Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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:Nick.mon reported by User:RJFF (Result: Stale)

Page: The People of Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nick.mon (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]

User is edit-warring at Lega Nord The Right, and Democratic Party (Italy), too, but hasn't breached 3RR yet.

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

No attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page so far.

Comments:

The reverts you link to are not within a single 24 hour period as required for 3RR violation. Perhaps you are not familiar with the rules? Zero^talk 09:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Stale - Nick.mon has not edited the article since May 16. He seems to have given up his campaign to describe this party as right-wing in the infobox, so there is no continuing dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Kusunose‎ reported by User:World historia (Result: Canceled)

Page: Emperor Gwanggaeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: World historia‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This report is page moving warring, not 3RR violation.

Previous title reverted to: Gwanggaeto the Great

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6][7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

• This old report is about a requested move for which the discussion was closed on 22 May. The result was to leave the article under the title Gwanggaeto the Great. There were conflicting opinions as to whether Gwanggaeto should be called an emperor in the article title. An admin left a warning at Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great that anyone continuing the move war may be blocked. Since the war has not continued since the move discussion ended, this report can now be archived. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JamesM403 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 31hr)

Page: 5AA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JamesM403 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 10:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 07:39, 25 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* On-Air Schedule */")
2. 10:22, 25 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Program Guide */")
3. 10:28, 25 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Program Guide */")
4. 10:38, 25 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* History */")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:
I've tried to inform the editor that it breaches WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE (policy) however the editor has not responded to the edit summaries and talkpage. Bidgee (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours...which has, of course, expired now. Let me know if it recurs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Stale)

Page: The White Ribbon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

The repeated edits of Andrzejbanas and Lugnuts are in contradiction of the text of the article. There is a discussion in progress about the nationality of the film. There was a previous discussion on this subject on the article's talk page. The subject is addressed in the article but their changes contradict it. They were aware of that issue but continued to change the article. I would suggest protection for the page so the discussion can continue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My "repeated" edit was just one edit to restore the status quo. You made four reverts within 12 hours, which is not acceptable, esp. for an editor with your experience and history. Lugnuts (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Except they aren't, you just claim I haven't read the page and are ignoring when I make my points just saying how ridiculous things are or how much of an "interesting idea" someone says something. I've bloody well copy and pasted information explaining when I'm right, you just assume I "haven't read things". You have a reputation for not backing down until you get your way which is not civil if you ask me. You do not own the article and until you get your points across with some actual respect. Your edits are considered vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comments contain falsehoods. I was restoring the status quo, as you are aware. But I thank you for acknowledging the validity of that. There is a discussion about your proposed changes that is ongoing even now. Your attempts to include incorrect material is not good, and, since you do not understand your error, I would suggest you pull back until you comprehend it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reporting this as a 3RR violation would seem almost part of intentional baiting, if I were not to assume good faith. I would agree that Ring Cinema could have stopped reacting, but it is valid to perceive this insertion as some kind of peculiar POV pushing by Italian and French film advocates. Again, not knowing the history between all the parties, but knowing that Ring Cinema is a very active editor on many film articles, it is hard to see the labeling of the country from which this film originates being Italy and France in a good light. Assuming good intentions, I think all editors should wait for consensus on the talk page, determine what the general practice has been in other articles, and if necessary use dispute resolution. Reverting this as vandalism (or POV baiting etc.) is I think a valid response, or at any rate should not be punished. The quickness to litigate against other editors is disruptive in and of itself. Obotlig (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a POV when it's been established by the community on the infobox, a discussion in which Ring was the only member who was against and fully understood what was going on. He may have assumed good intentions, but his only discussions were "i don't get it" and reverted my edits. That is vandalism as he's been around enough to know better and is removed cited material with out explanation outside of "you don't get it". Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Obotlig has missed the point completly - this editor has a history of repeated 3RR violations. Look at his non-talkpage edit history. So what if he's a "very active editor on many film articles" when this thing goes on and on time and time again. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Stale. Ring Cinema is fortunate that I didn't come across this and action it at the time, because it was a clear 3RR violation; however, there haven't been any reverts in 20 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Northen Lights - you missed the following reverts (the first one just before you posted your reply, the second one, just after:

• 5th revert: [13]
• 6th revert: [14]

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:OSX reported by User:MarcusHookPa (Result: Resolved )

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

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

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]
• 5th revert: [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusHookPa (talk • contribs) 02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:

This user keeps clearing the warning off of his talk page, and deleting my contributions to the talk page of the article and article. I made a proposal to undo the article merge, and it was deleted without any consensus to do so. This user may have already deleted the link on his page where I have warned him. He has been extremely unreasonable and chooses to ignore consensus. This user has also been undoing edits that I have made that had nothing to do with any of his work. He has also been making personal attacks against me in the edit history of the article Subaru Outback. MarcusHookPa (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue may be resolved very shortly. OSX and I are coming to an agreement. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved, no need for any used to be blocked or penalized for this report.MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

OSX and I have overcome all of our differences. MarcusHookPa (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Jakew reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

Jakew has four times reverted two seperate editors: Myself and User:NeilN in a 25 hour period. Also note there are several high-quality medical sources that dispute his "strong" version, for example [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. I believe a caution is insufficient because Jakew is well aware of 3RR policies judging by his frequent visits here (e.g. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]) Pass a Method talk 10:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• PassaMethod did not inform me of this report, which in any case is not a 3RR violation (the timestamp of the first diff is 08:10, May 26, 2012; the last is 10:35, May 27, 2012 — approx. 26 and a half hours later). Two editors (Pass a Method and NeilN) have attempted to make these changes; two (Yobol and myself) have reverted. There is a discussion at Talk:Circumcision#recent revert of modification of "strong evidence" sentence, which PassaMethod appears to have abandoned; his/her latest revert didn't even include an edit summary. Jakew (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Jake, i clarified myself to you further in this AN/I post, so there's no need to say I "abandoned a discussion". As for the edit summary, i did not write anything because you did not properly respond to my latest talk page post nor at this AN/I post, and simply wikilinked some wikipedia guidelines. Im not sure how to respond when somebody diverts from the original discussion. Pass a Method talk 13:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me just note: breaking 3RR just outside the 24hr period is still considered to be breaking 3RR. Of course, WP:EW can apply to a single revert :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected That article is a war zone. Please discuss issues on the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 20:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Alan.Ford.Jn reported by User:Jesuislafete (Result: )

Page: Croat–Bosniak War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alan.Ford.Jn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]
• 5th revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

User Alan.Ford.Jn has on multiple occasions reverted all edits by by myself and another user to an older version. Note that Alan.Ford.Jn has never used the discussion page to explain their edits. I have made an effort to source all the additions I have added so user Alan.Ford.Jn could have no excuse to delete my contributions; unfortunately, it has had no effect. In this first reversal [52] user adds the summary "Removal of sourced information" in spite of the "(-2,561)" negative number recorded in the edit history. In fact, looking at the page's edit history [53] shows consistent negative numbers in accordance to the removal of text: (-1,255)‎ [54], (-1,656) [55], (-3,499)‎[56], (-1,810) [57]‎, (-2,250)‎ [58]. In another edit [59] Alan.Ford.Jn wrote: "Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Second Edition says nothing about attack within Kakanj?! provide online WP:RS source)", which although somewhat difficult to discern their language, appears to be mocking the Encyclopedia of Human Rights as an unreliable source that does not even mention the attack in Kakanj (simple Google search showed that it did.) Another round of reverting [60] has Alan.Ford.Jn saying "are you kidding me? you haven't even read the article, haven't you realised that you put wrong paragraph into wrong section with false data? April 1993 comes after December 1992, not before?!" Even though I find it difficult to understand the language, user Alan.Ford has never attempted to use the discussion page to discuss what article, what false data, and what other problems he seems to have with additional edits by other users.

I even left a note on Alan.Ford.Jn's talk page [61] but they never responded or acknowledged it. From April 18, 2012 to May 27, Alan.Ford.Jn has made 12 edits, all on the Croat-Bosniak War page; the last edit before April 18 was on 20 September 2011. I don't know why they only concentrate on reversing on page, and although I don't think they are attempting to troll, it is disruptive. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Eik Corell reported by User:Jtle515 (Result: )

Page: Tribes 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eik Corell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

• 1st revert: [63] 19 January 2012
• 2nd revert: [64] 29 January 2012
• 3rd revert: [65] 31 January 2012
• 4th revert: [66] 27 February 2012
• 5th revert: [67] 27 April 2012
• 6th revert: [68] 1 May 2012
• 7th revert: [69] 26 May 2012

Diff of edit warring warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [72]

Comments:

The content that Eik Corell persists in deleting is the description, and usually even the mention, of the third-party servers which allow players to continue to play Tribes 2 beyond the shutdown of the main servers by Vivendi. This information is clearly relevant to the game, and it does not fall under WP:GAMECRUFT. Eik Corell's stated justification for removing it is WP:V, but WP:V does not justify his removals: as I have pointed out, TribesNext's site is clearly allowed as a source on its own activities, as per WP:ABOUTSELF. I have told him this in the edit summaries, in the article talk, and on his user talk. He refuses to respond in any way soever except to parrot "WP:V" in the edit summaries, while giving no reply at all on either talk page. He wilfully ignores WP:ABOUTSELF, saying things like (in his edit summary for "6th revert" above): "If this is notable, it will have received coverage in reliable, third-party source." This is simply closed-minded deletionism. --Jtle515 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that multiple editors besides myself (Ahodacsek, various unregistered users) have also believed the TribesNext section worthy of inclusion, while Eik Corell is the only editor to delete it. Also note that Eik Corell's talk page is absolutely full of users' complaints about his heavy-handed deletions. --Jtle515 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The key phrase here is 'about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities'. This is not an article about this fan project for the game, it's an article about the game itself, which is why I find the appeal to WP:ABOUTSELF unconvincing. By the same standard, we should mention every mod, fan project, or whatever because their websites can be sources about themselves. Now, the amount of people complaining on my talk page is not relevant unless you can prove that I was the wrong in those cases. In other words, people complaining is not an argument. As far as not responding on my user talk page, that's due to procrastination pretty much. Here's an example of something similar that was kept: [73] check the sources, and the talk page, plus the archived version. Eik Corell (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Doncsecz reported by User:Dfsdsrsersdf (Result: )

Page: Long War (Ottoman wars) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doncsecz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

• 1st revert: [75]
• 2nd revert: [76]
• 3rd revert: [77]
• 4th revert: [78]

He insists adding Hungary and Croatia as beligerants, with no source. In the template of battles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Long_War_(Ottoman_wars). Hungary isn't anywhere as combatant

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79] He replied with personal attacks.

Comments:
He was also blocked before [80] for edit warring Dfsdsrsersdf (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Dfsdsrsersdf is not telling the truth, the campaignbox of the Long war is absolute wrong: most of the battles was in Hungary in the Long war. Doncsecz^talk 10:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The question was not "Where?", but "Who?". The Location section is something, and Belligerents section is another thing. For instance Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812) was fought in the Danubian Principalities, on "neutral field" and the Danubian Principalities were not belligerents Dfsdsrsersdf (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I completed the campaignbox for new names of sieges. In this sieges Hungarian, Croatian, Allied soldiers and mercenaries fought againts the Ottomans. The most important battles was not in the Balkan, but in Hungary: the first and most important goal of Long war is the liberation of Hungary; second phase the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Doncsecz^talk 10:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius reported by User:TheSoundAndTheFury (Result: )

This is a refiling of a request that was not dealt with. An admin is requested to resolve this request. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: reverted to this version by reverting this edit

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert (consecutive): [84][85][86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The edit warring happened when I was sleeping, so I didn't warn the user. See comment below on why that's not really necessary in this case.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page discussion is here Talk:Cult_suicide#Falun_Gong_etc; the user is in another 3RR dispute on a Falun Gong topic below and has edited this area for some years so he knows the rules.

User is notified of this 3RR case here. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Response by Ohconfucius (bis)

• No case to answer, as the evidence is rather contrived:
  1. Diff 1 in no way satisfies any of the conditions of a Revert as defined in the policy - reinstatement of material removed months ago by a blocked editor that I was unaware of until reading a relatively recent talk page comment.
  2. Diff 2 was a modified text that attempted to address the concerns raised on the talk page and was accompanied by a talk page comment
  3. Diff 3 – revert enhanced with a suitable citation in response to additional concerns raised about "synthesis"
  4. Diff 4 – in no way satisfies any of the conditions of a Revert as defined in the policy removal of material newly introduced by Homunculus in the edit immediately preceding. I sincerely thought we had reached some sort of understanding that the material clearly belonged and were beginning to cooperate in editing. I further added sources where they were deficient, and the diffs relate to my editing the added material down to integrate and better summarise.
• I have not edited the page nor the talk page since the edits in Diff 4, except to supply evidence requested and further discuss same.

--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." The diff 1 edit summary identifies it as a revert; as for diff 4, a revert is defined under the WP:EW policy as "undoing the actions of another editor." The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

I thought I said this before; I guess it's gotten lost. In any case, Diffs 2, 3, and 4 are clearly reverts. Diff 1 is a revert unless the editor removing the material had been blocked at the time, and was using sockpuppets to edit. If that is the case, then OC has not violated WP:3RR, although WP:EW needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• The user HappyInGeneral was not blocked at the time of editing (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Log_of_blocks_and_bans); I am not aware of any evidence of the editor using a sockpuppet. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)