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:Charlesdrakew reported by User:RiceWife (Result: RiceWife indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry)

Page: Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Charlesdrakew (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]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user has been impossible to talk to - through their talk page and edit comments. There is no reasoning with him - from myself and other users.

Comments:

He seems to have a problem with "future" routes on Wikipedia and has been reverting these. Despite other editors and myself telling him otherwise he continues to vandalise these pages and doesn't show any sign of stopping. Just for context - he is also creating issues on: Sofia Airport, Doncaster Sheffield Airport and Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport. Thanks RiceWife (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Technically Charlesdrakew hasn't broken 3RR, but only by a margin of a few minutes, which looks like he may be gaming the system. However, the sudden appearance of RiceWife to take over reverting duties for User:Flyingmaneasy does look highly suspicious. I'd like to see some confirmation that RiceWife is not a sock of Flyingmaneasy (who I've just blocked for violating 3RR at Doncaster Sheffield Airport) before deciding on this. @Bbb23, Materialscientist, and NinjaRobotPirate: Are any of you able to confirm? Cheers, Number 57 14:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It does seem like he is gaming the system but rules are rules! RiceWife (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Number 57: Flyingmaneasy and RiceWife are  Confirmed socks of OrangeJet (talk · contribs · count) and have all been blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Bbb23.
• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of indefinitely Number 57 14:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Castop reported by User:Alexis Jazz (Result: Blocked for a week)

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

Same old, same old. Except now they made a suggestion to me and Lambtron that ClueBot NG does not approve of.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of a week Seeing as they started making the same edits almost as soon as their previous block expired, I've given them a week off this time. Number 57 14:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ainsley Louis Mallari9 reported by User:Broadwaygenius (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Ainsley Louis Mallari9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
2. 14:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
3. 14:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
4. 14:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
5. 14:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blanked page 5 times in 3 minutes, warring with users trying to stop them. Blanked a series of other pages Broadwaygenius (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Given their behaviour across many pages, it doesn't seem like they're going to be an asset to Wikipedia. Number 57 14:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

User:188.87.238.162 reported by User:Tryptofish (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Yvette d'Entremont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.87.238.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Comments:
IP edit warring to insert WP:ELNO link, continues to revert (starting with 3rd revert) after getting the warning on the talk page, indicating intent to continue. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Aw, man, Tryptofish... I was just about to try to solve this dispute. I'll write a bit faster, then.

To get back on topic, I was one of those who added a warning, noting that the user continued to add the content in dispute, and did not take measures to discuss this issue. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

User:2001:56A:F6FD:500:150C:9A7A:6DDC:9076 reported by User:Broadwaygenius (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Listing and approval use and compliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2001:56A:F6FD:500:150C:9A7A:6DDC:9076 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 07:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 07:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on PlayStation 3 system software. (TW)"
2. 07:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on PlayStation 3 system software. (TW)"
3. 07:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Certification mark. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Already blocked No 3RR violation, but they've already been blocked for vandalism. Number 57 11:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:178.135.225.105 reported by User:Redalert2fan (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Frozen (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "How many of you people are hungry attackers against vandals?"
2. 11:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision. You guys have problems,"
3. 11:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845233270 by your mom lol (talk)"
4. 11:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845233270 by your mom lol (talk)"
5. 11:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropria"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Frozen (franchise). (TW)"
2. 11:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Frozen (franchise). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user will probably continue with reverting Redalert2fan (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Further notice, the user has been blocked but tried to impersonate Jimbo Wales on his talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redalert2fan (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Widr (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:TBBC reported by User:JuneGloom07 (Result:Blocked for six months. )

Page: Tori Morgan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TBBC (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:
Not the first time User:TBBC has edit warred on this page. It was previously protected on 13 April 2018‎ until 7 June by Courcelles. JuneGloom07 Talk 15:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked six months, last block for 3 RR was 45 days. Courcelles (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:24.146.192.87 reported by User:QuickWittedHare (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "SCAM OF A COMPANY!!!"
2. 17:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "THIS IS A SCAM ARTICLE FOR A SCAM OF A COMPANY!!!....LOOK UP THE LOCATION ON GOOGLE MAPS!!"
3. 17:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845269110 by Arjayay (talk)"
4. 16:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845269016 by Arjayay (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC) to 16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845268815 by Susmuffin (talk)"
   2. 16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845268716 by Arjayay (talk)"
6. 16:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 16:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Baristas. (TW)"
2. 16:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Corrected date"
3. 17:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Baristas. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not here to build at the moment, Edit warring between multiple subjects QuickWittedHare (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Number 57 17:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DragonFury reported by User:Pe19 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29] (this is on user talk page, requesting that they explain why they reverted. One cannot resolve anything on article talk pages if the reverter does not offer any hint of why they reverted)

Comments:

I fixed a misused preposition in an article. The user I am reporting undid my edit without any explanation. I left a message on their talk page, pointing out that this was disruptive. I reinstated the edit. They undid my edit a second time, again with no explanation. This cannot be seen as anything other than deliberately disruptive. I commented again on their talk page. They have just undone my edit for the third time, with no explanation in the edit summary or on their talk page, though with an attempted justification on their talk page. Their second and third reverts cannot be anything other than fully conscious disruption, and so while they have not broken the 3RR, I am reporting them here as clearly they wish to provoke an edit war. I see they've been warned for 3RR violations and personal attacks in the recent past. Pe19 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Pe19, you're both at three reverts and DragonFury has now provided as explanation (it would have been better if the first revert had an edit summary containing that explanation). Please work it out on the talk page along with the other editor who reverted you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree there is not a 3RR violation. I already said that. As I understand it, that is simply an incontrovertible demonstration that edit warring is taking place. Not breaking that rule doesn't mean you're not edit warring. And it's clear that this user did not revert my edits for any reason - after a message specifically pointing out that not explaining themselves was disruptive, they made the same unexplained edit twice more. And because they eventually made some attempt at an explanation, you think their behaviour is fine? Pe19 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Pe19: There can be a great distance between behavior not being fine and behavior being blockable. Your three reverts and initial message accusing the editor of being disruptive was not fine either, but not blockable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I reported problematic behaviour. But you've condoned it, and now you suggest that calling out disruptive behaviour was "not fine"? Amazing. Pe19 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, I'm saying that telling an editor that they're being disruptive because of one revert without an edit summary is "not fine" behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
          • You ever read WP:REVEXP? I will call out disruptive behaviour when I see it, and I trust that most admins appreciate that rather than (for whatever reason) feel threatened by it. Pe19 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to do this to you NeilN, but I'm afraid that this isn't over. Could you take a look at subsequent events and give me your take, please? The OP appears to have decided that as the discussion wasn't going their way they would prefer to revert to edit warring behaviour (after accusing me of trolling... nice). Their recent string of edits have made the text of the article better, but I have to say I am distinctly unimpressed by their bully-boy tantrums and personal attacks. Pyrope 17:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pyrope and Pe19: Would it help if I asked an uninvolved editor who is a self-described "grammar Nazi" to have a look and weigh in if they want? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a bad idea NeilN, although the actual content issue is less concerning to me than the behaviour of this editor toward others attempting to interact with them in good faith. Pyrope 18:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pyrope: Probably best to assume they read your post but didn't get the points you were making. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I am distinctly unimpressed by 1) users reverting without explanation in an act of deliberate provocation; 2) administrators endorsing such behaviour; 3) users taking about me behind my back. None of these are the actions of people intending to make encyclopaedia articles higher quality. Pe19 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

1) the deliberate provocation is in your head; 2) the admin did not condone their behaviour, try reading their comments again; and 3) this is a discussion you started, are you telling me you don't have it on your watch list?? Pyrope 20:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Person A does something. Person B says "don't do that". Person A does exactly the same thing again. That is obviously deliberate provocation. 2) the administrator said nothing to person A, thus effectively condoning their behaviour. 3) Did you speak to me directly, or did you speak to someone else about me?

I find you an incredibly tiresome troll. I will not engage any further in this conversation. Pe19 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That characterization applies to you too, you know? You changed a word, they said "don't do that", and yet you did exactly the same thing again. And again. And again. The admin specifically said that both of your actions were "not fine". Do you consider that condoning their actions? And no I wasn't addressing you here, I have been doing that elsewhere, but I did directly address the involved admin in a forum that I was pretty certain you would be watching. This is hardly "behind your back". Had I done this on their talk page, or even as an offline email, then you might have a point, but I didn't. Pyrope 21:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You're a liar. Pe19 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

User:The1337gamer reported by User:87.14.120.151 (Result: Declined, protected)

Page: Devil May Cry 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The1337gamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil_May_Cry_5&redirect=no

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil_May_Cry_5&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil_May_Cry_5&action=history

Comments: page blanked by The1337gamer 3 times, talk page used.

• Declined The 1337gamer is quite correct that there is not enough information to write an article yet. Protecting for a short time, by when there should be enough sources to do so. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – One sentence is not enough for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia that documents everything that exists and will exist. You need much more information and reliable sources for it to be notable. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 21:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:2605:A000:1407:8007:9D25:2C51:DF31:7DB reported by User:Aspening (Result: )

Page

SIG MCX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2605:A000:1407:8007:9D25:2C51:DF31:7DB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "Person adding this is a dumb ass"
2. 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "Content had nothing to do with page"
3. 13:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "The content about mass shooting has nothing to do with this page"
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC) to 13:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "Has nothing to do with content on page"
   2. 13:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 10:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "This content has nothing to do with the information about this content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on SIG MCX. (TW)"
2. 13:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on SIG MCX. (TW)"
3. 13:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on SIG MCX. (TW)"
4. 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Your edits to SIG MCX */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SIG_MCX&diff=845393317&oldid=836293575

Comments:

Has been deleting content without good reason and edits have been reverted multiple times by patrols. I tried to politely ask them to stop on top of using warning templates, but they called me a "dumb ass" in an edit summary of their revert. Aspening (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note I came across this article and applied a short term protection to stop the edit warring, if an uninvolved administrator thinks that blocking is a better option and wants to modify the protection based on discussion at this noticeboard, feel free (but please note the article talk page). Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Follow up from article talk, a prior discussion as to the editorial question was already concluded, protection has been lifted. Leaving this open for follow up as to the edit warring actions. Also gave an 'only warning' to the anonymous for conduct. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Meters reported by User:Yoohooyoo (Result: No violation)

Page: Amir Mohammad Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Meters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/845154832]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

• No violation WP:3RR has not been broken. Yoohooyoo, I looked at your talk page post. More brevity and paragraph and point formatting would be useful here. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)