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:2001:e68:5415:ce:dd22:5629:17eb:853b reported by User:Matthewrb (Result: Page protected)

Page: The Twisted Timeline of Sammy & Raj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:e68:5415:ce:dd22:5629:17eb:853b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (And other related IPs)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1254876342
2. Special:Diff/1255086880
3. Special:Diff/1255343796
4. Special:Diff/1255875194
5. Special:Diff/1255890964
6. Special:Diff/1256062542
7. Special:Diff/1256322558
8. Special:Diff/1256456268
9. Special:Diff/1256481709
10. Special:Diff/1256723577
11. Special:Diff/1256791208

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A - SLOWEW

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, dispute resolution was only done via edit summaries.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [2]

Comments:
There appears to be a SLOWEW happening in this article, since the 1st of November. Multiple users, including @Basil2001: and @Gilo1969: have reverted but the IPs are making 2 changes or less per day. While this does not qualify as a 3rr in the traditional sense, I am bringing it here for a wider look as this is long-running and will probably continue without semi-protection . ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 17:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for three months. This is really a classic case of needing that; in the future you should take cases like this to RFPP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Daniel. I wasn't sure, so I went with the ANEW as the safe option... ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 21:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

User:EliasAntonakos reported by User:Makeandtoss (Result: Stale)

Page: November 2024 Amsterdam attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EliasAntonakos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert: involved changing infobox from military conflict to civilian attack + removing a paragraph.
2. Second revert: changing infobox from military conflict to civilian attack again [3] (a revert of [4]).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5] Five days have passed since the warning, and three days since I had linked and explained to them the definition of a revert as per WP's guidelines.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: <br / Hi, i have no idea why this user is accusing me of edit warring. As far as i understand and as someone wrote on my talk page, i did nothing wrong. More than that, it seems the one accusing me is not 100% sure about edit warring rules, more like bending it so he can be right. In the first edits I was merging an article, I did a revert only in the last edit. EliasAntonakos (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Stale. Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Can you please elaborate what is meant by stale? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. This explanation is at the top of this page. EliasAntonakos's edits were on November 8, four days ago. Even if they were more recent, I would find no violation as, according to you, EliasAntonakos reverted only twice. Please be more careful about making reports here in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Ah my bad, I forgot to mention that this article is under ARBPIA, so two reverts count as one 1RR violation. The delay in reporting came to give them time to self-revert, answer on their talk page, and comply with 1RR. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation, but the violation is still too old. In future, if you wish to give an editor an opportunity to self-revert, fine, but don't wait 2 days from when you ask them. Even on November 10, this would have been too old. It's safer to ask them to self-revert and file a report here at the same time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Sure but the user was not editing between 8 and 10 November so they had no chance to self-revert and the report would have also been considered inappropriate. And there was a discussion on their talk page to explain to them what is meant with a revert. All in all, I think an explanation to them what constitutes a revert is handy so that they maintain compliance with 1RR in the future. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for you reply, the user who filed the complaint is only presenting half the picture, as someone on my talk page explained to me and him, that i DID NOT do anything wrong in my editting. This is only Makeandtoss interpretation of the rule, that lead him to a wrong conclusion. So please if you could help me out here, as i realy do not understand why he is so unkind to me. EliasAntonakos (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @EliasAntonakos: Your first edit would probably not be counted as a revert unless someone could demonstrate that the infobox had been changed recently to "civilian attack" and therefore you would have been reverting that editor. Your second set of edits (consecutive edits count as one single edit for revert counting) was an obvious revert as you reverted back to the civilian attack template. Therefore, you reverted only once back on November 8.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: They also removed a paragraph, as I outlined above, just after having changed the infobox, so there are two reverts on 8 November. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Makeandtoss: My apologies, I screwed up in my analysis. I reversed time-wise the 3-consecutive-edit and the single edit. So, please tell me what part(s) of the article that Elias changed reverted some other editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you reversed anything, you have your analysis right. What I do see here is that the filer who has themselves recently been accused of edit warring [7] in a case now escalated to arbcom, seems not to understand what edit warring actually means. The first edits by the editor were not reverts but the merge of two separate articles on the same event in Amsterdam (one of them written by myself). Only the last edit mentioned was a revert. There's no real edit warring in that chain of events to speak of. This complaint reads more like something else, that I have already complained about just a few days ago, after falsely accused by the filer for being a sockpuppet, here [8]. ABHammad (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh please be nice, both of you and everyone should probably stop accusing everyone of everything. Makeandtoss has accused me of RR in the past, but we have been able to collaboratively discuss things over time. He is rather straightforward and to the point. Generally I don’t like this RR thing and I don’t completely understand it either. Maybe take a look at the content and if it is in line w/ Wikipedia policies, is it good for the article, etc. rather than focusing on this RR thing. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I recommend Makeandtoss retract this RR filing and discuss content on article talk page. Usually he has good points about article organization. I have not got the time right now to check which article this is about, but we should try to diplomatically discuss changes on the article talk page. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: So first revert was the removal of paragraph (revert of [9]) and second revert was changing infobox (revert of [10]). Now, again, goal is for the editor to understand what a revert is and acknowledge they have violated 1RR, despite the third party claims to otherwise, so that we avoid this hassle in the future, and edit collaboratively and happily. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

