Someone keeps editing my Wikipedia page

Is it vandalism, a content dispute or ordinary editing?

Look at the intent and the evidence behind the edits. Vandalism is an attempt to damage the article. A content dispute is a disagreement about what reliable sources support. Ordinary editing is someone improving the article in a way that is within policy, even if it is not the version you would choose. Each has a different remedy, and using the wrong one costs credibility.

Subjects tend to read the fourth row as the first. Wikipedia's ownership of content policy says that nobody, including the subject, owns an article or can dictate what it says, so a well-sourced change that makes a page less flattering is part of the normal process.

What does Wikipedia count as vandalism?

Vandalism is editing deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the purpose of the project. The vandalism policy is explicit about what falls outside that definition: any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, edit warring over how to present content, additions that breach the neutral point of view, and bold editing.

The label matters. The policy warns that calling good-faith edits vandalism can be harmful, and advises avoiding the word unless it is clear the person means to damage Wikipedia. A subject who accuses an established editor of vandalism for removing promotional text will find the accusation counted against them in any later discussion.

Real vandalism is handled quickly. Anyone can revert it, and an editor who continues after warnings can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where administrators decide whether to block. The policy notes that warnings are generally a prerequisite for that.

What is edit warring and the three-revert rule?

Edit warring is what happens when editors who disagree repeatedly override each other's changes instead of discussing them. Wikipedia's edit warring policy says that being right is no defence: restoring your preferred version again and again is edit warring whatever its merits.

The three-revert rule is the policy's bright line. An editor must not make more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours, whether or not they involve the same material. A breach usually leads to a block, often of 24 hours for a first offence. The policy is equally clear that the rule is a marker rather than a licence, and that it is entirely possible to edit war without breaking it.

Some reverts are generally exempt, including:

• reverting obvious vandalism;
• removing contentious unsourced or poorly sourced material about a living person;
• removing clear copyright violations or unambiguous spam;
• reverting banned or blocked users and their sockpuppets.

The policy advises that, when in doubt, editors should not revert, and should explain any exemption they rely on. Articles under arbitration or community sanctions can carry stricter limits, such as a one-revert rule. How reverts are counted, the exemptions and what follows a report are covered in our guide to Wikipedia edit wars and the three-revert rule.

Why should a connected editor never join the reverting?

Because it combines two of the things Wikipedia scrutinises most: a conflict of interest and edit warring. The conflict of interest guideline already strongly discourages connected people from editing the article directly, and it names edit warring to retain favourable content as one of the risks it exists to prevent.

The guideline does allow connected editors to remove unambiguous vandalism and unambiguous violations of the biographies policy. The word that matters is unambiguous. The guideline adds that if another editor objects for any reason, an edit is not uncontroversial, and the biographies policy itself cautions that what qualifies for its exemption can be disputed. A subject who removes sourced criticism and calls it a biographies violation is likely to be reverted, and then to be in an edit war on their own article.

Every revert is in the page history under the account that made it. Reverts by a connected account are the evidence an administrator reads when deciding on a block, a connected contributor notice on the talk page or a report to the conflict of interest noticeboard. The safer pattern is to stop, post on the talk page and let uninvolved editors act.

How do you resolve a content dispute on Wikipedia?

Start on the article's talk page and escalate only when discussion has stalled. Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy says talk page discussion is a prerequisite for almost every higher venue, and that discussion only in edit summaries does not count. It also asks participants to focus on content, not on other editors' conduct.

A connected person can take part in all of these, provided the connection is disclosed. Arguing the same point at length after consensus has gone against it is treated as disruptive under the conflict of interest guideline, so the aim at each stage is to make the sourced case once, clearly, and accept the result.

For a biography, the biographies noticeboard is often the most useful of these, because it handles the application of that policy to specific content. Our guide to correcting inaccurate information covers how it works.

Can you get the page protected?

You can ask, but only an administrator can protect a page, and only when there is current disruption. The protection policy describes protection as a technical restriction applied by administrators, which any user can request, and says protecting a page purely as a pre-emptive measure is contrary to Wikipedia's open nature. Requests go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

The level depends on the problem:

• Semi-protection stops new and unregistered accounts editing, and is used for persistent vandalism or disruption from them, especially on biographies of living persons. It is not to be used to favour registered editors in a genuine content dispute.
• Pending changes holds edits from new and unregistered accounts for review. The policy says it should never be used in genuine content disputes.
• Full protection can be applied temporarily to stop an edit war. Administrators are told not to favour either version, so the page may well be frozen in the version you dislike.

Protection is kept as short and as light as the problem allows. It is not a way to keep critics out, and a request framed that way will be refused. Our guide to page protection explains the levels in more detail.

What can you do about a persistent hostile editor?

Treat it as a conduct problem and use Wikipedia's conduct processes, with evidence. The dispute resolution policy sets out the order: raise the behaviour politely on the editor's own talk page, then, if it continues, report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems. Arbitration is the last resort and does not decide content.

A report there should be short and built on diffs, the links to individual edits that show the problem. You must leave a notice on the other editor's talk page when you start the discussion. Simple vandalism goes to the vandalism noticeboard instead, and edit warring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Administrators will look at whether you tried to resolve the problem first, and at your own conduct as well as theirs.

Some responses make matters much worse:

• Outing. Posting another editor's real name, employer, job title or other personal details, unless they have disclosed them on Wikipedia themselves, breaches the harassment policy, and an attempt is grounds for an immediate block.
• Off-wiki attacks. Contacting, following or pressuring an editor outside Wikipedia is harassment, and administrators treat it as an aggravating factor.
• Recruiting supporters to join a discussion, which the canvassing guideline treats as disruptive.
• Extra accounts to give the impression of more support or to evade a block, which the sockpuppetry policy prohibits.

If you have private evidence that a hostile editor has an undisclosed interest of their own, the harassment policy allows it to be sent privately to administrators, functionaries or the Arbitration Committee, sharing the minimum needed. It should never be posted on a public page.

When does a repeated-edit problem need outside help?

When the problem is plain vandalism, often not. Anyone may revert it, connected editors included, and a protection request backed by a few diffs is a routine thing to file.

A content dispute or a determined editor is different. The subject is the party Wikipedia trusts least in that situation, and every move is judged partly as conduct. The talk page, the noticeboards and the administrators' noticeboard all keep their archives, and an edit warring block stays in the block log of the account that earned it, with the reasons in the noticeboard thread. Knowing which venue fits, writing a neutral summary, and staying silent when nothing useful remains to say are the skills that decide these cases.

We do not revert on our clients' behalf or promise a result. Our dispute support starts from a read of the history, and a page health check will tell you which of the situations above you are in.