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:Kaarush reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked for two weeks under GS/CASTE)

Page: Ram Nath Kovind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 16:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 06:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 17:08, 28 September (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ram Nath Kovind."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC) "/* October 2023 */ new section"

Edit warring in other articles

1. (Maratha (caste) - [1] [2] [3].

Comments:

Slow burn edit war by caste POV pusher. Keeps on adding caste (Koli) in a BLP contravening self-identification policy per WP:CASTEID. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet, opened an SPI here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, I don't think a permalink to a 2012 discussion that once happened on a topic-specific noticeboard with a participation of ~10 users is strong and helpful enough to be cited repeatedly in this way. If there's something in a current policy or guideline about it, just link to that please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Well WP:CASTEID is the basis and still cited / enforced consensus in relation to caste in BLPs of Indian nationals, hence why it was discussed in the topic-specific noticeboard. Besides, caste is a contentious topic in the Indian subcontinent, so have to be cautious mentioning it even if we want to disregard that consensus. I see a parallel to the WP:BLPLIST policy, an excerpt from which states - "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.". Ergo, 'self-identification' is necessary in contentious topics. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks under CASTE for long-term edit warring without discussion in this and several other articles in topic area. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Chronograph 1985 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Macedonia naming dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Chronograph 1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1178918465 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
2. 18:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1178917645 by StephenMacky1 (talk) here is a PDF of the agreement, go over it. Thanks. If you revert again I will flag the article and take it up with Wikipedia admins."
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC) to 17:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
   1. 17:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1178900995 by StephenMacky1 (talk) As per the Prespa agreement, the ethnonym for North Macedonians is in fact "North Macedonian". So if the ethnic term Slavic is in some way inadequate, the edit should then contain "North Macedonian". The Prespa agreement specifically addresses educational material in this regard (of which wikipedia seeks to fulfill and be respected as)"
   2. 17:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC) "More concise language is needed for a very controversial topic settled officially to be encapsulated within very specific language under international law."
   3. 17:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC) "Fixed tag"
   4. 17:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC) ""
   5. 17:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 14:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) "Small edit adding concise language as it was confusing to my students."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Macedonia naming dispute."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring and persistently violating MOS:MAC. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT also considers my edit correct following semantics and logic. ChatGPT is a powerful large language model. Again, the sentence does not seem to follow logic when read as "Macedonians do not consider themselves Macedonian". Thank you. Ed 18:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)

The identifier “North” should be used in this context to differentiate between the ethnic Greek subgroup of Macedonians and North Macedonians. It wouldn’t make sense for Greeks who consider themselves ethnically Macedonian to believe they are unrelated to ethnic Macedonians. Ed 18:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  I guess North Macedonians on Wikipedia decide what is considered an ethnicity or not. Being ignorant to actual history is not a good look for a wannabe encyclopedia. Ed 21:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)

User:Willbb234 reported by User:Raladic (Result: Blocked one week)

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

User being reported: Willbb234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC) "/* Transgender Day of Remembrance */ https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/her-death-sparked-transgender-day-remembrance-22-years-later-still-n1233809 no one has ever been arrested, no motive determined. source suggests that there were other motives such as a fight they got into prior to murder"
2. 14:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1178884984 by Last1in (talk) The RS is a summary of a survey, so report is an entirely reasonable word. I don't see how this is synth?"
3. 14:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) "/* Employment discrimination */ don't know why this was reverted before"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC) on User talk:Willbb234 "Warning: Edit warring on Transgender."

Comments:

User appears to be in an edit war and has been warned and reverted by multiple people within the last 3 days. Suggest a topic ban. Raladic (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how dif 1 and 3 are evidence of edit warring. Also, why did you revert my latest edit as "non-constructive", when it's an entirely valid edit backed up by an RS? This is very confusing. Willbb234 13:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

User:KiharaNoukan reported by User:Makeandtoss (Result: No violation)

Page: October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KiharaNoukan (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]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments: Worth noting that the user in question is a new account, that has barely surpassed 500 edits and 30 days to become an autoconfirmed user, when he started editing articles relating to WP:ARBPIA. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss You removed sourced content that described the Blockade of the Gaza Strip as an Israeli and Egyptian blockade to insert WP:UNDUE POV content on the blockade. Other users had already reverted this in the past.

Timestamps very obviously show that you did not attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page before pushing here.

Worth noting that you are grossly misrepresenting my account, I have a year on Wikipedia, and over 700 edits. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected as I didn't look at the year. However, my removal is correct; the source mentioned Egyptian restrictions and not blockade, while mentioning Israeli blockade. I am only responsible for my own reverts, one, and not for other users. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is just WP:PEDANTRY; if we want to look at sources, the main article of Blockade of the Gaza Strip clearly states that it is an Israeli and Egyptian blockade, and I'm sure that this exact issue has been argued to death there. You changed out a sourced mention of an Egyptian blockade without explanation. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I changed an unsourced claim, the linked article elaborates in how varying degrees the restrictions are, and does not blame Egypt for turning Gaza into an open-air prison like the Human Rights Watch source blames Israel; a reliably sourced piece of information, which you removed, twice. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If we're really playing word games, the only time the HRW article even mentions "Blockade" is from "Walaa" in the transcripts, unattributed to a specific nation, and appearing to be an interviewee. The article describes Israel's policies as "Israel’s sweeping restrictions". The article describes Egypt's policies as "Egypt’s restrictive policies". I'm not sure how you're divining one side as the exclusive blockader and the other not at all. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Both claims are common in sources and both potentially POV depending on how the prose is phrased. No need to edit war about this. Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page, but generally agree. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:43, 7 October 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. Also per the above discussion; this could have all taken place on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Thank you for the comment, please note that this article falls under 1RR, as part of WP:ARBPIA. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, although I advise you that in the future when making reports on pages with 1RR restrictions that you note that in the report rather than hoping the reviewing admin picks up on that.

In any event, per WP:BLOCKP it does not seem like a block would be desirable at this point as Kihara has not continued the edit warring and seems to be willing to work it out on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Dan69182 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Cossack Hetmanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dan69182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9] Diffs of the user's reverts: [10], [11], [12]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Dan69182

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow moving edit war in CT/e-e area  // Timothy :: talk  15:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

User:KlayCax reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Already blocked 72h)

Page: October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "/* Analysis */"
2. 00:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edit. (Hope this doesn't go over 1 edit max. Apologies if someone previously reverted this. Feel free to revert me if so.) WP:COMMONNAME is Third Intifada; military names have their own section because they don't meet this criteria. Undid revision 1179114123 by Techso01 (talk)"
3. 00:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Not sure why this was deleted. (If reverted for good reasons write on talk.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "/* October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict */"
2. 01:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "/* October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Over 1RR restoring "The events have been termed the Third Intifada" Andre🚐 01:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Andrevan:. This was an accident. (Since it was a heavily trafficked article and edits were occurring within seconds.) Thanks.

That's why I clarified with Apologies if someone previously reverted this since I was working on a device. My apologies. KlayCax (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi KlayCax, that doesn't make sense, since you've reverted several times to restore content that was removed. Would you kindly self-revert that? Andre🚐 01:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• The first one wasn't a reversion - at least to understanding - but an accidental deletion due to an edit conflict that was occurring due to multiple edits occurring at the same time. I didn't see this as an edit conflict since I assumed this was just accidentally lopped off.
• The second one was me not noticing it had been reverted. There were many edits going on at the same time due to the rapid, quickfire editing of the article. That's why I mentioned it in the edit summary.
• The last was a legitimate revert. That is because WP:COMMONNAME terms — frequently used by reliable sources — are generally mentioned in the leads of conflicts. (e.g. I added the common name. I didn't add the military names.)

Again, apologies if there was any miscommunication. That's why I wrote in the edit summary that anyone was free to revert if there was a legitimate objection to the edit. (Since I already reverted once.)

I didn't see or interpret it as edit warring. (Since I thought there was only one legitimate, intentional reversion.) It was miscommunication between editors in a highly trafficked and rapidly edited article. KlayCax (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Already blocked ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Partially blocked for 72 hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:C077:B00:BDDD:C11D:62C9:C92D reported by User:Adakiko (Result: /64 blocked for a week)

Page: Selby Abbey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:C7C:C077:B00:BDDD:C11D:62C9:C92D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• Here 10:16, 8 August 2023
• or here 09:43, 11 September 2023 depending on one's viewpoint.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:08 - 05:18 8 Oct – 5 edits Tags: COI template removed
2. 18:14 - 22:49 7 Oct – 17 edits
3. 17:26 - 17:37, 7 Oct – 3 edits
4. 14:44 - 16:58, 7 Oct – 27 edits note: two minor edits by two registered editors in this diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:49, 7 Oct

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
19:49, 7 Oct Also includes other activity on my part. Anon disclosed that they were part of the abbey's staff and then removed it. See comments below on COI disclosure.
17:44, 7 Oct Attempt to discuss on anon's talk page.

