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:2604:3D09:1476:D330:C447:5E29:8623:6031 reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: /64 range blocked 3 months)

Page: Mako Komuro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2604:3D09:1476:D330:C447:5E29:8623:6031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:34, 3 March 2023‎ (UTC) the reference article have some not legitimate .such a as he entered the LLM in 2018, but the it was written in 2017 which is wrong. His occupation at the time of the engagement was a paralegal, therefore some contents are not legit in the references
2. 01:51, 3 March 2023‎ (UTC) There is no his name on the list of the recognition page of the commencement for the Class of 2021 at Fordham University. https://www.fordham.edu/commencement/past-ceremonies/commencement-for-the-class-of-2021/
3. 22:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 22:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC) "Added links"
5. 21:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC) "clearly, the spell of name is wrong,his occupation at the time of the announcement of the engagement was a part time paralegal while attending evening classes at the Hitotsubashi University : Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy"
6. 20:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC) "name spelled wrong, there’s no official announcement about his graduation on May 23rd, 2021 provided from Fordham University, his admitted date was wrong in the reference provided."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mako Komuro."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC) "BLP noticeboard"

Comments: BLP discussion Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing the article history there has been disruptive editing from the same dynamic ip range over the last several days. Reverts of their edits by other editors over the same issue.[1] [2][3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I just realised Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU since they are using the iOS mobile app. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• /64 range blocked 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:2604:3D09:1476:D330:45F7:3FD6:9E1B:163B reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: /64 range blocked 3 months)

Page: Mako Komuro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2604:3D09:1476:D330:45F7:3FD6:9E1B:163B (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 03:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) to 03:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
   1. 03:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Marriage */"
   2. 03:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Marriage */"
   3. 03:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Marriage */"
   4. 03:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Marriage */"
   5. 03:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Marriage */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

5RR for this particular IP. Part of an IP range concentrating on the page.   Aloha27  talk  03:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I do not understand what is the 5RR? 2604:3D09:1476:D330:45F7:3FD6:9E1B:163B (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

See your talk page. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  04:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• /64 range blocked 3 months (dupe of report just above).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:DFoidl reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9] Edit summary suggests the editor thought they were reverting the same content again; the material I restored in the preceding edit was a different passage I found when looking through the version history and otherwise unrelated to the current content dispute.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10] (Note: this editor has been warned previously about edit warring in the same subject area)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:

• DFoidl has repeatedly removed content in this subject area over the last few years, often sourced content they personally disagree with. Their deletions are made generally without reference to policy and sometimes with miscomprehension of the sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:BeanieFan11 reported by User:Therapyisgood (Result: )

Page: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17] [18]

Comments:
BeanieFan11 has previously been reported to ANI for bludgeoning at AFD here, which led to a broader discussion about WikiProject NFL and his behavior in general. While 3RR has not been violated by either BeanieFan11 or BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I would support a warning for especially BeanieFan11. I would warn normally but I'm WP:INVOLVED with BeanieFan11 as I reported him to ANI earlier in the year, about a month ago. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That list is for only those who have no coverage at all that could possibly be considered sigcov. That coverage is arguably sigcov and that person is automatically notable for being in a national biographical dictionary, so should not be listed. Also, I think its worth noting that the other day BilledMammal made six reverts of me (when I only did three - I would not violate 3RR). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As a correction, both BeanieFan11 and I have violated 3RR. I apologize for my action yesterdaytwo days ago; it shouldn't have happened, but I lost count of the number of reverts I made and made five. I note, however, that these reverts were to undo changes to my proposal, and believe they shouldn't have happened without my agreement per WP:TPO.

BeanieFan11 violated 3RR both yesterday and today. I haven't counted the number of times they reverted yesterday, but today they made at least four; one partial and three full. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I have not violated 3RR – removing one entry from a list of 1,000 in this case is not a "revert" (when someone has reverted that, and then I revert it back, that would be a revert. But I have not done that more than three times so am not in violation of 3RR). I would not violate 3RR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You undid part of my comment; that is a partial revert. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree with that statement. As one support !voter said, "I supported this extraordinary proposal only on specific conditions, including the absence of any SIGCOV. If SIGCOV have even arguably been added to some small portion of the articles, those articles should be stricken from the list" – I was adding sigcov and removing them from the extremely long list, as they should be. I do not believe that counts as a "revert." BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That almost certainly counts as a revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I still disagree, and it seems so does Therapyisgood (While 3RR has not been violated by either BeanieFan11...). 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

" Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact. ... The three-revert rule (part of the edit warring policy) limits the number of times an editor can revert edits (including partial reversions) on a page."WP:REVERT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I should not have to request on your talk page to remove entries from that list that are clearly notable and have been improved so that they no longer meet the criteria you listed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer you work on a different list until after the RfC ends to avoid disruption but if you insist on working on this one then I already gave you permission to remove articles when they contain sources that plausibly meet WP:GNG.

