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:MustTryHarder reported by User:Mclarenfan17 (Result: CU blocked)

Page: No Time to Die (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MustTryHarder (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] (part of an ongoing discussion about the section in question)

Comments:
I have previously warned MustTryHarder about edit-warring a week previously. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17 above has a history of intimidating many other editors. Pleae review their edit history as well --MustTryHarder (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment MustTryHarder, if you don't undo your last revert on the article within the next few minutes, I or another administrator will block you. Please also stop reverting while disregarding WP:3RR. Mclarenfan17, you're on 3 reverts as of now. Just mentioning so that you don't unknowingly trip over that line. Thanks, Lourdes 09:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely as a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lourdes: thank you for the warning. I didn't intend for it to go that far—I reverted it at one point with the intention of then going back and removing some of it, but keeping other stuff, only to find that it had been re-reverted while I was working on it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Administrators also need to watch the article for severe OWNership behaviour. I have walked away from the article after Mclarenfan17 called me "an arrogant, entitled know-it-all" and not "a decent human being". I don't put up with shit like that from anyone, particularly an article OWNer who is intent on driving away others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • You're the one who referred to other editors' comments as "dross" and "nonsense". You're the one who sees nothing wrong with his attitude. You're the one with the bad attitude towards other editors. You're the one who thinks he can't be taken to ANI. You're the one who has resorted to foul language. I'm not going to apologise for calling out WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I called people's comments dross, not questioned whether they were "a decent human being". And please try not to lie: I did not say I cannot be taken to ANI, I said that if you thought my comment was "worthy of ANI, you'll find out it's a long way off". If you keep misrepresenting the actions of others, it's no surprise you can't see the flaws in your own approach in telling someone to be civil and, in the same comment say they are "an arrogant, entitled know-it-all" and not "a decent human being". That's a really sub-standard and shitty approach to dealing with people. Yes, it will fuck people off, and yes, people will fuck off pages, but as you seem intent on driving people away from the page so you can continue OWNership. Your deep-seated ownership is the reason I have done so little on the article. It's a shame you can't honestly see what your own actions are, or the repercussions of those actions. - SchroCat (talk)

I don't know what it means where you come from, but where I come from, "dross" is somewhere between "trash" and "shit". All those editors wanted to do was improve the article, and then you blew in there and dumped on everything they had to say when they didn't immediately agree with you. No decent person does that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not a decent person. I'm "an arrogant, entitled know-it-all" and not "a decent human being". (And no, it started when one editor tried to keep stamping their personal preference to introduce the serial comma, despite it not being in the the article. All that individual does is carpet-bomb articles with commas, regardless of the fact they don't grasp the difference between the varieties of English). Still. I'm "an arrogant, entitled know-it-all" to point out the flaws in their and your MoS breaches, and not "a decent human being" to point out just how poor the edits were. How nasty of me. And how nice of you to tell me to be civil and and say I'm not "a decent human being". At some point your hypocrisy-monitor may kick into action and you'll realise just how fucking crass your comments and actions are. Mind you, I don't see any such enlightenment from any of your previous actions in driving people off articles here and in the motor-racing sphere, but your time will come when telling people they are and "an arrogant, entitled know-it-all" and not "a decent human being" will bite you in the arse, and my sympathy levels will not even flicker. I'm off. I know just how much you love to have The Last Word, so the floor is all yours to give us the depth of your wisdom... - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

At least in the English speaking regions I'm familiar with, it means something trivial, or unimportant. A quick dictionary consultation shows it also means the scum that forms on molten metal due to oxidation. Making up your own inflammatory definitions doesn't really help anyone. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm "an arrogant, entitled know-it-all" to point out the flaws in their and your MoS breaches, and not "a decent human being" to point out just how poor the edits were.

