Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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:Neutrality reported by User:UnregisteredSkeptic (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Concealed carry in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neutrality (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. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

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

Comments:

I am a Wikipedia editor and have attempted to add information to the above-linked Wikipedia article regarding recent studies on firearm usage and a correlation to crime rates in the United States. I have cited objective, governmentally-approved studies and set of conclusions to my edit in order to prove what has been found through research, however, the above-mentioned user has taken it upon themselves to revert my useful edits to the page while claiming that I derive my statistics from a supposed election-denying extremist and hyperlinking me to partisan webpages regarding the personal political opinions of this individual. I am requesting that an administrator or another Wikipedia moderator of sorts looks into this situation and resolves it promptly, as I do not appreciate having my fact-checked, cited, and verifiable work removed at the prompt desire of a random, partisan individual. UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Being new to leaving reports, I seem to have made an error and neglected to insert the link to the Wikipedia article in question. Here is the article: Concealed carry in the United States, and the name of the user being reported is "Neutrality." UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No discussion on the article's talk page. No edit warring notification to other user. Only two reverts by user:Neutrality. OP has now made the same edit a third time (and been reverted by a different editor. There is no edit warring here by Neutrality. UnregisteredSkeptic, discuss the edit on the article's talk page as has been requested, and don't restore the edit again. Meters (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Braintic reported by User:Renewal6 (Result: Partially blocked for 72h)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */"
2. 14:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199623449 by Alsoriano97 (talk)"
3. 09:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */"
4. 00:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */ It is NOT a modified description, it is the EXACT job title (where "of State" is optional)"
5. 12:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people"
6. 11:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199198324 by Renewal6 (talk) "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names""
7. 10:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */ /* 25 */ Sanath Nishantha ... "Minister of State for Water Supply" is the NAME of the office. It is not "self-aggrandisement" to capitalise it, most of all because he is dead so anything done here cannot be self-anything."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user made an eighth ([4]) and ninth ([5]) revert after being reported here. Renewal6 (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from editing Deaths in 2024. The filer and respondent both participated in Talk:Deaths in 2024#Capitalization or non-capitalization of job titles, where there was clear pushback against capitalizing the title. Even after this attempt to resolve on talk, and pushback against capitalizing had been made clear by multiple editors, respondent continued to twice revert to respondent's own preferred version on 28 January (i.e. the eighth and ninth reverts given by Renewal6 in their comment above). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:The Banner reported by User:Re34646 (Result: No violation)

Page: Comparison of EM simulation software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Banner (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. 27 January 2024 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
2. 27 November 2023 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
3. 18 August 2023 Removed edits because there was no Wikipedia article related to that software package
4. 20 September 2020 Added requirement to list that they must have 'their own article on Wikipedia'. He labeled this 'Clarified criteria for inclusion of software on the page.'
5. 17 Jun 2020 Removed edits because they were 'without a Wikipedia article' on them.
6. 17 November 2019 Removed edits because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
7. 10 September 2019 Removed programs 'without article, deemed not notable.'
8. 2 September 2019 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
9. 20 December 2018 He removed edits 'without own article' that he deemed 'not notable'.
10. 5 December 2018 Removed edits because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
11. 23 October 2018 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
12. 9 June 2018 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
13. 10 October 2014 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

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

Comments: It is possible The Banner believes that the Wikipedia definition of 'notable' means that something has to have an article on Wikipedia. This is not the definition of notable which I found on Wikipedia.

The repeated behavior of deleting others contributions, and telling them to 'write an article' doesn't achieve the goals of Wikipedia. It seems they are trying to control the content of that page, whether it is an innocent misunderstanding or not. And it certainly isn't helping increase the value of information on that page.Re34646 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSC. But IMHO, this is retaliating for this removal of a non-notable package, added by Re34646. The Banner talk 00:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Master106 reported by User:Someonewhoisusinginternet (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: List of Pokémon anime characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Master106 (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. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:

Can you please work with me instead of just reporting me? Master106 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks Master, I don't see how anyone can work with you. After reviewing the lengthy, infuriatingly formatted talk page discussion I could not block you fast enough—no, wait a minute, I didn't even get finished before I'd had enough of your IDHT, tendentious behavior to make me want to scream at my monitor. Your constant "logic" that just because a source does not explicitly include Chloe as a supporting character does not mean we can't say she's a protgaonist (and as Sergecross73 accurately points out, anyone who claims a work has 19 protagonists clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word "protagonist") is, well, some kind of clearly identified and named logical fallacy that I can't be bothered (because your editing bothers me enough already) to look up right now. And as Serge further points out, if you were right, you would have found a reliable source proving your point long ago.

