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:Denisarona reported by User:51.77.152.216 (Result: semiprotected by K6ka)

Page: Long ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Denisarona (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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

User:Ujujuj3654 reported by User:Willsome429 (Result: Blocked)

Page

2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ujujuj3654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 895004631 by Willsome429 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC) to 11:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
   1. 11:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 894994944 by Andrewlumbo21 (talk)"
   2. 11:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 894957492 by Spychicken (talk)"
   3. 11:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 894909279 by Champ1SSR (talk)"
   4. 11:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 894908877 by Champ1SSR (talk)"
3. 19:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 894900780 by Spychicken (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on 2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series. (TW)"
2. 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Specific warning about 3RR left after this case was filed

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to edit war without explanation even after being invited to talk page discussion Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Warned User had not specifically been warned about 3RR. I just warned them. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Not quite a 3RR violation, but user is being disruptive. Reverting without giving any rationale. Editor has been here since Feb 2018 and never posted on a talk page. I think a block may be needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• @Mfield: I had already decided that there was no 3RR violation and yet you blocked for a 3RR violation, which seems a little odd. I do not oppose a block for other reasons, but I think your block summary is incorrect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I hadn't even seen this report tbh, i was responding to a separate report at AIV. I tagged it as edit warring as it appeared to be that from a glance at the history, not having seen this. Mfield (Oi!) 22:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Firooz Peyravi reported by User:Incnis Mrsi (Result: )

Page: Arabic numerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Firooz Peyravi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Almost all the user’s contributions constitute edit warring. Already warned that it’s unacceptable here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Has not continued to edit war after your warning this morning. Please report back if problems resume. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Resumed, aggravated with personal attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Biruni&action=history&offset=201905051814 . Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

At the end, [5] – block is overdue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:121.218.183.137 reported by User:Kerry Raymond (Result: Comment.)

Page

Rouse Hill, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

A series of IP edits (IP address keeps changing) all adding the same incorrect information to the article. It may be good faith but my attempts to communicate with them via edit summary and user talk pages have been in vain. The erroneous info keeps getting added. Could we semi-protect the page? Or some other solution. Thanks Kerry (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It sounds like page protection is more appropriate for this situation, which can be requested at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @331dot: There isn't really any reason to redirect to RFPP, we routinely protect pages here as the result of edit wars. We even have {{AN3|p}} for that purpose... --Chris (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I misunderstood the request. You are correct, of course. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

User:De Boni 2007 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: No 3RR violation)

Page: 2013 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: De Boni 2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

• 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. The first diff was the original introduction of the contested material and was not within 24 hours of the other diffs. Having said that, De Boni 2007 (talk · contribs) has not made any attempt to engage in discussion, while Ymblanter (talk · contribs) has. De Boni 2007 is advised that continuing to try to introduce the contested material without discussion is grounds for a block. --Chris (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note @Ymblanter: You did not properly notify De Boni 2007 that they are mentioned on this board. I will rectify this mistake. In the future, you must notify users who you report here as per the noticeboard instructions. --Chris (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, you are right, I forgot to notify them.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

User:51.7.34.168 reported by User:Zoolver (Result: No violation)

Page: Noomi Rapace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 51.7.34.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Comments:

Persistent edit warring by IP address. Four reverts in 24 hours removing a factual occurrence from the lead about a series of films that made the actress famous. Tried to talk to IP but they refuse to understand why their edit is disruptive and keep reverting it, even erased the three-revert rule warning from their talk page. IP has the same behavior in other articles and clearly has the intention to cause trouble. Often makes personal attacks and xenophobic remarks on their edit summary. See their history. Zoolver (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No violation. "Four reverts in 24 hours" — nope. And I already told you that linking to the contributions is not enough for these sort of accusations. El_C 10:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Seriously? how many more reverts are necessary? And didn't you say that "the source does seem to allude that she achieved her fame with those films"? so the guy erases/reverts that portion several times and that's not counted as edit warring?

• 09:10, 2 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,066 bytes -39‎ vague and subjective -> precise and objective [20] - (the reason in the edit summary is funny as they removed a well-known sourced fact from the lead and thought their edit was better. Articles about actors always have "known for/famous for" in the lead, but User:51.7.34.168 thinks this is wrong.)
• 08:00, 3 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,066 bytes -39‎ Undid revision 895245352 [21]
• 06:44, 4 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,066 bytes -39‎ Undid revision 895398510 [22]
• 09:07, 4 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,066 bytes -39‎ Undid revision 895441907 [23]
• 08:37, 5 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,104 bytes -53 [24]

Blanked the talk page and continued to revert the article minutes later, but no violation according to @El C::

• 08:35, 5 May 2019 diff hist -1,885‎ User talk:51.7.34.168 ‎ ←Blanked the page [25]
• 08:37, 5 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,104 bytes -53‎ [26]

I've seen users getting blocked for 3 reverts in more than 24 hours. So far there are five edits where they keep doing the same thing besides trolling on my talk page. Also, aren't admins supposed to investigate this kind of report by themselves? especialy when they come from IPs? do they need regular users to do that for them even after we provide links? Come on now, the guy has made countless edits that you can check it, all the evidence is there. I'm no admin, I can't do your job for you. But since you can't do it by yourself, I'm gonna leave a few links here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thaddeus_Vincenty&diff=prev&oldid=895389977
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noel_Kempff_Mercado_National_Park&diff=prev&oldid=895144208
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/51.7.34.168&offset=&limit=500&target=51.7.34.168

