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: Kristoferb reported by User:129.234.252.67 (Result: declined )

Page: Nokia 3510 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kristoferb (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:

I'm perfectly willing to accept that his photo deserves to be on the page, if he can prove that it is actually a photo of that phone. He's not said a word in reply on the talk page, or provided any evidence. --129.234.252.67 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Three reverts over 16 months, and none within the past 45 days, nor any since receiving a warning and an attempt was made on the talk page. Slow moving edit wars are bad, but a full discussion is essential. Please consider further use of dispute resolution (and if necessary, you can let the user know about the talk page with the {{talkback}} template). Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll try that if he changes it again. (The last change was since the warning and note on talk page, btw; otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up here) --129.234.252.67 (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Gandydancer reported by Mtking (Result: declined)

Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 00:49, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "I think it goes without saying that food, shelter, etc., are concerns and not worth mention in the lede")
2. 01:06, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "is this better?")
3. 01:10, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "this does not seem to be needed in the lede...to me...")
4. 01:14, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "removed sentence that pretty much just repeats what's in the first paragraph")
5. 04:19, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Unions */ removed broken ref and combine some repeated information for brevity")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Did post to Gandydancer's talk page he replied that he did not see how he had broken the WP:3RR and then went on to make the last revert on the list. Mtking ^(edits) 04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mtking, you are not editing the article currently and I do not see your name on the talk page. Do you disagree with anything that Gandydancer has done? These edits seem to be minor rewording in most cases. Has he undone anything more than once? The edit summaries sound diplomatic. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have edited it the past, and the page has been subject to edit-warring in the past, I asked the user to consider stopping his edits, he carried on. Is my reading of WP:3RR wrong in that he has not broken the rule ? Mtking ^(edits) 05:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to see an actual dispute here. 3RR is used to measure the extent of a dispute, when there is one. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A little background. Yesterday editor Amadscientist made sweeping changes to the lede without prior discussion. In my opinion his bold edits were justified because the OWS discussion page is so bogged down in petty, poorly referenced demands to "un-bias" the article, and related long discussions that never go anywhere. I believe that I have a good working relationship with Amadscientist and the other major editors to the page and that they welcome disagreement and are reasonable in their efforts to work out differences. My lede edits were related to information I considered to be repeated twice and removing the examples of "crime" and adding copy to balance the issue. My Union edits merely combined a couple of sentences for brevity and deleting some info that seemed not so important since I wanted to add recent info without letting that section get too long. As always, I welcome different points of view and at times other editors have helped me to see that their ideas are more appropriate than mine. But if the rule restricts me to less than three edits a day that include deleting any copy written by another editor, that will certainly make editing more difficult. BTW, just for the record, I am not a "he", I'm a "she". Gandydancer (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Technical reverts only, if that, while editor was following the spirit of WP:BRD. The point of our rules is to avoid edit warring, not punish someone for making cosmetic changes. See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, 3rd definition. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:61.14.143.119 reported by User:27.33.183.136 (Result: warned)

Page: Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 61.14.143.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]

Comments:
Pretty sure I'm in for a block as well, but this guy is obviously not going to stop reverting without reading the reliable source added that contradicts his information. 27.33.183.136 (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea; somebody lock the page, and then you two can fight over this on the talkpage. That'd be a novel concept... since neither one of you has done that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
None. I am purposely limiting my interactions with Wtshymanski because of his long history of sarcasm and lack of civility towards anyone who disagrees with him. See Administrators noticeboard: Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively.

Comments:

Wtshymanski's previous block for edit warring: [16]

There has also been what appears to be edit warring in opposition to Wtshymanski by some IP addresses, but I am not sure whether I am seeing one editor using multiple IPs or multiple editors. Should I warn the IPs as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Page semi-protected. It is very difficult to engage in conversation with someone who is hopping IPs and not using a talk page (all the IPs resolve to Columbus, Ohio). If edit warring persists after the person registers an account, please report again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Chuckfreyconsultant reported by User:Snowded (Result: Blocked indef)

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

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

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:

I received an email (copy available to any admin who wants to see it) threatening various attacks on the Cynefin article and myself by the editor referenced above. Sure enough next day we get that editors commentary on Cynefin which is a clear case of original research. The material has now been reverted by three different editors (I am one) as OR. The principles of WP:OR have been explained to the user but they have persisted in inserting the material. The user's talk page also contains some wild stuff about contacting Government Agencies who have used the model, and what can only be described as polemic covering my religious preferences amount other things.

I should say that I don't think this editor is a sock of Irvine22 who has been vandalizing the article recently. Whatever a skim of the users comments on their talk page is slightly disturbing. --Snowded ^TALK 11:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above we have this somewhat sad set of threats. --Snowded ^TALK 12:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs). NW (Talk) 18:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:86.24.46.135 reported by User:David Eppstein (Result: 31h)

Page: Square pyramidal number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.24.46.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=459984802&oldid=425636097

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460027538&oldid=459984971
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460032528&oldid=460032290
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460042709&oldid=460038616
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460050715&oldid=460045367
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460063638&oldid=460062446
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460135456&oldid=460117685
• 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460184539&oldid=460177042

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.24.46.135&oldid=460064660 (somewhere around revert#5, I think)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See WT:WPM#Square pyramidal number

Comments:

—David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Encyclotadd reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Voluntary restriction)

Page: Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Encyclotadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (not needed, all 4 reverts below are clearly marked as such)

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25] (by another user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Concerns_about_some_recent_edits

Comments:

The edit war has grown, but I think only E has broken 3RR. Note that the page is a long-term source of conflict William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would love it if anyone involved in the conversation would discuss the subject matter we are editing. Instead the conversation has been a back and forth about rules, instead of about truth. It would be so welcome if a member of the community would discuss plasticity, mirroring or any of the other parts of NLP, and it's sad that only discussion of rules comes up. --Encyclotadd (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of "control" at that article User:Snowded has a real life involvement and a website dedicated to the topic and is central to the control of the content - there was tag teaming against this user and then User:Snowded went to tell User:WMC on his userpage and User:WMC immediately reverted to the groups favored position and then created this report. Discussion is preferable to wiki lawyering and tag team reverting and reports. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My web site has mentioned NLP just over ten times in seven years of nearly daily blogging and a previous COI case on this subject did not support your position. I went to WMC as a neutral party as it was obvious you were making this issue personal so I decided to back off --Snowded ^TALK 22:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you are inserting material which you say provides empirical support for NLP, but that material does not mention NLP. That is original research and/or synthesis. It would be wrong for editors to discuss the subject matter as wikipedia relies on third party sources. --Snowded ^TALK 22:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW [26] shows Snowded soliciting assistance from Mr. Connolley WMC (emended per post therefrom). (Would you be prepared to have another look at the NLP article? Encyclotadd still doesn't get the principle of OR and is now in breech of 3rr. I could just make a 3rr report, but I am (for the umpteenth time) being accused of a COI and Offtoriorob has jumped in as well (any area of wikipedia where I am involved in any controversy he arrives). With Chuckfreyconsultant permanently banned after taking umbrage over NLP issues I think this needs a neutral perspective at 21:48 11/11/11 - shortly before this report was filed) so this report may be the result of a CANVASS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If its a red line 3RR then it remains one. Leaky Caldron 23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggest User:Encyclotadd reads WT:V during his block. Leaky Caldron 23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Where Off2riorob starts Collect follows. When are you guys going to get over the fact that the community did not support your position on the UAF article? I stepped back because my involvement with the NLP article was being used as part of that long running sore and asked an admin who had previously taken a neutral position to have a look. --Snowded ^TALK 23:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Where in hell did that come from? O2RR and I share some concerns on BLPs, but being called a tag team? Never - especially since we disagree on a lot of topics. Read WP:NPA again - I find your post here quite improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley is not an administrator , he was de-sysopped for violations in his "expert" area. The UAF and the community position in relation to such is meaningless to me, just to clear that up. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that (the desysop), will remember that in future. --Snowded ^TALK 23:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It is puzzling that Encyclotadd will make no concessions whatever, since this looks like a plain vanilla case for a WP:3RR block. The fact that one or more parties could have real-world connection to the topic is irrelevant to the problem of reverting too many times. Encyclotadd cannot claim to have been reverting vandalism or BLP violations. Encyclotadd is reverting against four other people which ought to suggest to him that he does not have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

