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:2601:446:4202:2780:2965:367d:6fdb:3b7a reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Electronic dance music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:446:4202:2780:2965:367d:6fdb:3b7a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
(As 2601:446:4202:2780:dcce:e5cf:fb1f:adc1)

1. [2]

(As 2601:446:4202:2780:2965:367d:6fdb:3b7a)

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

(As 2601:446:4202:2780:e933:dd99:c7c4:2453)

1. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

It seems like the reverts were performed by 3 different users, but since they're reverting the same material ("However, being downtempo (arguably a ballad), it's not a dance recording."), I assume that they belong to the same person. Also, the first 4 strings of the IP addresses are the same, I've also looked them up, it's very likely that it's just the same person. Thus, I report the IP address who performed most of the reverts.

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 2601:446:4202:2780::/64 blocked NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:46.193.65.233 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Kingdom of Sardinia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 15:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773296100 by Acroterion (talk) If you name a "cat" a "lion", you made a mistake, you don't express your POV"
3. 15:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 15:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773295151 by Acroterion (talk)"
5. 15:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773292859 by Srnec (talk)"
6. 13:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773280048 by Dk1919 Franking (talk) The name of the country remain "Kingdom of Sardinia", not "Piemont" as it's just a part of it"
7. 08:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773183492 by Srnec (talk)"
8. 16:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC) "Piedmont-Sardinia is not official or contemporary name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Kingdom of Sardinia. (TW)"
2. 15:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kingdom of Sardinia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No response to request for talkpage use [9] Acroterion (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Bennyben1998 reported by User:Macrakis (Result: No violation)

Page: Radovan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bennyben1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:
User:Bennyben1998 has edited many articles about South Slavic names (Radovan, Dragoslav, Darko (given name), Vesna (name), Jasna (given name), Vuk (name), etc.) to add the claim that they are Russian and other names, although all (or almost all) the people listed on those pages is South Slavic (i.e., from former Yugoslavia or Bulgaria: Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, or Macedonian).

I removed these unsupported claims, including in the Category lists, including an Edit summary explaining why. Bennyben1998 reverted with no explanation, or with edit summaries like "PLEASE JUST LET THIS BE ALREADY!!!". I explained my reasoning on his Talk page, and he deleted my comments.

I also explained myself on the Talk:Darko (given name) page, but Bennyben1998 blanked the Talk page.

He continued his behavior, and I brought up the issue again on his talk page. He deleted my comment again, with Edit summary "Leave me alone!"

I warned him on his Talk page, and his answer was "I'll finally give you the answer you've been waiting for. I prefer names to be Slavic in general and besides, what I'm doing is none of your business and if it is then tell me how?"

I again explained calmly what the issues were, and included a warning. He has not responded.

Rather than reverting his changes myself, and restarting this unproductive cycle, I asked for help from DRN (and notified him), which closed this as a behavior dispute rather than a content dispute and referred me to this board. --Macrakis (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. I see that the article talk page is still empty, but that's where the discussion should have started. Not just on user talk page—it should have been reserved for notices that an article talk page discussion is happening. I see this mistake happening all the time. The venue matters, and it is the article talk page. That's where the content discussion goes. Goodluck at sorting it out at DRN, but I still think you should each outline your positions on the article talk page first. El_C 03:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:63.92.243.201 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Prison Break (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 63.92.243.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: If you've seen the user's edit summaries, you know that a friendly discussion won't be effective.

CityOfSilver 03:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I still think trying to engage the user on the article talk page is a worthwhile pursuit. El_C 03:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2605:E000:7E44:1200:4D46:8BDE:AF45:D86F reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Hungary in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:E000:7E44:1200:4D46:8BDE:AF45:D86F (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]
5. [24]
6. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nah.

CityOfSilver 04:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours AIV probably would have been acceptable too. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Shimlaites reported by User:TKSS (Result: Protected)

Page

Dutt (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773411360 by TKSS (talk) Use talk page, unexplained removal."
2. 10:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773087330 by TKSS (talk) Why?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Dutt (film). (TW)"
2. 06:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "/* April 2017 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:TKSS has been reverting my edits on Dutt (film) without any explanation and have already done so twice in less than 24 hrs. No effort by the user to engage on the talk page, instead he/she left a rather amusing, "you are blocked" message on my talk page with the apparent intention to show aggression. Please see for yourself. Thanks. Shimlaites (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Shimlaites https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shimlaites&oldid=773411692. Please see notice carefully he/she editor i have only said that you will be blocked if you revert my edits. "I haven't said that you are blocked". Please look and think before you write. BTW i am reverting your edits because it doesn't look good in these articles. It is an english encyclopedia there is no need of mentioning anything in hindi language. if you really want to mention it then please make an article of this film on hindi wikipedia. BTW most good quality film articles on this site doesn't mention anything in hindi or other regional language . TKSS (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@User:TKSS And who are you to decide what looks good in an article? Name in the native script is a norm and is available on all the pages, it seems you only know one article on Wikipedia and are not following other film pages, they all have the native script, now stop reverting, which is close to vandalism. Shimlaites (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

