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:ComtesseDeMingrélie reported by User:Maunus (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

User:ComtesseDeMingrelie is just coming out of a 31 block for editwarring and is at it again... ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:16, 18 March 2011 (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• This is not a 3rr report but an editwarring report. This user came straight out of a 31 hour block for reverting five and four times on two different articles and continued reversion. I think there is every basis for action here - it shows that he has not taken the editwarring policy to heart during his previous block. I think you should reconsider here.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• You did not provide sufficient sources and that is why I reverted it. Linking to a website did not help us identify concrete evidence in any way. In this regard, you were edit warring as much as I. Providing these links while excluding what I wrote on talk pages is unfair and you know that.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 15:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Arguni reverted twice and I reverted twice. You reverted three times removing sourced content in the face of two disagreeing editors. That is editwarring. I personally don't care one little bit about who is or isn't a mingrelian, but I do care about the way in which you try to enforce your personal viewpoint through editwarring. That is not acceptable and if you do not realise that you have to discuss instead of revert you will end up being blocked for a lot longer than 31 hrs.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible that your and Arguni's initial edits do not need to be discussed before being made but my reverts do? Throwing something in and then hoping that discussions are going to drag on does not help. When he saw that his edits were disputed (and being reverted is a clear sign of that), instead of reverting it back he was supposed to be the one opening the discussion as he was the one who initiated the change.You are playing with double standards and just because you are an administrator do not think that I am going to swallow this bias or any of your threats.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ComtesseDeMingrélie is editwarring according as his own opinions, here are the examples. I just wanted to change their nationalist propagandas about Lazs and Laz language. There are other users too who are spreading this propaganda with using wikipedia policies as politely. English wikipedia is not a playground of some users and this is not acceptable. Arguni (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:passionless reported by User:mbz1 (Result: Warned)

Page: Stoning murder of Israeli teens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: passionless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

user:passionless just returned from indefinite block and right away started edit warring on the article that is under 1RR as all articles related to I/P conflict. More than that user:Passionless is limited to one revert per page per 168 hours on all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:01, 1 September 2011. Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 does not seem to understand that my three edits made within 10 minutes without a major edit by anyone inbetween them is considered a single edit. Passionless -Talk 03:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:REVERT, and did not find anything about 10 minutes. Besides it was more like 17 minutes difference, and you yourself edited other pages in between your reverts. So I do believe you made 3 reverts and did violate your own and the article editing restriction. You made your last the third revert after I asked you to stop --Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I responded to your message on my talk page in the middle of my edits!...and the last edit took longer than norm cause of a major edit conflict- I too was going to fix grammar. Passionless -Talk 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody forced you to make this third revert 17 minutes after you made the first one, and after I warned you, and you responded. There were quite a few edits made to the article between your reverts. Besides in at least two of your reverts you reverted info supported by a few wp:rs. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[socky post snipped]

The above user has one edit and it is to this page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 04:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The above user is a sock of a banned user, who has not a slightest idea what it is talking about, and now it is blocked. I reverted it.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've warned User:Passionless. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Warned by Gwen Gale. I would have blocked if I had seen this first, so let that fact reinforce Gwen's warning. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Borsoka reported by User:Daizus (Result: Decline)

Page: Bogdan I of Moldavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:

This article has an over-sized footnote on the theories of some Hungarian authors. I found that presented with undue-weight. Borsoka keeps removing the "undue weight" inline tag, without addressing the objections. Daizus (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE from uninvolved editor: The first edit shown above was made on 1st March.
On 18th March Borsoka made an edit (the article hadn't been edited for more than two weeks (!) before this one) and three reverts.
Daizus similarly reverted three times, but he forgot to report himself.
Besides, Borsoka DID engage in a lengthy discussion on the talk page, Daizus simply didn't accept her answer. That's what he calls "without addressing the objections". Squash Racket (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake for the first diff, it should have been this one: [17] (as you can see he changed the text AFTER the tag and he thought that is good enough reason to delete the tag also). On March 18, he removed the undue-weight tag 4 (four) times. He indeed engage in a lengthy discussion on the talk page, but he did not provide any reason why is it due weight (he kept repeating "Sorry I cannot understand your concerns"). Moreover the last edits were with no discussion whatsoever, he only kept reverting. Daizus (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Declined There's no 3RR violation here, the edit-warring has not yet reached blockable proportions and I see some attempts at compromise. CIreland (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mystichumwipe and User:No More Mr Nice Guy reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: )

Page: The Invention of the Jewish People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Original edit: [18] by No More Mr Nice Guy, March 15
• 1st revert: [19] by Mystichumwipe, March 17
• 2nd revert: [20] by No More Mr Nice Guy, March 17
• 3rd revert: [21] by Mystichumwipe, March 18
• 4th revert: [22] by No More Mr Nice Guy, March 18
• 5rd revert: [23] by Mystichumwipe, March 18
• 6th revert: [24] by No More Mr Nice Guy, March 19

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mystichumwipe, No More Mr Nice Guy has been notified in the past

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

The Invention of the Jewish People, like all pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict is subject to 1RR. User:Mystichumwipe and User:No More Mr Nice Guy each make one revert per day so this is a slow-moving edit war, but it is an edit war nonetheless. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Mystichumwipe and I adhered to the 1RR restriction all IP related articles are subject to. If you take a close look at the diffs, you'll see they're not all the same. We are making slow progress (one of Myst's changes was even accepted by me as a reviewer). Not sure why Malik felt he should run to the boards rather than maybe post something on the talk page to help us find wording we can both agree on, but never mind. Anyway, I'll self revert my last edit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Bakhshi82 reported by User:Flyer22 (Result: )

Page: Titanic (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bakhshi82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

On the 13th

• 1st revert: [26]

On the 19th

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31][32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments: The editor hardly discusses anything on the talk page, and seems to only use it to state that his edits should be in the lead, disregarding the Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Academy Awards Records discussion which centers on POV/unsourced/WP:Weasel wording and inaccuracies, and continues to revert to his version. All of this has also led to this discussion: Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Manual of Style (film). But he is not willing to compromise; check out diffs 3 and 4 (on the 19th), and this comment in that discussion: [34]. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Michael.suede reported by User:Spacehippy (Result:blocked 1 month )

Page: Magnetic reconnection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael.suede (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link
• 5th revert: link
• 6th revert: link

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
As far as we can tell on the talk page, this user is an advocate of the fringe theory known as plasma cosmology (see also the discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard). The user has been pushing his own views which he discussed on his external website and elsewhere. On this website, which is a forum for proponents of plasma cosmology, the user calls for others to participate in the edit war. The tone of this user on the talk page has been quite disruptive; it has essentially become a flame war. It is clear that this user is not willing to participate in consensus building. I also (embarrassingly) participated in this edit war; I apologize for this. At this point, the assistance of an administrator is necessary for this problem to be resolved. Spacehippy (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One month block. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by [[User:]] (Result: )

Page:  
User being reported:

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

• 1st revert: [diff]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments: