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:Whitemiceeverywhere reported by User:Isaidnoway (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kambo cleanse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whitemiceeverywhere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: only edits ever made by account (4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

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

Comments:

The only edits they have ever made are reverts to above article. They have been reverted by 4 different editor's. They still continued to revert after the 3RR warning. Don't know if it's relevant or not, but their account was created 8 years ago — diff. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: They are still at it with another one [3], which makes 5 and they've been reverted again (5 different editor's total have reverted them). Isaidnoway (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. @Isaidnoway: In the future, complete reports properly or they made be closed as malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Cavegirlsmash reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

John/Eleanor Rykener (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cavegirlsmash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936228670 by Shellwood (talk) Yes, I've made notes of why this change is necessary and these reversions are occurring without discussion."
2. 14:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936227676 by Modernist (talk) Again, given Eleanor Rykener's clear statement of "calling herself Eleanor" and Wikipedia's policy on identity that persons must be identified as they chose to be identified, based on the last known instance of their expressed personal identity, regardless of any legal name, these changes are mandated based on Wiki's policy."
3. 14:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936191133 by John B123 (talk)"
4. 03:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Changing pronouns to accord with her stated self-identification from the court case in 1395, and in keeping with Wikipedia's best practices for dealing with transgender women."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (gg) (TW)"
2. 14:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on John/Eleanor Rykener‎ . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Consensus is clear on the matter both through the consensus established on the talk page and by policy; this is the reason for the reversions by three independent editors (not including myself) . ——SN54129 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Germanic peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5] (Reverting this edit by me)
2. [6]
3. [7] (Reverting this edit by me)
4. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9][10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11][12]

Comments:
Similar edit warring has been carried out simultaneously at Germani.[13][14] Krakkos (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Krakkos and I both did two reverts each on two articles I think? In my case my reason for trying a second one is that the edsums were clearly wrong, and in such cases a second revert with an explanation and call to look at talk page discussion can help. I don't know how Krakkos can justify things, because the edits are quite obviously a deliberately disruptive outburst to prove a point. Some interesting smaller facts:

• The talk page diffs Krakkos gives are clearly from long before this outburst of Krakkos where he started splitting out the core of the article into a new article, which is clearly against consensus decisions from several repetitive rfcs which Krakkos keeps calling and losing.
• There are current talk page discussions I have already asked Krakkos to respond to, so I was already trying hard to get move to the talk page. Krakkos has refused so far. [15]
• It is not only two articles. Krakkos also immediately started changing redirects etc in many articles.
• Krakkos only posted here after receiving a warning for edit warring, along with me. I don't see any way Krakkos can argue that I am edit warring unless Krakkos is also.

To me it seems this discussion is not necessary as long as the talk page is used.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime I also find it very disruptive that Krakkos continues to rush to try to create some kind of fait accompli, creating the new WP:POVFORK. [16]. Work on that article clearly should freeze?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just looked in detail and I see Krakkos is counting some earlier edits as reverts. I had not even noticed that because earlier in the day I was working on shortening the article as called for by Krakkos [17]. Some of the material I removed, among many edits, was new, but I don't consider that a normal revert. To me those are accidents which are happening because of the disruptive behavior. Why say you are concerned about length and then start adding things in while someone else is working and concentrating?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec)I warned both editors (before this discussion here was posted), as both were edit warring extensively (a lot on one page, and more reverts on other pages). I don't see a reason to sanction either if the edit warring ceased after the talk page warnings. I just want to note that it wasn't "two reverts each", I count e.g. for Andrew Lancaster alone, on Germanic peoples, one, two, three four five six seven edits today which reversed additions by Krakkos, and the same exercise could be done for the opposite actions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as already noted, I admit my counting problem if you count all edits which reversed something Krakkos did, which I indeed did not think of in that way for the reasons I explained above. More is going on, but I don't think it is best seen as an edit warring case unless Krakkos or I would take it further from here. I unfortunately suspect Krakkos's subsequent rush to make more fundamental changes to the structure of these articles after posting here was not done without thought. The talk page archive for Krakkos shows the types of concerns which consistently come up for massive undiscussed changes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Warned Users have been warned. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:1CB7:EB00:C4C8:DD3F:7D21:2E1B reported by User:Adam9007 (Result: Page protected)

Page

LGBT slang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2A02:C7F:1CB7:EB00:C4C8:DD3F:7D21:2E1B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* English terms */removed false information"
2. 15:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* English terms */removed false slang"
3. 14:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* English terms */removed non-lgbt terms and corrected 1 definition"
4. 13:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* English terms */asexuals aren't part of the lgbt community nor is it slang by us"
5. 12:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* English terms */removed no-specific lgbt terms"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps removing (now sourced) information. Adam9007 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected The page is now protected, this should hopefully motivate the user to discuss on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Gordon Walker conviction removal (Result: Semi)

For months now, a user (under multiple IPs/accounts) has been removing a Child abuse conviction section on Gordon Walker's page, saying that it violates WP:BLP. Here's the full edit history. They haven't made any attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page.

I'm not really sure which of their accounts to notify about this report. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 11:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected -I've semi-protected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:5.146.192.248 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Page protected 1 week and IP blocked 24 hours)

Page

Joanne Nova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

5.146.192.248 (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 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC) to 18:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC) to 18:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 18:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC) to 18:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 15:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 14:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Joanne Nova. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Open and shut case here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 1 week and IP violating WP:3RR Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Recent edits from IPs and new accounts have been unsourced and reverted. I cannot see any sourced IP or new user contributions for years. Protected for 1 week. If after the page is unprotected the IPs continue to add unsourced content / make similar edits, then page protection should be longer and/or indefinite. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Zvikorn reported by User:Nemov (Result: Both warned)

Page: Zack Hample (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Zvikorn: Zvikorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
This user has been blocked from making edits to article in the past. Has returned and is making more disruptive edits over the last couple of weeks. I have requested over and over for the user to go to talk to build consensus before making further edits to the section. Those requests have been ignored. - Nemov (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Zvikorn and User:Nemov are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. If you disagree about the 'banned from three major league parks' issue consider asking about it at WP:RSN. Note that the disappearance of the original web articles and the constant deletion of tweets makes the sourcing rather nebulous. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:73.202.57.203 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: IP blocked for 48 hours)

Page

USS Callister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

73.202.57.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 22:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 21:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 05:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 01:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
7. 02:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC) ""
8. 00:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Analysis */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings on user talk page, as well as attempts at discussion. Editor has not provided any explanation anywhere, whether an edit summary or a talk page. Reverted by three editors, including myself. — Bilorv (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. I notice that Kingsif also violated 3RR. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Kingsif would you care to comment? I don't see the IP's edits as vandalism. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Dreamy Jazz: Sure - a while ago, some IP with no other edits was doing the same thing - removing the word "trope" on this and I think a few other articles. Some people don't seem to like the word. At that time, myself and Bilorv reverted, with explanation as to the fact it's the word used in the source and a technical term that encompasses more analysis and theory than 'story' or similar words do, which is how it's being used, so changing is inaccurate. The IP ignored us both and continued (but obviously stopped at a point) - when the behavior picked up again, it seemed clearly to be the same vandalism (rather than disruptive editing because of the behavior pattern, having been addressed, warned, ignoring these, then coming back to do the same much later). Myself and two other editors were reverting and warning this time (I myself gave four warnings through edit reasons and talk page templates), though I find in the history that I've made 3 reverts in 2 days (correct if wrong), so I don't think I violated the rule - I also find it clear vandalism, in any case, because of the above. Kingsif (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Also note the 76.something IP in the history that was doing this same thing a few weeks ago - the editor may be the same and quickly come back with yet another SPA IP. Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  Kingsif, [25], [26], [27], [28]. All on the same day within 24 hours of each other.

  I believe from the history of the article, as you point out, that this is a blocked user (specifically Fangusu). Basically the problem I have here is you don't claim an exception to 3RR on grounds of block evasion, but claim it on grounds of vandalism. Only obvious vandalism has a claim, and I don't see the changing of a word to another similar-ish word obvious vandalism. I won't advance with this further, but in future, when reverting this blocked user, use it as the exception in your edit summary. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• That's the one, I will do if it happens again, thanks for understanding. Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Quoting from the exceptions section on 3RR: Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. Started writing my comment before the above comment was posted Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  IP blocked for 1 month for ban evasion by Fangusu. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:BeastDoge reported by User:75.191.40.148 (Result: )

Page: 2019–20 NFL playoffs
User being reported: User:BeastDoge

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]
5. [34]
6. [35]
7. [36]
8. [37]
9. [38]
10. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

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

Comments:

75.191.40.148 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)