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:My very best wishes reported by User:AveTory (Result: No action)

Page: Volodymyr Zelensky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

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

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

Comments:
Constantly getting involved into edit wars using one scheme: he removes sourced content he personally doesn't want to see and then suggests the original contributor to "convince" him that the information should be in the article, coming up with new excuses why he is "not convinced". I encountered him several times, it is always the same. In this case he started by removing a short translation of a sourced text with a comment "true, does not require a direct footnote quotation", and the next day removed the whole sentence with links along with another sourced addition as "unimportant". From then on he has been involved into edit warring, manipulation and removal of clearly sourced and stated facts and free interpretation of Wikipedia rules. He has a long editing history and knows what's included into biographical articles, yet in his attempts to remove the content he ended with straight personal attacks. I've no idea what's his motivation in this case, but he shows obvious bias and complete lack of neutrality. I don't see his edits as "good-faith" and have no interest in discussing anything with him. AveTory (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, there is no 3RR violation. I made one revert during last three days. What is going on? User AveTory is trying to include a poorly sourced and hardly relevant information about a Ukrainian presidential candidate to his BLP page. I explained AveTory the policy [10]. He responded with personal offenses [11]. Yes, I had previous discussions with AveTory about BLP. For example, here he inserted a really ridiculous claim that a famous actress "is covered in blood", meaning she is guilty in death of people, which is nonsense. Once again, the inserted content was poorly sourced, telling politely. I am not sure he can edit BLP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If you "have no interest in discussing anything" with me or other contributors, that's fine. But then you should not edit anything that has been challenged by other contributors because editing controversial subjects does require discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