User:AirshipJungleman29 reported by User:176.88.165.232 (Result: declined)

Page: Khwarezmian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AirshipJungleman29 (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. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

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

Comments:
Does not raise any objection on talk page. My contribution came with 3 different sources, 2 of which corraborates the first one. 1 from official government website and 1 from academic paper (which was available online and in English, link attached to the citation). but Airshipjungleman29 did not raise any objection even though I invited him both on talk page and in edit-summary panel. Just kept edit warring without raising any objection 176.88.165.232 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The most important part is that, I assert, AirshipJungleman29's behaviour is political: In the current version of the article, the section "Culture, the section he was sabotaging is unsourcedly attributed to Persians: when a content is attributed to Persians without a source, AirshipJungleman29 and HistoryofIran do not dispute it but when triple sourced content attributes the culture into Turkmens, HistoryofIran and AirshipJungleman29 immediately starts edit war. 176.88.165.232 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Declined for oh so many reasons:
  • The page is already protected.
  • You're the only one who has actually broken 3RR on this page. (Were it not for the protection this would be WP:BOOMERANG.)
  • Your report is malformed, and the "page" link goes to a completely different page from your diffs.
  • Your link to the attempt to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page goes to the other editor's user talk page; I don't see you trying to discuss this on the article's talk page at all.
• --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  • The report Has nothing to do with the protection.
  • The report has nothing to do with 3RR
  • Both the page link and 3 diff links go to the same pageç
  • 1. they did not try to discuss their complainment on the article's talk page but their report was not declined. then, how is my report declined? :D Lol. Just state you are siding with them so that you can cover each other. I won't leave it here.

  176.88.165.232 (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  The page link does go somewhere else -- to a page that redirects to the article in question. Thus, the "history" link does not show the edit warring.

  I cannot speak as to why another report evaluated by a different administrator was accepted or declined. You would have to ask them. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wait, why did you ignore that he does not raise any objection? He just reverts without arguing anything. The page being protected has nothing to do with their reverts being completely unexplained or my 3RR has nothing to do with their arbitrary reverts. These are just red-herring to cover their faults so that fellows are not penalized 176.88.165.232 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oh and I didn't even notice that there was already an actioned ANEW report involving you. This report therefore also seems retaliatory. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  They can report without discussing on talk page but I can not report without discussing on talk page? Obviously, corrupted admin sides with his/her fellows. Unsourced content gets free pass when it is about Persians but triple sourced content rejected when it is about Turkmens. You are racists --176.88.165.232 (talk) 176.88.165.232 (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please see WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. If you are trying to add content and that addition gets reverted, you are expected to open discussion on the article's talk page.

  And I'd suggest striking your personal attack. Aside from being inappropriate, I wasn't even aware of the other ANEW report when I evaluated this one. My conclusion was reached completely independently, based solely on your behavior. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nor WP:ONUS neither WP:BRD has such policy. Otherwise, you could revert any edit and then that editor would have been expected to open discussion. Do you even see how absurd your excuse is? 176.88.165.232 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's... literally what they both say. Yes, that is exactly what is expected to happen. At this point I'm not going to reply any further as this clearly is a case of I didn't hear that. Note that there are about 850 administrators, many of whom frequent this page. If they disagree with my decision here they are welcome to chime in. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Raskolnikov.Rev reported by User:PhotogenicScientist (Result: Page protected)

Page: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raskolnikov.Rev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:07, 25 October 2024
2. 00:32, 29 October 2024
3. 16:21, 30 October 2024
4. 00:12, 7 November 2024
5. 22:37, 12 November 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Raskolnikov.Rev#WP:WIKILAWYERING

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Tertiary_coverage

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

Comments:

Slow-moving edit war continues to happen at this page, where Raskolnikov.Rev continues to include material that did not achieve consensus in the Talk page discussion. The biggest reason this proposal failed to achieve consensus: It goes against our guideline on WP:CITATIONS, particularly the section on WP:INTEXT attribution of references. @XDanielx: and I have been trying (to little avail) to make this point on the talk page for the better part of the past 2 weeks. I also tried to make this same point earlier, at Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_46#'October_17'_section a thread in which Raskolnikov.Rev's behavior was so poor that they were rebuked, and they promised to behave better.

After trying to garner more community input on the application of this guideline, but getting little input, I'm not sure where else to turn but here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been continuous efforts by @PhotogenicScientist to remove long-standing content that does not violate any rule or consensus and in fact has the support of more editors for inclusion than those who oppose it (although no consensus has been established for it as of yet). Here are the facts of the case:

Failing to gain consensus for the removal of this content on another page, @PhotogenicScientist decided to continuously remove the content while citing non-existent rules to justify it despite other editors pointing this out. Here are the diffs of that:

1. 22:34, 12 November 2024
2. 00:54, 7 November 2024
3. 23:04, 5 November 2024 (this edit summary justifies the removal by saying it was "in contravention of WP:INTEXT". It was reverted by @Lf8u2 who pointed out in Talk that no such rule exists.)

The attempt to remove this content that has been up for over a year began on the 25th of October. Here are the diffs for that:

1. 02:06, 25 October 2024 (note that this edit summary is plainly false and is not even in dispute, as all the cited sources do cite FA. Yet @PhotogenicScientist included my revert of this as part of an edit-war against some non-existent consensus.)
2. 05:17, 25 October 2024 (this was reverted by @Nableezy)
3. 00:23, 29 October 2024 (this edit summary merely says "per talk" to justify its removal, but there is no such consensus and the discussion was ongoing, so I reverted it)
4. 16:10, 30 October 2024 (this edit summary once again refers to talk, but again no such consensus for removal was obtained there, so I reverted it accordingly.)
5. 00:05, 7 November 2024 (once again the removal is justified with a "per talk" repetition of their POV, ignoring that other editors opposed this and no such consensus was obtained. I reverted it.)

As you can see, myself and other editors reverted this as there is no consensus for its removal and there was and continues to be an ongoing Talk discussion concerning it, where the majority of editors have provided detailed arguments for why it should not be removed. So there is no consensus for its removal, and there are no rules or guidelines consensus necessitating it either.

Other editors also noted that @PhotogenicScientist's very own refusal to acknowledge FA being RS justifies its inclusion as can be seen in the relevant Talk page. These other editors alongside myself are: @Selfstudier @Lf8u2 @Smallangryplanet @CoolAndUniqueUsername.

