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:74.111.4.108 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Son of man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.111.4.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

This user is trying to game the system on Full Sail university wiki 99.156.68.118. They revert all edits and full sails wiki is now written as an advertisement which it shouldn't be because it is a pretend school.

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

+ another

• 5th revert: [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Son of man#Far too few secondary sources Comments:

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User:‎79.182.215.205 reported by User:Yobol (Result: 24 hours)

Page: X-ray computed tomography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.182.215.205 (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]
• 5th revert: [13]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See extensive discussion on talk page as well as this link on the Wikiproject Medicine talk page

Comments:

The editor has a serious case of WP:IDHT, as can be seen at the talk page of the article and the WT:MED page. He has shown no indication that he plans to abide by any behavioral or content guideline. Yobol (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a false complaint, I don't see from that diff how there were three reverts there. There is new text in these diffs, and the revert "(Reverted edits by 79.182.215.205 (talk) identified as spam (HG))" is a revert that an HG bot did by mistake, when I fixed a link, and it thought it was spam, when it wasn't, and so I reverted its stupid automatic revert. Give me a break Yobol.

I think that if you check what happened, including in the talk page, you would see that Yobol is editing things he don't understand, and don't try to understand, and without asking for clarification/consensus before he edit.

If you are already counting, please count Yobol's deletions, maybe he has 3 reverts. I try to fix the text, and I change the content according to remarks, so these are genuine edits, all Yobol does is delete without asking questions first, and because of errors in his understanding, sometime of simple matters.

It seem to me that Yobol effort will result in that the adverse effects of CTs would be underestimated by the readers, which is bad.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: The IP is now editing on the IP 79.182.199.172. Yobol (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that, my IP seem to have changed today.

79.182.199.172 (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Was also warned here [15] a couple of days ago when editing as another IP. Discussion also occurred here [16] and [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Recommend brief page protection if the user changes IP address to continue edit warring. IP 79.xxx, you will be welcome to contribute after this block expires, but in the meantime please familiarize yourself with the edit warring policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Joshuaforest reported by User:Mattythewhite (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
Continued ignoration of the guidelines highlighted here through the addition/modifcation of career statistics tables for footballers. This extendeds beyond Lewis McGugan and includes Chris Cohen (on the talk page of which a discussion aimed at resolution was initiated, although the user has ignored the invite to participate), Kieron Freeman and Jamaal Lascelles. The user has failed to engage in any kind of discussion and has a history of questionable edits; see this for an example. Seems to be a case of WP:OWN. The user just can't seem to bear the fact that someone is amending a Nottingam Forest-related article, even though the amendments are improvements and adhere to WP guidelines. It's a shame because he's trying to be constructive adding these tabes, but is not willing to see anyone improve on them. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the user has now been given a 24h block. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method reported by User:Mathsci (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pass a Method (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30][31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:

Pass a Method has tried to insert content on same-sex marriage into Europe in a section labeled "LGBT rights". The material was copy-pasted from LGBT rights in Europe and he later added his own sources for the content, not used in the original article. He did not give any attribution to the original editors who created the content. Five users have objected to his addition as WP:UNDUE and unsuitable for the article: Mathsci, Maunus, Chipmunkdavis, Bluehairedlawyer and MadGeographer. He continues to restore the content and to disrupt the article in ways that are not an improvement for the reader. No other editors agree that his proposed content, purely on single-sex marriage, is appropriate, but he is edit-warring against this consensus. Usually on Europe, amongst the 200 most read pages on wikipedia and as such an anodyne and neutral article, disruption has been caused by issues related to Eastern Europe. This is disruption of a different kind which is also wasting volunteer time. (The fourth reversion was about trivia in the lede concerning largest and smallest countries.)