While this is irrelevant to the topic, in case of Liya Akhedzhakova ‎I went through another exhausting discussion filled with complete removal of sourced material (in the process it was revealed that he didn't even check most of the links), claims of "unimportant facts", "poor sources", "demonization", obscure "Wikipedia rules" and involvement in offtopic, yet we finally agreed on the final version of the article. Which he now simply reverted as "nonsense", 2 years after. This is the kind of editing policy I'm dealing with. AveTory (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• The filer of this report doesn't seem to understand WP:BRD. If your content is reverted, you then discuss on the talk page, not blindly restore it; they have edit-warred just as much, if not more, than the party they reported. Add to that fact that the talkpage discussion was started by User:My very best wishes and, the filer accused them of bad faith (not to mention "You keep proving your complete inadequacy"), I am minded to close this without action at the very least. I am also noting edit-warring at Liya Akhedzhakova. Other admins may wish to comment. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I already explained why it's impossible to lead a normal discussion with the user. He clearly demonstrated it on the talk page, starting with "unimportant information" (since when ethnicity/religion/education grant is not important at a public person's page?) and ending with accusations of me being a follower of a "Jewish conspiracy". All this because I added information on his parents being Jewish (among many other facts and sources - before that 90% of the article linked to one questionable source, yet he was perfectly fine with it). Yes, I find this to be an inadequate behavior. And I commented on Liya Akhedzhakova above. He reverted a whole paragraph he himself had approved before. Yes, it's bad faith. AveTory (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, here is the diff [12]. In this edit you insert a qualifier ("a Jew himself") for an author and an opinion that "the financial power in the country was controlled by Jews". Now you edit war about something similar in the BLP of Zelensky. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How is it similar? A clearly sourced quote from a famous article by the popular post-Soviet author who described his meeting with a leading oligarch? His self-identification as a Jew? A mention of the word "Jew" on a page related to politics at all? Maybe you will now remove all mentions of Disraeli, Lenin, Trotsky, Sanders, Ukrainian prime minister and many others having Jewish background? Is it all Jewish conspiracy? Ethnicity/religion is mentioned on every celeb's page when such information is available. Yet you went to all this trouble simply to remove a mention of his roots - an open secret in Ukraine which Zelensky never tried to hide and constantly mentioned. AveTory (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• If AveTory is revert warring to insist on Zelensky's Jewish descent, that seems peculiar, though I don't know the entire background. There is nothing elsewhere in the article to imply that Zelensky's religious convictions (whatever they may be) are relevant to his career or to the accomplishments that make him notable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an opinion [13] that Zelensky is a puppet of Jewish oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. This opinion is actively promoted by RT (TV network). My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I left several links on the talk page to serious political and Jewish websites where he is discussed as "a Jewish candidate for Ukrainian presidency" (from the positions that this is not a problem for Ukrainian voters). But I seriously don't see how this is a problem in a biographical article at all and I don't know how someone's origins could influence his/her career. It's just trivia. AveTory (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action. MVBW did a self-revert. It looks as though agreement has been reached on the talk page, per the discussion with User:Icewhiz at Talk:Volodymyr Zelensky#Unimportant details. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The user clearly stated in the comment above that his reverts are motivated not by good faith, but by his own political paranoia and bias (on Black Kite (talk)'s request). And he continues edit warring, now at the Liya Akhedzhakova's page. As I mentioned before, he reverts the paragraph he himself suggested as a "compromise version" 2 years ago after another similar long discussion. Now he claims that "I would never include myself things like that to BLPs. I removed this stuff to make clear that I do not endorse it". I stand by my words: his edits are non-neutral, motivated by his own political or whatever views, he has been manipulating Wikipedia rules to remove whole paragraphs of sourced text for years and will continue doing so unless some action is taken. AveTory (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You do realise that, having been noted for alleging that MVBW is "completely inadequate", you now double down on it with "his political paranoia and bias"? This is really not a good idea. I suggest you strike it (and your previous personal attacks), or this filing might end up with a block after all. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Maybe you will take notice of the user's actions first? Read his comments and his editing history? He has been removing chunks of text for years using whatever reason he comes up with, manipulating rules, calling me names, accusing of being a bot, a follower of conspiration theories, a paid promoter of political opinions, putting other people's words into my mouth, etc. How is it not "inadequate, political paranoia and bias"? AveTory (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Any diffs? I never said that you are "a bot". Yes, I do believe you do not respect BLP policy when it comes to BLP pages of people who oppose to Putin, and some of your edits (like that one) are questionable. Other than that, I think you are doing good work around here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What other purpose did you have by constantly bringing up the banned user on this thread on my talk page? And what does Putin has to do with Zelensky's background (I didn't even edit anything regarding his political views since I don't follow Ukrainian politics), Akhedzhakova's famous speech (at least in Russia) from back 1993 or the history of seven bankers, when Putin was still a nobody? I'm rarely getting involved with articles even remotely related to modern politics, unlike yourself. And in 99% cases I'm adding information, not deleting it. AveTory (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hence, you was unable to provide any diffs to support your claims above that I accused you "of being a bot" and "a paid promoter of political opinions". Please strike through your comments above. And BTW, asking someone if he was a paid contributor is a legitimate question, but I never asked you this. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I provided both in the comments above, though you didn't ask for the diff on a paid promoter ("There is an opinion [13] that Zelensky is a puppet of Jewish oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. This opinion is actively promoted by RT (TV network)"). I'm not striking anything on your request and expect you to acknowledge that your reverts were not triggered by any of the reasons you voiced at the talk page, but were politically motivated, and revert the Akhedzhakova's page back to the consensus version. AveTory (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• • • • • While I agree Zelensky's Jewish roots should be mentioned (and interjected on the article talk page after seeing this filing) -this diff (12:16, 18 January 2018) by AveTory, presented by MVBW above, is alarming. Jew-labeling has a long history in political discourse in this part of the world and is still an issue in the fringes (right and left) - sometimes paranoia is justified regarding certain issues. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not Jew-labeling, it's a topic that had been widely discussed in Russia at the time, I practically quoted a British journalist and a famous open letter by a Jewish writer while also added a lot of other info (basically wrote the article from scratch). People who edited it since always contributed something and I didn't mind at all, but then My very best wishes came and reverted this one particular paragraph. And what's the point in bringing it up during the discussion of a completely unrelated article where I simply added info on Zelensky's parents? How is it Jew-labeling, especially since I provided a link to his recent speech where he self-identified as a Jew? I also created articles on the Brumberg sisters, Rolan Bykov and other people with Jewish background, nobody found it problematic. AveTory (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking about this diff, I disagree. Simply citing Harding (left part of the diff) might be OK, although I doubt this quotation is important on the page. However, your version (right part) tells essentially, in context of the page, that the robbery of Russia has been accomplished by Jewish oligarchs. This is a conspiracy theory on par with Jewish Bolshevism. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No. The right part says that 1) most bankers had Jewish roots and that 2) it led to a rise of antisemitism. Both claims were confirmed by the links and the bankers' biographies, unlike the "Jewish Bolshevism". AveTory (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• For the third time I'm trying to draw administrators' attention to the user My very best wishes. His deletions on the discussed page were only partly self-reverted, he decided what to return and what not, it wasn't a result of an agreement. Simultaneously he reverted a whole paragraph at the Liya Akhedzhakova's page which had been previously added based on the consensus version reached after a discussion with him and he keeps ignoring all requests to return it. In addition, he is currently involved in WP:HOUNDING - yesterday he made three similar edits, one by one, on three different pages to the information I previously added. One of the sentences was also a result of a consensus reached with him. As I said, his edits are not good faith. AveTory (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe that emphasizing ethnicity of people (Russian, Jew, whatever) when this is not relevant to the content of a page, is inappropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Agreement)