However, your handling of your own conduct is even worse. There's this disingenuous non-apology apology for what you concede was edit warring (and for someone already blocked twice for edit warring, there can be no claim to having done so "accidentally"), your repeatedly stated longing for "a consensus we can all agree on together" (redundant wording in any event) when it is as plain as day that consensus is against you and that what you really want behind all that polite, civil language is everyone to see things your way, and the edit summary behind your most recent revert: "Please don't revert it and instead make it better". You do not make it better by consistently reverting to your preferred version ... an edit summary like that is practically a guilty-as-charged confession to edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Inteqaam reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked, 72h)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199946313 by Soetermans (talk) Your messing with the 2022 census results and combining it with a 2015 survey which soesn't even talk mention tge 86% figure and this is being discussed join the discusstion and stop reverting."
2. 09:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199917903 by Yung Yohan (talk) Stop messing with the census the survey doesnt even talk abpit irreligion as not religious is not about irreligion and tge survey is from gallup is older then the census."
3. 00:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199785140 by Yung Yohan (talk) Your removing the census results with a older survey stop that."
4. 21:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199712866 by Yung Yohan (talk) The 2022 census is more credible then a 2015 census and not religious is not linked to" irreligion""
5. 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199595094 by Soetermans (talk) The gallup survey doesn't state that it says 0% or less than 1% said they were atheist while the 2022 census said 91% of the country is muslim not 86%"
6. Consecutive edits made from 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) to 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199338520 by Yung Yohan (talk)"
   2. 12:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199336553 by Yung Yohan (talk) The survey doesn't state that"
   3. 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 18:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "BRD"
3. 09:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
4. 09:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All I did was revert the edits the other user made as they used a 2015 survey and removed the 2022 census results for only Islam as the 2022 census 91% said they were muslim while the gallup survey mentions no religion by name as just says 93% said they were religious, 5 said they were not religious and 0% said they were atheist and 1% did not reply. The user then changed the figure of the 91% from the 2022 census and changed it to 86% which is not mentioned in the survey and no religion was mentioned by name.

When I corrected it you reverted those changes and now the other user has done the same a discussion was started on their userpage which they did reply to but still made the edit and you didn't even leave a warning for them.

I read the rules now I wasn't aware if I get punished I see its my fault I should have discussed it but I did leave edit summaries I thought that was discussing the issue if not I get it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteqaam (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC) 

You just keep on going though. Perhaps you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, but Competence is required. Stop reverting. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You choose not to engage in the talk pages of yung yohan or the talk page they clearly are leaving disruptive edits by removing the 2022 census results and using 2015 survey which doesn't mention islam or any other religion. Inteqaam (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for a period of 72 hours. Continuing to revert after being reported to this board is rarely an optimal idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

User:JUMPp1harm and User:KallebTigray reported by User:Wowzers122 (Result: )

Page: List of kings of Axum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ezana of Axum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Adal Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Endubis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Endubis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
GDRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
GDRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wazeba of Axum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ousanas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Amhara people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kingdom of Aksum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Agazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JUMPp1harm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KallebTigray (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. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]
7. [20]
8. [21]
9. [22]
10. [23]
11. [24]
12. [25]
13. [26]
14. [27]
15. [28]

etc

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: I have no idea who's in the wrong or who started this but I've noticed these two users reverting each other's edits on Kingdom of Askum-related articles in the past few days. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:C. A. Russell reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: )

Page: Category:Redirects to an article without mention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: C. A. Russell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:56, 28 January 2024 – good thing this abomination is a category page and not actual policy; it's now clear why RFD has turned into a gamified mess over the last year or so...
2. 02:42, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200203580 by Tavix (talk) revert #1
3. 12:08, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200234996 by Tavix (talk) revert #2 of unexplained revert for page not in alignment wrt actual redirect policy and guidelines
4. 01:51, 30 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200615340 by Hey man im josh (talk) this page is not a policy page, and this change is not a policy change; this edit is descriptive, and what's described here is already "implemented"—not a proposal or a wouldn't-it-be-nice prescription

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: They actually issued me an edit warring warning. I felt if I issued it back it would come as retaliatory. I only noticed they were edit warring after receiving their warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They were told to discuss the changes three times. Once by Tavix here and twice by me here and here.

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

Comments:

This is an erroneous report. The first edit listed here is not a revert. (There is no 3RR violation here on my part.) Please correct/amend the report. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)