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:Excelsiorsbanjo reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Partial blocked for 6 months)

Page: Spokane County, Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Excelsiorsbanjo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2024-06-10T03:05:21
2. 2024-06-06T14:58:33‎
3. 2024-06-05T02:25:52
4. 2024-06-04T03:47:49
5. 2024-05-25T15:41:20
6. 2024-05-24T14:40:49‎
7. 2024-05-24T02:29:32‎
8. 2024-05-23T02:59:49
9. 2024-05-22T06:02:36
10. 2024-05-17T03:01:14
11. 2024-02-26T14:37:18
12. 2024-02-22T21:29:44
13. 2024-02-16T05:23:14
14. 2024-02-09T20:58:07
15. 2024-01-30T08:35:07‎
16. 2024-01-10T05:46:44

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2024-05-24T15:46:52‎ (which they removed shortly thereafter with the edit summary delete noise) Masem had previously warned them of 3RR in 2019 as well, which they acknowledged).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2024-06-10T03:50:21

Comments:

• Please see previous discussion, which I've included diffs from that report here for additional context. Excelsiorsbanjo is borderline WP:NOTHERE at this point, refusing to discuss their edits on the talk page, and ignoring the straw poll completely (which is unanimous at this point). They've made the statement that they will continue to revert without end (In the meantime I can press the undo button, it's no big deal). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If an admin is waiting for Excelsiorsbanjo to reply here, based on the prior report and the fact that they didn't reply to it at all, it should be clear there's no interest in addressing their conduct, just being disruptive. They've already removed the ANEW notice from their talk page with the edit summary delete noise which appears to be their default response to things they don't like here. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Pblocked from the article for 6 months. They clearly don't want to follow consensus, so they can use the talk page instead. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Given the demonstrated recalcitrance (See you all in six months. Wikipedia, always good for a laugh.) I'd recommend just indef from that page and then let them appeal it and convince someone they're not going to immediately return to protracted edit warring. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Or you could pay attention to the actions of this other edit warrior, who just keeps spamming this board until he gets the chump response he wants. =P Also, you should actually read the talk pages you're talking about, Black Kite, still. Like, that is elementary. I know you haven't read it. It's obvious. Anyway the lesson I'm learning here is whine to admins over and over and ignore consensus until some foolish admin who can't or won't read just knee-jerk does what I want. But I already knew that was how Wikipedia worked, which is exactly why I have done nothing but revert edits on this matter. Talking to you people is an absolute waste of time. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on the continued edit warring on this page, while this solves it temporarily (not in the way I would have liked when I handled a similar complaint a couple of weeks ago), I will be putting a CTOPS notice on the talk page per CT/CID since this clearly falls under that, if and when this sort of dispute resumes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Considering there's literally nobody else reverting to add this back in, I don't expect it to continue unless the underlying behavior doesn't change. Regardless, I also placed a notification about CT/CID on Excelsiorsbanjo's talk page. Like every other policy-based communication they've received, I expect this to also be considered noise. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It led to two reports here ... that makes it contentious for me (And yes, this time Eb earned this resolution; I still believe they had a point but they still have to follow policy when they edit and this went beyond what good faith can tolerate).

They can certainly delete the CTOPS notice; it's not one of the things WP:BLANKING forbids users from removing from their talk pages. They cannot say they didn't read it, though.

And yes, one of these days I am going to email the Spokesman-Review to suggest this story. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Two reports by the same person. He didn't get what he wanted the first time and now with a whole different person he has. Whatever system you all think you have here, it doesn't work. I don't mind running afoul of silly admins on Wikipedia, that's just life on Wikipedia, but if you can't see that you're being played here, you are lost. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This gives me a strong WP:NOTHERE vibe, anyone who is not Eb objecting for this to go to AN/I? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No objection here. I debated this second report vs AN/I anyways so it feels like it’s heading that way anyways with the attitude they’re expressing. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you give me links to Eb's statements? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They've made 354 edits, it shouldn't be hard to look through their recent contribution history if you need diff links.

But take your pick, their comments here and their comments at Talk:Spokane County, Washington#Spokane_County_Flag? (where their first reply included The local newspaper has plenty on it [the flag] without providing any actual links/sources, then a LOT of spelunking by @Leif One and @JT Ramsey, then EB (in their first reply since their initial claim of "plenty" of sources) claims Leif is ignoring responses made (which as this is the very next response by EB since their first response, what was Leif ignoring?), then continues by saying This does not give the appearance of good faith editing. Anyway, you're outnumbered. There are paths forward for your cause, but I've personally no interest in helping you find them. At the moment, consensus on Wikipedia is that the flag should remain on the page as is. Additionally, at the moment, to anyone concerned with reality, the flag should remain on the page as is. Catch you later. So that's a lot, but basically claiming Leif is not editing in good faith while Leif is the only one who actually appeared to make any effort to find sources (EB just waved it away earlier with the "local newspaper has plenty on it"), stating Leif is "outnumbered" (which is a strange claim considering only EB so far had shown any desire to keep the flag), generally being unhelpful with the "paths forward" statement (while also hinting at some bias in their behavior), and then claiming consensus (without citing any prior discussion to demonstrate this). Finally EB ends with what appears to be their personal opinion ("concerned with reality").

