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)

User:2600:1003:B85B:E4F7:C9CF:3791:6495:FEE8 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: Semi)

Page: Survivor: Edge of Extinction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1003:B85B:E4F7:C9CF:3791:6495:FEE8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10] THERE IS A SOURCE CLEARLY STATING THE AIR DATES FOR THE SEASON, STOP DELETING PERTINENT INFORMATION FOR THE SEASON. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA NOT A FANDOM PAGE
3. [11] Do not add season premiere date until it actually happens, even if there is a reliable source
4. [12]
5. [13]
6. [14]
7. [15] Please do not add season premiere date until it occurs
8. [16] Please do not add season premiere date until it actually occurs
9. [17] Please do not add the season premiere date until it actually occurs.
10. [18] Do not add any information for episodes that have not been aired yet.
11. [19] Do not add any information pertaining to episodes that have not been aired yet.
12. [20] Please do not add ANY information pertaining to episodes that have not been aired yet, even if there is a reliable source.
13. [21]
14. [22]
15. [23] Do not add information for episodes that have not been aired yet “Only insert the date after it has happened.”
16. [24] Do not add episodes that have not yet aired. Only add individual episodes after they have aired.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25] Warning: Three-revert rule on Survivor: Edge of Extinction. (TW)

Comments: Continuous disruptive editing on the upcoming reality show of its new season, the episode titles are claiming with reliable sources. ApprenticeFan work 11:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

BLP edit warring by User:109.153.201.30 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jeremy Hardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.153.201.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:36, 12 February 2019‎
2. 13:54, 12 February 2019‎
3. 14:26, 12 February 2019‎
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
This isn't a 3RR report: it's a BLP violation, with an IP trying to add information without using reliable sources. The first source they used contained none of the information they were adding, the second is a crowd-sourced, unreliable site. The user was warned, initially by edit summary, then by message on their talk page, informing them of the BLP and WP:RELIABLE policies. Further edit warring has taken place since then. SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)}}

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Skylax30 reported by User:Calthinus (Result: blocked)

Page: Gjon Kastrioti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skylax30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[29]] -- Skylax30's initial addition of his sources claiming that Albanian medieval nobleman and national hero Gjon Kastrioti was "Greek"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. revert of Cinadon36 [[30]]
2. revert of Resnjari [[31]]
3. revert of Ktrimi991 [[32]]
4. second revert of Ktrimi [[33]] (reinstating this edit [[34]] reverted by Ktrimi [[35]])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[36]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[37]]

Comments:
With this user it is in fact a chronic problem of using outdated sources, generally in attempts to deny the existence of an Albanian people. He has been previously blocked for such behavior three times, and one more for personal attacks [[38]]. He is also a subject of some of the densest and most frequent sanctioning I've ever seen, on his native Greek wikipedia for behavior in the same vein [[39]]. On the page Gjon Kastrioti he has a particular history demonstrating a long-term fixation with portraying him as non-Albanian, although in terms of what he should be instead, Skylax30 has proved to be rather flexible. He is now arguing the man was Greek, but earlier he was aiding the efforts of a now-banned sockpuppet to claim the man was a Serb.--Calthinus (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A clear violation of the rules. It is not the first time though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Skylax30's edits clearly demonstrate a prolonged pattern of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior.Resnjari (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The usual accusations and lies by the group of 3 guardians (plus one who never adds anything to an article but only assists in deleting) of the Albanian national myths, who prevent the improvement of relevant articles. I am not "claiming" something about a person being Greek. Articles are written on sources, not on users' opinions. I expanded the article by adding sourced material, which they delete because they don't like. The "outdated" sources mentioning Gjon Kastrioti as Greek are of 2017 and 1968, both published in academic journals. At the same time, the above team of guardians, is preserving in the same article a "fresh" source from 1899 (now number 4) and an obscure source in Russian first published in 1931 (number 3). I added a tag "citation needed" for the claim that he is Albanian (no question there are such sources) and they erase it, with the argument that this is "obvious" (Is the sky blue? Source). See talk [40]. In the talk, Calthinus is personally attacking me with ironies and suggestions to "talk about my feelings in a safe place", with ironies about the Greek WP. The above 3-4 users are acting as a team, not to improve articles but to force an isolated user to "edit war" if he/she tries to change the articles they are patroling. Btw, I would like an opinion by adminis if pointing to previous "sunctioning" of a user (especially in another WP) is accepted as civil behaviour. If the admins board see that I am wrong on the above, I will never edit those "Albanian" articles again. 1899 was not a bad year, after all. --Skylax30 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors with comments such as The usual accusations and lies by the group of 3 guardians (plus one who never adds anything to an article but only assists in deleting) just highlights your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. There is much more out there, but as the report is on Gjon Kastrioti article, the focus is on that in here.Resnjari (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The most frustrating part is not the breaking of 3RR, but the unwillingness to use the Talk Page and follow consensus. When I removed the {{citation needed}} template, I didn't cite obviousness, I wrote: "Removing {{citation needed}}. It is deduced from the main body of the article. ie "In 1386, like many other noblemen from Albania, Gjon became an Ottoman vassal". See also "titles" section. As far as I can understand from the Talk Page, Skylax30 is questioning Kastrioti's origins. Origins do not translate to ethnicity or nationality though"(spelling fixed). In the article one can read at the section "titles"His different titles used in sources include Lord of Emathia and Vumenestia or simply Lord of Mat. In Venetian sources he was also referred to as "lord in Albania" (dominum in Albania),[49] and "lord of the part of Albania" (dominus partium Albanie).[50]" I also checked the article Albanian nobility, at section "Noble families", Kastrioti's family name is there. I also explained my reasoning at the Talk Page [41]. As of now (permalink) I didn't get a respond. I am not tag teaming with nobody. Occam's razor says that if you try to insert fringe opinions in an article and get reverted by 3 other users, it is most probable you are inserting inappropriate material rather than there is a conspiracy.Cinadon36 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 3RR violation. Last block duration was 2 weeks, so 1 month is the standard escalation. If any admin feels this is too harsh, they may reduce. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:Sellpink (Result: No violation)

