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:Alhitmi123 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: )

Page: Abu Tahir al-Jannabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alhitmi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:

The previous edit warring report was declined due to "an indefinite block very possible and seeming likely" in the ANI thread [9], which I thought as well. However, despite 4 supports for a indef block, the report got auto archived. Now Alhitmi123 is back at edit warring, making up a new lie to remove sourced info. This user is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

wow all of that because i wanted the readers to have an actual real academic source? I still have faith that the moderators are actually going to make a logical decision. Adding unrelated sources and opinions will just mislead readers into the wrong conclusion. Please double check the citations, and if you have a credible source with an author, you can mention it. I would be the first person to support you in that. Alhitmi123 (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If you used less time complaining about me on Reddit (and yes, I saw your other posts too, very charming, perhaps use some of that energy into sources) and some actual time looking into the sources you call unreliable, you would easily see that Encyclopedia Iranica is in fact reliable [10] [11]. You have jumped between four different excuses now [12] [13] [14] [15], WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I see you declined a prior report due to the AN/I case mentioned above, which was never resolved. In light of the revert warring, I find somewhat disturbing the relative dearth of talk page discussions about content. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: No, Daniel Case declined it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Woops. Apologies. You commented there, and somehow my brain registered your comment as the decline. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks for blocking them. Unfortunately this has led them to resort to personal attacks once more, once again proving that they are WP:NOTHERE:

• With all my heart, i advise you to walk outside and make some friends 🙏.
• Couple of persian nationalists who spends the largest chunk of their lives editing unsourced narratives that gives them the satisfaction of a false fantasy victory teamed up and trying to pass their narrative.

HistoryofIran (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• The reported user does have serious WP:CIR and WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. After this report and their above comment, they did it again.[16] --Mann Mann (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

User:FanOfSunYang reported by User:LilAhok (Result: Full protection for three days)

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

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Qin Haiyang Article:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

Comments:

User is disregarding WP:BLP and returning information that violates BLP. The consensus on the talk page is that the information should not be included because it violates BLP guidelines. User is making edits against consensus. Although the reverts were not made within the 24-hour window, it is clear that the user is evading the restriction by making reverts outside of this timeframe.

Furthermore, the user has engaged in the same edit warring behavior (4 reverts) in each of the articles mentioned below: Yang Junxuan revision history Wang Shun revision history Zhang Yufei (swimmer) revision history

I could have reported the user three more times, as I initiated discussions on each talk page and warned the user against engaging in edit warring behavior. This brought the total to four warnings for edit warring across four articles.[25]

User might be disruptive sockpuppet [26]. Reported on 4 September 2024.

LilAhok (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Page protected in full for three days, so you guys can, as you keep talking about, go on the talk page and work it out. This does not fit the time frame for 3RR, but neither is it exempt under the 3RRNO BLP exemption since the disputed material, while undoubtedly negative toward the subject, is also by no means poorly sourced or unsourced. It really needs to be a matter of consensus, and the most recent discussion on the talk page relevant to this is about six weeks old.

Frankly, this is an ideal matter for BLPN. Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Civil9095 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked from article)

Page: Modern monetary theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Civil9095 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "the idea these are the first four or only tenents of MMT is not sourced in this sentence"
2. 14:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "this has to do with counting, not edit warring. do you know how to count? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. is not 1"
3. 14:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "why are you not using talk?"
4. 14:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "this is discussed on talk. when there are sourced statements that conflict with each other, they need to be qualified somewhere, like the lede. Else it just creates confusion for no reason"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "/* MMT vs "mainstream economics" */ Reply"

Comments: Deleting very well sourced statements about the relationship of this fringe economic theory to mainstream economics. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from modern monetary theory Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC))

User:Davefelmer reported by User:Kcmastrpc (Result: Blocked two weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1238402277 - Introduced 03 August 2024 by @Davefelmer

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1240339301 - Restored 14 August 2024 by @Davefelmer
2. Special:Diff/1243298828 - Restored 31 August 2024 by @Davefelmer
3. Special:Diff/1243664150 - Restored 02 Sept 2024 by @Davefelmer
4. Special:Diff/1243897765 - Restored 03 Sept 2024 by @Davefelmer
5. Special:Diff/1244009521 - Restored 04 Sept 2024 by @Davefelmer

This user has been engaged with this discussion on the JD Vance talk page insisting that their be consensus for removal, which is in stark contrast to BLP policy per WP:BLPRESTORE, WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:ONUS. The editor has been exhibiting WP:OWN behavior by continuing to restore the disputed content despite their being a clear lack of consensus in the talk page discussion linked below.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Davefelmer#Edit_warring_on_JD_Vance

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:JD_Vance#Slow_moving_edit_war_(JD_Vance_childlessness_sociopathy_comment)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1244013825

Comments:

I believe a one-week page block is in order here, and removal of the disputed content per the articles talk page discussion linked above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:183:4B82:710:7D76:FD68:41D9:BB7B reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: WFOX (FM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:183:4B82:710:7D76:FD68:41D9:BB7B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 20:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC) to 20:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
   1. 20:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "/* History */"
   3. 20:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "/* History */"
4. 19:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 18:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking (UV 0.1.5)"
2. 20:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on WFOX (FM)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• BlueboyLINY, while it is apparent that the user being reported it edit warring (and is now blocked), I ask that you also make an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page next time. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Springee reported by User:Cortador (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 5

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 6

Comments:
Another editor had already placed a (now removed) edit warring warning on the talk page. Cortador (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any action for @Springee, as he is discussing BLP violations on Talk with an editor who appear to be attempting to POV-push WP:EXTRAORDINARY WP:OR claims into the lead without clear consensus in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. The editor restoring the content, could be construed broadly as not heeding the spirit of WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:BREAKING so it appears to me that this editor may be rushing to include this material without waiting for consensus to form on the talk page.

