Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR 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 {{ 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. Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Ukrainian State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vif12vf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Other user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The discussion took place on the user page of the user whose edits were reverted: User talk:Konotopel

Diff of ANEW notice posted to users' talk pages: [9] [10]

Comments:

The argument going on is about

I very much realise I should have quit earlier, quite embarassing on my part. I will refrain from editing the page further. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also as far as the spelling goes, I was not aware it was being used in the rest of the article, I only ever saw it in relation to the edit being made. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to previous, I have gone ahead and undone my last edit on the page to make the infobox comply with the rest of the article, effectively undoing any cause for further edit-warring. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, rather odd that you report only one of the two people involved in the edit-warring, while also not providing a courtesy edit-warring warning to either. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, my bad. Will do so in a moment. MonX94 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, a simple edit-warring warning to both involved would have defused the situation, removing the need to report anyone. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies. I am a bit new here.

In any case, I am glad the situation was resolved in the end. MonX94 (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely fine, wikipedia provides quite a lot of policy, guidelines and editing standards to learn about, and I dont think we can be expected to know it all. 😅 Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly, I am sorry for causing this situation to begin with. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined as resolved by editors above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Elena Mauti Nunziata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael Bednarek (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:

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

1. 1
2. 2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the talk between us

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

Comments:

The person of the voice is a my mother's great aunt, and I' knwow her better than him and journalists.

I'm glad Nick31629 brought the dispute here. Authority control records and music encyclopedias list the year of birth of Elena Mauti Nunziata as 1946. I mentioned Wikipedia:Verifiability to Nick31629, and instead of providing a source for his proposed changes, he changed the YoB to 1944 three times without providing any sources. In addition, he undid many unrelated improvements in the process. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They weere related too, the facts that her self told me. Anyway give me your sources where the Authority control records and music encyclopedias list it, @Michael Bednarek:--Nick31629 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Permalink/1193560301. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:COI and should not be editing the article directly. If you have any proposals to make regarding the content of the article, you must make them on the article Talk page. If you persist in editing the article itself, you are warned that you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Anyway I knwo that my mother's great aunt is born in 1944. How do it? I don't want be blocked but this is true, @Bbb23:.--Nick31629 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: X2023X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January */"
2. 09:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January */
   Kerman bombings
   ' ibox & lead say 84, but its Bombings section says 95."
3. 09:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "2024 in Japan - a main year article isn't the place for an accident whose death toll is 5."
4. 01:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January */
   terrorist group
   involvement."

Comments:

The editor has consistently removed the same content that was added by multiple editors, over the past few days. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the

Kerman bombings has been revised downwards as double-counts have been accounted for). Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Page: Voiced palatal approximant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nardog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:02, 3 January 2024 "verification failed - pursue any of the WP:DR processes if you insist; besides UPSID is purposely not exhaustive so even if this interpretation is correct it's no way claiming that it's not found in any other language"
2. 13:54, 30 December 2023‎ "Reverted 1 edit by The Young Prussian (talk): I've seen that. It says nothing about the articulation of /y/. And citations belong in article text, not in summaries"
3. 12:50, 30 December 2023‎‎ "Reverted 2 edits by The Young Prussian (talk): Source? Ochoa Peralta (1984) doesn't count because she says 'alveopalatal', which is ambiguous"
4. 04:32, 27 December 2023‎‎ "(no attestation)"

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: International Churches of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "After posting for discussion in the Talk page and receiving no comments, in order to comply with WP:NPOV, I added this statement summarizing topics in the article and gave a third party citation."
2. 19:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193596758 by Theroadislong (talk) The citation is a recording of the event described in the article."
3. 16:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "In the interest of WP:NPOV added a brief summary of the findings of a court and an expert that the group is not a cult that are already mentioned in the article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on International Churches of Christ."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC) on Talk:International Churches of Christ "/* NPOV: Adding summary comment to the lead */ You have NO consensus for your edits"

Comments:

This follows previously reverted edits inserting similar material by the same editor, e.g. here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to the experience of being reverted so often. The reason for my reverts:

1) I put the comment up on the Talk page. No discussion followed.

2) I added the comment to the article to follow the WP:NPOV. Theroadislong and Cordless Larry were reverting my simple edit for WP:NPOV balance multiple times with no explanation of how this was wrong except they didn't want it there. How do I follow the WP policy with this kind of illogical opposition? Editaddict (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations were provided in the discussion at User talk:Editaddict#Managing a conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying you don’t agree is not sufficient explanation for denying an edit. I have asked multiple times for an explanation of how this edit does not fit the WP:NPOV and have never received a logical answer. Even your latest response shows you did not grasp my previous comments by your claiming the summary information was not in the article when I clearly stated I found this information in the article and therefore submitted an edit to the lead summary in order to follow the WP:NPOV. Just objecting to an edit is not a reason to not follow WP policy. 2601:18F:380:4880:B8CC:69BF:339:9787 (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked/Protected. I have blocked User:Editaddict from the article as they obviously have a problem with NPOV and COI. I have also blocked the IP. I have protected the article to admin-only for a while, but am amenable to reducing that if there is a reasonable RFPP request. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Black Kite. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#International Churches of Christ if you haven't seen it, as we have at least one other editor with a COI who's been attempting to edit the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Awdal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hawkers994 (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:

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

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

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

Comments:
The editor persistently engaged in disruptive editing despite receiving multiple warnings from different editors, [11], [12], [13]

Notably, they had two prior blocks in October and November for disruptive edits on the same page [14] and [15]. Despite a final warning from a senior administrator just 2 weeks ago, explicitly instructing them to cease edit warring or face indefinite blocking [16], the editor resumed editing, thereby violating the aforementioned final warning [17] and disregarding previous sanctions and repeated cautions.

Editing the Awdal page had to be temporarily restricted by an administrator due to an edit conflict he was directly engaged in [18] Upon the expiration of this restriction, the editor resumed his engagement in an edit conflict with another user on the same page again, thereby violating the aforementioned final warning [19] and triggering a 2nd enforced restriction on the same page [20]. Their actions demonstrate a lack of commitment to positive contributions. MustafaO (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

You have been banned 2 times from Wikipedia for being a sock puppet [21] and [22] for violations of using multiple accounts

The expiration date in the Awdal page has ended on 2nd of January and my edit was made on 4th January [23] by a Vandal user which was a revert. I have also left a warning on User:Wadamarow user page [24] which he did not reply at all. Hawkers994 (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was fully protected for two days by ScottishFinnishRadish. This report is malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the edit warring continues after the current protection I'm going to start laying down long term blocks. There's an rfc, of sorts, on the talk page right now about this content. Any watchers of this page are welcome to take part, as it desperately needs uninvolved participation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page per

  ARBHORN. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Page: 2019 Balakot airstrike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: King Ayan Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193889897 by Capitals00 (talk)"
2. 17:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193783149 by Capitals00 (talk)"
3. 09:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193719819 by Fowler&fowler (talk)"
4. 06:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC) ""Summarized conflicting perspectives on the Balakot airstrike: India claims elimination, while Pakistan denies. Added clarity to the result section."
5. 06:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "Clarified language and improved precision in describing India's claims and Pakistan's denial regarding the Balakot airstrike and casualties"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "Adding
   TW
   )"
2. 04:08 6 January 2024 (UTC) (Note: Final edit warring warning)
   Capitals00 (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25] (Note: Discussion over same edits that happened few weeks ago)

Multiple contentious edits after CT warning, one revert after edit-warring warning, refusal to discuss contentious edits on the talk page. First diffs are reverts of IB changes that had talk page consensus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• King Ayan Das, this is why these pages are extended-confirmed protected, and this is why making a lot of small edits and then jumping into that area is generally a bad idea. I considered removing the extended-confirmed permission, but the case is not that clear yet; further disruption simply leads to an indefinite block from all pages or a topic ban, I guess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Alex Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gnagyusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (going backwards in time)

1. Last revert [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. First reverts [30] thru [31]; original construction [32] thru [33]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: warned re BLP RS on User_talk:Gnagyusa

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

Comments:

• [36] is also a revert (of Bishonen's edit immediately prior.) They've also re-added it again here. I started a talk discussion here and pinged them, which they ignored in favor of reverting again. --Aquillion (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The edit warring is ongoing [37] [38] [39]. That makes it 10 reverts in 24 hours. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Doug Weller talk 13:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: New Cairo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 154.176.154.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40] (initially), then to [41] (same thing but with different word)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]
5. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47], [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49] (or see full discussion here)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

Comments:

Edit-warring over removal of "satellite city" from stable version of article, despite explanation on talk page with reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Fraser Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ash.david (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 14:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 08:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "Reverting of this edit is politically inflammatory. Please do not change it again."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "/* Adding uncited statements */ Reply"
2. 19:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "/* Adding uncited statements */ Reply"
3. See other discussions linked at Talk:Fraser Island#Recent addition to § Toponymy for further discussion and explanation of the edit warring policy

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent addition to § Toponymy */ new section"
2. 19:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent addition to § Toponymy */ Reply"
3. See also other discussions linked at article talk for previous attempts at resolution

Comments:

Ash.david is edit-warring to include the unsourced statement that "many locals and tourists still refer to it as Fraser Island" (rather than its traditional, and now official, name of K'gari). Three different editors, including myself, have removed this unsourced claim. Ash.david has behaved rudely on talk pages, including at User talk:Ash.david § Adding uncited statements and elsewhere as linked in the article talk page discussion. Most recently, Ash.david added four inline citations to the statement, ostensibly supporting it, but none of the citations have any text supporting the claim. When I started a discussion on the talk page to centralise the multiple discussions on user talk pages that had been started, Ash.david reverted my new discussion without comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]