Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any user you report.

You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • 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 than 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鈥攚hether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time鈥攃ounts as a revert. Violations of the 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.

User:LawrencePrincipe reported by User:Chealer (Result: Stale)[edit]

Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
LawrencePrincipe (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC) "WP:Lede requires that only material in the main body of the article may be put in the Lead section.Please stop edit warring WP:EW & violating WP:3RR. Four editors have asked for your reasons on Talk. You have no support on Talk."
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Warn"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page



This can be considered as a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive252#User:LawrencePrincipe_reported_by_User:Chealer_.28Result:_No_action_.29 the August 1st report about the same user, which was handled by User:Tiptoety.

In the previous report, I asked for moderation, and the consequence was an imposed self-reversion. After the user suggested he was going to comply and made an edit with the appearance of the self-reversion imposed, the case was closed. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in the previous report, the edit turned out to be a hand-crafted revision which only reverted one part of the violating edit. After the intervention of a bot and myself to complete the reversion, the user reverted against the ruling, with no justification but one of the same arguments he had made then had refuted many times. At this point, I did not reopen the case right away, but rather reverted, which - perhaps unsurprisingly - proved useless. The user re-re-reverted, before I issued a final warning on the article's Talk, since the user had requested so. I'm opening this now that the user re-re-re-reverted invoking no argument which hasn't been refuted already, rather implying that I violated the 3RR and pretending that 4 editors have asked for my "reasons", without even specifying which. Moreover, in that last revert, depicted as a simple reversion of my previous edit, he also reverted a recent change without giving any justification.

Reviewing an edit from Folklore1 made me realize that the above statement is misleading. It remains true that the last revert was more than what the edit summary suggested, but the extra part was not what I initially read (a revert of one of my edits). Even though it technically does revert that, I failed to notice that it also removed the fragment ' "more than 50 official policies" ' LawrencePrincipe had added. This fixes an important problem. It constitutes a concession, and certainly was not a reversion of my edit in spirit.
I do not withdraw my complaint and recommendation for sanction, but the statement now italicized was a big mis-characterization, and I apologize for that. I should have praised that change, not blamed it. @LawrencePrincipe: I apologize to you in particular, although I recommend you avoid mixing such changes in a single edit in the future. If you choose to proceed in such a way anyway, make sure your edit summary reflects that.
Note to self: Keep assuming some good faith... --Chealer (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC), corrected 16:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I must re-amend the above after giving a new look to the diff with a much-needed cooler head. I surely understand the analysis error I made now, but I probably understand LawrencePrincipe's error too. I now believe LawrencePrincipe's change to content of the lead's last paragraph was unintentional, which would mean that my original interpretation of the edit was basically correct; LawrencePrincipe intended to discreetly revert my change, but unintentionally removed his own addition while removing my request for clarification, which explains why the sentence was left broken.
If that was not case, then I maintain my apologies. --Chealer (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

While a week has gone between his last reverts, it should be noted that Wikipedia was locked for 1 week during that period, for reasons not unrelated to this user's behavior. (By the way, this case may be a good opportunity to review the page's protection status. It appears that setting full protection has ironically now brought the article back to No protection rather than the previous semi-protection which it seemed to have, which is bringing more problematic edits than anything else. I would recommend semi-protection or Pending changes.)

In the original report, I wrote I was "sure he [could] become/remain a useful contributor". I am sorry, but I hereby fully retract this statement. Although I will never deny that LawrencePrincipe has already contributed useful work and can continue to do so, his signal/noise ratio has exploded, now that he's opened an RFC and directly tried to get so many people involved. More importantly, his conduct is very mischievous. He repeatedly feigns ignorance and tries to change the subject. I consider several of his comments (such as the edit summary discussed above) as personal attacks. I can only hope that this will change, but have no evidence to that effect. I recommend a meaningful block.

I would probably take an extra day of redaction and an extra hour from your time if I tried to point each error and deceitful behavior I have seen from LawrencePrincipe. Instead of that, I am offering a single example. Unfortunately, although extreme, repeating an error for the nth time, while in the act of quoting me pointing out that n was already >= 10, is far from unrepresentative of the behavior LawrencePrincipe currently displays.

Less than 2 weeks have passed since this case was opened; LawrencePrincipe is surely and understandably not much more skilled with this Wikipedia's language and its conventions. However, these can't explain all the apparent confusion he has shown, and one can hardly use carelessness and inexperience as defense after having opened an RFPP and resorted to important canvassing. A large part of what looks like confusion/inexperience is intentional deception. I have never dealt with a contributor conducting himself so poorly/inconsistently, and I have probably been here for too long already. I honestly wonder who LawrencePrincipe is, and am still unsure at times about an apparent confusion's genuineness, but it is high time to put an end to this.

