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:Calton reported by User:JeffUK (Result: )

Page: Shaun Attwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:21, 31 July 2021‎ (UTC)
2. 10:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
3. 11:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
4. 12:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 14:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) "Restored revision 1038084354 by Calton (talk): Please start using common sense, noob."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on talk page here [[1]]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned on talk page here [[2]] They left the article for a few days then came back and re-added the link without an edit summary. Reverted it again and by the last edit summary seem intent on continuing to do so. JeffUK (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Warned for personal attacks left in edit summaries during this edit war (see edits #2 and #5). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Manoj Haagalavaadi reported by User:Msclrfl22 (Result: Manoj Haagalavaadi indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing; Msclrf122 blocked for 24h for edit-warring)

Page: Hagalavadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Manoj Haagalavaadi (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. [3]
2. [4]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5][6]

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

Comments:The said user is not ready to discuss the matter and has been doing his edits even after receiving warnings many a times

• Manoj Haagalavaadi indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, and Msclrf122 blocked for 24h for edit-warring. MH is a SPA and their edits have been egregious. However, Msclrf122 still shouldn't have edit-warred to resolve the problem. In addition, they did not warn MH properly and called the other user names many times, which is unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:140:9180:EEE0:6D26:1C5F:E624:F72F reported by User:73.162.155.65 (Result: )

Page: Steven Dillingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:140:9180:EEE0:6D26:1C5F:E624:F72F (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]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:

User:50.100.168.93 reported by User:Gummycow (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Lorax (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.100.168.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [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:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:190.151.175.211 reported by User:CodeTalker (Result: Blocked)

Page: Maritime power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.151.175.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maritime_power&oldid=1031743240

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1038551995
2. Special:Diff/1038552183
3. Special:Diff/1038656351
4. Special:Diff/1038656351
5. Special:Diff/1038656351
6. Special:Diff/1038658306
7. Special:Diff/1038658306
8. Special:Diff/1038660429

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1038659314

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1038659158

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1038661658

Comments:

CodeTalker (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Acroterion (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:484:C100:304E:D5D:E062:EDA3:35E3 reported by User:Mattplaysthedrums (Result: Protected, 72 hours)

Page: Turning Red (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:484:C100:304E:D5D:E062:EDA3:35E3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
2. 02:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) to 02:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
   1. 02:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
   2. 02:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC) to 02:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
   1. 02:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
   2. 02:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
5. 02:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content blanking (RW 16.1)"
2. 02:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
3. 02:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: After the mobile editor is blocked, it might be best to semi-protect the article. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If this is the only article the IP is warring on, a block isn't necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected. The IP is unblocked, so they may participate in discussion at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

He's moved onto to another article List of Pixar films, btw. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/2601:484:C100:304E:0:0:0:0/64 for two weeks. The disruption goes back to July 24.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Brackenheim reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Protected; users warned)

Page: Multiple chemical sensitivity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brackenheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [30]

Comments:

I have no idea who is right, but being right or wrong is not a reason to edit war. If wp:fringe is invoked it is down to those who want to add it to make a case, they have not tried to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is troubling. Brackenheim has violated 3RR, yet ScienceFlyer in this edit on August 13, which set the article back to March 29, 2021, "triggered" subsequent events. Slatersteven has not helped the situation by reverting Brackenheim, not because they think Brackenheim is in the wrong, but for the purely procedural reason that they believe that Brackenheim must follow WP:BRD, which in this instance is not clear, and certainly not a good reason to revert. Meanwhile, although there has been some bickering on user Talk pages, there has been no discussion on the article Talk page. I have fully protected the article for three days so the participants may resolve the content dispute, which is not a trivial one, on the article Talk page. I am also warning the users that any attempts to edit the article after the protection expires unless a clear consensus has been reached may be met with blocks without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, Brackenheim's ownership behavior is troubling, as is their original addition of massive amounts of disputed and undiscussed fringe and undue content. They have been made aware they have no consensus, yet they have edit warred. That content should be removed and discussion started. The article is currently protecting a dangerously wrong version that has zero consensus. -- Valjean (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Can you point me to a formal consensus?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
      • That's part of the problem. Brackenheim knows their content has no consensus and is disputed, yet they edit warred. The article needs to be reverted to before their large additions. -- Valjean (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
        • I suggest you go to the Talk page and begin a discussion on the changes. And, frankly, it should have been done well before now by whoever objected to the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)