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:Swetoniusz reported by User:Borsoka (Result: )

Page: Mary, Queen of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Swetoniusz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] (personal attack in the edit summary)
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5] (after being reminded on the ongoing debate on the Talk page)
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] (He/she deleted it: [8])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (1) By Surtsicna [9] and the debate remained unclosed [10]. (2) By myself [11], [12].

Comments: I know that technically he/she did not violate WP:3RR, but I think his/her attitude suggests that he/she does not understand the basic principles of cooperation and tend to treat other editors' edit as a personal attack. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This user shows no intention to cooperate with others and has quite literally ignored (on several talk pages) all of my pleas to read WP:BRD. His/her idea of editing is to bully others into accepting his/her edits through endless reverting and bizarre comments that leave other editors dumbfounded. In this case, I reverted an edit of his/hers with an explanation, only to be told to "stop demaged this article". I then directed the user to WP:BRD and the talk page discussion I had started, but got the same kind of incoherent nonsense as before. He/she has already indicated that he/she sees any interference with his editing (by anyone) as destroying his work. That persistent kind of attitude and incomprehensibility of his comments leaves me wondering how to interact with him/her. Surtsicna (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Olsen24 reported by User:SportsFan007 (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page: MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olsen24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&oldid=820703587

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&oldid=821215780
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&oldid=821215691
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&oldid=821215873
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&oldid=821215873

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet#Repetitive_Cells_in_Columns

Comments:
This user keeps dispuptively reverting edits and has been blocked several times for doing so SportsFan007 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

IP Adress 177.154.56.233 reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: Blocked)

Despite being warned on multiple occassions, the IP user 177.154.56.233 (also as User:AngeloKonecki is continuously removing cited information without given explanation from the article James Charles (model) and continues revert my edits to restore this information. (see here).

I realize that in continuing to revert their edits I became involved in an edit war and that is against policy. I apologize and seek help here.

Please assist & advise. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked Master blocked one week, IP blocked one month. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Musashi miyamoto reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: List of unsolved problems in physics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Musashi miyamoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13] - undone by Arianewiki1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14], undone by Arianewiki1 with request to go to talk page
2. [15], undone by me
3. [16], undone by me
4. [17], after many warnings

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18] on user talk, and later after multiple warnings and explanations [19] on article talk.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] and the entire thread there. Four editors disagree with addition of content: Arianewiki1, Paradoctor, PaleoNeonate, Jordgette, and me.

This is incorrect, because at the time of adding this report there was already a consensus between me and Paradoctor and no-one objected to this consensus, apart from DVDm, but he did it by mistake and later apologised for it, hence the reasons to make this report and blockage, as well as his revert has not existed. So since that time there have been 2 people for the edits and 0 against them.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• For the record: I did not disagree with the additions. More to the point, I think this issue was mishandled, and ended up as a fight over the WP:WRONGVERSION. Musashi miyamoto was responsive, and given a more issue-focused approach this would have ended with consensus, rather than a block. :/ Paradoctor (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops, made a mistake there. Corrected now. - DVdm (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Musashi miyamoto did indeed break 3RR on the article. See the discussion at the article talk page, which I don't interpret as a consensus in his favor. The reference for the change he proposes is a single primary source available as a preprint on Arxiv.org, which usually would not be viewed here as a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

All you said above is incorrect - for explanations why see my talk page (in particular my 2 replies to Hoan and a reply to DVDm in respect to your comment).Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Adrin10 reported by User:Weatherextremes (Result: )

Page: University of the People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adrin10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:Please check this article since Adrin10 has been reverting and edit warring even though I asked him many times to resolve the content dispute. I have remained calm and tried to make constructive edits to no avail. I am also suspecting sock puppetry but I can not be certain Weatherextremes (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This user often add promotional and misleading content, sometimes even hoaxes.--Adrin10 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This user has again reverted refusing to collaborate on the exact content of the resolution Weatherextremes (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the latest revert by Adrin10 [21] [[User:Weatherextremes|Weatherextremes] (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:LFdoR reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked)

Page: Seven (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LFdoR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23] edit summary: "Added reliable source containing the background, a detailed description, an in-depth analysis, related audiovisuals and images, and the credits of the film's title sequence, of which it also attest to its relevance"
2. [24] edit summary: "Are you serious? A same reference can be used to support different information. Why did you delete a valid and properly sourced edit? Why is it unnecessary? The NIN song "Closer" is credited in the film's end credit crawl"
3. [25] edit summary: "Are you a marriage of vandals? My edits are solid. I don't have reason to chat with you or with your... Which of you is the alpha? Missing preposition "on" added to a specific date"
4. [26] edit summary: "Stay cool? When YOU, and your alter egos, have been systematically deleting EACH AND EVERY of my edits without giving any valid reason? WP:DONTREVERT. You are hovering on the edge of vandalism. The job title is merely descriptive"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] (no response)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user's talk page: [28] (no respose)

Diff of 3RRNB notification: [29]

Comments:
Please note that this user was reverted by 3 different editors, as such this is a one-way edit-war. The user did not create a discussion on the article talk, nor did he respond to posts to his user talk page. His history shows that has virtually never posted a talk page comment. He has posted quotes, made minor changes to other edits, but no discussion to be found at all. Instead, as is plain to see, he prefers to hash out issues via edit-warring edit-summaries, sometimes descending into vitriol and personal attacks. This user is not only uncooperative, but angry and is taking it out on fellow editors and the article, with persistent disruption. - ^theWOLFchild 04:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit-warring, refusal to communicate and assumptions of bad faith. Acroterion (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Love edit-warring against consensus at Targeted Killing

Mitsubishi love has a negligible contribution to wikipedia, registering on Dec 10 2017 at Targeted killing to add his voice to at that time basically a revert war conducted by one editor and an I/P. Since then they have shown themselves to be basically a SPA, with 41 edits over 40 days, 30 of them reverting of argufying without much knowledge of the rules, and basically advocating on behalf of the integrity of the present Philippines government.

I set up a RfC on 14 December at Targeted killing re the inclusion or exclusion of material on the Philippines. The page was placed under protection shortly afterwards by an admin, User:Coffee. The result was:-

Exclude.

• (1) User:STSC
• (2) User:Mitsubishi love
• (3) User:Spacecowboy420

Include.

• (1) User:Nishidani
• (2) User:NSH001
• (3) User:Edward321
• (4) User:Pincrete

Additional facts.

(a) During the RfC User:Dr.K.. replying to Mitsubishi’s desire to change the definitions governing the page (which allow inclusion) suggested that editors seek consensus first, before making alterations. Secondly he reverted Mitsubishi for adding sources that were patently in violation of a wikipedia protocol.

(b) One of the editors desiring the material to be excised from the article as the RfC got underway, namely, User:STSC, made a protected edit request, desiring to excise the material while the page was locked in.

This was turned down by User:MSGJ who stated: ‘please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the edit protected template.’

The page was then placed under another protection template by another admin, User:Only as a result of the edit-warring this removalism engendered during the RfC.

STSC had been turned down, so he waited 2 weeks, and just went ahead, as the page was protected, ignored the advice, and reverted the material out twice. It was restored. He was warned that he must note remove the material while the RfC was in process.

After a month had elapsed the protection template lapsed, and Mitsubishi, notwithstanding the RfC vote of 4 to 3 in favour of exclusion, has once more gone ahead and excised the material against that consensus, 3 times within 24 hours, within the 3R technical limit but patently asserting a right to game it.

• first revert
• second revert
• third revert

I would suggest this evidence is more than abundantly sufficient to have them banned from that page.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I will ask this, not as an attempt to prove a point, but because I don't know the answer - is an RFC a vote? I assumed it was an attempt to gain consensus, and if none was gained, then it went to other forms of dispute resolution.

Also, it seems a little strange for an account that has reverted the article twice within 24 hours, to suggest that an account that reverted the article three times within 24 hours, is as guilty of edit warring and gaming. Especially, when you look at the timing. To revert an article, then report someone for reverting, then revert the article again and then go back to the report, shows a total lack of respect for the spirit of the rules. Excuse me if I lack the terminology to explain that, I'm sure there is some relevant Wikipedia jargon for that sort of behavior, but it just looks like someone who is complaining about reverts, in between doing the same themself.

• 1st revert
• edit warring report
• 2nd revert
• edit warring report

Also the claim of "basically advocating on behalf of the integrity of the present Philippines government." is highly offensive and more importantly wrong. this edit and this edit show that I agree with this content being on Wikipedia - how can it be suggested that I'm taking part in some attempt to hide these killings, when I have made the following comments

"The deaths of drug users in the Philippines belongs on Wikipedia. That is not disputed. It belongs on the Rodrigo Duterte article, the Philippine Drug War article, the Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines article and the Extrajudicial killing article."

"Having a section for the Philippines, in the same format as the other nations listed, with something along the lines of "the killings in the Philippine Drug War have been classified as targeted killings by some sources such as Human Rights Watch", "with ample opportunity for opposing opinions to be added to the article, if suitable content/sources are available. It should be made clear that calling the killings targeted killings, is merely based on the opinions of some organizations, and that other organizations have vastly different views on the subject."?

That is just an attempt to attack my character as an editor, by accusing me of some government alliance, when it's just a few people arguing over if content fits the definition of a particular article or not.

Also, one minor point - can the editor who filed this report, please link to "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" because while that is present on the other reports on this page, I can't see it on this report. Mitsubishi love (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• comment The simple fact remains that it is wrong for Mitsubishi to re-start the edit war while an RfC is still in progress.--NSH001 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I restored the material excised after making this report, because its place there does not depend on the outcome of this complaint, since it (a) was stable, there since September until December (b) there when the RfC began (c) external editors commented that consensus was required for its removal (d) the vote was 4 to 3 for retention. Throughout this, attempts were made by the minority to remove the material, and persist despite the outcome of the RfC. Now let us have impartial input. Mitsubishi's 3 reverts are an invitation to restart the chaos that preceded the RfC, and rather than be sucked into that game, I restored the status quo, and reported him. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

NSH001 you state that: "The simple fact remains that it is wrong for Mitsubishi to re-start the edit war while an RfC is still in progress" - but this complaint is based on claims that "the RfC vote of 4 to 3 in favour of exclusion, has once more gone ahead and excised the material against that consensus" - so which is it? Was the RfC finished and there was clear consensus? was it finished and there was no clear consensus? or was the RFC still in progress? This edit warring report, was based on the assumption that there was clear consensus to retain the disputed content, if your opinion is that there wasn't clear consensus, as the RFC hadn't finished, then thank you, I agree with you, there was no clear consensus.

Also, you reverted immediately after me. You didn't add anything to the talk page, you didn't message me, you just reverted. The difference between you and your tag team, meat puppet buddy Nishidani reverting and me reverting is what? Mitsubishi love (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mitsubishi, I reverted you because you were wrong to re-start the edit war while the RfC was still in progress; in addition there was no justification nor consensus for you to do so on the talk page. For clarification, the RfC is definitely still in progress, but if it were closed now, it would be closed as no consensus for the change you wish to make. --NSH001 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani was the RFC completed with clear consensus? Excuse my naivety but 4/3 doesn't seem like clear consensus in the slightest. If my three reverts were "an invitation to restart the chaos that preceded the RfC" then what where the three reverts made by yourself and your tag team meat puppet NSH001? It seems as if your claims about my reverts are based purely on very weak claims of consensus and the fact that you don't like my content. This belongs in some form of dispute resolution, as the majority of your claims are closely related to content not conduct. Mitsubishi love (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please desist from turning this into a re cycled version of the talk page. I have outlined my evidence, you have replied. Walls of text disincentivate input from third parties, as chatter, perhaps not inadvertently, tend to bury the issue. So let us wait for third parties to weigh in, please.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but if a report is made regarding my conduct, and you continue to make points on that report, then of course I will respond as and when I deem necessary. Would you prefer it if I didn't respond to the claims you made in your previous comments? I'm sure you would, but obviously that wouldn't be in my best interests. Mitsubishi love (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:46.198.138.49 reported by User:Besieged (Result: )

Page

Turkish Coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
2. 00:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
3. 20:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
4. 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
5. 02:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
6. 09:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Turkish coffee. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned repeatedly by myself and others yet continues to insist on blanking content as "absurd [...], missing proof" even though it is properly sourced and referenced, and the user has not even tried to engage on the article talk page, simply keeps reverting the blanking.

The user has several more reverts not listed here - I'm not sure why Twinkle is only giving me the option to tag just the last two from today and yesterday, but a review of the user's contributions shows a total of 7 edits since Jan 7, all of which are blanking the same content over and over. besieged^talk 13:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I edited this after the fact and manually added the other user reverts. Given that I am mainly involved in anti-vandalism and do not have a direct involvement with the article, so I myself have not tried to engage the editor on the article talk page. As well, the editor has not responded in any way to warnings/notices placed on their talk page, and so from my standpoint doesn't seem too interested in discussion or improving the article, merely removing content that would apparently not agree with their perspective or point of view. The final straw for me, however, was that they reverted again today roughly 9 hours or so after having been given a final warning, using the same tired edit summary. besieged^talk 14:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why in the Page Links summary above is showing the article talk page as being red linked as if it doesn't exist, but it definitely does. besieged^talk 14:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User: Montanabw reported by User:AnotherDayAnotherWay (Result: No action)

Page: Colonial Spanish Horse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Montanabw Montanabw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=prev&oldid=813527260

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=prev&oldid=820237784
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=next&oldid=820238617
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=next&oldid=821021825

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Montanabw&diff=next&oldid=821549906 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=prev&oldid=821267099 A very disruptive user. AnotherDayAnotherWay (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Not only has there been no attempt to resolve this at the article's talk page, but the reporting account is newly created. It looks like there's a content dispute at the page, but this report straddles the line of abuse of process. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That is not abuse of process. I think that you and Montanabw are meatpuppets