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:RicardoSadik reported by User:MdsShakil (Result: Declined)

Page: Chittagonian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC) "/* spelling */ Reply"

Comments:

On this page they ignores consensus and discussion and adding their own thoughts consistently. They have been warned about this several times —MdsShakil (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Declined They have edited once this entire month. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Yuotort reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)

Page: Category:White nationalist terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC) "Racist terrorists in the 1960s were not alt-right, because alt-right was not a thing until the 2010s."
2. 04:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 04:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1105025696 by Praxidicae (talk) Alt-right is a subset of white nationalism, not the other way around."
4. 03:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 04:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Category:Alt-right terrorism."
3. 04:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Category:White nationalist terrorism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

see also related edit warring at Category:Alt-right terrorism and Incel PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

WTF is this, Mr. Praxidicae? Yuotort (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I will tell you only one time more: I am not male, my pronouns are she/her. Stop calling me Dude and "Mr." If you have trouble grasping this concept, you're welcome to just refer to my username. PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• And while this isn't related to this dispute, they're also edit warring here and restoring fancruft. PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

User:ShanaChan95 reported by User:Starhunterfan (Result: Blocks and protection)

Page: Frances Barber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ShanaChan95 (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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:
This editor has made the same reversion 20 times in a row within the space of 24 hours (against multiple other editors) and seems to have registered for this sole purpose, as their account is brand new and has made no other edits. They continually change "views on transgender issues" to "transphobic views" or "virulently transphobic views" and have even added two notes saying "neutrality is not required." Trans rights are a subject that people are obviously passionate about, but "views on transgender issues" is informative and neutral. Continually changing "views on transgender issues" to "transphobic views" is editorialising and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Making 20 reverts in a row is a clear breach of edit warring rules. (My apologies for not discussing on the editor's talk page first; I am a very inexperienced Wikipedia user.) Starhunterfan (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. So ShanaChan95 blocked for 24 hours. Justdoingthis, Glad to be who I am and Justquicklyum blocked indefinitely. The article is EC protected for two weeks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @CambridgeBayWeather: I am surprised that you blocked ShanaChan95 for only 24 hours and the other three accounts indefinitely, since ShanaChan95 made many more reverts. Did you mean to do it the other way around? gnu57 15:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Genericusername57. No that was the way I wanted it. Look at the edits they made. While it doesn't excuse the edit warring by ShanaChan95 they were warring against several sockpuppets created just to participate in an edit war. There was one other that I didn't block but they were an older account that had made an edit elsewhere. I didn't put in for a sockpuppet investigation because they were obvious and I have no idea who the master is. Easy enough to reblock if ShanaChan95 resumes the edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Razborka reported by User:Lil-unique1 (Result: No action)

Page: Break My Soul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Razborka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: first revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 2
2. diff 3

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my first edit summary

• Note on user's page diff

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:

I'd like to point out that Razborka was blocked for two weeks in May for similar patterns of editing at a different article. From their response to me, it appears that English may not be their first language - without prejudice that's fine. We are an international community. However I think its obvious Razborka doesn't understand WP:BRD or WP:CONSENSUS, when their edits are a position contrary to WP:RECORDCHARTS and a discussion about the very thing they are trying to add Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Radio_Monitor. Admittedly not a robust discussion in terms of user involvement but some common sense agreement about RecordCharts policy requiring charts to be independent, verified, archived, and time relative i.e. what period is being referred to. Totally appreciate its not WP:3RR yet but its clearly WP:EDITWAR and no sign that they are willing to engage at all in a constructive conversation without simply adding the info we would deem as inappropriate for the article. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted their most recent revert. They have about eight hours to not violate 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked User's last edit, on their talk page, indicates that they accept what they've done and will move on. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Stephanie921 reported by User:Editorkamran (Result: Declined)

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Stephanie921 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1105272048 by Extorc (talk) Not disruptive. If u have a problem with my edit then say why, I've given legitimate reasons that agree with other editors"
2. 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Topic ban proposals */Agreed caution is needed. Anyway, if a user doesn't want their old username public it shouldn't be public regardless of whether it's a strict outing vio according to code. Its just basic courtesy, and either way its a vio in spirit. Wikiholic said name invades privacy, so it's an outing vio"
3. 11:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1105267449 by Editorkamran (talk) Info is clear OUTING violation as agreed by me, Mako and Wikiholic"
4. 11:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1105265677 by Editorkamran (talk) It wasn't wanted up, it shouldn't be up"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents."
2. 11:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "/* August 2022 */"
3. 11:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "/* ANI notification */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Stephanie921 "/* August 2022 */"

Comments:

They registered on 12 July 2022 and already causing mass disruption. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stephanie921 refusing to engage - an ongoing report on ANI.

This user does not understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, as such it is necessary to communicate than sticking to edit warring. Editorkamran (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved: User_Talk:331dot#Wikiholic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie921 (talk • contribs)

• Declined - As this is directly relevant to the AN/I discussion and it seems you've started discussing it, please keep it to one place. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@DatGuy: ANI is about never ending pattern of uncollaborative behavior and edit warring while this report is about the recent edit war. It seems justified to report here given brightline breach of 3RR to stop the very current disruption. It cannot be ignored just because the user was already reported somewhere else by another editor. Editorkamran (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue in the ANI thread is about Stephanie921's failure to respond, where they instead turn to edit-warring. I find the behaviour mentioned here and the behaviour mentioned in ANI to be the same. Stephanie921 seems to have stopped the active disruption and indicated an understanding. Whether they do truly understand or not is yet to be seen, but the consensus for how to react to their pattern of behaviour should be reached at ANI. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Btw my pronouns are she/her

I already said I'll stop now and wait for an uninvolved administrator to resolve the matter in that talk page I linked - now that I understand it might not be as clear-cut as I thought. The edit war is over.

User:Nightscream reported by User:Kvng (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Radio#Uncited_material_in_need_of_citations

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User_talk:Nightscream#August_2022

Comments:

See additional discussion of the disputed editing pattern at User_talk:Nightscream#Need_objective_viewpoints_on_an_important_matter, User_talk:Nightscream#Tagging_uncited_material, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Moving_uncited_material_to_talk_pages_after_a_month. Regardless of whether these edits are justified by policy, edit warring is a disruptive way to push this. This issue is being pushed by Nightscream at other articles (e.g. Phonograph record) where they have done similar reverts. ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I will recuse myself from making a decision on this due to my (requested) participation in the linked discussion at Nightscream's talk page (which I incorporate into my remarks below by reference). But per that I will also say that I do not see this as actionable here.

Understandably the reporting editor is put out that Nightscream abruptly removed a great chunk of uncited material from a top-level article that was very basic and fundamental to it to the point of being uncontroversial enough that no one really minded sitting there uncited for so long.

But for that very reason there was never any excuse for leaving it uncited for so long. Facts so basic to a subject, especially one so broad, should not want for reliable sources—I mean, if we left, say, the suface area of New York City uncited, because we were all comfortable with it and it wasn't controversial, how would we look? How credible would we seem as a source of information? There is no such thing as benign neglect here.

I note that the editor primarily responsible for writing all this uncited material has owned his past negligence (and I find that edit of his more signficant than this one later (If you accuse someone of basically weaponizing policy, which I agree is possible, I think your case needs to be stronger than it is here).

I also find one of the edit summaries on the restorations particularly troubling: "Revert vandalism. Regardless of the citation situation, this has pretty well all existed in the article for many years. It therefore has a de facto consensus for its inclusion even from many respected editors in the field. Carpet blanking in this manner is a route to a block for disruptive editing. Why not be more productive and add references if it bothers you that much."

First, calling it "vandalism" is just bad faith. We see too much of that at these noticeboards. "Vandalism", IMO, consists of edits that adds material that could never be of any use to the article (as opposed to edits that might, under different circumstances, be helpful but are not in this instance, which when I block editors for I use "disruptive editing" ... the editor gets this right later on, which I take as a tacit admission of the early bad-faith accusation) As much as it might have upset this editor, Nightscream's removals are objectively not vandalism.

But I really find the next part jaw-dropping. "Regardless of the citation situation" ... well, that's a pretty big "regardless", to me on the order of "Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" And it is worth noting that CITE provides for only a very few exceptions (like plot summaries); this isn't one of them.

Then: "this has pretty well all existed in the article for many years. It therefore has a de facto consensus for its inclusion even from many respected editors in the field" Oh ... my ... God! No wonder this came from an IP ... I can't imagine any longterm registered editor saying this and expecting to ever live it down. I haven't yet looked at their edit history in depth, but from what I've read it seems that they have edited intermittently over the last decade or so, which makes it less likely that the only reasonable excuse for thinking this—that they just got off a time machine from the 2007 Wikipedia—is true.

And even so ... where the hell does this "consensus through chronic inaction" thing come from? All of our pages about consensus treat it as arising from positive action, primarily discussion, not inaction. This sort of rationale deepens my suspicion that the editors arrayed against Nightscream are really more interested in maintaining their continued laziness than doing what they need to do to improve the article.

Lastly, "even from many respected editors in the field" sounds like sales talk. Who are these "many respected editors"? Would the IP care to name just one?

If anything, a stronger—or equally strong at least—case could be made for edit warring by the reporters here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are fine points but not focused on the issue at hand here, edit warring. Is this edit warring? If so, AFAIK, it can't be justified based on the merits of Nightscream's or your policy arguments. Per WP:BRD Nightscream makes the bold change. Then someone reverts it (in this case three have tried) and it gets discussed. You don't edit war to retain your cahnges while it is being discussed. That's disruptive. If after discussion, there's consensus that the material needs to go, it needs to go. I'm aware of no such consensus at this time. ~Kvng (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of my post, I do not consider it edit warring and after reading what you just wrote, I am even less inclined to. BRD is not a rule; it's an essay that offers an ideal of how things should happen but don't necessarily have to. I would commend your attention to the line at BRD that says "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it".

