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:Jessicakhani reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Darrick E. Antell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jessicakhani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff; their first de-tagging edit 19:19, 15 March 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 19:30, 15 March 2018
2. diff 20:23, 15 March 2018
3. diff 20:39, 15 March 2018
4. diff 20:48, 15 March 2018
5. diff 20:51, 15 March 2018
6. diff 21:00, 15 March 2018
7. diff 21:15, 15 March 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Darrick_E._Antell#COI_tag and please see also User_talk:Jessicakhani

Comments:

Obvious paid or conflicted editor who is just edit warring to try to remove tags, without addressing the issues. Has avoided disclosing and learning how COI is managed. Edit warring against two editors. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MAXXII12 reported by User:NZ Footballs Conscience (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Angels (Robbie Williams song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MAXXII12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 00:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 22:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Angels (Robbie Williams song). (TW)"
2. 22:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Angels (Robbie Williams song). (TW)"
3. 00:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Angels (Robbie Williams song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not giving an explanation of the edit does not give justification for one person to repeatedly remove someone else's edits. It seems nobody is allowed to touch this page which completely goes against the whole point of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The same parts have been edited many times by other users but one person seems to think they have full control of the page and nobody else can touch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User is ignoring this clear message. Page has been a target for this type of disruptive behaviour before to take this message out. Stop! DO NOT remove the following sourced information without first contributing to the discussion on the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angels_(Robbie_Williams_song) User is right you can remove stuff without justification normally, however they are ignoring the above message and WP:BRD. NZFC^(talk) 02:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

While this does nothing to defend the actions of MAXXII12, it is worth noting that NZ Footballs Conscience also reverted the article four times in a space of about 2.5 hours.

Diffs of the NZ Footballs Conscience's reverts

1. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert
3. 3rd revert
4. 4th revert

They are both just as guilty as each other. This isn't a case of one editor removing blatant vandalism or a major BLP issue. It's just two editors who both reverted 4 times within 24 hours.

Also

On the Jake Zyrus article, NZ Footballs Conscience has just made his 4th revert within 25 hours and 36 minutes, which seems like gaming the system and when combined with the above reverts pretty unacceptable.

1. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert
3. 3rd revert
4. 4th revert

Based on comments, I will be happy to move this to another 3RR report, or keep it here. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Spacecowboy. In the Robbie Williams article, the user is not even trying to take part in WP:BRD. In this other one, I hadn't realised I had reverted four times but I will take the fact that I have reverted too many times in that one. What I will point out, is neither IP or Spacecowboy gained consensus before enforcing their point of view, so that discussion has been taken to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard. If I get banned for the reverts, I understand that. But other parties haven't engaged in proper discussion either. NZFC^(talk) 07:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, content disputes do not allow people to edit war. The fact that you made this report shows that you are fully aware of the rules regarding edit warring and willing to file reports for other editors who violate that rule, it seems only fair that you follow the same rules and face the same sanctions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Saying if you want to mae an edit discuss it on my talk page then not attempting to engage in any discussion yourself and then reporting other users is pathtic. It seems what you want goes and thats it nobody else can change this page ever. Embarrassing — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that so many people have removed exactly that section before should tell you something but you seem to think you own it and only you can decide what is on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

below copy and paste showing that removing edits purely because the person hasn't explained why they have done so. It seems nobody is allowed to edit anything.

Was there any logic behind you undoing this edit of mine? I removed synthesis as per Wikipedia guidelines.

Did you revert me just because I'm editing with an IP? 124.106.137.248 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No, not because you are an IP but because it doesn't fit WP:MOS. NZFC(talk) 17:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC) I removed "(before his transition)" which part of MOS states that removing that is unacceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.137.248 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Sorry looking at wrong thing, you removed content without an explanation and it explains something that is relevant to the reader. NZFC(talk) 19:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs)

MAXXII12 You ignore hidden text put there by someone else saying to discuss it on the talk page first and removed content. There is a whole section in the article that talks about the writers dispute and a lead is supposed to summarise an article. This is what you keep removing. Someone else reverted you last time and I see again that you have removed source content. NZFC^(talk) 08:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi MAXXII12, I'm the other editor who has recently reverted you on the Angels page (please also note, I'm holding off on reverting your latest identical disruptive edit to the page until this edit warring discussion is resolved). I wasn't going to weigh in on this initially, but I want to clarify in particular that the hidden text you are removing does not ask you to discuss the writers dispute on any individual editor's talk page, but on the Angels article's talk page itself. Please make sure to read the text you are deleting more carefully next time. Additionally, your use of the pejoratives pathetic (rather amusingly misspelled pathtic) and Embarassing above comprises a blatant violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding Personal Attacks. --Jonie148 (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I read the text! I ignored it. I don't need to explain my edits to anyone. People who want to say discuss it on my yalk oage but are unwilling to open discusison themselves then report people are PATHETIC. If they are so keen it is discussed feel free to start the discussion by ststing why you are so against it being removed. Nobody should have the right to decide they own the page and its content especially when so many other people have clearly removed the same thing. Hilarious double standards in the last message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is absolutely a collaborative project, and I'm sorry if you feel your edits are being unfairly reverted by me and/or others. I propose that we start a productive discussion here then, as you still seem to be confused about which talk page we're suggesting the discussion should take place on. Subsequently, I'll start by telling you where I stand on the issue. If you watch the following video (goo.gl/gkGcPS) from the linked timestamp for just under twelve minutes, you can hear a recent interview with Robbie Williams, where he discusses the history of the song, and mentions Heffernan's claim to authorship explicitly numerous times (if you select settings > speed > 2 on the Youtube video settings, the relevant portion of the video will take less than 6 minutes to watch). This interview portion, being the recent testimony of the artist himself, is currently the most valid source available on the contested issue of the song's writers. What Williams says in the interview is summarized in the 'Writers' section of the article, meaning that the lead (which as NZ Footballs Conscience mentions in above discussion, is meant to summarize the greater content of the article concisely) only hints that the song's authorship is contested without going into further detail. My intention is not for the page to claim that Heffernan is a co-writer of the song, as such has not been proven, and probably never legally will be (the parties settled out of court), but to summarize and provide details of the debate around his involvement in the songwriting process itself. I therefore feel the lead should hint at the information provided later on in the article regarding writers, but I'm interested to hear your perspective on this, as your edits suggest you strongly disagree. Perhaps a more middle-ground alternative would be to make no reference to the song's writers whatsoever in the article's lead. --Jonie148 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Frankly, anyone who says "screw you" to concerns about edit warring is asking for a block. I have also warned NZ Footballs Conscience to not edit war. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Codebook44 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Reverse racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Codebook44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "added more color to the subtopic of reverse racism in admissions. This is as a result of one biased editor continually deleting objective factual data. So I sourced every sentence with one or multiple sources from such authorities as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Law Review, etc."
2. 05:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830657496 by EvergreenFir (talk) Sorry your view that an U of Michigan economist publishing under a public policy institute's banner is not a reliable source is simply wrongheaded. I would agree if you if the professor was making a normative argument. Rather, here is presenting objective data about admissions rates. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. To delete factual data about the discriminatory effect of affirmative action policies itself raises the question of bias. Let the facts remain in the article. There are two sides to the issue and you can't selectively edit out the side you disagree with."
3. 04:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830654147 by EvergreenFir (talk) It is not proper to delete a source because you believe the author may have an opinion or bias. Per WP:IRS: " However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." In any event, if the source was presenting a normative argument (like many of the sources already cited in this particular article), that would be one thing. But here the source is simply providing data in the form of a chart. If you want me to create a lengthy subsection on reverse discrimination against Asian Americans in higher education I will do so, as this is topic of considerable news coverage and available data as set forth in several ongoing lawsuits. I can put the cited material into this context."
4. 04:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830650264 by ArtifexMayhem (talk) AEI is a nonpartisan public policy research institute. In any event, it is inappropriate to delete a source simply providing objective, factual data about higher education admissions. The quoted text simply describes the available data."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Reverse racism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "/* AEI blog */ new section"

Comments:

Final edit included text from original edits, so constitutes a revert EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: in fact the above editor reverted my additions to the article several times. I never deleted anything from the article. I only added new information sourced from verifiable sources such as the New York Times. But this editor deleted wholesale claiming that it is withing their purview to ascribe impermissible POV to me as an editor, rather than to the text or source material which is the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebook44 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Codebook44 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User seems to not understand Wikipedia policy (WP:3RR, WP:NOR, WP:RS to be specific). They clearly made 5 undos. But since they have self-reverted, closing with no-action would be acceptable to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Codebook44 has undone their last change to the article. They state this is an 'undo per policy to go to talk page'. This concession might allow their 3RR violation to be overlooked. Even so, keep in mind that 'reverse racism' should be attributed to people only when sources use that term. Otherwise it's original research. We have a separate article on reverse discrimination which could be a better place for Codebook44 to consider adding their material. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Codebook44, I'm giving you a warning this time. Per the self-revert, I don't think there is a danger that the edit war will continue. If it does, we can block then. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:FactChecked1 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Identitarian movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FactChecked1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Please see my post on the talk page, Describing them as 'ethno-nationalists' recommended by Doug would appear to be a more accurate terminology as even Hope Not Hate describes them a such."
2. 01:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830619635 by Grayfell (talk)"
3. 23:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830613860 by Grayfell (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC) to 21:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830270127 by Grayfell (talk)"
   2. 21:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Identitarian movement. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Major Concerns About This Article */ c"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:John ecklu reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: John ecklu warned)

Page: Fucah Technologies Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John ecklu (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Comments:

• This doesn't need to be reported here. It isn't edit warring. The user is going through the regular warning series. He's now at level 2 for removing speedy deletion tags. If the article they've posted is deleted again and they then recreate it, I'll add creation of inappropriate pages to the warning mix. Largoplazo (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Warned John ecklu warned not to move draft into article space until it meets WP:CORP NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:LittleDipper reported by User:Khirurg (Result: )

Page

Western world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Let's stop this bullshit and talk"
2. 20:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Do you even know what is going on? "Make a sacrifice" is clearly part of my sig. Also, please see my talk page. basedon your edit summaries, it is clear you have antisemitic views; if you continue this obnixious behavior again-ignoring scholarly edits based on your autistic feels-I will report you."
3. 14:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "I am not "focusing only on the Hebrew Bible". If you wish, we can talk about its position on the talk page, but please do not remove it from the lead."
4. 02:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "All of Western ethics (all the way from "make a wish foundation gifts" for people dying of cancer to not letting disable people die in the forest) were first practiced by the people of Ancient Israel. Also, it is patently not true that Western culture was born in Europe, the Greeks took their mathematics and science and even symbolism (gold, silver, bronze, iron) from the civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Sumer, Egypt, Babylonia. "Alpha" came from the Middle Eastern letter "Aleph", "Beta" from "Beth", and so on."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "/* POV-pushing in the lede */ new section"

Comments:

Brightline 3rr vio, diff 1 is a revert of this [6], diffs 2-4 are a revert of this [7]. Edit summaries are troubling, especially this [8] and this [9], gives impression of being a WP:POVWARRIOR here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Broke 3rr after I warned him. Khirurg (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Especially disturbing are you ignoring what scholars say and pushing your POV, and you thinking it is okay to revert edits even without discussing them on the talk page first. YOU are the one violating WP:NOTHERE (what my edit summaries contain I just took from scholars) by accusing me of POV-pushing just because I added an image representative of Israel (see my argument on my talk page discussion with LuigiPotaro69, another antisemite who is also alt-right; Luigi himself is, like Khirurg, violating WP:NOTHERE, accusing me of Jewish propaganda without any evidence other than my edit being something he hates) on the lead, indicating that you are expressing your anti-Israel sentiment here. i should be the one accusing YOU of edit warring for forcing your way that your new edits should remain in place even though they are the one that should be reverted until consensus says otherwise per WP:ONUS. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 08:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Talkpage edits like [10] aren't too pretty either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I just felt I was being bullied by Khirurg's dishonesty and ironic accusations.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 13:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

LittleDipper: Cool. An apology for a personal attack, followed immediately by an excuse and another personal attack. That's really not how it works, guy. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mujdeda reported by User:Impru20 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Forza Italia

1. 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
2. 13:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
3. 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
4. 01:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
5. 20:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
6. 16:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
7. 23:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
8. 23:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
9. 17:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
10. 00:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
11. 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
12. 15:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Forza Italia (2013)

1. 15:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
2. 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
3. 00:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
4. 13:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
5. 23:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
6. 17.59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
7. 00:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
8. 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
9. 15:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC) and 09:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See both Talk:Forza Italia (2013)#Anthem and Talk:Forza Italia (2013)#Flag in infobox

Comments:
User keeps edit warring on both Forza Italia articles despite warnings from other users and a personal attempt to tell him on his behaviour constituting violations of WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. User fails to engage in any attempt of real discussion; he only tries to impose his view unilaterally (despite having been warned repeteadly and having been told there was no consensus for his edits), even resorting to unpolite and, sometimes, uncivil comments (as seen here or here). Impru20 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not true, actually they are started edit war without any reflection of the discussion at Talk:Forza Italia (2013), where were actual consensus of users to have flag there, as it is normalised by the wikipedia habits, only not to include anthem. --Mujdeda (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)