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:Crashed greek reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: Declined)

Page: Maratha Resurrection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crashed greek (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:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:

• Not within 24 hours, but certainly an attempt to game the system, as the fourth revert was made just outside the 24-hour period. PadFoot (talk)

This is backdoor attempt by the User:PadFoot2008 to bypass the WP:AFD process. He has no right to delete an article by redirecting. I have undone his deletion, I have not undone any edit to his text as such. I would not have reverted if it was any article text editing by him. Crashed greek (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't give you any right to violate 3RR at your own will. The article lacks any notability, or RS confirming the existence of such a period, and is a clear case of a WP:OR by an editor, but I retained it as a redirect to the main article (Maratha Confederacy), as many articles had links to it. PadFoot (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support WP:BOOMERANG it appears User:PadFoot2008 is attempting to backdoor delete. The article should probably go to AfD though, fwiw. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have not broken 3RR nor do I intend to break 3RR, nor do I have an intention of editwarring. I know reporters don't have any 'immunity', but I know what 3RR is, and do not intend to break it or engage in editwarring, look at the page history, I've not reverted anymore since. On the other hand, Crashed greek has indeed violated 3RR and has been warned for it too. Also, @Kcmastrpc, could you please tell what is backdoor deleting? I have never heard of that term before except in this case. If there is an issue, I've no problem doing to an AfD. PadFoot (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Editors involved in an edit war don't necessarily need to cross the red line of 3RR to be considered subjects of edit warring sanctions. With regards to backdoor, see WP:NOBLANK and WP:PRESERVE. Since this isn't a BLP, it's hard for me to believe it was imperative to edit war on this article over a redirect. I suspect this article wouldn't survive WP:AFD, but just blanking the page over WP:OR sidesteps processes Wikipedia has in place to find consensus for verification issues (see WP:FAIL). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry @Kcmastrpc, I wasn't aware of those. I have opened an AfD now, I would appreciate your participation. PadFoot (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Declined The article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha Resurrection, and should remain as a standalone article during that discussion. @PadFoot2008: If you make a WP:BLAR that is then contested, discuss it on the article's talk page or another appropriate venue (the proposed target's talk page, for example) rather than edit warring. Creating this comment a few minutes before you created this report, but well after all of the reverts were made by both of you, does not come across as an attempt at discussion. Aoidh (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also to be clear, @PadFoot2008: please note that Wikipedia:Edit warring states that The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. The only reason you weren't blocked for this is because the article is now being discussed at AfD, so I don't expect that reverts will continue at this point. - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh, thank you. PadFoot (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Xslyq reported by User:Symphony Regalia (Result: Psge protected)

Page: Assassin's Creed Shadows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xslyq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff 1
2. Diff 2
3. Diff 3
4. Diff 4
5. Diff 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning by another editor [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

Comments:

User registered in 2017, and then made their first edit one week ago to strong-arm poorly sourced nationalist POVs/WP:FRINGE in the Assassin's Creed Shadows article, using a website that denies the Nanking Massacre.

User was warned by both another editor[12] and myself to stop edit warring and wait for discussion before forcing changes given that said changes were opposed by multiple editors on talk[13] [14][15]. User then misrepresented discussion as closed, started a RfC with selective notification (failing to notify the editor who told him to stop editing warring), and then immediately continued to revert to force their change without waiting for the RfC that concerns the change. Symphony Regalia (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I did not violate 3RR.I have been actively trying to resolve the dispute.

The editor referred to by Symphony Regalia was not directly involved in the discussion of the article, but was only involved because of previous disputes with IP users. A compromise consensus had indeed been reached before Symphony Regalia itself revised it without discussion.

I also strongly disagree with the accusation that was poorly sourced, which can be found here. I'm simply reverting to Symphony Regalia's behavior of removing content at the time of the ongoing RfC.Xslyq (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: User did violate 3RR (Revert diffs 2, 3, 4, 5 take place between 04:02 24 September 2024 and 03:41, 25 September 2024). Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

During the ongoing RfC, the version of Symphony Regalia should be considered disruptive editing.Therefore, I think did not violate 3RR.Xslyq (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for two weeks by Acalamari. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

User:CrashD2025 reported by User:Dont trap anna (Result: Declined)

Page: Psyche (mythology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: CrashD2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16] Original edit and my reversion directing User:CrashD2025 to read the style guide after confirming that the article was originally written in BCE/CE format. This can be seen here [17] proving that User:CrashD2025's comment "restored universal gregorian designations" is not a restoration of an original format but a new format that they have decided is 'correct'.
2. [18] another back and forth with User:CrashD2025. Their edit explanation, "removing nascent patois unknown to the ancients to which this article points" is nonsense considering that BC and AD were not used in the 2nd century.
3. 3RR violation (I acknowledge the violation is both mine and theirs.)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. See above

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [19]

Comments:

I am unsure how to resolve this issue when User:CrashD2025 does not have a talk page. Please advise. This lead me to violating the 3RR rule, for which I apologize. I wasn't sure how to proceed when I could not contact the user and was hoping that they would soon give up. Please advise on any discrepancies or errors in this report as it is my first! Thank you. Dont trap anna (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Dont trap anna: If a user does not have a talk page, you would simply write a comment and publish the edit the same you would as if you were creating a new section on a page, this creates the page. I've left them a talk page comment. While you were both edit warring, it should be noted that WP:3RR is more than three reverts on a single page. I would suggest writing an explanation on the talk page explaining why you have been reverting the edit, and invite the editor to participate in that discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh: Thank you so much for your advice. I am relieved to learn that I had not yet broken WP:3RR but chagrined to have edit warred. I will certainly edit the section on the talk page to further explain why I have been reverting their edits. Thank you for also commenting on their talk page. Do I need to do anything else? What should I do if they ignore your comments and the discussion on Talk:Psyche? Do I modify this report or create a new one? Dont trap anna (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Dont trap anna: If the report is still up you can comment here, but otherwise you can either leave me a message or open a new report. - Aoidh (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh Awesome! Thank you so much. Dont trap anna (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Declined The editor is a new editor that was not properly warned on their talk page so I will not block them at this point. @CrashD2025: if edit warring continues without a WP:CONSENSUS to change the MOS:ERA, you may be blocked to prevent further disruption to the article. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Glass Snow reported by User:Parqs (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Hunter Schafer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Glass Snow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Version being reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert 1 07:44, 25 September 2024‎ Undid revision 1247645930 by Parqs (talk) Rv unexplained edit
2. Revert 2 21:15, 25 September 2024‎ If it is stated a “hundred times in the article” it should be in the lead sentence, per MOS:LEAD. Moreover it says they made their debut in a trans acting role, not that they are trans in the lead.
3. Revert 3 06:42, 26 September 2024‎ Other articles do not dictate how this one is written. Being transgender is a highly WP:NOTABLE aspect of this individual, their career, and activism. It should not be excluded from the lead simply because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Please do not edit war any further.
4. Revert 4 08:00, 26 September 2024‎ Edit warring behavior by Parqs, dodging WP:3RR by only a few minutes. If there is some syntactical error with the phrasing, please adjust it instead of non-constructively reverting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor warned me of 3RR after my 2nd revert promptly before violating the rule themselves

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: We have spoken on my talk page

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

Comments:

I did not warn the editor of the 3RR but the user warned me of it and then proceeded to break it themselves. Editor has previously reverted other editors making this same change to the article. We did not have a discussion in the article talk page but did have a brief discussion on my talk page. Editor made their 4th revert 16 minutes outside of the 24 hour rule. parqs (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:87Fan (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable; both warned)

Page: Lori Mattix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Horse Eye's Back (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [27]

Comments:
I think my comments got lost in my initial edit. Horse Eye's Back has been warned off of edits on the David Bowie page already (see the very lengthy discussions at Talk:David_Bowie (here's a link to a diff [28]), and set up the new Lori Mattix page to host the content there instead. I have been updating the page with sourced content etc., trying my best to maintain WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR because I am aware of the delicate nature of this content. However, Horse Eyes' Back continues to revert content, often citing WP:BLP.

• Not even sure where to start with this one... Thats not four reverts, its three (the first two are sequential). That EW warning comes after all of the edits and immediately before the ANEW notice, there are no edits post notice. That is not a "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page." The link to the David Bowie talk page does not support the statement made... I did not set up the Lori Mattix page. 87Fan may be trying their best... But they don't seem to be able to overcome an immense pro-Bowie bias. It is true that I cited BLP as my reason for reverting, I believe that I did so correctly and as directed unambiguously by policy. In specific regard to EW we had content here that was biased and unsourced/poorly sourced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As Horse Eye's Back correctly states, they reverted only 3x; however, both HEB and 87Fan are edit warring and may find themselves blocked without notice if they continue. Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

User:AneasSu reported by User:Roffaduft (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29] 09:38, 26 September 2024 - Clarification of "frequency spectrum", which is ambiguous
2. [30] 12:38, 27 September 2024 - Added a proof, without removing the lead section. A proof may help many learners to understand it, so if its layout is inappropriate, please be so kind to fix it instead of deleting the proof.
3. [31] 13:03, 27 September 2024
4. [32] 13:34, 27 September 2024
5. [33] 13:55, 27 September 2024 - Undid vandalism

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

Comments:

User fully ignores the reasons why his edits get reverted and continues to copy/paste the exact same statement. I've tried to address the issue on the user's talk page, but to no avail.

Accusations by Roffaduft about both edit warring and lack of verifiability are false.

1. I did not violate 3RR, since from 13:55, 26 September 2024 to 13:55, 27 September 2024, I undid the editions of Roffaduft 3 times, not more than 3 revisions.

2. The accusation about verifiability by Roffaduft is also invalid, since the Proof section written by me can be verified from reliable sources, as the theorems used in the proof are quoted from other wikipedia pages, and the demonstration is logically consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AneasSu (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet, you provided zero reliable sources. Don’t create a false narrative by suggesting you did. Roffaduft (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, direct quotations are reliable sources, and logical statements are universally verifiable. Stop vandalizing other people’s works AneasSu (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere did you use direct quotations.

Also, please stop with the spiteful, unsupported accusations of vandalism, here and on my talkpage, just because of this edit warring dispute.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AneasSu: The policy says the exact opposite about direct quotations, i.e., that quotations must be supported by an inline source. It says nothing about "logical statements" at all, let alone that they are "universally verifiable". Finally, stop calling other editors' comments or edits vandalism. It's a personal attack, and if you persist, I will block you for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding the verifiability criteria. I will refer to a textbook to justify the theorems used in the proof.

AneasSu (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)