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:Choy4311 reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Both users warned)

Page: Davao City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Choy4311 (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]

Comments:
This user is trying to remove the thing Davao is most known for from the lead. I warned him about long-term edit warring. zzz (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I demand an audience first, please. I was the one who initiated the section move days earlier. User:Signedzzz reverted it hours after I did it. Whatever Davao is most know for is secondary data only and should be only put in the sections. Only primary introductory data should be in the introduction. I would please want to speak to the administrator who specializes in articles about Philippine LGUs. Thank you very much.

Both Warned. Any more of this will result in a block. Discuss it on the talk page, not via edit summaries. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Glman83 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Indeffed)

Page

Brighton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Glman83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "It even says it on the page? created in 2001 from the formerly separate towns of Brighton and Hove."
2. 05:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 21:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "Brighton isn’t a town it’s a constituent part of a city."
4. 15:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "Please read my email back from Brighton MP office."
5. 13:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Brighton (disambiguation). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No consensus has been found for this change at Talk:Brighton. The editor was warned for eddit warring on August 31 and in discussions since, but refuses to accept advice. Charles (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sock puppet indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Muirchertach1 reported by User:Jebcubed (Result: Malformed)

Page

9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Muirchertach1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "removal was initially explained here, now it has been on talk, you have reverted edit twice"
2. 23:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "removal was explained. holograms are not posited by the vast majority of public no-plane theorists"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit war between this user and User:Acroterion, User did not take discuss on Talk Page after being told to by Acroterion. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 12:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• 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) 14:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:73.67.33.9 reported by User:AbhiMukh97 (Result:Blocked)

Page

Cancer cell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

73.67.33.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 14:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 14:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 14:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 14:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 19:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ""
7. Consecutive edits made from 14:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC) to 19:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 14:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ""
   5. 19:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Cancer cell. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP blocked. In the future, simple vandalism like this can be reported to WP:AIV for quicker results. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Muirchertach1 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked)

Page: 9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muirchertach1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12], Muirchertach1's warning to me after two reverts, and after the previous report to AN3 was left on his talkpage.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Initiated by Muirchertach1 after three reverts, my response after he was reverted three times by two other editors [13]. Attempting to pick and choose winners from the "no planes" idea of 9/11 is nonsensical. Acroterion (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Хаджимурад reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: No violation)

Page: Shamil, 3rd Imam of Dagestan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Хаджимурад (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/912019949

Diffs of the user's reverts: User started deleting consensus information in March

1. Special:Diff/888065632

Deleting that information was against wikipedia policy as an Administrator pointed out when someone else tried to remove the same information a year ago — link to admin's decision Anyway, in April I tried to draw user:Хаджимурад's attention to talk page to that decision.

But recently edit warrior returned with the same edit

1. Special:Diff/914512519

I called him again to talk page with a revert:

1. Special:Diff/914805390

And invited him again

1. Special:Diff/915096976

He reacts with Edit warring with no any explanation

1. Special:Diff/915035575

I drew attention of an admin here and got an answer (quote): "Arsenekoumyk Arsen -- this dude is likely an Avar nationalist editor (user name references Hadzhi Murat) and is not being constructive from the start. A block is likely in order. You're already on 3rr and Im too busy to add my few cents there but feel free to copy paste.--Calthinus (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)"

Please take some measures

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Klačko reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Self-revert)

Page

Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Klačko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "This was pre-dispute version since user Resnjari made edit which triggered edit war, I completely agree with @Ktrimi991 that this shoud be resolved at the talk page - that was my proposal after all!"
2. 17:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915343114 by Resnjari (talk) again, minority languages are thoroughly mentioned in the Languages section! What is the problem to bring up the question in the talk page and try to reach consensus instead of engaging in edit war? What are you doing can be considered as vandalism, please stop! Otherwise you will be reported!"
3. 17:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915339711 by Resnjari (talk) 2. min./reg. lang. are thoroughly mentioned in Languages section, no need to double it with the section in the infobox; those countries articles you mentioned can still be considered exceptions, eg. Cro,BiH,Bul,Hun,Slo dont have it - what I'm saying is that it is NOT common rule which must be followed in the infobox! If you insist, try to reach consensus on talk page before making any edits"
4. 17:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915287225 by Resnjari (talk) discussed it before; 1. it is not a common practice to put minority&regional languages section in infobox, quite contrary: check the articles of Serbias neighbouring countries"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[14]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Typo */Add."

Comments:

I have asked editors involved in the content dispute to discuss on the talk page. 4 reverts made by Klačko within a very short period of time. The matter is trivial though I have suggested editors involved in the dispute open a RfC. I am filing this report but hopefully Klečko will reflect and opt for seeking solution on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Made another revert [15]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Note: @EdJohnston: Klačko reverted themselves. I think now things between those two editors can be solved on the talk page of the article (I pinged there both of them) and a block is not needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:, @EdJohnston:, before this gets closed i came across this comment not long after the talkpage discussion on the article started. @Sadko:, I can read Serbian. I hope your not trying to get @Klačko: into situations with this comment on their talkpage. You wrote [16] Полако. Зар им не видиш стратегију? Играју у тиму та двојица и раде координисано (навлаче да прекршиш правило 3 враћања). Вики ћелија, такорећи... Поздрав, свако добро." Translated it reads Slowly. Don't you see a strategy for them? They play in a team these two and work in coordination (inciting you to break 3 rule reverts). Wiki cells, so to speak ... Bye, all the best. Its disappointing that you use that kind of language casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. I hope you refrain from it in future and focus on the matter at hand in the article talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Closing with no action per this self-revert by User:Klačko. Disputes over the priority to be given to different languages are common in the domain of WP:ARBEE. When this happens, people seem to be fighting over a small advantage to be given to the country or language that they personally favor. If you are in a disagreement like that, try to figure out what the usual practice is in similar cases. User:Ktrimi991 has proposed an RfC and that is certainly something to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Remembernowandnow833 reported by User:Iseptuelenta (Result:Both warned)

Page: Bella Dayne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Remembernowandnow833 (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. [915305182] Removal of biographical data
2. [914682575] Removal of biographical data, with fake explanation
3. [910287370] Falsification of birth date, removal of birth name, removal of biographical data
4. [909685550] Falsification of birth date

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See warning on user talk page

Comments:
Iseptuelenta (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Iseptuelenta:, you are also edit warring; you are restoring disputed unsourced content to a WP:BLP. I've removed the BLP violations, as well as the unsourced promotional material added by Remembernowandnow833. If either of you edit the article to add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced content, it will likely lead to a block of your account. And no, IMDb is not a reliable source.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Hamedhbb reported by User:Wikaviani (Result:Blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

The reported user is engaged in edit-warring against several editors, including me, to push his POV, he's been warned by several editors too, but he has removed some of the warnings from his talk. He's trying to add controversial content to the article by the means of edit-warring and unreliable source (Youtube link). Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This report is unjustified. I quote a discussion in talk section below that is clearly stating the reason he thinks my source is unreliable is User:Wikaviani POV. I generally will doubt wikipedia values if some editors with a similar POV will try to misuse it for their political attitudes. Hamedhbb (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

5 reverts of several other editors within less than two hours makes this report quite relevant in my humble opinion ... Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Hamedhbb:; Would you please stop this edit war? First let's discuss here? We can reach a consensus.(@Aryzad:; @Wikaviani:; @HistoryofIran:)In2wiki (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Agreed. i asked for page protection. A Youtube link to support a POV, even from Sahar's father , is an unreliable source, especially when we know the nature of the Islamic regime of the Mullahs who does not hesitate to put pressure on people to obtain some "confession" ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC) @Aryzad:; @Wikaviani:; @HistoryofIran:) Thanks for trying to be fair. Your comment contradicts with the title though. Your comment is biased because of your political attitude. This is your judgment that is not necessarily correct regardless of my agreement. Let us take Persian civilisation to the next level by stop thinking on behalf of public and stop thinking we know more than them. That’s exactly what current regime is doing. Being clear is the best way forward. If you think it was a forced confession please at that to the content. Deal? Let people decide. Hamedhbb (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC) There can be a mention to the interview with the state-owned TV, but calling that "Sahar's father reaction" is not how it works. Aryzad (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC) IRI sources are unreliable, this interview should not be included without extra care of due WP:WEIGHT.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamedhbb (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum reported by User:VQuakr (Result: 2 weeks)

Page

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915383086 by Flyer22 Reborn (talk) Remove personal attack"
2. 22:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915381880 by Flyer22 Reborn (talk) Please do, accusing others of bias is a personal attack and therefor a violation of policy."
3. 22:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Flyer22 Reborn (talk) to last revision by Bacondrum (TW)"
4. 22:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "/* RFC - Improving the lede */ Remove personal attack as per WP:PERSONAL please focus on the edits, not me."

Comments:

3RR vio. Claim of a WP:NPA violation is without merit. VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Clearly a personal attack - he is accusing me of being biased - I am not and I take offense, it is a violation of WP:PERSONAL and WP:CIVIL This editor even states on his talk page that he is planning on coming after me: "will serve as evidence in the future." Why would he be collecting evidence against me? I think this is outrageous conduct from Flyer22. Bacondrum (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 23:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Troy102 reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: )

Page

Doctor Who (series 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Troy102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 01:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 00:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 22:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 20:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Doctor Who (series 11). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

(Previous discussions)

• Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)#There must be better than this
• Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)#Fan reaction missing
• Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)/Archive 2#Viewer ratings
• Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)/Archive 1#Rotten Tomatoes

Comments:

Continued addition of user-ratings despite hidden note warning against such additions, and being reverted and warned by three separate editors. Editor has no intention to discuss after performing the exact same edits every time. Has clearly violated 3RR. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:101.179.104.172 reported by User:Lupin VII (Result: )

Page

Soccer in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

101.179.104.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915414254 by Jevansen (talk) Please read the discussion where it says SHOULD and not MUST. My edits are not unconstructive. This discussion is intractable. Take me to ANI. This is not the forum for thi."
2. 03:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915400026 by HiLo48 (talk) consistent BRD misuse over numerous YEARS to push an AGENDA. Take it to ANI..."
3. 15:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915325624 by ToBeFree (talk) Wikipedia:BRD_misuse"
4. 15:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915325182 by Theinstantmatrix (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Soccer in Australia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None, no evidence of this... discussion is happening on my TALK page not on the actual page... complete misuse of BRD principles and WP:NOT. People acting like horses arses instead to push an agenda. If you want an agenda go stand on your own soap box, or start a forum. --101.179.104.172 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You accuse everyone who disagrees with you of "BRD abuse", and claiming editors are on soapboxes. It's getting old. Lupin VII (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

The horses arses here are Wikipedia:INCOMPETENT They are misusing BRD and 3RR to stifle change this needs a proper resolution. WP:NOT is also being abused by supporters of other sporting codes for their own agenda. The term soccer is also not neutral and fails NPOV. --101.179.104.172 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)