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:OlaLj reported by User:ScienceFlyer (Result: First 24h, then indefinitely)

Page: Infectious Diseases Society of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Lyme disease treatment guidelines */"
2. 18:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Lyme disease treatment guidelines */"
3. 18:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Lyme disease treatment guidelines */"
4. 23:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Infectious Diseases Society of America."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Fringe edits */ new section"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC) to 23:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC) on Talk:Infectious Diseases Society of America

Comments:

4th revert just outside 24 hours but this user has been reverting over and over since the 21st. An IP user 213.89.130.79 introduced baseless WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories with no reliable sources on March 21. Less than an hour later, this WP:SPA was created and has been continually reverting any attempt to remove them. I discussed why the references weren't suitable on the talk page and warned the user. Some of the edits and reverts this user made were inappropriately marked as "minor".

It doesn't look like this page is being watched by anyone else. I did report to two other noticeboards but it didn't help. Let me know if this report can be improved since it's my first edit war report after editing for over 5 years. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ScienceFlyer: IP has already been blocked, but in the future please note you must give a warning specifically for edit warring. The only warning given in this instance was for vandalism before they were informed of this discussion. Heavy Water (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean the named user, not the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Not to step on @Drmies:'s toes but I've NOTHERE'ed for clearly misrepresenting sources and agenda-pushing. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Courcelles, no toes were stepped on--and seeing what they posted after I blocked them, such a block is perfectly alright with me, and to be honest, it's the kind of response from them that I expected, with the inevitable result. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

User:216.246.154.38 and User:2604:ca00:17a:3bd1::e61:c7e1 reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Semi-protection for six months)

Page: Maia arson crimew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 216.246.154.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2604:ca00:17a:3bd1::e61:c7e1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "Grammar corrections to capitalise name, it seems someone is actively trying to sabotage the page."
2. 03:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "Grammar correction, names are capitalised. Capitalisation of a name is not chosen."
3. 03:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "grammar correction, name capitalisation"
4. 03:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "Grammar correction: name capitalisation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Maia arson crimew."
2. 03:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Maia arson crimew."
3. 03:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Maia arson crimew."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Capitalisation of maia's name */ new section"

Comments:

Initial reverts were by the IPv4, I'm reasonably confident that the IPv6 revert is the same editor. While there's been no 3RR violation, the IP editor is edit warring. On the specifics of the article, per her old Twitter account maia's name is spelt without capitalisation, and is reflected by many sources (in whole or in part) that discuss her. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Page protected for six months as it comes under the GENSEX contentious topic and while this vandalism isn't directly about that, some of the past vandalism has included pronoun changes. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Ffaffff reported by User:Mujinga (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: 20:47, 24 March 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:00, 25 March 2023 - lead
2. 15:40, 25 March 2023 - other
3. 15:38, 25 March 2023‎ - lead
4. 15:37, 25 March 2023‎ - lead
5. 14:58, 25 March 2023 - lead
6. 21:10, 24 March 2023 - lead

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [2]

Comments:
Hi I am trying to copyedit/update the article on Alfredo Cospito and I have a disruptive editor making this unnecessarily difficult today. I have already warned them several times on their talkpage January, February and tried lots of times on the article talkpage to communicate but they don't seem to understand. Almost of of their recent edits are to this specific page, and tend to be ungrammatical and/or disruptive. Thanks for any help.Mujinga (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I would ask Admins to take a close look to the offending edits, to the page itself, and to the talk page.

• example: here I engage with Mujinga, ask for clarifications, revert a grammar mistake I introduced in the text.
• another example: here I engage (with another user) following WP:BRD. The user added a section, I reverted it, we engaged in talk page, we found consensus. Sadly sometimes Mujinga engages in WP:BRR, see as an example this re-revert.
• some edits that Mujinga consider offensive are not strictly reverts, e.g. [3] introduces context on the first sentence of the article. I was trying to write that in the talk page of the article but Mujinga immediately opened this notice here, hence here I am explaining myself.

I would consider carefully warnings on my talkpage too: as an example the February one refers to a possible COPYVIO, remarkably a six-word copyvio according to Mujinga. If not vexatious, I am sure you all agree this is irrelevant to this discussion. (the other warning? About sub-par English.)

But yes, above all please check the [Talk:Alfredo_Cospito], where I believe I always engaged in good faith, highlighting my concerns about WP:RECENTISM, looking constructively for dispute resolutions (e.g.: WP:3O), even when I was met with abuse (not by Mujinga, just to highlight I always try to contribute positively) and lack of good-faith accusations.

Biographies and current events are always touchy subjects, I don't believe Mujinga is acting in bad faith, and I am neither. The article would be greatly improved by more editor engaging.

One last thing, keep in mind this timeframe:

• revert request by Mujinga in the article: 16:00;
• notice of this discussion on my talk page: 16:32.