O2RR is wrong, as usual William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I regret making the 3rr mistake, and also for neglecting to sign a few posts (thanks Signbot for helping me out), and I hope everyone understands that I'm a total newbie at editing Wikipedia. Believe me, my intentions are not only honorable but I'm very eager to contribute very positively.

I have been trying to add references to leading faculty at ivy league institutions. They have been removed on the grounds that the sources referenced do not specifically mention NLP. However, folks can agree the sources discuss ideas from NLP, because this is very easily verified by reading the sources I referenced along with the inclusion, or by doing simple Google searches..... For example, a search for "Mirroring" and "NLP" produces a million plus results. Anyone who has read substantially about the subject matter knows mirroring is part of NLP. Plasticity is the same-- dating back to the original writings by the founders, and showing up in a million search results since then. So I feel strongly that removal of references to leading faculty of ivy league institutions discussing these parts of NLP amounted to vandalism regardless as to whether it was intended as such by the editors. This isn't about expressing a particular viewpoint. This is about including the facts. Thanks. --Encyclotadd (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Voluntary restriction. Encyclotadd accepted this offer on his talk page: "if you will promise not to make any more edits to Neuro-linguistic programming in the month of November unless prior consensus is found on the talk page, you can avoid a block." EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Znorz reported by User:Ronz (Result: Blocked)

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

• 1st revert: 21:10, 11 November 2011
• 2nd revert: 21:29, 11 November 2011
• 3rd revert: 21:54, 11 November 2011
• 4th revert: 22:04, 11 November 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:54, 11 November 2011

Comments:
Continuation of the edit-warring by blocked editor OCIDLE (talk · contribs) listed above. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

SPI raised, and the images are copyright violations. Dougweller (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of OCIDLE. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:HotMAN0199 reported by User:The Bushranger (Result: Warned)

Page: Juan Pablo Montoya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HotMAN0199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

• 1st revert: [28]
• 2nd revert: [29]
• 3rd revert: [30]
• 4th revert: [31]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33] [34] (as well as several edit-summary cautions re WP:NOT [35] [36] [37] and request to take it to the talk page re:WP:BRD [38], and early talk page caution re:WP:NOT#STATS [39])

Comments: This editor is edit-warring to include a large, WP:NOT#STATS-violating table of the driver's wins in major and minor racing series in the article. He has, so far, not responded even once to multiple requests on his talk page, edit summaries, and the article talk page to discuss his contributions, instead repeatedly reinserting the tables into the article without even so much as an edit summary. Is probably in violation of WP:3RR now (first revert restored one table from the first diff and added several others; remaining three, reversions of all tables in dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. If the user restores the table again with getting consensus he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Feresias reported by User:62.56.98.173 (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [40]

• 1st revert: [41]
• 2nd revert: [42]
• 3rd revert: [43]
• 4th revert: [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Feresias

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

User is adding his or her own opinionated commentary to the article, and will not allow reverts without adding back in said commentary. 62.56.98.173 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked indef by User:Elockid as a vandalism-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User appears to have returned as 4567treminater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), reverting to exactly the same thing. Pfainuk talk 16:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved, socks blocked, see [45]) Pfainuk talk 17:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)