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:DCGeist reported by User:188.221.105.68 (Result: 36 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DCGeist (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]
• 4th revert: [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Comments:

The user was warned only after his breach but is aware of 3RR, having already received several 3RR blocks in the past. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of thirty-six hours -- tariqabjotu 16:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:85.211.34.24 reported by Eastcote (talk) (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Afrikaner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.211.34.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 08:36, 20 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Related ethno-linguistic groups */")
2. 00:27, 21 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Related ethno-linguistic groups */")
3. 07:15, 21 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Related ethno-linguistic groups */")
4. 15:06, 21 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Related ethno-linguistic groups */")
5. 06:36, 22 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Related ethno-linguistic groups */")

• Diff of warning: here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

—Eastcote (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ChaseMcAllister247 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Indef)

Page: William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ChaseMcAllister247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 10:09, 22 August 2010 (edit summary: "Too much info left out about William Lane Craig.")
2. August 6 Last contrib before user was blocked for EW

Comments: User just came off a 2 week block for adding this content (see contrib history, most recent edits are all edit warring leading to a block), and his first and only edit is to re-revert the content. He was also blocked for block-evasion on ChaseMcAllister247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which he created for the purpose of re-reverting this content. Thanks,

Jess_talk|_edits 16:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked indef. After two successive one-week blocks, he came back to this article to continue reverting. ChaseMcAllister247 is his original account. He evaded using a sock account, ChaseMcAllister248 (talk · contribs), which is now blocked indef. Editor seems to have no intention to help the encyclopedia, and is immune to all feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:69.181.249.92 reported by User:174.112.83.21 (Result: )

Page: Mariam (ship) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.181.249.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]
• 5th revert: [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: simple edit, explained in edit summary as well as informed user about WP:3RR on their user talk page. after telling them about 3RR (after they had already made 4 reverts), they went ahead and made a 5th revert, ignoring the warning.

Comments:

174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of a false {{unsourced}} tag falls under the heading of reverting vandalism. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

the article did not cite any reliable source. this user also reverted my addition of the fact that egypt blockades gaza 4 times, even after i told him in the edit summary not to. he ignored it and reverted anyway. he also reverted the fact that greece and turkey refused the ship. anyway, this isn't the place for content dispute. the user reverted 5 times, it's violation of 3RR, that's why i posted here so i guess that's all i have to say. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• The history probably speaks for itself. That IP claims resolution was attempted is a bit of a stretch, considering that they still don't seem to realize what was wrong with their initial edit: the addition of an "unsourced" template to a sourced article, which is clearly wrong, and which was pointed out to the editor in a number of edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As for Greece and Turkey, the article I added from The New York Times discusses Cyprus refusing the ship--negotiations were still underway with Greece and Turkey. Editor needs to realize that statements in articles are to be based on sources. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

174.112.83.21 is correct about one thing - I had indeed missed his addition of "and Egypt" every time s/he added the unsourced tag, which is why I was mystified about his comments about it in edit summaries. However, given the ship's proposed route and the opening sentences of the news report by WTOP-FM,[15] it doesn't really seem relevant or correct anyway.69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Brendenhows reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24h block)

Page: Hyundai Elantra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Brendenhows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 05:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 01:55, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 03:32, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 03:32, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
4. 03:45, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
5. 04:17, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 379159818 by OSX (talk)")
6. 04:27, 16 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Changed description of Photo")
7. 04:58, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 379206541 by IFCAR (talk)")
8. 05:02, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380645326 by OSX (talk)")
9. 05:10, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
10. 05:38, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380649522 by Bidgee (talk)")
11. 05:41, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380649668 by Red Elantra Phot is unacceptable for this article! (talk)")
12. 05:44, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380649909 by Brendenhows (talk)")
13. 05:45, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380650081 by Brendenhows ([[User talk:Brendenhows|Red Hyundai Photograph does not accurately represent this article!])")

• Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Chris (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Freakshownerd reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result:48h )

Page: William A. Dembski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Freakshownerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 12:40, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "reputed?")
2. 12:43, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 12:43, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
4. 13:45, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "revert damaging attack on BLP that removes well sourced content on the man's career. WLU please cease these BLP violating attacks on subjects you disagree with")
5. 13:59, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "revert potentially damaging attack on the man's career information by WLU. Please stop removing descriptions of his career sourced reliably.")
6. 14:26, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "restore career information removed in potentially damaging assault on BLP. The article already says what he is primarily known for right there. Time magazine is reliable.")
7. 14:27, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "fix grammar I mess up. see previous edit summary for explanation on previous change undoing potentially damaging assault on this BLP")
8. 14:28, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "please stop edit warring a BLP violating and potentially career damaging version of the article that excludes what career the guy has had. this is totally unacceptable.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Codf1977 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48h - this is a content dispute, not a BLP issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: )

Page: William A. Dembski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 12:25, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380593192 by Mfhulskemper (talk) removed source, body contains citations verifying this; he may do bad research but I think he is honest re: qualifications")
2. 12:59, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Revert to revision 380697672 dated 2010-08-24 12:25:20 by WLU using popups")
3. 13:14, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "various changes")
4. 13:46, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 380709601 by Freakshownerd (talk) take it to the talk page, this isn't a BLP violation and doesn't hurt his career")
5. 14:15, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Added citations, discuss on talk page please")
6. 14:18, 24 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "line spacing grossly screws up paragraph comparison")

• Diff of warning: here

—Codf1977 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Reverts 1 and 2 are totally unrelated to the dispute in question. The first one is when I reverted this inappropriate edit by Mfhulskemper. The next edit is by FSN reverting to his version from August 11th, which eliminates my use of a reliable source to verify a specific point. My next edit is an incremental improvement on the citations, with no real substantive changes to the content. All I did was move a citation around. The fifth edit merely removed a line break/paragraph marker - there was no change in content. The large number of apparent differences are due to the revisions being compared to the August 23rd version by Mfhulskemper, which I don't think is appropriate. For instance, the fifth revert actually looks like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_A._Dembski&diff=380714786&oldid=380714306 this, and isn't a revert at all. There may be a 3RR violation here, but I don't know if these diffs support it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at these again, and a revert is a revert, you have made 4 reverting edits (or groups of edits) (1, 2, 3 and 4) between 12:25, 24 August 2010 and 14:18, 24 August 2010 (less than 2 hours) - you are aware of the 3RR as you have been blocked 3 times before for it. Codf1977 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Awaiting a second opinion Whether there are four reverts or not there is certainly edit-warring here, I'd ask another admin to look at this as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AzureFury reported by User:Pyrrhon8 (Result: Wrong venue)

Page: Defamation of religions and the United Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AzureFury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is NOT a matter of 3RR; the issue here is edit-warring. AzureFury has been trying to spoil the Page since 15 June 2010. Without making any preliminary complaint on its talk page, AzureFury nominated the Page for deletion. The nomination failed. See here. Then, AzureFury removed the Page's content. He turned the article into a stub by replacing the content with a shoddy, brief summary of news reports by Hui Min Neo of Agence France-Presse (25 March 2010) [16] and Patrick Goodenough of Cybercast News Service (CNS) [17]. To those reports, AzureFury added his own opinion and an opinion by Bennett Graham of the Becket Fund.

There is not requirement for a "perliminary complaint" on an article's talk page for it to be AFD'd. I sent a message to Pyrrhon's talk page before hand. The article at the time was titled, "Blasphemy at the United Nations" and didn't mention the contoversy until the very last paragraph. I had a pretty good reason to AFD it, I think. The consensus that I inferred from the AFD was that the article was bad, but the topic was notable. Thus I was WP:BOLD and rewrote the article as a stub (to provide a better starting point for any future editors to expand the article), removing what I thought was excessive pointless detail about each of the individual motions passed at the UN. The content about the motions was restored by another editor and I did not delete it a second time. I included in the lede a quote I think concisely summarized the complaints of groups who oppose the motions. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave AzureFury a friendly first notice that he should not remove the content which the consensus of editors during the Article for Deletion process voted to keep. Find my notice and AzureFury's acerbic reply here.

I commented on the article's talk page about 4 days before I reduced it to a stub. Pyrrhon came in a few days after I made the edit and accused me of "disruptive editting" and "not respecting the consensus of the AFD." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave AzureFury a second notice (subst:uw-delete3) to restore the missing content here. His response was to remove the notice.

He templated me and accused me of edit warring. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On 22 July 2010, TimeClock871 edited the Page. He restored most of the content which the consensus of editors during the Article for Deletion process voted to keep. He used AzureFury's "article" as the lede.

I removed AzureFury's lede, and replaced it with a lede (the consensus-lede) by the editors (including me) who had voted to keep the article during the AfD process. I gave my reasons for replacing AzureFury's lede at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_ United_Nations#Lead_section, where AzureFury's several replies may be found.

Pyrrhon, despite several recent indications otherwise (every editor who has bothered to comment has supported my version of the lede), seems to think that the AFD was an endorsement of his version of the lede. It was not. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury replaced the consensus-lede with his lede. I have neither removed his lede nor edited it.

I gave AzureFury a first notice to stop his attempts to spoil the article. My notice used templates to direct his attention to flaws in his lede apart from its not complying with WP:Lead_section, namely: (1) non-factual statements and (2) original research. See here. AzureFury's response was to remove my notice and to deny that his lede has as many faults as I indicate.

I editted the lede to address the claims of factual inaccuracy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave AzureFury a second notice to stop his disruptive editing here. His unhelpful response is here.

He templated me again, using multiple templates this time. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I requested a Third Opinion. The Third Opinion was not helpful. I have no hope that a Request for Comment would be any more helpful. AzureFury and I are agreed that a Request for Comment would be a waste of time. See Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Factual_accuracy.

What Pyrrhon means to say is the third opinion sided with my version of the lede. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the Page, I placed a template about the lede's factual accuracy. AzureFury removed the template. I restored it. AzureFury removed it. I restored it. I explained my objections to AzureFury's lede at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Factual_accuracy.

I had addressed the last claim of factual inaccuracy made by Pyrrhon, so I removed the template. He restored it and I asked him why he put it back. He said "there is factual inaccuracy" without explaining what it was. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a compromise at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_ United_Nations#Compromise. AzureFury is not interested.

By compromise he means he asked me in another way to restore his version of the lede. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He went to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. He asked the editors (See here.) to watch Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Factual_accuracy_tag_dispute. The editors refused.

What Pyrrhon means to say is a couple of editors excused themselves from commented due to edit disputes with Pyrrhon in the past. One has commented, supporting my version of the lede, at least as the basis. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

AzureFury has had 3 whacks at spoiling the Page. If he had his way, the Page would be nothing but a dozen lines of nonsense in substandard English. I have done as much as a reasonable person can do to encourage him to edit co-operatively and constructively but—as his block-log shows—he wants only to have his way. He is indifferent to consensus. He is indifferent to my explanations and my notices. He recommends that I "GTFO." I suggest that it is time for the community to speak. If the community does not block his mischief, it invites him to do more. I suggest that a topic-ban would be in order. PYRRHON  talk   16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm for topic-banning, if not blocking. This has gone too far. ——Waterfox (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

For readability sake, I'm going to respond in Pyrrhon's comment. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. Since there is no 3RR, and the edit-war is slow-moving and not actively disruptive at this time (and the editor is using the talkpage to discuss), the correct venue would be WP:RFC. If you believe the issue is more urgent, you could try WP:ANI, though in this case I would try to keep the report more concise than this is. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)