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:Ceha reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ceha (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [4]
• [5]
• Administrator abuse on the Croatian Wikipedia # Another concerning development
• [6]

Comments:
The article has been protected three times in the last two months (on my request), and as soon as the last protection expired editor resumed with reverts, removing in the process not only properly referenced prose, which is the only revision that makes some sense by relying of several good sources, but also all template messages and merger template as well. Discussion on the proposal to merge "Turkish Croatia" → "Bosnian Krajina" was supposed to resolve both problems, the existence of a problematic article, as well as the entire dispute surrounding it, however it is now completely overwhelmed by Croatian editors from Croatian Wikipedia, thus being completely disrupted and should be rendered as irregular. I tried to draw attention to these developments in a report on Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents. I'm a little bit baffled with the lack of interest, if not with the lack of concrete reaction. Amazingly, on Croatian Wikipedia they have something called "List of irregularities at English Wikipedia" (where the article and its merger proposal are "campaigned" /Turkish Croatia), which is a subpage of Croatian version of "Village Pump", and obviously serves as a sort of forum for collecting information and preparing an organized approach and unison action toward articles, edit-wars, disputes, on English Wikipedia (being a subpage it's obscured from passing-by outside editors' view).౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ban proposal: I recommend that User:Ceha and User:Santasa99 should both be banned from the topic of Turkish Croatia under the WP:ARBEE sanctions, of which both have been notified, due to the large number of reverts each one has made since August 1st, and the three different article protections that have been needed. I suggest leaving this proposal open for a while to see if one or both editors can explain how they can otherwise resolve the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Striking my proposal, see below. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I didn't deserve any better. If you are prepared to recommend same sanction (ban) for an editor who has filled two+ Talk pages in the last two to three months, full of attempts to come up with a resolution, while wrestling with editors who were coming out of outside project (Croatian Wikipedia), taking turns in waves and never putting together two sensible words in reply (yesterday Shokatz, today Silverije, tomorrow Ceha, day after tomorrow Kubura), and who has done everything that Dispute Resolution guidelines recommends except completely disengaging. You yourself have been involved in some of the discussions as a mediator, not to mention situation where you left me at the mercy of editor who insulted me (DIFF (troll, idiot, among other things)) and accused me without pointing at any evidence (DIFF) on your own Talk page. But hopefully, you are going to scrutinize that article if I get removed from it.--09:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is couple of suggestions for a resolution: I will never open that page again if you are going to thoroughly check everything about it, so that imposing a POV onto articles by means of bullying and blatant canvasing and campaigning at editor's "base-camp" (language / ethno-national) project does not become rewarding modus operandi - you may or may not be aware, but Ceha could gladly accept sanctions against him, as long as those same sanctions (ban) were used against me too, because the rest of his crowd of like-minded editors, who were also involved all this time (editor Silverije: DIFF; DIFF; DIFF; DIFF ("voting" for the second time in the same discussion); DIFF; DIFF; same user disregarded previous merger and without any discussion deleted Redirect, and without any sources, concerns of previous discussions on notability and verifiability, recreated page HERE), would do his bidding for him - DIFF; DIFF; Take an eye onto discussion; Can you send me an email; Tražim pomoć (asking for help); Glasovanje (you can start voting); Turkish Croatia (canvasing and campaigning at Croatian Wikipedia "village pump" subpage called "List of irregularities at English Wikipedia")

Or, we could try to resolve a dispute by following guidelines and policies on notability and verifiability, or even better, by agreeing to merge problematic obscure article with fringe subject with a larger more prominent one, to put its content under the scrutiny of a slightly wider community, but without (Siverije's unabashed) canvasing on the editor's base-camp projects (such as Croatian Wikipedia) by those who are against any of the proposed mesures - which is everything I've been trying to propose in the last two months?

Otherwise, I should start getting used to indiscriminate sanctioning proposal.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Here is another really serious proposal, but only if Ed is really serious when he said that he will leave the AN open in case we can offer a realistic plan to resolve the dispute in some other way. Although, I really have no idea what "realistic" might mean, or if it's just a word that could later serve as an excuse to dismiss all suggestions as "unrealistic", but if Ed is willing to hear and engage that would be really great, and in that case scrape all what is written here before, and here's my suggestion - we can also invite all three antagonistic Croatian editors (it's how they self-identify) but also all others who appeared in the merger discussion through canvasing on Croatian Wikipedia, all that should be irrelevant if we do as follows: we organize a new debate in which each sentence, paragraph by paragraph, is scrutinized in both version of the article, and everyone should explain their reasoning, point by point, and try to validate it with neutral and reliable sources. (article is not at all that big, so this job shouldn't be overly torturous.) However, an evaluation should be made by admin Ed, on which he would base his conclusions and actions (or not). I already engaged with aforementioned editors, writing at least couple of full A-4 pages in attempt to resolve issue, so I am not willing to write in circles, without an end in sight, and without admin who is willing to literaly judge on our rationals. We can ping every time we make a point on important sentence or paragraph.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 month, by User:El C. I am withdrawing my suggestion (above) that Ceha and Santasa99 both be banned from the topic of Turkish Croatia. During the page protection, changes can be requested on the article talk page using the {{Edit protected}} template. Readers of the article may notice that it is currently tagged for notability. As it says in the article itself, "The term never took hold outside the scope of Croatian political extremism and academic fringes." This suggests that an AfD might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Dlambe3 reported by User:Reywas92 (Result: PP 2 days)