Again as noted by @Lf8u2 on the Talk page in question, @PhotogenicScientist misrepresented WP:CITATIONS to justify what possibly amounts to edit-warring. There is in fact no required rule that necessitates its removal, and in fact it notes that in-line references can be used.

This clearly establishes that @PhotogenicScientist does not have consensus to remove this content, and is misrepresenting rules and guidelines to justify its continuous removal.

@PhotogenicScientist also created an RfC on the matter without notifying other editors involved in the discussion except for the one that agrees with them, even though that is required, and instead presenting only their own POV version of the discussion. I only was made aware of that now when it was linked here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This is just forum shopping by filer, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Mentioning_citation_sources_in_article_prose_at_Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

After trying to garner more community input on the application of this guideline, but getting little input, I'm not sure where else to turn but here. I was quite upfront that I'm looking for more input than this issue has gotten. Your contributions to that NPOVN thread have not materially addressed the issue at hand - you preferred to ask about an ongoing RFC unrelated to the CITATION issue in prose. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected one week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I guess that stops the edit war temporarily... but could the behavior of warring against consensus be addressed? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  No such consensus exists. As has been pointed out to you by @Lf8u2, you are blatantly misrepresenting WP:CITATIONS to justify your continuous removal of long-standing content that is being actively discussed in Talk and for which you have no consensus. I and other editors have told you and others who kept removing this to seek actual consensus for it in the ongoing Talk, yet you continued to persist even after your own RfC yielded yet another editor who agreed with its retention, namely @Selfstudier. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Hariwulf reported by User:Ermenrich (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Merseburg charms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hariwulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]

Comments:

New user (started as an IP) adding unsourced material to the article and then simply re-adding it after given links to WP:RS and edit warning templates.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User Ermenrich acted as a totalitarian authority of Wikipedia with the ability to delete edits (without stating clearly the reason for doing so) rather than even considering to build around them. I also edited the page only twice with my account (meaning after having read and agreed on the Terms).

In the 90 minutes of life of my account, I have been warned and reported, while Ermenrich refused to find, together with me, an amicable resolution to the issue (he finds my edit "ludicrous", albeit we are referring to simple phonetics).

I may be new and have quoted Wikipedia on the Talk page instead of the source of the article, however this was on the Talk page itself and to foster discussion.

Also, while not related to this subject, I would like to state my indignation towards the unfriendliness and attitude towards new users here on Wikipedia. I did come across a number of rants addressed at Editors acting in "one-sided", "entitled" and "owning" ways, and apparently I should have better heeded the warning.

No one enjoys facing this amount hostility and issues moments after joining a community with the hope to help it. It is the same as trying to scare away newcomers.

With this in consideration, I look forward to what the Administrators will have to say on the matter. Hariwulf (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

...or, instead of ranting about how you've been wronged by my telling you you can't add unsourced material to Wikipedia, you could simply self-revert your addition of unsourced nonsense to the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Earl of Arundel reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: )

Page: Talk:2024 United States presidential election (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Earl of Arundel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Super Goku V (talk): Hatting an ongoing discussion is an act of censorship and will not be tolerated"
2. 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by David O. Johnson (talk): Censorship must not be tolerated"
3. 00:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257046489 by David O. Johnson (talk) Reverting attempts to censor discussion on a talk page"
4. 23:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257041182 by Esolo5002 (talk) Please seek consensus on the talk page before closing active discussions"
5. 22:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by David O. Johnson (talk): Please seek consensus on the talk page before closing active discussions"
6. 21:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257027093 by David O. Johnson (talk) Hatting without consensus is tantamount to censorship of a talk-page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:2024 United States presidential election."
2. 15:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "/* November 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Earl of Arundel "/* November 2024 */ Censorship must not be tolerated"

Comments:

User violated 3RR yesterday, but had not received the talk page warning, so I warned them rather than report. They responded by indicating that they will not stop. Editor is clearly viewing WP:ARBAP2 as a WP:BATTLEGROUND – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)