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)
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
362	363	364	365	366	367	368	369	370	371
Incidents (archives, search)
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
1177	1178	1179	1180	1181	1182	1183	1184	1185	1186
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485
486	487	488	489	490	491	492	493	494	495
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Algirr reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

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

Comments:
I'd like to note that this isn't the editor's first time engaging in disruptive editing. See their edit history in Fall of the Assad regime, Hafez al-Assad, and Arab Cold War. Skitash (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat for the hundred thousandth time, we had a discussion, I had the last word there, and if you are unable to scroll down the list of discussions, it is not my damn problem and not my damn fault. Algirr (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally went to sleep 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

moreover, your pointless claim about Hafez al-Assad is pointless. It didn't reach the edit war, and I attached sources, while my opponent needed several attempts to read the article and find the mentioned details, after which he said that this source, because it is a blog, is not a relevant resource (he didn't even say this since the first his re-edit) Algirr (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their three messages in that discussion,[9][10][11] it doesn't seem like @Abo Yemen agreed with you at all. Skitash (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, my counterarguments don't have to be taken into account? Algirr (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not joking, I also disagreed with him (what a surprise, right?) and gave my arguments, if you suddenly didn't notice Algirr (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the "fall of the Assad regime". Can you please remind me WHICH and WHOSE collage was approved for posting? And WHO was the first to change and divide it, although they had neither the right nor the justification for this in the form of creating a consensus? Algirr (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This personal attack speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The fact that you are responding after the ban, and to the message that was written because of the ban, also speaks for itself. Algirr (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not a ban, it's a short block that you described as anunjustified, bastard behavior on the part of the moderators. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @EvergreenFir Besides the personal attack, could you please check the edit history in Assadism? @Algirr resumed edit warring the moment they got unblocked. Skitash (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll keep an eye on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. I forgot to mention they're edit warring on Military junta,[12] Ba'athist Syria,[13][14] and Military Command Council [15] too. Skitash (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "No thanks, if you want add it yourself. I hope your grandfather is okay" Seems like another personal attack.[16] Skitash (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it was a personal attack. He was probably trying to be nice, but the language barrier wasn't helping 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wait i've just opened the link and I'm confused. I thought that you were referring to this comment of his [17], which is exactly like that edit summary 😭 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Algirr reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

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

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

Comments:
This editor has made four reverts on Assadism alone less than 24 hours after getting unblocked (see the earlier report above). They've also resumed edit warring on military junta [25] and Ba'athist Syria.[26][27] Skitash (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 week EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:184.98.223.248 reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Savydeal reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Blocked one month)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

06:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC) "This message is special to does who doesn't know what is media and artistry image For actors, an "artistic image" refers to the overall visual perception and style they project, encompassing everything from their physical appearance, clothing, and hairstyle to their vocal delivery and on-screen or stage presence. It's how they portray a character's personality, style, and social standing through a carefully crafted persona."
03:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC) "This message is special to does who doesn't know what is media and artistry image For actors, an "artistic image" refers to the overall visual perception and style they project, encompassing everything from their physical appearance, clothing, and hairstyle to their vocal delivery and on-screen or stage presence. It's how they portray a character's personality, style, and social standing through a carefully crafted persona."
03:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC) "Its just personal Opinion all actor have there artistic image. Then remove Hina Khan also."
03:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC) "Its not promotional as all actors and actress has its artistic image including Alia Bhatt, Hina Khan, Nia Sharma. Eastern Eyes and time are notable category. So please don't remove it. And if you remove this I will remove all other actors including Hina Khan, Jennifer Winget, Alia Bhatt."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

03:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Shivangi Joshi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Numerous warnings given on their talk page. CNMall41 (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one month. Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:CarterSchmelz61 reported by User:Nemov (Result: Blocked 24h)

User being reported: CarterSchmelz61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC) "Updated short description"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is in a slow edit war. The editor was warned last month not to make the change again without finding consensus. Nemov (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:3RR: "Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Correct me if I'm wrong here: Being involved in a "slow edit war" doesn't qualify to be reported here, not even in a gap of one month. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Yes it can. WP:EW is very clear that users do not have to violate 3RR or 1RR to be edit warring. In this case these edits have been all the edits to the article for the last month or so. It has been noted as well that this user has been editing for a while but has ignored multiple requests to discuss these edits. The user's talk page shows a long history of warnings and CTOPS alerts that suggests this has been a long time coming. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand now. Thank you for correcting me here. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case Am I okay rolling that article back to the status quo? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure you are. US State Flag is a good short description; Flag of SC practically duplicates the article title. See WP:SDEXAMPLES, where Mississippi is formatted this way. (Agreed on the edit warring block, though) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onemillionthtree reported by User:Tercer (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43][44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

Comments:

I'm not a party to any of the content disputes involved, I'm just trying to slow the editor down and get them to reach consensus with others. To no avail. Tercer (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's worth noting the user's response to receiving a warning for WP:EW is to get quite upset about the idea of being in a war zone--I actually considered WP:ANI for this: [47]. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These two edits are also concerning: Calling another user a 'servant' MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patapsco913 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts; Reversions on 13 May

First revert to replace table @ 12:17.[49]
Second revert to replace table @ 13:52.[50]
Third revert to replace table @ 16:01.[51]
Fourth revert to restore other just-removed material @ 19:56.[52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see [54]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [55]

Comments:

What is the "other just removed-material" in the alleged fourth revert? It looks like Patapsco just found a better source for which counties constitute Cancer Alley. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Within that edit, for example putting back the"The "alley" later grew to encompass ..." text sourced (as before) to [56], or (wrongly) reverting the word "rebutting" back to "refuting", among other restorations. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lawrence 979 reported by User:Danners430 (Result: )

User being reported: Lawrence 979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC) "Partially reverted edit (for now) as the 'monday-saturday only' mention is a legimate mention, in that there are indeed no Sunday Southern services"
13:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290225880 by Murgatroyd49 (talk) See your talk page"
13:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290224224 by Murgatroyd49 (talk)"
12:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) "Added a source to Southern's timetable"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

20:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Murgatroyd49 "/* Woolston station */ Reply"

Comments:

User has opened a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject UK Railways, but I’m concerned he is still reverting after being told not to and has now reached 4 reverts Danners430 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That fourth edit is nothing to do with that topic which we are having the discussion about, but you reverted it anyway just because it had my name on it, despite that edit purposely excluding Netley station from public page (it is in the code, but the typical reader will not see that information). There are many cases where stations don't have sunday services, or even saturday services, so consequently mention "Monday-Saturday only" in the infobox, and consequently is legitimate information for any reader, provided it follows existing precedent. Also with some of those reversions, that was done after the issue of the edits being unsourced was resolved by me by providing a source from a trusted website (Southern Railway's official website). Even if it isn't the most clear source, the information can be found within, and I have also found the PDF variant (covering until December 2025) where the information can be accessed more easily by using ctrl+f and typing in Netley (which appears twice, once for a morning service and once for an evening service), so that may be a better source potentially. Lawrence 979 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your fourth edit literally has the edit summary “partially reverted edit”… we’re discussing the content dispute as we speak. Danners430 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said "partially reverted", because the only section I reverted was a side-edit which should have really been on the article since June 2024. The whole section we are discussing was not reinstated to the article following the dispute. Lawrence 979 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshua Jonathan reported by User:58.99.101.165 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Hello._This_message_is_being_sent_to_inform_you_that_there_is_currently_a_discussion_involving_you_at_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring_regarding_a_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia's_policy_on_edit_warring._Thank_you. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Inadequate_sources

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Hello._This_message_is_being_sent_to_inform_you_that_there_is_currently_a_discussion_involving_you_at_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring_regarding_a_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia's_policy_on_edit_warring._Thank_you.

Comments:

Joshua Jonathan made two reverts; there seems to be IP address hopping involved. When Joshua Jonathan stopped, Ramos1990 joined and edit warred with edit summaries telling others not to; they're Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The page is semi-protected for a year to prevent further IP address hopping. Neither Joshua Jonathan nor Ramos1990 should restore the disputed content; if it is the result of a consensus, others who helped building it can do this job. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]