Page

United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dlambe3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916593175 by Reywas92 (talk)"
2. 03:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916482384 by Reywas92 (talk) You have used all caps, curse words, and name-calling which are all against Wikipedia policies."
3. 03:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916479398 by Reywas92 (talk) It’s not polite to call other users names."
4. 01:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916301961 by Reywas92 (talk) You should not use foul language."
5. 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916225247 by Reywas92 (talk) a consensus has not been reached"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please also see previous report and warning User_talk:Dlambe3#September_2019. I recognize and regret my unfortunate participation in this editing conflict but I have made attempts to resolve dispute at both Talk:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eleventh_Circuit#Appointed_by and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_courts_and_judges#Removal_of_presidents_who_appointed_judges_without_consensus without avail. Dlambe3 was clearly made aware of both of these but completely rejected participation in them. This user has reciprocated no effort to discuss this issue. Reywas92^Talk 04:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Page protected 48 hours. This is a somewhat slow edit war, but still an edit war. @Dlambe3: You only just missed violating 3RR by some 47 minutes, and I expect the next time you appear on this noticeboard, you'll likely be blocked if you don't change your editing behavior. If you disagree with someone's edits, you need to participate in a discussion somewhere other than your reversion edit summaries. Similarly, commenting on someone's behavior by reverting their edits and using a passive-aggressive edit summary is not a good look. @Reywas92: Calling an editor a "petulant child" is hardly WP:CIVIL, either, especially in an edit summary. Please keep that in mind. –Darkwind (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Jaishri17 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page

Jai Shri Ram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jaishri17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 05:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
3. 05:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
4. 04:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• An obvious sock of Vickyindia17 and Vicky1728, separately reported. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• In reverting the obvious sockpuppet today, I have been careless and also exceeded 3RR. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Gleeanon409 reported by User:Carn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Desmond Napoles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2019-09-19T13:41:54 - delete source requests ( +00:00:00 )
2. 2019-09-19T14:29:44 - delete source request again + delete addon ( +00:47:50 )
3. 2019-09-19T19:25:20 - delete {{OR}} marks without consensus on talk page + again deleting addon ( +05:43:26 )
4. 2019-09-20T05:46:04 - same ( +16:04:10 )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:

When a participant deletes any and all changes of another participant in an article, this is usually a sign of destructive behavior in my experience.·Carn !? 08:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Carn has proven unwilling or unable to comprehend the very source they’re disputing, claiming it doesn’t contain exactly what it says. Because of this they’re tagging and arguing on the talk page.

As well they insist on de-linking grand marshal because... it doesn’t have an LGBTQ meaning.

As well they insist in wedging in another superfluous sentence about dresses when the subject is already covered.

I would love for more eyes on this, it’s been a rather circular course so far. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"They"? I'm kind of alone and don't suffer from multiple personality disorders. About "de-linking grand marshal" - that's my mistake - didn't notice "Some US Gay pride associations appoint Grand Marshals".

You do not have a monopoly on what should be considered superfluous and what is not, do you agree? Statements must be verifiable and backed up by sources. For some reason, you are silently rolling back without a single argument so far my attempts to put sources in a paragraph without a single marking of the source from other paragraphs. This is where your roll backs began. The fact that the sources are in the article does not mean that the reader has an understanding of the source of this particular statement.·Carn !? 08:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I changed your words to those used in the source you indicated. I also returned the information that Desmond is gender fluid that you have groundlessly deleted. If you stop rolling back, then this conflict can be considered settled.·Carn !? 09:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Carn still doesn’t understand the linking protocols; grand marshal doesn’t need to have ANY reference to LGBTQ to be linked, at all.

Carn also doesn’t realize that the WP:Lead doesn’t have to have any references at all, as long as content is referenced in the body, which it all is.

And anyone reading the article could tell that what they were adding about dresses was superfluous; and that tagging content not comprehended was a part of the problem.

I would appreciate other editors to look into the edits. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for violating 3RR. @Gleeanon409: This page is not the place to discuss your dispute with Carn (t c). The article's talk page was the place to do that, before you reverted so many times. When your block expires, please start a constructive discussion on the article's talk page if you disagree with content other users have added to the article. –Darkwind (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Nik888 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: Blocked 24 hours. )

Page: Esma Redžepova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nik888 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:Makes abusive comments on my talk page.
Jingiby (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours. KillerChihuahua 14:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:72.184.164.38 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: 36 hours)

Page

Sea of Solitude (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Give reasons for your revisions or it's admin abuse. Three accurate, reliable sources were given."
2. 18:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Fixed the references."
3. 18:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Fixed final issue, reworded to make the reference accurate"
4. 01:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "predb.ovh does not link to, facilitate, or promote copyright infringement in any way, shape, or form."
5. 18:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Fixed the reference"
6. 05:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "XREL only functions as an informational database of Scene and nonscene releases, there's no downloads/cracks/etc. there at all."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sea of Solitude. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite several editors explaining why their edits are inappropriate, they've continued to edit war. Praxidicae (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. El_C 18:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Wadaad reported by User:Ythlev (Result: Both blocked)

Page: United Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wadaad (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

User warned previously for the same revert

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

User does not engage in consensus building according to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. The user does not explain how the provided source support the material on the page, nor the relevant policies supporting their argument

Comments:

Issue description. Ythlev (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Both users were warned about edit-warring at this article last month at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive395#User:Ythlev reported by User:Wadaad (Result: Both warned). I have blocked them both: Ythlev for 48 hours (first block) and Wadaad for one month (blocked for one week for edit-warring in July).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Phipperz reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Page protected)

Page

Taha Malik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916981253 by Ravensfire (talk) you need to stop edit-warring. I have discussed there. no one raised any more objections after my last post in the talk page. stop edit-warring please."
2. 17:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916977467 by Ravensfire (talk) this has been discussed in Talk page. Discuss there if you'd like. Justifications were given there. Do not undo it."
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC) to 17:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 17:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916975796 by Ravensfire (talk) discuss in Talk page if you'd like. The article was reviewed and has appropriate tags on it"
   2. 17:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916975701 by Ravensfire (talk) it is not promotional but a fact. the museum is open to public and can be verified."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "/* September 2019 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Entrepreneur? */"
2. 17:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Museum */ new section"

Comments:

Very probably a COI related to this article given their WP:OWNership, but they've insisted there isn't anything, but their actions speak loudly. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Response by Phipperz: Ravensfire is the one Edit-warring. He refuses to discuss or look at the prior discussion under the Talk page. What can one do? He simply makes edits without justifying properly or looking at prior discussion after the article was reviewed. I am followed all guidelines and talked with other editors. And the article was reviewed. I had accepted all justified edits. And there is a talk page to discuss with prior discussions. I don't understand why Ravensfire would report me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please review my (Phipperz) talk page and the article's talk page before taking a decision/action on me. I'm trying my best to learn and be a good Wiki citizen, and am willing to listen to others while I raise my own justifications as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Page protected 48 hours. It takes (at least) two to edit war, and both of you are edit warring. Please continue your discussion either on the article's talk page or on one of yours, and please remember to keep it WP:CIVIL. –Darkwind (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, @Phipperz: please remember to sign your comments on talk pages and notice boards. –Darkwind (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Darkwind. I am grateful to you. I would request if you could undo his edits of "entrepreneur" and "museum", which is discussed on the Talk page of the article. If that's not possible, I'll respect that. I think Ravensfire's other edit was reasonable--where he mentioned source in quote. In any case, appreciate your help and guiding me to use Wikipedia properly. Phipperz (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:104.219.46.242 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: )

Page

David Lane (white supremacist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lane_(white_supremacist)&diff=917004278&oldid=916512206

(Is this correct?)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "Added the self-description drawn from the SPLC"
2. 20:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "White-washing of David Lane: Removal"
3. 20:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 917004405 by Grayfell (talk)The Nizkor Project"
4. 20:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916512206 by Grayfell (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on David Lane (white supremacist). (TW)"
2. 20:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "/* September 2019 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Annoying edits being made by an IP */ New section and response"

Comments:

3rr violation following slow-burn edit war. For at least the past month two IPs from different locations have been dead-set against identifying Lane as "American" based on OR, primary sources, and synth. My attempt to discuss this on the talk page provoked an accusation of whitewashing, and more OR. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Generic515 reported by User:Chronus (Result: )

Page: Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Generic515 (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. 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:

User:88.14.181.97 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: )

Page

United Airlines Flight 175 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 917000799 by Acroterion (talk) of course it is. the text had been in the article for five years. You've edited the article dozens of times since it was added, thus implicitly approving it. It just needed to be made encyclopaedic in tone, bearing in mind WP:NOTE"
2. 19:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916990263 by MONGO (talk) I didn't put it in, I just edited it. doesn't matter if their nationalities are elsewhere: here, it says "60 passengers", so it needs to be clarified that that figure excludes the hijackers"
3. 18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC) "they were passengers though"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See warning by MONGO. Enough is enough with animalistic disruption by this IP, as well as the condescending edit summary You've edited the article dozens of times since it was added, thus implicitly approving it. It just needed to be made encyclopaedic in tone, bearing in mind WP:NOTE.

Also see this gem. Clearly indicative of a WP:NOTHERE mentality.CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No violation of the 3RR has been reported. This user has today decided to attack me for no apparent reason, and language like "animalistic" is grotesquely insulting and unnecessary. The user has themselves broken the 3RR on Pearl River, and is presumably filing this report, about a situation they had nothing to do with, to try to distract from that situation. 88.14.181.97 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)