Page: Los Angeles-class submarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dilidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

This started as 3RR on Los Angeles-class submarine a few days ago, with bulk stripping of wikilinks, reverted by @Thewolfchild:. I warned them on user talk:, which was blanked immediately, indicating that they had read this and were aware of the issue. It continued today though, with reversions against @BilCat:, who also issued a warning and was reverted.

Mostly though, this is about a long-running pattern of edits from someone who describes themselves as "a professional editor". Clearly other editors are a lesser species, and our views count for nothing. After all "This user can do no wrong, especially when it comes to editing Wikipedia.". Particularly when we disagree with Dillidor's editing style, which mostly seems to consist of stripping wls (including removing all links from one article to another, even when it's a significant relationship). There is long-standing opposition to this, from a range of editors, relating to a range of articles. See User talk:Dilidor#"Overlinking" and other comments there. But the response has been "dismissive" to say the least, and they'te happy to >3RR edit-war to push their viewpoint, which makes it impossible for policy-observing editors to do anything about. Thus ANEW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Also see User talk:Dilidor#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:
I will point out that a "war" requires at least two parties, yet Thewolfchild was not warned for his or her part in the conflict. But the bigger issue here is the hypocritical charges being leveled by Andy Dingley. He is incensed by a perceived supercilious attitude in me—while he snidely foists upon me his own attitude that "other editors are a lesser species". He quotes my humorous use of a meme that is used widely on Wikipedia, choosing to ignore its tongue-in-cheek intention in order to build up his straw man portrayal of my character. He claims that my editorial contributions "consist of stripping" wikilinks; this demonstrates either a gross ignorance of my edits around Wikipedia, or else a deliberately false statement. I will offer the benefit of the doubt and assume that Andy Dingley is simply ignorant.

I object to Andy Dingley's persistently abusive tone, both here and on my talk page. It is this tone which has brought me to the point of choosing to cease my participation in this discussion. If others wish to discuss it in a civil and respectful fashion, I will be happy to respond. Otherwise, I'm done. –Dilidor (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor is risking a block if he continues with what appears to be aggressive stripping of wikilinks. These removals are often reverted, and it seems that many editors disagree with his practices. One way he could address the criticism is to accept a 1RR restriction on his link removals. That is, he could agree not to restore any of his link changes if someone else reverts it. Dilidor was previously warned at ANI about his copyediting practices. At that time, User:Swarm said "Dilidor is strongly warned that any future reversions that contradict WP:COPYEDIT or WP:MOS will likely result in a block without further notice or warning." It is natural to see the conduct reported in this AN3 complaint as a violation of the previous warning. But if Dilidor would agree to the proposed 1RR on link removals, I think the edit warring complaint could be closed without other action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly I will agree to that. Permit me to reiterate it, however, so that it is clear what I believe to be agreeing to: I will not unrevert another editor's reversion of my reduction of wikilinking. I want to be clear here because there have been issues in this conflict where I had not understood details concerning terminology and expectations. For example, I had no idea that I was expected to adhere to "3RR"; indeed, I did not clearly understand what that shorthand term meant. I have already been excoriated by Andy Dingley for the fact that I did not fully understand these things, and so do not need to be told such again. But if I have clearly comprehended your proposal, I am happy to comply with it.

Please also clarify the timeframe of these expectations. —Dilidor (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You were first warned for edit warring, with the appropriate warning template and links to 3RR etc., in March 2017. You have been repeatedly warned since. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor's claim that they are unaware of what 3RR means is laughable. They have been warned about violating the three-reverts guideline (and linked to the guideline) on multiple occasions, and have even reported users for violating the guideline! Dilidor has a long history of edit-warring, almost always over removal of links and other MOS issues. Note especially the formal warning here which has been totally ignored. If anything the behaviour has gotten worse since then. Based on the user talk page Dilidor is coming into conflict every few weeks with other editors over the same issues, and has done zero self-reflection despite editors repeatedly explaining Wikipedia policies. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that the restriction will be 'Dilidor will not revert any editor who undoes their removal of a wikilink'. This means they will stop doing any of the kinds of edits listed at the head of this report as diffs #1-5. The restriction will be indefinite unless it is successfully appealed at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This type of behaviour can apply to any edit or revert they disagree with, not just edits involving wikilinks. A 24 hour block for edit-warring, followed by 6 months of 1RR across the board will certainly be more effective, and it's a restriction they shouldn't have too much difficulty understanding. - wolf 03:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Agreement. I'm recording here that User:Dilidor is accepting the above proposal for a 1RR restriction on unlinking: 'Dilidor will not revert any editor who undoes their removal of a wikilink'. As they said above: Certainly I will agree to that. Permit me to reiterate it, however, so that it is clear what I believe to be agreeing to: I will not unrevert another editor's reversion of my reduction of wikilinking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Tematice reported by User:BD2412 (Result: Warned)

Page: Plant-based diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tematice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tematice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated WP:3RR at Plant-based diet (see page history here). He continues to remove reliably sourced content stating that a diet can be "plant-based" while still including some amount of meat or fish. bd2412 T 14:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't violate the rule as you keep spamming by reverting back the definition of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant-based_diet We can say the same thing about you, because you've edited the Plant-based Diet article 3 times today. I've added the current reliably source that a "plant-based diet" should not contain any animal products. How is an 8 year ago source more reliable than a source for the definition is from the U.S. National Library of Medicine I've added to the article? (see [1] in the Plant-based Diet article above) -– Tematice (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• You are mistaken. Multiple editors, including User:Flyer22 Reborn and User:Roxy the dog, have reverted your changes, as they go against the sources cited in the article. I have now added a 2018 source supporting the same proposition. bd2412 T 14:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If other 2 editors have reverted from the definition I've used, that doesn't mean it's true. The quote from the last 2018 source you've added to the Plant-based diet article is biased. Please read the Talk from the Plant-based diet article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plant-based_diet -– Tematice (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• From looking at the article history it looks like they went right to the 3RR line and not over it. But the behavior at the article certainly seems problematic. PackMecEng (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Tematice is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again unless they have received a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Hildeoc reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned)

Page: 2018 Russian presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hildeoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:58, 17 Jan
2. 19:36, 17 Jan
3. 21:57, 17 Jan
4. 23:00, 17 Jan

Editor repeatedly reinserting grammatically incorrect text (despite this being pointed out), then reverting back in another attempted change to the lead sentence. Number 57 23:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

• I hope User:Hildeoc has stopped this silliness. Their preferred text was indeed grammatically incorrect, and warring over it is no good. Impru20 has made an edit which may well be a good compromise; either way, Hildeoc, if you revert/undo/change that edit, you should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Looks like a violation to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:The enemies of god reported by User:D.Lazard (Result: Semi)

Page: Monomial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The enemies of god (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. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22] Clearly a sock puppet or a meat puppetper WP:DUCK

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[23]: Summary of my second revert: Reverted 1 edit by The enemies of god: Removal of essential facts (two different definitions in the literature) addition of span external links, vague formulation, ... Please, respect WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page."

[24]: Warning on user's talk page, with a short explanation of my reverts

[25]: Comment on the edits and 3RR warning on article's talk page

Comments:

The enemies of god never tried to discuss the point in article talk page nor in my talk page. He did not answer to my post on his talk page, although the use of an IP login for his last revert (with edit summary "No nedd D.Lazard) is an indication that he has read my posts. Also, he edits regularly since 2007. So, he is not a new user who may ignore Wikipedia rules. D.Lazard (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected, due to mild socking concern. Neither User:D.Lazard nor User:The enemies of god has exceeded three reverts, but from here on they should follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Modernist reported by User:MarchOrDie (Result: Both warned)

Page: Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Modernist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31], [32]

Comments:

• I was asked yesterday to protect the page here:[33] for this article: [34] because I am one of the editors who brought it to Featured article status. I am protecting the article against unwarranted and unwanted changes and vandalism. I am not edit warring although User:MarchOrDie is edit warring. He does not seem to understand this featured article's imagery is needed to remain as is. I am being harassed by this editor who does not understand that I am protecting this article...Modernist (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Modernist and User:MarchOrDie are both warned for edit warring on image sizes. The size question is now being discussed on the article talk page. Please participate there and follow WP:Dispute resolution if you can't reach agreement. This war took place on 18 January while the article was on the main page as Today's Featured Article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:192:4c80:1bdd:c882:bcbf:5842:647e reported by User:TF Munat (Result: Semi, Block)

Page: Columbia University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:192:4c80:1bdd:c882:bcbf:5842:647e (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. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]

..and more in the past.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] [41]

Note: The user keeps changing the IPV6 so it's difficult to warn them. However, warring spreads across the same subnet. I did so in edit messages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

This page is constantly suffering from edit-warring from IPs and most recently wikipuffery which resulted in a ban to those users and requiring auto-confirmed or confirmed access. Now this IP user is constantly reverting the revert of his/her/their initial change. There is a discussion on the talk page (where it becomes clear of the same user's IPV6 address usage, same subnet in reverts and reply). I noticed that when another user challenged this user to provide credible information/source on the claim, and asked why he/she/they are warring, the reply was "listen to your own advice hypocrite." in the revert message. 14:03, 18 January 2019.

The funny part is the change that they are trying to make despite the complete opposite being written in the first line of the same paragraph! It states - "Columbia has three official undergraduate colleges." - accurately from the source. The user adds "The fourth undergraduate college, Barnard College..." and proceeds to add it to the dropdown list, clearly not even reading the paragraph they are editing. Which can be easily nullified from Columbia's Official website [43] "three undergraduate schools". It's hard but I will still want to assume good faith, that the user is confused about the distinction of schools from the "greater Columbia University community" - where there are many (20 total from all affiliates), including undergraduate and graduate schools, and "Undergraduate schools from Columbia University", where there are 3 - as stated by Columbia itself. The article is about Columbia University and it should follow the official sources from Columbia University to maintain this distinction. I have included this information from the official sources with the hope that the user now understands the change and follows WP:POINT. (TF Munat (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC))

• Result: Page semiprotected and IP range blocked one week by User:Oshwah. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Fair Galaxy reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Abigail Hopkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fair Galaxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "The previous article does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policies and is inaccurate in parts."
2. 19:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Unnecessary information lifted from tabloids. It is NOT necessarily factual and does not relate to the work of the artist"
3. 18:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Shortened information as the previous was gossip lifted from tabloids and not factual."
4. 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Unnecessary information that has nothing to do with the artist."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 18:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Abigail Hopkins. (TW)"
3. 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Talkback (User talk:RhinosF1) (TW)"
4. 19:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Talkback (User talk:RhinosF1) (TW)"
5. 19:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Some proposed changes */ Comment"

