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:DeccanFlood reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: Raghoji I of Nagpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DeccanFlood (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:

Not a violation of 3RR but the user has been engaging in a very long, drawn out edit war and is determined add the phrase "the Great" into the article lead without getting a consensus for it. Currently, the consensus is against the inclusion of such a title in the lead, as another editor has also objected to its inclusion in the talk page discussion. PadFoot (talk)

Blocked – for a period of one week from article. It may have been a two-to-one consensus, but consensus there was, against using the title in the lede. Deccan is free to continue discussing this; perhaps it would benefit to bring more editors into the discussion and strengthen consensus, if that is possible. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The other editor joined in as an ambivalent commentator. The title was sourced thrice and removed on false grounds of being a recent addition [7] which is proven false. It was not added by me but was present since 2022. You can view the original addition here: [8]. It has been vetted and kept unchallenged by all subsequent editors and admins overseeing developments of the article. It is @PadFoot2008 who initiated the reversions on false grounds [9]and not me. Please review your decision. There are no grounds to initiate consensus debates either, except disruption of the article building.

I recently showed the consensus debates initiated by @SKAG123 and @PadFoot2008 to turn Maratha Empire page into Maratha Confederacy and subsequently remove all traces of Maratha Empire from Wikipedia, also involved sham sockpuppets (3 out of 6 operated by a single vandal 1.[10], 2.[11], 3.[12], propped against 5). More editors experienced in Indian history should be brought into the discussion, though there is absolutely no ground for a such a non-controversial aspect, which I must remind everyone, is sourced. DeccanFlood (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edits did not come under 3RRNO. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Historyman1944 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Page: Battle of Chosin Reservoir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Historyman1944 (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]
4. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle of Chosin Reservoir#Outcome July 2024

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

Comments:
Persistent edit-warring by SPA. No breach of 3RR, but tiresome behaviour to impose their view. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Jack.bobo.786 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Cyriac Abby Philips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack.bobo.786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jack.bobo.786 is edit warring to change the lead for Cyriac Abby Philips from "shares critical views of alternative medicine based on his findings and research" to "shares views of alternative medicine based on his feelings".

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC) initial edit
2. 1:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reverted Hako9
3. 05:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reverted Toddy1
4. 11:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reverted Toddy1
5. 02:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reverted Hako9

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC), 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cyriac Abby Philips#This Scientist's Work is Highly Relevant.

Warnings on user talk page about (1) unsourced changes and (2) wrongly marking their edits as minor: User talk:Jack.bobo.786#July 2024

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 06:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Also added a CTOPS notice to talk page per WP:CT/CAM Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Aqua.107 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: War of the League of the Indies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aqua.107 (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] (Note: this was posted in response to edit-warring behaviour on another article shortly before this)

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

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

Comments:
Note: I've reported their wider history of edit-warring at WP:ANI (see archive) but it didn't get any attention. Their edit-warring has continued since then. R Prazeres (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi R Prazeres, you can't "revert" an edit war. You can participate in it. You did so. Fortunately, this has been a while ago and the latest reverts are between عبدالرحمن4132 (who should provide clear edit summaries or use the talk page when reverting) and Aqua.107, the former of whom has stopped edit warring and the latter of whom has made far more reverts and taunted the others, leading me to the conclusion that their current inactivity is only because their preferred revision is online. If you want to make such decisions easier in the future, please follow proper dispute resolution next time. The essay WP:DISCFAIL is the most helpful advice I have seen about this so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

User:DivineWave reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Indus Valley Civilisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC) "Added genetic data regarding harappan ancestry in present day indians along with multiple citations."
2. 14:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC) "Added genetic data regarding harappan ancestry in present day indians."
3. 13:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC) "Added the updated data regarding connection between the harappan ancestry and modern indian ancestry."
4. 12:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC) "I have updated latest genetic research and connection between harappan ancestry amd modern day populations."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Indus Valley Civilisation."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Vandalism warning. */"

Comments:

Persistently adding the same content without following WP:ONUS. Disagreeing views are labelled "vandalism". From a post on my talk page I suspect they might be a block-evading sock. Austronesier (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly opened a talk page for vandalism as the Austronesier without any discussion, kept on removing the content which is peer reviewed paper and conducted study by Harvard medical school geneticist Dr. David reich and his collaborations with CCMB,Hyderabad and published genetic data of modern day south Asians. I asked him to discuss on talk page but he just attacking me which you can clearly see in our talk page named vandalism alert. He falls into the definition of vandalism. Kindly help us out. Thanks. DivineWave (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring to the max and not willing to grasp what vandalism means:[29]. –Austronesier (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Instead of attacking me with those words i suggest you to provide reliable source for your disgareements regarding your disagreements because this is official research which is being taught in educational institutions and acceptted by all scholars and it is peer reviewed. Research was done by Dr.David reich ,havard medical school scholar and geneticist along with CCMB,Hyderabad. Already i advised you to discuss on talk oage yet you are continuing attacking me instead of discussing with me and sharing your source. Kindky encourage fruitful discussions and dont use such strong language. Reporting will actually work against you .thanks. DivineWave (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)