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:Bijuts reported by User:Rajithmohan (Result: 48h)

Page: Main Central Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
and
Page: Economy of South India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Page: Main Central Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

15th November

• 1st revert: [2]

16th November

• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]

17th November

• 4th revert: [5]

18th November

• 5th revert: [6]
• 6th revert: [7]
• 7th revert: [8]

Page: Economy of South India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

11th November

• 1st revert: [10]

12th November

• 2nd revert: [11]

15th November

• 3rd revert: [12]

16th November

• 4th revert: [13]
• 5th revert: [14]

Constant edit-warring behavior
The user reported earlier for edit-warring. The user was lucky not to get blocked that time, as the page was already protected: [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There are many warnings in the user's talk page : User_talk:Bijuts

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:

The user is displaying a constant edit warring behavior. He never used talk pages for discussions, and even denied the request to use talk page: See the edit summary provided by the user -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 03:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Declined User has not edit warred since proper warning. Please report again if edit warring resumes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The warning was issued on 15:47, 17 November 2010 by User:Chektomate: Warning issued on 17thNov

The 5th[17], 6th [18], and 7th [19] reverts on Main Central Road (please see the details provided earlier) were made on 18th November, after the warning.

Moreover, The user has again reverted the articles now (19th November):

• Page: Economy of South India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• 6th revert: [20]
• 7th revert: [21]

• Page: Main Central Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Central_Road&action=historysubmit&diff=397662703&oldid=397503087

Also, If you study the contributions of the user and his talk page, User:Bijuts has a tendency to edit-war. -- Aarem ^(Talk) 12:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 48 hours for long-term edit warring at Main Central Road. Bijuts added the same change regarding Kochi nine times in four days. He is also edit-warring regarding Kochi at Economy of South India, most recently on 22 November. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

User:ChineseNygirl ((Result: ChineseNygirl 24hrs, IANVS 1 week)

Page: White Hispanic and Latino Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ChineseNygirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page History: History

User is edit warring against multiple users, having no consensus and re-introducing original research, as demonstrated in the discussions at the article's talk page, as well as in the talk pages of many users involved. He's been warned, but seems to don't understand or recognize that he/she is incurring into original research, neither the WP:3RR rule nor the idea of WP:Consensus. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I placed a 3RR warning on the users talk page and moments later the editor did a 4th revert within 24 hours. In addition, this editor has also violated 3RR on White Americans. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked her for 24 hours. I've also blocked IANVS for one week as this is his second 3RR in the last few days and his fourth edit warring block. Kuru (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Koorja reported by User:Camw (Result: 1 week)

Page: 2010 Australian football code crowds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koorja (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: with sock/meat puppet

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

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

Comments:

User has continued previous edit warring behavior that they were warned over earlier this month. User is pushing an agenda against a "rival" sporting code from one that he favors across multiple pages. Current wording has been reached over years of discussion and is a compromise by both "sides". Editor has made very few constructive edits and their history consists almost entirely of trying to push their point of view of this and a nationality issue. Attempts to discuss issue with user on their talk page have only received brief comments via edit summaries and no discussion on any talk page. When warned of the 3R rule, user created a sock or meat puppet to continue edit warring. Camw (talk) 10:25, 21 November 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? 14:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please examine it as an edit warrior request rather than 3RR. Users history shows little indication they are prepared to work collaboratively rather than enter edit wars if someone disagrees. Camw (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week for socking to avoid 3RR and sock blocked indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for not being clear enough initially. Camw (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoppybunny reported by BOVINEBOY2008 (Result: 24h)

Page: List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 02:39, 20 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 03:02, 20 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 20:45, 20 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397923426 by Bovineboy2008 (talk) i know what i'm talking about.")
4. 14:19, 21 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397941514 by Bill (talk) I KNOW WHAT I'M TAKING ABOUT. I KNOW SPONGEBOB BETTER THAN YOU.")
5. 14:27, 21 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398057549 by Bovineboy2008 (talk) QUIT IT")

• Diff of warning: here

—BOVINEBOY2008 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User:80.42.154.103 reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: 31h)

Page: ReputationDefender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.42.154.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

See page history

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30] edit summary: Vandalism deletation
• 3rd revert: [31] edit summary: Reverting Vandalism
• 4th revert: [32] edit summary: reverting vandalism
• 5th revert: [33] edit summary: Reverting Vandalism
• 6th revert: [34] edit summary: Reverting Vandalism someone is doing for no reason
• 7th revert after warning: [35] edit summary: Reverting Vandalism someone is doing for no reason

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User talk:80.42.154.103 and the editor's not very helpful response.

Comments:
The account looks like a vandalism/disruption only account.

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Would have been better placed at AIV, but a block is a block, whichever noticeboard it's requested at. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by TFD (talk) (Result:72 hours and protected )

Page: Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 05:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 06:22, 21 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398008035 by The Four Deuces (talk) - rv - BIAS tags removals may not be done until consensus is achieved.")
2. 06:51, 21 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398009454 by The Four Deuces (talk) - rv improper removal of BIAS tag as consensus not yet reached")
3. 03:20, 22 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398173170 by K (talk) - rv - the Talk page is having polite conversation, no bludgeons. Tag stays on until resolved.")
4. 04:50, 22 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398182033 by K (talk) - rv - the BIAS tag stays till Talk discussion has ended, per the tags own language. 3RR is not violated in such a case")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:

• The user has said that he does not believe that 3RR applies to this situation (which I beleive is incorrect) and that he will continue to revert anyone who removes the tag.[37] He has been blocked for 3RR three times before, the last time in June about this same article.   Will Beback  talk  05:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Page protected The user is incorrect- 3RR does apply to tags such as this, however, a block would be unproductive, and only prolong the issue. Courcelles 05:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I blocked simultaneous to Courcelles' action above, after considerable thought, because I think you are all guilty of obnoxious edit warring. However, the user has edit warred a lot before. It now looks like you can talk about it on his talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I must say I don't think this is a particularly useful block. Valid, yes, but not really helpful to the project, as the dispute will just have to be decided in three days time. Courcelles 06:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This strikes me as a questionable application of 3RR (can anyone cite WP where 3RR is applicable to dispute tags?). If the purpose of a tag is to register a dispute in order to facilitate resolution in talk and mitigate article edit-warring, how can another editor arbitrarily remove a dispute tag placed by someone else without a clear resolution of the dispute via consensus in talk? Surely 3RR can't apply here without some definitive indication of consensus resolution? As I understand the placement, it's only 2 days old. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • 3RR applies to all reverts except those specifically exempted from it. If your revert is not of vandalism, BLP violations, copyright violations and other exemptions I may have forgotten (but dispute tags are not one), it is not exempt. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Revert wars over tags are perhaps the most sterile and useless of them all.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
          • 3RR applies to all reverts except those specifically exempted from it.
          • Boldened statements of purported WP policy without citation from WP policy and guidelines look very much to me like unsourced OPINION dressed up for a dance. It may be highly unlikely that the evolution of that guideline ever equated "Tags" with "Content". The notion that an editor, after only 2 days, must now attain consensus that HE/SHE is still expressing and actively discussing a WP:AGF DISPUTE is a new (at least to me) and jaundiced perspective on content tagging. Something's very wrong here. The block (if justified) was applied to the victim and not the perpetrator. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Unsourced opinion dressed up for a dance? Wouldn't have been that hard to find the relevant policy yourself, you know. It's not like the specific list of exemptions is hard to find. But if you really needed it, Dougweller's provided it with no problem. You might want to consider being a little less accusatory in your comments, though, especially when you make them apparently without even reading the policies you want quoted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a few exemptions, but this is not one of them. Otherwise it would be easy to tag an article tendentiously and keep it tagged by continuing to revert. I don't know why you haven't read the policy yourself (I presume you haven't because of your comments above), but here's the relevant bit from our 3RR policy: The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule:

• Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
• Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
• Reverting actions performed by banned users.
• Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
• Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
• Removal of other content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are located, such as child pornography and pirated software.
• Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
• Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page.

If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption.

That's our policy. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked LAEC, with a warning. I think he understands where he erred, and at this point I don't think a further block will be helpful, especially with page protection. I've had a word with all parties involved. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, LAEC has said that he intends to continue reverting up to twice a day,[38] and the protection was removed since it was not necessary due to the block.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:79.97.171.208 and User:Halaqah reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: )

Page: Belgian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.97.171.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Halaqah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:

Lame edit war over point of view content--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• See this edit summary. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but Gwen you warned them before for edit warring on related articles, so this is still an edit war. --Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)IP has only been blocked once for edit warring previously, nothing for vandalism--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood why I posted this, the edit summary said the edit was vandalism, but the edit was straightforwardly not even close to vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• comment My interactions [47] [48] [49] [50] with User:79.97.171.208 have shown that they do not know when to go to the talk page. That they use a registered user name would be a step in a good direction. jmcw (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am acting to prevent a disruptive editor who is flying through wiki reverting people. He does not use the talk page even when instructed to. Constantly saying "rmv POV" Now I am trying to protect the work of other serious editors here and the lerdthnerd is bring me (5 years of editing) in with this sockpuppet. I have no intrest in beligian food other than to prevent a repeated vandal. This is why people lose intrest in Wikipedia because you cannot constructive do any work. Without so much as looking at what is going on. If you see an ip address reverting work you can treat it as vandalism.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are stalking me and reverting all of my edits out of spite. Maybe the fact that someone with 5 years of editing would decide to systematically remove a new editor's constructive contributions out of personal dislike has some influence on people losing interest in wikipedia. And no, you can not treat my work as vandalism simply because I do not have a username79.97.171.208 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)