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

Comments:

COI disclosure: 2A02:C7C:C077:B00:BDDD:C11D:62C9:C92D disclosed I am a member of staff at Selby Abbey... 22:24 - 23:13 7 Oct on Talk:Selby Abbey removing that disclosure here 06:02 8 Oct Also, removed the {{Undisclosed paid}} at 05:18, 8 Oct

History: 92.23.9.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added the unsourced text "acting DoM/ organist" at 22:11, 10 Sep which I reverted via Huggle at 22:12, 10 Sep. I noticed that it was essentially replaced at 22:15, 10 Sep. I then examined the article and removed 4.3k of unsourced text in six edits 09:08 - 09:14 11 Sep and fixed several refs and removed wp:puffery here at 09:43, 11 Sep. Some of that content has been there, unsourced, for 10+ years. The anon, on the article talk page, said the unsourced content should remain as they will add sources in the future. Adakiko (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week The full /64. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Austin012599 reported by User:148.255.239.229 (Result: No violation)

Page: Kevin Michael Richardson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Austin012599 (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. diff
2. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments: Austin012599 re-added the terms that are already quite redundant to the pages related to actors who do voice work for numerous animated series despite the fact that it covers live action and voice-over roles. 148.255.239.229 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like 1 revert. You reverted their edit with no explanation or edit summary. They haven't been warned. You haven't attempted to resolve the issue using the talk page. You didn't notify them about this report. --Onorem (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment: There is a topic filed under discussion that the term actor covers voice work and apparently the user keeps adding the rather redundant term to the articles he was involved in. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers/Archive_16#Is_%22voice_actor%22_a_separate_role_from_%22actor%22? 148.255.239.229 (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Editors shouldn't be expected to know about a handful of comments on a WikiProject's 2 1/2 year old archived discussion. In any case, that doesn't make this report any more valid. If you had explained your objection, they might have edited differently. --Onorem (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Semsûrî reported by User:Mrrsnhtl (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Ardıçlı, Pülümür (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Semsûrî (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Mrrsnhtl

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Mrrsnhtl

Comments:

This user has no relationship whatsoever with my family's village (they've been living there ~1000 years), and keeps gatekeeping, edit-warring over unreliable references, and a complete disregard for the actual villagers from this village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrsnhtl (talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is another report of the same dispute at WP:ANI#Mrrsnhtl. Some editors have been trying to explain Wikipedia's policy on legal threats at User talk:Mrrsnhtl, after this comment by Mrrsnhtl which sounds like a threat. It is unusual to suppose that the residents of a village should have control over what is written about them on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:Mrrsnhtl, has now been blocked by User:TParis per the ANI report for making legal threats. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User:PeoplePowerRadio reported by User:WanderingMorpheme (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Ryukyuan languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC) "At the very least, both sides of the argument should be stated, and ignoring one side of the argument cannot be the argument of a Japanese language scholar. To begin with, Okinawan dialect is not an independent language. If it were to be adapted, the language of all prefectures would not be Japanese."
2. 23:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1179260048 by Pbritti (talk) This is an official statement from Okinawa Prefecture. Check the source properly.It is problematic that you do not include the official announcement from Okinawa Prefecture. In the first place, they do not understand the origins of the Japanese language, and there are large numbers of areas in Japan where the language is even more difficult to understand than in Okinawa. Or rather, the old languag"
3. 23:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "I have not read the source at all. This is an official statement from Okinawa Prefecture. Check the source properly."
4. 13:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Ryukyuan languages."
2. 23:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ryukyuan languages."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC) "/* Intelligibility */ Reply"

Comments:

Not Npov and their only source does not support their claims. User looks like they advocate for Japanese nationalist thought. WanderingMorpheme 00:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:Arequipa belleza (Result: )

Page: List of people from Havana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Nikkimaria

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. the first time he reverted my edit on the subject on the Havana page
2. the article created: Draft:List of people from Havana
3. the discussion: User_talk:Nikkimaria#Havana

Comments: Hello, my discussion is that I add a new section of Notable people from Havana in the Havana article, and I add the most relevant people internationally who were born in Havana, the User:Nikkimaria started to reverse it, he told me that I need references for each person, I added more than 40 people and all have their respective wikipedia articles with their references in those articles, making references for each person is going to cost me a lot of time and I do not see it necessary, he told me to make a new page for that section, I accepted and created it but he told me that I should put references for all the names, we discussed in his talkpage, and he told me that he was going to take it to draftpage, I see that putting references for each name, it is not necessary since each article has it, besides I told him that in almost all the articles of people of all the cities and towns published in wikipedia do not have any reference either, and the few that have only one reference in the wikipedia articles, I see that he is doing whatever it is so that I do not put that article, right now it is in draftpage, I need administrators to help me with your answers, thanks for your help.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)