Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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

User:Bijzindia reported by User:Jeraxmoira (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Kindly do not change this edit by saying other bigg boss or bigg brother pages dont have such information. We always welcome Innovative informative contributions"
2. 12:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Do not delete the program logo add to this page"
3. 11:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Undo revision [ have a discussion in talk regarding this matter before you make any change"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC) to 12:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Bijzindia

Comments:

Other editor User:2A02:6B68:10:6100:2C77:613F:6B52:1872 Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The revert was done for a user which deleting the valuable information from the page Bijzindia (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No it’s no valuable information I have given my reasons in fact this user is not listening to others point I have given my reasons saying big brother snd bigg boss pages do not user that info. Concepts need to follow similar things, 2A02:6B68:10:6100:2C77:613F:6B52:1872 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

We are not in edit war, we were disusing each other regarding the topic. And the mean time we both made some amendments in the article which we both don't have any objections. Bijzindia (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Both are still edit warring on Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5). Pinging active admins 331dot, Deb and MER-C. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Like over here he had added day entered for late entrants https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bigg_Boss_(Malayalam_season_5)&oldid=1212971816#Nomination_table whereas in here Celebrity Big Brother (British series 15)#Nominations table they don’t use it. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:2C77:613F:6B52:1872 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Also blocked the IP. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: both the user and an ip are at it again. havent blocked as didnt spot the notification till id already warned them. Amortias (T)(C) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

We are not edit warring we haven’t even edited on that page. We are just discussing on talk page. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:54CE:D971:7BF1:43E1 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Fourixxxx reported by User:BilledMammal (Result: Blocked 2 days)

Page: K'gari, Queensland (island) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fourixxxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Move warring

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:37, 11 March 2024, saying Fourixxxx moved page Fraser Island to K'gari, Queensland (island)
2. 01:43, 11 March 2024, saying Fourixxxx moved page Fraser Island to K'gari (island), Queensland: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): Previous editors have provided no verifiable evidence for their change, only anecdotal. Until then the name change remains.
3. 06:41, 8 March 2024, saying Fourixxxx moved page Fraser Island to K'gari (island): Perform requested move, see talk page: Fraser Island has now officially and unambiguously been renamed K'gari

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:29, 11 March 2024

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:K'gari, Queensland (island)#The island is now unambiguously known as K'gari

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 06:50, 11 March 2024

Comments:

While not a bright-line violation, the move warring is a violation of WP:RMUM and it appears they have no intention of stopping - in addition to the user talk page warning, at 06:12, 11 March 2024 they were pinged to the talk page and told that they were going about this the wrong way and should not continue to make disputed moves, particularly since this move has been discussed five times previously. BilledMammal (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Shortly after making this report Liz reverted the move, and in line with that I restored the pre-move content. Fourixxxx has once again restored their preferred content, although they haven't moved the article again yet. This is their third revert in the past 24 hours. BilledMammal (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 days Courcelles (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Protected the page given the obvious logged out continuing of the disruption. Courcelles (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'd note that the logged out editing isn't necessarily the same user - that page has a long history of a range of IP editors changing the name in both directions. Turnagra (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:86.187.171.52 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Neal D. Barnard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.187.171.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1213224099 by MrOllie (talk)A list of publications does not make a cv. Most biographies have such lists/"
2. 19:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1213223718 by Bon courage (talk)See WP:BLP, and you are edit warring"
3. 19:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1213223261 by Bon courage (talk)Stroll on!! Take that to the Talk page!"
4. 19:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1213222919 by Bon courage (talk)I just told you why in the edit summary. More to the point, why are you removing it???"
5. 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212818235 by Bon courage (talk)Reverted bizarre removal of a book from the list of published works. There is no requirement for items in the list to be notable in their own right. Only the article subject must be notable. Very many biographies have lists of publications that include non-notable items. There is no reason for the book in question to be left off the list."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Publications list */ new section"

Comments:

• 4RR as I write this.   Aloha27  talk  19:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing admin, please look at this one carefully. The user Bon courage is clearly pushing his own POV here. That's clear from the article in question, and from his combative approach right across the board. Look at his editing history. 86.187.171.52 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Please also note, there are two separate edits here, so not a 4RR. 86.187.171.52 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

it's 5RR. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear reverts at 19:29, 19:31, 19:32, 19:36, 19:39. It does not matter that the material being reverted is different. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have also put a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:108.26.243.70 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: IP blocked for 2 weeks; R Prazeres warned)

Page: The Day of the Lord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.26.243.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] (initially; see explanation)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] (or see discussion here)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:

IP edit-warring over their personal WP:OR. In their second revert ([10]) they attempted to add sources, without understanding, much less fixing, the WP:OR problem. (They have since added more rambling after their latest revert ([11]). Ignored multiple warnings on user talk page, article talk page, and in edit summaries. R Prazeres (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to file a report here. Thanks. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Some more edit-warring over latest addition since I wrote this: [12], [13]. R Prazeres (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Not original research. The majority of the article is already direct quotes from the Bible. If that is OR then you people need to gut the article of those passages as well. I will stop trying to add my material when you do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.243.70 (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Explain to me what is the difference between this reference (already in the article)

In the biblical canon, the earliest, direct use of the phrase is in Isaiah 2: "For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low" (Isaiah 2:12). Another early use of the phrase is in Amos 5:18-20.[4] Wright suggests that the phrase was already a standard one, and Amos' hearers would take it to mean "the day when Yahweh would intervene to put Israel at the head of the nations, irrespective of Israel's faithfulness to Him."[4] Yet Amos declares "Woe to you who long for the day of the LORD! Why do you long for the day of the LORD? That day will be darkness, not light" (Amos 5:18 NIV). Because Israel had sinned, God would come in judgement on them. Thus, the day of the Lord is about God chastening his people, whether it be through the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem or a locust plague described in Joel 2:1–11.[4] Yet Joel 2:32 holds a promise that on the Day of the Lord, "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."

and this reference (part of my addition)

According to Zechariah 14, the day of the lord will be a time when Jerusalem is captured. Zechariah 14.2 "I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped.", before the Lord takes action and strikes the attacking nations with a plague. Zechariah 14.12 "This is the plague with which the Lord will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths."

aside from the formatting?108.26.243.70 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for two weeks for edit-warring and the use of spam links. R Prazeres is warned for their edit-warring; if it weren't for the fact that the IP's edits were borderline vandalism, I would have considered blocking R Prazeres as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

User:Leftregister reported by User:Bidgee (Result: Both blocked)

Page: New South Wales Rural Fire Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leftregister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15] cropped image + previous cessna image was from a better angle
2. [16] i think there's greater importance in having an image taken from a better angle. I appreciate that both your cessna images are of good quality, but i feel that the previous version had a less distracting background and was taken from a more appealing angle, with a better overview of the plane's features, and not just from a predominant side on view. The crop was done on the Chinook image because it appeared way too small in the thumbnail. I dont see harm in cropping out the rotor edges
3. [17] With all due respect, WP:BRB just as easily applies to your edits too, especially when they are recent changes to a relatively established status quo. You have just as much obligation to consult the talk page first (and hence I urge you to). I appreciate that they're your images but that by no means gives you unchallenged authority to freely change and modify how they're used on this page without opposition (unless you delete them from wiki commons of course
4. [18] Take it to the talk page. No, I'm not that user
5. [19] Take it to the talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

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

Comments:

• Both editors blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Brijvasi200 reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Rabb Se Hai Dua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brijvasi200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

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: All reverts in edit summary notified user they need consensus for the change, notified them through several warnings on their talk page about WP:ONUS. Despite that, user fails to respond and instead reverts the content, all but one time without an edit summary.

Comments:
Hi CNMall41, as this is less obvious to me than it may seem to you: Is there a specific word or sentence for which you'd like to see a consensus for including before it is restored? For example, is "(Haider and Ghazal's daughter)" the problem? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree:, It is mainly the subheadings in the plot which has already been restored. The main point is that user fails to engage in discussion and instead blatantly reverts without any edit summaries. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen the subheadings being restored each time. Thanks, CNMall41. I think you'll have to admit that the case is comparatively weak, and that there isn't much of a difference between disruptively asserting ownership and insisting on WP:ONUS in this case here. Edit summaries such as those in [27] and [28], without even a link to the policy you're referring to, are pretty unlikely to mean anything to a newcomer even if they see them. Ideally, a section about your objection to the subheadings should exist at Talk:Rabb Se Hai Dua, and we could then invite the user to that discussion, perhaps even in the block reason of a partial block.

I will gladly admit that. I left a link on their talk page but you are correct about new users. I am hoping this gets them to slow down and read it and then come to the table for discussion. We will see. Thanks again. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Ioan.Church reported by User:Anupam (Result: Page protection raised to EC)

Page: Anabaptist theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ioan.Church (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34][35]

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

Comments:

• User:Ioan.Church has been edit warring to include unsourced information that he bases on 7thdaybaptist.blogspot.com. He has created multiple redirects to the non-notable internet group mentioned in this blogspot website that have been nominated by deletion by other editors. After he was warned by User:Ratnahastin, he responded by mocking that user. Anupam^Talk 00:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

None of the links you provided show reverts of the article to the exact same conditions it was before because of intermediate edits by other people. Moreover the reverts are not within 24 hours. In order to meet the criteria for 3 revert rule the article will have to be reverted to the exact same condition 3 times within 24 hours. Your best option is to assume good faith and engage in constructive discussion to arrive at concensus. Concensus means a compromise where all disputing parties let go of bruised egos and give concessions. I have shown time and again that I am ready to do that. Most of my edits are on the talk page not on the article. All that is required here is for you to allow due weight in mention of the minority historical opinion which is represented by more than twice the population as the only 1035 Dunkards whose opinion is currently being presented as if it were the majority. Ioan.Church (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest an admin check to see if @Ioan.Church has made the reversion by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:2C7:67F:7AD0:A89C:36B1:1E0A:7F8D while logged out, and if the brand new user @Emetpodcast is a duplicate account. It seems very suspicious; both came to the page and made reverts without engaging in the talk page. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If you would like that done you need to go to SPI, not here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I am happy for a qualified admin to go ahead and raise a checkuser request on all of us. I have nothing to hide and my edits are all in good faith. Ioan.Church (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Page protected I raised the semi-protection imposed earlier to extended-confirmed for the duration so that Ioan will not be able to edit the page and continue to restore poorly sourced content, or content that misinterprets or misstates what is reported in reliable sources, in disregard of apparent consensus on the talk page. Essentially he is blocked from editing this article without anything going in his block log (And keep it that way, Ioan. Your attitude hasn't helped your case here). It would, I imagine, help if more of the editors knowledgeable about this sort of thing were recruited to this discussion to make for a stronger consensus.

User:User110022 reported by User:57.140.16.57 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Bakkafrost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User110022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original removal of promotional content added in February

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert to promotional version
2. Second revert to promotional version
3. Third revert to promotional version
4. Fourth revert to promotional version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First edit warring notifier

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: AN report where they were informed of the paid editing requirements

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Posted

Comments:
Paid editor edit warring to restore their unsuitable content. Has been warned by multiple folks in multiple places. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And they've finally backed off. Perhaps no further action is needed. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

User:ActionHeroesAreReal reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: )

Page: Naseem Hamed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ActionHeroesAreReal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38] – first revert
2. [39] – second revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41] – low-traffic article, so user talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]

Comments:

User:ActionHeroesAreReal keeps adding "British-Yemeni" to the lead section of this athlete. Have tried to explain using MOS:ETHNICITY and MOS:IDENTITY that Hamed is a British national – born and raised, no dual nationality – but they continue to revert. The sole source they've provided makes no mention whatsoever of Hamed being a Yemeni national, other than highlighting his parents' ancestry. This should be clearcut. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)