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:Skyerise reported by User:ජපස (Result: Blocked 1 month)

Page: Liber OZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skyerise (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] [7] [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

Comments:
This user is acting as an WP:OWNer of all Thelema related articles. jps (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The above is a Personal attack and not true. There are really only two relevant reverts above, two are minor reverts of the removal of a date link. The reporter, having been thwarted by discussion that didn't get the result he wanted at Talk:Worship of heavenly bodies and is edit-warring there. Knowing that Liber OZ is a front page DYK entry, they stalked me to an article they hadn't edited before intending to harass me, while themselves edit-warring at Worship of heavenly bodies. The consensus on that talk page is pretty much evenly split, but jps refuses to acknowledge that they don't have a consensus. Skyerise (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Also reflexively reverting at Worship of heavenly bodies. [11], [12], [13], [14] jps (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Uh, you're the one that is reverting to your removal while there is a discussion on the talk page. You seem to be intentionally adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic while both article talk pages have discussion. I would have happily have self-reverted, but you revert first before posting to my talk page, taking that option away from me. I don't intend to revert further, but I ask the admins to review jps's process, and the existing and current ANI thread about ජපස's intractable incivility before jumping to any conclusions here. Skyerise (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a bystander here. I came across the Liber Oz dispute, say that they had easily violated the 3RR rule (they reverted 4 times on the same day) and, even prior to @ජපස posting it, posted a polite warning on their talk page informing them of their breach on the Liber Oz article. Their response was delete it from their talk page and to tell me to "fuck off." This is visible in on their talk page history. Just10A (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise is now attacking Just10A on their usertalk page: [15]. jps (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a discussion. Calling it an "attack" is itself a personal attack.

To the admins responding, I have no intention of continuing to edit war over either of these articles, and had I been given an opportunity to, would have self-reverted had a polite note been left rather that a barrage of notices from multiple editors which happened so closely in time that it would seem these two editors are working together. I admit that I let ජපස's battleground tactics trick me into one more revert than I should have made, but that was not intentional and will not be continued. As we all know, this board is for preventing damage to Wikipedia, not for punishment, despite the fact that other editors may think otherwise. Skyerise (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Wasn’t planning on responding to this again. Just to be clear, the discussion on my page was not an attack by the user Skyerise,(though I do find their profane response to a good-faith message unacceptable), and I have never interacted with @ජපස at all until this thread, and an insinuation that I have in bad faith is equally unwarranted. Just10A (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Onpoint12 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Declined)

Page: Rumi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Onpoint12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22],[23]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

Comments:

User:Onpoint12 has refused to understand their argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and personal opinion regarding mention of Rumi's ethnicity is refuted by myself and HistoryofIran. They have chosen to ignore what other editors have told them and continue to WP:REHASH the same argument. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have repeatedly underlined the importance of 'Persian' as a descriptor for 'poet' on this page. And not as an ethnic description. As have many other editors in the past if you review the talk page. A prior history of reverts, often without sufficient explanation, and which contradict published sources cited on this page, suggest a limited willingness to discuss and engage productively. Onpoint12 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a matter best resolved by reaching consensus at the talk page. There is no established consensus for the addition. @Onpoint12 Please review WP:BRD and confine your edits in this matter to the talk page until a resolution is reached, lest a restriction to the talk page only be enforced. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and I will review the guidance. Onpoint12 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Declined per above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

User:83.142.111.35 and related IPs reported by User:Swatjester (Result: Range block, page protected)

Page: ATACMS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.142.111.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and associated other IP's

Previous version reverted to: [25] (lede changes)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30] -- others for most of the other IP's on their talk pages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:ATACMS#To_the_Ukrainian_IP_editor_that's_currently_edit-warring_on_this_article

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

Comments:

I'm reporting this here as I've reverted the IP twice and have been an editor on the page, so I'm too involved to take administrative action myself, but this needs both page protection and an IP rangeblock. Simply put, the IP in question is edit-warring to push their preferred makeover of the page. The edit this IP is warring over does not comply with MOS:EXPABBR, which I've warned them about and they've not responded to; the same IP editor has been cite-bombing the headers of the infobox with excessive numbers of references and unnecessary content in ways that make the page difficult to read on mobile devices (they stretch a single line into taking up nearly 1/4 the screen on a iPhone 14 pro) which again, I've warned them about and they continue to revert; they've recently mass deleted content from the page and introduced significant amounts of OR into the article (example: "There's no reasons to think Tomahawk missile pushed out SLATACMS from the race as that was believed to compliment the Tomahawk features by providing a short time at flight, easily and quickly targeted and being supersonic ballistic missile that was incredibly difficult to intercept" -- a claim not at all supported by the given source, and on top of that, a sentence which contains at least a half-dozen grammar errors at a quick glance.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Coltsfan: for additional comments and visibility. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article in question only. Observing for whether additional sanctions are needed. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems likely. They've explicitly stated twice now that they intend to ignore me, have not substantively responded to any of the issues that I've raised, and keep insisting without evidence that they're right, that Coltsfan is the one who started the edit war (which is definitively untrue, as I've repeatedly explained to them) and demands that Coltsfan be punished. Take your pick: WP:NOTHERE, WP:TE, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:BATTLEGROUND etc. This is not the behavior of someone that is showing any capacity to work with others.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@C.Fred: -- page protection probably warranted at this point as they're still reverting you, since now their dynamic IP has hopped. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I woke up to found a range of IPs had been blocked, and the article has been protected to prevent IP-hopping block evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Adelbeighou reported by User:Joy (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Adelbeighou#Introduction_to_contentious_topics etc

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above. In return, I got User talk:Joy#August 2024 which is frankly hilarious.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]

Comments:

Because I tried to reason with this person, one could say I'm vaguely WP:INVOLVED. If I wasn't, this user would already be blocked because this is just not normal (for an editor with >1000 edits since 2021, according to popups). --Joy (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You did not try to reason with me, you ignored my arguments. You are not vaguely involved, you are involved. And it is "frankly hilarious", I do not know all workings of Wikipedia (as you pointed out "with >1000 edits") so I returned the favour with that "only one warning" you posted on my page # [38] to show you that you won't threaten me or bully me. As for article in question, I simply reverted back to a stable version, before August 21st. I summed up my reasoning for that in edit summaries (you missed this one # [39]). There is no need for that addition (his place of origin) since note is about which literary circle/tradition/group Andrić belongs to. Calling other users and their actions "not normal" is rude and very unbecoming of administrator. Adelbeighou (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

What argument can there really be to just delete seven words from the start of a sentence and never even ponder fixing the remaining sentence to start with a capital letter or another word until you're four reverts in?

You're not being threatened nor bullied - we simply have some minimal standards of behavior that you're failing to adhere to. This level of animosity is in fact not normal.

Why would the removal of the info that he's not just of Croat origin but born in modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina be so important that you have to insist and edit war about it?

It's easy to see how an average English reader might not immediately recognize the difference between "Croat" and "Croatian", and might assume Croat from Croatia, so clarifying the geographic location is a perfectly ordinary thing to do. --Joy (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• The first revert was by Adelbeighou. Since then, both users have reverted, Adelbeighou a total of 5 times (including the first), and Joy four times. Neither user has violated 3RR. Both users are urged to go to the Talk page and discuss the content dispute. However, failing that, they are both warned that any continued edit-warring may result in a block without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 well, the other editor barged in, failed to use an edit summary correctly, failed to use the WP:BRD process correctly, and continued to make the same basic sentence formatting error while being warned that what they're doing is wrong. But now we're equal parties in a content dispute and equally warned? If you wanted to discourage admins like myself from doing admin work in a topic area that is known to attract people with axes to grind, this would be the way. --Joy (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Joy, if I see correctly, the content was added in Special:Diff/1241480275 and not present at least in the most recent 50 edits going back to January 2023, over a year ago. So it was recently added for the first time, noticed and reverted two days later. You responded by clicking the rollback link. This is neither following the (entirely voluntary) BRD process nor providing an edit summary. The word "Though" was missing after the incomplete reverts but could easily have been added by anyone if that was the main concern, and Adelbeighou eventually did so before the report was processed.

  There is hardly a way to respond fairly to this report without informing both participants of the edit war that they have been unnecessarily edit warring, perhaps providing a link to WP:DISCFAIL as the most helpful essay I have seen so far and WP:ONUS about the current state of the article (which is, contrary to BRD, part of a policy).

  And yes, the warning added in Special:Diff/1242731951 is ridiculous and I have removed it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I honestly didn't notice that the clause was fresh. Thanks for finding that out.

  That's Bakir123's bad use of the edit summary field apparently - I would assume they just changed that picture as they had said, but apparently they also added that text to the note.

  In any event, I just noticed Adelbeighou's edit-summary-free edit and reacted to that. What one user did before does not excuse the behavior of the other user, because each behavior should be judged on its own merits. At no point did Adelbeighou say anything like "hey I'm just reverting to what was there before", which would have probably sufficed to get me to look at this history, rather it was this whole "you started it!" etc.