Comments:

User has also attempted to use an IP to evade detection. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DonutsAndBakewells reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Celebrity Big Brother 2 (U.S. season) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DonutsAndBakewells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1. 18:14, January 15, 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:49, January 15, 2019 - DonutsAndBakewells changes the image in the infobox to the same image that is used in Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S. season) that doesn't have an appropriate WP:FUR to be used on the article
2. 01:05, January 16, 2019
3. 11:54, January 16, 2019
4. 22:04, January 16, 2019
5. 22:05, January 16, 2019
6. 21:28, January 18, 2019
7. 21:29, January 18, 2019 - This edit has nothing to do with the six previous edits listed but DonutsAndBakewells reverted this edit that is disputed due to WP:RS and hasn't taken part of the discussion on the talk page about this particular edit for the first Head of Household.

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

1. 3RR violated on January 16, 2019 [44][45][46][47] 3RR left on talk page [48]

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

1. Discussion about the infobox image DonutsAndBakewells has not replied to this discussion as of filing. [49]
2. Discussion about the 1st HOH DonutsAndBakewells has not replied to this discussion as of filing. [50]

Comments:

• Based on past history this user should know to discuss disputed edits on the talk page as they were previously blocked for edit warring on a different reality TV show article back in November 2018. Not to mention this user added false information to the article being discussed on 15:31, January 13, 2019 for no reason. The editor doesn't appear to want to discuss any of the issues on the talk page. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Long term edit warring about the infobox image. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad reported by User:ImprovedWikiImprovment (Result: No violation)

Page: New York (state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oknazevad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 00:53, January 17, 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:01, January 18, 2019
2. 14:02, January 18, 2019
3. 14:12, January 18, 2019
4. 01:35, January 19, 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. After 4 reverts in 24 hours

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

1. On the user's talk page

Comments:

• I have already explained to the editor that a discussion at Talk:New York City dictated that the primary name for the City of New York, except in circumstances where it could be confused with the state, is "New York". The user has failed to accept this, saying that the discussion related only to the infobox of the New York City page. While true, it was decided to change the title of that infobox because the name "New York City", both in real life and in Wikipedia, is primarily a disambiguator; the primary, and most common name is "New York". In these circumstances on the New York (state) article, there is no possible confusion due to mention of city nearby or, in one case, a list of cities. They have violated the 3 revert rule also, and failed to properly listen to me. IWI (chat) 13:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Response: Once IWI was reverted for inappropriately extrapolating a discussion's outcome to other articles (which he admits above) and was first reverted, he should have just stopped. Instead he has continued to revert, both in the above article and at Los Angeles, where he's been reverted by multiple editors. He really needs to stop acting as though his extrapolation has any consensus and just walk away from the idea. But as seen by the refusal to stop after he was first reverted he does seem to have an issue with that. oknazevad (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t quite understand how that is inappropriate; since people agreed that the primary name is "New York" (no not just in the infobox but generally), saying "Largest city: New York City" is nonsenseical as nobody is going to think that Largest city in New York State – is New York State. Therefore, the disambiguating word "city" can be removed. Like I said, another conclusion in that discussion was that "New York City" is primarily a disambiguator. Also, that isn’t an adequate reason to break the three-revert rule, Oknazevad. IWI (chat) 13:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

While some contributors explained that as their reason for supporting the shorter infobox header, not all did, and more importantly that was not the topic of discussion. The discussion was exclusively about the infobox. It is inappropriate extrapolation to assume that just because someone might agree with displaying an infobox header one way that they would support removing the use to the word "city" in every instance where the word "city" is nearby.

PS, I didn't break 3RR. The first two edits above are considered one revert, not two, as there were no intervening edits.

