Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

User:Cossde reported by User:Petextrodon (Result: Take to AN/I)

Page: 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cossde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

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

Comments:This user who has been blocked in the past for edit warring is continuing their behaviour despite being warned not to and while in middle of a discussion about the content in question.Petextrodon (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Petextrodon and Oz346, has been engaged in a rolling edit war across multiple pages.

• Pottuvil massacre: [7], [8]
• Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam: [9], [10], [11]
• Sri Lanka Armed Forces : [12], [13]
• 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom : [14], [15]

In fact this was raised by me in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Oz346_and_User:Petextrodon_reported_by_User:Cossde_(Result:_No_violation). While both have been engaged in personal attacks such as [16], [17], [18]. Cossde (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Advising you to follow basic Wikipedia rules does not constitute insults. I'm sorry that you see it that way (at least now, though you agreed with me earlier). --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Declined This would be better at AN/I First, the last edit warring was three or four days ago. Second, the allegations that this is spilling across mulitiple articles and involving other users suggest it is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Case, if you're replying to me, I didn't bring up the second point. I've given multiple edit warring warnings to this user but they continue to persist with this behaviour. But your suggestion is noted. --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I just clarified that this was a formal close. The other option we could take would be fully protecting the article for a few days, if you want that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:2D01:D400:8DA1:20E9:8FA5:B0CC reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: /64 range blocked 3 months)

Page: Susan Monica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:C7C:2D01:D400:8DA1:20E9:8FA5:B0CC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1210480854 by Czello (talk)"
2. 20:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1210479091 by Sideswipe9th (talk)"
3. 20:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "You disrespect each of the victims by not including public information. I didn't change anything other than birth, I didn't change pronouns or the killers chosen name."
4. 20:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "This is public information, and it is a disservice to the victims of this convicted murder to omit it from this page."
5. 20:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "Required corrections from records."
6. 20:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "correction of information as sanctioned"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Susan Monica."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Brightline WP:3RR violation on Susan Monica. IP editor is edit warring to include Monica's non-notable former name, which is currently excluded per MOS:GENDERID. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You disrespect each of the victims by not including public information. I didn't change anything other than birth, I didn't change pronouns or the killers chosen name. 2A02:C7C:2D01:D400:8DA1:20E9:8FA5:B0CC (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

On Caitlyn Jenner's page it says she was born Bruce Jenner so how is my edit any different? 2A02:C7C:2D01:D400:8DA1:20E9:8FA5:B0CC (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see MOS:GENDERID. Caitlyn Jenner was notable under her former name, so the third paragraph of the guideline applies. Susan Monica was not, so the second paragraph of the guideline applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• /64 range blocked for 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page ... maybe we want to put the appropriate one for deadnaming there too?

  BTW, I also agree with whoever complained on the talk page that the article should be renamed to "Murders of ... VICTIMS", following NCCRIME, because she isn't notable for anything else and that's not really enough to qualify as serial murder. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User:AxleOblong reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [27]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I also left a CTOPS notice on the talk page under ARBAP2. It looks like that may be needed in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, prior to this I opened an SPI on this account Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AxleOblong as similar edits have come from two other accounts on the same page. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User:2600:6C50:103F:C431:5039:6AF0:825A:2EBB reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: Protected)

Page: Vanessa Bryant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:6C50:103F:C431:5039:6AF0:825A:2EBB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]
5. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

Comments:

• Result: Page fully protected one week. I am concerned about a possible BLP issue, and am leaving notes for User:Clear Looking Glass and User:Thedarkknightli. The IP reported here has been busy removing the claim that Vanessa Bryant's mother has some Filipino heritage. The only source for that claim is an interview posted on www.cupcakemag.com. The interview seems to have disappeared from the web along with cupcakemag.com itself. Is the ethnic heritage of Vanessa's mother, Sofia Laine, important enough to include in an article about Vanessa Bryant? Especially when the source is now gone from the web. The IP's edit summaries are very sharp and may even contain legal threats, but I'm concerned that we don't have much basis for the 'Filipino' claim any more. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: You fully protected the article indefinitely - you might wish to adjust that. I've blocked the /64 range of the IP because of their conduct outside the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I am user 2600:6c50:103f:c431:c5d6:d16f:5b39:7eef and I urge that IP user Thedarkknightli and Clear Looking Glass claim that Vanessa Bryant is of Asian/Filipino descent to be permanently banned from being reported. IP user's claim is unfounded and unverifiable. Cupcake Magazine leadership has been reached out and asked to verify their claim of her being "Filipino" as IP user claims- they denied it and took down their page per link: https://www.cupcakemag.com/meet-the-team/. If the IP user's claim was verifiable, there would be many other reliable sources to substantiate their claim. To substantiate my claim, I urge you to visit: (1) https://www.hola.com/us/celebrities/20200228fl35tfdf88/vanessa-laine-bryant-nationality-childhood-biography-1/, (2) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latinos-mourn-kobe-bryant-he-said-they-were-first-embrace-n1123861.