  If you want to treat this as me trying to somehow cover for Bakir123's surreptitious edit or something, I suppose that would be a plausible scenario, but that would also be a major no-no as far as WP:AGF is concerned, and also because it'd be egregiously false, it would again be a wonderful way to demotivate me. In fact, this alone already causes a chilling effect, since it's clear that we're being held to different standards - because I didn't do a deep dive on the history of the article before enforcing policies, someone who violated them gets off scot free and I in turn get effectively dragged through the mud with them. --Joy (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've tried to stay out of this post-warning discussion, partly because I don't know how productive it would be, and partly because I was disappointed in your conduct on the article and even more disappointed with your reaction to the warning. But I'm curious about two things: (1) what "admin work" were you doing on the article? and, related, (2) what policies were you enforcing?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's the same gnomey admin work that happens all the time - reverting apparent vandalism per WP:EW. I see how it looks like just a content dispute after N reverts. --Joy (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

User:190.167.128.78 reported by User:ToonBafoon744 (Result: Article protected)

Page: LoliRock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.167.128.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LoliRock&diff=prev&oldid=1241351960

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LoliRock&diff=prev&oldid=1242103816
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LoliRock&diff=prev&oldid=1242586384
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LoliRock&diff=prev&oldid=1242636108

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LoliRock#English_version_is_the_original

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [40]

Comments:
There is constant disagreement with either English or French as the original versions of the show. Even though I provided lots of evidence, this user remains unconvinced. Please help us resolve this conflict, and apologize if this report is inadequate as I do not use Wikipedia often and this is my first time making this kind of report. Please feel free to block me if a resolution is made.

Page protected for a week. Since both editors here are not EC yet, this will force them to the talk page. Have fun. Daniel Case (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Amigao reported by User:MingScribe1368 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Anti-Chinese sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amigao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the Anti-Chinese sentiment page, the user Amigao has made more than 4 reverts of relevant and concise content supported by high quality academic citations.

He has done this in a space of less than 24 hours.

Diffs:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Chinese_sentiment&oldid=1242855397

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Chinese_sentiment&oldid=1242815870

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Chinese_sentiment&oldid=1242788996

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Chinese_sentiment&oldid=1242739332

He also frequently employs jargon and bombards users with technicalities in order to make their life difficult, deleting relevant, high quality, and well-referenced edits from neutral academic sources of good repute.

He also appears to have been fixated in particular on disrupting my edits, as I happen to see him on every page I work on.

Appreciate assistance here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MingScribe1368 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Randomuser2412 reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Blocked 60 hours; editor alerted to CTOPS)

Page: Epirus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Randomuser2412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff1
2. Diff2
3. Diff3
4. Diff4
5. Diff5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Diff1
2. Diff2

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

Comments:
Five unambiguous reverts the last few hours, without any discussion, this is in WP:NOTHERE territory and needs to be dealt with urgently. Khirurg (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours I have also given the editor a CTOPS alert for WP:CT/EE. Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Yelloworange12 reported by User:Matticusmadness (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Serbian traditional clothing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yelloworange12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [48]

Comments:

Besides the reverts, their WP:ASPERSIONS of an agenda in their first 3 reverts also doesn’t sit well with me. I forget how I got mixed up in this, but it’s normally through NewUsers, anyway, this user was tossing a lot of kb, sourced stuff included, off of the article, leading to the not-so-glorious reverts situation you see today. I believe Yellow’s at 4, Shadow’s at 3, and I’m at 2? MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 15:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely And CTOPS notice left on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Bekirozturkgagauz reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: PBlocked)

Page: Battle of Baideng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bekirozturkgagauz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]
6. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [57]

Comments:

Also suspected of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hunnic Enjoyer. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely partially blocked from this article. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Black Kite! HistoryofIran (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Lumbarschen reported by User:Khirurg (Result: P-Blocked 1 week)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC) "Yes i am totally Neutral, what i'm doing is making a change simply, nothing else."
2. 17:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC) "The user said for the other 2 sources to be unreliable, so i putted the other one which he asked for the page of, simple. Now if that is to be considered unreliable aswell i can cite other sources no problem, and i'm not edit warring i'm simply contributing"
3. 17:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Clear cut violation of 3RR, keeps re-instating the same text over and over [58], despite multiple users explaining what is wrong with it. Khirurg (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Specifically, a partial block from Illyrians. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)