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:Policynerd3212 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Policynerd3212 (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:
This editor was edit warring a few months back on the same article, pushing the same type of content about crime and immigration in Sweden. They were reported to ANI at the time, then went away for several months. They have now come back pushing the same content, when the consensus that was reached was that they should instead focus the edits on the Crime in Sweden article. They refuse to obtain consensus for their edits, and instead repeatedly revert, also randomly undoing old edits by the individual they were edit warring with months ago without explanation seen in one of the diffs above. They show obliviousness to the concept of consensus, as well as the signs of a typical WP:SPA as well as a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor having their English language Wikipedia edits almost entirely focused on not only the Sweden article, but those specific subjects. Despite several attempts to ask them to gain consensus for their edits on the talk page, as well as warnings for edit warring, they show no signs of stopping and I have no doubt they will continue to revert to shoehorn this content in for as long as they can. Update: it continues and user is now well into breaching 3RR, refuses to stop as predicted. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:Wisefroggy (Result: Not blocked; talk page discussion recommended)

Page: Justin Trudeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well-versed in 3RR, having been the both the target and initiator of many Administrator's noticeboard/edit warring edits.

The User in question reverted varied material, within the same article, four (4) times within the span of a few hours, in violation of 3RR.

Attempted resolution via talk: Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Trudeau&oldid=1088461558 User claims "lede (sic) not the place for a list of minor points", and repeatedly deletes material. I kindly request that admins review diffs to determine if the deleted material is reasonable or not. Four straight reverts by the User, of well-sourced, relevant, and succinct material, in violation of 3RR, is not reasonable.

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

Comments:
User appears to have a history of edit warring and warnings, including the article in question: Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moxy&diff=1079273985&oldid=1079273146 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1055948051#User:Moxy_reported_by_User:Trackratte_(Result:_) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&oldid=607972275#User:Moxy_reported_by_User:FelixRosch_(Result:_)

Again, four straight reverts of well-sourced and relevant material puts a little strain on the assumption of good-faith, and is not reasonable.

I have no opinion of the reverts. The material is, in my opinion, not relevant or appropriately placed, and from what Moxy is saying (I am taking his word for it) this is a repeat instance of trying to add this content-disruptive. I'd take this back to the talk page and work through this there. Littleolive oil (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Without having looked at a diff (no time): the lead really is not the place to add sourced material however good the sources. Reverting such things is clean-up, and not understanding it, ... I don't know how to call it. The material might go to the body, if there's consensus to include it, and then further consensus should be reached if any of it is lead-worthy. The whole thing is for the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

They are welcome to get a third opinion on the matter. Talk:Justin Trudeau#Lede from years ago...as for the content all is in the article...just not the lead....as the lead is not the place for list(s) that was removed in 2019.Moxy- 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Not blocked It seems from the above that it would be better being discussed. Reverts were different material each time that doesn't quite rise to the level of edit warring Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:8802:E01:3AA0:C805:2678:5C48:2667 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: /64 range blocked for a week)

Page: List of current world boxing champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:8802:E01:3AA0:C805:2678:5C48:2667 (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]

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:
IP broke 3rr while refusing to use edit summaries (because there's no valid argument to give). 3rr warning was left at User talk:2600:8802:E01:3AA0:C5FE:964:92CB:731A. – ².O.^Boxing 09:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Fifth revert. – ².O.^Boxing 11:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And now they're just being generally disruptive at the same article. I'll let the disruption stand until this report has been resolved, so as not to fall afoul of 3rr. – ².O.^Boxing 11:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to mention that the ANEW notification was sent to the reported IP while the 3rr warning was issued to a previous one (it won't let me view the diffs so I can't provide them). – ².O.^Boxing 11:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sixth revert, followed by a bunch of vandalism. – ².O.^Boxing 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been extended to a block of the /64 range for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Dochi6090 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: Korean beauty standards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Korean idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dochi6090 (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:

• On Korean idol

1. 18 May 2022 "Please write "Fect""
2. 11:07, 18 May 2022 "Just write down the facts"
3. 10:04, 18 May 2022 "Write the facts and Identify the source. This is the best version"
4. 03:51, 18 May 2022 "In Korea, underage plastic surgery is definitely illegal and normal idol agencies do not enforce it. The agencies that enforce illegal activities are illegal companies, and most agencies do not enforce them. If company force plastic surgery in Korea, the company's representative can go to jail under the Child Abuse Act. Illegality can never be referred and should never be justified in any case"
5. 00:25, 18 May 2022 "Delete Unnecessary Parts"

