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:NikeCage68 reported by User:SimplyLouis27 (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: NikeCage68 (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]


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

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

    Comments:
    I tried to make an edit at List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers and was reverted by User:NikeCage68. I requested on the article talk page that they discuss the matter with me, Talk:List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers#WADE & CHAPMAN, and left a talkback to that request on their user talk page User talk:NikeCage68#List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers. Since leaving these they reverted me again, still without discussing. The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing? I have had previous issues with the user not discussing, see [7], there response to this was by removing the request for discussion, [8], and ignoring me on Talk:List of 2024–25 Premiership Rugby transfers. I did not report this to AN then as they did no further reverts of my edits. This user also does not use edit summaries despite myself requesting them to do so. They have also previously been warned about possible Sockpuppetry. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. This honestly sounds more like a matter for AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guddu Chatterjee reported by User:United Blasters (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Indian Super League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Mohun Bagan Super Giants."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Sid95Q reported by User:117.204.27.71 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

    [edit]

    Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
    Sid95Q: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]



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

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

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

    the said user, User:Sid95Q, has been operating a perceived monopoly on the article at discussion, reverting every single edit they can encounter for nearly 8 years, dating back to September 7, 2017, a period during which they have seemingly bullied multiple users, while disallowing any growth on this article. The subject of this page is a mildly popular TV show from two decades ago when India had no substantial presence to helm internet citations regarding it, and hence, absolutely nothing can be added by this user's logic. That being said, addition of the cast member Mandira Bedi should not even require a citation given that's not how "cast" section works. The user has also referred to me as Anant-morgan sock, a very disparaging remark after another user from years ago who had dared to make similar changes. This is outrageous.

    User:2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 reported by User:Stickymatch (Result: Stale)

    [edit]

    Page: Gracie Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 07:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286830250 by Stickymatch (talk) read the edit summaries. Do not revert edits that you haven't bothered to even look at."
    2. 07:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286829878 by PEPSI697 (talk) it was not unexplained. stop reverting edits that you haven't bothered to even look at."
    3. 07:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286829673 by PEPSI697 (talk) it was an extremely constructive edit. stop reverting if you cannot be bothered to read and understand what has changed."
    4. 07:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286829485 by PEPSI697 (talk) reverted single-purpose account dedicated to reverting edits as fast as possible, evidently without bothering to look at them"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 07:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC) to 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
      1. 07:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286388694 by 76.157.15.92 (talk)"
      2. 07:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286729916 by Rodw (talk) undoing to undo the harmful edit that this improved"
      3. 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286431745 by Wiiformii (talk) undoing to undo the harmful edit that this improved"
      4. 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286388328 by 76.157.15.92 (talk) cut badly written, sometimes incoherent text"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 07:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Note: Removal of content, blanking (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 07:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1286829889 by PEPSI697 (talk): Rv blanking"
    3. 07:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Final Warning: Removal of content, blanking (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User is blanking before consensus is reached, multiple editors have reverted changes as they appear to constitute vandalism. Stickymatch 07:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They certainly do not constitute vandalism. I noticed that someone had added a lot of badly written, sometimes incoherent text with multiple grammar errors, so I removed it. That, unfortunately, attracted the attention of a single-purpose revert-and-warn account, which has reverted my edits four times and relentlessly spammed my talk page with obnoxious "warnings", falsely claiming that I did not provide a reliable source (obviously a nonsensical claim when my edit removed text, and did not add any), then falsely claiming vandalism, then falsely claiming that I did not explain my edits.
    It is really infuriating when a perfectly good edit triggers such an aggressive and unnecessary response. 2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also infuriating that the user replaced a load of spam messages that I had removed from my talk page. They evidently do not think they have to abide by the basic concept that they are not in charge of anybody's talk page except their own. 2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Half an hour later, the user has not responded at all. This was nothing more than a drive-by attempt to get an IP address blocked, without any interest whatsoever in the content of the article. 2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While the IP has exceeded 3RR here, the underlying dispute appears to have been resolved by Ritchie333 blocking PEPSI697 for edit warring. I note that PEPSI697's explanations for engaging in the edit war were wholly lacking. Given the lack of any talk page discussion, I'm going to go ahead and decline further action. Any further disagreement about content at Gracie Films should be taken up on its talk page. Stale signed, Rosguill talk 14:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also add the IP was restoring the article to the status quo, after this other IP added a bunch of unsourced fan's point of view ramblings. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PEPSI697 reported by User:2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (Result: 24 hours )

