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:Ricardo Shaft reported by User:Kstern (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Brett Scallions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ricardo Shaft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

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

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

Comments:
User violated 3RR and fails to provide edit summaries for unsourced content. Kstern (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours While his edits did not violate 3RR, his continuation of them over three days and refusal to discuss are more than enough to justify the block. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

User:204.16.94.194 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Rangeblocked for a month)

Page: Jack Turban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 204.16.94.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 204.16.94.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1106846956 by Newimpartial (talk) It's been up since the 18th untouched until you decided to take it down "18 August 2022‎ X-Editor talk contribs‎ 15,129 bytes +1,008‎ →‎Career: recent study undo Tag: Visual edit" As you can see from Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria Talk, even Trans activists were willing to leave it up. Stop edit warring."
2. 19:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1106841965 by Newimpartial (talk) Already discussed. Don't Edit War. "Additionally the allegation from Levine that Turban has a conflict of interest is already included at Jack Turban, where it is given as much prominence as is required (ie, not much). Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)" This has been up for a couple of weeks. You can't take it down because you don't like what it says."
3. 18:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1106722973 by Newimpartial (talk) 40+ years and recognized expert by Ohio State Medical Board. Go to Talk but he isn't fringe just because you say he is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_B._Levine"
4. 03:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1105985472 by Newimpartial (talk) Not a fringe position. Stephen Levine is highly respected."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warned on 15 August
• Blocked 48h for edit warring on 15 August

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This editor was blocked a week ago for edit-warring very similar content at Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy. They're back at it this week, but at the BLP of Jack Turban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The post was up. NewsImpartial needs to build consensus before taking it down. There was a discussion in talk and it was agreed to be left up.

agree with what Firefangledfeathers has said. The allegation from Levine was already included with the requisite weight based on its merits, and consensus about the National Review is that statements from it should be attributed. The other two citations; the AACAP Pilot Research Award press release, and (presumably) the funding excerpt from a January 2022 paper, when used in this manner constitute WP:SYNTH and original research, and would be not allowed in the article space. Sideswipe9th (talk) 204.16.94.221 (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The original post on August 18th

curprev 01:19, 18 August 2022‎ X-Editor talk contribs‎ 15,129 bytes +1,008‎ →‎Career: recent study undo Tag: Visual edit

News Impartial was asked to take it to Talk but didn't.

curprev 19:41, 26 August 2022‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 14,609 bytes −709‎ Undid revision 1106844733 by 204.16.94.194 (talk)Misleading edit summary. Th

curprev 19:09, 26 August 2022‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 14,609 bytes −709‎ Undid revision 1106839223 by 204.16.94.194 (talk)This has been discussed at some length, e.g., at Talk:Genspect and Talk:Rapid onset gender dysphoria. Removed per WP:ONUS pending CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. undo Tags: Undo Reverted

curprev 18:50, 26 August 2022‎ 204.16.94.194 talk‎ 15,318 bytes +709‎ Undid revision 1106722973 by Newimpartial (talk) 40+ years and recognized expert by Ohio State Medical Board. Go to Talk but he isn't fringe just because you say he is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_B._Levine undo Tags: Undo Reverted

curprev 03:30, 26 August 2022‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 14,609 bytes −709‎ Undid revision 1106721818 by 204.16.94.221 (talk)He's with Genspect. He's FRINGE. undo Tags: Undo Reverted

curprev 03:19, 26 August 2022‎ 204.16.94.221 talk‎ 15,318 bytes +709‎ Undid revision 1105985472 by Newimpartial (talk) Not a fringe position. Stephen Levine is highly respected. undo Tags: Undo Reverted

22 August 2022 curprev 17:52, 22 August 2022‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 14,609 bytes −709‎ →‎Career: We should not be including medical content cited to a FRINGE practitioner and published in a partisan source, the reliability of which carries "no consensus" per WP:RSN. Reorganized accordingly. undo Tag: Reverted

• Rangeblocked for a period of one month, as they're now edit-warring as 204.16.94.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:2035:7400:DB4:9C4E:511F:B0DC reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)

