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:Saxouri reported by User:Novem Linguae (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: MENA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 20:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1144831157 by Novem Linguae (talk)"
3. 20:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1144830552 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk)"
4. 20:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1144747825 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on MENA."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has 53 contributions on various articles, and 39 have been reverted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for the moment, though I suspect this will have to be revisited... Salvio ^giuliano 21:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Cherfan 15!! reported by User:QuietHere (Result: No violation)

Page: List of 2023 albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Cherfan 15!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:13, January 19, 2023 "Artist's Twitter account =/= independent source + "Work'n" is not the same as saying that an album is coming or when."
2. 10:35, January 22, 2023 "1. "Working on an album" doesn't mean it'll even get finished, let alone be released this year. She hasn't said anything about a release date so we can't assume one. And even if she had said it would release this year, there's no independent coverage of an upcoming Cher album so we couldn't add it anyway because her tweet alone doesn't prove notability. Any artist can tweet about an album's existence, but that doesn't mean we give every artist a listing."
3. 14:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC) "The citation might be twitter, but Cher said shes working on albums in the video so it’s true. Plz watch vid before deleting this or editing it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned multiple times previously in reverts and their talk page that social media sources are not reliable and sources that do not mention a release date are invalid, and yet has continued to re-add the entry. Disruptive WP:SPA editor. QuietHere (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

User:SivaGoth reported by User:Giraffer (Result: Partial block)

Page: James Desborough (game designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC) to 21:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
   1. 21:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1145024859 by BubbaJoe123456 (talk) Please stop adding deletion template as the person is notable and has previously been through this process."
   2. 21:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1145024801 by Glane23 (talk) Please don't remove balancing information that comes from the exact same linked article."
2. 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1145024185 by Glane23 (talk) reverted to return to previous less-biased and more sourced state."
3. 21:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1145023929 by Giraffer (talk) was previously flagged for deletion and considered notable. This seems vidictive and not information based."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User repeatedly removing the standard notice on an article for a recently-filed AfD. A warning was issued after three reverts but they have continued since. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This user keeps reverting improvements and has escalated to marking for deletion, abusing the system. SivaGoth (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, @SivaGoth: how is nominating an article for deletion "abusing the system"? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

When someone is constantly being rebuffed in their vandalism of an updated article, prompting for deletion is a clear and obvious escalation, abusing the system to remove an article they might be challenged for control of. SivaGoth (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"constantly being rebuffed"? The user who sent the article to AfD made one prior edit, and it wasn't contested when they nominated the article for deletion. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from James Desborough (game designer) indefinitely with a warning that disruption elsewhere will result in a site-wide block. The comments above and here don't bode well.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Allowing vandalism of articles doesn't bode well. Updating and removing bias from articles is hardly disruption, deleting those changes without reason - however - is. SivaGoth (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ponyo, hope you don't mind, but I've converted the partial block to a sitewide indefinite block for the user's comments after your warning. I imagine TPA will have to be revoked soon, but I can wait and see for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You're always welcome to pick up my slack. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Gamingmaster83 reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gamingmaster83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 15:50, 16 March 2023 UTC

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:44, 17 March 2023 UTC
2. 04:58, 17 March 2023 UTC
3. 05:40, 17 March 2023 UTC
4. 05:48, 17 March 2023 UTC
5. 05:50, 17 March 2023 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warnings on user talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

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

Comments:

Hi, I am an outside, uninvolved party that just came across this edit war involving this user, and two other parties User:Soetermans and User:OceanHok on the other side. This edit war was about a hidden note (HTML comment) added to an infobox item, which is not visible when reading the article normally at all, so the removal of the hidden comment by this user seems pointless to me. Nonetheless, User:Gamingmaster83 clearly broke 3RR here. On top of that, a look at the edit history of the article reveals that this user has been disruptive the previous few days as well, involving other edits. Some of the warnings and comments on their talk page suggest this user has been attacking other editors as well.

AP 499D25 (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not been attacking anybody I agree things got heated But I'm fine now So have a good day. Gamingmaster83 (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

With this edit summary you responded with a single 'middle finger' emoji, 🖕. In comment, you said "I'll stop insulting people when people stop being idiots". That's two personal attacks. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Their latest replies seem to indicate they do not understand what is wrong with their reaction, let alone show their intent to change their attitude.

• "Look I'm sorry About all this I thought about it and you have a point But I have an message Tell him people not to edit tell us confirmed Isn't very nice."
• "Besides isn't that what you all are doing."
• "It's interesting how people lash out at someone who is just trying to point something out."

Gamingmaster83 has been repeatedly told what's wrong, has been issued several warnings and do not seem to understand that what they did is wrong. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I would have let you off with just a 3RR warning, but your previous history of disruptive edits on the Suicide Squad article on 12-14 March, together with edit summaries like "Undone Because there's a thing called freedom People can put on here whatever they want" seem a bit concerning to me. You did make a sort of personal attack in this previous edit, middle finger emoji in the edit summary. "I can do this all day buddy" suggests you are here to blatantly edit disruptively and edit war with other editors.

If you have read through and understand WP:Consensus and the policy about edit warring, and acknowledge to us you won't edit disruptively like that again, we may let you off on this one. AP 499D25 (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User: Alex Emeritus reported by User: NextEditor123 (Result: Declined as malformed)

Page: Lionel Messi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
2. 10:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
3. 10:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
4. 08:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
5. 06:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
6. 15:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
7. 16:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
8. 16:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Alex Emeritus causes edit warring in article about Lionel Messi by repeatedly undo previous edits and corrections to prove that he won 2005 Supercopa de España in which he was not called up. The user also put unreliable non-primary sources for the own re-edits and relies on football club's websites which are not independent sources for players' honours. NextEditor123 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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. I had briefly blocked the reporting editor, whom I have previously blocked for edit warring, and partially blocked the reported editor ... only as I was leaving notice to him did I discover that the reporting editor had never bothered to leave any notice to the reported editor (as not noted above). So, that's a decline, but as my earlier action suggests I felt some sanctions would have been necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Addendum I would suggest the easiest and best way to resolve this is to make an endnote to the honor noting that the team considers it an honor although he contributed in no way to earning it. And/or taking it up to the football project talk page or some other dispute resolution forum. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Leechjoel9 reported by User:Batreeq (Result: Stale)

Page: Asmara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: long-term over 1.5 years (see above)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:

• User has admitted to edit warring (e.g. here). User also has a history of edit warring and is non-compliant and non-willing to discuss this further on the talk page, instead repeatedly reverting. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Batreeq: This report is an abuse of process. The last edit made by Leechjoel9 to the article was on February 11, the one before that on September 26, 2022. You are listing diffs above from 2021.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: And if they keep reverting my edit, but wait >24 h to circumvent 3RR, what then? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Օֆելյա Հակոբյան reported by User:Yerevantsi (Result: )

Page: Ivan Aivazovsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ivan_Aivazovsky#Let's_reach_a_consensus, [19]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

Comments: This user stubbornly refuses to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and instead has engaged in disruptive behavior. In total, within a month, they have changed "Russian painter" to "Armenian painter" on ten occasions without any discussion.

There is a total of 10 reverts since 3 March (all without edit summaries) to restore this edit[21]. The article was full protected from 9 March to 17 March as a result. They have been reverted by multiple editors but there is no sign that they intend to stop edit warring and discuss their change. I gave them a warning for EW on 5 March in fact [22]. Mellk (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Ccaakk reported by User:Moxy (Result: )

Page: Praying town (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC) to 23:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
   1. 23:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "Adding factual term Genocide in leu of cultural assimilation."
   2. 23:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* History */"
   3. 23:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC) ""
   4. 23:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Comparison to Jesuits in Canada */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC) to 23:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
   1. 23:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Purpose */Genocide replaced."
   2. 23:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Comparison to Jesuits in Canada */"
   3. 23:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* History */"
   4. 23:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC) to 21:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
   1. 20:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* History */Genocide: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children..."
   2. 21:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Purpose */Genocide: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children..."
   3. 21:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Comparison to Jesuits in Canada */"
   4. 21:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Failed assimilation */"
5. 19:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Purpose */"
6. 19:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Purpose */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Need to come to talk pages first */ new section"
2. 23:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC) to 23:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC) on User talk:Ccaakk

Comments:

We have a series of advocacy and rightimg great wrong edits across multiple pages. Simply need Editor to come and discuss the changes and bring forth sources Moxy- 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The use of the word GENOCIDE in relation to what happened to the Native Americans during colonization of the USA is accurate and factual. Those who have questioned my use of the word have clearly not read through each source and link cited on this page already, these sources prove the genocide against the Native Americans in the United States and the fact this is being debated proves the point further. Genocide and cultural assimilation are the exact same thing. “successive U.S. administrations have not only wiped out a large number of American Indians, but also, through systematic policy design and bullying acts of cultural suppression, thrown them into an irreversible, difficult situation. The indigenous culture was fundamentally crushed, and the inter-generational inheritance of indigenous lives and spirits was under severe threats. The slaughter, forced relocation, cultural assimilation and unjust treatment the United States committed against American Indians have constituted de facto genocides. These acts fully match the definition of genocide in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and have continued for hundreds of years to this day.” Genocide: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. These are not my opinions, these are facts. Two users messaged me because they believed I used the word too much and agreed with the use of the word just not the repetitive use of it, how is that a valid argument? Ccaakk (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)