My problem isn't that you tried to point out the issue. My problem is in the way you did it, unless there's a policy out there that I don't know about which says that calling someone's comments "dross" is acceptable. You didn't "point out just how poor the edits were", you likened them to "trash" or "shit". And then you went on the offensive the moment someone called you out for being a bully. The fact that you can't even conceive of doing things differently, much less better, just proves what I said was true. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User: Berserk Kerberos reported by User:Agricolae (Result: Warned)

Page: Vikings (2013 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Berserk Kerberos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9] time 3:41
2. [10] time 3:45
3. [11] time 9:35
4. [12] tiem 20:56

Each involves removal of the sentence "Rollo is shown having his followers killed and fighting his fellow Vikings, whereas in history they were granted what became Normandy and continued to co-operate with their Norse kinsmen." They are also warring over other edits here, but not yet violating 3RR to do so

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14] only just now, but see below

Comments: This is just the most obvious example of what has been a week-long multi-page edit war by a new editor trying to insert a few specific sentences and some obscure details about specific historical episodes into a number of pages, notably Rollo; William the Conqueror; Norman Conquest of England; Richard I of Normandy; Vikings (season 3) ; Vikings (2013 TV series) in the face of resistence from multiple knowledgeable editors (and they have just metastasized some of their disputed text to a whole new set of articles in an apparent attempt to stay one step ahead). There has been an extensive thread on their Talk page [15] trying to get them to engage on individual article Talk pages concerning their edits, to no avail. Agricolae (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Berserk Kerberos is warned that any continued reverting on Viking-related articles may lead to a block. The talk pages of these articles are open to you. Other editors have left good advice at User_talk:Berserk_Kerberos#Edit_warring....????. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User:86.182.220.199 reported by User:NonsensicalSystem (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page

Nosferatu (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

86.182.220.199 (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 14:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC) to 14:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
   1. 14:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 944198958 by Johnny Alucard (talk)"
   2. 14:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 944198798 by Johnny Alucard (talk)"
   3. 14:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 944198544 by Johnny Alucard (talk)"
   4. 14:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 944198259 by Johnny Alucard (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nosferatu (band). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours qedk (t 桜 c) 15:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Note: The page has also been semiprotected until September by DeltaQuad. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 17:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sarah Ext reported by User:Mr Xaero (Result:48 hours)

Page

Said Belcadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sarah Ext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 23:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 944279425 by Mr Xaero (talk)"
3. 20:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 944272476 by Mr Xaero (talk)"
4. 19:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 944270953 by Mr Xaero (talk)"
5. 19:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 944270275 by Mr Xaero (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Said Belcadi. (TW)"
2. 19:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Sarah Ext (talk) (TW)"
3. 19:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Said Belcadi. (TW)"
4. 20:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "/* Said Belcadi Article */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

It is apparent that this user lacks the ability to read help articles that have been provided or they choose not to. I have attempted to provide information to assist them and they choose not to take action. Mr Xaero ^☎️ 23:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Already blocked I partially blocked them for 48 hours while you were filing this report.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:Sleath56 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FobTown (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. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]
6. [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22][23] Full threads here: 29 February3 March

Comments:
Week long edit pushing to revert passage to a presumably preferred style. Previous warnings and contrib history along with lack of willingness to participate in WP:BRD implies an attitude of WP:NOTHERE. Two good faith discussions opened on the article's Talk have been made and were ineffective. The first went unresponded, the second saw a response but conversation abruptly ended after my latest response. An assumption that it meant a possible agreement were eschewed when they reverted to the passage they've been pushing for again anyways days after, with no attention to the issues that were brought up nor any further response to the Talk. Sleath56 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia reported by User:Symphony Regalia (Result: Stale, Filer warned)

Page: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: middle-ground discussed on talk

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. revert 1, 05:09 UTC
2. revert 2, 03:49 UTC
3. revert 3, 05:28 UTC
4. revert 4, 06:04 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning in edit summary

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

I was recently reported for this, but I want to point out that the editor who reported me failed to point out that he was actively involved in the editing dispute himself, did not point out the violations from the other side of the dispute that I am doing now, and additionally did not point out that the person he was siding with (Hemiauchenia) personally insulted me and called me insulting names multiple times in edit summaries, on the talk page, and on this very noticeboard itself. I attempted to engage on the talk page to come to an agreement, and Hemiauchenia's very first comment before he started reverting was "... You talk good game for somebody with less than 10 edits across your entire account history. 'Dereliction of duty'? Give a break. what's next, proclaiming yourself persecuted like Gallileo?". I do not believe he attempted to engage with me in good faith at all before he started reverting my edits over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphony Regalia (talk • contribs) 08:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Perhaps I was too antagonistic to you at the beginning, but your subsequent behaviour shows that you have deserved every word. To summarise what actually happened Symphony Regalia was engaging in repeated WP:POVNAME pushing, insisting that the term "China Virus" was a widely used term for SARS-CoV-2, when neither me and Dekimasu agreed with this, with both of us agreeing that this was a misleading use of sources. Symphony Regalia repeatedly re-added the content after it was removed so it could be discussed on the talk page, as part of the widely followed Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Thereby engaging in WP:OWN. (Symphony Regalia was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring). The article is currently high traffic getting around ~ 60,000 views a day due to the current outbreak, and so therefore removal of low quality information is a priority. Subsequent edit summaries by this user have accused me of being an agent of the Chinese Government and attemption to "censor" information, completely ignoring the valid arguments against his position on the talk page. Attempts were made to compromise with the editor, including removal of the informal name section of the article entirely, which was subsequently adopted. It's very clear that the users case is completely baseless and is merely seeking to use the Administrators noticeboard to exact revenge. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Stale – No new reverts by Hemiauchenia since 5 March. The previous AN3 complaint about this dispute was already dealt with. If User:Symphony Regalia continues to claim on talk pages (and in edit summaries) that others are trying to censor the article on behalf of the Chinese government they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Editor977 and User:Ermenrich reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: One editor blocked)

