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:Excelsiorsbanjo reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Page fully protected for a week)

Page: Spokane County, Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Excelsiorsbanjo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2024-05-25T15:41:20
2. 2024-05-24T14:40:49‎
3. 2024-05-24T02:29:32‎
4. 2024-05-23T02:59:49
5. 2024-05-22T06:02:36
6. 2024-05-17T03:01:14
7. 2024-02-26T14:37:18
8. 2024-02-22T21:29:44
9. 2024-02-16T05:23:14
10. 2024-02-09T20:58:07
11. 2024-01-30T08:35:07‎
12. 2024-01-10T05:46:44

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2024-05-24T15:46:52‎ (which they removed shortly thereafter with the edit summary delete noise) Masem had previously warned them of 3RR in 2019 as well, which they acknowledged).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2024-05-25T16:39:08

Comments:

• Excelsiorsbanjo has been very combative on the talk page, misunderstanding and misrepresenting what constitutes consensus, and generally being unwilling to reconsider their position and edit warring over a long period to enforce their preferred version of the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to add a little more context, in the diffs above they've reverted three different editors: myself, Leif One and an IP 2601:602:cc00:e7d0:ac64:af82:c4a4:bcb5. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Page protected In full for a week. As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not. What...? We have a secondary source that states the flag was "decommissioned", there are no sources since then stating the flag is current or in use. There was some detective work being done, but all of that is WP:OR and even if it panned out, isn't something we can use to make an edit here. I'm struggling to understand why protection was used here when there's a clear protracted edit war with Excelsiorsbanjo being the only person to constantly re-add the flag over the objections of multiple editors. This really needs to be a block. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I know this edit is 10 weeks old, but I have a lot of respect for that editor and I think there he states the point that does not appear to have been adequately addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

SounderBruce is not Excelsiorsbanjo. It's not clear to me that SounderBruce noticed the article Leif One linked to that stated the old flag had been decommissioned, it feels like that got lost amongst the original research that was going on in droves. The flag is already included later in the article, and if our reliable secondary sources say the flag is decommissioned, there's no need for it to be in the infobox. Certainly no consensus to include it has ever really existed beyond WP:WEAKSILENCE, so little has been proffered to justify a protracted edit war by one single editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case I just want to make sure I understand this correctly, so an editor can engage in a protracted edit war for months constituting 12 reverts against three other unique editors, and the behavior is addressed by protecting the article and stating As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not.? The "reported user" hasn't suggested that as far as I can tell (beyond bludgeoning the discussion with the claim of a "consensus" that appears to consist of themselves and the uploader who hasn't opined whatsoever in the discussion nor edited the article since adding the image), meanwhile no less than four editors have either rejected the edit this editor is reverting to on the talk page or said they need more sourcing to validate that it is correct. WP:ONUS is unambiguous on this point: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. We don't engage in discussion with edit warriors who to date have presented zero sources (Excelsiorsbanjo tried to wave away the discussion initially by stating [t]he local newspaper has plenty on it) and simply tried to bully their way through the conversation.

Proecting the page is rewarding bad behavior and punishing the good faith discussion that took place on the talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The "good faith discussion" on the talk page never once surfaced this much-discussed newspaper report that the flag had been decommissioned. Without that I can't see any basis for removing the flag.

I chose full protection, in the hope that a consensus could be reached if more editors got involved, because the only other option IMO would have to block both EB and you at least from the page for some time because you were both edit warring. Since you have been contributing to Wikipedia almost as long as I have without ever getting blocked, and are a valued member of the community, I thought you might appreciate this.

I see now that judgement was a mistake. So, I will offer you and Excelsiorbanjo a compromise: if you both consent to being blocked from the article and the talk page for a month, I will lift the protection and let other editors deal with the issue. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case The "good faith discussion" on the talk page never once surfaced this much-discussed newspaper report that the flag had been decommissioned. Without that I can't see any basis for removing the flag. I guess this early reply in January is just my imagination?

you were both edit warring My brother in Christ, in the span of seven days I reverted four times. Excelsiorsbanjo reverted six times (against two different editors). I get that invoking WP:BOOMERANG is fun and all, but I warned Excelsiorsbanjo (prior to realizing they'd already been warned five years ago), reverted one final time, and came here after it became clear this was not going to stop. I've provided reasons and sources for my statements, while Excelsiorsbanjo has just tried to wave away any argument against inclusion and remained consistent in claiming that just their side (which *counts on fingers* is one person, Excelsiorsbanjo) has somehow achieved consensus... I've contributed significantly to this project over nearly twenty years. Excelsiorsbanjo has made less than 300 edits and appears to have spent the last five years learning how to not collaborate or understand how this project works. We are not the same.