Support WP:BOOMERANG for @ContentEditman Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I'd also encourage editors to take things to WP:BLPN in the future before opening a request on EWR. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There are only 2 or possibly 3 reverts here. I've made a total of 4 edits to the page over perhaps several months. Two of the edits are back to back and count as only a single edit. The addition of contentious BLP claims to the lead shouldn't have been restored without consensus on the talk page. The addition of material to the Jan 6 section may be viewed as not a revert as it's adding content to a new section but it was material long standing material that Cortador had recently removed from a different section so I can also see a good claim that is a revert. It was also almost back to back with my other change so but for a few minutes it would have been only a single revert instead of 2. I will also note that I started a talk page discussion on the material Cortador removed without consensus and there is no consensus for the new addition to the lead. (Sorry for any typos this is a phone entry) Springee (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

One other thing, not that it matters as I'm aware of 3RR but @Cortador: if you are dealing with a new editor, to show awareness you need to post edit warring notice and then see if the warring continues after the notice. In this case you posted the notice and the 3RRN back to back. That means you failed to give notice before taking things here. Springee (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You already had a notice from a different editor; you just choose to remove it from your talk page. Cortador (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Then why bother posting a second one to my talk page? Springee (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Because I hadn't seen that you had already received a warning, since you appear to always remove such notifications from your talk page (as you did with this notification here as well). Since you had already received a warning, moving to the noticeboard was the next stop. Cortador (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so like I said for future reference, a notice after the edits are made is not sufficient awareness. At least one of the violating edits must be made after the notice. Springee (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  The article also appears to have been protected for a few hours. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't matter much in terms of these editors, but the article has now been semi-protected for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, they do. Each one of them is a revert, one manual and three direct. Cortador (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Don't you think it's a bad look to continue to edit war over the same material you are reporting me for?

  You deleted long standing content here [[27]]. I restored the long standing content with a note saying why I didn't agree with the removal. You deleted it again [[28]] instead of opening a talk discussion. I opened that discussion [[29]]. So far we have 3 editors involved and you are the only one who objects. Additionally you are falling to understand ABOUTSELF. So an IP editor disagreed with your removal and restored it. You reverted again [[30]]. I'll grant that you are making BOLD edits when you act as if there is a consensus for your edit warring. Springee (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Ghaij625 reported by User:98Tigerius (Result: Blocked for two weeks)

Page: 2025 FIVB Volleyball Women's World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ghaij625 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "Which admin are we talking about? I'd gladly contact them about your disruptive editing."
2. 13:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "No thank you, I'd rather stay with the truth."
3. 13:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 12:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "The flag is always used. See the previous editions to get a clue."
5. 12:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Preliminary round */WP:OR"
6. 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Pools composition */No, the video was for both tournaments. What made you think so anyway?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "Note: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
2. 13:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"
3. 13:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
4. 13:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Pools composition */ new topic"
2. 12:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Pools composition */ reply"
3. 13:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Pools composition */ reply"
4. 13:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Pools composition */ edit reply"

Comments:

User keeps insisting their edit is "right" when I disagree and reverted it with proper guidelines and policies in my edit summaries. I also open a discussion on the article's talk but the user is not replying. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I replied but you were nowhere to be seen? Ghaij625 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You've left a message on my talk page and I replied back so you can reply here and I ping you twice but still no reply from you in the article's talk page. I am not nowhere to be seen but you rather. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 14:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Note Ghaji625 just attempted to delete this discussion. — Czello ^(music) 14:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks This is one for the books, one of which I decided needed to be thrown at Ghaij. Five reverts in 24 hours (to an infobox, putting it in contentious topic area, no less—I will also be giving them an alert and leaving a CTOPS notice on the talk page). These edits were the repeated removal of an inline note, putting the user more at odds with the community. Then they tried to delete this discussion, as noted above. These actions and some of their language in edit summaries betray as well a general battleground mentality, something we cannot discourage strongly enough. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

User:MarcoDLuffy reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Ben Goertzel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1243879979 by Grayfell (talk)"
2. 08:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1243644431 by MarkH21 (talk)"
3. 12:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1243508483 by Grayfell (talk)"
4. 17:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1243305959 by Grayfell (talk)"
5. 18:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "→‎Hello?: new section"
2. 22:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ben Goertzel."
3. 17:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ben Goertzel."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA with 5 consecutive reverts against 2 editors, deleting referenced content without explanation nor engagement — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)