Lastly, there has been a sudden increase in misinformation, i.e., bots, that claim Vanessa Bryant to be of "Filipino" descent- none founded. In fact, there has been other Wikipedia IP users that have discussed with Thedarkknightli and Clear Looking Glass that his claim is unfounded.

She is not of Asian/Filipino descent or heritage as Thedarkknightli and Clear Looking Glass claims. I think its appropriate that they are barred from editing "early life" section to decrease the chances of descent/heritage being modified. 2600:6C50:103F:C431:2470:C035:A25A:1F7F (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• User:Bbb23, thanks for your note. I've reduced the protection to semi. But anyone who restores the claim of her Filipino descent without finding a reliable source for that is risking a block for disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Arlington0804 reported by User:Willondon (Result: Declined)

Page: Raymond Arroyo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arlington0804 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]
6. [42]
7. [43]
8. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45], [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47], [48]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [49]

Comments:

No posts to user or article talk pages. Communication limited to edit summaries. No sign of willingness to stop. It's been suggested [50] that 3RR might not apply here (per WP:3RRNO, assuming poorly sourced, controversial content on a BLP), but I don't think the content is defamatory or the sources deficient enough to allow a complete pass here. There are still seven editors (including myself) that have opposed the removal. I believe a short block is warranted in this case, to reinforce the policy that Wikipedia is a communal effort and that a single editor is not allowed to ramrod their version into the article without any discussion with fellow editors. _signed, Willondon (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Declined I see that an administrator commented on the article's talk page about a WP:3RRNO exception before this report was filed. Per WP:RSP both the sources used are at best marginally reliable, less so for the source used for the main points of the controversy section (which per WP:CRITS isn't ideal to begin with). I have to agree with User:Daniel Case that reverting the addition of a problematic section based solely on problematic sources on a BLP article is going to fall under WP:3RRNO here. - Aoidh (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Funny that as you wrote this I was in the process of putting in reliable sources. Daniel Case (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh They've now deleted the entire Controversy section even after @Daniel Case reliably sourced the content. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have left a message on their talk page concerning this. - Aoidh (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Joseatienza reported by User:Sciencefish (Result: Blocked one week; Allyriana000 blocked 72h)

Page: Miss World 2023 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseatienza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55] Note this was on my talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [56]

Comments:

Please note that in their defence they posted on my talk page: Sciencefish please do not remove that "This is the second time that the Miss World pageant has been held in India." in the top in article of Miss World 2023 because i really want it thank you. Joseatienza (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sciencefish (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I blocked Joseatienza for one week and User:Allyriana000, who should have been reported, for 72 hours. Both blocks were increased because they each attacked the other in their edit summaries labeling the edits as "vandalism". Joseatienza got a longer block because of their block log, especially when you compare the proportion of # of edits to blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I didn't report Allyriana000 as I ran out of time (I found the procedure quite time consuming). Sciencefish (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:ELeMarque reported by User:Alvaldi (Result: Pblocked indefinitely)

Page: Eric LeMarque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ELeMarque (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 16:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC) to 16:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 16:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Hockey career */"
   2. 16:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Hockey career */"
   3. 16:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC) to 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 16:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) to 16:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 16:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 16:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Hockey career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors."
2. 16:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Eric LeMarque."
3. 16:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Eric LeMarque."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User, who judging by the name might be the subject, has reverted attempts to remove false information from the article that attempt to prop up the subjects achievements. Likely also edited as IP user 206.251.74.187. Alvaldi (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I pblocked the user indefinitely from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 31 hour block)

Page: Black triangle (UFO) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1211098747 by MrOllie (talk) The revert needs to be justified. Please work towards resolving the issue in the talk page."
2. 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1211097723 by RetroCosmos (talk) Please stop undo this revision in bad faith."
3. 21:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1211093913 by Geardona (talk) Again, please do not revert edits without reason."
4. 20:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1211017905 by MrOllie (talk) Undo arbitrary revert by MrOllie. Please only make necessary revisions that improve the quality of the page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Should we allow vague assertions like this? */ Reply"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of hours The /64 has been blocked by Drmies. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)