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:WeatherWriter reported by User:Triggerhippie4 (Result: Resolved)

Page: Al-Shifa Hospital siege (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) "Content already merged"
2. 20:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) "WP:BOLD merge into Siege of Gaza City. The siege of Azovstal steel plant during last year's Siege of Mariupol doesn't have a split article, so this small siege doesn't either."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit-warring on a WP:CTOP. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONTENTFORK of 242 words (the whole content of the article that was merged) from Siege of Gaza City (with now 1,444 readable prose size post-merge). Merge was justified per WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:SPLIT. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is in development, as it's subject. You are alone reverting work of several editors. Please, self-revert, and go to the article's talk page (not mine). Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"The article is in developement" is not a valid argument, given there was (1) no discussion for a content-split and 2, the split was a total of 242 words over 4 hours ago. It didn't improve much at all in 4 hours and per WP:CONTENTFORK, it has to be merged into the parent article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I'd suggest staying away from this topic for a while. You likely CAN be blocked right now because you were already warned of the 1RR. There need not be a discussion for a content split. That isn't required before creating a new article. Four hours is a very miniscule amount of time for improvement to occur. Generally, an acceptable time frame is a few days to a week before considering a merge. You effectively reverted several edits at once via your merge and then violated the 1RR restriction by reverting the unmerging. Don't be surprised if you end up blocked for a while since this would be ArbCom enforcement. Noah, AA^Talk 21:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That is some good advice which I plan to follow. I self-reverted and AfD nominated it as a CONTENTFORK and now I WP:COALed out and plan to stay away from that topic for a while. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) - I will note for the record that if an admin says I must self-revert, I will start an AfD or merge proposal on the article, due to it being only 242 words. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment from WeatherWriter - I have self-reverted as I did, in fact, violate 1RR. This was brought up by Hurricane Noah. I did, also, nominate the article for AfD after self-reverting. I appologize for violating 1RR and I did without thinking. At the same time this noticeboard was being written, I started a talk page discussion with the noticeboard filer, specifying that it was a contentfork. Either way, I self-reverted and the community will now get to decide whether it is a WP:CONTENTFORK or not. Cheers y'all! (FYI, I WP:COALed out of the AfD after the initial nomination. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

WeatherWriter reverted themselves, so I think it's resolved now. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User:140.228.54.0 reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Merseyrail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 140.228.54.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1185016218 by Yoshi24517 (talk)LEAVE the article alone. The City Line has been in the article for 20-25 years. Stop butchering the article."
2. 01:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC) "/* City Line */ clarified a little"
3. 01:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1185012864 by DankJae (talk)please leave the article alone! You not much of an idea at all."
4. 00:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC) "Many need to understand what the City Line is."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 reverts, There have been discussions where there was no consensus to add the information that the IP wants to edit in, yet they keep doing it anyways. Will add warning link shortly. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (On Vacation) 01:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment from DankJae - I am involved in this dispute trying to restore the original article, but reverted by the IP. Not fully aware of the 3RR process, so if I alerted them pre-maturely then willing to accept any sanction. The IP has added personal attacks towards me (here at Talk:Merseyrail), but understand if this is not the correct place. Thanks DankJae 01:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I have given no personal attacks. I have highlighted you lack understanding. Which is the case. You want to omit the existence a rail line, the City Line. You have been told where to look to gain understanding. This is laughable. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Quote from you at the talk: You clearly lack understanding. You are a nuisance. I am not batting the ball with someone of limited understanding, I will get nowhere with people like you - yes you did DankJae 01:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I am putting back in the article information that has been there for 20-25 years. A editor DankJae comes along changes the article, because of lack of understanding, them demands consensus to get his way. The justification is on him to change the article after 20 odd years. He thinks it is the other way.

If he continues then he should receive a short ban to cool him down. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagreed with these comments at the talk page here, following them re-adding their edits. DankJae 01:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is how Wikipedia works. For more information, see this article on consensus. If we cannot agree on certain content (e.g. a content dispute), we open up a section on the talk page to try and talk it out and gain consensus for our edits first, before editing them into the article. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (On Vacation) 01:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

User:David Jonion reported by User:Softlemonades (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: William J. Burns (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1184990942 by Chaotic Enby (talk) //removing POV, unsourced materials introduced from a previously banned user who is trying to escalate things to a flame war. Please also note Wikipedia's policy against conflicts of interest"
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) to 21:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
   1. 21:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) "//removed unsourced, POV statements and a broken link"
   2. 21:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) "/* Jeffrey Epstein meetings */"
   3. 21:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1184989249 by Softlemonades (talk) //Softlemonades has been previously banned from Wikipedia for being a sock puppet. POV, unsourced links removed"
3. 21:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) "//inserted recent news coverage about a clandestine trip to Cameroon and deleted broken link (footnote 16)"
4. 20:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) "//inserted link about a recent visit to Cameroun"
5. 20:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) "//reverted previous edits due to possible violation of the rule against editing your own page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Not assuming good faith on William_J._Burns_(diplomat)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned by several editors on their talk page, keeps blanking and accusing editors of COI and being banned Softlem (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that they call everything they disagree with POV, don't assume good faith by not focusing on content and clearly are a Single-purpose account. I recommend at least a partial block from William J. Burns (diplomat). Nobody (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

User:85.251.23.136 reported by User:Zmbro (Result: 72 hours )

Page: List of best-selling albums of the 1970s in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.251.23.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
2. 20:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. 17:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
4. 23:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
2. 22:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. 14:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Following a block over edit warring over at Aladdin Sane, user has repeatedly changed info at List of best-selling albums of the 1970s in the United Kingdom over the course of days/weeks – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

review the list of NME and don't be painful or deluded... 85.251.23.136 (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Sitewide. Looking at behaviour I'm suspecting a sockpuppet of Informed analysis (talk · contribs) but I don't have evidence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

User:47.219.237.179 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Horst Wessel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.219.237.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]
6. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10] [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:

• It's fair to say that consensus has not been established on the talk page; but plainly this level of reverting is past the threshold for EW, and, crucially, the user in question is the one proposing a change. Demanding that consensus be established to reverse that change and using repeated reverts to keep the change in place is getting the consensus thing a bit backwards. --AntiDionysius (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• The IP is edit warring and there is no defence for that. I would point out, however, that it is arguable that the IP is not the one proposing the change. The first version of this edit appears to have arrived on 22 February[14], was challenged on 23rd February by a different editor, and was defended repeatedly by one editor through successive challenges, but lately by multiple editors. There is an argument that it should not have been put back in per WP:ONUS. There is also a good argument that more of this information should be in the main. At the moment it is novel information in the lead. Those opposing the edits are largely but not entirely IPs. I think this may be colouring editor perspectives. Nevertheless the edit warring is disruptive, and some of the talk arguments made by those opposing this information are spurious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• I never violated WP:3RR, and six reverts over the course of a week is not "edit warring". Moreover, I have been practically the only one to participate in talk page discussion regarding this recent dispute, other than AntiDionysius. As Sirfurboy also pointed out, I am not seeking consensus to make a change. That is not how consensus works. There was never consensus for the change to begin, which is putting trivial information, phrased in an unencyclopedic manner, in the lead. I was indeed also in the middle of submitting a dispute request here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Horst_Wessel as this edit warring allegation was made. My edits were never disruptive or compromised the integrity of the article. If other users want to claim that me reverting an article to its LGV is "edit warring", then I say WP:IAR protects my actions against the disruptive edits being made by a larger number of users. My only interest was in maintaining the sanctity of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.219.237.179 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  But 3RR is not a target, and really there is little to be gained from reverting the information when you see multiple editors reverting your reverts. I think your attempt to get more eyes on this through dispute resolution may be the way to go, but I think admins would probably like to see a commitment from you not to revert this information again without gaining a consensus. There is nothing so pressing here that it has to go before dispute resolution reaches its conclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  You are incorrect, IP: IAR is not a free pass for edit warring, and neither is reverting to a "last good version" which happens to be the version you prefer. Six reverts over the course of a week might not constitute an edit war on a heavily edited article, but this revert war is literally the only thing happening on this article going back to at least 8 November. Also, when an article is protected because of a revert war, and immediately upon expiry one editor immediately reverts to their preferred version again, that's very likely to be considered protracted edit warring. Please proceed with dispute resolution, but do not revert again, or you will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then what exactly am I supposed to do? Beyond My Ken continues to revert the article into an unacceptable state without consensus, and has been doing so since February of this year as the logs show, refuses to engage in talk page discussion that isn't facetious, refuses to engage in my dispute resolution, and as was shown in this very report - is only interested in accusing me of sockpuppetry, being a Nazi, and in getting my IP blocked. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Warned per my comment above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• (ec) Just to state the obvious, 3RR is a bright line, but it is not the sole definition of edit warring, and the IP has clearly violated WP:EW by reverting multiple editors with accounts, all in the service of whitewashing an article about a Nazi street thug turned into a martyr by Joseph Goebbels. Multiple alphabet soup violations: WP:EW, WP:DE, WP:NONAZIS etc. etc. etc. The IP needs to have the book thrown at them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• I can't file an SPI report because I have no idea who the master is, but the IPs history is typical of those IPs used by sockmasters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) At the same time, this could have been better handled by establishing consensus for the edit through discussion and then reverting the change with reference to the discussion, instead of dancing on the revert button for a whole week. IP is in the wrong, but I'm also not impressed with the established editors' behaviour here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry you're "not impressed", but I rather think that keeping articles about Nazis as accurate as possible is important work, and valuable to the encyclopedia. Those who work in that topic area know the kind on onslaught we're up against there, which is why it should be a Contentious Topic subject. Maybe if more admins paid attention to it things would be different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  And actually come to think of it, I'm disappointed in you as an admin for rewarding egregious edit-warring with a warning, when a block was obviously called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Paki STJj reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Jallah Jeem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 12:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 12:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 12:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
5. 12:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 12:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC) to 12:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
   1. 12:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
7. Consecutive edits made from 09:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC) to 12:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
   1. 09:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC) "/* Traditional fairs */"
   2. 09:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) "/* Notable places */"
   3. 09:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   4. 09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   5. 09:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC) "/* Name origin */"
   6. 09:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC) "/* Name origin */"
   7. 09:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   8. 09:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC) "/* Geography and climate */"
   9. 10:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   10. 10:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC) "/* References */"
   11. 10:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) "/* References */"
   12. 11:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   13. 12:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   14. 12:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   15. 12:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   16. 12:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1185340441

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Enough warnings were given. The behavior of the user they were edit warring with needs looking at as well. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 14:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The behavior of the user they were edit warring with needs looking at as well. Why? I'm not the only person that was reverting: Panian513, Asparagusus, Dl2000, Materialscientist and Discospinster also reverted them over the course of a week (note that Paki STJj was also using IPs (154.81.244.193, 154.80.97.141)). Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely. Over a dozen reverts over the last three days or so, and not a single use of a talk page or user talk page. I don't think a timed block would solve anything, I think they need to show that they understand the reason they were blocked before editing. User:Lavalizard101 is blocked for 24 hours for making 7 reverts within the last 24 hours as well, as none of the content is an exception under WP:3RRNO. - Aoidh (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)