Pass a Method has also been involved in similar edit warring on Africa also related to the topic of same-sex marriage. (More details will be added later.) Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

On Africa: Original insertion:[33] First reversion:[34] + new insertion on same topic: [35] Second reversion of all this new content: [36] Third reversion of previously added material: [37] Fourth reversion: [38] The content in this case was about "LGBT" (his subsection heading)/same-sex marriage plus statements added to the lede about which countries in Africa are the largest in area and population. Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Other edits of Pass a Method, placing warning templates or comments on user talk pages when his edits were reverted, indicate a WP:battleground approach.[39][40][41][42][43][44] He also commented on edits to Europe on Talk:Africa which is not very helpful for those watching Europe.[45] Mathsci (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply The fourth revert is about Russia so it is completely different to the first three reverts. The first revert was me adding a source (because of a request). Additionally i conceded to the current version long ago, so im not sure why Mathsci is re-opening a resolved issue. Pass a Method talk 09:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverts are counted irrespective of the content being reverted. PassaMethod was evidently edit-warring. Above is the first time that he has explicitly stated that he now accepts that his edits were against consensus (presumably he means on both articles). Mathsci (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes i do mean on both articles about lgbt. But my last two edits on Africa had to do African demographics in the lede (See [46], [47]). Pass a Method talk 10:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 06:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Igny reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: protected)

Page: Occupation of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeatedly making the same edit - which is to add a POV tag to the article.

• [48] Revision as of 23:13, 11 June 2012
• [49] Revision as of 01:23, 17 June 2012
• [50] Revision as of 12:53, 17 June 2012
• [51] Revision as of 13:31, 17 June 2012
• [52] Revision as of 00:01, 19 June 2012
• [53] Revision as of 00:42, 19 June 2012

In fairness to Igny, he/she has also participated in discussion of the issues on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states and on User talk:Estlandia#You last removal of POV-tag. According to User:Nug posting on 20:07, 12 June 2012, User:Igny has just come off off a six month topic ban.Toddy1 (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually joining an edit war is not part of the procedure to report an edit war. Just so you know... (Igny (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

comment

The Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV linked from the tag says:

That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is.

To indicate that the neutrality of an article is disputed, insert

at the top of the article to display:

User Igny made his edits in full compliance with Wikipedia's rules as there are currently three users who dispute the article's neutrality. Conversely, removal of the tag by the opposing team is a breach of the rule. And following from what is cited above, any user has right to insert this tag once he/she disagrees with the content. There is no need for consensus for this tag because it is designed specifically to indicate that there is no consensus.--UUNC (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• The issues are more serious than just plain edit warring, there is an open AE case here. --Nug (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Update

The issue has been already addressed, the article is protected [54]--UUNC (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope - and Igny's "edit war" now encompasses 38 insertions of the same tag (or moving the article) in the past - which means even the 3RR "bright line" does not apply - this is a near-record edit war on his part. Cheers. (noting your extensive edit history). Collect (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Does not the tag say it should not be removed?--UUNC (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is the operative policy here - I can put "do not remove" on any edit I wish but the pov-tag has no more power than did King Canute. I am not "Latvian." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the tag is designed for the cases when there is no consensus at least as indicated in WP:NPOV.--UUNC (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 1 month by Bwilkins (talk · contribs). Remaining matters can be handled at the currently open AE thread. T. Canens (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Frotz (Result: Protected 2 weeks)

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

On April 24, 2012 User:Liftarn added the tag {{Islamophobia}} to Eurabia without mentioning it first or attempting to establish a consensus [55]. This was quickly reverted. Subsequently Altetendekrabbe has been editwarring to keep this tag and eliminate the long-standing tag of {{Criticism of Islam sidebar}}. His subsequent edits introduced and continues to introduce are contentious, violate WP:POV, and are typically quickly reverted. He has been sanctioned already for strings of like edits and nothing good seems to have come of it.

