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User:BrillLyle reported by User:Jytdog (Result:Withdrawn )

Page: T.J. Miller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BrillLyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff - in this diff an IP added content about Miller's parentage sourced to a no-longer-there youtube video. I removed that as a BLP violation, along with a "wiki what" spam link that was adding no value

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 02:17, 8 October 2017, restored both
2. diff 02:25, 8 October 2017 , restored both, then removed dead youtube link but left unsourced content
3. diff 02:29, 8 October 2017, restored both
4. diff 03:17, 8 October 2017, restored both
5. diff 04:53, 8 October 2017 , restored both

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened sections Talk:T.J._Miller#use_as_spam and Talk:T.J._Miller#Heritage

Comments:

Note their responses at talk, which in response to my offer to talk this to RSN includes stuff like ... Issue resolved. Please stop bringing this up. It is resolved.....You are embarrassing yourself and you are making Wikipedia look like we have zero sense of humor. Also if you challenge Esquire magazine one more time, it's you who looks dumb.... You are wrong and you need to stop this behavior. Get some help dude (diff) and Actually NO, I do not want to take this to another notice board. I understand that you derive pleasure from harassing people and deleting content on Wikipedia. ... You need to stop and get some personal help (diff) and We don't actually have a dispute. We have an editor -- namely YOU -- who is deleting content. (diff)

And with regard to adding the unsourced content, writing Instead of deleting, I tagged it with citation needed. It is more productive. He has discussed his background before. It just needs a source. (diff) which is not how BLP works.

We are both over 3; i have pushed this beyond due to the BLP issue; it has been well-established that BrillLyle does not understand this essential policy. See here. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have already been through this exact same issue with Jytdog. He's deleting legitimate content. 3 times. I am restoring his deletions. This is not 3R. This is Jytdog.

Let's face it. He has a lot of problems which you all know about. Please address his problems and not the so-called edit warring here. Jytdog is deleting content and carrying out a bizarre vendetta against both Esquire magazine and Wiki What?, a humorous attempt to edit Wikipedia which has already been beneficial to the subjects of the articles who want things fixed. Or has been beneficial until Jytdog starts deleting the citations.

Bottom line is that Jytdog is a known harasser and is abusing his privilege to edit Wikipedia. His behavior is unacceptable. Please address these problems. It is not okay. -- BrillLyle (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You have now been reverted by someone else. Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup. That edit was really deficient. The Esquire source was not needed and the unsourced heritage info was removed per BLP and BURDEN.--Dr. K. 05:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi. May I suggest addressing the root of the problem? The question is whether the many Esquire sources come under REFSPAM. REFSPAM is a subtle version of spamming and people can legitimately disagree. I suggest opening a well-formulated, concise and neutral RfC. Otherwise this will just keep going on. I can open the RfC for you if you like. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Kingsindian that is a kind and sensible offer. I offered to bring this instance to RSN to resolve it and have done so. I will cite your offer there, and reply to it there.. Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh good. One of your minions stepping into the fray. I guess you win, Jytdawg! I'll stop editing if you are on the pages. Good job. I hope you enjoy this fully -- and that you get what's coming to you for being such an exemplary Wikipedian!!! Thanks too, to the Wikipedia community that allows this type of behavior. This needs to change. You have a HUGE problem here, and no one is fixing it. Jytdawg needs to be banned. It's just unacceptable what he does. I mean, everyone knows this. It's not about the specific at this point. It's about repeated behavior. -- BrillLyle (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• To the admins watching the PAs of this user, please block not only for the clear 3RR violation but also for the gratuitous attacks against any editor who disagrees with this account. Dr. K. 05:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm stopping editing anywhere JytDAWg is editing. No need to FURTHER threaten or harass me. I've had my fill with Jty! It's all on you now, admins. Not my problem anymore. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Erika, it would help if you could understand and assumed good faith that the editors disagreeing with you don't have issues or "minions", and they are not after you or to "harass you, just because they reverted your edits. This place is really an editorial board where everyone makes editorial decisions. It is natural that these individual editorial choices are frequently in conflict with each other. That does not mean that editors are out to get each other. That's where WP:AGF plays a big part. Otherwise, the wiki would descend into chaos. You should also realise that if editors disagree with you, there may be several good reasons as to why, and you should revisit the applicable policies. I withdraw my request that you be blocked and wish you the best here and on your future endeavours. Dr. K. 16:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• After all the above, BrillLyle added a new section at article talk (05:43, 8 October 2017) with heading "JytDAWG!" and a comment featuring "He obviously is in need of help". Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi John. I saw that, and that was one of the reasons of my earlier request for admin action, which I have since withdrawn. Hopefully, she will take my advice onboard. Dr. K. 16:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have been debating withdrawing this since the issue appears to be resolved..... So I am and have entered "withdrawn" above in the "result" field. If anybody wants to un-withdraw, please feel free to just remove that and note it here. Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• That was a good decision Jytdog. Dr. K. 16:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:82.132.242.204 reported by User:Martinevans123 (Result: )

Page: Strictly Come Dancing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.132.242.204 (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: [7]

