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:206.128.123.119 reported by User:NQ (Result: Semi)

Page

Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619747727 by NQ (talk) The "Facts" on here are worthless. The mess revolving around the Max Havoc film WERE NOT ALBERT'S FAULT."
2. 00:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619747074 by NQ (talk) WIKIPEDIA AND THE PEOPLE OF GUAM HAVE A VENDETTA AGAINST ALBERT PYUN!"
3. 00:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619745576 by NQ (talk) Pyun had nothing to do with the loan from Guam. This is all a campaign by the Guam people and the sorry-ass Guam press in attempt to slander Albert Pyun"
4. 00:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619744045 by Lucas Thoms (talk) continuing the fight..."
5. 00:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619708935 by HkCaGu (talk) I had the article restored to your version, Tony. Pyun and Cynthia spoke with me also. I'll be watching article now and changing the lies..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon. (tw)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent addition of personal commentary by self declared fans of the subject. See [1]  NQ  talk 00:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon indefinitely per WP:EW, WP:BLP and WP:MEAT. Another admin has already put indefinite semi on Albert Pyun. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please put a block on this IP? There are several more Albert Pyun movies as well as the article for the director himself that had always been subjected to this kind of spam/vendetta/3RRs. HkCaGu (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the IP restored the edits at HkCaGu's talk page (where HkCaGu have a right to remove content on his talk page). Please instate a block. Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't preemptively block an editor for what they might do in the future. However, I've blocked him for six months for making a legal threat here. He was also being tremendously disruptive on multiple user talk pages. That said, if another administrator believes that what he said doesn't constitute a legal threat (often a subject of much disagreement), they can feel free to take any action they deem appropriate without consulting with me first.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Zeta54 reported by User:Damián80 (Result: Indeffed)

Page: List of En otra piel characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of Mi corazón es tuyo episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zeta54 (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. Edit User Zeta54 on List of En otra piel characters
2. My edition
3. Edit User Zeta54 on List of Mi corazón es tuyo episodes
4. Here appeared an ip where reverts me.

Comments:
The user Zeta54, who was recorded yesterday in wikipedia, has started an edit war, because you want both items are deleted. This user is apparently a puppet Sky0000, user was blocked 3 months, for abusing multiple accounts, pretending to be other people. Although the user has not confirmed to be him, I order a audit [2].--Damián (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I confirm everything and I am really sorry, but Damian has also been blocked twice for edit warring[3], also his puppet account Chema, [4], which now is closed was in edit war 1 time[5]. That means for that person is 3rd time to be in war. Also Damian promised not to fall in wars again[6], but he broke his promise and tries to get rid of me by accusing me of doing multiple accounts. Also we have war in article List of Corazon Valiente characters. I have forgot many passwords and I know I did wrong, but please I am not only one who is guilty here. Best wishesZeta54 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Is admitting evade blockade?, That's wrong. Also do not know you do not want another account?. I've only reversed twice, because his desire that these two items are deleted, is unpredictable. Besides I is not get to complain to much.--Damián (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Damian, proofs say that you have been punished twice for that account, and 1 for puppet. Also you have had wars, where you didn't get punishment. I admit all, because I am honest. Zeta54 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you know that circumvent blocking, cause to be expelled forever from wikipedia?. I do not understand you want to tell everyone that I have been blocked 2 times and having a puppet account?. That and everyone knows it, in exchange for you, if I have fulfilled my two locks. And I have not escaped my blocks.--Damián (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't want that block. And I'm not escaping. And that's not my ip, I checked it from device. Really sorry. Zeta54 (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. Indeffed based on SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Narang 5 reported by User:Dialectric (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gopi Chand Narang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Narang 5 (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. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [diff]

1. [10]

Comments:
User Narang 5 has repeatedly removed a referenced 'controversies' section, without explanation or edit summary, and has not responded to requests to discuss the removal made in edit summaries and on the user's talk page.Dialectric (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Although the user did not violate WP:3RR, the user is a long-time SPA with an agenda. The user does not talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Biar122 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Declined)

Page: Lambros Tzavelas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Biar122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 4 Aug 15:08

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:37
2. 16:23
3. 17:33

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] Warning against removal of maintenance tags

Comments:

Stubborn removal of maintenance tags on self-written article despite warning. Not yet a 3RR breach, but clearly disruptive edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Both users were edit-warring over the tags. More important, it appears that Biar122 finally accepted the clean-up tag, so hopefully the dispute has been resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Moscow Connection reported by User:SilentDan297 (Result: Both warned)

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

Multiple edits have been made for each section, while I am guilty for previously forcing my edits in the past on this article, I have calmed down and gone with reasoning, however this editor, despite the lack of consensus he has, reverts my edits despite huge discussions on the talk page of which my edits are enforced by guidelines, templates and other editors.

1. Members
   • Format of just the generalised musical role of "Vocals" in place instead of the mentioning of "Scream" and "Clean" vocals and also the non-musical proffession "Dancer". [12]
   • Revert made by editor to include specific roles and include non-musical profession of Dancer. [13]
2. Infobox
   • To contain just the names of the labels they have been with and are currently with, not dates or trivial info. [14]
   • Revert made to include this info. [15]
3. Members + Discog
   • My edit with the members containing no birth dates or real names as discussed on the talk page along with agreed format on discography. [16]
   • Revert made by editor despite my consensus. [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Babymetal#Fresh discussion

Comments:

I have made other edits in the past as evidenced by the articles revision history but to list all the reverts would be a nightmare. Huge discussions have taken place and while several other editors have agreed to the edit's I have made Moscow Connection appears to be the only one against these edits as no one else has voiced out against them. SilentDan (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. It appears to me that both of you have been battling in the article and on the talk page for a while, although neither of you has breached WP:3RR, at least not recently. I don't care about the content dispute. I don't care who says who has consensus. You can't disrupt the article. Both SilentDan297 and Moscow Connection are warned that if you persist in similar behavior, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Malpaso reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Five reverts after being challenged by two editors over questionable sources and excessively detailed POV in the lead of a BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:SALAMMK reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Prophets in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Prophethood in Ahmadiyya */"
2. 09:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 09:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Prophethood in Ahmadiyya */"
4. 13:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 07:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC) "prophets in islam is ended with the prophet Muhammed (pbuh).prophet muhammed(pbuh) was the last prophet in islam ."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Prophets in Islam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussion: User_talk:NeilN#AHMADIYYA_MUSLIM_JAMAATHU NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. The user has a combination of problems. He has a language problem, making most of his contributions look incompetent. He obviously has an agenda, which means he apparently is not here to build an encclopedia. And he's aggressively disruptive, at the reported article and other editors' talk pages, as well as repeatedly creating an article that is tied to all of his other edits. Thus, the only issue for me was whether a block of limited duration or an indefinite block was warranted. I decided to accord him a little good faith and did not indefinitely block him.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:JackAidley reported by User:Tutelary (Result: )

Page

Jérôme Lejeune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620090207 by Kyohyi (talk)"
2. 12:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620002540 by Tutelary (talk)"
3. 10:30, 6 August 2014‎ {UTC) " (Removed 'original research' tag; every claim made in the article is appropriately referenced to quality sources; and no-one has replied to the talk page comment I made prior to removing the tag.)"
4. 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620002412 by Tutelary (talk) Please follow your own advice."
5. 20:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619960353 by Tutelary (talk) Too significant to leave out of lead."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Discuss on talk */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparison to Marthe Gautier article */"
2. 20:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparison to Marthe Gautier article */ r"

Comments:

The user has been prompted to follow WP:BRD but fails to do so. (I know that this is not a rule and is a popular essay.) All in all, the user has passed WP:3RR for the article, having been reverted by two different users. (One of them myself.) It seems that even after posting on talk, still decides to revert the material rather than wait for discussion. Note, Note: I have added one more diff since making this report, but note that it is different material than what was being reverted.Tutelary (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Jack's broken 3RR, yet not reverted since you left him a proper warning of 3RR on his talk page. He did remove the original research tag post that, an edit which has been reverted. If he does one more revert in the next few hours, he'll be blocked. I'll leave him another note on the talk page. Let's allow this to float, and block him if he doesn't follow. Do you think that works? Wifione ^Message 16:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am just a bit irritated that he's continued to revert as a result. He seems to be using the talk pages now and not accumulating a second 'R' after that initial WP:BRD. Tutelary (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• I know you're not asking me, but those were my thoughts precisely. There was an earlier warning but less obvious than the second. Still, I was reluctant to block unless he continued.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, you seem to be all around the project. How many same named socks do you have? :) Good to see you as always. Jack's removed the message I left him on the talk page. So I guess he's read it. I do think (and hope) he will follow my suggestion to him to use dispute resolution than reverts. I'll let the report remain here for now and just check back in the evening today. Good to bump into you. Wifione ^Message 17:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Heh, an SPI clerk is required to have a sock farm. I keep all the little critters well-fed and I encourage procreation. It's always a pleasure to see new little socks come into the world.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Dan56 reported by User:CountGramula (Result: )

Page: Run–D.M.C. (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Radio (LL Cool J album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23] Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts at Run–D.M.C. (album):

1. [25]
2. [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts at Radio (LL Cool J album):

1. [27]
2. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30],[31]