Page: The Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editor977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ermenrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of Ermenrich's reverts:

1. 19:48
2. 20:33
3. 20:39
4. 20:44

Diffs of Editor977's reverts:

1. 17:42
2. 20:29
3. 20:38
4. 20:41

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Both users are perfectly aware of 3RR as they have been warning each other [26] and [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
Not involved myself, but article on my watch list. Rather annoyed at this kind of irresponsible edit warring where two users just sit and revert each other back and forth literally almost every minuty Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

my #1 was an edit not a revert. but point taken. fair enough, wont respond to ermenrich's edit war and refusal to respond or explain on talk page. i already cited and explained edit in edit summaries, but now i posted a full detailed edit explanation on talk page and will wait for responses. if ermenrich continues to ignore request to make complaints known on talk page, i will ignore him or her and wait for others to egnage on talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor977 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: Editor977 is blocked for being a sockpuppet of a blocked user. No comment on Ermenrich's conduct. ST47 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if my conduct constituted edit warring, I didn’t realize 3rr applied in cases where wp:bold was disregarded.—Ermenrich (talk)

As the reporting user, I'm happy to withdraw my report. Ermenrich was careless (it's good to respect wp:bold but another disregarding it is not vandalism) but was correct on the subject matter and provoked by what turned out to be a sock. The closing admin decides but my recommendation is no further action. Jeppiz (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Editor977 blocked for socking. No action taken against User:Ermenrich. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse result. It would have been punitive anyway to sanction Ermenrich, since I fully-protected both The Exodus and Book of Exodus earlier on — those protections now lifted. El_C 05:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Traceybrow reported by User:Laterthanyouthink (Result: )

Page

Bettina Arndt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Traceybrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[35]

[36]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I haven't put a warning on her page myself, but she was warned on 20 February and has obviously ignored it. Very adversarial behaviour and lack of courtesy may be seen on the talk page of Bettina Arndt. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow!!! I am not the only one who has been engaged in this edit war. Both Droverswife with 4 reverts within 24 hours and CatCafe with at least 6 or 7 reverts within 24 hours. Interesting how you only listed me here despite it being very obvious these other editors were fully actively totally engaged in edit warring as well as article ownership. Really, really objective of you and neutral and fair laterthanyouthink! Whats with that dude?? Traceybrow (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor CatCafe has now reverted 11 times in 24 hours on the Bettina Arndt Biography of a living person article. Traceybrow (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:CloversMallRat reported by User:Koavf (Result: )

Page: Your Life Is a Record (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CloversMallRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: versions of the article including the track listing template

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st diff: undoing the existing style for his preferred style
2. 2nd diff
3. 3rd diff
4. 4th diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff discussing why he made these edits. He responded on my talk and I explained how the relevant WikiProject guidelines allow for multiple styles, not just his preferred one, and his response was "lol". I asked him if he's willing to self-revert and post to talk and he ignored that, proceeding to add unsourced information (which he sourced after I asked him to provide one) and he then added it in his preferred style, rather than the existing style of the page. It seems obvious to me that he's not interested in either discussing to seek consensus nor respecting existing styles that he doesn't like but will keep on reverting to whatever he feels like. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

73.70.13.107 reported by User:Sebastian James (Result: )

Page: Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.70.13.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42] (continuing to revert to their edits despite other editors' warnings and reverts)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments: