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:湾岸2024 reported by User:Nimbus227 (Result: Stale)

Page: Pratt & Whitney F135 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 湾岸2024 (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. [diff]

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:

Baffling edits, baffling discussion on article talk page, out of ideas. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Asked not to cross post at Talk:Pratt & Whitney F119 here. Not sure why the user name is giving an error in this report, possibly because the page hasn't been created yet? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

While the user clearly has some competence issues, I disagree with you calling their edits original research on the talk page since they seem to me to be simple, routine arithmetic based on sourced numbers which does not count as original research. They even reproduce some of that math there. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

And, yes, when a user has not yet created a page for themselves, their username is redlinked. It's not an error, just the way the software works. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of red links, I believe I had put their name in the wrong field. To be fair I don't come here every day. Is four reverts not edit warring? Synthesis, OR and calc aside they were demanding that American engines display their specifications in a Russian/Chinese format. As this is the English Wikipedia I don't think it was unreasonable to say that wasn't possible or desired but they persisted anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that last part hadn't been clear until now. Still ... you give only three reverts above, and if I were to infer which edit you meant to be the fourth from the article history it would appear that you are making the entirely too-common mistake of listing the "edit reverted to" as one of the reverts.

In fact, they arguably have as strong, if not stronger, a case against you for violating 3RR as your reverts of their edits do not come under the 3RRNO exceptions. I would, seeing as you are as you said not a frequent reporter here, commend your attention to WP:DISCFAIL, written to adddress this sort of situation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken I reverted only three times, being very aware of 3RR I stopped and came here. I provided clear rationales in the edit summaries and attempted to converse with the user on the article talk page, it's not accurate to state that I did not try to discuss the problematic edits. I can see this is going nowhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nimbus227: You're not mistaken. You reverted only 3x. 湾岸2024 reverted 4x but the last revert was outside the 24-hour window. Your biggest "mistake", Nimbus227, was that you didn't prepare this report properly. The reason for the error in the username was because you failed to put it in one of the spots the template asks you to - I fixed that if you look back at the history of this page. The second error, which, unfortunately, is not that uncommon was you listed only 3 reverts instead of 4. In any event, because all of this happened a few days ago, I'm going to decline this as stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Luffaloaf reported by User:WeatherWriter (Result: Blocked both (reporter for 1 week and reportee for 72 hours))

Page: 2005 Birmingham tornado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luffaloaf (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]
6. [14]
7. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None. (User received edit warring block in the last 2 weeks)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado#The tornado was rated F2, or T4, not “T5-6” or F3 & Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado#Should the article’s infobox indicate EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6?, two long talk page discussions.

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

Comments:
I may earn a boomerang block for edit warring myself, however, I believe this report is necessary. Luffaloaf seems to lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia. This user has 176 edits total, of which, roughly 80% involve some sort of edit war. On December 7, Luffaloaf got involved in an edit war with 3 other editors (See 1764 Woldegk tornado: Revision history) and earned a 24 hour edit warring block. Back in October 2024, when they first joined, they received several talk page warnings for edit warring on the Harry Potter article (User talk:Luffaloaf#October 2024. And now, less than 2 weeks after being blocked for edit warring, they have done it again on the 2005 Birmingham tornado article (see article revision history). Another editor EF5 noted back during the December 7 edit war that this user also took to Reddit about the edit war. To also help the CIR issue, amid the edit war, actually their first edit to the article after being blocked for edit warring, the added unverified information.

During today’s edit war with myself, to help diffuse the situation, I directly asked if they would be ok with a larger community discussion starting, to which they replied they were ok with it. As such, I opened an RFC. However, despite being reminded of WP:BRD, twice, (boldly changing content, being challenged by another editor, and then agreeing to discuss it), in two separate edit warring reversions by myself ([17][18]), with me both times asking to wait for the RFC consensus to see if the content should change, they continued to edit war. I am ok with a boomerang block for edit warring, as I admit that I got well to engaged in the edit war (I deserve it for this edit summary), but I also see a clear pattern with Luffaloaf not understanding the concept of WP:3RR, edit warring, and WP:BRD, given their numerous notifications on it, their recent edit warring block, and the fact roughly 80% of their total edits on Wikipedia are engaging in edit wars. This is a case of not being mature enough to edit Wikipedia, which, in my opinion, seems to be confirmed with those off-Wiki Reddit posts discovered by EF5 linked above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This amounts to character assassination and trying to “ban a POV you dislike”. I engaged in the behavior you did, regrettably. I also made it clear that you supported IP additions without sources at all, and when I re-established edits because I found ample sources for all of them (in accordance with the ongoing talk page back-and-forth), you continued to revert them and uphold flagrant misinformation. My point in doing so after the initial back-and-forth editing was to update the page with the aggregate of sources I had found in the progress of the talk page dispute. Also, where is the data on “80% of my edits being related to edit-warring” [sic]? Immature editing is upholding unsourced edits in spite of sources, and using Wikipedia regulation to gatekeep pages. I abided by my original block, and engaged on talk pages as much as possible. In regards to Harry Potter edits, I eventually stopped. Not sure how really any of your examples constitute “not being mature enough” to edit Wikipedia. That sounds like you trying to ban someone who challenges any edit of yours or POV you favor, a common behavior among established Wikipedia editors. Luffaloaf (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Statements like that, along with large replies like this one on a good article I think help confirm maybe righting great wrongs. I do apologize for engaging in the edit war. My mistakes should not have encouraged you to do the exact same thing you got blocked for 2 weeks ago back on December 7. If anything, that almost seems to indicate you learned nothing from that block, since you went with “Oh, this editor is doing this, I can do it too”. I am not perfect and here I saw my mistake and admitted it. You got a block 10 days ago and clearly did not learn anything from it. Your editing behavior is a clear pattern now on 3 separate articles, which was seen by other editors, not just myself. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

“A good article” = meet Wikipedia’s kind of arbitrary editorial standard. The information sourced is poorly represented, and there are massive flaws in the source, yes. Your attempt to uphold an F5 rating and 300 MPH wind speed on the page for that 18th century tornado from the ESSL laughably clashes with your attempt to disregard an EF2 rating for a 2005 tornado, handed down from a structural engineer, previously involved in tons of notable tornado surveys in the US, who undertook an actual damage survey with photo documentation of the damage. It just doesn’t make sense. It indicates to me that you, and maybe others, are trying to exaggerate the intensity of European tornadoes and tornado climatology. You are the malfeasant editor here, regardless of the “Wikipedia lawfare” article gatekeeping stuff. You are the only editor who had consistently opposed my edits. Luffaloaf (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\

Will note that Luffaloaf has called Wikipedia's rules "autistic" and me a "euroretard" on the same Reddit thread (my Reddit username is "LiminalityMusic", I don't care disclosing that. E_F⁵ 12:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Now at WP:ANI. E_F⁵ 13:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Will note that this is insane to bring into a Wikipedia dispute? This has not happened on Wikipedia. Luffaloaf (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: Luffaloaf is continuing to edit war with another user, amid this administrator noticeboard discussion. Very clear WP:CIR issue with a clear lack of understanding of Wikipedia’s WP:BRD and WP:3RR policies. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  You are continuing to disregard sources to peddle misinformation on multiple pages related to tornadoes in Europe. You can lie all you want, the Birmingham tornado of 2005 was rated an EF2. It’s as plain as day. Why does that upset you so much? Luffaloaf (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours I see at least 6 reverts each. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Whether or not I’m supposed to reply here I don’t know. But I would like to ask for some clarification (preferably from @EvergreenFir) on why the comment above says that WeatherWriter was blocked for 48 hours but the talk page says he was blocked for a week. Is there any particular reason for the discrepancy; was there an error or a typo somewhere? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Hurricane Clyde I was using the script tools when I did this. I then went to block the individuals and, upon reviewing their block logs, found previous edit warring behaviors. Per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur."

