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:Nice4What reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Warned)

Page

Igor (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nice4What (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 21:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 21:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897562755 by Cjdennis29 (talk) Reverting unsourced addition of Solange as a vocalist"
4. 21:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897559076 by Hiimtired (talk)"
5. 18:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897539226 by STATicVapor (talk) Compared both revisions and see nothing wrong, just a restoration of vocalists"
6. 17:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "Restoring other vocalists"
7. 17:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Background */"
8. Consecutive edits made from 17:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC) to 17:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
   1. 17:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "Removing unsourced vocalists (again)"
   2. 17:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Igor (album). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

All of these edits are reverts or removals of other people's edits within a 24 hour period. User has multiple 3RR warnings from this month StaticVapor message me! 21:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure all of those are reverts, but I can't tell since the Previous version reverted to field was left blank. The Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page field was also left blank. I wonder why. What is this dispute even about? El_C 21:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The album Igor was released on Friday and the artist, Tyler, the Creator, decided not to include guest vocalists on the track list. Several editors were adding vocalists rumored to be on the album, so I'd remove the additions and decided to keep only the vocalists provided by Tyler on Instagram or reported on by reliable sources. For example, many early sources erroneously reported that Dev Hynes was a vocalist on the track "Earfquake", when it was later verified that this wasn't the case. (In fact, both Jessy Wilson and Solange Knowles were on the album but nobody reported this until Tyler shared the information.) With the article getting so many page views, I think it was in the best interest to remove unsourced rumors. I think the page has since been put under better protection/restrictions to prevent this.

Want to note that in regards to having multiple 3RR warnings this month, the most recent was from User:STATicVapor in regards to another album-related issue that was brought to a talk page. The other was in the context of an alternative cover an editor kept removing based on their personal preference; when given the offer to bring their thoughts about removing the cover to the talk page, they chose not to.

Some of the edits listed above are also not reverts.

1. Edit one was fixed based on a note added by another editor, not a removal of information.
2. Edit two was the removal of Frank Ocean as a guest vocalist. I added him initial, this is more of a self-revert. It seems there's significant doubt online that he's on the album and there's no official confirmation. Nice4What (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Edit three was a mistake and immediately reverted by myself. The editor didn't add a note that the vocalist had been provided by Tyler, so I was confused as to where the information came from.
4. Edit four was reverting the unsourced addition of a sample, whereas the songwriter added, Marvin Gaye, has no song writing credits on the album.
5. Edit five was an honest mistake that occurred due to mobile editing. User:STATicVapor knows this, seems unfair to list this without context.
6. Edit six, same as edit five.
7. Edit seven was the removal of unsourced vocalists such as slowthai, King Krule, Kali Uchis, though due to mobile editing some sourced vocalists that I added were accidentally removed.
8. Edit eight is same as edits five, six, and seven. All occurred due to the result of mobile editing, which I'm not too familiar with.

Sorry for the long write-up but I believe in a high traffic page, removing unsourced material proves to be more important than breaking 3RR. Nice4What (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that I'm the one who applied those protections (via RfPP). I am still waiting for the previous version field to determine if these were even reverts. But is the edit war (whatever it is about — which has yet to be established) still at risk of resuming, even? El_C 22:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry I guess that twinkle does not give the previous version field option so I was not aware. This is not a specific edit war, it is more a user doing more than three reverts on a page within a 24 hour period and continuing to revert after being warned that their reverts were not exceptions to 3RR. StaticVapor message me! 22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverting unsourced additions about living people is exempt, however. As for the edit war, it's over now, isn't it?. El_C 22:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not see how the majority of these reverts are related to BLP content as the edits are regarding a released album, with the edits not related to the artists personal life. This is more about violating 3rr or coming close to it over and over again on multiple articles, not an ongoing edit war. I know blocks are not punitive, but this is not okay. Clearly the user did not listen to my talk page message when I told them to stop reverting others. StaticVapor message me! 22:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Not trying to annoy you with a ping, just wanted you to know I responded. Also wanted to note this user is now WP:HOUNDING me and my talk page and threatening retaliation. It just bother me that they always keep reverting up to and beyond 3rr, so I felt notifying administrators was important. My recent talk page messaged seemed to go unheaded. This users edits are mostly positive, but there seems to no care when caught in editing disputes/being reverted by others. The only times I reverted here was to fix their copy pasting of the article twice. StaticVapor message me! 22:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

My reverts were not disruptive, even if they exceeded 3RR, and were preventing the addition of unsourced vocalists as you had been doing the week prior. As an experience editor, you should know better than to be annoyed by a violation of 3RR just because it's a violation; rather, you should understand the nature of these edits. It feels personal knowing how the previous regarding the album Supermarket went down. Also, the edit war is over. There's no point in reporting as it wouldn't add to anything blocking either of us. Hoping for the best. Nice4What (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit war seems to be over with new accounts being preventing from editing, leading to decrease in addition of unsourced information. Wanted o point out I've given StaticVapor a warning since they also seemed to have reverted three times in 24 hours on the same article too. User has since removed my warning calling it 'bogus'. Nice4What (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Is a revert of this edit

2. Was a sneaky way to revert content that was added in the last day, it removed the content using a hidden note, rather than actually removing it.

