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)

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:109.81.82.84 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Kingdom of Georgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.81.82.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:
WP:NOTHERE IP causing only disruption [10], more or less not writing a edit summary and not using the talk pages at all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that they are still continuing to make disruptive edits without discussing.[11][12] Mellk (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Thanks Daniel Case! Unfortunately, they are now avoiding their block through user account User:Ali Kazimov Bey, could you please help with this as well? [13] [14] and [15] [16] HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I see Favonian blocked the sock, and I have extended the block by a week for this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Kalanishashika reported by User:Petextrodon (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Tamil genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kalanishashika (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. [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]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]

Comments:
This appears to be a single-purpose account recently created to sabotage this particular article judging by their edit history. Partly due to their edit warring [1][2] there last month the page was protected and now they're back at it despite several warnings. Despite having been explained to them by another user last month that consensus wasn't required to add content, they've now used the same excuse "no consensus" to revert my content in violation of WP:DRNC. They admitted this was wrong, but cited another policy based on what they "feel" to revert once again without giving any substantive explanation. Looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE that won't stop without admin intervention. I have a reasonable suspicion from similar behavioral pattern this user could be potentially coordinating off-Wiki with a now topic banned user but I guess this is not the place for that report.---Petextrodon (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Response: I am sorry if I did break any rules, per the warning given by Petextrodon I thought the max number of reverts were 3 within a 24 hour period and that is why I did the fourth today since I thought it was over a 24 hours. I agree that I did get carried away on the 10th June, shouldn't have done that. However, I only did three reverts and just left. I saw Petextrodon's warning after that. However, I don't understand how his reverts are OK [24], an experienced editor as he, should have not kept on reverting and engage in the talk page, rather than revert and then engage in the talk page. His comments I found uncivil, and I responded to his accusation [25]. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika: "I thought the max number of reverts were 3 within a 24 hour period and that is why I did the fourth today since I thought it was over a 24 hours."

I believe that is called "gaming the system" which is forbidden here. My reverts were within the 3RR limits and I did them with good justifications since you provided non-policy reasons and also per WP:DRNC.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, "gaming the system" is that a new accusation against me? I explained my reasons in the talk page. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I was just explaining a Wiki policy to you. It's stated at the top of this very page:

"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."---Petextrodon (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, I disagree. I did not intend to game the system. However, what I say doesn't seems to hold ground. Seems you have already found me guilty of it, it's up to you to then pass judgement. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaming the system is, in this case, sort of a strict liability accusation, as the quoted policy states. Your explanation above basically admits to it. You have not offered an explanation that comes under the permitted exceptions to 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Warned @Petextrodon and Kalanishashika: Please take this as a warning that you are both edit warring, and continuing to edit war will likely result in blocks for one or both editors. Petextrodon, if you're looking for a policy-based reason for the revert of the content you're adding, then see WP:ONUS; it is your responsibility to achieve consensus for disputed content that you wish to add. - Aoidh (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Understood. I'm open to discussion as you can tell by the talk page. What I expect from the other user is substantive explanation than simply throwing bunch of rules at me without any details.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh By the way, is it not the case if only one user is disputing a particular content, "the existing text ordinarily remains in place during a discussion and commonly prevails if the discussion fails to reach consensus," as per WP:DRNC?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not if you just added it, no. That is not the WP:STATUSQUO version and you should not have reverted it once it was known that it was disputed. I don't agree with your assessment of the talk page discussion; your talk page behavior there is less than ideal, which includes the unsubstantiated allegations of personal behavior. They have given a valid reason why it doesn't belong, you have not provided any explanation of why you believe it does other than demanding an explanation or for policy links. You are required to explain why it should be added to the article, not the other way around. If you are able to provide an explanation as to why the content should be added to the article, I would suggest making an attempt to do so and if there's no agreement after that, both of you should look into WP:3O. - Aoidh (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  By "valid reason" do you mean "The sources you have cited does not mention any reference to genocide," or "I feel the correct policy would be WP:NOTEVERYTHING"?

  You say I did not give any explanation but I did:

  "That's the overview of the issue. Not every single source needs to mention genocide. Analyses of genocide will be provided shortly."

  The other user just repeated themself and made an incorrect statement: "Details are in the main article" (They aren't. Those details are ones I wrote specifically for this article). A dialogue is a two-way street. For me to better understand where the other side is coming from, they also need to make effort to communicate their disagreement effectively.---Petextrodon (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Disagreeing with an explanation does not mean no explanation was given. Not every single source needs to mention genocide is not an explanation of why the content does belong so much as it is a dismissal of their comment, warranted or not. - Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh, warning accepted, will avoid it in the future. This is becoming very difficult, another user has restored the newly added content that is in dispute stating "Revert to stable version" and requested to " please get consensus before adding or removing content". Is this not a WP:BRD violation? Kalanishashika (talk) 06:29, 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)

1. REDIRECT Target page name

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)