Examples:

• [56] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [57] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [58] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [59] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [60] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [61] re-adds {{Islamophobia}}
• [62] re-adds {{Islamophobia}} and deletes numerous citations.
• [63] Added language describing Eurabia as islamophobic
• [64] Introduced undue weight language
• [65] Deleted material cited from Bat'Yeor and others
• [66] Deleted material cited from Bat'Yeor and others again
• [67] Undue weight language again
• [68] Undue weight language again
• [69] Undue weight language again
• [70] Undue weight language again
• [71] Undue weight language again
• [72] Undue weight language again
• [73] Undue weight language again
• [74] Weasely use of "imagined"
• [75] Weasely use of "imagined" again
• [76] Weasely use of "imagined" again
• [77] Weasely use of "imagined" again

Diff of edit warring warning: [78]

Here is the talkpage thread I started to get to the bottom of this string of reverts: Talk:Eurabia#Appropriateness_of_lead_template. I initially suggested replacing {{Islamophobia}} with {{Islamism}} and then backed off to having no sidebar. I subsequently discovered that Altetendekrabbe has been involved in repeated attempts to change the longstanding sidebar of {{Criticism of Islam sidebar}} to {{Islamophobia}}

Frotz (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• In [79], Altetendekrabbe deleted the prescribed warning about this posting while issuing a taunt. Frotz (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe became close today to breaking the 3RR again: 1, 2 (note the personal assault in the edit summary, 3.Estlandia (dialogue) 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

frotz is indulging himself in misrepresentation of sources, and contentious edits, as noted by others [80]. he clearly has an anti-islamic pov, disgustingly displayed here, [81]. and now he is quoting diffs, from as far back as april, out of context. in addition, four out of the five editors on the talk page are in favor of keeping the islamophobia template. please also note his constant nonsense. he claims that i "deleted numerous citations" in diff 64 above. i checked and it turned out to be not true.-- altetendekrabbe  22:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly takes two to tango. I've looked through the first ten or so of Frotz's examples, and in my opinion they are quite straight edits. The question of whether the article should be included in the template or not isn't really a matter for compromise: It's either or. Not to mention that there are at least a total of five editors, four of them currently engaged on the talk page, who argue in favor of keeping the template. Altetendekrabbe isn't always as civil as he should be, but with the nature of some of these edits, I find it difficult to remain so myself at times. --benjamil (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with benjamil. This looks mostly like diff-padding (putting in a lot of innocuous diffs to make it seem like something bad is going on when there isn't, and hoping that whoever looks at it will be too lazy to click through and check the actual diffs). In this edit [82] altetendekrabbe was most certainly justified in removing what looks like an attempt at engaging in passive aggressive griefing by Frotz. Estlandia's here to pursue some kind of a grudge it seems. VolunteerMarek 00:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't consider the last 50 edits at Eurabia being edit-warring "bad"? They took the edit-warring to Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 too, for which Altetendekrabbe was banned for 24 hours. Oh, and if I was Frotz I would have considered the accusation in this discussion about clearly having "anti-islamic pov, disgustingly displayed..." a personal attack, but my hat goes off to him if he didn't and keeps a cool head despite these accusations. --Pudeo' 00:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

er, right. when are you planning to stop stalking me? your continued (failed) efforts to get me banned are becoming annoying. by the way, this is what your friend mr. frotz wrote on the talk page:

There are solid facts and figures about demands that Europe adopt Islamic values as well as threats of and actual instances of violence when Europeans refuse. Recall the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy which spawned rioting, assaults, and murderous threats in Europe. What do you have, besides sensationalism, as proof that the Eurabia theory is bunk? Before you mention Anders Behring Breivik, I need to remind you that this was an isolated incident by a narcissistic nut reacting to Islamic outrages. Yes it was spectacular, but in the grand scheme of things is overshadowed by the multitude of incidents of Islamic intimidation and violence. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but one cannot legitimately point to isolated instances like this to counter a continuous pattern of violence and intimidation. [83]

user benjamil refuted him but he still continued in the same vein later. utter disgusting.-- altetendekrabbe  00:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not stalking you. I am following the page Eurabia. This complaint was linked by Frotz on Talk:Eurabia and here I am. On a friendly note, I suggest you change your tone to a more positive one when addressing others – you've been banned already twice because of personal attacks. Wikipedia etiquette promotes good manners and being polite; I find it rather weird that user:Benjamil defends rude behauvior in his last sentence here. --Pudeo' 00:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

