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:Fcbjuvenil reported by User:R96Skinner (Result: Both warned)

Page: Maximiliano Meza (footballer, born 1992) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fcbjuvenil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Fcbjuvenil believes this footballer, Maximiliano Meza (footballer, born 1992), left his ex-club, Independiente, in 2018 but joined his new club, Monterrey, in 2019. That's despite it being a direct transfer, therefore he'd have to of left/joined at the same time; i.e. the same year. My POV was that he left/joined in 2018, as that's when the transfer was announced. However, I get that's arguable as some editors believe its when the transfer window opens (2019). Fcbjuvenil thinks it should be: left in 2018, joined 2019. Which doesn't make sense. However, I'm willing to compromise at 2019 both ways. Fcbjuvenil continues to blindly revert, avoiding a discussion despite my attempts (see above). R96Skinner (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Fcbjuvenil and User:R96Skinner are warned for edit warring. Since both parties broke 3RR, action won't be taken here. Neither side has used the article talk page which would be the best place to resolve this. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That hardly solves the issue, does it? You honestly believe the user would hold a conversation via the article's talk page when they didn't even respond to direct contact, nor respond here. Interesting. You could probably class Fcbjuvenil's edits as vandalism; therefore making the 3RR void. However, I was willing to find a better solution than that by coming here hoping to resolve the issue in some way. I will open a discussion on the article's talk page, which will likely be futile but hopefully I am wrong! R96Skinner (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't use the term WP:VANDALISM unless you are confident that the other party is actually trying to damage the encyclopedia and make it worse, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If a transfer was recorded as of 31 December (as suggested by your source) there might be an ambiguity as to which year he started with the new team. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fcb is still engaging in edit warring at multiple articles. Koncorde (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I believed both parties did not use the talk page very much, despite members of WikiProject Football had preferred their own version or MoS on these transfer (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Maximiliano Meza, transfer years), it can be solved by one side of the edit war to start a thread in the player's article talk page or in the project. Matthew hk (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Inoteator reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)

Page

Afro-Dominicans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882742687 by Historiador91 (talk)"
2. 22:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882713610 by Historiador91 (talk)"
3. 03:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882560734 by Historiador91 (talk)"
4. 12:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882477170 by Historiador91 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

was warned days ago when they strated but to no avail.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – 31 hours. User keeps reverting but will not communicate. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:CatholicMan2016 reported by User:TonyBallioni (Result: blocked, 24 hours )

Page: Catholic Relief Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CatholicMan2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
Sorry for the mess of the template: haven't reported here manually in a while. Tl;dr: we have an SPA who has been edit warring literally over years to push a POV about Catholic Relief Services controversies, despite there being a (limited attendance) talk consensus against it. I'd indef per edit warring/POV-pushing/NOTHERE, but I'm involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. A longer block can be applied if this continues. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Mlambo1975 reported by User:criticalthinker (Result: Warned)

Page

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

User being reported

Mlambo1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

Forgive me for not knowing how to exactly do this, but I need some help resolving and issue. This is a page I request semi-protection for a few months back because of someone who appears to be from this ethnic group adding information that had A LOT of POV. It appears the protection went away in early December and that someone came back a few days ago (February 7) with a similar kind of editing as before, putting all kinds of irrelevant and biased/POV wording in the opening paragraphs of the page not at all consistent or standard for these kind of pages on wiki. The page needs to be reverted back to the version prior to the semi-protection being removed. The problem editor seems to be one Mlambo1975 who may or may not be MmeliMoyo who was responsible for the last semi-protection being put into place. Criticalthinker (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Mlambo1975 is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Kalanga people unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. In particular, I see they have twice removed a merge tag with no discussion and no support. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)