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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Wamalotpark reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Warned )

Previous version reverted to: First edit to change the capitalization

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First revert, using their IP, which is very obviously the same editor
Second revert
Third revert
Fourth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

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

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

Comments:

Wamalotpark is edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles, and are making the same edits while logged out.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The charge is obviously correct. User:Wamalotpark, I reverted you because no advantage should go to the edit warrior. If you revert again you will be blocked. The logged-out editing is another matter, a more serious matter, and as it happens I can see just how much of it you have been doing. You should stop doing that esp. if, as you did here, you seem to be doing it to avoid scrutiny, because it's abusive and you are going to get blocked for it. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Augmented Seventh reported by User:Recyclethispizzabox (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1269162140

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271427280&oldid=1271423082

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271423082&oldid=1271392849

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271428457&oldid=1271428288

Comments:

The article in question presents one-sided information, and that too sometimes using unsourced and questionable sources. The language Urdu is part of the Pakistani identity, and this article does not engage with the perspectives of Pakistanis who argue that the language Urdu has its own identity, distinct from Hindi. It's culturally insensitive to dismiss the cultural identity of another community and dismiss their perspecitives entirely to push one-sided claims that only serve to undermine their identity.

No violation Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denniss reported by User:Just-a-can-of-beans (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2]
[3] - note that this one is marked as a minor edit.
[4]
[5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but see page edit comments.

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

Comments:

This page on a WW2-era anti-tank weapon has been edited today because the gun has been seen on video in active service of the Russian Armed Forces. Note that this is a caliber which has seemingly not had munitions produced for it since the 50s, so a return to service is not something that could just happen at any time. This is clearly noteworthy, but the user in question is repeatedly reverting any discussion of it. No attempt has been made by the user to justify this on the talk page. Additionally, the user marked his third reversion as a minor edit - perhaps in an attempt to avoid automated flagging or scrutiny? Once challenged (by me, after his third revert) he again reverted, marking his fourth, and bizarrely claimed WP:OR applied because the original editor viewed a video which was publicly released by a media channel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. I think that a 20-year user with 45,000 edits knows that this claim is ridiculous.

A review of his talk page and edit history finds lengthy and frequent issues taken with his editing, which is almost entirely composed of reverts - some of which seem opinionated and overly editorialized (example: [8]). Looking further back, this user has had repeated formal and informal warnings for edit warring, following users to revert their edits, etc. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:InterComMan reported by User:Adriazeri (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) "no wrong edits"
16:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC) "no overlink, adding HQ and more fixes. See all edits before reverting"
Consecutive edits made from 11:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 11:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC) "removed overlinks, general fixes, new HQ image"
2. 11:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC) ""
12:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC) "new HQ image; fix (there aren't overlinks)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

13:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Using misleading edit summaries on TIM Group."
18:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on TIM Group."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user has a history of edit warring.

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:190.21.176.172 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked for 6 months)

User being reported: 190.21.176.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 20:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC) to 20:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 20:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC) "Added source, also, why are you so against what I add? You literally revert everything that I add"
2. 20:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC) "Fixed ortography"
20:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1271585207 by Adamstom.97 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

02:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow."
20:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Deadpool & Wolverine."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've blocked the IP as part of a wide range for 6 months for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:George19980825 reported by User:GSK (Result: )

User being reported: George19980825 (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:

05:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Nintendo Switch 2."
05:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nintendo Switch 2."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Related to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_25#Category:Nintendo_Switch_2. Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_25#Category:Nintendo_Switch_2. Newest deletion due to an apparent bot malfunction by JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs), but it qualified for CSD G4. An improperly linked category was also fixed in this report. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:00, 25 January 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