So even if you agree with what Mujinga says: I was given 32 minutes to self-revert, a very short timespan. Ffaffff (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

One last (for real) thing: some of the reported edits are consecutive (e.g. this), so they should count as one. Ffaffff (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for keeping adding material, I am not super comfortable examining history. this edit (reported in OP as edit warring) I corrected myself before the Edit War discussion was opened. Ffaffff (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed that is what 3RR says: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2023 (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. I count about three reverts in the last 24 hours. So the rule has not been violated yet. If this continues the way it has been, the matter should be revisited.

However, it's clear from the talk page that Ffafff has long alienated just about every other editor working on it regularly. There is no good faith left, and that is very concerning. Mujinga, I salute you for bringing in 3O, but I think you need dispute resolution that will bring in more people than that process does. Maybe DRN or an appropriate noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: No violation)

Page: 2022 Asian Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1146407892 by WikiEdits2003 (talk) MOS:ICONS / MOS:TOOMANY, do not argue with MOS"
2. 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1146392100 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) WP:ICONS, MOS:TOOMANY, same to many MSE, but doesn't mean it obey MOS"
3. 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1146383198 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) WP:ICONS, MOS:TOOMANY"
4. 14:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "rv, redundant"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2022 Asian Games."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has a past history of edit warring and has reverted four times (and two editors) without discussing their edits and claiming they are right. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be mirror yourself too. --Aleenf1 02:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The last edit appears to be "gaming the system" Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It you said I'm gaming the system, so it will better you say you are not discuss anything from, even that's MOS, rather than just claims it was disruptive or 3RR. --Aleenf1 02:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Reporter also failed to discuss why the failure to obey the WP:ICONS, despite being raised on personal talk page. --Aleenf1 01:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable." Clearly reporter also unable to discuss while the clear MOS is there. --Aleenf1 01:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

So are the reporter also gaming the disruptive or 3RR system without needed to discuss, with the MOS available? --Aleenf1 02:30, 26 March 2023 (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. This died down two days ago. I am further moved towards inaction by the big yawning blank space above underneath: "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", where, indeed, one finds that no one has made any edits since last August. Please, before renewing this dispute, go there and hash out amongst yourselves what would be the right amount of icons. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

User:2605:AD80:0:186F:1C29:70:98D6:BF80 reported by User:TaivoLinguist (Result:range-blocked for 3 years)

Page: Proto-Greek language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:AD80:0:186F:1C29:70:98D6:BF80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 years, range-blocked: This is a banned user whose 1-year block just expired.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Hawkers994 reported by User:MathAfrique (Result: Both partially blocked for 2 weeks)

Page: 2023 Las Anod conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1146634585

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1146213497
2. Special:Diff/1146427054 + Special:Diff/1146428601
3. Special:Diff/1146634585

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1146482395 — see ping & concluding sentence: We need to follow WP:EDITWAR 3RR rule...

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1146482395

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1146722428

Comments:
I attempted to de-escalate on talkpage article as of 2nd revert 🗿.

— MathAfrique (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

3rr states “ An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.” Apart from adding sources and formatting 2 lines to correct page setting [13] this whole report is irrelevant. Hawkers994 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding messages on the talk page and then reverting again is not a form of de-escalation. As you both are clearly aware of the edit warring policy and this has now ended up on a noticeboard, I'll partially block for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks, from editing this article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Sharmavikas2k reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Adobe Photoshop Elements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sharmavikas2k (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. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Sharmavikas2k and [19]

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

Comments:
Began using this account after having edited the page and taken part in the discussion as an ip. The comments on my talk page mirror the comments of the ip who took part in the AfD, as well as the ip who reverted the first redirect. COI/UPE editor, who on my talk page admitted to being an employee of Adobe.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

One5969 is continuously redirecting page with no valid reason. Request Admins to resolve the conflict.

Requesting admins to have this discussion around relevance of the page once again and do invite me for the discussion.

Feel free to contact me for any official information related to Adobe Photoshop Elements. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want admins to do: WP:Articles for deletion/Adobe Photoshop Elements closed as a merge six months ago. The Adobe Photoshop Elements title should exist as a redirect only, barring consensus from the community to split the article (back) off as stand-alone. The only appropriate administrative action would be to protect the title in redirect form. —C.Fred (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I was even on Wikipedia 6 months ago. I joined just because this was brought to my notice by users of Adobe Photoshop Elements. Decision of merging Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop is not correct as these are two different products designed for different type of users and are sold differently.

If there is a possibility of having AFD discussion once again, please let`s have it so that wrong information is not given to the users. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There is not. Your best option would be discussion at Talk:Adobe Photoshop to see if there is consensus to split the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping. @Liz: This regards an AfD you closed in September. —C.Fred (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that's a good idea, given the history of the page and the AfD:

• Page protected indefinitely in light of AfD closure. —C.Fred (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  that's generous. Hopefully @Sharmavikas2k can now avoid the WP:OWN behavior that was heading toward a block. Star Mississippi 17:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Yeah!210 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: )

Page: I Should Have Known Better (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yeah!210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:
Sundayclose (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)