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:Rembo01 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Indonesian National Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rembo01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version reverted to 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC) by Ulcerative

Rembo01 is a throw-away account created to edit war on conflicts involving Indonesia (the one being reported is not the only article he/she is trying to impose his/her POV on). He/she also edited as an IP editor as part of this. On Indonesian National Revolution, they are trying, amongst other things, to put "Indonesian victory" into the infobox.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1] 111.94.67.181 13:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
2. [2] Rembo01 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
3. [3] Rembo01 03:00 - 04:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
4. [4] Rembo01 09:56 - 11:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
5. [5] Rembo01 15:52 - 16:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
6. [6] Rembo01 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:57 - 16:59, 7 March 2024‎ (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Indonesian National Revolution#"Military victory"

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

-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Bonesdonahue reported by User:Derknasnort (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: {{List of Super Bowl champions}}
User being reported: Bonesdonahue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

I have reverted this user's personal preference edits to this page, they have been warned about engaging in warring and told to take it to the talk page. It seems at this point they only want to push their preference on the page as they have reverted back their edits 3+ times.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Bonesdonahue

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:FMSky reported by User:Thesixthstaff (Result: )

Page: Killing of Laken Riley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FMSky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Laken_Riley&diff=prev&oldid=1212584403

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212584738
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212606534
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212612072
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212613004

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFMSky&diff=1212615400&oldid=1211833642

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thesixthstaff&diff=prev&oldid=1212612807 [diff]

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

Comments:

So obviously this article is already a really contentious subject right now. I've definitely been editing extensively, mostly to try to combat potential BLP violations, especially per WP:BLPCRIME. I don't think technically I've broken the 3RR rule here, but understand if my conduct could also be considered edit warring. With that in mind, do with me what you will. I've tried to find consensus on the talk page, etc, including adding the substance of FMSky's reversion to a sentence where it reads more naturally, but that got reverted as well. If it seems appropriate, I will put in a request at the pertinent noticeboard for pending changes protection on the page. Please also note that the user reverted my warning on their talk page and counter-warned me. Thesixthstaff (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you were edit warring too. Secondly, your edits go against the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Laken_Riley#WP:BLPCRIME? The only reason this murder is notable is because it was committed by an illegal immigrant, so removing this info (or hiding it with obscure wording) is unhelpful and disruptive -- FMSky (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't sought to remove reference to the suspect being an illegal immigrant - I deliberately included it, actually. If you look at any of my edits or diffs you will see that is the case. In addition, the talk page discussion you cited (which I started, btw) did not reach what I would consider "consensus", and certainly not a consensus strong enough that my movement of a word from one paragraph to the next would be considered in violation. Thesixthstaff (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@FMSky:, yes, you did revert four times in a couple of hours, but ... do you consider the issue resolved with what Sixth proposes here? I notice that afterwards you posted, then removed, an edit-war warning, suggesting that's the case. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I was fine with that suggestion but at the same time the user removed the initial mention that the suspect entered the US illegally https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Laken_Riley&diff=prev&oldid=1212612917 which i dont agree with

The context for my proposal of adding "illegally" to that sentence was with the understanding that I would remove the clause from the prior paragraph. I could have been clearer, but I stand by the compromise as reasonable. Thesixthstaff (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. The issue, really, isn't so much that he entered illegally as that when he was apprehended after doing that, he was released without being deported. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

EW aside, using the words murder and illegal in WikiVoice without any convictions is disturbing. I don't see this in the sources other than accused of, arrested for, and quotes by Republicans. This is a contentious BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

article doesnt call him an illegal, only that he entered the country illegally, which is supported by reliable sources: https://apnews.com/article/congress-laken-riley-immigration-ibarra-georgia-34b06b0829772900eb55c123fe151845 "Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan man who entered the U.S. illegally" --FMSky (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That source says this in the middle of statements by Republicans blaming Biden for the death, and the article is not specifically about this incident. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-riley-immigrants-crime-63181cbc7a89fe9fe28b1d0cf84c8b9a Immigration authorities say Mr. Ibarra, a Venezuelan, entered the country illegally in 2022.

Note that the sentence in the linked article links to another article about the man that only says arrested, not illegal. The only use of the word “murder” in both articles is a quote from Donald Trump. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I didnt add murder(er), discuss that with the user who did --FMSky (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the first fives cites and they do not state illegal in their voice, including the cite for that wording in our article. Our policies on BLPs are quite strict. I don't see any problem with using alleged. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:186.138.208.98 reported by User:JalenFolf (Result: Already blocked)

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

User being reported: 186.138.208.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 01:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 01:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC) ""
6. 02:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to English-language spelling reform#Extending or replacing the basic English alphabet"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "/* "Nooalf" listed at Redirects for discussion */ new section"
2. 01:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nooalf."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP disruptively edit warring an unsourced article during an ongoing RfD discussion. User does not seem interested in discussion at all. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Bonesdonahue reported by User:Derknasnort (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: List of Super Bowl champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported Bonesdonahue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List of Super Bowl champions&oldid=1211284479&dir=prev

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:

I have reverted and warned this user about their edits, it seems that they are just reverting their personal preference edits to vandalize the page for fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derknasnort (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing this specific page only. You can (and should) still discuss this at Talk:List of Super Bowl champions while blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Only in death reported by User:InfiniteNexus (Result: No violation)

Page: Paul Atreides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Only in death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212847316 by InfiniteNexus (talk) Per previous message. Please stop violating the NFCC policy."
2. 21:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212845313 by InfiniteNexus (talk) Removal of clear violations of the NFCC policy is an exemption from edit warring. Please desist from blatant use of non-free media."
3. 21:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212802415 by 2603:8001:3F02:518C:511C:83F1:2C18:40D7 (talk)"
4. 10:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212634026 by Goweegie2 (talk)"
5. 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212416343 by Kokaynegeesus (talk)"
6. 15:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212377823 by TAnthony (talk) See previous. This article is about the literary character, not the film depicition."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Paul Atreides."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Infobox image removal */ +"

Comments:

• Violations of WP:NFCC are exempt per WP:3RRNO. The article is about the literary character, who has been played by multiple actors on screen (of which there are free pictures). A depiction of the character could be easily created which strikes out point 1 of NFCC, and given both the article scope, subject barely mention the latest actor, this fails contextual significance (point 8) by miles. Its not a difficult policy to understand. "Can you create a free alternative? Yes? Dont use non-free media." "Does the picture add significantly to the article or reduce understanding by omission? No? Dont use the picture." It really isnt that complicated. Its just the usual crap arguments to avoid abiding by a policy which is deliberately strict to avoid editors, who are legally liable for their edits, being sued. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hostile comments like this one, This discussion is done, you clearly lack the capicity to understand a plainly written policy. I suggest you go find an admin to run to. [15], and That is frankly an idiotic interpretation of the policy and would justify *any* use of non-free media. [16] are not going to help your cause. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) User has reverted a seventh time: Special:Diff/1212848687. As have been explained to them multiple times, the fact that multiple editors have disagreed with their incorrect interpretation of NFCC is evidence that this is not a clear, obvious, or blatant violation. This user has refused to get the point, instead claiming that their actions are exempt from 3RR — which explicitly states (emphasis in original): Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• No violation. Using a non-free image when a free image is clearly available is unambiguously a violation, and as such is exempt from 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  A free image is not available. No image is present on the article or on Commons. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Free images of the actors who have played the character are available. Frankly, though, this is a fictional literary character, and probably doesn't need an image anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Free images of the actors who have played the character do not depict the subject of the article. This like saying articles about films should put free images of their cast and crew in the infobox, rather than a non-free poster. But regardless, this should be discussed on the article's talk page, and the user should not have reverted seven (!) times, against the consensus of multiple users. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  And if this was an article about the film character you might have a point. But it isnt. Its an article about the literary character and the (existing) pictures of the actors who have played him are already in the article which barely mentions them to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  (EC)Again though, you left out the important next part of the line "or could be created." There is literally nothing stopping anyone creating a picture of the literary character. There is a reason we dont use non-free pictures of live people (with the exceptions of some dictators) because there is always the ability to create one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. Concur with Black Kite. Clear NFCC violation, exempt from 3RR. CIreland (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)