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:78.1.41.95 reported by User:CanonNi (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Cult film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 78.1.41.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "You know the funniest and unfortunately saddest thing about this article? What is not said in the entire article about the environment and what is the definition is confusing the readers. In my opinion, it would be better to delete the entire article. When I read everything that is written, I cannot understand what "cult classic" means. Everything is so vague that the reader is confused, because he does not know what it is. Set a guideline so that the reader is not confused."
2. 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "And then you are independent HAHA. Tell that to someone else, what an American tells you is the way it is HaHA"
3. 04:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "Film politics Hollywood and others would protest, thinking that what I wrote was against them, so maybe there were lawsuits on wikipedia, so I understand you. You are free to return, I understand, I will not edit you again. Greetings"
4. 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "I agree with you that there should be a source, but there is no source in this sentence either. I just wanted to simplify the sentence so that readers can understand it better."
5. 04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "What I wrote wrong, look at all those that belong to "cult films" have a low rating on imbd or other and someone who likes the film does not agree with that. I don't think I wrote anything wrong."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Seelentau reported by User:Bens dream (Result: Both users blocked for 7 days)

Page: Knocked Loose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seelentau (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:
User insists a band is primarily metalcore despite having been shown proof to the contrary. They are unconstructively reverting my edits and vandalising the website in the process. They need to be blocked from editing.

• I have blocked both users for 7 days for high speed edit warring way over 3RR. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 reported by User:Warrenmck (Result: /64 blocked 2 years)

Page: Altaic languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1221589310 by Warrenmck (talk) You've reverted at least 4 times now, please stop, this is sourced content and important to the article. You've broken WP:3RR yourself while trying to warn me to not do the same thing."
2. 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1221576696 by Warrenmck (talk) That's not how Wikipedia works. You need to get a consensus before removing sourced content. You keep talking about a discussion but leave no link, nor do you back your claims of a "scholarly consensus". Clearly, there's disagreement between scholars and it's important to show both sides. Robbeets is just as reliable a source as Vovin, if not more."
3. 13:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220312786 by Warrenmck (talk) There's no consensus on the Talk page. The only thing eating up a lot of space are the many sources by Vovin, who, while dismissing Altaic, has proposed much more niche theories with far less evidence. He doesn't seem like a trustworthy figure on the subject, yet he's given a lot of space here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Altaic languages */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Proto-Altaic Forms */ Reply"
2. 20:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Proto-Altaic Forms */ Reply"
3. 20:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Proto-Altaic Forms */ Reply"

Comments:

This is a sticky one, and I think I need to make it clear that I actually am guilty of a fourth revert if we consider the one made by the logged in user (which I suspect a sock issue of due to the identical edits). My fourth edit was made in response to a mid-talk-page-discussion revert, but I should have caught that was technically the fourth and will own up to that.

There's been a big issue on Wikipedia with macrofamily articles and big lists of in-universe content being presented as real. Altaic is a proposed macrofamily which had historical acceptance by has now fallen well outside the academic mainstream, though it's probably not the easiest thing to determine from this article. There was a larger discussion in the past year or so about excising a lot of these lists, but only Altaic has had issues with significant pushback. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to say a few things.

I assumed it was up to the person removing sourced content to gain consensus on the Talk page, not the other way around.

This user has made many edits on this page from a clearly biased perspective. The whole point of the article is to explain what the theory is, not to debunk it in every sentence.

The user is warning me and reporting me for something he is doing himself and was first to do, being edit warring and break the 3 revert rule. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The solution to both is consensus, which he/she did not have. Given that the user is biased against the theory and using its page to try and debunk it, it's safe to assume no reasonable consensus or compromise can be reach. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the onus to gain consensus is on the person supporting the inclusion of disputed content. That would appear to be you. If no consensus can be reached, then the content does not belong in the article. Simple as that. It can be frustrating, I know. It's the worst possible system with the exception of all the others. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I'd like to mention that I noticed the table was removed back in July of 2023 for WP:UNDUE. This is completely unjustified. Like I've been trying to say, the point of the article is not to debunk it. People should be able to read what the theory proposes and then read the criticism. Saying it's been given undue weight is like saying teaching the theory of evolution on the evolution page is undue because it's too convincing.

Also, the person in his/her first revert said to see the Talk page. But there was no consensus on the Talk page and he still has yet to link the discussion he keeps referencing. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You're the one who needs to demonstrate consensus, per WP:ONUS. And if the content is that convincing, then you should have no problem establishing consensus. Wikiprojects, noticeboards, and RFCs can all help with that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it here but again, the purpose is not to convince, it's to explain the theory. What would consensus even look like? Do I need a 2:1 majority or something? 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Persuasion is how Wikipedia articles are built. You can see the page on consensus, which is a fluid concept. While not a vote, numbers certainly do play a role. Basically, when you get broad agreement on the talk page (not unanimity) then you have consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that my edits to Altaic languages have been done in conjunction with the talk page and both the Linguistics Wikiproject and WP:FTN due to the risk of this looking like an issue with WP:RGW considering how systematic this issue has been on Wikipedia. I also routinely tag other linguists to look at my edits, as I did in the discussion about the edit war in question to avoid just overly relying on my own perceptions and judgement. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RGW is laughable. I've seen your edits and reverts. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 years ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

User:GOLDIEM J reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Federal subjects of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GOLDIEM J (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

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

Comments:

User is edit warring to restore unsourced claims into the infobox. They claim sources are not required as "Russian law says" the Ukrainian territory is a part of Russia and "It's real". Cambial — foliar❧ 22:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Since when have I claimed that sources are "not required?" Given that the article lists these same regions in the Wikitable further down the article, I feel confident in saying that there's bound to be citations for this provided later on in the article. Furthermore, you made original edits and I reverted them. Then you attempted to restore your reverted edits without bothering with the talk page at all. I, conversely, have been attempting to confer with you to reach a consensus. The only edits of yours I've undone were attempts to restore what I reverted. I have not at all attempted to restore my own original edits that you reverted. So you're the one who keeps changing it to how you think it should be. That's literally the only reason I kept reverting you, not because I wanted the article to be a certain way, but because I thought we needed to reach a consensus first before proceeding any further. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This page is about edit warring. You broke 3rr on the article to restore unsourced material. Citations later on in the article do not support the unsourced content that you have repeatedly reinserted without sourcing. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's see what the admins think of this. I could've very well reported you for the same behaviour you're alleging me of, but reason number one I've never done that before and don't know how, and thing number two I'd prefer to be cooperative and be productive and reach a consensus. So you can thank me later for letting you go and instead choosing to talk. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Except that I haven't broken 3rr and I'm not adding original research to the article. But you are. So you would have no basis on which to make such a report. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Except you didn't even revert a previous edit initially. You made an original edit that changed the map to an outdated version. So I reverted it. You need to reach a consensus before attempting to restore a reverted edit.

Anyway, can we let the admins deal with this now, please? I don't wish to discuss further while the review is ongoing. GOLDIEM J (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

When you restore material lacking a source, you need to add reliable sources that support the content - especially when the existing cited scholarship directly contradicts it. Instead, you edit warred to keep original research in the article that contradicts the cited scholarship. The fact you're unable to see why that behaviour is inappropriate is why a sanction against you is necessary. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact, you edit warred too if I did. Also, I wholly disagree that there is any contradiction in the sources, and your arguements don't make a lot of sense to me. In case I need this in my defense, let me just say that I was not entirely familiar with 3rr beforehand and that I do not believe I was acting in bad faith. Please leave it there while review is ongoing. GOLDIEM J (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Honestly, Cambial Yellowing should have been blocked for longer, partly because of their block log and partly for having the chutzpah to file this report. Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

User:MylowattsIAm reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC) "Maybe just leave it in there and then start the talk page thingy like I suggested several times before? Would be kinda cool if you took other users into consideration."
2. 12:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1221854606 by Moxy (talk)"
3. 11:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC) "I saw what was linked but it still doesnt explain anything. What I meant is that if other articles also mention vice-chancellors and vice-presidents then it would only make sense if this did too. It would make sense for certain types of articles to follow a certain pattern. After I last revered Nikkimaria there were edits by several other editors and noone seemed to have a problem with the vice-chancellor being mentioned. If you want it so bad for it to be removed then discuss it on talk page."
4. 22:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1221768509 by Nikkimaria (talk) That doesnt explain anything. Please stop edit warring and making unreasonable reverts. Discuss it on talk page whether it should be removed or not. Otherwise it can stay as is."
5. 09:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1221622634 by Nikkimaria (talk) If we can show the vice-president of US in the infobox of USA as well as vice-presidents of other countries in their infobox then there is no reason why the German vice-chancellor cant be shown in the infobox for being the third highest ranking official of Germany. Some countries even have up to five leaders in the infobox anyways."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Germany."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no ongoping tlak in this cases at time of this post ...but we have talked about honorary titles before.

Comments: Somewhat new editor...if there willing to go to talk perhaps block can be avoided. NEW TALK Talk:Germany#Honorary titles in infoboxMoxy🍁 12:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:197.231.201.171 reported by User:Neuropol (Result: )

Page: Ishaaq bin Ahmed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 197.231.201.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1221867506 by Neuropol (talk)"
2. 13:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1221866547 by Neuropol (talk)"
3. 13:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1221861674 by Neuropol (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ishaaq bin Ahmed."
2. 13:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ishaaq bin Ahmed."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

1. Update: User has initiated a discussion with me on my talk page.

User:128.92.27.115 reported by User:Neuropol (Result: Blocked 31h)

Page: Kenosha unrest shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 128.92.27.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 16:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kenosha unrest shooting."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked for 31h by EvergreenFir for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:ActionHeroesAreReal reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: No violation; try WP:ANI)

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

Previous version reverted to: [17] – stable edition, correctly labelling Hamed as British only.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18] – first revert, with a spurious edit summary of "Not constructive".
2. [19]
3. [20] – not a revert, but re-adding the disputed content with a new source rather than discussing at article talk page.
4. [21] – reverting my revert, with no response to talk page message left for them, inviting them to continue discussion at article talk page.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at article talk page. No responses to my most recent posting after almost two months.

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

Comments:

User:ActionHeroesAreReal mistakenly insists on Naseem Hamed being labelled as British-Yemeni. Hamed was born in the UK, is a British national, has never lived in Yemen (from where his parents hail), is not notable for his ethnicity, and has only ever competed under a British boxing licence. User chooses to ignore all the various BLP lead section guidelines including MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:IDENTITY, and MOS:FIRSTBIO. After initially using an unreliable content aggregator as a source, they have now brought up one source which labels him as such, but the sole inclusion of this fails NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE.

I briefly considered WP:DR, but believe it is unnecessary because this is a clearcut case of a user not understanding the above guidelines, and refusing to engage in discussion. Without making this a conduct issue, they do appear to make a habit out of not using sources correctly or misinterpreting them, and have received numerous warnings by other experienced users. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. There was edit-warring in March, but there is no violation weeks later. Based on a very cursory review of ActionHeroesAreReal's edits, I think the best place to address the user's edits is WP:ANI. Include whatever evidence you feel is appropriate, but at a minimum you should include previous edit-warring, not only on this article but on others, and you should also note personal attacks in edit summaries. I'm not comfortable unilaterally blocking without more evidence, and this is not the board to provide that evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Bharatian Mapping reported by User:MiasmaEternal (Result:Blocked via WP:ANI by Dennis Brown )

Page: Azad Hind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC) "This the real info, flag and emblem Azad Hind and it is not a vandal"
2. 16:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 10:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) to 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 17:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) "Emblem change"
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) to 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 14:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Azad Hind."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am reporting this user due to repeated addition of suspected original research. User has refused to communicate regarding warnings by other users. Also triggered edit filter: Special:AbuseLog/37631579. MiasmaEternal☎ 08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: This user has already been reported at WP:ANI#NOTHERE disruption – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:C1B6:4511:8DE3:83A7 (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by me for WP:NOTHERE after investigating at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)