Comments: Dan56 is edit warring at two pages to keep mention of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time out of the lead. He says it's WP:UNDUE, but that is wrong, as the list is the most notable of all these types of rankings. Dan hasn't broken 3RR, and I doubt he would, but he twice reverted the same edit made by two different editors at two different pages without discussion, and that is edit warring. CountGramula (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither edit warring nor due weight, but I'm sure those looking at this might be interested in your edit history and in the fact that you seem to have made edits to articles immediately after I had made edits there ([32], [33], and this one for some reason caught CountGramula's interest). Dan56 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the guideline I cited in my revert at Aaliyah (album) is clear enough to avoid any discussion on this matter, so this report is kind of disconcerting and suspicious coming from someone who presumably had never encountered me. Dan56 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Carson2345 reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Behemoth (roller coaster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carson2345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Correct, cited version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]
7. [40]
8. [41]
9. [42]
10. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:

User is insisting on changing values at both this article and at Vortex (Canada's Wonderland). Changes are to statistics on these particular roller coasters that they say they obtained in person at the park itself. Unfortunately this is not verifiable and contradicts established reliably-sourced statistics already present in the article. Despite requests to stop from multiple editors, Carson2345 refuses to listen and keeps changing. Along with the Vortex article, their actions are now disrupting List of roller coaster rankings, where their uncited edit would indeed make a change to the listings. This needs to stop. --McDoobAU93 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing by Ronhjones.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:96.246.139.135 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Motion Picture Association of America film rating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Motion Picture Association of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.246.139.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Motion Picture Association of America film rating system

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]
6. [52]

Motion Picture Association of America

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:

The IP hasn't technically violated 3RR, but is conducting a slow-burn edit war across these two articles by repeatedly adding unsourced content to the articles, despite being reverted by three other editors besides myself. The IP started this campaign on August 1 on Motion Picture Association of America film rating system, but since the article was placed under semi-protection the IP has now turned their attention to Motion Picture Association of America. I've explained in edit summaries, at Talk:Motion Picture Association of America film rating system and at the IP's talk page but I'm getting stonewalled. If we get the latest article protected they'll probably just move on to another so the behavior needs to be addressed at an editor level. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djmex9205.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23! This editor has been driving me nuts the last few days. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Master Tyranus reported by User:Ahmetyal (Result: )

Page: Dersim Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Master Tyranus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dersim_Province&diff=prev&oldid=620128395
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dersim_Province&diff=prev&oldid=620130195
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dersim_Province&diff=prev&oldid=620130801

This user has violated 3RR and has removed parts of the article, which is reliably sourced. The article is Dersim Province, which got its name changed from Tunceli in early 2014. This is again sourced, but he keeps moving the page to Tunceli Province. --Ahmetyal (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahmetyal, has there been any discussion on this issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Well there is nothing to discuss. I've told him/her about the sources during my edits, but he kept editing/moving the page. --Ahmetyal (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've also told him that if he had some newer reliable sources for him claims, that I would accept them. --Ahmetyal (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. What is this "law", anyway?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:142.217.121.79 reported by User:Montanabw (Result: Declined)

Page: Horse worship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 142.217.121.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warned on August 4: [63]

• Appears to be a single use account that only has made these three edits as of today's posting: (contribs)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Warned on Aug 4, per above link. Clearly this user is aware of policy as two of my reversions were reverted by this anon IP as "vandalism" (or some spelling variant thereof) Comments:

This is a slow but persistent problem and appropriate warnings seem to be dong no good. This anon IP, with its first and only edits, is repeatedly inserting a link to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom via a redirect from "Brony fandom" to horse worship article. Not only is the link off topic (to a toy) but also is disrespectful when the topic is the cultural and religions practices of ancient people. I know this individual hasn't made 4 reverts in 24 hours yet, but they clearly need a cluebat and my warning was blown off, as the anon IP's edit summaries make abundantly clear. Maybe just semi-protect for now with an admin warning to this user will do. Montanabw^(talk) 00:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. The IP has made only three edits to Wikipedia, all to this article, two on August 4 and one on August 6. You issued him a templated vandalism warning. You didn't talk to him. You didn't warn him about edit warring. You didn't even notify him of this discussion, which is required. I can't block him for this, and there's no justification for semi-protecting the article. The only thing I could do would be to warn him as I agree that his edits are disruptive (silly is probably a better descriptor). He may be incompetent, judging not only the by the edits but by the edit summaries, or he may be a kid. But I'm not going to warn him until you've taken the trouble to talk to him first. Then you can you say you were "blown off" with some legitimacy. Sorry if my comments are a bit harsh, but you're a seasoned and productive editor, so I'm holding you to a higher standard. Besides, aren't you biased? If I recall, you're a horse person. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Haha! I'm not banned! Ponies rules! But sorry still. Regards, 142.217.121.79 (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)