On Korean beauty standards

• About six reverts

For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary Warn the user if you have not already done so. }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

• 3RR 11:25, 18 May 2022
• 3RR 11:08, 18 May 2022

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

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

• ANEW notice

Comments:

A number of users have said this is a sock. Adakiko (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional three reverts at K-Beauty. The Banner talk 11:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dochi6090.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Beanieshark22 reported by User:CreecregofLife (Result:Blocked indef)

Page: Amphibia (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beanieshark22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]
5. [25]
6. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] [28] [29] [30]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

Comments:

• Normally I'd do a timed block, but Beanieshark22's history of edit warring and stunts like this demonstrate some significant WP:CIR issues that will need to be addressed before an appeal can be considered.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Noting that a new user joined six minutes after the above block, to restore one of Beanieshark's recent edits. SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beanieshark22. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Wes sideman reported by User:Inexpiable (Result: Both warned)

Page: Execution of Nathaniel Woods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088576122 by Inexpiable (talk) see WP:STATUSQUO"
2. 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088567696 by Inexpiable (talk) The status quo, before TheXuitts changed it because he doesn't like the source's wording, was ":crack house". Stay with status quo until discussion is finished. That's clear policy."
3. 20:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "this censorship of the exact words used in the sources is getting ridiculous"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference (RW 16.1)"
2. 21:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
3. 21:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* "Crack house" or "drug house"? */"
2. 20:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* "Crack house" or "drug house"? */"
3. 20:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* "Crack house" or "drug house"? */"

Comments:

User keeps reverting edits on the article and is refusing to gain consensus from the talk page. The entire article history shows he has kept doing this with another user. Inexpiable (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment WP:STATUSQUO clearly says "leave the status quo up." On the article in question, the status quo before Inexpiable's ally, TheXuitts, changed it was the use of the phrase "crack house", which is the term overwhelmingly used in reliable sources cited in the article. TheXuitts changed it because he feels it's a "derogatory term" - as I explained on the talk page, we don't get to make that call. Reliable sources say "crack house", so the article says "crack house." Nevertheless, Inexpiable opened an edit war and began reverting back to their preferred verbiage of "drug house" despite almost no sources using that term to describe the events in the article. Wes sideman (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the original wording was "drug house" PROOF in this revision: [32], until Wes changed it: [33] Inexpiable (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wes sideman has been in an ongoing dispute on the page Execution of Nathaniel Woods. Since 2020 he has been reverting TheXuitts edits on the article. Example here: [34] TheXuitts has been changing the content back and every time Wes has been changing the wording. I joined the discussion today and tried to gain a compromise. However, Wes has reverted my edits and is refusing to discuss the matter at Talk:Execution of Nathaniel Woods. Inexpiable (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

More examples, it clearly said drug house until he changed it AGAIN yesterday: [35] Inexpiable (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Check Inexpiable's reverts to my changes and then Gabrielle103's contributions. That second account is 7 days old and inexplicably appeared to revert changes on two pages that I edited - making the exact same reverts that Inexpiable made, mere minutes later. Seems extremely likely that they're connected and being used to avoid breaking 3RR by tag-teaming. Wes sideman (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed it again here in March 2022: [36], again in September 2021: [37] Inexpiable (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheXuitts: So he can explain his side. This edit war has gone on since end of 2020, and Wes has kept reverting his work constantly without gaining any consensus. Inexpiable (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet account. I was patrolling the recent edits and saw that Wes has been edit warring, so I reverted their changes back to Inexpiable's (I say their because I'm not sure what Wes' pronouns are, if they have them that is). This is clearly visible from my recent contributions, in which I have edited multiple articles on or around the same minute as the previous edit (such as Dangerfield Newby, 2022 Lebanese general election and Population displacements in Israel after 1948). I'm just some rando woman lol Gabrielle103 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Gabrielle103 has been blocked as a sock. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It is important to point out they were not a sock of mine though or connected to me in any way, as Wes falsely claimed and made baseless accusations against me without proof. Inexpiable (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Wes sideman and User:Inexpiable are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Execution of Nathaniel Woods without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

User:107.127.39.24 reported by User:Buttons to Push Buttons (Result: Semi)

Page: Kay Mellor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.127.39.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38] This was the first introduction of some phrasing along these lines.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]
6. [44]
7. [45]
8. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [49] and also notified at their new IP here

Comments:

• Considering their dynamic IP has already changed to User:107.123.5.51, a range block may be called for. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 01:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• I didn't even notice, but they also had another IP during this whole thing, at User:107.127.39.16, fwiw. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 01:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Kay Mellor has been semiprotected one month due to edit warring by multiple IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Efbrazil reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Page-blocked from the article for two weeks)

Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Efbrazil (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 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) to 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade */ In another attempt at consensus, I made it clear that american companies are the ones who are importing goods. If you don't like the source at all then we need to delete this information entirely, but we should not be mischaracterizing the source. The source makes it perfectly clear that importers pay the tax."
   2. 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088695359 by Praxidicae (talk) This is a simple fact that is well sourced to CNN. Are you disagreeing with facts? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. If you have a disagreement with the facts, please state what they are."
2. 16:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* China */ Yes, it was widely criticized as a failure by liberal and business-oriented interests at the time. I added the fact that Biden maintained the tariffs along with a source to that effect."
3. 16:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade */ The article is very clear that it is not all american companies that pay, it is american importers of chinese goods. Simply saying "american companies" without clarifying that it is companies doing imports is obfuscation and bias. I added the quote from the article to make the context clear. If you want different wording, please include the key piece of information that it is importers paying, not all companies."
4. 22:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* China */ Removing value judgments of Trump Tariffs, better to just stick to facts here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Donald Trump */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user was warned about restoring edits that have been undone and that the article is under a clear 1rr restriction but still continued to restore their preferred content and revert after being given a clear warning and notification of the articles restrictions. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I think if you look at the edits it's clear I was on solid ground and was seeking consensus, not edit warring. I've taken the discussion to the talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Removing_bias_regarding_trade_tariffs_from_the_article Efbrazil (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Except you ignored a clear and explicit warning about 1rr on the page itself, multiple times and my warning to you. Just because you believe you are right does not mean you can edit war. And I'm not the only one you've edit warred with. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there's no 1RR restriction on that page, where it was replaced with the 24-hour-BRD rule. The diffs show a violation of that page restriction, but editors will need to determine whether this is the proper venue to review this matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that edit warring is when you revert edits or reimpose edits rather than seeking consensus. Each of my edits were attempting to address prior concerns with content.

Anyhow, I'm not here to make an argument about the letter of the law, and it's kind of water under the bridge as this is now taking place on the talk page. In the spirit of the law, I'd argue Praxidicae is the one that erred by reverting this edit without reason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1088695359 Efbrazil (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note Page blocked from the article for two weeks. Efbrazil has quite egregiously violated the 24-hour restriction, making 3 reverts inside 24 hours. Efbrazil, your understanding of what edit warring is, is flawed. No, seeking consensus on talk does not mean you are allowed to keep reverting the article. Moreover, you're nowhere near getting consensus on talk. It would be better to read our edit warring policy than to handwave at "the spirit of the law" (a spirit which you have, in my opinion, violated just as well as the letter of the law, by going right up against the 3RR rule on this controversial article). Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC).

  Bishonen, what are 3 reverts I did? My changes were substantively different from each other, not the same thing repeatedly. I was making changes that attempted to address complaints people were having. The seeking consensus was not on the talk page, it was through my comments on the edits, explaining how they addressed complaints people were having. Please review the edits again and tell me 3 reverts I did. I honestly don't see it. Efbrazil (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Efbrazil, I think I may have exaggerated; only [50] and [51] are reverts. The phrasing "Widely characterized as a failure", which you changed here, was added as far back as September 2021, so changing it hardly qualifies as a revert. YMMV, but I don't think it does. Still, you made two reverts inside 24 hours, on an article where you're not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. (PS; it's better to complain on your own page. It was by pure luck that I noticed your post here. You can also get people's attention by using the WP:PING feature, as I just did, by linking your name.) Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC).

User:Praxidicae reported by 80.108.55.24 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Talk:Great Replacement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

This user (Praxidicae) keeps removing/reverting my contributions to a discussion on the talk page of the Great Replacement article, because I am criticizing people like him (leftist activists) ruining Wikipedia by using it as a propaganda platform. Keeps saying it "doesn't contribute to the article" when criticizm of obvious biases contributes to the improvement of any article, not just this one.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.55.24 (talk • contribs)

• Result: Filing IP blocked 60 hours by User:Acroterion per a report below. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

User:80.108.55.24 reported by User:chip3004 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Great Replacement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.108.55.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]

Comments:

It appears that this ip is edit warring on Talk:Great Replacement

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours for trolling. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)