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)
1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177
1178	1179	1180	1181	1182	1183	1184	1185	1186	1187
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)
334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:QubeChiba reported by User:Илона И (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I posted warning at her User's post page without template but she deleted it

Her undo of my edits:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] [13][14]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15] (she deleted it)

Comments:

Yesterday I added in Impact part of series Kim Seon-ho's smile challenge. She undo it stating it is not neutral and too detailed. She didn't open topic at Talk page or ask me to rephrase it, just deleted it. I reverted her undo, stating that WP:DUE didn't apply here. She undo it again by deleting most of it. I made Talk topic abt Impact part at series Talk page. She never answered me while editing this page whole time, I tagged her twice bcs I opned 2 Talk topics.

Today she still didn't answer me at Talk page, later the same day I added second footnote proving popularity of Kim Seon-ho's smile challenge not only in China, but also overseas, which she yesterday edited out. She undo it stating wp:OVERKILL.

I undo it and answering: "WP:OVERKILL didn't apply to this case it is 2 different sources, one in Korean and one in English. Read, please again what WP:OVERKILL means. Or open discussion thread at Talk page."

Then I opend Topic abt this problem at series Talk page and went to her page and posted warning abt her WP:OWN behaviour and [WP:3RR].

But then she again undo my edit and demanded: "You don’t need two citations for a phrase. Choose one since either summarizes that it’s popular anyway. Again, this is the extraneous and non essential details clutterj" and "No need for two citations for a phrase. Choose one since either summarizes that it’s popular anyway. Again, this is the extraneous and non essentials that gives it WP: UNDUEWEIGHT".

So I went to report her here, I am aware that in the heat of the moment I also was participate in WP:EDITWAR and can be blocked but I can't stand such gatekeeping, bullying and WP:OWN behaviour. Yes, she is quite good editor, but she also behaves like this series page is her own and only she knows what need to be there. We have equal rights. Also, she threatened other editors while deleting their editors with wrong applied Wiki rules. My adding of 2nd footnote didn't fell under WP:OVERKILL and her own WP:DUE is quite questionable.

She always said in her edit's note that I need to open Topic at Talk page but allowed herself deleted my edits just like that.

She also behaved like this earlier this year for other editors, I checked Edit history.

She makes many small edits to this page and in process coonstantly changes and delete info that other users added and transfer this page to one she wants to see. Other opinions not accepted. Илона И (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QubeChiba, this is indeed too much. If you need to edit the article undisturbed by other editors for a while, you can create a copy in the Draft namespace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW she also posted First warning at my Talk page abt my first addition to Impact part abt Kim Seon-ho's smile challenge, which was perfecrly fine only, mb a bit to detailed if you really want to niptick. In answer I posted in her Talk page that she need to reread what Overlink rule is meant to be, bcs I also understand it wrongly before (I thought abt it as WP:OVERKILL) and she deleted other ppl fotnotes with reference to Overlinking. Илона И (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Илона И, your message is hard to read because of unusual abbreviations I'd avoid when communicating in a professional manner about an encyclopedia. Thank you for the information, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I remembered last rule variation name that she threw at me but by WP:OVERKILL I meant Wikipedia:Citation overkill and by Overlinking - when you putting to many interwiki links in article. Илона И (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I hope in the future she will engage in dialogue not only in authoritan Edit note but also at Talk page and we would be manage to find consensus Илона И (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bill.shipsey reported by User:Idg2025 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Anjhula Mya Bais
User being reported: Bill.shipsey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user has reverted 3 times within a 24-hour period, violating WP:3RR. The edits involve re-adding content that lacks encyclopedic relevance and is unsourced or poorly sourced.
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill.shipsey#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anjhula_Mya_Bais

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill.shipsey#Notice

Comments:
I received accusations on my discussion page from this user just for having generated my profile to modify information that I understand to be in breach of Wikipedia's rules. It would appear that his interest in editing is not encyclopaedic. Thank you for any action you can take to prevent abuse.

Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Idg2025 also violated WP:3RR and may be a single-purpose account created to remove this information from the article in question. Account creation yesterday and only edited this article.