In the meantime I can press the undo button, it's no big deal. If you can read this in that discussion and take away that Excelsiorsbanjo is somehow a shining example of an editor or even equal to me in any way, then you're high. Only one of us threatened to revert without end here, and it wasn't me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I figured you'd invoke this old brief. It says "commissioners have decided to decommission that version". That only proves that they, at that time, intended to. It does not prove that they actually held the vote that that language suggests would be necessary, and the fact that no one seems to have yet found a record that such a vote was held means we cannot say with certainty that the flag was decommissioned (especially given that it seems, also, that the promised contest for a new flag design was never held, either). To claim those words as incontrovertible proof that the flag was decommissioned is writing a check they can't possibly cash.

It would be like me saying I had decided to block you for edit warring, but without anything in the block log proving that I did. That could not be taken to mean I had blocked you.

Fully protecting a page is never, repeat never, any reflection or judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the version protected. It is a message to the editors involved that they need to cool this down and discuss as they have failed at maintaining the status quo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case That only proves that they, at that time, intended to. The text says decided to. It doesn't say intended to, planned to or some variation of that. decided is the simple past and past participle of decide. My understanding is that prior to that flag, the county didn't have any flag whatsoever, so it stands to reason that "no flag" is a possibility. Usually we defer to secondary sources, especially in situations like this where no other sources have been provided to refute the "decommissioned" status. It's kind of baffling to see you wanting something official when we typically avoid official records (just look at how biographies handle birthdates, or how we discourage using press releases for announcements over secondary source coverage of those topics, etc). Regardless, making assumptions about whether they actually decommissioned it or not is original research. You're supplanting what a reliable secondary source says with what you think they meant instead of taking the words plainly. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

An official record of the vote on the commissioners' website or in an offline archive where it is published and cited to the extent that verification is possible would be, contrary to the popular perception reflected in your post, an acceptable source for this as it would not require interpretation. Per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Unfortunately rulemaking by assumption has led to that being interpreted to bar the use of primary sources altogether, which is an unfortunate misunderstanding.

I do have an idea for how we can resolve this to (I hope) everyone's satisfaction. Some people on the talk page have mentioned getting in touch with the county to see if they can find any records regarding the vote on the flag in their archives. I mean, they should have it if it were voted on ... if you keep no other public records of a body's actions on file this long, you keep meeting minutes. Of course I don't know how long they'd be required to keep them, and given Washington's reputation for having such loophole-ridden sunshine laws, I might not be optimistic.

Now, it's one thing if a bunch of Wikipedia editors ask for this. It's another if the local media does—it would turn up the heat on the people at the archives. Not that I think they'd be delaying on purpose or anything, but knowing how this works I can tell you that when they know the media's making the request (OK, I know, in a sense we are the media, but not like, say, the Spokesman-Review is) it gets a higher priority.

So, we should contact the S-R and suggest this as a story they should assign someone to cover. It wouldn't require many resources on their part (a not-inconsiderable issue given the current besieged state of local newspapers) and I can't imagine any way it could be argued that this would not be a story, especially given the recent effort to redesign the city's flag.

I am willing to reach out to the newspaper myself if desired, given my own distant-past experience in journalism. The end product of all this would be an unimpeachably reliable secondary source on this (and maybe the embarrassed county commissioners hastily voting to decommission the flag if it were found that they hadn't already). And it might make a good Signpost story, too. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case I get the argument around some forms of primary sources, but this is precisely why we use secondary sources: you're debating whether or not the reliable secondary source was accurate in stating the flag was decommissioned. If we had county commissioner minutes stating it was decommissioned, but then someone said it was still in use in Olympia, we'd have people going back and forth about that.

I did start a straw poll on the talk page, debated turning it into an RFC, but if you wish to pursue getting them to state something publicly about it, I'm all for that as well. FWIW, I did some archive.org spelunking on prior versions of spokanecounty.org and it appears they had minutes/agendas but because the current live-site only goes back to 2012-2013, it's really hard to search (at least that I've found so far) to see if maybe this hasn't actually already been publicly stated from a primary source. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel CaseThe Spokane County flag is a relic of the past. The documentation of its origin and its abandonment are on the Talk page. The flag was a result of the fervor around the Centennial celebration of the state. Every county in the state designed a flag. Concerning the origin of the flag, of that too there is no legal record. The design contest, statewide, was sponsored by a tent and awning company. To quibble points, the is no legal origin for the flags existence that has been found, as there is no legal source for its decommissioning, only the published article where a county official states it will be decommissioned. The fact that the flag was a part of history is still represented on the Wikipedia page. The recognition does not belong in the infobox, and it is cited further down in a section about the history. I have no objection to the page being locked from editing, but please lock it so that it is not at the top of the page. The County only uses a logo, not a flag, I asked the office personally. The fact that a flag ever existed is an obscure fact that nearly everyone is not aware of. I would estimate that 99.9999% of people do not know the flag ever existed. Please relegate the flag to history, it is not a current symbol of Spokane County. Leif One (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not consider one short unsigned newspaper article in which county commissioners promise to decommission the flag and sponsor a contest to create a new one to sufficiently establish that the flag was either a) decommissioned or b) never commissioned. You may want it to, but your emotional pleading here has little to do with policy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

User:209899Geovanni reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Thirty Seconds to Mars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 209899Geovanni (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:
Not a 3RR report but a slow moving edit war that is a continuation of a 6 May ANEW report for which they were blocked. Not counting the 4 IP reverts before their account was created, they have made this exact revert 8 times with no attempt at discussion. With the exception of their first edit, the editor has never used any talk page of any kind despite a request to do so and continues to edit war to their preferred version. - Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) article history

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

User:148.252.146.226 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: 48 hour block)

Page: Julius Streicher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 148.252.146.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Nazism */ As a historian, corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west as slander to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
2. 19:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Nazism */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west as slander to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
3. 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Nazism */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC) to 19:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Streicher in power */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
   2. 19:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Fall from power */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
   3. 19:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* top */Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
   4. 19:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Early politics */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC) to 19:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Nazism */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
   2. 19:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Rise of Der Stürmer */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
6. Consecutive edits made from 19:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) to 19:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* top */Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
   2. 19:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Early politics */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Julius Streicher."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring over the name "Nazi". StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Jack4576 reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: )

Page: Black War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack4576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13] But, following this warning [14] and my request they self revert, they did self revert a few hours later [15] so this was not a 3RR breach
5. [16] Returned to edit warring once the 24 hour period elapsed
6. [17]
7. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] followed by RfC: [21]. The RfC, started by Jack4576, is ongoing.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

Comments:

The initial 3RR breach was corrected after I pointed this out, so my view is there is not a 3RR breach. However, to return to the edit warring as soon as the time expired, when Jack has started an RfC on the issue, is still classic edit warring. They persistently claim that their wording has a consensus, but that is clearly not the case in the previous discussion, nor (yet) in the RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note the response to my notice on Jack's talk page. As Jack is unable to post here, it would only be fair to take account of their response there. I dispute the count though, which seems to keep changing. I also now notice that this is not the first time that their interpretation of consensus has been an issue on this page. See also User talk:Jack4576#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Aoidh as the previously blocking admin, could take a look at this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

User:MainBody reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Simla Convention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MainBody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 26 May 2024, 11:20. "rv disruptive removal of well-sourced content"
2. 26 May 2024, around 11:30
3. 27 May 2024, around 4:30
4. 28 May 2024, 03:22 "Ref tag problem fixed. Disruptive removal of well-sourced content and quote, in the name of "edit", reverted"

The terms "unratified" and "unequal treaty" can be seen to have been reinstated repeatedly, among other changes.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24] [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #New edits to the lead, #More out of date commentary

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments:

The editor has started making a series of edits to the main page on 22 May 2024, some of which I regard as WP:POV. Shows no effort to seek WP:CONSENSUS, no effort to engage on the talk page, or even state any rationales in the edit summaries. It appears that this will go on forever unless the editor is suitably warned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours If it were just this, I might have settled for just warning or "no violation". But this editor's talk page show they have been warned before, more than once, as well as other evidence that their editing has left something to be desired. So, it's time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User:EternalKhosrow reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

Comments:

User hasn't even written a edit summary let alone in a talk page (their own is full of warnings). They just keep non-stop edit warring through addition of unsourced info. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Bbb23! HistoryofIran (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Auntsamaru reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) to 13:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1226236115 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
   2. 13:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC) "/* References */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 07:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC) to 07:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 07:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1226182421 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
   2. 07:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kaul."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring User:Auntsamaru */ new section"

Comments:

I don't think this user is here to contribute to wikipedia and i believe this user is an sock puppet of User:Prince_Of_Roblox Untamed1910 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)