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:WickedFanAccount reported by User:Happily888 (Result: No violation)

Page: Wicked (2024 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "This is a change I made before you came in. YOU need to start the discussion. Not me. Part I is not a subtitle"
2. 04:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "No colon as per source AND sequel title"
3. 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "no colon in onscreen title"
4. 20:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC) "Onscreen title AND source both use a Roman numeral"
5. 06:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC) "I did."
6. 02:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC) ""
7. 02:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC) ""
8. 02:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC) "Message re. Wicked (2024 film) (HG) (3.4.12)."
2. 03:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
3. 04:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wicked (2024 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Wicked Part I or Wicked: Part I */ re"

Comments:

persistent vandalism and disregarding of MOS/NC; frequent edit warring. Also WP:SPA. Happily888 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Let the record show that this was a contribution I made. Changing a "1" to a "I" as per the source listed and newfound information. Someone else added in the colon. I was told I had to start a discussion to get it changed. Why do *I* have to be the one to disscuss? Shouldn't the person who MADE the change do that? WickedFanAccount (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• @Happily888: What "persistent vandalism"?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't looked too deeply into the page history but I can see that the reporter looks like they have made four reverts during the last 24 hours, and may have broken 3RR. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I am pleased to see that the editors have taken this to the talk page. We most definitely do not need a repeat of this. H888 has reverted four times in the last 24 hours, but I don't on the face of things see their last revert as confrontational, since, counterintuitive as it might seem, it is what the cited source says. Whether that's their typo should be allowed to be hashed out on the talk page as well. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Shawndmxk reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Declined)

Page: Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shawndmxk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

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

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

Comments:
Declined As annoying as this no doubt must be over the last several days I do not see any evidence that you've attempted to resolve this on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Signofgehenna reported by User:Create a template (Result: Resolved)

Page: Orbital (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User reported: Signofgehenna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Consistently reverting or adding back that Orbital is a "science fiction" book, even though there is ongoing discussion about whether or not that is a complete and representative description of its genre. He initially added it on 14 November despite not being classified as such for over a month of the article's existence. Their only argument is Razor and the existence of at least one or two MSM outlets calling it "science fiction".

I added to the talk page that I was removing the classification in the lead, but retained it as one of the genres in the infobox. By keeping it simple as "a novel", this best represented the multi nature of the book as not being a conventional or purely science fiction work. I communicated why I believe this to be the case, to which another person concurred.

He then proceeded to edit my talk page post, perverting what I had said, and then added the description back multiple times, despite me wanting to find consensus before possibly adding back the classification of "science fiction" in the first sentence of the page. This in spite of me attempting to further explain the weaknesses of his argument in the talk page.

Initial version which was the standard for at least a month:
[8]

His edit on Nov 14:
[9] "Added genre. Just because it won The Booker doesn't stop it being fiction about science."

My reversion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orbital_(novel)&oldid=1257707685 "It isn't strictly that genre"
along with an extensive argument as to why in the Talk page

Unacceptable edit on the talk page: [10]

Their abusive warring:
[11]
[12]
[13] Create a template (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

update: there seems to more willingness to compromise, will wait Create a template (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue somehow self-resolved for now. We can close this. Create a template (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Please close. This got heated, but assumed goodwill as per guidelines. Create a template's final edit, which satisfied all elements, is excellent work, thank you. Signofgehenna (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, please check the actual chat; at no point did I use aggressive language, unlike Create a template, who has a confusing, misleading handle. Signofgehenna (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:TheMasterofAllHitmans reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked one week)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
2. 17:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257596133 by Magical Golden Whip (talk) It’s been almost a day ago and so far, nobody else complained or bitched about it. My edits are only minor. You only reverted my edit because one person disagreed with me and you also have not responded on my talk page."
3. 18:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257561272 by Magical Golden Whip (talk)"
4. 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257468293 by Geraldo Perez (talk) Saying “it’s better” just shows favoritism and a bit of selfishness. All I did was just mention their last names and added two more commas. Also, iCarly is mostly episodic. There is no “story”."
5. 01:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257453035 by Geraldo Perez (talk) You're doing too much. There was nothing wrong with my edits. Plus, you need the commas for example: "Carly's older brother, Spencer,"."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1257597414

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at 3RR warning message

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week for edit-warring and personal attacks. Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:60.227.221.174 reported by User:Rift (Result: Page protected)

Page: Faygo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 60.227.221.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21] User has not responded to any talk page, article talk page, or edit summary messages.

