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:Welsh family reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: No action)

Page: Brian Welsh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 19:00, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal action */")
2. 19:11, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal action */ Unwarranted")
3. 19:26, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal action */")
4. 19:35, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal action */ Removed libellous content")
5. 19:38, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Libelous reporting")
6. 19:48, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Libelous")
7. 19:53, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Was unjustified at time of reporting and is certainly unjustified 16 years on! This will result in complete removal of wikipedia entry for Brian welsh")
8. 19:57, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Unwarranted")
9. 20:03, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Libelous")
10. 20:13, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Unwarranted addition to content requested removal of wikipedia entry")
11. 20:19, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Unwarranted")
12. 20:22, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Declined This report is somewhat redundant and superfluous at this time. The page is already locked, and conversation is ongoing here. Legitimate questions have been raised about the quality of the source, the applicability of WP:BLP, and specifically WP:NPF. We'll see how progress resumes after the page is unlocked. Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it's redundant *and* superfluous?  :) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:85.250.159.127 reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: 24h)

Page: Rubicon (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.250.159.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: link

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

1. 05:59, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Critical reception */")
2. 06:14, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 388052346 by This is nonsense. The section is clearly headed Critical Reception. There is no defined standard for an accepted source for a critical reception.")
3. 06:36, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision Please explain how you can exclude a perfectly well defined critical reception from the section headed Critical Reception. You're being elitist and absurd.")
4. 07:11, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision. You have not made a case why this critical reception is less relevant than Deseret News. You're being elitist. This comment adds to the page. It does not detract.")

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

Comments: This is the Xth IP iteration of user that keeps adding some guys blog posts as reputable reception: 67.235.253.199 diff; 89.139.164.152 diff 1, diff 2; 85.250.142.178 diff) _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:75.85.53.84 reported by User:Radiopathy (Result: 72h)

Page: Random Album Title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.85.53.84 (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: [3]
• 4th revert: [4]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

Comment Discussion about the ongoing edit war between Radiopathy and the IP across multiple articles is also taking place at User Talk:SarekOfVulcan here [7]. As per WP:RESTRICT, Radiopathy is under an indefinite 1RR restriction for continued edit warring, which he seems to be breaking here [8] [9], here [10] [11], and here [12] [13]. On both of those last two, his next revert was less than an hour away from violating it two straight days in a row. I brought this up to him on Sarek's talkpage and asked him to stop, his only response was to file this edit war complaint against the other party. Dayewalker (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I'll leave it to others to consider possible sanctions against Radiopathy. They appear to have violated their restriction on the 29th, but it would seem punitive to block for that now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Nyisnotbad reported by User:Medeis (Result: already handled)

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

User being reported: 67.49.14.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Nyisnotbad has been blocked from editing for 10 days. He is using IP address 67.49.14.143 to evade the block. (Note that he cannot edit the article, it being semi-protected.) These are the IP edits made so far:

• 1st revert: [14]
• 2nd revert: [15]
• 3rd revert: [16]
• 4th revert: [17]

Notice of ten-day block: [18] Comments:

The user Nyinotbad has been blocked twice in the last month from editing Armenian language and is currently still under the second block. The page is semi-protected. He is using an IP address 67.49.14.143 to evade the block.

• The arguments presented are identical to that of the block user.
• Inspection of Nyisnotbad's contributions and those of the IP user show a list of identical articles edited.
• The IP user appeared only once the editor was blocked.
• He is making identical detailed false representations about a source which Nyisnotbad was making.

I request that the IP be blocked and the user be further sanctioned.μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected)

Page: Skatetown, U.S.A. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1st, 2nd, 3rd in part 4th 5th

• 1st revert: [19]
• 2nd revert: [20]
• 3rd revert: [21]
• 4th revert: [22]
• 5th revert: [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, admin

Comments:

The other User:RollerBooger is probably guilty too but the diffs and revert-tos are not as clear. Full disclosure: I discovered this after being involved in an unrelated disagreement with this editor. It still appears that this is a violation in that arguing over inclusion of a cast member is not a free-revert case. JJB 22:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC) User doesn't believe I'm serious. User has multiple prior edit-war blocks and an arbcom violation in 2007. JJB 23:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected This is a completely new user (which is a bit suspect), and it was a deletion of sourced material. That said, Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No dispute, not out of line, looked like vandalism to me, redlinked user, only contributions were blanking the same sourced content over and over. Meanwhile User:John J. Bulten is unhappy that I protected Gadsby: Champion of Youth, where he and another editor where edit warring over lipograms. I think it's safe to say, User:John J. Bulten templated my talk page and posted here only out of spite. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but the motives for a report do not make it invalid. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chrisrus reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: 12h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [25] (1st revert)

Previous version reverted to: [26] (reverts 2 and 3)

Previous version reverted to: [27] (4th revert)

• 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] --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to investigate closely using the History and to follow the discussion as it unfolds. Chrisrus (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Only 12 hours because the user was not warned before reported, but blocked because the user has thousands of edits over a few years, including edits at WP:ANI and extensive discussion (as well as edits about edit warring), so I am not convinced the user didn't know of the bright red line. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:75.19.47.94 reported by User:Jokeboy (Result: Stale)

Page: Madison Nguyen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.19.47.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [34]

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
This may actually require page protection. The subject of the page is in the middle of an election, for which absentee voting starts in a couple of days.

This is an anonymous user, who has made this change from two different IPs, who has never once commented on why the change is relevant, who has never edited any other page, and who has refused to comment on the discussion page. I've asked another of the page's frequent editors to chime in, but he hasn't done so (yet), and the reverts keep happening. The nature of the edits, the anonymity of the user, and the timing and persistence of the edits points to a serious NPOV violation intended as political opposition to the candidate. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at this and either step in or tell me that I'm off-base with this.

Had the user inserted "Chinese American" only once, I would have thought it was pointless, but harmless. Adding it twice in the same sentence says pretty clearly that it's intended to be prejudicial, and that the editor doesn't have benign intentions. My understanding is that by insinuating that she was colluding with a "Chinese American", the implication to her constituents is that she is a communist sympathizer, which is a serious character attack. I'm not fully up on the California Vietnamese culture, but that's my limited understanding, which is why I took it so seriously.

Sorry for any errors in this report - it's my first edit war...

Jokeboy (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Stale Page protection may be requested at WP:RfPP if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:BS24 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: 24h)

Page: Restoring Honor rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BS24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Fuller content version, before repeated purging and scrubing of information

1. First revert — 14:26, 1 October 2010
2. Second revert — 00:12, 2 October 2010
3. Third revert — 00:55, 2 October 2010
4. Fourth revert — 02:29, 2 October 2010
5. Fifth revert — 02:52, 2 October 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

I gave the editor an opportunity to self-revert and engage in discussion before I filed this. My offer was apparently rejected. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most of the talk page

Comments:

The editor apparently feels no need to discuss, or answer queries because he has been editing this article longer. He is now resorting to personal attacks on editors and adopting a "find it yourself" attitude when he's pinned down to substantiate his claims and edits:

Azure, you posted on the 8th and 21st with nothing in between. I have been here every single day. I don't have to do the research for you. Read through the archives at the top of the page. If you're going to revert edits, at least know what you're talking about. BS24 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 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. As far as I can see, there were only 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Multiple uninterrupted reverts only count as a single revert for 3RR purposes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, HJ Mitchell. Thank you very much for having a look at this issue, but I believe you have made a minor oversight. Could you please have another look at the diffs shown above? They do indeed indicate the editor has reverted not 4, but 5 times in a 24 hour period. None of the diffs above represent "uninterrupted reverts" - they have each been reverted by other editors. To aid you in identifying the reverts, please note the text "each grid cell" has been removed from the article in each of the above edit diffs. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours After a more thorough examination of the history, I count 4 reverts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 reported by User:Ganec (Result: No action)

Page: Violence against Indians in Australia controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. First revert — 23:53, 1 October 2010
2. Second revert — 00:03, 2 October 2010
3. Third revert — 02:25, 2 October 2010
4. Fourth revert — 04:16, 2 October 2010
5. Fifth revert after warning/notification already published to recipient —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganec (talk • contribs) 04:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Comments:

My response? LOL !

Really, this user is being totally confrontational. My Edit summaries and comments on his Talk page will show the efforts I have made to reach sanity here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not LOL about this, this is serious.

That said - I have blocked Ganec for 24 hrs for disruption for what he's been doing recently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Reportee believed he was reverting vandalism and reporter is blocked for disruption. Nothing to see here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rusmeister reported by User:mddietz (Result: No vio)

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

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

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

Comments:
the problem consists of an individual, Russmeister, who is characterizing John Dewey as an atheist. 1) he continues to put this informatiion in the lead sentence altho others have asked him not to. 2) he offers no secondary source for his conclusion and his primary source is inconclusive. 3) he has refused to recognize the primary source material that has been offered as an althernative. 4) He continues to revert rahter than resolving the issue on the discussion page. Any help would be appreciated. Mddietz (talk) 22:02, 2 October 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiiischiii reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 3h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [42]

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]
• 5th revert: [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48], ongoing discussion on talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49], [50]

Comments:
Editor has been warned on their talk page, but deleted and ignored. New editor, perhaps a short block would get them to understand about edit warring and the importance of consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Tiiischiii

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

Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]
• 5th revert: [56]
• 6th revert: [57]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarnetteD&oldid=388282568

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58], [59]

Comments:
Editor has been warned on their talk page, but deleted and ignored. Established editor, but refuses to enter into constructive dialogue with new user, and refuses to listen to others point of view. Prefers to use block reverts and talk pages of other users to target contribution of one member Tiiischiii (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• No violation Someone is doing way too much reverting, and it's not Marnette. I'd block the reporter, except they have already served a VERY short block before their last revert. Courcelles 13:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:RMc reported by User:Piriczki (Result: )

Page: Ready 'N Steady (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments: Recently I have been making a good faith effort to improve this article by clarifying certain facts regarding the subject and removing some questionable claims that had no sources. My edits have been continually reverted without any substantive comment about the content of the article and no effort to cite any sources. It appears the editor has a personal opinion about the idea of "coyright traps" that he wishes to insert into articles even though there is no basis for the claim.

User:Alacante45 reported by User:Joshinda26 (Result: )

Page: Algae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alacante45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

• 1st revert: [69]
• 2nd revert: [70]
• 3rd revert: [71]
• 4th revert: [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73] Joshinda26 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)