Page: Child's Play (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child%27s_Play_(2019_film)&oldid=883056398
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child%27s_Play_(2019_film)&oldid=883073259
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child%27s_Play_(2019_film)

Comments:
I simply informed the other party (Rusted AutoParts) that 'title' and not 'name' is the proper term for films and books. His response was to revert my edit and accuse me of being pedantic in the user comments. He was combative and irrational.(Sellpink (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC))

Oh wow are you serious? Not only did you report me for one revert you didn’t even feel obliged to inform me of said report. I’ve addressed your issues in the article’s talk page and you’ve yet to respond, so I’m feeling this may just be some attempt to pick a needless fight. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Usmannoormalik reported by User:Saqib (Result: protected)

Page

Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Babar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883151660 by Saqib (talk)"
2. 15:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883136460 by Saqib (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Babar. (TW)"
2. 16:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "/* February 2019 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This newbie adding OR (such as DoB) despite being advised not to do so. And trying to engage in edit warring. Saqib (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment in my opinion, the 'newbie' feels like bitten. Instead of reverting the full change (blanket undo), removal of only unsourced content might have prevented this edit-war.  samee  converse  16:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Article protected for 1 week. Concur with Samee to some extent. If User:Usmannoormalik is edit warring then so is User:Saqib. I don't want to block both of you at this stage. Suggest discussion at Talk:Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Babar which is currently empty. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yesterday, I was adding stuff with proper references and Saqib was reverting everything I was editing. Even when I put references from official websites of government, he changed it and replaced the reference with a different reference of a private media channel saying later reference was more authentic. So govt. reference isn't authentic enough for him? He just likes to revert everything anyone else writes and then writes same with a few modifications claiming his own contribution. Usmannoormalik (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Usman
  • Your comment reminded me of this edit. Anyhow, Usmannoormalik this isn't a valid excuse for edit-warring on your part as it disrupts the encyclopaedia. In future, get yourself involved on talk page rather than un-doing edits otherwise you may be blocked and lastly, please avoid personal attacks and battleground mentality. Happy editing!  samee  converse  18:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:95.93.201.166 reported by User:MapReader (Result: blocked)

Page: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.93.201.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

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

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

Comments:
This is an IP editor with a long history of repeated disruptive editing, tying down multiple editors daily in dealing with edits that continue regardless of any discussion or consensus on the page. As an IP editor it hasn't been possible to communicate or post any warning. MapReader (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. But what do you mean "it hasn't been possible to communicate or post any warning"? They have a talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. And, yes, so they do. Now I feel dumb; I just assumed IPs didn't, because it comes up 'do you want to create the userpage' when you click on the user. I never went further. sorry. MapReader (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

p.s. And you'll have noticed no shortage of warnings from others already there! MapReader (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:175.137.72.188 reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Falooda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.137.72.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

This IP is actively edit-warring against several users (LouisAragon, Oshwah and me), refuses to admit that the sources proposed are reliable, and fails to discuss in a civil manner with others. Please take a look at what Oshwah told him on their talk : [55]. I think that admins attention is required. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

i strongly believe that removal of my RS from shudhganga and refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page and inserting non reliable RS from india today, indianexpress and a persian blog on faloodeh which is irrelevant to the another article falooda and reinstating a irrelevant, non RS, is a violation of wikipedia rules, i have repeatedly asked, why my RS from shudhganga been removed even though its an RS, no replies have been made, the users are from persian backgrounds, i feel that as persians, they are trying to change the indian article in order to make it more persian biased, i have argued that persian faloodeh is a dessert while falooda is milk based beverage which has got persian faloodeh noodle influence in the mughal periods, so i have mentioned falooda vermicelli milk based percursors by referencing the RS i have just mentioned above, which has been removed by persian users without providing any reason, and they keep adding non reliable RS from india today, indianexpress, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Add massive violations of WP:PERSONAL to that as well;

• " (...) by persian users such as Wikaviani, LouisAragon, Oshwah (...)"[56]
• "(...) the users are from persian backgrounds, i feel that as persians, they are trying to change the indian article (...)"[57]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Also, FYI, this "user" is IP hopping since a long time. Compare IP 175.137.72.188 with this other IP.[58] Exact same geolocation,[59]-[60] same POV, same concerns, not using edit summaries. Pinging Bishonen, who's aware of this.[61] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Thanks for your swift intervention to put an end to the disruption. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)