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:Epicgenius reported by User:Capmo (Result: No violation)

Page: Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epicgenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: several versions, he always changes the article after reverting me.

Diffs of my edits that were reverted:

1. [1] (June 26)
2. [2] (July 3)
3. [3] (July 10)
4. [4] (July 11)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:
I was reading this article on June 26 and noticed that facade appeared several times in it. Considering that it's a loanword from French, where it's spelled façade with a cedilla, and considering that the English Wikipedia article also uses the spelling with a cedilla, I edited the article to apply this spelling. There are possibly hundreds of other articles that may be using the spelling without a cedilla, I'm not trying to impose my POV and changing all of them. I did it on this particular article because I genuinely thought it was an improvement, but the user does not accept it at all. He reverted me four times and then accused *me* of edit warring, on the talk page. He insists that facade is the correct spelling and that there needs to be an "article-level consensus" on the subject for it to be changed. I'm not asking for a block on the user, I just would like someone else to weigh in on this discussion. I particularly think that façade is a more suitable spelling and that the user is imposing his POV and acting as the "owner" of the article, but I will accept whichever solution is proposed by a neutral third party. Regards, —capmo (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline here is WP:DIACRITICS. Which version the Wikipedia article uses is irrelevant; which version do the sources about this article use? (There is no violation of WP:3RR here, by the way, due to the long period over which the reverts were made). Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission source does not use a diacritic, and neither does the National Park Service source. There is a PhD dissertation that seems to use both spellings interchangeably, but most of the other news sources don't seem to use any diacritics.

  Capmo is trying to impose his preferred spelling of the article by citing an RM at Talk:Façade, even though there was specifically no consensus for either spelling. Since the Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House article's sources consistently use the spelling "facade", and since "facade" is not an incorrect spelling in American English, I changed it back to that spelling. When I pointed that out on the talk page, Capmo accused me of reverting the spelling "based solely on your personal taste". After I made additional comments on the talk page, pointing out that "facade" is a proper spelling, he refused to further engage, and instead filed this edit warring report. He also claimed that "consensus was already reached at façade, we don't need another one", even though the previous RM ended in a decision of "no consensus".

  I should also note that I didn't revert him after July 10 - there was no fourth revert. This edit-warring report seems to be specious, as I did discuss on the talk page, but Capmo refused to respond other than to say that I was imposing my own POV into the article, which I was not. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Epicgenius sorry, I inadvertently assumed you had reverted me a fourth time, which didn't happen. I apologize for that. —capmo (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, thank you for your observations. When reading WP:3RR I didn't notice that it was restricted to a short time-frame, my bad. I accept your suggestion to apply the spelling according to the sources used in the article and will discuss this on Epicgenius's talk page. Kind regards, —capmo (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• No violation Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:ActionHeroesAreReal reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Trimmed; lead already too long"
2. 13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Trimmed, lead already too long"
3. 13:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234654326 by FMSky (talk)"
4. 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Trimmed: lead already too long"
5. 16:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) "Trimmed; Lead already too long"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warned at 13:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Even if you don't count the first removal as a revert, AHAR has breached 3RR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Beat me to the report. The article is also enforced BRD by AE. Which they broke long ago, while failing to engage in any discussion anywhere after being reverted by 5 different people. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Drink jacket reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Soviet empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Supplementary information has been provided"
2. 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "If you think the Soviet Union has 35 million square kilometers of territory, it means that Britain is nothing"
3. 18:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Does the Soviet Union have 35 million square kilometers of territory? Does it still dominate Chinese politics? Do you admit it yourself? What idiot"
4. 15:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "我将其他人对苏联势力范围的夸大描述进行了删改"
5. 15:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "我把对苏联势力范围的夸大描述进行了删改"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Not communicating in English."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I can't pick another, but user has been issued a final warning already. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

User:103.241.37.168 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Page protected)

Page: Bella Poarch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 103.241.37.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "BELLA POARCH IS NOT AMERICAN SHE IS FILIPINO"
2. 22:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 18:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "BELLA POARCH IS NOT AMERICAN"
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC) to 12:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234647099 by 2606:6A40:9:4E6A:284D:D742:D699:9E38 (talk)"
   3. 12:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234647770 by 103.241.37.168 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bella Poarch."
2. 22:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bella Poarch."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Page protected for 3 months. Aoidh (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:125.26.88.57 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Free Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 125.26.88.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "←Changed redirect target from South Korea to North Korea"
2. 03:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "←Changed redirect target from South Korea to North Korea"
3. 01:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "←Changed redirect target from South Korea to North Korea"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Free Korea."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Changing Redirects */ new section"

Comments:

• Page protected for one year since this has been slowly ongoing since December, and all of the edit in that time period have been this back-and-forth reverting. Aoidh (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Maurice20111 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page:  

User being reported: Maurice20111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was blocked for 24 hours before. Went on to do the same thing, changing leads of articles about hip hop artists. Messages, warnings and block have not worked. Zero WP:COMMUNICATION. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This editor doesn't seem WP:HERE due to incessant redescribing of performers they are a fan of, using edit summaries like "Tyga is my favorite rapper" and "Roddy Ricch is amazing!". Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks, with the hopes that blocking them for a longer time period will get them to review the issues at hand. If it continues, the next block will likely need to be indefinite. Aoidh (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Raoul mishima reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Page protected)

Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC) to 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan

Comments:

Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected Same as below EvergreenFir (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Kelvintjy reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Page protected)

Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234812026 by Raoul mishima (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC) to 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan

Comments:

Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected Both users were given warnings after their most recent edits, so blocking is not appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I was not meaning for the editors to be blocked, only that some sort of mediation might be required, & that these particular editors be guided to discussion on the talk page. However, since Kelvintjy is an extended confirmed user & has not engaged in discussion on the talk page nor has explained their reverts to Raoul mishima's edits, perhaps page protection is best for now. Peaceray (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  • I have only revert back the edit made by Raoul mishima as previous editors had tried to talk to him but he keep making the edits without discussing with other editors first. On top of that, most of thye edits thatr I had reverted are well sourced for quite some times already. These past few months, Raoul mishima had made quite a lot of edits and 2 of the pages is editted too much that it is not recognizable due to his edits. The pages are Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda. Kelvintjy (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You may also want to refer to the below talk page where a few editors tried to talk to Raoul mishima but it was unsuccessful.

• User talk:Raoul mishima
• Talk:Soka Gakkai International
• Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

Kelvintjy (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kelvintjy: I wish to note that of the eight reversions that you did to Raoul mishima' edits at Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan, you left an edit summary on only one of them, in which you stated It is already weel sourced. It is you who made all the edit where other had tried to discuss. I will note that Raoul mishima made several statements about references in the edit summary & opened a discussion on the talk page. As of 2024-07-17 16:28 UTC, no one has responded at Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan § Biased.

You left no comments on the article talk page or Raoul mishima's talk page. Without any meaningful communication on your part to indicate your reasoning, your behavior seemed like edit warring.

I believe that it would have been helpful to reference discussions in the edit summary & at Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan. As the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay suggests, it is best to engage discussion on the talk page. Please review the WP:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Peaceray (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:98.240.113.219 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Partially Blocked)

Page: New Albany, Mississippi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 98.240.113.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234952199 by MrOllie (talk) you are the one edit warring, when you follow me from another article and revert me without giving any justification, while jacona and i are discussing the sources and the language to be used"
2. 00:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234949955 by MrOllie (talk) what is the reason for the revert"
3. 20:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234915855 by Jacona (talk) if you want to take up a contrary position, and oppose my revision, you should state your reasons - why do you want to remove a critical fact (that the victim of the lynching confessed), when it's in the sources which are already cited?"
4. 18:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234890006 by AntiDionysius (talk) reason for the revert ???"
5. 17:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234828573 by Jacona (talk) you can add these details, if you have sources for them, but it's not constructive to remove them altogether"
6. 20:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234372753 by Jacona (talk) reason for the revert ?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on New Albany, Mississippi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week from editing New Albany, Mississippi. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ssr reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: baseline version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. reverted #1
2. reverted #2
3. reverted #3
4. reverted #4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Ssr talk page warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• explanation of reversion of unreferenced material and referencing errors
• please stop
• happy to help, nothing to review

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: an3-notice on Ssr's talk page

Comments:

I think these hostile responses are unacceptable and objectively unproductive. The material added by this user introduces seven or so undefined reference errors. There's one reference that's hooked-up, but all others cause errors. The edits this user made were not described in edit summaries, and I offered to help on the talk page. Their responses have not been WP:CIVIL. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I would have blocked but I am unfortunately involved with this user. Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR wasn't violated, but this editor's intransigence and battleground mentality, as evidenced on the talk page, in reverting over the last couple of days are enough to justify this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)