    [edit]

    Page: Gracie Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: PEPSI697 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [10]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14]



    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: [15]

    Comments:

    I saw that some incoherent, low quality text had been added to an article, so I removed it. This user has reverted four times in 13 minutes to restore the poor quality text. They have made a series of false claims in their edit summaries ("no reliable source","vandalism","unexplained content removal"), and have relentlessly spammed my talk page with template messages. They have not at any point attempted to provide a good faith explanation of why they are reverting my edits. 2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. I personally agree with the IP's edits, for what it's worth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JustinSeke reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: International Police Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: JustinSeke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1285765693

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. April 15
    2. April 22
    3. April 22

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: April 15

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion April 15-22

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1286862168
    Comments:

    In addition to themselves edit warring and having a COI (which they’ve informally disclosed but have not observed formally, nor have they clarified if their relationship is paid), JustinSeke has been engaging in meat puppetry together with other IPO-affiliated accounts making effectively identical edits for 1.5 years (1 March 2025, 19 February 2025, 16 February 2025, 12 February 2025, 12 August 2024 16 July 2024, 9 December 2023). A recent SPI was declined on the (at-the-time, valid) basis that JustinSeke was engaging appropriately on the talk page, but now that edit warring has resumed admin intervention is needed. At this point I think that blocks and EC protection should be considered, as it seems doubtful that IPO members/employees will stop or that they will provide adequate sources having thus far failed to do so repeatedly when prompted. Reviewing admins may also wish to look through a prior AfD for the article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Police Organization, where concerns were first raised by editors that the sources available paint a different narrative than what the organization's supporters wish to emphasize. signed, Rosguill talk 13:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, and thank you for raising these concerns.
    First and foremost, I would like to clarify that my intention has always been to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith, with a commitment to accuracy and neutrality. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines and respect the policies around conflict of interest and collaborative editing.
    Regarding the COI, I acknowledge that I have an affiliation with the IPO, but my edits have always been based on publicly verifiable information and not on personal opinion or agenda. I am more than willing to disclose my connection formally if necessary and will take any steps needed to comply fully with the COI policy.
    As for the accusation of "meat puppetry," I can assure you that I have not coordinated any editing campaigns. If other users have made similar contributions, it may reflect a shared concern about how the IPO has been represented rather than deliberate manipulation. Nevertheless, I understand how this may be perceived and will avoid further involvement unless explicitly invited to participate on the talk page.
    I also recognize the importance of providing high-quality, reliable sources. I am currently in the process of obtaining an official statement from the IPO and am seeking independent journalistic or academic sources to better support the edits. If those sources are not sufficient, I will respect the consensus and step back from editing the article directly.
    I appreciate your time, patience, and willingness to engage in discussion. My only aim is to ensure that the article reflects a fair and factual overview of the organization, without bias or misinformation.
    Best regards, JustinSeke (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The response above is about 85% AI-generated. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What’s the problem with that? 2A01:599:B2E:C77C:412A:AB50:AA24:2964 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If editors can't be bothered to communicate without using AI to do it (with all the attendant possible issues that can cause) then I don't see why we should engage either. The above response might be perfectly good English but since it is obviously AI-generated we still know zero about what the actual editor themself actually thinks. Also, if their quality of English is so bad that they need to use AI to communicate, what does that suggest they're using to actually edit the article? Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:36.65.247.248 reported by User:Danners430 (Result: No violation )

    [edit]

    Page: Singapore Airlines Flight 321 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 36.65.247.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 13:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 12:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Singapore Airlines Flight 321."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 12:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC) on User talk:36.65.247.248 "/* April 2025 */ Reply"

    Comments:

    I have no personal view on this. I just assumed it was standard practice as per WP:MoS. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1286882034"