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:Kire1975 reported by User:FellowMellow (Result: Both warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: User talk:FellowMellow (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kire1975 (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]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:

As seen in the links provided, at first it was unclear, as I thought my comments were clear, but I had only made one edit (in contrast to what user made) and then accusation of vandalism followed. User has edited and reverted multiple times on talk page (which appears to be like vandalism) and I was interested in discussing, until user alleged that I had made such as being "uncivil, inappropriate or otherwise unconstructive" and made "abusive" comments. As you can take a look in the edit summary and the edits themselves, no such "inappropriate" and "abusive" have been made. I warned the user that further reverts, instigation, and what appears to be vandalism on the talk page would result, in me requesting administrator intervention. User has now left a message, threatening to block me without further notice. [9]. So I believed it was appropriate to generate this report. - FellowMellow (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

These are not reverts. Kire1975 (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

As seen in (Diffs of the user's reverts) section. - FellowMellow (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Why did you edit your 07:38 comment to make it look like my 07:34 comment is a reply to yours? Kire1975 (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The comment is an explanation to why the report was made and what specifically needs to be mentioned. You happened to write before I was able to publish the comment. That has to be at the top. Then all comments below are discussions. That’s how it has always been. Also what are you talking about? How is this considered to be a lookalike? - FellowMellow (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. I didn't revert anything related to you tonight or ever. Kire1975 (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, you don’t have to. That’s solely your choice. I will wait to discuss with the administrators. - FellowMellow (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Why did you also change the time on your signature without an edit summary after the Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion on my talk page as you did here? Kire1975 (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Kire1975: Please self-revert your latest posts to FellowMellow's Talk page. You cannot insist on posting warnings to another user's Talk page after they repeatedly remove them. @FellowMellow, do you wish to ban Kire1975 from your Talk page or just want them to stop posting about the current fight the two of you are having? Also, do not label other users' edits as vandalism when there is nothing to support such an accusation; it is considered a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23, listen, a personal attack is when you attack someone’s own personal self and something associated with them. This is nowhere near considered to be a personal attack and I have not made any personal attack. Saying someone is vandalizing does not equate with personal attacks. I just want the user to stop posting about the current fight the two of you are having. However, this isn’t the only place the user put it. The user also decided to spread conflict into Talk:2024 Democratic National Convention page. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." (WP:NPA).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  However, Kire1975's actions posting increasing warnings at FellowMellow's talkpage for frankly no reason at all are completely out of order; I am amazed that a user with 12000 edits thinks it is OK to abuse the warning system like this. I am tempted just to pblock them from FM's talk page. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  What is the appropriate thing to do when a user repeatedly accuses me of vandalism without evidence in an escalating fashion? (Evidence here, here, here and here.) Also, what does this have to do with edit warring? Kire1975 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  The reason I posted warnings on FM's talk page is for not assuming good faith and uncivil edit summaries, and Bbb23 said:*Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence..

  To be clear, the first time I posted was to ask them to self-revert a reversion they made without an edit summary that I had recently made that was based on sound police WP:NOTSEEALSO. I did so to specifically avoid the possibility of an edit war. Kire1975 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Kire1975 Your actions did not prevent and edits didn’t prevent an edit war, as you claim. You attempted to enable further. - FellowMellow (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Thank you, I appreciate it for weighing in. - FellowMellow (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Self-reverts as requested here and here. Kire1975 (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did not label FellowMellow's edits as vandalism. Please do not accuse me of doing so without evidence. Kire1975 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Both users are warned: FellowMellow, no more accusations of vandalism; Kire1975, no more posting to FellowMellow's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Can you please ask FM to remove the false accusation of vandalism posted here? Kire1975 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hello? Kire1975 (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Kire1975 based on the link that the user provided ([10], I ask for the section the user created to please be completely removed, as the user merged the discussions on my talk page on the article’s talk page. - FellowMellow (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is another accusation about behavior by FM without evidence. Kire1975 (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:2804:14D:BAC1:4CDC:2427:ABC5:AADE:5D66 reported by User:L3X1 (Result: No violation)

Page: The Hellenic Initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2804:14D:BAC1:4CDC:2427:ABC5:AADE:5D66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Edited Summary"
2. 19:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC) "Extended updates"
3. 00:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC) "Updates and further details"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP (check history) has added what I believe to be improper material to the article 3 times. As such I don't want to revert them nd get engaged in an edit war. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 21 August 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. I took care of reverting the latest edit for you. You might want to consider requesting page protection as a better long-term option if they keep up. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:LuciferMorningstar2 reported by User:Thewikizoomer (Result: Already blocked indef)

Page: Fur Affinity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: LuciferMorningstar2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 06:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 06:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 06:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Fur Affinity."
2. 06:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Looks like these were the only edits they made too. Raises questions whether if this is their first time. Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Three-revert-rule violation observed. Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This user is already blocked as a VOA. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 08:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked indefinitely per above. Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Frost reported by User:Thewikizoomer (Result: Declined)

Page: Fur Affinity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edits by LuciferMorningstar2 (talk) (HG) (3.4.12)"
2. 06:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edit by LuciferMorningstar2 (talk) to last version by Frost"
3. 06:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edit by LuciferMorningstar2 (talk) to last version by Frost"
4. 06:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edits by LuciferMorningstar2 (talk) (HG) (3.4.12)"
5. 06:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edits by SweetenerRocks (talk) (HG) (3.4.12)"
6. 05:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edits by MoxxieBoss (talk) (HG) (3.4.12)"
7. 05:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edits by MoxxieBoss (talk) (HG) (3.4.12)"
8. 05:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edit by 2601:206:857E:20F0:109C:3C04:C6E4:B038 (talk) to last version by Frost"
9. 05:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 2601:206:857E:20F0:109C:3C04:C6E4:B038 (talk) (HG) (3.4.12)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Fur Affinity."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User appears to be experienced. three revert rule violated. Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I see WP:3RRNO in play here. The edits reverted were obvious vandalism. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 08:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I second JalenFolf; edits were obviously vandalism from (what was probably) multiple socks. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Declined per the above. —Ingenuity (t • c) 12:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Kelvintjy reported by User:Wound theology (Result: Both pblocked)

Page: Soka Gakkai (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: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:
There is currently an ANI thread up about this user, but this is a more immediate problem. The user in question keeps reverting the page back to their preferred version, not just rolling back my own edits but also those of other users, sometimes after weeks of editing have taken place. wound theology◈ 08:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Kindly refer to the previous report. Kelvintjy (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• [20]

Please also see the ongoing case in the next link as well. Kelvintjy (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• [21]
• Both pblocked indefinitely from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

May I know why I am being permanently block from editing? Kelvintjy (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Bit overkill. wound theology◈ 13:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

User:DrKay reported by User:John (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] This shows DrKay warning the user they are edit-warring with (3 reverts) about the 3RR rule, when they have made 4 reverts themselves, albeit in just over 24 hours. The fact they posted a warning shows they are aware of the prohibition on edit-warring. DrKay is an administrator and should really know better than this. I find the spectacle of an admin threatening another user with a templated warning in an edit-war which they themselves are involved in most unedifying.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't reverted; I noticed them going back and forth as I made a separate edit, which thankfully wasn't reverted. I've now added a section in talk although, not being a party to the dispute, I am not required to.

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

Comments:
I encountered DrKay a few years ago at this article and perceived an OWN issue with them. I have steered clear since then. I am highly unimpressed with them edit-warring in this way. John (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no breach of the bright-line rule, or any "threatening [of] another user". The removal of unsourced, misleading information from the lead of an article that does not otherwise contain that information is hardly unusual enough to be called a "spectacle". DrKay (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC) I've had a rummage around for this supposed clash between John and me but can only find this, and subsequent[29][30], which hardly seems to qualify. John argues there with a number of editors and my comments are minimal. So, I will need to be pointed at this alleged encounter explicitly. DrKay (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. As the OP says, the reverts are over more than a 24h period, but frankly even they weren't, this is a featured article and User:Yekshemesh is trying to add unsourced original research to the lead paragraph so I'm unsurprised it is being reverted. That's just disruption and even though it isn't technically included in WP:3RRNO I would give some definite leeway to someone who is removing it. I'm surprised the OP doesn't see that problem. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Edit: indeed I've just had to remove another bit of complete OR by the same editor from a different featured article, so if there are any sanctions to be handed out here, I suspect they will definitely heading in that direction. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Gosh, I had no idea repeated reversions while handing out edit-warring warnings was allowable behaviour on a non-BLP featured article. As you say, it certainly isn't written down anywhere. I guess it's an unwritten rule? Does it only apply for admins, or are all users allowed to edit-war on FAs? John (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

3RR is a technical bright line, and that metric has to exist, but equally I don't think you'll find any admin that will block any user (regardless of whether they're an admin or not) for removing disruptive material from an article (especially a fairly high traffic featured article) unless there is some other problematic issue, which there is not here. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see your logic. Blocks are not the only tool available though; there are warnings and protections. I think that for this level of lack of awareness (four reverts, warning the other editor, no talk page participation) a warning would be in order. My concern is that this outcome (Result: No violation) empowers the edit-warrior to continue in this substandard way in the future, when there are other, better ways to solve editing problems. Or else, and I wouldn't favour this, form a consensus that FAs have special rules attached to them. Otherwise, this leaves somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth. John (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wtf? "the reverts are over more than a 24h period, but frankly even they weren't..." I've never seen that overtly expressed before even if one suspected it. FA or no FA, disruptive (perceived) or not disruptive, high traffic or not "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense is fundamental to 3RR. That's a bad rationale. DeCausa (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Seanmoral135 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Sabrina Carpenter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Seanmoral135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 18:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 17:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 16:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 10:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sabrina Carpenter."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also edit warring on LeAnn Rimes and Tape Inc. and likely other pages. No communication, with plenty of warnings and opportunities to discuss. Amaury • 06:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Seanmoral135 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: LeAnn Rimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Seanmoral135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 09:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 21:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 07:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "/* LeAnn Rimes lead photo */ Reply"
2. 00:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "/* LeAnn Rimes lead photo */ point to existing discussion"
3. 14:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on LeAnn Rimes."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:LeAnn_Rimes#Lead_image

Comments: Lots of messages on user talk page and article talk page. Ignores them all. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)