And then just keep reading their replies in that thread, they nearly bludgeon the conversation with their false claims of "consensus" (without ever really demonstrating such consensus exists), and edit war on the basis of those claims (see the 16 diffs linked at the top of this report spread out over many months). And they appear to just plan to wait out the clock on their page block and begin again from their comments directly above (I don't mind running afoul of silly admins on Wikipedia). They've made 354 edits over seven years, that's about 51 edits a year on average. Their 16 reverts above account for nearly 5% of their total edit history. Being confidently wrong (about consensus, edit warring, the sources, etc) is never a good look, and doubling down on it even less so... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

No objection. I've encouraged Eb to do research, find facts, but they have not. I welcome any and all facts about this interesting, trivial flag in Spokane's past. Clearly it should not be forgotten, but also, it is not a flag that Spokane embraced or uses today. It is a documented relic of the past. Leif One (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Eb, as someone who sees your side of this, I would remind you that comments like this do lend support to the suggestion that you are not assuming good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The only WP:CTOP I see is WP:GAMING over WP:EW (and maybe a smidge of WP:CIV). I agree they can delete the notice, just noting I don't expect anything other than the behavior witnessed so far. I look forward to seeing what your story suggestion produces as a result, more clarity is never a bad thing. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:KaiWoodBCB reported by User:Remsense (Result: Both partially blocked 3 months)

Page: Russian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow-motion edit warring over the course of months. They have communicated precisely zero, despite being approached on their talk page, as well as a full-blown RFC taking place on the article talk page with clear consensus against their preferred version. Remsense诉 07:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, is is practically impossible to take a fair action here without applying the same sanction to KaiWoodBCB and you. The RfC is still open, you're not in a position to close it and the edits are unlikely to be "vandalism". It may be reasonable to remove the block from your account as soon as the RfC is closed in clear favor of your preferred revision, but edit warring is disruptive even if you are right, so please just let someone else perform the revert in such situations. If it's as clear as you apparently thought when reverting, then there was no need for you to revert and someone else looking at the situation would have done it sooner or later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to close the RfC, but I do not think it is fair to ignore its present state either. Failing that, the present version is what was there when the RfC started—surely the distinction between changing away from the live version currently subject to an RfC versus changing back is one every good-faith editor would respect? That is the only reason I felt it was acceptable to revert—if the live version had been swapped, I would not have touched it during this time. I do not think "let someone else perform the revert" is justified—if tag-team edit warring is wrong, which it is, then this isn't automatically wrong for the same reason. Remsense诉 09:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

My "let someone else" isn't meant in an active way with you asking for it to happen. It just happens by itself in clear cases, and an uninvolved editor stumbling upon a vandalized page and restoring it is not tag-teaming. If this scenario sounds unlikely to happen, the case wasn't as clear as a "vandalism" revert during a dispute after an edit warring block (courtesy ping Daniel Case) should be.

There is no policy-/guideline-based reason to prefer a status quo or to distinguish between "changing away" and "changing back" during a discussion strongly enough to justify edit warring by the disputants, no. Especially not one that automatically makes someone disruptively disagreeing a vandal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy-/guideline-based reason to prefer a "status quo" or to distinguish between "changing away" and "changing back" during a discussion

I really thought that there was a policy point specifically about this, and it's my fault for having misunderstood what I previously read and not triple-checking. If I had properly realized this, I wouldn't have continued in this way. It seems ridiculous to ask you to remove the block (with theirs) based on that, given I'm not interested in editing the content in question until the RfC finishes regardless, but I'm going to struggle editing in other areas without TWL access. Remsense诉 09:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Not ridiculous, Remsense. Actually, the block inadvertently affecting the work on other articles, the explanation of a common misunderstanding and the lack of interest in continuing to edit the article anyway are all three good arguments for removing the partial block. I'll do so now, and while this isn't a very strict formal requirement (we haven't agreed on a conditional unblock yet), I do take you at your word regarding the lack of interest. Please do not continue editing the article – ideally at all – until the RfC is closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking me in good faith. Remsense诉 10:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 3 months from editing the article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:86.44.48.70 reported by User:CodeTalker (Result: Editor blocked 72 hours, pages protected)

Page: Wish Dragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.44.48.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 18:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 17:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 08:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Vivo (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor has been edit warring on Wish Dragon as well as Vivo (film) for several days, and has broken 3RR on both of the articles today, despite being warned against doing so. They have never communicated on a talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected Both pages protected two weeks. The IP has also been blocked 72 hours for edit warring to prevent further edit warring continuing on the other pages they've edited. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Whtttbsa1776 reported by User:Kathleen's bike (Result: No violation)

Page: Tony Knowland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whtttbsa1776 (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. [3] (restores content removed here
2. [4] (restores section removed in previous diff)
3. [5] (restores content virtually idential to diff #1, except for the use of the "Private archive" source)
4. [6] (restores section from diff #2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

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

Comments:
In the editor's constant reverting they even keep removing this improvement I made to the article's sourcing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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. There are only three reverts right now. And given that they've apologized on their talk page, it might be productive to engage them in discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Logosx127 reported by User:Pbritti (Result: RfC)

Page: Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Logosx127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "It is sourced and backed by official records. If there's a satisfactory reason to no add it then prove it."
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) to 00:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
   1. 01:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) "Restoring status quo ante for dispute resolution"
   2. 00:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "Per evidence from official press release letter heads and church particular law provided in talk"
3. 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1229043989 by Pbritti (talk) It is indeed the official name as obvious from almost all press releases and circulars. One example would be this post from the offical Fb page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Dispute 15 June */ Reply"

Comments:

This editor persistently refuses to follow the discussion process and constantly reverts their additions despite opposition, even when confronted with evidence presented by multiple editors. Despite ongoing discussion, they restored their preferred bold alterations just outside the 24 hour window. On the same page back in March, they engaged in the same refusal to accede to discussion (even accusing an appeal to the relevant WikiProject for a third opinion to be forum shopping). Additionally, please see their talk page history for recently deleted personal attacks and aspersions. Pbritti (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see March's ANI discussion for prior history of edit warring. Also note that this is a recently unblocked sockpuppet of another account that had been blocked three times for edit warring. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• I must totally disagree with this false allegation put forward by the editor recently involved in disputes with me. I have not been edit warring here. As you can see, I have neither reverted more than three times and the edits that I have done clearly did not break the 3RR rule. I am totally aware this must have been avoided as well but I mentioned this to clarify that I never intended in editing-warring in the first place.
• Actually I am the one who have originally opened the discussions in the talk page.[8] I have shared multiple sources to support my edits but the user is neither willing to assess the sources nor trying to create a dispute resolution. In such a condition, I restored the status quo ante.[9] The user meanwhile was trying to add their own preferred version disregarding even the status quo ante.[10]

Logosx127 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You regularly engage in tendentious editing, game the system, and wikilawyering. Back in the ANI, everyone involved noted how unwilling you were to concede to consensus or permit discussion. You've had enough rope. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify that I was the one who initially wanted the administrators' intervention in this matter.[11] As soon as I clarified it, Pbritti maliciously added this complaint here. I have often had disputes with the same user on this and many other articles and I have so far taken the position of accepting the general consensus on all of these issues. Also remember that not all consensus has been against me, as this user's comments falsely suggest, many have been against this user. I am sure that this user is gaining an unfair advantage by referring disputes to certain WikiProjects and doing the entire discuss there. I believe these are attempts of forum shopping were they can gather support from like minded editors instead of neutral ones. I opposed it only because I already have this one complaint.Logosx127 (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile Pbritti was repeatedly trying to disregard and manipulate the sources I provided in the talk page.[12][13][14][15] I can point that this behavior of the user has been the main reason why this dispute has gone on so long, and why I have had disputes with the same user multiple times. I am not saying that one should fully accept what the other says, but at least the evidence provided should be taken with the importance it deserves and without distortion. The user exhibited an exactly same behaviour in a past discussion in the same article talk page there I was able to discuss there properly as it was done on that article talk page itself. Logosx127 (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Administrators reviewing this report might wish to read User talk:Bbb23#Requesting undeletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Logosx127 has self-reverted. It doesn't appear likely that Logo and Pbritti will be able to resolve the dispute based on their sniping on the article Talk page. Therefore, I suggest they try another form of dispute resolution. WP:3o or an RfC might work.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Bbb23 and in lieu of Logosx127 doing so, I have initiated an RfC. All are welcome to comment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Seba guarino reported by User:Soetermans (Result: No violation Blocked 24h)

Page: SpongeBob SquarePants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "/* top */"
2. 17:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "/* top */"
3. 16:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "/* top */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on SpongeBob SquarePants."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user insists on adding an unnecessary shorthand for a TV series. Three reverts in less than an hour. I myself just hit the undo button again, but reverted myself. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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. The first edit isn't a revert, so only two. And they've stopped since then. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey Daniel Case, please check again. Behaviour continues. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Also continuing reverting on Teletubbies. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Still didn't violate 3RR on either article, but I didn't know they were doing this on more than one article, which is different. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Alexqal reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "removed unnecessary informations which were making this simple page look heavy, added notables"
2. 20:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "no need of garbage heap, only facts and crisp information has been added."
3. Diffs using socks - [16]
4. Diffs using socks - [17]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Vikram Sarabhai."
2. 19:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "/* June 2024 */ Reply"
3. 20:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Gupta."
4. 21:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps removing sourced content / sources and adds unsourced stuff. They have been doing it using multiple IDs [18] [19]. I've opened an SPI case here.

Also note similar edits/edit war by this ID and IPs [20] [21] [22] [23]. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)