  Luffaloaf was blocked by Favonian just the other week for 24 hours for edit warring, so I escalated that to 72 hours. WeatherWriter has a rather lengthy block log, and I saw two blocks for edit warring in it. Upon looking again, I see that the second "block" was just an adjustment of the first one which was 72 hours. Regardless, I do not think an escalation from 3 days (72 hours) to 7 days is unreasonable, especially give the other disputative behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

User:PaleoFile reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Warned users)

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

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24] (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]

Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Both users have been Warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Those users and Mei23448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems continuing edit wars on Monquirasaurus and Sachicasaurus articles.

  1. [26]

  2. [27]

  3. [28]

  4. [29]

  5. [30]

  6. [31]

  In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.[32]

  Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing,[33] while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Pipera reported by User:Paramandyr (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Page: Robert de Quincy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pipera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42],[43]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

Comments:

Pipera has chosen to add grandchildren and great grandchildren to the Robert de Quincy article. I have stated on the article talk page this is unnecessary and off-topic to Robert de Quincy. They have also misrepresented what a source states, which I have also stated on the article talk page.

Even while filling out this report Pipera has reverted me twice, choosing to add back an unused 1790 source to the Sources section, and readding Robert's grandchildren and great grandchildren. This after being told by user:Ealdgyth(17 December 2024) that WP:AGEMATTERS.[45] Honestly, I don't think Pipera is here to build a community encyclopedia. --Paramandyr (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

content user added to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have added the followi9ng: Robert married Orabilis, daughter of Nes fitz William, Lord of Leuchars. . Orabilis was married three times to Morggán, Earl of Mar and Adam of Fife, as stated in the links provided. They had: Saer de Quincy (died 1219), married Margaret de Beaumont, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester Unknown (daughter) de Quincy married de St Andrew Sir Saer I de St Andrew of East Haddon married Matilda de Dyve daughter of Hugh Dyve and Agnes they had issue: Robert de St Andrew married Albreda James de St Andrew (1228) Ralph de St Andrew (1228 - 1278) William de St Andrew Laurence de St Andrew Saer II de St Andrew John de St Andrew Sir Roger de St Andrew (d before 1249) Orabilis and Robert divorced. Secondly, he married Eve of Galloway, who was previously married to Walter Barclay. . it is alright for the children of Saer de Quincy to be placed on his page here, and not for the children of his sis5ter not to be placed here. They are also the grandchildren of the said parents and deserve the right to be placed there as well as the marriages of Roberts first wife and her three husbands as well as the second marriage of Robert her husband.

I do not think I have broken any rules by adding this to his article supported by the external links provided. Pipera (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I have posted to the talk page this is also incorrect. Pipera (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not in an edit war, I posted new information which is educationally correct and was removed without any academic argument it was gone. no pre talk on the talk page concerning what was supplied by the person deleting the information.

They firstly need to raise and entry and then talk and resolve, Pipera (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I am expanding these articles not rolling them back. I have been editing here since at least the year 2001, I was editing entries for the 9/11 project obituaries for the people that passed in 9/11. Pipera (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

See

User talk:Paramandyr: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paramandyr&diff=prev&oldid=1264014635

Latest revision as of 23:20, 19 December 2024 edit undo thank

Paramandyr (talk | contribs)

removed, stay off my talk page

Tag: Undo Pipera (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

User:2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D reported by User:Moscow Connection (Result: Stale; content removed)

Page: Sigma Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

Comments:
If the IP reverts one more time, could someone please block them and revert their nonsensical edit? (Okay, maybe it's not "nonsensical", but it's incorrect.) Moscow Connection (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Stale; content removed until a consensus is found ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)