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:Boorif4747 reported by User:GreenMeansGo (Result: Stale)

Page: United States Space Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boorif4747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [1] - I don't think you need me to count for you.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Comments:

• Stale Looks like this got dropped on the floor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:50.203.99.102 reported by User:Loopy30 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Not evaluated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.203.99.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see multiple requests in edit summaries [9]

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: stale)

Page: Schaffhausen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous similar reports Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Warned user(s))
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Following the Block NeilN had this to say.

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]
6. [16] In this revert, ZH8000 accuses his protagonist of vandalism despite NeilN's dire warning and posts a warning on his talk page about being disruptive.

Note: Numbers 3,4,5 and 6 were within 24 hours (20:11 18 Jul to 14:42 19 Jul)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ZH8000 with a warning and a block for edit warring is well aware of the rules.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am uninvolved in the dispute. No attempt has been made by ZH8000 to discuss on the talk page. A discussion was started after the last revert by another editor to which ZH8000 has, so far, not contributed. One protagonist (out of five) is now indef blocked for socking (though ZH8000 was unaware of that at the time). TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Stale SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I reverted the same thing several times. However, please see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Defamation and pursuit by User:TheVicarsCat. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C1:AB00:7D01:79BC:4F6A:300E:5CD7 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: semi 2 days)

Page

Richard A. E. North (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2A00:23C1:AB00:7D01:79BC:4F6A:300E:5CD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. It you want to have a discussion on Flexcit, then open a page on the subject. Do not use a biographical section to attack this concept, especially when you have made no attempt accurately to describe what it is, or give a balanced view of the areas of contention."
2. 18:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. This is a polemic about Flexcit. It does not belong here in a biography."
3. 18:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. This material is highly tendentious, misleading and potentially libellous. This is supposed to be a biographical entry, not an opportunity for disaffected academics to rant at my expense. If you want to pursue this line, you should open up another page on Flexcit, and open it up to an honest discussion rather than this hole-in-the corner sniping."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Richard A. E. North. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Subject removing content */ new section"

Comments:

• Page protected semi 2 days SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:TFBCT1 reported by User:Newshunter12 (Result: Both warned)

Page: List of oldest living people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

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

[22] [diff]

Comments:

This is my first time reporting someone for edit warring, so I apologize if I messed anything up in this report I am filing. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User is not per se using the "revert tool" to undo work, but continues to edit reversing edits that are in contention on the talk page causing a ruckus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFBCT1 (talk • contribs)

• Warned Okay, I see on the talk page that consensus has been reached, so I am not anticipating any more edit warring from either of you. If there is, I will not be impressed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User: Premicaa reported by User: Koradastat (Result: indef)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210684&oldid=808964059

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210732&oldid=851210701

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210794&oldid=851210755

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210868&oldid=851210816

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely by SarekOfVulcan (mid-air admin conflict) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Blocked both of them, actually. New accounts, edit warring on the same article and then running right here for a report? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, when I said create a bunch of socks and edit-war with yourself, it was a joke. I despair. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Now see? That's why you shouldn't actually edit here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:180.191.111.63 reported by User:Toasted Meter (Result: Block, Semi)

Page: Isuzu D-Max (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.191.111.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Comments:

Adding unsourced content that is obviously a hoax. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 48 hours. Page semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Uliks77 reported by User:mm.srb (Result: No violation)

Page: Valtazar Bogišić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uliks77

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]

Protecting the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Valtazar_Bogišić:

Mm.srb (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• No violation There have only been three reverts. However, @Uliks77:, you are advised that your edits are not acceptable and you need to take this to the talk page. If you change this again without gaining consensus, then I will be blocking you. In the meantime I have reverted to the stable version and protected the article for a week. Number 57 20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Harmony944 reported by User:Barkeep49 (Result: page protected; indefinitely blocked)

Page

Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Harmony944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851351017 by Barkeep49 (talk)"
2. 17:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Again, this sets incredibly poor precedent. Why does The Passage TV series article get to live with the little information it has while a Cartoon with a released title card is forced to be a redirect?"
3. 20:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851060330 by Barkeep49 (talk)Look at the discussion. No substantial reasoning was put forward. You don't wait 6 and a half weeks and counting to perform a poorly-decided merger. Why out of all the pages made for this show was this one chosen to have its info removed from view?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) to 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) "Misleading edit summary. No such merger occurred"
   2. 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "Trying to answer something"

Comments:

Ongoing edit warring against consensus closing from May AfD Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion cannot go further. This user cursed me out in private message for questioning the legitimacy of the Articles for Deletion discussion on the article’s talk page, and refuses to be reasonable—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Other 2019 TV debuts with similar content include Messiah, Jinn, and the Tales from the City revival. There is no reason a Yabba Dabba Dinosaurs article can’t exist with the information it currently has, and it’s not fair that when I ask for things to be considered, I’m told I’m “wrong” in a vulgar manner without a second thought and I’m punished for it—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• This definitely appears to be edit-warring against a valid WP:AfD result (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!). Unfortunately, Harmony944 has been blocked for edit-warring before, and should know better. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

THAT DISCUSSION WAS NOT VALID. Whats disruptive about restoring a legitimate article? Why am I constantly being ignored and talked down to? Why do i have to seek consensus for every little thing while you let my harasser make baseless edit warring accusations against me? The fact is that you force me to get consensus on a talkpage that is currently a redirect, meaning it will be passed by EVERY TIME someone clicks on a link to it. Thats a clear case of stacking the deck. I was given no other options but to restore the article until IJ told me about DelRev. You want to punish me not for edit-warring, but not knowing every policy by heart—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Harmony944: This tact is going to get you nowhere. Following this line now is just going to confirm to any Admin watching this that a block is probably in order to prevent further disruption. I would drop this now, while you're behind, and follow my advice at Talk:Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You cant call me disruptive because i wasnt being disruptive. This "tact" you speak of is speaking out against unfair and biased treatment. If only people werent ignoring the abuse and making things easy for themselves while making it harder for the person theyre on the verge of hurting again. I'm off to make the split proposal. I'd prefer it if I received the decency to be an active part of the discussion instead of being blocked for an extended period that ends up taking up the entire period of the split discussion—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• This editor has quite an extensive history of warring on Wikipedia, and I think any admin reviewing this discussion should take that into account. They displayed the same behavior as they did recently on the Agents of Shield page and would rather war with others to get their own way. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Harmony has learned from their mistakes. Esuka323 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC).

Statement struck due to blatant character assassination. What i have is an extensive history of good to fantastic edits with occasion edit warring accusations. I follow every rule here and it is not my fault no one told me the process of restoring a deleted article. Theres also the fact that the article in question got full-on deleted during this discussion without consensus to do so. It very much seems that consensus nor consistency matter—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 19:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The evidence is there on the Agents of Shield page history, you had multiple editors including myself reverting you and telling you to continue with the discussion. You became impatient because that discussion wasn't going your way and continued trying to push your agenda on the page. Clearly you have been doing this yet again with other editors, just how many chances do you deserve if you continue to break the rules here? If you continue to make the same mistakes, you haven't learned from them. Esuka323 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I haven’t broken any rule. BEING IMPATIENT ISNT A DAMN CRIME. One incident shouldn’t taint me forever. I’m not a felon, and yet you’re treating me like one. You don’t care what I have to say, you just want me out.—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)

Your talk page is full of edit war warnings and block notices. Frankly the fact you have the ability to edit here still after so many rule infractions is astounding. Esuka323 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That doesnt make them legitimate. Youre not bothering with context, youre just judging me by what others put on my page, regardless of legitimacy. You have no evidence that i havent proven to be a good user, and are only trying to drag my name through the mud. I therefore am asking you to leave—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 20:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Esuka323. Enough is enough. You've been blocked twice for edit warring and have had your talk page access revoked for using it inappropriately during your first block, and yet you're still insisting you're this perfect little angel who doesn't break rules? Your WP:IDHT is quite strong. Honestly, you're at the disruptive level now as you are more of a net negative than a net positive to the Wikipedia project. Editors who persistently and consciously can't or won't admit when they're wrong have no place on Wikipedia. I should know. An indefinite blocked would be more than justified now. Wikipedia has no irreplaceable editors, and you've been given plenty of rope. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected However, the edits here are disruptive. @Harmony944: The article code is still in the history of the redirect. If this continues then there will also be a block. The only options available to you are to take it to DRV or drop the subject. Number 57 20:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

“The code is still in the history of the redirect” Which you deleted twice. Without consensus. Which means the code was gone to anyone Twice. You defied the AfD twice. And yet my recreation to actually abide by the AfD consensus is called “disruptive”? And “rule-breaking”? Ever since I started editing here regularly I have been a fantastic editor, only to be confronted over common-sense actions I took because they needed consensus despite every source I gave. And then, again without consensus, you delete the draft talk page where it was confirmed that the draft was suggested by another user. What are you trying to hide? Why am I being targeted for trying to be a good editor—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The redirect has not (nor ever) been deleted by anyone – it is still here. I was not aware you had been advised to create the draft article, so I have amended that part of my rationale above. However, I would advise reigning in your other accusations (e.g. of having something to hide). Number 57 21:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You are lying. I have the emails. Both of them, with the edit summaries that you deleted the article. It's also in the deletion log. When I clicked to see the article or what changed, the article wasn’t there.Yes, the redirect is there now, but that’s because it had to be put back upthree times to counter your deletions. And you still deleted the draft AND it’s talk page. Despite what @IJBall: told you. You are overstepping boundaries. You had no consensus, and the only reasoning you ever gave was libelous. By doing this, you are proving yourself far more disruptive than you ever claimed me to be—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

As you can see in the page log for the redirect, it has never been deleted or restored. Nor has the talk page of the draft. I would appreciate you withdrawing your accusation of lying. Number 57 21:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I now support a block – between Harmony944's accusing an Admin of lying, to their failure to Drop the stick, I fear that continued disruption is inevitable here. I'm going to ping the previous blocking Admins, NeilN and Bbb23, here as well, because I would like them to appraise this situation for themselves. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• @IJBall: Just having looked at Harmony's comments here, I believe an indefinite block is warranted. However, Number 57 has been handling this, and I would not block at all unless he at least doesn't oppose it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't oppose a block here. Number 57 23:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Your comment is vile, baseless, and unwarranted. I would not be making such accusations if I didnt have the proof.—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 23:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Proof of which you haven't really provided. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Because you do not provide the means. I do not have a desktop. I have tried finding how to upload files to the app or mobile versions, and there is no way—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 23:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Your behavior towards the admins here is disturbing. They have no reason to lie or deceive anyone yet you continue to make baseless attacks against them. Esuka323 (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Then don't throw around baseless accusations like that if you can't back up your claims as doing so pretty much borders on them being personal attacks. Also agree with Esuka. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I’m not lying. The deletion logs exist. I wish I could upload my screenshots, but I’m not on desktop and cannot attach said screenshots.

EDIT: Clicking the link on the email left off the exclamation point, so I withdraw the Draft talk page from the deleted pages in question. My apologies--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have blocked Harmony944 indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:6FA0:1930:94AF:6635:49FC:69CD reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: blocked 36 hours )

Page

Doppler effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1700:6FA0:1930:94AF:6635:49FC:69CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 23:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 23:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 23:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 23:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 23:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 23:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "General note: Adding inappropriate external links on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"
2. 23:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Adding spam links on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"
3. 23:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked for 36 hours, but I note that the page has been targeted before by another IP, potentially related so it might need to be semi protected if this continues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Article has been semi protected now for three days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Minimumbias reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: )

Page: Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Minimumbias Minimumbias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
Edits were made to move around other people's talk page comments which was contested and reverted, editor has persisted. Very grateful for this to be resolved by neutral administration. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Dilpa kaur (Result: )

Page: Human rights abuses in Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]

This page is subject to 1RR: I also see no attempt to resolve the issue on Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir. This user has already been warned for edit warring here recently.[42]
Dilpa kaur (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)