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. 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:66.60.170.151 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: No action)

Page: Alcoholics Anonymous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.60.170.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] 14:53, September 12, 2022
2. [3] 17:21, September 12, 2022
3. [4] 00:56, September 13, 2022
4. [5] 02:16, September 13, 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First warning: [6]; Second warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9] Sundayclose (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

Note IP has blanked various warning messages, including the 3RR warning, although they have not reverted after blanking the 3RR warning. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have conceded to the edits insisted upon and have left them while appended a critical qualifier that makes clear that population was not just those told go to AA by 12 step program, if it were that simple, but in fact, the populations of the Cochrane review were only those told to go and those that did go.

What I have conceded to is allowing the phrase “actively directed” which makes no sense in this case; when does a clinical intervention ever inactively direct? That said, that nonessential wording remains to which has been added the qualifier “and actually go to AA”

These are minor distinctions, but the earlier edit misrepresented to review’s population by literal magnitudes. Those told to go to AA are exponentially more numerous than those that do go. This has been cleared up at the moment and I’m fine with the verbose verbiage, though naturally would prefer otherwise. 66.60.170.151 (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If you were happy with Sundayclose's wording, why did you feel the need to change it? —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This user has had issues with edit warring in Alcoholics Anonymous for a long time, they have been warned before (e.g. this warning and this warning from 2021), and they continue to engage in a pattern of edit warring by reverting other editors. Some problematic reverts of theirs, besides the ones mentioned above:

• This two-edit revert to one of my edits. I wasn’t going to go in to an edit war over whether or not to use the passive voice, but I still feel it’s bad wording
• this revert to these edits contributed by another editor. I understand there was a talk page discussion and sources supporting reverting this edit were added, but it still feels a bit like a WP:OWN violation.

SkylabField (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No violation It's hard to see this as a completely pure example of edit warring, and it also does not seem to have continued since it was reported. Talk page discussion is taking place although it seems both sides are dug in, but we can still have hope ...

As for the IP's behavior noted above, this might be a long-term thing better handled at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m going to ask a third party who I know understands the content we are edit warring about to share his opinion about this particular edit war. There have been, as I pointed out, long term issues with this editor, ones over and above the ones I have spelled out above, but it’s in the realm of WP:DE and this is the first time they have straight up violated WP:3RR. Since they have erased their talk page warnings, that hopefully indicates they now understand to respect consensus, but we will see. SkylabField (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Amanda A. Brant reported by User:Crossroads (Result: No action)

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

User being reported: Amanda A. Brant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109941542 by Sbishop (talk). Rv new addition without consensus, restore long-time stable version. Discuss your proposed addition and obtain consensus first."
2. 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109869728 by Aircorn (talk). Restore stable version, there is no consensus for this new addition and WP:UNDUE inclusion of this far-right fringe POV in the lead."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Total of three edits attempting to remove this sourced material. Page is under a WP:1RR restriction (which has been unambiguously violated) and gender discretionary sanctions, as clearly stipulated when clicking "undo". User's repeated insistence that this material is "new" and an "addition" is inaccurate; it has been in the lead since 29 August and remained in place ever since despite many edits. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In the ten hours since the last revert, has anyone actually asked Amanda to self-revert, or beyond the edit notice actively pointed out that the second revert was out of process? As far as I can tell, there has been no activity on the article talk, or the user talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

When someone reverts once, we wouldn't normally warn them pre-emptively in case they start edit warring. But for 1RR pages, after two reverts, the violation is done. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. Ten hours have passed between the last revert, and the filing of this report. There doesn't seem to be urgency here, as the 1RR breach hasn't just happened. While it is a technical breach of the restriction, asking an editor to self-revert after any RR violation is considered a show of good faith. Even the instructions for filing a report here ask if any attempts were made prior to filing to resolve an edit war. That includes asking the editor who has breached the bright-line rule if they were aware they had done so, and if they would like to self-revert now that they are aware. There are naturally exceptions to this, particularly for a fast moving edit war, but as there is no urgency in this report, this does not appear to be that circumstance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is under 1RR for a very good reason. Given they have had experience at AE on Gender and sexuality sanctions as well as the standard notices I find it hard to believe that they are a good faith editor who has just happened to stumble into a controversial topic unaware of the controversial nature of said topic. Their edit summaries lead a bit to be desired too and are suggestive of a battleground attitude. Still a block may not be necessary if they acknowledge the 1RR violation and agree to take future disagreements to the talk page instead of edit warring. Aircorn (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have only reverted this edit twice, once on 12 September and once on 13 September, about 19 hours later. I didn't realize that this particular article had a one revert restriction (which is an exception, and one that I wasn't that familiar with; I can't recall editing other articles with such a restriction), for which I apologize, and I obviously wouldn't have reverted it after 19 hours if I had. (Due to the large number of templates at the top of the talk page this restriction isn't exactly easy to notice, and should ideally be more visible than it is today). Since it has already been reverted it's not possible for me to self-revert.

The larger issue here, however, is the edit-warring to include a new, biased sentence in the lead, instead of seeking consensus for it on the talk page, per WP:BRD. The stable version, that ends with the fair summary "In academic discourse, there is no consensus on whether TERF constitutes a slur", has been stable at least since 2019. Claiming on 12 September that a new highly biased sentence that was added on 29 August without consensus or discussion and that has since been edit-warred into the article is "the stable version" speaks for itself, and shows a lack of willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue to obtain consensus in the spirit of WP:BRD. Particularly given the controversial nature of the article and the fact that this part of the lead has been stable for around three years, highly controversial changes to it should be discussed, rather than edit-warred into the article, again per WP:BRD. I immediately enouraged those seeking to include this new material to engage in dialogue and seek consensus for it on the talk page, which they ignored. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Not gonna make any comment about what should happen here, but like Crossroads says the restriction is made clear through the notices that pop up when you press undo, before confirming the edit, so you don't need to go on the talk page to see it. If I go to that article right now and press undo on Crossroads edit, the screen practically screams at me about the the conditions the article is under. So unless it is somehow different for you or you scrolled down quickly and didn't notice it you would think it would be pretty obvious. Again not gonna make a comment on what the end result should be either way, but that seemed odd to me. TylerBurden (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I must have missed it because I scrolled down too quickly, for which I am sincerely sorry. A one revert restriction has not been an issue in any other articles that I've edited, as far as I can recall, but I've been confronted by visually similar text that seemed much more routine, e.g. here [11]. Now that I'm more aware of the one revert restriction I will obviously never make the same mistake again. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Also there has been some description in the lead of critics describing the term in terms of violent rhetoric for as long as I can remember (including 2019). The edits a month ago (which on a well watched article is usually considered stable) merely changed the wording of the sentence, if anything softening it. Aircorn (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The sentence was added on August 12, not August 29: see diff. gnu57 16:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked Since Amanda has been editing here regularly for almost a year without getting blocked, and

• she has apologized for missing the 1RR notice when reverting,
• the edit was relatively recent,
• discussion has started on the talk page, and
• the reverting has stopped,

I will take it on good faith that this was not a willful or reckless violation, and let things go for now. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Venkat_TL reported by User:Bommai123 (Result: No action)

Page: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Venkat_TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:

User:Venkat_TL repeatedly add a section consisting entirely of original research. They keep re-adding it without the support of reliable secondary sources. Quoting exclusively primary sources of there own choosing does not constitute WP:RS. They rev the friendly notice given to them on there talk page.

They are also blocked in the past for edit warring

• Comment I don't think you can count the third diff provided as a revert. It seems to have built on the second revert by adding content, rather than reverting again. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked Per above; also this was two days ago and has not recurred. Yet. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I assume you made a mistake in the template? Bommai123 was not blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Fixed Thank you ... I get that one mixed up sometimes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:, I dont see Bommai blocked yet. He continues his disruption. Venkat TL (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

User:TheUniqueFennec reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked)

Page: Capture of Fez (1576) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110447303 by R Prazeres (talk) Source indeed shows support to this eddit, it isn't question of a POV, if you keep pushing your POV you'll be reported. Source clearly shows that Abd al-Malik left the regency of Algiers, which is an independent state to the Ottoman Empire, the only link between them is a religious link. Kabyles fought in the war and therefore it is clearly valid to state the Algerian-Ottoman victory."
2. 12:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110350942 by R Prazeres (talk) Sourced and verified, don't edit war again or you'll be reported."
3. 00:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Next time don"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Invited editor to go to the talk page in this edit summary and through the editwar warning on their talk page. They don't seem to understand the process or don't want to. I won't revert them again myself due to 3RR at this point, and I can't compel them to the talk page any other way; I'm hoping a short ban and independent revert will help. (Note: If relevant, the French source added by the editor doesn't add anything new that it isn't already in the article or any further support for their edit, contrary to what they claim; either way, it should go to the talk page.) R Prazeres (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you have not invited me to talk before reverting my edit. You directly went into reverting my edits without talking. Therefore, here, you're at fault.

When you invited me to talk, you reverted my edit and therefore showed that you're not willing to talk at all. I accepted to talk with you about this matter but you directly went and reported me to the Administrators. You are again at fault here.

The reason I put this change is clearly stated in my last edit. I don't know if you're acting in bad faith but the french source states exactly that the Abd al-Malik went to the Regency of Algiers to gather an army. You clearly know that but decided to ignore this part.

For these reasons, and especially because of his bad faith, a ban for the reporter will be appreciated. TheUniqueFennec (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• It will be up to the admin to evaluate the rest, but I forgot to note this part of their reply on the user talk page, which goes in hand with the behaviour shown so far: "I will keep reverting any further edit that contradicts my valid reference." R Prazeres (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. The reverts, together with the promise to continue reverting, make the case here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Danceswithedits reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: blocked from page for 1 week )

Page: United States Civil Rights Trail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110466595 by Praxidicae (talk)"
2. 15:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110455588 by Theroadislong (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC) to 15:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 12:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC) "Removed UNESCO designation from a landmark."
   2. 15:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Added state-by-state landmark chart with Wikipedia links, physical location, and select notes under Wikipedia guidelines."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

see ani discussion and discussion on users talk page. Warning was given yesterday for 3rr. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

False. I'd LOVE to understand every process and excel at them. The militancy here is remarkable. I'm dealing with a serial bully and stalker, and simply don't have the time and/or interest to devote to multiple fronts. Bottom line: I fully disclosed my status and client under Wikipedia guidelines. I added relevant, accurate, well-written content under Wikipedia guidelines. I even disclosed to the original commenter that I AM NO LONGER UNDER CONTRACT and simply adding content to a subject – U.S Civil Right – that is personally important and clearly socially relevant. My sincerest apologies if I've yet to master every communication protocol or refuse to engage in pointless, childish arguments over being a professional. I focus on content. That's what I do and why I'm paid well for my work, a very tiny fraction of which comes from Wikipedia contributions. I am willing to talk with anyone at a civil, adult level. I will NOT be bullied and harassed under any circumstances. Why that appears to be acceptable here is beyond my comprehension. Danceswithedits (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked from page for 1 week, before I even saw this report. DWE may not believe this, but this was, I think, very lenient on my part. Declared paid contributors are still on a fairly short leash. Edit warring your prefered content into an article you're being paid for is fundamentally unacceptable. This is probably DWE's last chance to understand and accept this concept. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

User:49.178.160.86 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: )

Page: Nicola Spurrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 49.178.160.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) latest IP
• 49.178.166.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) original IP

Original addition, which part was removed as unsourced initially: 17:06, 13 September 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:19, 15 September 2022
2. 11:58, 15 September 2022 as 49.178.160.86 here and above
3. 05:00, 15 September 2022 as 49.178.166.29 here and below
4. 11:58, 15 September 2022
5. 05:00, 15 September 2022
6. 13:11, 14 September 2022
7. 09:50, 14 September 2022 NPA
8. 07:13, 14 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:35, 15 September 2022

• 05:41, 15 September 2022 "discuss on talk page" left on user talk:49.178.166.29

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nicola Spurrier#Name dropping

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

• to 49.178.160.86 19:46, 15 September 2022
• to 49.178.166.29 19:49, 15 September 2022

Comments:

Original IP was 49.178.166.29, latest two edits 49.178.160.86

Note personal attack on ES here 09:50, 14 September 2022

Anon added content here 17:06, 13 September 2022, which a number of errors were corrected by Melcous. The anon restored the sentence "She is the only person besides Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bush and Danny DeVito to have a virus named after them." This was in error (more than those four had bacteria named after them) and WP:NAMEDROP. The rest of Melcous' and my reverts were essentially that the mention of Arne, Bush, and DeVito was unnecessary. Adakiko (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Added similar namedrop/coatrack to Lactic acid bacteria. Adakiko (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Zessede reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
Goguryeo

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]
6. [24]

Protectorate General to Pacify the East

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30], [31]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

Comments:
Korean nationalist engaged in edit warring and other problematic behavior such as removal of sources ([33], [34], [35]), replacement with primary sources despite others having explained how that is not how Wikipedia works long ago [36], general insistence that primary sources are better ([37], [38], [39]), accusing others of vandalism and "distortion" and WP:OWN based on whose right it is to add what content [40], nationalist POV editing [41], and previous WP:NPA based on racial and supposed political affiliations (ANI: [42]). See their edit history and ANI for further context. None of the problematic behavior pointed out by multiple users in the June ANI have stopped and the user has continued to exhibit the same behavior in their recent edit history. Qiushufang (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Salvio 22:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1015:B12A:32D:0:56:50D3:4001 reported by User:Oopsemoops (Result: Blocked)

Page: Darlene Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1015:B12A:32D:0:56:50D3:4001 (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. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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:

• Blocked I have rangeblocked 2600:1015:B100:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 31 hours. Salvio 11:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

User:SkyGeek123 reported by User:62.30.195.57 (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Josh Cahill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SkyGeek123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]

And last week:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Josh_Cahill#Most_Watched_Flight_Reviewer]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [54]

Comments:

The account has made 81 edits since it was created just over a year ago. 51 of these (63%) have been to the article Josh Cahill (48 to the article, three to its talk page). They are aggressively restoring promotional language, and making false accusations of vandalism while doing so. Five reverts in a short period today, four in a similar spree last week. The IP 77.242.124.204 has previously behaved similarly. 62.30.195.57 (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Both blocked: the IP for 48 hours and SkyGeek123 for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

User:YantarCoast reported by User:Shahin (Result: )

Page: Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YantarCoast (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. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

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

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

Comments: