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)
345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
Incidents (archives, search)
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476
477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329
330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Aamirbinshafi reported by User:Technopat (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

User being reported: Aamirbinshafi (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:

16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
08:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Only warning: Harassment of other users on User:Technopat."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 72 hours But only because of the 3RR violations. I would remind the reporter that, as obstinate as this editor has been, you are still on better ground making these reports if you open a talk page thread, which in this case you didn't (indeed, the last thread is two years old). Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:216.154.17.86 reported by User:Garuda28 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

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

Comments:
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. - Aoidh (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:MapReader reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

06:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC) "Restore long-term stable version. If you really want to re-run a twenty year old argument, take it to the talk page."
17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1147236205 by Rreagan007 (talk)"
06:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Yes, but the article refers to official Olympic events and the IOC terminology applies"
02:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1147109261 by Rreagan007 (talk) Olympic event titles are defined by the IOC"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2028 Summer Olympics."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

15:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC) on User talk:MapReader "/* March 2023 */ Reply"

Comments:

Edit warring on this article over the use of the word soccer/football. Tried talking to them on their talk page, but they just reverted my warning (and discussion) [8] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ill-informed report. As per the talk page for the LA Olympics article, it is an established precedent for over twenty years that Olympic events are referred to by their internationally recognised IOC titles. Hence Olympic football is ‘football’, not ‘soccer’, although the edit to this article includes soccer in brackets so as to make the position clear to all readers. Similarly the 100 metres is the ‘100 metres’, not the ‘109 yards’. The editor raising this complaint came along and made a change to the long-standing settled position of this article without bothering to raise the matter on the talk page of this article, or to the main LA28 article, where regular editors to that article are very familiar with the issue, raised back in 2000 in relation to the Sydney Games. Articles about the Olympics refer to its events by their proper titles; it’s as simple as that. A convention observed by the official LA28.org website itself, that despite being written in American English throughout, refers to football events as ‘football’, per the IOC. That this editor feels his challenge to the long-established status quo deserves raising an incident on this page is most disappointing. MapReader (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MapReader: Your last revert was a few hours outside the 24-hour window. Therefore, I am only warning you that if you continue to edit-war, you may be blocked. Instead, you, Rreagan007, who was the one who changed the article and added an American English template to the Talk page, and Sportsfan 1234, should take this where it belongs, to the article Talk page. And please do not discuss the merits of the content dispute here as this is not the place for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magnolia677 reported by User:10mmsocket (Result: Declined – malformed report)

User being reported: Magnolia677 (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:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Because of Magnolia677's edit warring, the article was fully-proected for several days. He/she went forum shopping for support, but didn't get the desired answer. Once the article was unprotected I made a series of edits to address his/her concerns, removing and replacing all the contentious references with reliable ones and also requesting citations for the ones I couldn't immediately replace (diff). However, has immediately gone into the article and *twice* deleted the content, minutes later, not giving me or anyone else a chance to go find appropriate references. That's really poor behaviour - just like his/her behaviour that got the article protected - just blindly deleting stuff. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend, I know you're probably disappointed that the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WPG Police Cause Harm didn't go your way, but removing an unreliable source, and then adding "citation needed" notices to the equally questionable content left behind, does not fix the problem. There was probably a reason the editor who added this train wreck of an edit used blacklisted sources nestled in nowikis in the first place. For this reason, your edit has been challenged, per WP:BURDEN. If you want others to find sources for dubious content, start a discussion on the talk page. But geez, don't run here to report editors who remove your unsourced content (that you know is under suspicion). Magnolia677 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an instance where WP:Boomerang should be applied. Magnolia667's inquiry about the use of unreliable sources in the article at RSN was validated, not rejected. There is nothing improper about removing unsourced text - that's how BRD is supposed to work. Edit warring to restore unsourced and unreliably sources text without any effort to discuss it, on the other hand, is a sanctionable problem. Banks Irk (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3RRNO allows excess reverting over sourcing issues only if the information in question is BLP-related. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blubluman reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Sock blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Second page of edit warring:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Blubluman has not chosen to use the article talk page. Others too.

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

Comments:

Blubluman has chosen to dig up some obscure discussion(2014) on RSN stating there was a consensus to remove referenced information from the Sabanci family. 4 reverts and zero discussion later, Blubluman has still made no effort to discuss anything. Also see the SPI. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic discussed earlier by 7 users at RSN. 6 of them commented on "must be removed". But there is no consensus, yeah. Blubluman (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit offensive attitude? Blubluman (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Blubluman as a sock at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scientelensia reported by User:RossButsy (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Long term edit warring on multiple pages related to football. Refuses to engage in discourse has been warned multiple times by moderators. RossButsy (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RossButsy has been doing the exact same thing so I do not believe that this is just. They told me to take concerns to the talk page and then said that my edits were “offensive mate” on the talk page. Then they decided to delete information on a page which had been there for a while and got angry.

Also, on the David Luiz page I merely stopped people deleting content with no reason. However, when a reason was provided, I changed the page as I agreed with the person that the sources were perhaps not useful. I also thanked the person that made the comment. You can see on the diffs that I made the changes that the user requested.

I think it is fair to say that Ross Butsy has been both rude and incorrect in removing text for the reason that “Not constructive or conducive to the article”. The text they removed there was text that had been there long before I had started to edit the page, and they provided no reason why analysis on Fabinho, which can be seen in many other pages, was irrelevant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147730149?diffmode=source

I personally find it much easier to work with constructive editors like MattytheWhite rather than those who make destructive edits for little reason. For instance MattytheWhite considers all the content added and makes partial reverts for good reasons if needed. Others do not.

Rather a lot of these diffs do in fact show that Butsy has been questioned on their needless content removal. You can also see how another user has asked Butsy to stop “harassing” them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035058971?diffmode=source

This really tells you all you need to know. Reading it up can see that the user tried to be inflammatory rather than helpful or discursive:Talk:Fabinho (footballer, born 1993)

Links to diffs of Butsy’s reverts and deletions without reasons on pages which I am involved with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147730149?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666482?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666537?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147540173?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666251?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147530496?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147530735?diffmode=source

I also wanted to engage with the user, but they disregarded it as “Nonsense” and simply deleted it. Special:MobileDiff/1147728909

In conclusion, I believe it is clear to see why I regard this submission of me here by RossButsy as more than slightly hypocritical, if not plainly rude. I believe that action needs to be take regarding the constant misuse of Wikipedia of this user, despite their pledge to not “edit war and [instead] discuss and if that fails disengage”, and I believe that many others would agree. Scientelensia (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

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

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

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

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scientelensia reported by User:RossButsy (Result: Nuanced)

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

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

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

Comments:

Scientelensia’s defending statement

RossButsy has been doing the exact same thing so I do not believe that this is just. They told me to take concerns to the talk page and then said that my edits were “offensive mate” on the talk page. Then they decided to delete information on a page which had been there for a while and got angry.

Also, on the David Luiz page I merely stopped people deleting content with no reason. However, when a reason was provided, I changed the page as I agreed with the person that the sources were perhaps not useful. I also thanked the person that made the comment. You can see on the diffs that I made the changes that the user requested.

I think it is fair to say that Ross Butsy has been both rude and incorrect in removing text for the opinionated reason that it was “Not constructive or conducive to the article”. The text they removed there was text that had been there long before I had started to edit the page, and they provided no reason why analysis on Fabinho (similar analysis can be seen in many other pages) was irrelevant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147730149?diffmode=source

I personally find it much easier to work with constructive editors like MattytheWhite rather than those who make destructive edits for little reason. For instance MattytheWhite considers all the content added and makes partial reverts for good reasons if needed. Others do not.

Rather a lot of these diffs do in fact show that Butsy has been questioned on their needless content removal and on other misdemeanours (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattythewhite&oldid=913244272). You can also see how another user has asked Butsy to stop “harassing” them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035058971?diffmode=source

This talk page really tells you all you need to know. Reading it one can see that the user tried to be inflammatory rather than helpful or discursive:Talk:Fabinho (footballer, born 1993)

Links to diffs of Butsy’s reverts and deletions without reasons on pages which I am involved with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147730149?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666482?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666537?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147540173?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666251?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147530496?diffmode=source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147530735?diffmode=source

I also wanted to engage with the user, but they disregarded it as “Nonsense” and simply deleted it. Special:MobileDiff/1147728909

In conclusion, I believe it is clear to see why I regard this submission of me here by RossButsy as more than slightly hypocritical, if not plainly rude. I believe that action needs to be take regarding the constant misuse of Wikipedia of this user, despite their pledge to not “edit war and [instead] discuss and if that fails disengage”, and I believe that many others would agree.

Okay,

Scientelensia is partially blocked from editing the article about Fabinho (footballer, born 1993) for two weeks, to prevent further ownership behavior and violations of WP:BLPRESTORE.
RossButsy is blocked from editing for two weeks, not limited to a specific article as the behavior has repeatedly occurred in various biographies of living people, and
RossButsy is restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours for a year; details can be found at [34].

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:103.120.117.94 reported by User:Unnamed anon (Result: )

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]

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

Comments: Good-faith but misguided IP is warring over adding characters' gender to the character tables, despite it being irrelevant and only two options. We are discussing it on the article talk page, but this info is completely irrelevant and it would be worth telling the IP about the rules on cruft in addition to edit warring.

User:User10281129 reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
May

Jan

Feb

Apr

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [52]

Comments:

Prolonged edit warring over the same or similar material by User:User10281129 at Joseon since May 2022 and WP:IDHT. After discussion and disagreement at talk page the user came back to try to no edit summary sneak in the same change (Feb Apr). The same kind of tendentious edit warring behavior can be found throughout their edit history in other articles (ex. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]). Previously had issues brought up here regarding WP:COMPETENCE (edit spamming, poor English, hard to understand or nonsensical logic; see recent reversions, my talk) and WP:NPA. I also suspect they might be this Special:Contributions/183.98.152.118 here who has made similar edits with poor grammar at Joseon in January 2022 ([58]) and edited economy articles similar to User10281129 (ex. [59] [60]).Qiushufang (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i did nothing wrong. Why are you reporting me? User10281129 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you are interrupting my edits for no reason. You are tailing me and deleting all my edits. You are the one who casing edit war. I told you to stop tailing me. But you are still tailing me — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

did i something wrong this time? Let me ask you. Why are you deleting my edits? I didn't fix anything. The contents are entirely almost same. I was just adding more details. You have no reason to delete my all edits like that.User10281129 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if i didn't do anything wrong this time, you should not report me. But you did and you are bringing past — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

he or she was keep tailing me and deleted all my edits since 2022. User10281129 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2023 (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