Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

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:Ekdalian reported by User:Dr.SunBD (Result: No action)

Page: Vaidyabrahmin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ekdalian (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:

Dear wikipedian, User:Ekdalian destroy informations with references by editwarring. This user's Warring activity against some castbase article specially Vaidya,Vaidyabrahmin ,Ambhastha. Please check this user's editing history . Thank you.

• Result: No action. It turns out this is an old report. Although undated, it was actually filed on June 24. At that time User:Dr.SunBD left this comment on Ekdalian's talk page, charging vandalism and edit warring. Around that time, User:Ekdalian left a comment on User:Bishonen's talk page, alleging POV pushing by caste warriors, for example on Baidya. At Vaidyabrahmin (the article mentioned here) Dr.SunBD seems to have been adding material to the article directly quoted out of the Mahabharata, an epic from ancient India. Why does an article called Vaidyabrahmin even exist? It's not about a caste, it is perhaps a religious topic. The edits of User:Dr.SunBD might need further review, but that user has not continued to edit Wikipedia since 24 June, so I am closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• The account Dr.SunBD ceased editing after I warned them about edit warring, poor sourcing, misrepresenting sources, and caste glorification. Baidya has seen many new, or "new", users appear since then, but is now semiprotected. Bishonen | tålk 07:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC).
• I have stopped editing out of respect for Senior Admin User:Bishonen even though I know User:Ekdalian is misguiding him/her.

User:Dr.SunBD

User:Bkonrad reported by User:Uanfala (Result: Bkonrad and Qalnor are warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:30
2. 03:38
3. 10:13
4. 15:13

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not now, but on 29 June they were warned that if they break 3RR again, they're liable to get blocked immediately, see archived report

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: After 3 unexplained reverts, Bkonrad did finally start a brief thread at User talk:Qalnor, but that hasn't stopped them from reverting again.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [10]

Comments: This appears to have been resolved after Qalnor's post at User talk:Bkonrad#black friday nonsense, but it was quite depressing to see Qualnot's well explained edits to the page get repeatedly undone by Bkonrad without explanation. I believe we need a clear signal that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable, and previous warnings do not seem to have done the job. – Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the actual edits by Qalnor are nonsensical and completely unsupported by the linked article and the explanation provided was very nearly unintelligible and doesn't in any way justify the edits. The edits looked like vandalism (as suspected by cluebot as well). I mentioned my concerns on Qalnor's talk page and I was on the verge of blocking Qalnor. Though thankfully Uanfala has taken it upon herself the task of monitoring whether I ever make any potential incursions into 3RR (and occasional even appears to goad). older ≠ wiser 17:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned your 'concerns' that were minimally responsive after twice reverting the changes without any content. At that time your concerns mostly amounted to accusing me of vandalism, a behavior which I will not actually accuse you of, but more closely resembles your own behavior (i.e. making changes without comment, and while doing so making an article less factual rather than more.) Qalnor (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Bkonrad (aka older ≠ wiser), given that you eventually removed the dab entry yourself, and so have apparently come round to Qalnor's point of view, I take it that you don't find their edits as nonsensical any more. At the time, you disagreed with their edit and their explanations for it: in that case, you should have set out to them why you disagreed, instead of continually reverting without explanation. (And FYI, I noticed the edit war after Qalnor posted on your talk page, which I have on my watchlist as I've recently posted there myself. I'm not normally bothered about people occasionally edit-warring with each other, but this is part of a pattern and I've talked to you about it before. I hold no ill will towards you and I would like to see you continue editing in this area, but the tendency for edit-warring is inexcusable and absolutely should stop). – Uanfala (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala, except I have not "come around" as you put it -- at least not in how the edits themselves were presented. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between an entry for 1929 and the contemporary shopping day. Nothing that Qalnor said lead me to understand this. It was only after following the redirect and reading the target article that I understood the redirect IS essentially a mistake. I reverted because the edit was nonsensical and the "explanations" provided in edit summaries were nearly unintelligible. No, it looked like vandalism and I treated it like vandalism. older ≠ wiser 20:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are Qalnor's edit summaries:

• clarified 1929 black friday [11]
• Undid revision 1032015248 by Bkonrad (talk) no explanation given; re-reverting given the fact that Black Friday is definitively not the historical day on which the 'New York stock market crashed, initiating the Great Depression' [12]
• Undid revision 1032022657 by Bkonrad (talk) Undoing unexplained reversion. Information originally present has no historical basis. [13]
• clarified 1929 black friday without any reference to shopping, although truthfully without mentioning the reason why people call it black friday it is difficult to explain why it's here at all [14]

While it may not be completely clear what the first edit summary meant, it was still perfectly intelligible, and the following edit summaries clarified the point beyond any reasonable doubt. I can't see anything that looks like vandalism there, and I can't understand why we're even having that conversation given that we all agree now that Qalnor was right. – Uanfala (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala, no these summaries were attached to edits that simply made no sense. Not a single one of Qalnor's edits made any sense. older ≠ wiser 22:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Bkonrad and User:Qalnor are both warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Black Friday without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:A8F9:0:6D5E:7228:B87F:A94C reported by User:Tigraan (Result: Partially blocked)

Page: Dissociative identity disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2001:8003:A8F9:0:6D5E:7228:B87F:A94C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1032408771 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk) They do not need a source. Please try to read the full chain of edits as you are just regurgitating what others have said."
2. 07:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1032408522 by Kleinpecan (talk) You are being negativistic."
3. 07:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1032407892 by Kleinpecan (talk) I'm not adding original research. You are being negativistic by jumping to conclusions and assuming I'm breaking rules and by complaining on my talk page as opposed to having an edit summary."
4. 07:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1032407063 by Kleinpecan (talk)"
5. 06:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1032402984 by SunDawn (talk) You are being negativistic. I very obviously don't need to add sources because this disorder is nonsense. Would you want me to add sources if I happen to change a wikipedia article saying that Bigfoot is real? No. So stop being negativistic."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SunDawn gave a few Twinkle warnings including the edit-war one at 6:21 (the four reverts occur later between 8 and 10), although not a 3RR warning. However, the likelihood of this editor heeding a 3RR warning seems pretty low to me. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• 2001:8003:A8F9:0:0:0:0:0/64 partially blocked for 48 hours by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

User:173.76.57.10 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)

Page: Newton, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 173.76.57.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. 00:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC) "/* 2021 gun shop ban */ added opposition viewpoint"
3. 00:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC) "/* 2021 gun shop ban */ added opposition viewpoint"
4. 23:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC) "/* 2021 gun shop ban */ added opposition viewpoint"
5. 15:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC) "/* 2021 gun shop ban */ added opposition viewpoint"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• They've made it clear that they'll continue to edit-war on tehir talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Acoterion believes that the edit has no value and continues to remove cited content at will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.57.10 (talk)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —C.Fred (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

User:David Gerard reported by User:Autonomous agent 5 (Result: Declined)

Page: Chainlink (blockchain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

11:24, 6 July 2021‎ - 14:33, 6 July 2021‎ reverted 12 edits

15:23, 6 July 2021‎, 15:27, 6 July 2021‎, 15:27, 6 July 2021

08:57, 7 July 2021, 10:38, 7 July 2021‎, 10:42, 7 July 2021

with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Declined. @Autonomous agent 5: I don't see a clear violation of 3RR, nor have you shown where you attempted to discuss this matter on the article's talk page. Given that David Gerard has raised concerns of promotional content, it sounds like you really need to discuss this matter and get consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User:David Gerard is giving what appears to be legitimate criticism in the summary and changing the article to show the criticism i.e. adding tags - but when this editor looks at the sources it wasn't possible to find how the sources aren't legitimate for the article - in addition this editor has made changes 21:57, 6 July 2021, 19:31, 6 July 2021 - the editor is not reasonably showing consideration for the material in the article -

• 18:45, 6 July 2021 will not allow the "Publications" section
• reverted the "Design" section @ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎ containing only green sources WP: RSP @ 15:23, 6 July 2021 with the summary "rv promotional, crypto, deprecated content - Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion"
• cite 6 @ this version "Chainlink is currently headquartered within the Cayman Islands" is yet again reverted from the article @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainlink_(blockchain) - the user has reverted this sentence @ 15:18, 8 July 2021, 08:57, 7 July 2021, ‎ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎

with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MarioProtIV reported by User:Piquito veloz (Result: )

Page: Kepler-7b (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarioProtIV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User reverts with subjetive reasons, for example he dont know difference between primary source (wp:or) or secundary and Tertiary source and 2° or 3° sources are allowed in encyclopedias. User dont know that celestia is GNU, open source and sources of the images is, for example, from NASA (public domain).--Piquito veloz (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I do, and the reason why I removed them was because they were being discussed on your talk page, which seems to indicate that they are not allowed. I repeatedly advised in the later edits that the images should be removed until the discussion is sorted out about the images, which apparently are a copyright violation. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Not copyright violations there because NASA guidelines are clear. Sources in the information of each image is clear. User dont know about licenses theme. --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Texture used to wear Kepler-7b in Celestia was downloaded of the server and webpages of the NASA. --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Can read there the next text: "NASA content - images, audio, video, and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format - generally are not subject to copyright in the United States. You may use this material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages." --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I do know about license difference but the fact that no consensus was reached on the images means they probably should not be there in the first place, and in some cases are redundant as some of the size comparisons are OR since there is no set value for some of them. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

MarioProtIV is changing the argument, tend to alternate between non-existent copyright infringements (He does not know the issue of licenses) to subjective appreciations such as redundancy or OR (He does not know the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources), there is not a previous image in the case of WASP-62, and there lot of sources and descriptions indicate that the planet is a clarified giant [16] [17] [18] because alkali metals or sodium and user revert and now the article is without images again, where is the supposed redundancy there? There are a lot of images from Celestia in a large number of articles without reverting but, coincidentally, mine are reverted. Looks like harassment--Piquito veloz (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For example, a clarified giant texture is secondary or tertiary source because is based in descriptions of scientistcs and artist about apparience of the planets with strong sodium fingerprint in an exoplanet spectrum. --Piquito veloz (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of the comparations appear the size of planets in kilometers in the left corner of the pics, for example, can see it in kepler-22b and appear as 15307 kilometers according to the source that appear in wikipedia about that Kepler-22b is around of the mean of 2.4 times the size of Earth and theres is not a redundancy of pics there too because there is not a previus pic with a comparative size of Kepler22b versus Earth and texture is from NASA (public domain). none of the arguments that the user has mentioned are there, why reverts? What's going on there? --Piquito veloz (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [19] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1° revertion,
2. 2° revertion,
3. 3° revertion
4. 4° revertion

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: