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:Azxdw reported by User:Mentatus (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments: User:Azxdw kept on reverting without even trying to discuss on the talk page of the article or on his own talk page.

User:Bong009 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: )

Page

Spider-Man: Homecoming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bong009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC) to 23:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC) "Photographer source http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2250912/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm"
   2. 23:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
3. 03:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Spider-Man: Homecoming. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This users has been restoring improper formatting and unsourced content to Spider-Man: Homecoming against 3RR after being warned that their changes were unsourced. Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:166.171.186.25 reported by User:Meters (Result: Semi)

Page: St. Joseph by the Sea High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.171.186.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8] or [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]
6. [15]
7. [16]
8. [17]
9. [18]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:
Rev-Del has been requested on some of these edits or edit summaries so they may no longer be visible. One edit also includes a legal threat.

Note also identical edits yesterday by the nearly identical IP User:66.171.186.11. Meters (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Also A7joe. John from Idegon (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected three months. The second IP making similar edits is presumably 166.171.186.11 (talk · contribs). If problems continue we could try a block of 166.171.186.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). That range was previously blocked in February by User:HJ Mitchell. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Note there are revisions on the talk page and edit summaries in the article that should probably be Rev del. John from Idegon (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:CounterTime reported by User:HafizHanif (Result: Page protected)

• Criticism of the Quran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CounterTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I asked CounterTime (talk) to acknowledge good faith efforts, and allow for the "citation needed" tag to play its role in allowing current or previous editors to cite certain claims. Instead of recognizing that time is necessary for others to support what they've added (adding proper citations), and that I had also spent some time looking for proper citations regarding the issue at-hand, this user's remedy was to simply delete then accuse me of certain things like POV and so on, yet it seems they are projecting this accusation. Instead of helping find proper citations or balance out with a cited refutation, this user simply blanks out areas they do not seem to agree with.

Here is the link to that page's history.

Here is our discussion at the talk page.

I don't understand how the individual asks for consensus yet doesn't provide assistance in providing what other scholars / historians have published regarding whatever particular issues are perceived. If this page is a critique of a certain work, then the things written about it are going to be critical ( negative ) in nature. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @all.

I deleted the wikiislam link because it is WP:POV.

I deleted the other paragraph because it was simply WP:SYNTHESIS, and it broadly referred to WP:PRIMARY material, not mentioning some non-sensical things that were included in it, such as

slave of Sahih al-Bukhari

Now, @HafizHanif: stated: "to give someone the opportunity to cite that claim. It does make sense, perhaps you simply don't agree with the claim", but "Sahih al-Bukhari" is a BOOK, how can "slave of a book" ever make sense to you?

Instead of engaging in discussions in the talk about these sections the user proceeded with changes without making any type of consensus.

Regards,

18:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

My fellow wiki editor, this is why I mentioned there likely is a miscomprehension on your part, with all due respect. As it is written, the meaning is not that a book has a slave... but that the slave "mentioned" in Bukhari is the one being talked about. I appreciate you stressing the point, for it validates making the sentence clearer for all readers. Going to clarify that right now. Thank you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: That still doesn't make sense, the wording was "slave of Sahih al-Bukhari", and even "slave in Sahih al-Bukhari" wont make sense.

19:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I'm not going to play this back and forth game with you, if you have a difficulty in acknowledging your misunderstanding, then I cannot imagine the trial of addressing more delicate issues with you. Your talk page is consistent with this attitude and time-wasting that you are now attempting with me. We shall see what other readers have to say in reference to your silly issue. Good day. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: It's not a misunderstanding, there is simply no way to twist "slave of Sahih al-Bukhari" to the meaning you gave. In sum, stop defending non-sourced low quality level and non encyclopedic content.

20:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Further is answered the contentious non-argument from CounterTime in clarifying 'who' the slave was. Added two citations, with quotes, and their location. What is quite revealing in CounterTime's effort to remove the unsourced paragraph/material... is the paragraph's validity and honesty despite lacking references... and this speaks volumes to CounterTime's efforts in attempting to delete the information. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week by User:Amatulic. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:166.203.177.71 reported by User:Julietdeltalima (Result: Semi)

Page: Rhetoric (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.203.177.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

The "previous version reverted to" is somewhat misleading; my most recent edit deletes the Shane Callahan paragraph altogether, but the diff provided shows that, at a minimum, editor Ewen tried to get rid of the "From Indiana" and publisher/ISBN information that the IP insists on re-adding. The IP user also apparently attempted to hijack the article for an actor named Shane Callahan: [28]. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:SpaceGoofsGeekerBoy reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Both warned)

Page

Cartoon Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Programming */"
2. 00:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Programming */"
3. 00:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Programming */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has continued to reinstate his own edits even though I made it clear that there was no reason for the change. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. Whoever reverts next may be blocked without notice. Use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Giorgi Balakhadze reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Warned)

Page: Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Giorgi Balakhadze (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. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the article talk page (as thats messed up currently due to long-term sock comments), but discussions have been held on the user talk pages; [34]-[35]

Comments:

Damianmx is the latest CU blocked sock of long-term sock abuser Satt 2. This sockmaster has been socking since 2010. I removed all his edits on the Georgia page, but shortly after user "Giorgi Balakhadze" started reinstating most of his additions, obviously backing up the socks contributions. This even though Chipmunkdavis (CMD) had notified the user priorly on his talk page after the sock was blocked that keeping content of this long-term sock abuser is simply unacceptable.[36] Further comments about the mere ~ 5% of material written by other users swept in the sock-material sweep on the page resulted in angry caps-lock comments and further edit warring. Obviously the user feels very strong about some of these matters, but unfortunately Wikipedia ain't the place for that. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is no 3RR violation, I didn't simply revert as you can see but started reading all sections to find some compromised mix of your reverts and his edits. My last revert in the article Georgia (country) is only second full revert - not third, also I mentioned that you've hidden that you reverted my contributions as well showing to a public it as revert of sockpuppet.--g. balaxaZe★ 15:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There is another discussion about the connected topic. As it seems you reported here while I was writing there.--g. balaxaZe★ 15:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

One doesn't need to violate 3RR in order to be edit warring. Please remind yourself of that. You clearly made 3 reverts. One can easily see that the utter vast majority of the content reinstated by you (by the means of edit warring), was initially added by long term sock abuser Satt2/Damianmx. Furthermore, given your manner of responding (e.g. caps lock, "you are lying", etc) on the linked talk page towards me (and Chipmunkdavis), it only reinforces the fact even more that this is a case of edit warring. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I can repeat you were lying saying to people that you reverted only sockpoppets edits at the same time reverting with them my contribution. Further you showed your bias about that case when you called me irredentist and that Abkhazia ans SO are not a part of Georgia while every wikipedia article about that says nothing similar but only that they are disputed areas or conflict regions. Be fair you simply tried to push your POV.--g. balaxaZe★ 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It's getting tiresome to reply to the same ramblings, but I'll play along. Everyone can see that the content added by you, Giorgi Balakhadze, on the Georgia (country) page was almost entirely a reinstatement of what this CU blocked sock had added to the article. Everyone can see the diffs. If you were so extremely keen about your two-three lines of content that got hit in the sock-revert sweep, as you're telling, you would've only reinstated that and wouldn't have edit warred over this content added by a long term sock abuser. Every revert by you was to reinstate Damianmx/Satt2 content along with it, however, despite being told and asked on numerous occasions not to do so. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If you try to show to people that I violet that is different thing than reality. I know that rule so when you told me in discussion it was maybe may 7th edit on the page so they were not edit-wars but simply mixed restoring of some very useful and much more well described information than your reverted one and I wrote why I did so. I think providing knowledge is more important than some policies that can be changed eventually. And people in another discussion say that Edits by a blocked editor may be reverted, but don't have to be reverted so I was not wrong when reviewed your have to position on reverts.--g. balaxaZe★ 15:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits by a sock or a blocked user don't have to be reverted, but once they are, they are! Looking at the content of the text involved cursorily however, I don't see any very striking POV issues. I think the issues involved can be reasonably discussed on the talk page of the article, which they should be because there is an aspect of block evasion involved AND because it will give other editors a chance to chip in, which is not so easy on a user talk page. I do think that's the first course of action now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Warned John (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:StAnselm (Result: blocked 48 hours)

Page

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by StAnselm (talk) to last revision by Lipsquid. (TW)"
2. 20:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC) "Sourced now, as requested, and you are still edit warring, take it to the talk page and wait for RfC closure"
3. 18:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 726680764 by StAnselm (talk) Please stop edit warring, changing it to the state at the time the RfC was created, see talk page"
4. 17:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 726236882 by StAnselm (talk) returning to version in place at the time of the RfC, see talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC: Should ID's status as a pseudoscience be mentioned in the lede? */"

Comments:

This user has broken 3RR constantly adding back a recent addition that was challenged and is now the subject of an RfC. These are all BLP violations: the first two reverts were adding unsourced contentious material, the last two had sources, but which clearly fail WP:RS. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually User:StAnselm is the initiator and the primary offender in the edit war. They brought an argument from another article where they did not like my edit onTalk:Ken_Ham#options [37] and brought the disagreement 22 minutes later to the Jonathan Wells page that as far as I can tell they had never made a previous edit on.

Their first act was to make a revert on an article with an open RfC (about the specific edit wanting to be excluded in the RfC) [38]

And they even go so far as to say "It looks like this RfC is heading towards a consensus to include, but the word should only be added back in when the RfC is closed"

I changed it back to the language that was in place at the time the RfC was opened and they reverted the same edit 6 times. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

I am not a new editor and neither is User:StAnselm, normally, I let things slide, but since the other editor brought it here. I think WP:BOOMERANG is in order for WP:HOUNDING in addition to WP:3RR violations.

Diff on my warning to them on edit warring [45] Lipsquid (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours John (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:96.51.24.248 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )

Page: List of DreamWorks Dragons episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.51.24.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Comments:
The editor continued to add the end date for the third season even when the data clearly specifies that it is ongoing, and even after I had added the note Season 3 was announced that it will have 4 blocks of 13, giving 52 episodes in total over two years. Block 1: June 26, 2015. Block 2: January 8, 2016. Block 3: June 24, 2016. Block 4: ??? Add an end date once Block 4 has been released., after which they deleted it and overwrote it with the false end date. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has come in and duplicated the IP editor's edits: [52]. Said editor appears to have previously edited the article disruptively in the past, per their contribution history. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've recently revamped the article into a more acceptable style, based upon how the series is marketed, so I've yet to see if the editor I reported makes any further reverts. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:73.81.147.1 reported by User:Carbrera (Result: )

Page: This Is What the Truth Feels Like (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.81.147.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]

IP user has threatened to continue edit-warring, despite multiple warnings on talk page from myself and @Clpo13:.

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

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

Comments:

User:Summichum reported by User:Immmmanuel (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]

More reverts from this month:

1. [63]
2. [64]

Edit war since last few months with others on same, similar or related text:

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]
5. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70] Second warning [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments: User: Summichum has been warned but he does not respond to warnings. He does not discuss on talkpage and only reverts to his obsessed revision of the article. After so many warnings and reverts he wrote a single comment on talkpage within this year that he does not agree with my revision and admins restored his revision. I investigated this and found that admins did not restore his revision. Article was blocked for his editwar with many users. He is obsessed with controversies on this article and revises the article as soon as some one new makes changes. In recent revisions he has revised and reverted changes of 3 editors. Slowly edit warring since months, this editor is stopping every one else from editing the article and I hereby report that he should be blocked for abuse of editing privileges. Whatever he accuses other editors of, he has not written a single comment until last comment, which was useless to consensus, on the talk page since 1 year. How can he revert every one without discussion? Maybe he thinks one of the editors is partisan but I am not, another third editor is not. He is still reverting everyone matter of one heading and in actual reverting every single thing to a previous version indiscriminately. Block him. --Immmmanuel (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• [73] One more revert by Summichum now. He is the only one still not participating in talkpage debate and continues to revert and revert everyone. --Immmmanuel (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Immmmanuel reported by User:Summichum (Result: )

Page

Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 726783319 by Summichum (talk) I have reverted indiscriminate removal of edits contested and not contested by partision editwarrior which was opposite of talk page consensus."
2. 05:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC) "You did not just insert the section you are contesting. You undid everything 3 editors have been working on since past few days. You were warned, and now you shall be reported to an administrator and blocked for not discussing."
3. 09:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 726456495 by Summichum (talk) - your edit is against talkpage consensus. Discuss on talkpage instead of editwar."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Mufaddal Saifuddin. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC) "/* My Edits */"
2. 10:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC) "/* My Edits */"

Comments:

Under investigation Summichum (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)