An editor keeps adding our lawsuits to our Wikipedia article and we can’t stop them. What are our options?
When one editor keeps adding the same content over others' objections, two parallel paths apply: the content path (open a Talk-page discussion that names the policy concern and builds consensus, which then constrains further unilateral edits) and the conduct path (escalate edit warring or harassment to the Administrators' Incidents noticeboard, ANI). The content path is usually sufficient; the conduct path is the fallback when an editor refuses to engage at all.
When a single editor keeps adding the same content over the objections of other editors, two parallel paths apply. In most cases the content path resolves the situation; the conduct path is the fallback for when an editor refuses to engage with the community process at all.
Two paths for handling a persistent editor
| Content path | Conduct path | |
|---|---|---|
| When it applies | The additions raise a policy concern with the article text itself. | The editor’s behavior crosses into edit warring, policy circumvention, or harassment. |
| Where it runs | The article Talk page. | The Administrators’ Incidents noticeboard (ANI). |
| What you do | Open a discussion that names the policy concern (NPOV imbalance, sourcing weakness, BLP application, undue weight), propose the policy-compliant treatment, and invite uninvolved editors to weigh in. | Document the conduct and escalate it so that uninvolved administrators can evaluate whether sanctions are warranted. |
| How it constrains the editor | If community consensus supports the policy-compliant version, the persistent editor is bound by that consensus, and further unilateral additions can be reverted with reference to it. | Administrators can impose blocks or other sanctions when conduct policy is violated. |
Start with the content path
The content path is usually sufficient on its own. A Talk-page discussion that identifies the specific policy problem and proposes the compliant wording lets uninvolved editors evaluate the dispute on the merits. Once consensus forms around the policy-compliant version, that consensus is what constrains the editor, not your individual reverts.
Use the conduct path as the fallback
The conduct path applies when the problem is behavior rather than text. Persistent edit warring, including breaching the three-revert rule (no more than three reverts on the same article within 24 hours), policy circumvention, or harassment can be escalated to ANI, where uninvolved administrators decide whether intervention or blocks are warranted. This is the route to take when an editor will not engage with the community process at all.
Last reviewed: 19/05/2026