I realize the above contains lots of accusations and judgments which are not fully substantiated. This is not really intentional. If your review of the situation does not make the reasons behind a certain claim obvious, I am sorry and will be happy to elaborate. --Chealer (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently no admins want to address this (same with the ANI post). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale User LawrencePrincipe has not edited the article since August 14. Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: No action)[edit]

Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AmritasyaPutra (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ The opening sentence should present it objectively what is said to be their motive, not an opinion piece from a self-published journal in Wikipedia voice. It can me mentioned with attribution in the body."
  2. 10:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621752693 by Vanamonde93 (talk) Take it to WP:RSN if you want to claim not RS in the context. I will put back BISS if I can find it in the reference... within ten minutes."
  3. 10:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ Organiser (newspaper) is not by VHP."
  4. 10:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Put back perfectly fine three references. The stated mission of an organization is taken from their mission statement not from some other person's opinion in an article."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC) ""

The first edit, and all the subsequent ones provided here, removed a journal source published by the University of Florence see here, which is what is being dismissed as "somebody's opinion in an SPS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement of AmritasyaPutra
  1. I never removed any reference. Period. I said that the opening statement of an article about an organisation states the objective of the organisation in the same way its mission presents not an unattributed opinion of another person in Wikipedia voice. I used perfectly fine three references.
  2. Here are five diff where vanamonde93 has reverted me five times within last 1h. He put a warning on my talk page after my fourth revert: [5], [6], [7], [8] ,[9]. --AmritasyaPutra 10:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Diffs only count as reverts is they are non-consecutive. In addition, I edit-conflicted at some point thanks to my slow connection, making an edit that should have been consecutive look like two. I am still on three; and I would point out that I gave the other user a chance to self-revert before coming here. If they had, I would not have. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Two minutes? I can very well open a 3RR too but that would be so stupid. Vanamonde93, I would humbly suggest we discuss the disputed content, I did kickstart the article talk page where you admitted you had made a mistake. This is a different dispute now, which we have not yet discussed on article talk page at all. --AmritasyaPutra 11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Am aware of both, for all my editing today shows to the contrary; doesn't BRD require the reverter (in this case, not me) to discuss? Also, I do know that they have one more revert than I do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion happening now on the talk page of the article; a third user stepped in. The edit war is over, at least for the next 24 hours. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so you do admit now that you did not discuss. Just pinching. Reddy reverted at your request so you are satisfied now, that is it nothing more. I do not see sincere listening -- my observation, you may differ. The Hindu reference, all three of us agree to it but have not added it yet. There is absolutely no hurry, but I will add it later. --AmritasyaPutra 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The first revert was yours, per BRD you should have discussed then. You have also reverted more times, and are the one claiming a scholarly source to be an SPS, and claiming a self-admittedly RSS newspaper is something else altogether. I suggest you leave off the snide remarks, and stick to the discussion there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent me. Read again what I wrote. I wrote about one of the two source, you can check. You know you edit warr`ed without discussion. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra 14:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: No action for now. All parties are reminded that they are expected to get consensus for changes that may be controversial. Since other editors are available on the Talk page to give their opinions, there is no need for impulsive action. Please avoid making personal comments on the talk page. "Are you deliberately being dense" should be avoided. Anyone can ask a question at WP:RS/N if you want an opinion on the usability of a source. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D reported by User:Comitus (Result: )[edit]

Page: Deutschlandlied (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1st
  2. 2nd
  3. 3rd
  4. 4th

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

I've recently added new text including references to the article but this user keeps reverting/removing the information and refuses to present his objections on the talk page. If a moderator could either temporarily lock the page on the version with the (sourced) material added forcing the user to use the talk page to discuss this or to instruct the user to use the talk page instead of reverting (my preffered option). Thank you. Comitus (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Looks to me like you're both edit warring. I'm not sure why I should favor you over the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call it 'favoring' me. 'My' version lists sources for every added section. When I reverted him, I continuously requested him to visit the talk page to name his issues. Instead he just continues reverting. For me, that's the problem. I just want him to discuss his issues on the talk page, instead of reverting, but he refuses. To be honest, him breaking the 3RR doesn't really matter for me. I don't think he should be blocked or anything, its just that I want him to stop reverting sourced material without discussion on the talk page. That's were I need your help. Comitus (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Arjann reported by User:Vivvt (Result: )[edit]

Kaaviya Thalaivan (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Arjann (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621913435 by Vivvt (talk) I'm not doing any personal analysis. I've just written what the source says. Just the representation is different"
  2. 12:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "The total length parameter is getting violated."
  3. 13:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Track listing */ I have not listed anything that is unofficial"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Kaaviya Thalaivan (soundtrack). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Inspite of asking user to discuss the issue on the talk, he keeps on reverting the changes. Also, undid the warning given on the talk page. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The matter could have been amicably solved. If the user Vivvt has some issues, he/she may discuss it with me on my talk page. She/he (User:Vivvt) must write on my talk page and not mentioning or initiating the talk/discussion in the comments. It may be well noted through the user pages that no discussion has been initiated by Vivvt. User Vivvt has problems with me since I came on Wikipedia. My constructive edits were always regarded as disruptive by her/him. And I don't think for such matters a block or administrator intervention is so essential. Arjann (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reported by User:2001:470:0:CA:0:0:0:2 (Result: )[edit]

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

This user makes disruptive edits. He doesn`t use Talk page. If you will check Talk page, you will see, that compromise was found with other users. However, I am not sure, if it is edit warring or vandalism (maybe somekind of trolling, because he became more active after compromise was found). P.S. He also violated 3RR.
UPDATE: Now he began to vandalize other pages. He just deletes all Turkish and Azerbaijani names from articles. Some of his actions have no logic. For example, he replaced Ottoman Turkish name for Baklava with Persian name, but Persians not even claim that Baklava is of Persian origin. Now, I am sure that his actions are actually vandalism.


User:Newmancbn reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

The Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Newmancbn (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622038398 by PiCo (talk) See the talk page and write your complaints there"
  2. 06:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622019117 by Dougweller (talk) The Ipuwer section was not listed under archeology at all, but under historicity, it has been now moved to its on section"
  3. 05:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622018575 by Zero0000 (talk) Excuse me? The statement 'no archeological research has been found that can lend support for the Book of Exodus' is WP:OR given the Ipuwer. See talk"
  4. 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Somehow despite a lengthy explanation the reader is left knowing actually very little about this text or its contents, added the passages from the papyrus in question"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned for 3RR at [12] and later warnings by another Admin for edit-warring at other articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Discussion on his talk page and Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus as one of the issues is the papyrus. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor is a WP:TLDR respondent on talk pages, and shows no zero knowledge of the subjects he edits on, and appears to be pushing a fundamentalist POV with extraordinary alacrity over the past few days (see Israelites). There's a limit to how much time editors should be expected to spend wasting hours in handling crank editing over multiple pages. It may be a first time offence, but he needs a strong warning, given the ignorance of basic protocols, to propose edits on the talk page more often.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
After replacing some copyvio removed by another Admin he is at 3RR at Ipuwer Papyrus. He seems to have a habit of accusing other editors of being prejudiced when they disagree with him. He's now going through articles replacing "Yahweh" with "YHWH" as he believes that "Yahweh is a linguistically retarded estimation)". Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
After seeing this (saying in the middle of an article "his is an article from the Christian perspective and should use links to their terms"), I was about ready to start gathering diffs and go to ANI to bring up a topic ban or a WP:NOTHERE block. I'll still do that if the blocking admin doesn't indef him. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This editor brings nothing to Wikipedia except strong opinions and appears intent on making the encyclopaedia conform to those opinions regardless of any other considerations. Zerotalk 15:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 24 hours. I predict there will be longer blocks unless the editor changes their approach. John (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked two weeks)[edit]

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sayerslle (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "the' also on kjiev side is many ..' is kind of pidgin , and not the subject of the article anyhow"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC) to 15:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    1. 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622066536 by Jirka.h23 (talk)check the title - the subject of the article"
    2. 15:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "its not 'according to prof' ok - many Russians is common knowledge anyhow"
  3. 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "its not t'the prof ' saying this, he presented the programme - the tanks has a bbc june ref also - your Russian statement is not reffed"
  4. 13:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622056440 by Jirka.h23 (talk)the refs are at the end of the passage"
  5. 13:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622052445 by Jirka.h23 (talk)voice of Russia better- 4real? - neutral RS source would be better"
  6. 12:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622047296 by Jirka.h23 (talk)just looks lke a Russian propaganda source - is there not a better RS for numbers"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

oh goodness me rgloucester, I felt to leave the page with an illiterate and irrelevant sentence was useless - and also the other editor had left it with ' the prof says -' which wasn't true, he obviously hadn't listened to the podcast that the Boston College professor hosted merely, , -can not some common sense be used here please and over reaction avoided- minor footling with the language, not major edit war -Sayerslle (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You will note that with your final revert you did not just remove that sentence, but also wholesale reverted all of the other editor's changes. I will also note that I warned you about 3RR on your talk page. I will also note that this article is under Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, which I also notified you about. I also warned the other editor about 3RR and discretionary sanctions. Whether something is "true or not" is the definition of a content dispute. You are an experienced editor, and experienced in editing in contentious areas. You should've known better than to keep reverting, rather than moving to the talk page. This is especially true after I warned you, and even more true because this article is under discretionary sanctions. There is not much else I can say. RGloucester 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
'wholesale' 'all the other editors edits' - which you make sound something massive - a few footling changes - one total illiterate irrelevant sentence removed -you are always exaggerating - to remove 'also on kjiev side is many' was nothing really was it ?-'there is not much else I can say' - - well, lets hope so, certainly as regards me - youve called me childish, and a crusader, and an adder of nonsense, and impossible to understand without the Lords help, now you've warned me too - bit much really. - the edit war is over as far as i'm concerned- if illiteracy or inaccuracies about who said what are added, I will have to try and address it on the talk page - the other editor seemed unwilling to listen - my edit summaries told him the prof wasn't the source and the sentence was irrelevant - but back it went - so I assumed debate wasn't going to be listened to really. Sayerslle (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither party's conduct was particularly good in this edit war, but you took the extra step of reverting again after I'd warned you to stop edit warring and take it to the talk page. RGloucester 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 2 weeks John (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)