Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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.

    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:Nightfarerzero reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Elden Ring Nightreign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Nightfarerzero (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 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC) to 10:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Added soulslike"
      2. 10:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added information"
      3. 10:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typo"
    2. 05:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */It's reliable information from the game itself."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 04:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC) to 05:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 04:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Made it easy to under"
      2. 04:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed some errors"
      3. 05:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed some errors"
      4. 05:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typos"
    4. 04:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added plot with spelling improvements"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC) to 02:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Added more flow"
      2. 01:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added capital for words"
      3. 01:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added more info on Shattering"
      4. 02:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed a typo in the editd"
    6. Consecutive edits made from 23:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 23:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 23:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed lowercase"
      2. 23:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added dark souls"
      3. 23:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added caligo title"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 21:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 22:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 21:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "Added information like prequel"
      2. 21:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Added the setting and plot"
      3. 22:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Removed an error"
      4. 22:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Added the link to elden"
      5. 22:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added a typo fix"
    8. Consecutive edits made from 15:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 15:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 15:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added content"
      2. 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Added info"
      3. 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
      4. 15:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added information"
    9. Consecutive edits made from 14:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 15:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
      1. 14:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added plot"
      2. 14:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed error"
      3. 14:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typo"
      4. 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "Added prequel"
      5. 14:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */"
      6. 14:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added content"
      7. 14:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typo"
      8. 14:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Fixed"
      9. 15:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed"
    10. 13:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 04:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style)."
    2. 04:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Re"
    3. 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Re"
    4. 05:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Elden Ring Nightreign."
    5. 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Re"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Newly created account with the single purpose of adding a huge chunk of plot to a recently released video game. All their edits are about Nightreign and they use an inappropriate tone and style. Messages and warnings haven't worked and they continue to add the plot bloat. Not a single response. Perhaps a competence issue or refusing to get the point. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Qegfkkkuy reported by User:McSly (Result: Pblocked for a week)

    [edit]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "The utterly wrong statements about black holes' high density, contained in the article, are completely unsourced."
    2. 14:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "I have provided a reliable source. I am not going to discuss anything with idiots"
    3. 14:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Discuss with whom? The inane first line of the article, defining black holes as high-density objects, has been here since the beginning of Wikipedia, and nobody noticed"
    4. 13:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Provide a reason."
    5. 11:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* History */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:

    Actively refusing to discuss and calling other editors "idiots" McSly (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2600:1000:B129:83A:417D:D8DE:3AD7:E2A7 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Ammar Campa-Najjar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2600:1000:B129:83A:417D:D8DE:3AD7:E2A7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"
    2. 01:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "Let me repeat myself: you removed validly sourced information, lied about said source being unreliable, changed your argument from when there was supposedly no source, and then repeatedly removed said information without obtaining consensus on talk. As the editor removing sourced information, it is your responsibility to obtain consensus."
    3. 00:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "You have failed to respond on the talk page. You have also failed to cite where in BLP this statement is violated. You have removed a reliably sourced statement with no reasoning other than “respect BLP,” after failing to respond on talk to how this clearly doesn’t violate BLP at all. This is after you moved the goalposts from months ago, claiming that there were no reliable sources. The onus is on you to obtain consensus to remove a clearly cited statement that doesn’t violate BLP. Dozens of..."
    4. 20:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC) "Source literally says it verbatim, not contentious. Bring to talk if there is disagreement"
    5. 17:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC) "Uncited removal"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 17:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC) "/* "Perennial candidate" */ Reply"
    2. 17:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC) "/* "Perennial candidate" */"
    3. 01:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "/* "Perennial candidate" */ Reply"
    4. 01:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "/* "Perennial candidate" */ Reply"

    Comments:

    User:Crwd-ppu reported by User:XYZ1233212 (Result: Stale )

    [edit]

    Page: Portal:Current events/2025 May 30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Crwd-ppu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293411761 by XYZ1233212 (talk) the discussion hasn't concluded and you are lying about the interim result as one participant has objected to the item's removal. Per guidance, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:ACBF"
    2. 12:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293381196 by XYZ1233212 (talk) Responsibility to start the discussion is yours as your changes to the news item (not written by me) are being reverted. Per guidance, WP:BRDDISCUSS"
    3. 11:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "Send the news item back to its first version. Yours distorted what the trade representative said and took out important context. Do not make any further changes to the item that we had not agreed to implement"
    4. 09:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "rephrase information to mirror how it appears in the source"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Portal_talk:Current_events#Donald_Trump_Social_Media_Post_on_Tariffs_with_China XYZ1233212 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Unwarranted accusations in most recent edit summary "you are lying" & "WP:ACBF" XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My disputant claims [1] the discussion "resulted in all participating editors favoring excluding the entry entirely" when they knew that was not true [2] as I had objected to its removal - that is the literal definition of lying. They also reverted despite being informed of BRDDISCUSS and the ongoing state of the discussion which they inappropriately implied had ended - that, at least to me, meets the standards of bad faith editing. However, looking at the edit warring page (my first time to do so as I haven't had the need to before), it does appear that I have skirted close to the three-revert rule [3], so if administrators here can give me advice on how I can resolve this dilemma, that would be of most help. Crwd-ppu (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale The two of you have stopped reverting each other and discussion has carried on with the talk page discussion. Therefore I conclude there's no need for administrator intervention at this time. If you're getting nowhere with the discussion, you could try dispute resolution, but see if the talk page discussion becomes fruitful first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GregGregorino reported by User:Hirolovesswords (Result: Both blocked 1 week )

    [edit]

    Page: Lud Wray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GregGregorino (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. [4]
    2. [5]
    3. [6]
    4. [7]
    5. [8]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

    Comments:

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week from editing the article. I would have not blocked Hirolovesswords if they'd claimed an exemption like WP:3RRBLP (which isn't possible for someone who died in 1967) or otherwise explained what the problem was in their own words. This didn't happen (per this comment, the discussion had not been concluded), so I have to conclude the edit warring is the fault on both sides. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1293597210"