In this case those reverting Nightscream did not. They restored text that had lain uncited for years, that had been tagged and flagged as such, text that was technical enough in nature that not every passing editor could be expected to have the knowledge to find reliable sources for, without adding any of the requested cites. Reverting without doing so put the onus on those editors reverting to find those sources. Making later reverts of those deletions without adding sources is, arguably, as disruptive as repeatedly adding the same new unsourced content and restoring it after it gets removed for that reason.

Imagine that some people have a house, or an outbuilding they rent out, that they've never bothered to build a roof on. People live in the uncovered space and sometimes get wet or cold. This goes on for years and then someone decides to build a roof and put it on the outbuilding ... only for the owners to remove it almost immediately. This repeats a few times until someone calls the local building inspector and the police, who point out that dwellings are required to have roofs. The owners object that since no one ever had a complaint about this until recently, it wasn't a problem and thus it shouldn't be, and this jerk should be arrested for acting like it is.

Do you see now how absurd this looks from the outside? Rather, I think that it is you who are in the wrong, you who have lost all right to complain of edit warring when you let this dog lie for so long (and it never could have been said to be asleep). Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, you mischaracterize Nightscream's intent (as I see it) as removing the material entirely and permanently from the article. He has done this merely to light a fire under the proverbial of those who could and should (as they have admitted, as I noted further up) that they should have put cites in a long time ago but have not). He only wants the material removed for so long as it takes to put proper citations in, either in separate draftspace or on the talk page ... then it can be restored. That is a further reason I find BRD ill-suited to resolving this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I do consider it edit warring otherwise I would not have reported it. You have recused yourself so I don't think it is appropriate for you to continue posting here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Kvng, please stop telling people to butt out, and go find some references. I agree with Daniel Case's analysis. It's important that the material be restored, but with references, and you're impying bad faith where it doesn't appear to exist. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:142.183.21.97 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Pageblocked)

Page: Joan II of Navarre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 142.183.21.97 (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]
4. [16]
5. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

Comments:
IP:142.183.21.97 has continued to introduce, redundant(information already in the article written in the proper perspective), out of context(information that does not even mention the subject of the article), oddly worded to the point of illegible information, and, per my post on the article talk page explanation, outdated and unreliable source(s).

IP142.183.21.97, has not chosen to engage on the article talk page, ignored the 3rr warning, and instead has chosen to issue threats,"Please do not remove true and proven sourced information, your holding back Wikipedia, and it will result in a report!", and some other vague aspersions,"Do not remove sourced and true information." Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

IP142.183.21.97 has continued to edit war, reverting user:Czello. Kansas Bear (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week from Joan II of Navarre. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Rjohnson1980 reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: No violation)

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

User being reported: Rjohnson1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1105372296 by Ptrnext (talk) Again, entirely subjective on your part, and quarterly information is relevant. Mentioning Soros is also relevant. It could be inflammatory, but it's not at all, not even a little bit,, because as the link clearly states, he is/was a major shareholder. Him dumping shares isn't good. This isn't at all controversial."
2. 21:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1105332452 by Ptrnext (talk) Plenty of other pages have information like this, sometimes listing revenue/earnings/etc by quarter; your objection is entirely subjective. It's also a good follow up to the information right above it, and the above/below-like language helps establish context."
3. 17:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1105051197 by Ptrnext (talk) It's relevant information on the company, and it's no different than other info that isn't earth-shattering but still highlights its history (eg the part right above it about reducing its workforce)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has a recent pattern of edit warring with warning from his actions on other pages - does not appear to have taken the policies seriously. MartinezMD (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There was no need to take this step. I understand the policies and was, I believe, following them. I offered reasons for my edits and went back and forth, then just acceded because you can't win every time. As you can see with other edits made to my edits, I don't always try to undo or revise more. It all depends on the circumstances. The other editor in question didn't explain why certain edits were being made right away, and the edits were, again, questionable. But to repeat: I have acceded and will focus on other entries.

It's time for all to move on. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2022 (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. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Genome42 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Intergenic region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Genome42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC) "I restored my earlier edits after extensive discussion in Talk where nobody was able to come up with good scientific reasons for keeping the old, incorrect and/or misleading, version."
2. 15:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1105299152 by Praxidicae (talk) I'm restoring my edits for the reasons discussed in Talk several days ago."
3. 15:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1104720470 by Praxidicae (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Intergenic region."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */ Reply"
2. 16:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */ Reply"
3. 17:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */ Reply"
4. 20:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */ Reply"
5. 20:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */"
6. 20:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */ Reply"

Comments:

Persistent edit warring and refusal to provide sources, this user refuses to acknowledge that we require sources, not just an assessment by a self proclaimed SME. Discussions across multiple pages with said user have failed, including here where there has been a slow burning edit war, as well as personal attacks against other editors (which you can see in the discussions and his own talk page.) Instead of providing sources, he is just removing them because they are "outdated", though TNT has provided more up to date sources, which they've now removed as well. They've also expressed a desire to get other editors including myself to purposely engage in edit warring to get other editors blocked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing with details set forth in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)