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:Rodagonda reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result: Declined)

Page: Savitha Nambrath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC) "Deleted deletion tag. Some one is removing all relevant reference links on this page. Unable to edit."
2. 12:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) "Removed unnecessary tag which may unnecessarily delete this page"
3. 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC) "Removed the deletion tag as i was reading this page"
4. 12:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) "Removed the deletion tag as i was browsing for this page of know person"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Declined I just dealt with the report on the IP placing the tag over at AIV and declined to block them since it seemed they might be editing legitimately. So for the same reason this could plausibly, to me, come under 3RRNO. But I also note the lack of any demonstrated efforts above to resolve this informally before coming here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@BangJan1999 and Daniel Case: I'm the anon editor that was bot-reported over at AIV, for blanking sections of unsourced puffery at a BLP.

That aside, User:Rodagonda is an obvious sockpuppet of Pitarobertz. A few minutes after account creation, Rodagonda immediately started removing G4 speedy tags from Savitha Nambrath, as shown in those diffs above. And today, they're at it again: [1], [2], [3], minutes after Pitarobertz removed the salt template:[4]. No response yet at User talk:Pitarobertz to my warning about sockpuppetry. Anon editors can't create an SPI, we can only add new reports to them, otherwise I'd have started one myself. 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A new third account, User:Peacehridhaan, has now taken over removing the speedy templates: [5], [6]. 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Article has now been salted, and all three accounts indefinitely blocked. 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction: the two socks are blocked. An SPI is needed to finish this. 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that while anonymous users and non-confirmed can't create SPI reports, they can however make a request that an SPI report be made. To do this, on the WP:SPI page, open the box that says "How to open an investigation", then expand the green box within it that starts with "If you are not auto-confirmed", type in the sockmaster's username there (without User:), and press submit. You will be presented with an edit request window that looks like a normal SPI report creation page, where you can fill in the blanks as though you were creating the report, and press submit. Soon after, a confirmed or autoconfirmed volunteer will come and create that report according to the request.

Anyways, I've already created an SPI report for you over here. Feel free to add your comments under the "Comments by other users" section (don't forget to sign with four tildes as it is not signed automatically). — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, AP 499D25, missed that non-autoconfirmed part completely. 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

User:103.110.142.0/24 reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Blocked for a month)

Pages:

• June 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ("article 1")
• April 20 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ("article 2")
  

User being reported: 103.110.142.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: article 1, article 2

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. article 1, article 2
2. article 1, article 2
3. article 1, article 2
4. article 1, article 2

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning on 103.110.142.71, warning on 103.110.142.70

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none)

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

Comments:

IP-hopping edit warring and 3RR violations across multiple articles. User:Squared.Circle.Boxing also claims that this IP is block evading an account, though I'm not sure who. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Alexf:, who blocked the 103.110.142.71 IP address. They are now using 103.110.142.70. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: 103.110.142.70 now also blocked by Alexf, though I'm not sure if this'll stop the disruption, as only another individual IP has been blocked, rather than the range.

I looked at the contribs of the /24 range, and there haven't been any other edits from the entireity of the range from the last three months, besides the edit warring on three articles, meaning no collateral if the range were to be blocked.

Anyways, to top it off, since there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry here, I have created an SPI report over here for confirmation, and it would also add to the user's record if the evidence is strong.

One more note: I forgot to put this out in the initial ANEW report above, but Squared.Circle.Boxing did also technically cross 3RR on the three articles, though I'm going to guess they made the reverts under WP:3RRNO exemption #3 (sockpuppetry). They were actually informed on their talk page by Lemonaka not to edit war with trolls, instead go by WP:BRI when dealing with such users in the future, which they acknowledged: permalink. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Afterbrew is who I suspect. Evaded their block on 1.129.109.183 and 1.144.108.90 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afterbrew/Archive). The current IPs are making the same edits to September 11 as 144[7], with the same apparent focus on rugby and Australia/New Zealand. – ².O.^Boxing 08:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Zech22 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Stephen C. Meyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Zech22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Already blocked for edit-warring at the same article. WP:ARBPS territory. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Zech22 for one week. See the block log for details. As stated in the log, if the user resumes editing the article to restore their version after expiration of this block, they should be indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:Asarlaí (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous!
• Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal
• Talk:Witchcraft#Requested_move_19_July_2023
• Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias

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

Comments:
I don't like having to do this, but Skyerise keeps making sweeping changes against consensus, while discussion is ongoing. They removed the longstanding section about Wicca three times. Having failed to keep it removed, they began simply deleting the statement that malevolent magic is "the most common and widespread meaning" of "witchcraft", along with the five high-quality academic sources supporting it (see here). I undid that, they removed the sentence again, I restored it, then they removed it again. Also, Skyerise and Randy Kryn seem to be planning to tag-team on this article so they can keep pushing their POV without breaking 3RR. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I did do some self-reverts that don't seem to have been included. Voluntarily taking 48 hours away from this particular article and its redirects. Hope that is sufficient remorse. Thanks Asarlaí for bringing my overage to my attention. Skyerise (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by involved admin: Look at her block log. Skyerise has been blocked for this behaviour many times before. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd like to say that since those blocks that I've realized that a collegial atmosphere is way superior to a battleground attitude. I admit that I lost count, and if my reverts hadn't already been reverted, I would do that now. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for leniency from involved editor: Skyerise is a thoughtful, sensible, resourceful, studious, intelligent, approachable, and pleasant editor who has made a great many useful contributions across so many articles. I think perhaps her errant bahaviour might be a measure of her frustration in the face of concerted, and at times adversarial, opposition. She has initiated and engaged in discussions on the article talk page.

Ask yourself which is the more collegial, if errant:

• "remove the primary example of systemic bias; this is also not cited correctly - it is not sufficient to provide five citation to prove "most widespread now", it would require say a linguistic survey, etc" (Skyerise).
• Or "what the hell is this?" (Asarlaí).
• Or "establish that most reliable academic sources don't consider malevolence part of the definition of witchcraft, but rather a stereotype projected by others" (Skyerise).
• Or "unexplained removal of detail supported by numerous academic sources" (Asarlaí).
• Or "NOT removed, rather QUALIFIED" (Skyerise).
• Or "Skyerise, respect the consensus we've reached through this process." (CorbieVreccan).

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Dangdude11 reported by User:Raladic (Result: Page protected)

Page: 2023 Bud Light boycott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dangdude11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral. This edit has been discussed at length for days and no sources have been shown to justify the characterization. Advocates for the current language are injecting opinons."
2. 12:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I added a statement characterizing the outlets that referred to the backlash as “left wing”, given their left wing bias. I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
3. 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
4. 01:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:09, 21 July 2023 (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:

User is pushing their WP:POV on a marked contentious topic and despite warnings on the article talk page then went today immediately after gaining autoconfirmed status and multiple times tried to edit and was subsequently reverted, passing 3rr. Raladic (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the article is not in compliance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Despite much discussion on the topic, no one can point to any reliable source. I was not warned about this Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule until just now. Dangdude11 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The topic is clearly marked as a contentious topic on the article talk page, which comes with extra warnings for users before editing. You should familiarize yourself with them before making edits.

It also doesn’t look like your exchanges on the talk page have been particularly constructive as multiple users have refuted your claims and promptly reverted your edit (which you made immediately after gaining autoconfirmed status to even make them - which may be further seen as a way to WP:GAMING the system) as well.

The article protection was now raised under the arbcom enforcement for WP:GENSEX to avoid further disruption. Raladic (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel that you reported me because of a viewpoint that you are advancing. You say that I have been “refuted” in the talk page, but no one can point to a source that supports their position, even by their own admission. In any event, I don’t plan on making any more edits to the page as Wikipedia is showing a systemic bias towards a partisan viewpoint as evidenced by your partial comments here. Dangdude11 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Tyranzion reported by User:Imaginatorium (Result: Blocked indef as NOTHERE)

Page: Lisa Nakazono-Węgłowska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC) "This is not vandalism at all. Using this picture is "illegal". Infringement of portrait rights."
2. 06:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC) "Already explained."
3. 00:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC) "It is not acceptable, because it it was just taken by someone without permirsion. Uploading picutures without her or an organizer's permission was prohibited."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA solely aiming to remove image not liked by the subject. It has already been explained that WP does not follow the Japanese folk belief that permission is required to photograph someone in a public place. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• The editor was made aware of edit warring policy using the standard warning template, and given a specific note explaining the need to discuss disputed changes by more than one person. They chose not to participate, and after a month had passed with no new comments from any editors, the image was restored per Talk:Lisa Nakazono-Węgłowska#Persistent removal of image by user Elleyu92. -- Whpq (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Account was created a month ago and has only edited this article, only removing this image through an incorrect understanding of enwiki image use policy. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

User:93.159.183.71 reported by User:Wikipedialuva (Result: )

Page: Planetary science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 93.159.183.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166697746 by The Herald (talk) rv vandalism by editor who is spamming my talk page with dishonest templates"
2. 06:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166697647 by The Herald (talk) rv vandalism"
3. 06:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166696676 by The Herald (talk) yes, do that"
4. 06:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166630757 by GeogSage (talk) user clearly just dislikes IP edits. no convincing rationale for including this material"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Planetary science."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly blanked their usertalk as well. Wikipedialuva (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This user has no interest in the content of the page. They have made zero edits to the article or its talk page. They obviously haven't made any attempt to resolve the "dispute", because they have no interest in it. They are merely hoping to "bag" a block. I find such behaviour to be inherently disruptive. Editors should edit to improve articles; this editor is not doing that. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The irrelevant comment that I have removed comments from my own talk page is also malicious in intent. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user: This IP editor sounds a lot like WP:LTA/BKFIP. Sharing the same characteristics of edit warring, arguing in edit summaries, subtly attacking other editors, and removing warnings from their talk pages as previous BKFIPs I have seen and dealt with in the past (e.g. see this archived ANI thread). — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Total nonsense by an editor I have never encountered before, who also has no interest in the content of the article, and whose intent seems to be purely to disrupt. They also clearly do not understand WP:OWNTALK. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)