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: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)

Hello

Kelvintjy is a member of a controversial religious organization called Sôka Gakkai. Each time someone edits one of the pages related to this organization, he simply censors it. All his « well source » paragraphs are taken from books written by members of this organization. I have tried to add other views, critics, to make those pages more encyclopedic but Kelvin is not ok with critics.

Kelvinjy never tried to talk to me or discuss on the talk page, whereas I proposed many times - this is easy to check.

Please tell him Wikipedia is not his playground and/or just type « Sôka gakkai controversy » in google to realize those pages urgently need other POVs. Thanks. Raoul mishima (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Raoul mishima: Please review the page on dispute resolution. I would use the Wikipedia:Third opinion & mediation process.

I would also use the {{Primary source inline}} template to mark sources that are demonstrably primary sources. Anyone removing such a template could receive the {{Uw-tdel1}} warning or higher. Do not post warning messages on user talk pages yourself, Raoul mishima! Let a more experienced editor who does recent changes patrol or who monitors vandalism take care of such warnings. Peaceray (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks @Peaceray.

I will do that.

I’m not the only one concerned : @Wound theology also tried to ad informations about Sôka Gakkai but he also was censored by @Kelvintjy. Raoul mishima (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

User:149.50.169.109 and User:149.50.163.225 reported by User:100.36.106.199 (Result: /20 range blocked from the numbers articles for a week)

Page: 10,000,000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 1,000,000,000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 149.50.163.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 149.50.169.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• At 1,000,000,000:
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
• At 10,000,000:
  1. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]
  4. [8]
  5. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10], [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Meters post here (which admittedly is after the last batch of reverts) but so far the IP has not shown any acknowledgement of other users on their talk page or in edit summaries.

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

Comments:
I was going to wait to see if there was any result from the talk page response, but since this report has already been opened I'll point out that these two IPs (apparently the same user) have also made similar edits to 100,000,000:

• 1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16] Meters (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added the second IP to the header and noticfied them. Meters (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week 149.50.160.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), from all articles on numbers that they had been edit-warring on. There's too much collateral damage to block sitewide IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Thanks. I think you meant to partially block on 1,000,000,000 (or 100,000,000) rather than on 1,000,000. Meters (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ambeskine reported by User:Jlwoodwa (Result: Blocked 48 hours, article put on indef ECP and logged at CTOPS)

Page: Taylor Small (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life */ perhaps this is a good compromise?"
2. 01:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "As an openly transgender person, this is quite due and appropriate to address"
3. 00:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "It is an accurate statement."
4. 23:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC) "No reason given for reverting"
5. 22:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Squeakachu (talk): Previous version was accurate"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC) "alert ctop gas"
2. 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Taylor Small."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life */ new section"

Comments:

Repeatedly editing a trans woman's biography to describe her as male. I performed four reverts, but I believe that at least the three removing the phrase "male genitalia" qualify as WP:3RRBLP. I apologize if this is not the case. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed the "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" section. I submitted this report using Twinkle, and its description for that section is simply "Warnings given to subject". jlwoodwa (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1235960849 is a sixth reversion (a partial revert of Special:Diff/1235917165). jlwoodwa (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you addressed your edit warring at Brian Titone above? I believe that is also relevant to the discussion. Ambeskine (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I made a single revert to Brianna Titone. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I should be the one making the report against Jlwoodwa, who started the series of reverts and escalated it to this point. Since I am civil and have no interest in seeing another editor get blocked, however, I chose not to take this action. Ambeskine (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours It's a shorter block only because the user was alerted to CTOPS (GENSEX) after the edit warring. I have nonetheless put the page on indefinite ECP so Ambeskine won't be able to edit it for a while after the block expires (and keep an eye out for PGAMEing that should result in at least a revocation of ECP if earned that way.), and per recent discussions at AE enforcement that have unofficially allowed us to do this in GENSEX articles in cases of misgendering. This will also be logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you might have read it wrong – the ctop alert was at 22:59, between their first (22:08) and second (23:26) reverts. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt because the reverting started before the CTOPS alert. But due to the ECP Ambeskine won't be a problem on that article for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:7D8D:1400:C4AB:83C4:83C0:98D7 reported by User:Czello (Result: )

Page: Dyson (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:C7C:7D8D:1400:C4AB:83C4:83C0:98D7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "#article-section-source-editor"
2. 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "Updated short description"
3. 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "#article-section-source-editor"
4. [17]

Other edits 2 days ago

1. [18]
2. [19]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dyson (company)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Note that I've also included edits above from 2 days ago on a different IP on the /64 range. — Czello ^(music) 14:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

User:MarksmanRifle reported by User:Seasider53 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Hawk Tuah Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarksmanRifle (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)