Zoolver (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• The reporting user has reverted four times over three days, only once leaving an edit summary. I advised them already that reverting without explanation is disruptive. I concluded, and their tone here makes it quite obvious, that they simply don't like anonymous edits. 51.7.34.168 (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: @Acroterion: @Crazycomputers: @Swarm: See? User:51.7.34.168 just refuses to stop their edit warring and react by projecting their behavior onto others and keep refusing to understand why they're wrong in removing a well-known sourced fact from the lead, as it seems they didn't even bother to read the article in the first place. If I revert their useless edit again I bet I'm gonna get blocked, but they won't. Very fair. Zoolver (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything immediately troubling in those 2 edits nor the contributions overall. I suggest you both stop edit warring and pursue dispute resolution. El_C 02:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:87.126.175.254 and User:RustyBrain reported by User:DVdm (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Gravitational lens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.126.175.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported: RustyBrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31] Now deleted to make a wp:POINT by new username RustyBrain, who signed all the previous unsigned talk page messages from IP 87.126.175.254
5. [32] and again, removing the content, against consensus.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] and also [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Thread at Talk:Gravitational_lens#Do_not_mislead_readers_of_this_article

Comments:

Despite and after user Wtmitchell's constructive suggestion, the 3rd and 4th reverts were made by IP and user RustyBrain. Note that the 4th revert is technically just a pointy deletion. - DVdm (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Please, admins, go into the talk page, and see what liar is user DVdm. I delete animate GIF that, not only don't have reliable source, but don't have source at all. He restore it every time I delete it. This fake GIF simulation is spread by his author all over the wiki pages as he come with fake wiki accounts to do it. I repeat - this GIF no source at all!RustyBrain (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours El_C 02:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Vnkd reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 895661186 by Samf4u (talk)Can you challange those points about every single action the AA-1 prototype did on the F-35 page then?"
2. 19:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 895660769 by Samf4u (talk)again do you even read my comments? why don'y you challange the date when the AA-1 F-35 prototype taxied?"
3. 19:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 895659955 by MilborneOne (talk)tell me a single reason why we need to know what the AA-1 F-35 prototype did but we cannot know these two SPECIFIC"
4. 19:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC) "/* India */ As proven by all other restores that were done, this is no less important than all the other contents that are listed. It has to stay there as it has to stay there whatever detail the AA-1 F-35 prototype did. Over there things like first time it taxied with a specific weapon is important. Why should a aerial engagement removed then???"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

They received a 3RR-warning on 23 April (since removed, like all other warnings they get...), so they're well aware of the rules. They're also on a mass-blanking spree on a whole bunch of other articles (see their recent contributions), seemingly as a revenge for not getting their way on this article... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for more disruption to make a point. Acroterion (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:Alex-h (Result: Warned/Protected)

Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kazemita1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:30, 5 May 2019
2. 13:35, 5 May 2019
3. 07:05, 5 May 2019
4. 20:43, 1 May 2019
5. 08:29, 1 May 2019
6. 05:30, 1 May 2019
7. 16:56, 30 April 2019
8. 03:44, 29 April 2019

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

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

Comments:
Besides ignoring talk page discussions and warnings, Kazemita1 also went against RfC consensus twice today (1 and 2), and also posted a deceitful post at WP:RSN today. Alex-h (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Warned Page protected — yes, I know, on the wrong version, what can I do? El_C 23:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I am speechless. I posted the words of a Stanford Professor (Abbas Milani) whose scholarship and neutrality is undisputed. This is agreed upon both by WP:RSN's independent inquiry as well as admission by editors in the talk page. In the course of last few days, I conceded from adding a larger text that included several other sources to merely two lines of text that was attributed to Abbas Milani. I am being called deceitful in my using of WP:RSN. This is while the opposing party denies everyone from taking part in their inquiries from WP:RSN and uses the verdict to finalize his edit (see here & here for example). I honored every edit that was backed by WP:RSN's verdict, but Alex-h who posted this report against me did not. Moreover, Alex-h, does not take part in the discussions in the talk page and yet entitles himself to blanket reverts. I warned him of this here. As for the RfC to remove death trolls, I refer you to the new one with more editors involved the result of which is clearly in favor of my edit.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:207566versant reported by User:Garuda28 (Result: )

Page: Michael S. Rogers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207566versant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]
6. [44]
7. [45]
8. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

• I could have explained this better, earlier, but am making a good faith effort to get the point across.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: of poorly sourced information[48]

Comments:

• Have attempted to implore this user to go to the talk page, to no avail. Have reached out to the user on their user page. Normally 3RR is a hard rule, but there is an exemption for BLP, which is what I have been attempting to use, to keep poorly sourced information off the page of living individual. This includes the misuse of primary sources, as is appearing here, as well as the synthesis of sources to come to an incorrect conclusion. Garuda28 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Page: Eddie Perez (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: 2602:252:d91:e650:1006:1361:4bc3:27f2 (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

[[49]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[50] [51] [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments: New user, has only edited the page of a political candidate and his opponent. I’ve never filled one of these out before, apologies in advance for any errors.

User:Joshua Menon reported by User:Krenair (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

Joshua Menon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 00:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 22:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 15:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 13:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC) ""
7. 13:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Came across this one while huggling, looks like the user has a history of edit warring and has resumed now their block has expired. Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)