My objection come from you removing articles where you have added a single trivial source, or where you added some text but no sources. I also object to you removing articles like Defkalion Rediadis from the list, where it appears that you haven't accessed the sources you provided and instead copied them with the help of a machine translation from the Greek Wikipedia (one source is an offline source, the other one is a dead link). BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The list is a list of articles that hadn't been edited in years. It's transparent that beanie is going through the list trying to find a reason to make an edit in order to remove them from the list. The list was made according to certain criteria; beanie is trying to edit all the articles so they no longer meet the criteria. Beanie was involved in the pre-RFC and didn't do this then, instead waiting until the RfC started. I asked Beanie on his talk page to stop but he continued. This is a TPO issue: BM should be able to make a proposal without Beanie trying to alter the proposal. Beanie can !vote (and has made many comments already) and point out perceived deficiencies with the list. He is spamming my watchlist making so many edits to that page, trying to winnow a list of 900+ articles down 1 by 1, which doesn't even make a difference to the overall RfC. It's pure disruption to try and win an RfC. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The list is for those who have no sigcov currently and no significant edits other than Lugnuts. Many of those are clearly notable. I was going through and improving the clearly notable ones (with sigcov, expansions) so that they would not be removed from Wikipedia if the proposal passes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I had improved a few before the RFC started when the pre-RFC discussion was going on; however, that period of time was not very long and so I was unable to improve many articles in that time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think its more a general competence issue, if they don't know what a revert is and they don't know how they're supposed to behave on talk pages after three years and 24k edits thats ummm yeah... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Beanie is still editing articles so he can remove them from the RFC. Now approaching 100 edits to the VPR RFC. Levivich (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I still haven't violated anything. It is acceptable to remove them if they have sigcov; if you would say that is not sigcov, then we can discuss it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for you to be making so many edits to that RFC. You've made 72 edits to this RFC since it opened 48hrs ago. Please do not make a 73rd. Levivich (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like both editors understand the issue in question and know what to do in the future. I'm more concerned that the same small handful of editors is engaging in what I would regard as borderline harassment of BeanieFan11. The user that started this thread also started the initial discussion, which ended in no action being taken against BeanieFan11 - there was no consensus for any form of warning, even, let alone a sanction of any kind. The second discussion has been even more clear, with most people expressing straight-up confusion over how notifying Sports WikiProjects of the potential mass-userfication of sports articles is a problem; for what it's worth, I've not participated in the RfD in question yet but I'd be inclined to support deleting most of these pages. Holding either thread over BeanieFan11 is simply not fair, and it frankly seems like an attempt to bludgeon them into submission. Toa Nidhiki05 23:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Swan787 reported by User:25Means (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Brandon Johnson (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Swan787 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]

Comments:
Hi there! I was a bit concerned seeing some unsourced and biassed language on the above page, a biography of a living person in an active political race, when I came across it earlier today (see my note on the talk page for more info). I attempted to fix the problem by preserving the new information shared (such as additional information on policies and endorsements) while adding balancing information so as to preserve a NPOV, and started a discussion on the editor in question's talk page, as well as the talk page on the article--though I haven't heard anything back from the editor in question, as they've continued to mass-revert. Rather than edit warring, I thought I'd post a notice here so we can work this out. Appreciate all of your help. 25Means (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I indefinitely blocked Swan787 for edit-warring at multiple articles, POV-editing, and some personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I'm going to go ahead and revert the page to the last edit prior to their mass-reversion pending further discussion on the talk page about what to do with the information they added. 25Means (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Raven9nine reported by User:Manyareasexpert (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Alley of Angels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raven9nine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: No content - article has been deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alley of Angels

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alley of Angels#Reversions

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

Comments:

Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked Raven9nine for 24 hours, with a note explaining why in more detail. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Shivarjun Das reported by User:Anachronist (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Indian Institute of Planning and Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shivarjun Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32] (although the term "widely" in "widely criticized" should be removed, as that is the current version being reverted to)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management&diff=prev&oldid=1142888946 diff (part of a 2 part revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

Comments:

Also noting this is an SPA, who has already been warned about PAID (I concur with that assessment). DMacks (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

At the beginning of February, Shivarjun Das appeared as a single-purpose account, and proceeded to engage in some whitewashing activity. He has used misleading edit summaries, characterizing as a "typo" the removal of reliable sources[36] and changing the meaning of a sentence to its opposite[37], and he has been using the lead section of the article for the purpose of proclaiming breaking news[38], in spite of being told repeatedly that this is not what the lead section is for.

Note that this article has had problems in the past (covered in reliable sources) with another SPA who eventually became an admin and was subsequently defrocked and blocked, described in the article at Indian Institute of Planning and Management#Wikipedia conflicts, so we are senstive when new SPAs appear exhibiting similar behavior. Shivarjun Das has denied being a paid editor on his talk page, but the behavior suggests at least an association. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's likely an indefinite block is on the horizon, but at this point I've blocked the user for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel reported by User:IceFrappe

Page: Muammar Gaddafi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]

• [42] (note the mass removal of my recent contribution due to obvious personal vendetta)
• [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [45]

Comments:

There has been some recent civil discussion about the length of the Gaddafi article and the over-reliance of one dated source with several sub-articles created by another editor (see Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi and Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi) to trim the length without issue until Aman.kumar.goel emerged out of thin air today to mass remove contents he did not like. After a quick glance at Aman.kumar.goel's contribution, it appears he has a political agenda, preoccupied with whitewashing activities. He has been aggressively revert-warrning to remove certain unflattering content about the subject matter while showing no interest whatsoever in actually writing the article with well-sourced research (as I and others have). He has also engaged in personal attack by baselessly accused good-faith editors of "disruptive editing" [46]. A plea for him to start discussing [47] was immediately removed. Again, this is an editor who has shown no inclination whatsoever in actually writing/researching the subject matter; his only interest is in mass removal. IceFrappe (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)