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)
350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359
360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368	369
Incidents (archives, search)
1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172
1173	1174	1175	1176	1177	1178	1179	1180	1181	1182
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483
484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492	493
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Marvel2406 reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Both editors blocked 72 hours and alerted to CTOPS)

User being reported: Marvel2406 (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:

11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Manual of Style related issues (UV 0.1.6)"
12:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

11:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Marvel2406 "/* March 2025 */ Reply"

Comments:

Continual addition of flags to infobox in violation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS and against the existing consensus. Tried initiating discussion, but replied this. Vestrian24Bio 03:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours and alerted to WP:CT/CID. While Marvel clearly indicated on their talk page that they intended to disregard MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS because "it looks prettier that way", that attitude did not give Vestrian the right to revert endlessly as while policy was on their side that kind of reverting is not allowed under WP:3RRNO. Protection should have been requested, at least. I have also alerted both of to WP:CT/CID, which this comes under. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.31.65.89 reported by User:Speederzzz (Result: Blocked one month)

User being reported: 81.31.65.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Stop wasting time editing articles you admit you know nothing about."
11:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Restored, as person objecting has admitted he knows nothing about this matter and has no basis for objecting"
11:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281605072 by Speederzzz (talk)"
11:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "That debate has already been settled - the name is in the article already. I'm simply pointing out that it should be right at the start."
11:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "His real name is a matter of public record - and is already in the article anyway."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

12:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

11:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Deadname in lede? */ new section"

Comments:

Warning given on talk page by User:CipherRephic Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 11:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User attempted to remove this entry. How they think this will help their case remains a mystery to all. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 12:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one month due to not only their edit warring, but their incivility, general bad attitude, and BLP violations requiring multiple RevDels. On top of that I had to put project banners, CTOPS, and other notices on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Real estate investment professional reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked indef as a SOA)

User being reported: Real estate investment professional (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "No Mr Ollie, you are the one making the changes to perfectly neutral information, so until you get consensus from a user unrelated to you, the text remains."
16:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Strongly disagree with MrOllie and want to initiate larger discussion on this."
15:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Restored introductory paragraph, summarising the company's operations in non-promotional language as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_blatant_advertising"
17:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC) ""
17:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC) ""
17:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "I noticed this was reverted by MrOllie - Please note this is not promotional material, this is clearly describing the company's investment profile as per the cited sources."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Kennedy Wilson."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

16:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Reverts to return promotional language */ new section"

Comments:

Single purpose editor edit warring to force promotional language into an article on a company. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

cool can we have more people review this please? Real estate investment professional (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I simply updated introductory paragraph as per more recent information and Mr. Ollie is dubbing as 'forcing promotional language' and is deleting all content of introductory paragraph bringing to a much pooper state than the previous version. Real estate investment professional (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Real estate investment professional: do you have a WP:COI with this company? It would seem you have some connection with it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, with all due respect again, I don't.. I work in the industry and I've been fixing or updating information on real estate articles every now and then when I see it. I just only recently decided to create an account. I feel like I've been attacked this time and just taking it a bit personally now.

Can we please look at this in an unbiased manner and just look at the information I updated/contributed to judge if it is promotional? Again I know there is a whole thread about "what about article X", but all company wikipedia articles outline what the business does in the opening paragraph (which by the way was also the case in this article - I simply just updated it to the latest information..)

Please let's not turn this into a personal thing, I come with the kindest intentions and my apologies for starting this edit war, but can we please just objectively look at the text in the context of all real estate related articles? Real estate investment professional (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a promotional-only account. The edit warring and combative mentality didn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does the edit imply promotion? I see additional, useful information added by the user with legitimate reasons to revert. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, broadly, see WP:YESPROMO. Second, they insisted on adding in the lede more specific information about what their firm does that is, on Wikipedia, usually left to the body of the article. Third, apart from all this they promoted nothing so much as complete disregard for our edit-warring policy. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum re "legitimate reasons to revert": See WP:3RRNO. That does not come under any of those exceptions. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dipper Dalmatian reported by User:2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F4B1:B10C:1C9F:C0FB (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

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

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

Comments:

Edit warring to remove content, leaving an incomplete sentence behind in the process. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F4B1:B10C:1C9F:C0FB (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating editor blocked for 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rcarter555 reported by User:Chick Pea Corea (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)

Page: Roman Polanski User being reported: Rcarter555

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Polanski&oldid=1281843395

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rcarter555&oldid=1281844565

Comments:

This user has violated the 3RR rule, claiming that he represents the consensus. The consensus on the page is: do not include charges in the first sentence but display them prominently. The user reverts to a lede that violates MOS (breaking the chronology of Polanski's biography). Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chick Pea Corea, would you please find something more constructive than jumping into conflicts with experienced editors on high-profile articles? Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:840:4200:BAE0:31F0:15B6:CFB7:3ADF reported by User:ESkog (Result: Already blocked)

User being reported: 2601:840:4200:BAE0:31F0:15B6:CFB7:3ADF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC) ""
23:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Species */"
23:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Species */"
18:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Species */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

23:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Opah."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverts are ongoing after the submission of this report. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Binksternet reported by User:Davejfudge

I originally altered an edit by User:Binksternet on Whomp That Sucker that cited a source that I saw as unfit for direct inclusion on a music review infobox because the rating that has no justification in the source material; I also later removed, as part of my another source added by User:Binksternet that had the same problem. I moved the first citation to the dedicated notes section for historical context, but didn't remove it, and I removed the second citation (starting with my first reversion) because it sorely lacks coverage.

He has now reverted my edit 3 times, and I have reverted twice. He now accuses me instead of reverting three times while we refuses to wait for concensus in the talk page, violating WP:ONUS. I am also accussed of WP:NPOV because the reviews I moved/removed coincidentally have lower reviews, despite that I have history of adding less-than-favorable reviews to albums I like better than the one in question (e.g. In Outer Space Sounds review). Davejfudge (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about racking up three reverts. One was from yesterday evening which I thought was longer ago, and it fooled my count. I'll stick to the talk page discussion you started at Talk:Whomp That Sucker#Ratings that lack justification. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the time frame, I have not reverted your additions three times. The first edit you consider a revert was not a revert because I did not remove what you added. Davejfudge (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 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