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)
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:PaleoFile reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Warned users)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both users have been Warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those users and Mei23448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems continuing edit wars on Monquirasaurus and Sachicasaurus articles.

1. [8]

2. [9]

3. [10]

4. [11]

5. [12]

6. [13]

In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.[14]

Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing,[15] while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. Mei23448 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's talk page. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. Mei23448 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Napoleonjosephine2020 reported by User:Kline (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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: Zilch.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

Comments:

Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. Kline • talk • contribs 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Napoleonjosephine2020

"This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, [their] own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. Kline • talk • contribs 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. Kline • talk • contribs 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). Here’s the exchange, for those curious. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C and User:2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Page already protected)

Page: Warburg effect (oncology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] (second IP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, did not participate in reverts. Warned first IP on their own talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29] [30]

Comments:
I believe both IPs are the same person. The second IP's first edit is a talk page comment stating I'm not Ravidmurthy, but I am the one who has been doing most of the editing here., and after leaving that and another comment proceeded to make the same reversion (#4 above) as the other IP, a little more than 2 hours after #3. CipherRephic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was also involved in the edit war, but agreed to stop [31] after being warned [32] and has not broken 3RR. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:99.98.190.59 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

User being reported: 99.98.190.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265024592 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1264902249 by Augmented Seventh (talk)"
03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1264868382 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1264776552 by Zachomatic (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Marc Benioff."
18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChasePlowman2014 reported by User:Happily888 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

User being reported: ChasePlowman2014 (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:

00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

User continues edit warring and doesn't discuss edits even after having been requested to, not even explaining their reversions in their edit summary. Happily888 (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChasePlowman2014 is completely unresponsive. I hope they try editing during the 2 weeks of their block and notice that they have a talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I cannot dispute ChasePlowman2014's behaviour for edit warring, Happily888 is not completely without fault here. Neither user made any particular effort to engage in discussion over a relatively minor issue, but to expect an immediate response (and then immediately banning said user) on the 25th of December, a day of the year when one can reasonably be expected to be a little busy, is overzealous. I have also left a response to Happily888's message on the Dune: Part Two talk page explaining why ChasePlowman2014 was, arguably, correct to make the initial edit before Happily888 made the first reversion. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Jasca Ducato, this isn't about the time taken to respond to the noticeboard report. ChasePlowman2014 isn't using edit summaries nor talk pages and ignores warnings on their talk page about their behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Callmehelper reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: Declined)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35][36]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]

Comments:
Frequent edit warring by this user with several editors on an article falling under contentious and general sanctions. Also edit warring on B. R. Ambedkar. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's me @Callmehelper.

Clarification by my side ;

Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.

Disputes details ;

Firstly , I edit Ambedkar Jayanti check history of that page from here to final version
process of reverting by others and my responses

- 1st Revert My response then again revert and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes see then i thought matter would be solved.
But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement see and my response of revert here and discussion on his talk page here

Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there see

Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk here but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Request_for_Administrator Review_of_Recent_Edits_on_Dr. B.R._Ambedkar's_Page

So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.

the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under WP:UNDUE or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page [[38]] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.

so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .

Conclusion

So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.

Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.

i left a discussion on Ambedkar Jayanti page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources look.

I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.

I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.

Much Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnny test person reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked 24h)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1265395592

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Aoidh#Angelo Rules and Talk:Angelo Rules#Unsourced character biography section

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1265406607

Comments:
Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - Aoidh (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (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