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)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Opdire657 reported by User:Epson Salts (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2]
[3]

This page is part of the Arab-Israeli Conflict topic area, and thus subject to a 1RR restriction. Beyind the clear 1RR violation listed above, this editor has reverted the same material 6 times in the last six days (and a couple of other times earlier in the year), without a word of discussion on the talk page. He has been edit warring on this article since at least October 2015, and was warned about it by administrator @NeilN: - [4]

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

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

Comments:

He has already been blocked before for edit warring, so is clearly aware of 3RR/1RR

You have also violated the 1 revert restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict since you have fewer than 500 edits and with using sock puppets like Milkawke91 who created an account on 28 August and made only 2 edits then a user called Jahsnik bagan reverting my edit dating back to 1 February 2016, then another user called Epson Salts which is you began edit warring. There is clearly an exchange of roles between you three to avoid being blocked. You have ignored what the administrator @Zero0000: wrote on the talk page "Neither Lebanon nor Palestine were separate countries at the time of his birth. He was born an Ottoman citizen and became a Palestinian citizen during the Mandate period. It is much more sensible to class him as Palestinian than as Lebanese" so you are creating an edit war without any logical reason.--Opdire657 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – 1 week. Please use the talk page. User:Opdire657, don't charge people with sockpuppetry without evidence. You have been previously warned by an admin for your behavior on this article. You are walking on thin ice. If people keep reverting about Shukeiri's ancestry we'll probably put the ARBPIA banner on it, since after all he was a chairman of the PLO. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malerooster reported by User:MrX (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

01:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "rv nonsense of editor with obvioud political bias who shouldn't be allowed to edit this article"
01:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Inheritance and further acquisitions */ still not notable, why single out this one sale out of 100s??"
18:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC) "rv non notable detail, maybe add to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

01:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "/* 1RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[8]

Comments:

The article is subject to 1RR discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS. Malerooster made three reverts. There is a notice at the top of the talk page and a prominent edit notice above the edit window. I also suggested that Malerooster self-revert. He ignored the request and continued editing. The edit warring and the summary on the third revert are exactly the kind of user behavior that ARBAPDS is intended to address. - Mr X 13:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Malerooster's response. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was my mistake. Once MrX posted on my talk page I stopped editing the article and went to the talk page. My edit was reverted. NeilN also posted a warning on my talk page which I appreciate and will comply with. --Malerooster (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Warned I think Malerooster understands another violation will most probably result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sachamcd reported by User:Mk17b (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

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

| MK17b | (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sachamcd is reverting against the result of a formally closed RfC. If he won't concede the point, I recommend a block. But we should wait a minute to see if he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing material that in MAY 2016 was deemed completely irrelevant to the breadth of his political career and comments which were already disproven in the Canadian Jewish media. [1]

MK17b has a history of editing jewish propaganda into a host of pages on wikipedia, look at his edit history and this will be evident. I suspect he might be operating under the Jewish Internet Defence force and it is he who should be banned for perpetuating his bias and obvious agenda. I am reenlisting the help of admin Oshwah who back in May 2016 helped reverse some edits made by MK17b. MK17b is trying to ban me because he knows this is the only way for him to get his libel to stick. Please help. Sachamcd (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Sachamcd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachamcd (talk • contribs)

Blocked – 24 hours. His only response was with an attack on another editor. If there is any disagreement about the wording and length of this material, someone should start a new discussion, as noted by User:Cunard, the RfC closer. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yet Another User 2 reported by User:ScottCarmichael (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=720998707

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=737985641

Comments:
Many sections have very poor sources (such as those funded by/work with NASA), improperly cited sources (such as referring to pages that don't even exist in Sky and Telescope magazine (11/69 issue), and very misleading info that only tells half of the situation and is not verifiable proof whatsoever. When user got mad that these edits were made, he called me a "Conspiracy Theorist" instead of actually looking at edited/removed content and sources. I could have changed much more. I didn't. If he feels those items are factually correct, he needs to correct the sources and/or find other sources that can legitimately say exactly what is presented. My recent edits are 100% accurate. It's not MY responsibility to prove the text he wants to keep that should have never been there to begin with. ScottCarmichael (talk)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours Six reverts of at least three different editors in less than six hours. NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zaostao reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

Editor has been previously sanctioned for edit warring at Jared Taylor. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final revert was in response to this comment on the talk page which stated that the COATRACK veered into BLP territory. WP:3RRBLP. Reporting editor also previously reverted an edit which was the at the time the subject of an ongoing arbitration enforcement regarding 3RRBLP on this same article. Zaostao (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:JDC808 reported by User:Weweremarshall (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts: WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship

WWE SmackDown Women's Championship

User violates 3RR TWICE in 24 hours on two different pages. He indeed was warned here: edit summary Weweremarshall (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see this report that Weweremarshall originally made. --JDC808 ♫ 22:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There seems to be little disputing that some serious edit warring was going on here. In a surreal twist, Weweremarshall reported himself for vandalism stemming from the edit war to WP:ANV.[31]LM2000 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Yes this is true, though i did not violate 3RR on a specific page, I did commit it over multiple pages. I didn't know if this classifies as 3RR break so I asked for it to be reviewed, thanks to User:LM2000 as I forgot to mention this in the new report. Weweremarshall (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weweremarshall, you break WP:3RR first on each article (strike one - I suggest you carefully note the definition of "revert"), try to get JDC808 blocked for vandalism (strike two - read WP:NOTVAND), and then file this report (strike three). Have I got this right? NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No you do not have this right. I haven't violated 3RR on a single page yet. And the only reason I reported it under vandalism was mistake I personally made (man enough to own up to that) and the moment I was made aware of this I filed the proper report on this page. Weweremarshall (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you seem to really want to have me removed. --JDC808 ♫ 01:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weweremarshall, you are wrong. [32], [33], [34], [35] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC) @Weweremarshall: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:NeilN The first link you posted isn't a revert....it's the initial edit? I believe this is where your confusion is stemming from. And yes, I want JDC808 gone the same way I want all rule breakers gone, Temp. ban 1st time and perm. ban if they still don't play by the rules. Weweremarshall (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Weweremarshall, this is why I told you to look up the definition of revert. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You were deleting "WWE" - counts as a revert. Temp. ban for you or can we assume that both of you will knock off the edit warring? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Ugh, another person trying to act like they know what they're talking about without looking into the subject >_< . The first edit wasn't a revert because nobody else was trying to add/remove "WWE" from the page's CONTENTS, they were trying to add/remove "WWE" from the TITLE! I stated multiple times that this was the case, so thank you (sarcasm) for causing the same amount of headache as JDC808. Weweremarshall (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Weweremarshall, at this point the only block I'm looking at is for you. Are you going to stop reverting until and if you get consensus for your change? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        First, JDC808 broke 3RR twice and is due a ban regardless. Second, I'll try to explain this as clearly as possible. Those WWE championships do not have the word "WWE" in their title, WP typically tends to add the promotion in front of the Championship title because it isn't solely a wrestling site (understandable). My edits, reflected the official title throughout the page which is the correct protocol, the discussion that is taking place is over whether or not WP should continue using the title with "WWE" added onto it or if they should use the official title. Regardless of what they decide, the official title is always reflected throughout the pages contents. But the fact you just stopped participating in the discussion and just outright threatened me instead makes me think nothing is going to be done about the vandalism. So I guess you can go ahead & ban me, nothing I can do about it anymore, you've made up your mind. Weweremarshall (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The title of the article is also reflected in the body of the article. Yes, shorthand names can be used in the body of the article at times, but in the opening sentence of the lead and in the article's infobox, the article title is used, not the shorthand name (there are some exceptions to this). You were trying to change these to the shorthand name. If the ongoing discussions decide that "WWE" should not be in the article title, then what you were doing would be okay, but that consensus has not been met yet. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Weweremarshall, I really don't want to block anyone here but if you continue to refer to JDC808's as vandalism, I will. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If Edit Warring isn't considered vandalism then I won't call it vandalism. But it doesn't change the fact that less than 20 minutes ago JDC808 has once again reflected that he does not understand that "WWE" isn't part of the championships title or the reason why it is used in the article title. Again, you can threaten me a million times, you can even go ahead and ban me that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that JDC808 broke 3RR twice and is due a ban, these are the facts of the case. This war of opinions likely wouldn't have escalated to the point its currently at if the user had received his just ban and I wasn't falsely accused of violating 3RR. I understand you might feel like you have egg on your face, but it's not your fault as Professional Wrestling is a very complex subject matter that is very hard for people to understand at first glance (and shouldn't be expected to understand if they don't genuinely enjoy wrestling). I'd like to clarify I hold no hard feelings towards you for this, even if you do still find a reason to ban me. Weweremarshall (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Torah28 reported by User:Wolfdog (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [36]

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:

Comment Not a WP:3RR violation but Torah28's lack of communication is not good. Waiting for their response. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.220.186.82 reported by User:Connormah (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47] [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49] [50]

Comments: IP refuses to follow WP:BRD despite concerns of NPOV and UNDUE on a BLP. Connormah (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 7 September 2016 (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