Comments:

Plot spoiler results trolling, have lost count of the reverts there today. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:213.122.137.110 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: )

Page

Amy Hughes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "I have not been able to find where I flag this due to there being no evidence she actually ran 53 marathons in 53 days"
2. 20:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "It is just a sales site there is zero information about any runs"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC) to 18:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Record attempt */Clarified that not only did she not hold the record, she did apply for it but was rejected."
   2. 18:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Record attempt */Clarified they are just claims"
   3. 18:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Other activities */Clarified it is just a claim"
4. 18:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Social media reactions */Highlighted that it is an unsubstantiated claim"
5. 18:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "Pointed out her fame is based on an unverified claim."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Amy Hughes . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is ignoring the fact that 10 reliable sources on the page say she ran 53 marathons in 53 days. Repeatedly editing content to say that it's all apparently a claim with no sources, which is just ridiculous. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:
As can be seen from the Diffs of the user's reverts, he first made a partial cancellation of my edit regarding a sentence after which he made three consecutive massive reverts of all of my edits throughout the article. All the while, I attempted to discuss the issue with Axxxion on the talk page with no success. I also made two attempts at compromise, which were also without success. I myself made one partial and two full reverts (of his cancellation of all of my edits) before stopping. When I made my third revert and stopped I warned Axxxion that he himself had also made three reverts and was on the verge of making a violation of 3RR, while I stated I myself would not make any more steps towards violating 3RR. My warning was ignored and Axxxion made his third massive revert (and fourth overall). When I warned him he violated 3RR, that he should cancel his last revert and continue discussing the issue I was ignored and Axxxion continued arguing like he didn't hear my pleas regarding 3RR at all. EkoGraf (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Wagner Group#Problems: very clear that reverts were started by User:EkoGraf, who began discussion only after my pleas.Axxxion (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion, first you should read what constitutes a revert WP:3RR. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Your very first edit here [14] partially undid my edit regarding the sentence about the execution of the two PMCs. After, you made the three massive reverts. This makes a total of four reverts. Also, you first made the massive revert of all of my edits and only then requested a discussion on the talk page. I made a compromise attempt and removed the mention of OSM that you were having a problem with, but then you said you had a problem with what you described as irrelevant minutiae. Its not up to me or you to decide what details are irrelevant, we are here to simply write per the sources, otherwise it would be POV-pushing (as is your pushing for obscure/unverifiable media outlets to be more significant than those such as Reuters, The Telegraph, Washington Journal, etc). In any case, you made four edits that undid my own work. EkoGraf (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Biswajeet34 reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: )

Page

Ho people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Biswajeet34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC) to 10:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 10:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Notable Ho people */"
3. 09:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Notable Ho people */"
4. 09:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ho people. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This article has been in poor shape and has recently been made worse by a series of confirmed socks (see User:Purty). I don't know if this user is another sock, but I am trying to clean up the article, copy-edit and source it and make general improvements, but this user keeps reverting to the bad version without discussion despite invitation. William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 11:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Garageland66 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page

Antisemitism in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Garageland66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804538673 by GHcool (talk) This is one individual's subjective view. Do not unilaterally post such comments. Discuss them and get a consensus on the talk page."
2. 15:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry */ If you want to add subjective opinions wouldn't a group response like this be better than the view of just one individual. (None of this has been discussed on the talk page; so take it there?)"
3. 15:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804519485 by GHcool (talk) One person's hostile point of view. Put it on the Howard Jacobson page."
4. 12:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 804117564 by GHcool (talk) He didn't say this specifically about the Chakrabati report. It was an attempt to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Antisemitism in the United Kingdom */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I've reversed a very opinionated comment that was added without discussion on the talk page first. If it's added again without achieving a consensus on the talk page, then I reserve the right to reverse it. This is NOT edit-warring. This is preventing individuals with an agenda from adding opinionated comments without achieving a consensus first. The editor in question has form. Have a look at the episode when the page had to be protected because this editor kept trying to place a picture of Jeremy Corbyn on the antisemitism in the United Kingdom page. Garageland66 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User:WilliamThweatt reported by User:Biswajeet34 (Result: )

Page

Ho people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

User:WilliamThweatt

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10 October 2017‎(UTC) ""
2. 10 October 2017‎ 2017‎(UTC) ""
3. 10 October 2017 2017‎(UTC) ""
4. 10 October 2017‎ 2017‎(UTC) ""
5. 9 October 2017‎ 2017‎(UTC) ""
6. 9 October 2017‎ ‎ 2017‎(UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

If he has doubt,i invite him to my taik page for healthy discussion but he isnot interested.

Comments:

This article has been in good shape with accurate,reliable sources .Recently [User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] has edited without accurate,reliable sources with proper evidences, history and anthropology knowledges and trying to vandalise the Ho Tribe articles multiple times which is the violation of wikipedia editing policies.I don't know whether the user is confirmed check users by wikipedia administrator or not, but I am trying to clean up the article, copy-edit and source it and make general improvements, but this user keeps reverting to the bad version without discussion on my talk page despite invitation.