Page: Anatolia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:4040:2035:7400:DB4:9C4E:511F:B0DC (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. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13]
6. [14]
7. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

Comments:

May need IP range block as there is also this edit from an IP in the same range. DeCausa (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

IP edit warring same issue at Eastern Anatolia Region. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 72h by Ad Orientem. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

User:79.70.231.18 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)

Page: Star Trek: Picard (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 79.70.231.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable guests */"
2. 19:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable guests */It’s been confirmed, don’t remove it"
3. 18:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable guests */"
4. 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable guests */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Star Trek: Picard (season 3)."
2. 18:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Star Trek: Picard (season 3)."
3. 19:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "/* August 2022 */ Stop"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I semi'ed the article. Although this IP is the most recent and persistent, there are a bunch involved in adding this same detail without cite. DMacks (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Same user is now adding the same info at Star Trek: Picard. Twice so far. Can we get a rangeblock? - FlightTime (open channel) 20:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Acroterion (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1007:B057:7A58:8542:9DA1:16D0:74F reported by User:Ferien (Result: Blocked

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

User being reported: 2600:1007:B057:7A58:8542:9DA1:16D0:74F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Spokespersons */"
2. 20:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Spokespersons */"
3. 20:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Spokespersons */"
4. 20:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Spokespersons */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "Message re. Wheaties (HG) (3.4.10)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violating WP:GENDERID, despite talk page messages and reverts saying about this. --Ferien (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Acroterion (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC))

User:Ze972 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Zirid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ze972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 21:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 21:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 20:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 20:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC) "edit-warring again"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Zirid dynasty."
2. 20:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Battle of Sagrajas."

Comments:

• They have now blown past 8R. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

User:User10281129 reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

User being reported: User10281129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:12, 29 August 2022‎ (UTC)
2. 08:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Idk how to restore in Wikipedia. But im definitely restoring to the stable version."
3. 08:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Hello. If you want to change content to how you think it should be, then use talk page first. Currently, Your edits are brings a lots of controversies. And you are definitely aware of this."
4. 08:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "WP:NOR"
5. 07:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "I had to restore the stable version several times thanks to persistent vandalism. I warned you several times but you are still changing content without using talk page. Your edits are brings a lots of controversies. And you are definitely aware of this. Hanbok is not even Chinese clothes. Stop this kind of nationalistic vandalism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Hanbok "/* Is Hanbok the traditional clothes of Korean-Chinese or not? Is Hanbok a part of Chinese culture? */ Reply"

Comments:

A new user with only nationalist edits deleting large, long-standing sections of the article. Esiymbro (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

he keep changing content to how he think it should be. For example, he is arguing that Hanbok(traditional Korean clothes) is a part of Chinese culture. Thus I just had to restore the stable version due to WP:NOR. persistent vandalism with original research cannot acceptable.(stable version that has been in use for a long time ☞ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanbok&oldid=1102896065) Basically their motivation is based on their opinion that immigrant's culture can be a part of Chinese culture. There was no reliable source that Hanbok(traditional Korean clothes) can be a part of Chinese culture. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hanbok#Is_Hanbok_the_traditional_clothes_of_Korean-Chinese_or_not%3F_Is_Hanbok_a_part_of_Chinese_culture%3F) His opinion is based on Chinese communist party's argument.(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/hanbok-beijing-winter-olympics-opening-sparks-south-korea-chinan-anger). And Its not even nationalistic edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Are the Korean Chinese not ethnic Koreans, is their national clothing not the same? And how do you justify the rest of your edits, deletions of well-sourced sections on Hanbok's history and development? Esiymbro (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You wrote Hanbok is a part of Chinese culture by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Now that you have started blatantly lying I don't see any point continuing the discussion further. Esiymbro (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I never understood the Korean nationalist fascination with "Chinese claiming Hanbok is a part of Chinese culture". When did anyone ever written anything like that in the article? What harm it is to have a section about new developments of Hanbok in the Korean-Chinese community? Esiymbro (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

there is an argument from the Chinese communist party and China that Hanbok(Traditional Korean clothes) is a part of Chinese culture because it is also a traditional clothes of Korean-Chinese, a minority ethnic group in China.(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/hanbok-beijing-winter-olympics-opening-sparks-south-korea-chinan-anger) but Korean-Chinese people are just immigrants from Korea. And there is no country who claims immigrants culture as a part of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC) l

Look:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1105756998. This is the cause of the controversy. "14,738 BYTES ADDED, 7 DAYS AGO"

The question is why do they add China to the introduction section of Hanbok even though Hanbok is not theirs? They wrote Hanbok in Chinese, and they wrote about Hanbok as if it were traditional Chinese clothing. Basically their motivation is based on their opinion that immigrant's culture can be a part of Chinese culture. There was no reliable source that Hanbok(traditional Korean clothes) can be a part of Chinese culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Deevlash reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: )

Page: Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Updated to include liquidation facts"
2. 08:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC) to 08:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
   1. 08:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 08:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC) to 08:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
   1. 08:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 08:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 22:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC) "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "/* rangers liquidation */ please stop"
2. 08:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "/* rangers liquidation */"
3. 08:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rangers F.C.."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Note Rangers F.C. is under a one-revert restriction (1RR) due to discretionary sanctions. Both parties to this report are now notified. This admin recommends any 1RR blocks only be issued for edits made after this point. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Vicpumu reported by User:Sakiv (Result:Blocked)

Page: 2022–23 FC Barcelona season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Vicpumu (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 08:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC) to 08:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
   1. 08:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107306220 by Erminameraz (talk) Busquets have 683 Barça appearences. Official appearences source:"
   2. 08:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107306368 by Erminameraz (talk) Alba did not play against Valladolid. Official appareances source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/first-team/players/4958/jordi-alba ——— For Busquets source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/first-team/players/4963/sergio-busquets"
2. 08:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107303913 by Erminameraz (talk) Alba did not play against Valladolid. Official appareances source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/first-team/players/4958/jordi-alba"
3. 06:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107286076 by Mediocre Legacy (talk) Real Valladolid's name cannot be cut off just like Real Madrid"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They were warned by several users, but did not respond. Sakiv (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The reversals have been sufficiently justified. The editions were unsourced and erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of reverts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erminameraz#Unsourced_edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 09:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This complaint has been consciously prepared in advance with the purpose of banning me in a cruel way. I ask that the actions of Sakiv be investigated, since coincidentally his first editions in today's day has been the present denunciation of my reverts. And also the actions of Erminameraz who justifies his edits by saying that the official sources are wrong and only his personal statistics are valid without attaching any sources. It must be said that these are two users who have been editing Wikipedia for quite a few years and know perfectly well that a statistical edition without a reliable source cannot be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 11:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Explication of reverts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erminameraz#Unsourced_edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 11:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vicpumu: Since you are involved in a content dispute, why have you not started a thread on this issue at Talk:2022–23 FC Barcelona season? —C.Fred (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment No evidence that this is a bad-faith report. They may have had the Barça season page on their watchlist; there's nothing malicious about the report being their first edit of the day. It may even be evidence of giving the benefit of the doubt, of waiting to see what happened overnight instead of reporting the night before. —C.Fred (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 3 days --Hammersoft (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:82.132.214.74 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

Page: Multi-level marketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 82.132.214.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107403378 by MrOllie (talk) stop introducing grammar errors, factual inaccuracies, and violations of clear, common sense guidelines"
2. 20:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107402750 by MrOllie (talk) see WP:WTW. No evidence of any reason to ignore clear, common sense guidelines"
3. 20:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107399456 by McSly (talk) consensus exists. See WP:WTW. if you think there is some reason that this article should violate clear, common sense guidelines, you need to say what it is"
4. 20:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107397515 by Blaze Wolf (talk) read WP:WTW. this is common sense."
5. 20:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107397261 by McSly (talk) no, it's vague and subjective"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Multi-level marketing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Controversial is vague */ Reply"

Comments: Probably worth noting that this is one of WP:BKFIP's recurring topics. - MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A clear, common sense guideline exists, which says that you should not use the vague and subjective word controversial, but should give the reader information about whatever controversies exist. No reason has been offered as to why this article should ignore that clear, common sense guideline. 82.132.214.74 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)