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:2A02:C7C:7D8D:1400:C4AB:83C4:83C0:98D7 reported by User:Czello (Result: /64 blocked for a week)

Page: Dyson (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:C7C:7D8D:1400:C4AB:83C4:83C0:98D7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "#article-section-source-editor"
2. 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "Updated short description"
3. 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "#article-section-source-editor"
4. [1]

Other edits 2 days ago

1. [2]
2. [3]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dyson (company)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Note that I've also included edits above from 2 days ago on a different IP on the /64 range. — Czello ^(music) 14:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week 2A02:C7C:7D8D:1400:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

User:102.67.77.85 reported by User:Czello (Result: /27 blocked for a month)

Page: Liv Morgan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 102.67.77.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 18:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 16:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Liv Morgan."
2. 20:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "/* July 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

Persistent addition of an unreliable source which has been flagged to the user. — Czello ^(music) 20:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month Per the SPI investigation I have blocked 102.67.77.64/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Another IP 102.67.77.154‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) return to similar edit on the same page. Change with 102.67.77.0/22 to block. AmritR012 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: — Czello ^(music) 12:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Preime TH reported by User:Horus (Result: Both warned)

Page: Senate of Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Preime TH (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [9]
2. Please refer to Talk:Senate of Thailand#‎Division of the 2024 Senate

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

Comments:
The disagreement was whether the senate composition diagram should reflect de jure or de facto nature of the chamber. There seem to be precedents supporting both cases such as Senate of Canada (which shows parliamentary groups) and National Council (Bhutan) (which shows source of members). I proposed a compromise to show both diagrams at the same time, without objections from the user. However, since I put on the second diagram, I was accused of being "crazy about politics" [11] and "bossy," [12] which might indicate the user's lack of interest in participating in good-faith discussion.

Horus (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment You have both violated WP:3RR, so you can both be blocked or neither. I suggest you take this as a final warning to stop, and if reverts continue, that party will be blocked. I also suggest that next time you follow WP:BRD and do not attempt to force material back into the article before gaining consensus for it. Number 57 15:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Number 57: I did not force anything, since Preime TH did not object to the compromise in the thread. Also, if you think the consensus building could still be made in this case, I would like you to head the discussion or come up with some other remedies, otherwise I'm pretty sure Preime TH would just insist that my argument is not worth paying attention and bring up "political", "bossy" rhetoric. --Horus (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Revirvlkodlaku reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Cheb Mami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) to 02:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
   1. 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "Overlinking; genfixes"
   2. 02:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "User:M.Bitton, I reverted your original inclusion of this content, so the onus is on you to start a discussion on the talk page, not revert (and then cleverly accuse ME of edit warring!) Until the issue is settled, the content should not be included, as you haven't made your case yet."
2. 14:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Career */ section needs more citations; translation isn't important—don't just state it to be so, explain why you believe that."
3. 13:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "Copy edit"
4. 13:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236180489 by M.Bitton (talk) The section is unreferenced, so how do you determine what is and isn't nonsense?"
5. 03:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "copy edit; genfixes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cheb Mami."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "/* July 2024 */ new section"
2. 15:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "/* July 2024 */"

Comments:

Apart from violating 3RR, they seem to be more interested in making a point than improving the article: first, they restored some unsourced nonsense while expecting me to provide an explanation of why "unsourced nonsense" is "unsourced" and "nonsense", second, they removed content that I added while falsely labelling their editing as "copyediting" and when restored, they removed it again without explanation, and again while asking to start a discussion that I already started hours earlier. M.Bitton (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Adult Virgin reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: Elliot Rodger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "put 'known for' section back to its original state, after talk page discussion and provision of reliable source....this time added "proposed" to compromise with other editors"
2. 05:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "corrected 'known for' section"
3. 20:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "put it back to its original state, which it was in for months....which is factual"
4. 11:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "put 'known for' section back to rights"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Introduction to contentious topics */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "/* RFC: Referring to Elliot Rodger as the "Founding Father of the incel ideology" in the infobox */ new section"

Comments:

Editor is reverting to their preferred version. Notably the last two reverts have been while there is an RFC in process. TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please block. Warning would be inadequate for this disagreeable user who is calling others "stupid" and fighting over their preferred version. I anticipate this user will see an indef sooner than later. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Please also compare to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dominic_Pringle/Archive. I hear some ducks. TarnishedPath^talk 12:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User:HazzelDazzleDoDah reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: )

Page: Richmond, North Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HazzelDazzleDoDah (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. [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: User Talk:HazzelDazzleDoDah

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:

• I was one of the editors who reverted HazzelDazzleDoDah's edit. I reverted that edit because it cited Wikipedia. But looking at the dispute, I think the disputed parts should be temporarily removed from the article until consensus can be reached through dispute resolution. Warning HazzelDazzleDoDah about 3RR should be enough. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• I am the editor that this user is most in conflict with. I have tried to explain my reasoning and policy on their talk page, but I couldn't word it properly (sorry). There have been personal attacks, but what is bothering me is the non-adherence to policy which I have linked to, specifically the rule about edit warring, and the response afterwards was I'm not interested in being right, only getting it right. I don't care for an edit war or whatever you think is going on here. I am more than happy with Kovcszaln6's suggestion about consensus regarding the content - my issue was its removal when it has been properly cited without a sensible reason for its removal. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• I am okay with following Kovcszaln6 recommendation of a Warning, however there is the concern of the Uncivil comments as well"...I don't know how to teach you critical thinking skills.", "You are contributing to ignoranc, whether you mean to or not" which is technically out of scope here, but shows along with this comment "Otherwise I will continue to remove your edit. That the editor is not really here to collaborate with other editors.--VViking_TalkEdits 18:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)