Comments:
Has also carried on this edit war using accounts Forggot112 and Funify01. Rift (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected Aoidh (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:ErickTheMerrick reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Hasmonean dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Theocratic shouldn't link to constitutional monarchy 1258051719 by Nikkimaria (talk)"
2. 20:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "Nothing you linked applied here 1258028260 by Remsense (talk)"
3. 19:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "Added links in government box due to there not being any"
4. 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "All I did was rearrange them so they were grammatically correct 1258025901 by Remsense (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Belgium."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Currently edit warring across a half dozen other articles simultaneously. User is explicitly refusing to discuss their edits, as in this edit summary: [22] Doesn’t require talk page, its a common sense edit I’m not willing to discuss with you 1258069316 by Nikkimaria MrOllie (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to do if the editor is not willing to discuss their changes. The immediate impression anyone would get is this editor is simply not suitable for the Wikipedia environment. WP:NOTHERE. Agree edits summaries like the following aren't a good sign I didn't want to discuss it with him due to every talk we have we just disagree and nothing happens. It’s just a back and forth. Regarding this edit, I disagree with nikkimaria’s assertion to this being over linking. Editors are trying to explain as seen at User talk:ErickTheMerrick#New message to ErickTheMerrick.... but they are continuing to revert - this exact point has already been raised on their talk page previously with other editing practices questioned. Moxy🍁 03:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like they're taking part in discussion at their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bishonen | tålk 14:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:PerspicazHistorian reported by User:RationalIndia (Result: Blocked from article for a month and given CTOPS alert)

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

Previous version reverted to: [23]

. Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]}}

despite of edit warning from me and User:Ekdalian [27] [28] ,the user continue to push his POV RI ^talk 10:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

edit warring was started by @RationalIndia by deleting whole article rather than discussing the issue in talk page. the article has been in existence since 2004, no need to delete whole article. User vandalizing the article. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not deleted anything, I merged it into correct article. Even after my merge , one editor reverted it then I discussed why I did it in his talk , after i continued..

Multiple times my redirects is verified by Page reviewers as a correct. RI ^talk 11:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Visit All INDIA VEERASHAIVA MAHASABHA official website, and click three line menu in top left corner choose Veerashaiva option and read what it is written. http://www.veerashaivamahasabha.org/Home/About

the content related to Panchacharyas in Veerashaiva is merged to Correct title, I am not deleted anything which is well sourced.

Veerashaiva article redirected to Lingayatism, i did nothing wrong here. RI ^talk 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month from the article and alerted to CTOPS (which should have been done a long time ago). Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:PlatinumClipper96 reported by User:ShawarmaFan07 (Result: )

Page: East London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PlatinumClipper96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User repeatedly reverted their preferred edit back into the East London wikipedia page . I asked them to retain original edit until we finally get a consensus, whether it supported their edits or otherwise. I also told them to stop so we can talk about it several times such as [one], but again, they reverted back to their wanted revision.. They must stop reverting and continue with the discussion thread, rather than triggering chaos on the article.

User:ShawarmaFan07 reported by User:PlatinumClipper96 (Result: )

Page: East London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ShawarmaFan07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29] (original bold edit, IP is most likely ShawarmaFan07 based on contribs [30] [31])
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]
5. [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] [37]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

Comments:
ShawarmaFan07 made a bold edit (as an IP user) on 5th August, changing the long-standing wording on East London, which described it as "the northeastern part of London, England", to "the northeastern part of Greater London" [39]. I reverted this new wording here [40], with an explanation as to why this new wording is incorrect.

The user then reverts my revert [41] rather than initiating a talk page discussion. I reinstated the original wording on 3rd October [42].

The user reverted my revert again on [43] 17th October, this time starting a talk page discussion [44] (which I did not see and was not pinged into). I became aware of this today, reverting back to the original wording [45] and attempting to engage in a talk page discussion [46] [47].

They immediately revert again [48], and then again [49] (violating 3RR), telling me "Please stop. Continue the discussion first before we can check whether or not we can keep your edit or have it reverted". The latest addition to the talk page was mine, made 3 hours prior to their latest revert.

This user has recently received a block for edit warring. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

They added these [50] "warnings" to my talk page.

The user has also received several warnings on their talk page for disruptive editing on several other articles. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:176.113.180.173 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: )

Page: History of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 176.113.180.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A176.113.180.173&diff=&oldid=1257941683 Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Unexplained reverts"
2. 14:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Wasn't much of a compromise"
3. 09:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "Correction"
4. 23:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Correction"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on History of Africa."
2. 14:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

Has been reverted by at least four other editors at this point. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy tag @Kowal2701 --AntiDionysius (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've also opened a discussion at ANI. Should I request that be closed? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)