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)

You and your companion Apswaa, Arguni, were the ones who started ceaseless POV pushing, I was reverting it all merely because you have not answered multiple questions that I and some other users posed on the talk pages. Your goal on wikipedia is to promote secessionism, evident in your support of Apswaa and deliberate targeting of Georgia-related pages.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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: [7]

On the 13th

• 1st revert: [8]

On the 19th

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13][14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

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: [16]. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Fully protected one week. Consider opening up an WP:RfC. The talk discussion is vigorous, but the fact that consensus is not reached does not seem to inhibit anyone from reverting whatever they want into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 22 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:Tomstedham reported by User:RolandR (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]
• 5th revert: [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

• Result: Warned. The editor broke WP:3RR but stopped reverting the article after getting a 3RR warning. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:MarshalN20 reported by IP 200.87.23.193 (Result: )

Page: Diablada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]
• 5th revert: [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:
Earlier today it has been advised to avoid edit wars there was a previous formal mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Diablada involving this user, I'm afraid the conflicts will arise again. It has been told the user to refrain from accusing of vandalism and defamation, the following statement is just more of that. There is no evidence of puppetry and can be checked if necessary. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I would recommend to the reviewer to pay special attention to the links provided below, the full phrase says "...but I do see many revisions as "rv vandalism" when the edits aren't necessarily vandalism. I strongly recommend all users follow the WP:BRD system, and that Marshal refrain from reverting edits as "vandalism." Beyond that if anyone violates the three revert rule it should be reported at WP:AN3" which is what MarshalN20 is precisely doing here, my edits were also reviewed by User:Swarm and none of them were vandalism as he said also in the link provided, the same happens with the sockpuppetry accusation which was dismissed and later MarshalN20 unnecessarily even though it was a closed case started ranting, it's not a crime to read the rules before editing, there wasn't any "massive" image deletion I counted myself there were just 3 images, one low res map that seems disputed, one duplicated image and one that I didn't notice wasn't before, after MarshalN20 claims (though unfounded) I decided that the best way to be fair was to keep some of the changes proposed just fixing the POV issues [32] (notice that the claims were at 16:11 GMT while my later edits were at 18:16 GMT yet the user tries to depict me as an irrational vandal who will destroy the article, while in the last trend of my edits the source, and should be notice is one not sources, is still in the first sentence, regardless that I consider it violating the NPOV because as the introduction later says, is danced in other places too, the low res map is still there, yet this person continues making a scandal and tries to get me banned by all means just for not liking his map, which will never hide the fact that he reverted 5 times in less than 6 hours, this only aggravates the situation when MarshalN20 could just have followed Swarm's advice and talk politely in the talk page instead of reverting constantly. Honestly speaking I believe that perhaps there should be a more in-depth review oh this article's history and the mediation, I think that there is a more complex problem with this user's behavior towards others. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All of my reverts are explained in the history of the links. This IP user (showing signs of being a puppet) has been vandalizing the article by:

1. Deleting sourced material.
2. Deleting valid images (including this edit [33]).
3. Being a sockpuppet of User:Erios30 (to evade 3RR). Investigation is currently being carried out at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erios30.
4. IP later admits to having deleted sourced material (but still deletes image: [34]). So, his first two pieces of rv evidence are invalid by his own confession.
5. Third rv evidence demonstrates massive deletion of images: [35].
6. The Wikiquette reviewer explicitly wrote: "I don't see any violations of civility". Despite this resolution, this user keeps accusing me of personal attacks and "defamation."
7. For the last 3 alleged rv evidences, the following little conversation demonstrates the IP user didn't even bother to look at the description page of the image. The evidence for this is that he claims the "yellow area" of the map means the location of origin of the Diablada ([36]). I responded to him that the description page (in Wikimedia Commons) clearly has the yellow area labeled as the Altiplano region ([37] and the description page link, [38]). Conclusion: This IP address blunders his own argument by demonstrating he was simply deleting images with no real reason whatsoever; he had not even read the description page. This constitutes vandalism.

As such, reverting vandalism is not a 3RR problem. The real problem is having the vandal himself come and denounce the editor that has been reverting his vandalism. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

79.228.211.155 reported by User:GageSkidmore (Result: )

Page: Family Guy (season 9) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.228.211.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:

User has continually reverted the article without discussing the issue on the talk, writing "Why?" when I attempted to direct them to bring up the issue on the Talk page. Despite this, they have reverted the article four times, and removed the 3RR template from their talk page by blanking it, and pasting it on mine instead. I have attempted to get the user to discuss why they believe the article should be changed to their version, but they have made no attempts whatsoever. Gage (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Msnicki reported by User:Grandscribe (Result: )

Page: Bash (Unix shell) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Msnicki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]
• 5th revert: [50]
• 6th revert: [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:
As can be seen the definition of Bash needs to be improved. My contributions were done in good faith. Unfortunately Msnicki did not collaborate. He simply engaged in edit warring and has reverted revert my edits 6 times already. He has acted in bad faith by accusing me of vandalism because I did not agree with his reverts. A contribution [54] by user Gronky is trying to help improve the Bash article but Msnicki is also threatening to revert his edits.

--Grandscribe (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:223.29.227.6 reported by User:Minimac (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Smita Patil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 223.29.227.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

• 1st revert: [56]
• 2nd revert: [57]
• 3rd revert: [58]
• 4th revert: [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Comments:

It isn't just this article, but this IP has revert-warred on all articles contributed by Shshshsh. It's suspected that this IP is used by banned user User:Dr.Mukesh111, due to the nature of the edits. Me and Shshshsh have tried their hardest to revert their contribs, but this isn't working without a block. Minimac (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours - 3RR, hounding, disruptive editing. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:85.2.10.158 reported by Strikerforce (talk) (Result: )

Page: G-WAN (Web server) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.2.10.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 11:40, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Exposed the Cherokee Troll trying to delete G-WAN")
2. 12:07, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420132439 by Strikerforce (talk) Vandals at work (again...)")
3. 12:09, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134346 by Strikerforce (talk) Not impressed by the Opinion of the guilty "fellow editors"")
4. 12:13, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134636 by Syrthiss (talk) Vandal gaming Wikipedia to hide its crimes")

• Diff of warning: here

It should also be pointed out that this user is utilizing a dynamic IP and is currently engaged in a very heated discussion at AfD. There is an RFC open that includes all IPs that this user has used —Strikerforce (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - user has now logged in as User:Bugapi and reverted to their preferred version, per this edit. Link added by Strikerforce Syrthiss (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Keyssence reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: )

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

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

• 1st revert: [61]
• 2nd revert: [62]
• 3rd revert: [63]
• 4th revert: [64]
• 5th revert: [65]

Note that the 2nd through 5th are within a 24 hour period.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Issue was discussed by User: Oda Mari and User: Prodego on User:Keyssence's talk page. User was informed that the point xe is disputing is explicitly governed by WP:NC-KO#Sea of Japan (East Sea), specifically because this is a problem that has caused numerous edit wars in the past; as such, a clear, unambiguous set of naming conventions were set up so that we didn't have to debate the same issue again every page this body of water is named on.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Bugapi reported by Strikerforce (talk) (Result: )

Page: G-WAN (Web server) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 12:17, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134954 by Strikerforce (talk) Accused of vandalism while I AM THE AUTHOR OF THIS WHOLE ARTICLE")
2. 12:36, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420136622 by Tom Morris (talk)")
3. 12:42, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420137537 by Tom Morris (talk) Tom Morris removed a (requested) reference showing no vulnerabilities in server")

• Diff of warning: here

—Strikerforce (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf reported by User:Dreadstar (talk) (Result: )

Page: Yoani Sánchez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Damiens.rf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 13:08, 22 March 2011 (direct revert)
2. 17:21, 22 March 2011 (revert of this edit)
3. 17:37, 22 March 2011 (revert of this edit)
4. 18:54, 22 March 2011 (revert of this edit)
5. 19:25, 22 March 2011 (revert all the way back to here

• Diff of warning: latest one here, user has been blocked for 3RR multiple times

• • What the hell? These are completely unrelated edits. The first one is a revert of vandalism. User:Lildyson314 (a SPA or sock) has removed sourced content from the article for no apparent reason.The other are normal article's changes. I'm working with collaborating editors on the talk page, but there are those that prefer to act in groups to revert my edits without discussion, forcing me into the 3RR trap. --Damiens.rf 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Item #5 is not event a revert. One of the links dates back to 2009! --Damiens.rf 20:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours #5 is bogus, but the first 4 are a clear violation. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)