 21:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
4. 21:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
5. 21:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
6. 21:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
21:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
21:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Fixed content"
Consecutive edits made from 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC) to 21:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
1. 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 21:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Corrected content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Please stop */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "/* African American history erasure */"

Comments:

Less than 24 hours after their recent block expired, they are back edit warring again. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – Indef, for continuing the same violation and ignoring all advice. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MaccWiki reported by User:Carl Francis (Result: Both warned)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

Comments:
Known sockpuppet. Carl Francis (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE ACCUSATIONS. The reason why I returned/restored/reverted my revision, because the revisions you returned were incorrect, I just fixed it, and what's wrong there, I'm also an editor, I have the right to edit the wikipedia article, not just you. And one more thing, I don't use multiple accounts, I only have one account. MACCWIKI (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:MaccWiki and User:Carl Francis are both warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. MaccWiki has been cleared of being a sock, per the SPI report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PTS 188 reported by User:93.136.76.166 (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff][34]
[diff][35]
[diff][36]
[diff][37]

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

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

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

Comments:
This IP User is Seriously Don't understand That Croatian Goverment Did not signed the contract yet. You can Ask Fox 52 that he also tried to revent many times from this User. I would Remind that user 93.136.76.166 Threaten me also.PTS 188 (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Blocked as a sock by Bbb23, with a link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zemertrimi reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Blocked two weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043532016 by Demetrios1993 (talk) It does matter , it was a historical event for which are provided you are blatantly refusing it , the sources provided at the original page were weak sources hence the page was deleted , leave a message on my talk page"
15:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043527546 by Demetrios1993 (talk) The article for deletion was made 11 years ago and it included different sources than the ones provided, it is a important event which should not be omitted"
14:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043509535 by Deji Olajide1999 (talk) Does not make it any less a source , both are derived from the words of General Dever as it is stated ,Is not some media "bs" that is produced everyday for money"
08:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043281992 by Alexikoua (talk) Alexikoua did not explain how the sources fail wp:HISTRS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "/* September 2021 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear cut 3RR vio, no effort whatsoever to resolve. User was recently blocked for edit-warring, and shows no sign of improvement. Article is covered by WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions. Khirurg (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:93.136.115.120 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [45]

Comments:
Claims not to be the same editor reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive439#User:93.138.63.81 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Warned), despite the similar IP, same gelocation, same talk page arguments and exact same disruptive edits made to the article. They didn't appear to be officially notified of that warning, I notified them here before their 4th revert and they acknowledged the existence of it in their edit summary, while disputing they are the same editor. FDW777 (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is right I have returned this article 4 times, but he is wrong to falsely accuse me of being someone else and he should be punished for falsely accusing it against Wikipedia [[46]] . In the absence of arguments to change something that has been written for 10-15 years here, he is now falsely accusing me, just to prove that he is "right" and to be according to him. Very dirty of him. See the talk page [[47]].He opened an account 2 years ago and thinks that the boss is here on Wikipedia and that everything according to him must be without arguments93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2021 (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 and 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