Some of the information reverted did violate WP:GRAPEVINE, so the reverts might be legit? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MilesVorkosigan, I'll take these reverts as close enough to WP:3RRNO #7 to not justify a block. However, the page is extended-confirmed protected now anyway and both editors can't edit it anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bildete reported by User:XYZ1233212 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

10:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291780088 by XYZ1233212 (talk) the second candidate Trzaskowski will be interviewed on Saturday, Mentzen it's really dealing this election from his 3rd place and using new media for that very significant event in political marketing"
09:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "widely discussed, and Mentzen with 15% votes come with his 8 points program, Trzaskowski also will be there for interview. It's making Mentzen a kingmaker and unprecedented candidate using new media with success that was also broadcast by all network tv live too"
08:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291768755 by 2A02:8084:4F43:8E00:5538:BDAB:A65D:1F77 (talk) unregistered user removing without reason"
08:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Notable, 3,6m views now, It was live broadcast by all tv stations TVN, Polsat, TVP, Republika. Trzaskowski will also come to him on Saturday, making Mentzen XYZ1233212 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)kingmaker"[reply]
22:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC) "More sources and link to YouTube interview itself now 3,3 million views"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2600:1700:7FB0:8530:D9E5:61C1:CC26:1FC2 reported by User:Doniago (Result: /64 range blocked for two weeks)

User being reported: 2600:1700:7FB0:8530:D9E5:61C1:CC26:1FC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Tremors 2: Aftershocks."
03:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tremors 2: Aftershocks."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

03:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Thomas Rosales Jr. as an oil worker */ new section"

Comments:

IP edit-warring; page protection may also be reasonable. DonIago (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

/64 range blocked for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:VirtualVagabond reported by User:King Ayan Das (Result: Blocked 24 hours and alerted to CTOPS)

Previous versions reverted to: For the first revert 12:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC) and for the second revert 13:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC), 14:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

Comments:

The following article is a Contentious topic and is subject to a 1RR restriction.
As you can see, the same user reverted my edit within 24 hours of their previous revert, which constitutes a violation of the 1RR policy. This action does not fall under any of the exemptions listed in WP:NOT3RR. King Ayan Das (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Also alerted to CTOPS due to their many edits in the WP:CT/IPA topic area. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Truthmattersalot reported by User:TonySt (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""
02:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""
02:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Bibliography */"
02:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

02:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Marthe Cohn."
02:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Adding commentary to an article on Marthe Cohn."
02:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Adding commentary to an article on Marthe Cohn."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not sure if this is best for WP:AN3 or WP:AIV. User account only exists to repeat personal allegations against Marthe Cohn on the article for that subject. Flagged while doing WP:RCP. Per WP:3RR I won't be reverting the latest edit since it can be argued that this falls just short of "obvious" vandalism. —tony^{st (talk)} 02:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not vandalism if it’s accurate and can be verified. I noticed that whenever you don’t like something that’s been written you call it vandalism. I looked at your history. 2603:8001:B100:F484:F416:E45D:6632:E03 (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism if it's not clearly being added in bad faith. However, it's edit warring to repeatedly attempt to re-add it—and that's before considering the WP:BLP implications of the claims that are not cited to independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liyo123 reported by User:S0091 (Result: Sock indeffed)

User being reported: Liyo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

06:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""
17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291830256 by S0091 (talk)"
17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291828843 by CNMall41 (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC) to 17:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
1. 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "These information general information that does not require to be added in lead paragraph. So stop vandalizing or else u will be Blocked."
2. 17:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "These information general information that does not require to be added in lead paragraph. So stop vandalizing or else u will be Blocked."
16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291794012 by FlakyCroissant (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shivangi Joshi."
17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shivangi Joshi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is only the second time I have filed at EWN so apologies if I did it incorrectly. I reverted once trying to get them to start a discussion on the talk page after two editors disagreed via reverts and left them the "soft" EW notice but their reaction was revert me so I left the hard warning . At the same time they left me a note stating I needed to start the discussion but I am not the one trying include the disputed content. The edit warring stopped yesterday but then they added their changes again today. They were reverted again by another editor (who may have also violated EW but they have not been sufficiently warned) then they requested page protection for "vandalism" (WP:Requests for page protection#Shivangi Joshi). S0091 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Savydeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2025 (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, 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