PPS, don't need to ping me here. It's on my watchlist. oknazevad (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You did break the 3 revert rule, you made 3 reverts. IWI (chat) 14:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The 3RR is more than three reverts. oknazevad (talk) 15:03, 19 January 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. Generally, please discuss this rather than continuing to revert each other. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bellezzasolo: Yes but reverting repeatedly against consensus violates policy, even if he thinks it doesn’t apply; it does. IWI (chat) 18:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • A consensus over a narrow discussion at one article is not a universally applicable consensus, despite your repeated assertions. And reverting during discussion is still edit warring. oknazevad (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• No violation – You need an admin to close this report, though the result is the same. The first two diffs are consecutive, so 3RR was not broken. Please get consensus on the talk page instead of going on indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jim7049 reported by User:Mikrobølgeovn (Result: blocked)

Page: Template:Syrian Civil War infobox
User being reported: Jim7049 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC, Iraq fighting with Syrian_regime

Comments:

• Violation of the 1RR, which is in place in all articles related to the Syrian Civil War, and which Jim7049 is certainly aware of (he previously reported me for violating it; @MSGJ: decided against a block, while I promised to cease edit warring the template, a promise I have kept). Jim7049 resumed edit warring hours after the protection of the template expired, while showing no sign of trying to change the existing consensus on the talk page. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not a revert that's a modification. Jim7049 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A partial revert is also a revert. You removed Iraq while leaving the sources, that’s a revert. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Ankurc.17 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: blocked)

Page: International cricket in 2018–19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ankurc.17 (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 and link (the second one was before the fourth revert)

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

Comments:

Ankurc.17 keeps adding a tournament to the above page, which fails the inclusion critera that was agreed by the Cricket Project last year. I explained this here on their talkpage and have offered to help discuss this further.

However, they've just simply ignored the WP:CONSENSUS that was reached, and my offer to discuss this further was also ignored. The only comms I've had is via their edit summaries, such as this one that ends with "Also stay away from my user page" and this personal attack calling me a bully.

For every instance of the text being added, I went to the user's talkpage to explain why it should not be added, before removing it myslef. I'd forgotten until now, but I've had a previous similar experience with this editor (March 2018) about edit-warring where the user was warned about edit-warring AND to stop with the personal attacks.

Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Blah blah blah.... The user is a bully and can't stand when some one else stands up to him.... Ban me or block me... but this so called bully cant be allowed to get away... I am not the first person with whom he has had issues... It should be noted that this guy has had issues earlier as well with many other people....

--Ankurc.17 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It's true, I've been blocked before, however since my last unblock early last year, I have had zero problems with anyone. If you can find any evidence to contradict this, then you are more than welcome to supply it here. I'm not sure how explaining a project consensus, in polite terms with the offer to discuss further is "bullying". You edit summaries and reply here suggest you don't want to be helped in this matter, with your continued edit-wars and personal attacks, despite being told not to do this previously. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussing something before deleting is not an offer for discussion.... And since there is no written proof about not adding any tournaments with International status.. Dont really get your objections... --Ankurc.17 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Clear violation of 3RR and above does not show any regret or indication that they will stop edit warring — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Ineedisin reported by User:Musicfan122 (Result: )

Page: Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ineedisin (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. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:
Disruptive editing and refusing to reach consensus in talk, also removing a whole lot referenced text in their last edits. Musicfan122 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

User:213.65.195.254 reported by User:Bastun (Result: )

Page: Gemma O'Doherty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.65.195.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:17, 18/01
2. 21:06, 18/01
3. 10:37, 19/01
4. 21:45, 19/01

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened this discussion section.

Comments:

• Anon IP is misinterpreting WP:BRD and claiming that somehow two editors opposed to inclusion over three supporting inclusion is a consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I never once said there was a consensus, In fact I challenge Bastun to quote me where I said that. I simply stated there was a lack of consensus for the inclusion of a sentence (there was) and so invoking WP:BRD I reverted. WP:ONUS states those who wish to make the new changes must gain a consensus if challenged. Bastun was challenged and he failed to gain a consensus and was thus reverted in compliance with wikipedia policy.213.65.195.254 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, as per Scolaire's remarks, there is consensus for inclusion. Your use of relatively obscure wiki-shortcuts also suggests you've been editing before. What usernames have you used? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

IP since blocked as a zombie proxy. Case can be closed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)