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:209.36.57.248 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: History of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 209.36.57.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Comments:

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎#User:209.36.57.10 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result:24 hours) and [5] and [6] Block evasion, may need an IP range block. Past experience would indicate this guy is unlikely to give up. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked - see above. I'm reluctant to impose semi-protection on such prominent articles but if it continues we might not have a choice. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: both blocked)

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 4th revert: [10]
• 5th revert: [11]
• 6th revert: [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13], promptly deleted by user [14]

Lengthy discussion at talk page: [15]

Comments:

Pmanderson is also bordering on 3RR, and I probably should have resisted the temptation to do my one revert as well. However, as a former admin he really should know better, and there's a sequence of previous RFAs and RFCs over very similar behavior.

• Blocked (meaning Ryulong and Pmanderson). Ryulong for a four days for like a gajillion reverts without even an attempt at compromise. However, I've also blocked Pmanderson for 12 hours for some WP:POINTy edits and officially for breaking 3RR (there were more than three reverts).

• I've also asked Dragonflysixtyseven to consider unprotection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • With both users blocked, perhaps the guideline article should be unprotected. --RegentsPark (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• This seems fairly straightforward. Both Ryulong and Pmanderson broke the 3RR rule in their edit warring with each other. It seems like an open and shut case to me. Silverseren^C 04:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yup, that's a broken 3RR rule. Both editors (Ryulong and Pmanderson) should know better. Good block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Note the blocking admin has sought community review of the blocks here. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bb5757 reported by User:Diannaa (Result: 48h)

Page: Arora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bb5757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's sole purpose for visiting Wikipedia seems to be to remove sourced content on the Arora article, and replace it with other unsourced content. They were blocked for this activity on December 7 and resumed immediately upon being unblocked. I am involved as I did extensive copy edits on the article a while ago. Here are the user's edits since their last block:

December 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arora&diff=401245968&oldid=401203013

December 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arora&diff=401636749&oldid=401270304

December 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arora&diff=prev&oldid=401739827

Comments:
The user has never made a talk page or user talk page edit. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've notified him/her about not using any edit summaries here. It is quite common for some newcomers to miss out on edit summaries. Minimac (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to post this on the WP:AIV board since my post here did not get an admin response. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Result -- Blocked 48 hours by User:Edgar181. A much longer block of Bb5757 should be considered if this behavior continues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:76.67.16.43 reported by User:Minnecologies (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.67.16.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Version preceding issue

Previous version reverted to: [16]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: in article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Americas#Landmass_vs._Continent

Comments:
The content which this particular IP is so intent on editing has been a very contentious issue in the past. Essentially, the lead of the article has been a result of multiple discussions (the most specific to this particular issue are here and here) and a mediation. Other editors and myself have reverted the IP's edits multiple times with a short reasoning in the edit summary, until I started the discussion linked above. I know that after the first revert it should have been handled differently by starting a discussion immediately in the talkpage, but in reality it seems like at least once a week an editor (majority of which are anonymous IPs) comes by to change this very same wording in the lead. Most of the time the revert stays and the IP ceases editing, but not in this case. No success (so far) at reasoning. Minnecologies^t,c 20:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Result -- Article semiprotected. The IP has broken 3RR today. I believe this is an example of sockpuppetry but the semi should be enough of a response for now. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Delinquent1904 reported by User:BrendanFrye (Result: )

Page: Jake Shields (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Delinquent1904 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

User continues to revert on this page as well as on the [28] GSP page. He's continuosly inserting the same material which goes against how mma articles are formatted and without proper sourcing. I warned him after his second set of edits to both pages and he has hit the fourth edit on jake shields and third edit (since reverted by another editor)[29] on the GSP page. He has been reverted on both pages by editors other than myself. BrendanFrye (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours- KrakatoaKatie 09:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Illegal Operation reported by User:MbdSeattle (Result: )

Page: Windows Phone 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Illegal Operation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version after admin EdJohnston semi-protected page

• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]

[34]

[35]

Comments:

User:John KB reported by User:117Avenue (Result: no violation )

Page: Shane Dawson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John KB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff
• 7th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37][38][39]

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

Comments:
I have tried to initiate conversation on the talk page, and directed the user to it three times, but he has ignored it. 117Avenue (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2010 (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. - KrakatoaKatie 09:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by [[User:]] (Result: )

Page: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.122.103.183 (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]

Page 2: Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [45]

• 1st revert: [46] - 98.122.69.172
• 2nd revert: [47] - 98.122.69.172
• 3rd revert: [48] - 98.122.103.183
• 4th revert: [49] - 98.122.103.183

The two IPs are listed in case a range block is needed, as they are clearly the same person.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 11:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

User:AussieLegend reported by User:Danjel (Result: )

Page: Newcastle High School (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AussieLegend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_High_School_%28Australia%29&diff=402125397&oldid=402120279
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_High_School_(Australia)&diff=402130057&oldid=402129551
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_High_School_(Australia)&diff=402136792&oldid=402136611
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_High_School_(Australia)&diff=402138509&oldid=402138088

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AussieLegend&diff=402139925&oldid=402139310

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AussieLegend#Newcastle_High_School

Comments:

I have suggested that AussieLegend put the question in discussion over at WP:EiA, which he has seemed reluctant to do (repeated requests visible in page history [[50]]. I had to start the discussion for him at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#A_second_opinion.3F because he simply wouldn't come over (he only joined in after the 3RR warning).

He's also removed my warning [[51]], which, of course, he's entitled to do. But it seems that he hasn't taken the point that he was edit warring by putting forward his controversial additions without discussing.

I've stopped, and am waiting for input from other participants at WP:EiA -Danjel (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Also [[52]], not on the same article, but related to the above. I worry that he's being deliberately problematic here. -Danjel (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• [53] - This was actually a good faith restoration of content deleted by an editor who has been changing infoboxes without any real consensus to do so. It was followed by this removal of incorrect information that the same editor had inexplicably included in the article and this fix of an incorrect link that had also been included.
• [54] - This was a valid reversion of vandalism and is excepted from 3RR. Danjel claimed the translation of the motto was an "interpretation" so I provided a citation, which he deleted without valid reason for removal.[55]
• [56] - This was again a valid reversion of the same vandalism.

The 3RR warning was made over an hour after I reverted the vandalism at Newcastle High School (Australia) and I have raised this matter at WP:ANI#Would appreciate some feedback. It was only after that conversation was started that I discovered this one, which confirms to me that Danjel is being disruptive to make a point. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is time-stamped eight minutes before your WP:AN/I report. I'm willing to assume good faith that each of you were seeking help from administrators and went to different venues. AussieLegend, I would strongly suggest assuming that Danjel is acting in good faith in his edits; as was stated at AN/I, "even misguided attempts to improve the wiki are not treated as vandalism," and Danjel stated in several venues (edit summary and your user talk) his basis for making the edits to improve the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Would appreciate some feedback, a thread AussieLegend started [57] where he acknowledged "I've stupidly been dragged into an edit-war over something extremely trivial and thought I should probably explain myself here, after realising and stepping back." Since blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive, I don't think any action is necessary unless he commits any further violations of 3RR after that point. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AussieLegend: I don't have time to review everything here, so I will leave it to others to discuss, but calling an edit vandalism does not automatically make it so.  Frank  |  talk  14:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached on using Template:Infobox school, even if AussieLegend disagrees. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#Issues_with_Infobox_school.

(1) There was some incorrect information in the article that I edited in. I've admitted culpability for this and thanked Aussielegend for his diligence [[58]].

(2) Good faith edits and requests asking an editor to discuss a potentially controversial issue are not vandalism.

(3) Aussielegend started the discussion at WP:ANI#Would appreciate some feedback without notifying me. It wasn't until Frank informed me at User_talk:Danjel#December_2010 that I became aware of that discussion. Frank also pointed this out at WP:ANI#Would appreciate some feedback. Also of note, I made my edit informing Aussielegend that I had taken the issue here at 13:48 at [[59]]. He made his post at WP:ANI#Would appreciate some feedback at 14:00 a full 12 minutes after I informed him.

(4) The reason why I undid his revert after an hour was because I thought that discussion would resolve the situation and have Aussielegend take the issue to WP:EiA where it could be discussed. That didn't happen.

(5) I'm not being "disruptive to make a point". -Danjel (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)