nice try. i encountered you for the first time on my talk page, [84]. you stalked me and 3 days later you started edit warring on the eurabia-page, [85]. your friend estlandia started edit warring 9. june on the eurabia-page [86], a day after he had edit warred with me on another page, [87].-- altetendekrabbe  01:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pudeo has has logged many edits to articles critical of Islam at least as far back as 2011. Since you two seem to frequent the same sorts of articles, it's not suprising that you two would encounter him again. -- Frotz(talk) 01:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the annotations I just added above will make it clearer for those too lazy to click the diffs. Please point out where I am wrong. Did you just seriously suggest that leaving notice for a person reported to an Administrators' Noticeboard is passive-aggressive griefing? Look at the top of this page. You will find that such notification is mandatory. -- Frotz(talk) 00:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaving notices on talk pages is fine. In my experience it's best just to say "Subject: Notification" and leave a link. But stuff like this [88], this [89] or this [90] is just your standard attempt at intimidating a user (particularly the last one is the typical "intimidation by template" tactic"). Returning to do it again and again after the user has removed your previous comment IS a form of griefing.VolunteerMarek 02:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The first edit you refer to was a matter-of-fact statement of why I reverted his edit. I frequently do this when I feel a single line of text is not sufficient for explaining the change. Shortly afterward, it became clear to me that Altetendekrabbe is more interested in re-adding POV edits, so I made the report here and placed a notification on his page AS REQUIRED. The third edit was a warning from some other editor. What do you imply by referencing the third edit? -- Frotz(talk) 03:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Perhaps the annotations I just added above will make it clearer for those too lazy to click the diffs. Please point out where I am wrong." (Frotz) I looked at the three diff that you labelled as deleting quote ("[91] Deleted material cited from Bat'Yeor", "[92] Deleted numerous citations and re-added language describing Eurabia as islamophobic", "[93] Again deleted numerous citations and re-added language describing Eurabia as islamophobic"). None of them delete any quotation. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I got a little out of sync while adding the annotations. I have corrected these. -- Frotz(talk) 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of two weeks -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Cotton Rogers reported by User:NatGertler (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Conservatism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cotton Rogers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: various

• 1st revert: [94]
• 2nd revert: [95]
• 3rd revert: [96]
• 4th revert: [97] (Note: this is only partially a revert - it includes reinsertion of a source that was deleted due to poor sourcing, but also includes additional changes and intermediary changes by other users will be seen there.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:
Reverts have not been of just a single item, but had occurred repeatedly within the same section (one which editor boldly tried to expand and has been open to some, but not all, critique on.) There was one earlier revert within the twenty-FIFTH hour of the first three listed above. Editor seems largely of good intent if not well-versed in guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm the editor inquestion I did not revert 4 times the last time I added the information but listened to the dissenters and included sources that follow their guidelines they laid out in their comments I thought the problem was with my sources so if I gave new sources it would solve the problem therefore allowing me to keep the edit I never made a controversial change without first using the talkpage. In fact I started the section to solve the problem in the firstplace. But concede I might of broken the three revert rule which I was just recently made aware of I'm sorry I did not realise the rule and that the reverts were so close to another in time while i did not read the warning in time to prevent my third revert. listen I really do not want to be blocked So I will gladly abstain from putting myself in the controversial debate in the page Conservatism in the United States I might have acted a little hasty but I had good intentions of keeping the disscussion moving I'm still new to editing wikipedia so I'll concentrate my efforts on other pages not the one in dispute letting others hash that out and in the future be extremely mindful and careful of the three revert rule so I'll never to break it again I sincerely apologize but would like to add this is my first offensive I have no prior history of disiplinary action and I'm sorry to have bothered wikipedia with this and will well verse myself with the guidelines to never bother wikipedia again Cotton Rogers (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to add in my earlier plea that that first edit in the twenty-fifth hour that NatGertler mentions did not involve the disputed issue but another issue entirely which I solved using the talkpage so It should not be considered in the decsion of whether i was edit warring or not. also edit revert 88 I left the reason I reverted the edit on User talk:Rick Norwood talkpage Cotton Rogers (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 07:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)