3. Was a revert based on edit summary (it was self reverted right after). These three edits came after the 3RR warning, which should have not been needed since they have multiple of those on their talk page already.

4, 5, and 6. Are clearly reverts based on edit summaries.

7. Removed content that was added by others, this edit being an example.

8. Also clearly a revert based on edit summary. StaticVapor message me! 22:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

1. The note was kept explaining the difference between fifth and sixth, not a removal.

2. I added Frank Ocean. Without reliable confirmation, I removed Frank Ocean. Come on, "sneaky"?

3. Doesn't matter after the warning when it was clear that unsourced vocalists should be reverted regardless. Also, the fact that I self-reverted shows it was an honest mistake.

4, 5, 6 and 8 are reverts but I explained why: it was due to technical difficulties.

7. Yes, once again, an example of users adding guest vocalists listed on Genius despite a warning embedded pointing out not to use that site as a source.

Useless to go back and forth and highlight "reverts" with out context as you're doing. Nice4What (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Warned. Although 3RR was violated yesterday (though exempt edits bring this down to the minimal 4 reverts), the edit war(s) itself does not appear likely to arise again any time soon. User is warned that if 3RR is breached again, the block duration would be longer than a first time offense, however. El_C 22:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Genuine questions just for a better understanding of the process, but regarding User:STATicVapor also violating 3RR, would I need to make a separate report or would they be given a warning with a future longer block duration as well? Nice4What (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice4What, sorry I missed this. You can provide evidence of that right here. El_C 17:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I brought it up on STATicVapor's talk page but they removed the message. I'm not trying to get them banned, I just want to better understand 3RR and edit warring. Nice4What (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You need four, not three, reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 00:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you. Nice4What (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric reported by User:Jaydayal (Result: Protected article and both parties warned)

Page

Vivek Agnihotri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vivek_Agnihotri&type=revision&diff=897944651&oldid=897942347
2. 09:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Jaydayal (talk): Nope. (Twinkle)"

1. Consecutive edits made from 09:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC) to 09:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
   1. 09:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897938821 by Jaydayal (talk)//Do not care. Talk-page is that way."
   2. 09:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897938742 by Jaydayal (talk)/Can't you read the sources?"
2. 09:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897938290 by Jaydayal (talk)/Poor English"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Winged, please follow BRD or at least discuss on article talk page */"

Comments:

The editor is experienced and should be aware of 3rr rule. I updated a libelous comment on a BLP keeping all references intact and effectively stating same thing. But I am reverted repeatedly within minutes without any practical discussion on talk page except comment in revert saying "poor English". He is stating that BRD means I am required to demonstrate the absence of something before editing the article and he gets the privilege to keep the content in the article otherwise. I do not think BRD meant this, I can be wrong but this is very counter intuitive. Jaydayal (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• This article has been drawing a constant stream of white-washing attempts, after the subject asked for help over Twitter. He needs to discuss the stuff over t/p, prior to messing 'bout with longstanding content. ∯WBG^converse 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have been imploring you to come to talk page like in earlier content disputes. Last time also you did continuous revert with comments like "fuck off". Just because I am little inexperienced here compared to you doesn't mean you are exempt from BRD or BLP guidelines. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  It looks like the two parties are now discussing this on the talk page, and nobody has broken 3RR. I encourage both parties to continue that discussion and come to an agreement.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, I think the talk page discussion is a farce ... I say so because he just reverted once again. I don't know how can anyone have any kind of sensible discussion with this editor if he prefers to revert repeatedly and keep his version, simply sidelining all discussion. --Jaydayal (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What? I asked for your rationale behind your revert, over the t/p over which you noted:- If you think it is wrong please make improvements there or here, I am not a mad-reverter. If it makes sense I will be glad to acknowledge it.

You need to give up this stone-walling tactics. You were doing the same stuff over Talk:Parkala Massacre until I asked for community feedback, pending which, you are nowhere to be seen.∯WBG^converse 11:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Warned @Winged Blades of Godric: @Jaydayal: I've protected the article for 24 hours. Both of you need to stop edit warring and discuss the issues. If that doesn't work, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for next steps. If you continue to edit war then you will be blocked. I am marking this as "both parties warned". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:82.207.187.7 (Result: blocked)

Page: John R. Bolton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User talk:82.207.187.7

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Comments: IP was previously blocked for edit warring on this page. Content it is trying to add violates WP:BLP. Toa Nidhiki05 12:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User blocked 2 weeks. Article semi-protected — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:103.212.208.239 reported by User:211.26.200.179 (Result:Range blocked)

Page: Doping in sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.212.208.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 103.212.208.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]
5. [10]
6. [11]
7. [12]

Comments:
Not exactly active, but 2 days ago, different chunks of material were removed, of which none are explained. All 7 of the edits listed above were made in a little over 12 hours, some of which was spent reverting more than 3 times. The user is currently blocked for this matter, and semi protection may be the best action to take.

Actually, it's 103.212.208.234 and the same but 239 not 234. None are blocked (one earlier this month for vandalism and one - either the same or other IP - is under the 103.212.208.0/24 range which is currently blocked). Sorry for the confusion.

This is just simple vandalism, I believe. Both IP addresses are already blocked from editing due to a block I placed on the range 103.212.208.0/24 on May 16 lasting for one week. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

When editing both of their talk pages, only one said they were blocked. Thank you anyway and please watch the article for any issues. If I caused any confusion I'm sorry.211.26.200.179 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ag224 reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: no violation)

Page

Naya Raipur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ag224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [1]

Comments:

User continues to remove content from the article and infobox with explainations and willingness to discuss on the Talk page. Despite being reverted and notified multiple times. Gotitbro (talk) 20:24, 20 May 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. While there have been some issues at the article, particularly around moving the page, there is not a 3RR with the moves and such done over the past month. All edits made since 30 April were one sequence by the reported user. That said, I have added the page to my watchlist so I can help keep an eye on what's going on. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:121.75.206.253 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Roguelike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 121.75.206.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 121.75.204.98 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion from [19] in April through [20] on May 18

Comments:
Note the two different IP's but within a similar range. The IP at *.98 started this by inserting a biased view (one that is not documented in RS but I know exists, unfortunately making it fall under our "verifyability, not truth" mantra) about some games in this genre. Talk page discussions were started, explaining the policy and need for sources to show their point. You can see from talk page and main page history this user was engaged in a slow slow edit war over this, but they at least contributed a bit. Today IP *:253 has simply reverted the removal of the biased text that was similar to what *.98 was including (eg very likely the same user per DUCK) and has clearly passed 3RR. --Masem (t) 14:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 21.75.206.253 blocked for 24 hours for clearly going over 3RR. I haven't blocked 121.75.204.98 as it's probably stale. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Novel compound reported by User:Nice4What (Result: Warned)

Page: Heartbeat bill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Novel compound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:55, 21 May 2019‎ "No, the fact that abortion survivor Claire Culwell testified is extremely factual and NPOV. Nice4What's undoing of this edit is extremely POV."
2. 20:11, 21 May 2019‎ "Snooganssnoogans, are you suggesting the source I cited got it wrong, and abortion survivor Claire Culwell in fact did *not* testify in favor of Senate Bill 9? A pretty transparent attempt to insert your NPOV, but fine, I found a different source – the WDRN News web site."
3. 22:33, 21 May 2019‎ "Restoring properly-cited, notable information that was removed by an extremely POV edit."
4. 00:31, 22 May 2019 "When discussing a person who survived an abortion, "survivor" is the most neutral, unbiased, straightforward and objective word one can possibly use. Nice4What has been deleting the word "survivor" in an attempt to advance a non-neutral POV. Jessen and Ohden choose to self-identify as an "abortion survivors"; should we not respect the choices of these women?"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:41, 21 May 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:38, 21 May 2019

Comments:
User keeps adding the term "abortion survivor" despite a long talk page discussion attempting to explain that the term is against WP:NPOV. Doesn't seem to care, continues to engage in edit war and doesn't seem to be willing to stop. Also created the category Category:Abortion survivors. I suggest reading the discussion on the talk page for the Heartbeat bill article to better understand the editor's motives. May be violation of WP:GS#Abortion though the pages aren't marked as such. Nice4What (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

When discussing a person who has survived an abortion, "abortion survivor" is the most neutral, unbiased, objective and straightforward phrase that can be used. User Nice4What keeps deleting this term, in multiple articles, in an attempt to advance his or her non-neutral POV about abortion. User Nice4What does not even respect the choice of women who choose to self-identify as "abortion survivors." Novel compound (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that this editor strongly believes "abortion survivor" is the "most neutral" and continues to edit in such a manner despite talk page consensus and discussion. I think it shows that the user saying User Nice4What does not even respect the choice of women who choose to self-identify as "abortion survivors" shows an attempt to evoke sympathy through emotions, implying that I'm not making my edits based on WP:NPOV but rather a lack of personal respect (which is an unfounded accusation). I suggest any admin to read this user's comments on Caitlyn Jenner in the linked discussion above. Nice4What (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Warned. This is not the place to debate the content, and it is certainly not the place (hint: there is no place) for innuendo, Novel compound. Anyway, only three reverts are listed, the first link is the original edit — Previous version reverted to field was left blank, that's where the link for the original edit should have gone. Novel compound is cautioned, however, against making any more reverts, as they are at the 3RR limit. El_C 01:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Want to note that the first link is actually the first revert, not the original edit. Here is the original addition of the term "abortion survivor" to the article. Nice4What (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Heartbeat bill is under general sanctions and a 1RR limit applies. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The last edit listed (00:31, 22 May 2019) involves a different article. El_C 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User was not notified about that, however. They have been notified now. El_C 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor continues to show lack of respect for WP:NPOV on discussion for deleting the category they created. Continuing personal attacks and being frankly open about their pro-life/anti-abortion views, which is not necessarily an issue, yet they accuse the reverting of their biased edits as being against neutrality. Nice4What (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I've seen some innuendo, and personal comments not in good faith, but nothing has been pointed out to me that rises to the level of an actual personal attack. They are entitled to their point of view, of course, so long as they adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which from now on they are expected to do, closely. El_C 01:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I've added a more visible DS instead of GS notice to the talk page and the GS edit notice the mainspace. Procedurally, it's perhaps less than ideal to have DS and GS side by side (as is the case with Abortion), but the pragmatic aim of notifying users about 1RR in the most visible way possible is what's important, I think. El_C 02:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: User is continuing to violate 1RR, seen reverting here by readding the term "abortion survivor" to the article Melissa Ohden despite warnings after doing so on the article Gianna Jessen. From revert description:

When discussing a person who survived an abortion, "survivor" is the most neutral, unbiased, straightforward and objective word one can possibly use. Nice4What has been deleting the word "survivor" in multiple articles, in an attempt to advance a non-neutral POV. Jessen and Ohden choose to self-identify as an "abortion survivors"; should we not respect the choices of these women?

— Novel compound, 03:46, 22 May 2019

I don't believe I can revert these with out violating 1RR myself, but I believe it's unfair that despite talk page discussions, there is now nothing that can be done to revert these disruptive edits. Nice4What (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That article is not subject to 1RR. But I take a dim view of adding that term across multiple articles while discussion as to its usage is still ongoing. El_C 04:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it not be edit warring? And would I then be allowed to revert these edits until the discussion on the term "abortion survivor" is terminated? Nice4What (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The articles are now subject to 1RR (notices added). The term should not be added until there is consensus is reached as to its overall usage. El_C 13:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmedo Semsurî reported by User:14.202.143.218 (Result: No vioaltion)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]

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

Comments:
User start an Editwar and vandalism, according to his talk page he was also today warned by an administrator because he made personal attacks against another user. I wish him no bad but a little break would be alright. 14.202.143.218 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I get it now; using various IP's to make it look like I'm edit warring with everyone. Read Wikipedia:3R, Wikipedia:Quotations and Wikipedia:Hounding. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No violation. You need four (not three) reverts to violate 3RR. They are using the talk page, why aren't you, IP? El_C 13:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not know if you have something against IP addresses but apparently you are always starting to clash with IP adresses. 14.202.143.218 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it has to do with them being IPs — I think a lot of the POV pushing and policy and guideline violations that Ahmedo Semsurî is encountering is coming from single-purpose accounts who mostly don't bother to register a username. El_C 13:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

if that does not count as an editwar, then the discussion is over, no one is forced to create an account and his behavior is more than unusual. every day dozens of articles (and always the same) delete thousands of bytes. As i saw his contributions.14.202.143.218 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It counts as an edit war (it takes at east two to have one, though), but 3RR was no breached. El_C 13:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be easier for everyone if you used just one IP, or registered a user name. All these multiple IPs you're using make things needlessly complicated and confusing. El_C 13:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If this count as an editwar than here is a violation: „user agrees to stop edit warring“ [24] dont know if the links works but you can look on his blog log. As i saw various Ip and he are involved in clashes i saw his blog log. 14.202.143.218 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm inclined to give some leeway when it comes to reverting single-purpose accounts. El_C 14:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Just saw his contributions. Great. he tagges every IP as a sock puppet and then he calls all IPs with which he comes in clash as a sock puppet. also the violation of the last block he gets through without punishment. Just reverted two times because i thought quotes are fine. I wish you a nice day if you decide not to do anything. 14.202.143.218 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

he write here „I think I get it now; using various IP's to make it look like I'm edit warring with everyone.“ this is he doing to every ip who he is involved to clashes with them. He tagging every ip as sock puppet and giving them names and always it seems like he know him. that is also a strange behavior. He also started to get personal. Just look at his contributions who he is in clashes with various ips.14.202.143.218 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)