"...with the apparent intention to show aggression" - TKSS did the same thing you did here, Shimlaites. Your complaint is disingenuous. Both of you should have tried actual talking instead of slapping templates on each other. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note - I'm going to abstain from administrating here, but there is problematic behavior going on between both of these users. Shimlaites should surely beware the WP:BOOMERANG here. There's no indication that Shimlaites attempted to discuss this. Rather, *I* opened a discussion at Talk:Dutt (film) to get these two people to start discussing. Shimlaites then reverted the article again, and subsequently requested page protection. Very questionable chain of events. Shimlaites' inability to let the status quo remain is upsetting. And while both editors should have opened a discussion, Shimlaites should have done this the first time he was reverted. Note also that the crux of this ludicrous timesuck is about whether Hindi script belongs in a film article's infobox. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The reverting was started by User:TKSS(here), not me, this is something that should be clarified. I was the one who first mentioned about discussion on the talk page in my edits summary, which I am sure is meant to be read by other users. In his edit summaries, User:TKSS only talked about how he/she felt the article should be, if there is a problem of behavior here, I don't see how I am to be blamed but then its a case of POV, everyone has one. Shimlaites (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What I was saying (without going into all the detail) is that per WP:BRD, when you are reverted, the onus is yours to open discussion. However, in your defense, there were three unexplained edits by TKSS here, here and here. So your frustration is understandable. Since I didn't have as full an understanding of the dispute when I wrote the above comment, I have striken out irrelevant portions. I think this AN3 case should be closed after I warn TKSS about the problematic silent reversions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected – 3 days by User:Lectonar. If there is an actual consensus regarding use of Hindi text, you will be more persuasive if you can link to where this matter was discussed previously. Or you could ask any long-time editor who is familiar with articles about the Indian cinema. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:5.172.255.124 reported by User:Oliszydlowski (Result: Block, Semi)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Comments:

Persistent vandalism and personal attacks. Severe edit war and vile crude language. Already applied for the page protection. User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 19:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Ymblanter. Page semiprotected by User:Lectonar. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:5.172.255.118 reported by User:Oliszydlowski (Result: Semi)

Page

Largest capital cities of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Comments:

Persistent vandalism and personal attacks. Severe edit war and vile crude language. Already applied for the page protection. User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 23:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: Page semiprotected one month. User:Hut 8.5 has deleted the bad edit summary per the request at WP:RFPP. The same user has been warring at Warsaw with a variety of IPs. If you see further problems a /24 rangeblock should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:4TheWynne reported by User:113.210.60.212 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page:  
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• 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. If this is about Cate Blanchett, don't bother. 4TheWynne is not close to WP:3RR and is upholding WP:BLP NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:NokSuk reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page

Russian Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "deos wiki concensus overwrite russian goverments classification of their own military?"
2. 19:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "the russian goverment decides what's part of their military services not wiki users. they say the NG and BS are all military, then that's where we have to inclide them"
3. 19:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "there are multiple sources confirming this, including the one that says the russian armed forces is at 93% manpower level. but i'm assuming mr englishman who'd rather use outdated swedish sources wouldn't know how to read russian."
4. 19:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "if you are refering to the National guard. they are soldeirs. they don't do police work"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Russian Armed Forces."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring to get material that isn't fully supported by the source into the article, in spite of having been told to discuss the edit instead. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours By Mifter NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Lennytran reported by User:Nmphuong91 (Result: Warned)

Page: Bao Dai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lennytran (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. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]
6. [32]
7. [33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%E1%BA%A3o_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i&diff=773606851&oldid=773571235

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bảo_Đại#Removal_of_remarks_section

Comments:

• Warned. Please let me know if there's any further edit warring. El_C 06:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• The edit war still continue despite the warning. [34] Nmphuong91 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:uses different ip's reported by Wega14 (Result: No violation)

Page: Near-death experience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: user uses different ip's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User (ip) is deleting content, which has source, saying something: youtube is not allowed, but there is not youtube-source given. User include too old literature in further reading. Wega14 (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• No violation For one thing, there's clearly no violation of 3RR. For another thing, the IP's largely removing junk in-popular-culture content; such content is virtually always worthy of excision. And thirdly, don't invent rules prohibiting literature beyond a certain (unspecified) date. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

junk in-popular-culture?: these have all own articles in Wikipedia. Your comment is POV.Wega14 (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Antihypocritic reported by User:Stickee (Result: )

Page

Gun laws in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 10:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "Yes, please stop and respectully consider a NPOV. SYNTH is not numerical summarization, See WP:SYNTHNOT. ABS is a RS.Undid revision 773607740 by Stickee (talk)"
2. 12:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "SYNTH is not numerical summarization, See WP:SYNTHNOT. ABS is a RS. Undid revision 773601437 by CamV8 (talk)"
3. 10:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Inserted under heading "Measuring the effects of firearms laws in Australia". It is not NPOV to ignore general rates of homicide or homicide by other weapons when evaluating gun control measures. */"
4. 11:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "This is CALC not OR. Undid revision 772992315 by Felsic2 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gun laws in Australia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "/* ABS statistics */ re"

Comments:

Warring against 3 different editors. Fourth revert is just outside the 24 hour window. Stickee (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Elispall reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: )

Page: Lovely Professional University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elispall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] [41] [42]

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

Comments:
User continues to insert poorly sourced promotional material into Lovely Professional University, despite being warned not to.

User:Springee reported by User:64.134.164.239 (Result: )

Page: List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments: