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:76.201.145.83 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Pray the Gay Away? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.201.145.83 (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]
• 4th revert: [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

Editor is edit warring against 2 editors. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 17:26, 13:09, 00:52, 00:33, 23:44, 18:01. Specific 3RR warning was removed at 01:42. Kuru (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• This seems to be a simplistic closure of the dispute. The IP has obviously crossed the bright line of 3RR and was correctly blocked, but Kuru is ignoring the fact that Lionelt and NYyankees51 are tag-teaming to remove cited material on spurious grounds (check out the article history and see how their excuses change as the IP refutes them) and claiming a BLP exemption to edit-warring policies which obviously does not apply. "The three revert rule...is not a definition of what 'edit warring' means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule," and "most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule." A two-person tag team does not, as Lionelt seems to be claiming, represent consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Then by all mean utilize one of our many dispute resolution methodologies to resolve your conflict and help them seek consensus. If you feel I am "ignoring" something, please report this to ANI and seek review of my administrative actions. Kuru (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:Tigerwiki2 (Result: 24h to submitter)

Page: Northern Illinois University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

User:Moxy is edit warring in conjunction with User:HuskyHuskie. I am sure this is against the rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Illinois_University&action=history

The history here shows that Moxy undid a legitimate edit of mine that was eliminating biased language by HuskyHuskie exactly two minutes after I posted it. Moxy did not even read the article and just edited for his fellow gang member.

We don't block editors for a single revert unless they under probation by the community. I don't see you using the talk page of the article that you been revert warring on. I recommend no block for Moxy, and unless you decide to follow consensus in the talk page, and stop revert warring yourself, you may get blocked. Secret ^account 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Result: User:WilliamH has blocked User:Tigerwiki2 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Edit conflict: This request is not made in good faith. I have blocked Tigerwiki2 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours; he has ignored every single reasonable invitation for him to discuss his changes on the talk page despite previous warnings for edit warring, instead taking it it to places like this, and not for the first time. WilliamH (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, not only have I not been acting in concert with User:Moxy, I had never even heard of him or her until this matter came up. If we have ever edited the same articles in the past, it is news to me. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• End note (replay as its me being reported): The article is on my watch list - I noticed that the page was undergoing some problems, thus I looked at the talk page (first place to turn to when there's a problem). I saw that User:HuskyHuskie (whom I have never meet before) was undergoing some problems. He did not understand why sourced material was being deleted. I agree with him in the fact that the material is sourced and presented in a balanced way (well as good as you can when its at the bottom). So i preceded to revers the additions when they were added back in an attempt to convey that there are now many (3) editors that wish this to be talked about and are waiting to be engaged. All that said there is no reason that after the editors block is over he/she cant join in on the talk page. Being new to Wikipedia can be hard sometimes - but all can be resolved by way of a nice chat on the articles talk page .Moxy (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:65.88.88.202 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 3 months)

Page: Kashmiri Pandit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 65.88.88.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]
• 5th revert: [13]
• 6th revert: [14]
• 7th revert: [15]
• 8th revert: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:65.88.88.202 - pretty much the entire user talk page is taken up with this issue

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kashmiri_Pandit#Mongols

Comments:
Please can you take a look at User_talk:C.Fred#Problematic_IP_editor_from_NY_library, where I have discussed this issue with two admins. This is a tricky one to block because the IP is using a library/public hotspot but there is an extremely long history of abuse and some sort of narrow range block is probably desirable. As an example of another in the range, please see this.

There are other US-based IPs making the same edits but less frequently, being User:208.125.14.67 and User:24.146.243.96. I have tried to ameliorate concerns by removing from the lead a statement that is true but is proving difficult to source, but that has not stopped the continued adding of a completely unsourced and definitely "glorification" statement there. I am going to inform User:C.Fred and User:The Bushranger of this report. They may or may not choose to add a comment. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. (As an aside, this might be better dealt with at AN/I rather than AN/EW, but I dunno. Anyway:) The NYPL IP addresses seem to be chronic vandal-bots; one of them - 65.88.88.175 - got to the point where it was indef'd (full disclosure: by me) a month ago. This is pretty much the same behavior - to put it simply, "our Ayrans are Aryans and your Aryans are scum". And, looking back over this IP's contribs, he's been hitting some of the same articles too -  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me that this is the same editor as was using the indef'd IP. Indeffing IPs is rare but given the fact that the number of productive edits made by this IP appears to be near or equal to zero, I'd suggest at the very least blocking for a year (and standing by the day the block expires). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I said in the thread at User:C.Fred, it would not surprise me if the patrolling admin chooses to refer a decision to WP:ANI & it would not reflect badly on them if they did so. It is extremely awkward, but my name crops up far too often at ANI and so I'll go through the preliminary motions if only to cover my back. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is reason not to, I would go ahead and block the IP for three months. Two of the admins who issued past blocks of this IP believed it was in use by User:Ron liebman. For background see WP:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman, and Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman. It is not uncommon for a public computer terminal to be blocked long-term when it is often used by an abusive editor. If it is blocked anon-only then a registered editor can still use it to edit Wikipedia. If blocking this IP cures the problem then it's a workable solution. If it turns out the guy has access to many IPs, then semiprotection of a bunch of articles might be considered instead. Edits from this IP from the last three months are probably all the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Location fits, but there aren't any baseball edits being made by this chap - it's all Indian/Kashmiri stuff. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like the sort of coincidence that could cause problems if a block is put in place: two persistent but different disruptive contributors. I am pretty sure that blocking just *.202 will achieve nothing because it seems that they've already moved over from *.175. If they pop up on another IP in the range then we're in the realms of having to choose between semi-PPing what could end up being a fairly wide group of articles or range blocking, both of which would affect a fair few other potential contributors.

Maybe block *.202 now and then refer the entire issue to ANI if it recurs? BTW, I've just noticed that *.202, 24.146.243.96 and 208.125.14.67 have all recently been contributing to Talk:Lawrence School, Sanawar this month, and that all three have edited the actual article since August. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Single IP blocked three months anon-only, per the above reasoning. Long-term nationalist edit-warring on Kashmir-related articles: ("These Brahmins of Kashmir are the original Rigvedic Aryans.") If similar edits start coming from other IP addresses, consider opening a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Germinal1848 reported by User:Randy2063 (Result: Protected)

Page: Kalle Lasn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Germinal1848 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]
• 5th revert: [21]
• 6th revert: [22]
• 7th revert: [23]

3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

This editor refuses to respond on the article's talk page. He even deleted the 3RR warning on his user talk page, which is now blank: [26]

Randy2063 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Fully protected for three days. Germinal1848 should use this time to open a discussion at WP:BLP/N. If reverts continue before consensus is found, blocks may be issued. The main reference calling Lasn anti-semitic was this October 2011 post by Alana Goodman in a blog operated by Commentary magazine. The blog post sounds like an editorial ('a history of anti-Jewish writing') and I have a concern about WP:UNDUE if it is the main pillar on which the coverage of Lasn's possible anti-semitism is based. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Nevoexpo reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [27]

• 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: User talk:SudoGhost#Concerning edit warring

Comments:
Apparent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, user appears to be a SPA that was created to promote this program, and is restoring the unsourced example in the article, despite an explanation of why the information needs to be backed up by reliable source and not blogs and other unreliable sources. - SudoGhost 07:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:65.88.88.126, User:65.88.88.46 reported by User:Sunray (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Jiddu Krishnamurti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 65.88.88.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 65.88.88.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]

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

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

Comments:
This resort to edit warring seems (sadly) to be typical of the kind of response to any attempt by anyone other than the IP to improve the article. Materialscientist's edit was to clean up some of the code of this extremely lengthy article (now the longest non-list article in Wikipedia). I have raised the problem of article length previously and have been subjected to attacks rather than any reasonable discussion of content. Because this IP is located at the New York Library, it may be impossible to block the user. If the article is locked, I would request that it be locked on Materialscientist's version here. Sunray (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: The prolific contributor at the NY Public Library strikes again. I've blocked both IPs one month anon-only. (In a report above the guy reverting about Kashmir from 65.88.88.* was blocked for longer). At some point this should perhaps be discussed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations to see if there is a more efficient way to deal with these cases. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  Hopefully that will work, although I notice a new version of the IP (65.88.88.214) popped up about an hour before the block. I've just reverted back to Materialscientist's edit. The New York Library is now closed, but if they can do it, I would expect them to revert again during library hours (8:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. EDT, on November 2. It may be worth holding this open for awhile. If there is further action, I shall discuss it at WP:SPI as well. Sunray (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Further violation: 65.88.88.XXX reverted once more: [40] IPs 65.88.88.127 and 65.88.88.214 are active on the talk page. Sunray (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:76.201.145.83 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 72h)

Page: Pray the Gay Away? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.201.145.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]

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

Comments:

This a report of edit warring, not 3RR. In fact the editor has just come off a block for 3RR. The report is still on this page a few sections above.[46] The editor is removing a tag on sight which 2 editors have properly placed. The editor was edit warring before the block, and resumed immediately once the block was lifted. This tag is important to alert other editors that there is a discussion on the talk page. Without the tag it will be difficult to achieve a broad consensus. The editor was warned (1) not to edit war and (2) not to remove the tag. The warnings have been ignored. Besides the disruption caused by edit warring, the editor, without any provocation whatsoever, is displaying hostility and incivility. It has been very difficult to reason with them. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ^X 01:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• As with the previous report, a result that results merely in the IP being blocked, without so much as a warning for the other editors, is an endorsement of edit-warring and an official pronouncement that edit-warring is okay when it's two people instead of one. Filing reports seems to be the resort of these two when they can no longer refute the policy-based arguments the IP is presenting in edit summaries and on the talk page (their argument for adding the "unbalanced" tag, for instance, was that the section cited too many LGBT writers), but it isn't any less edit-warring because it's two people who are taking turns reverting instead of just one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You have repeatedly accused 2 editors of tag teaming--with no proof. You're accusing the same editors of edit warring--when they aren't. You're accusing 2 admins of either complicity, or incompetence-take your pick. I have no idea how you get away with this outrageous conduct. There is an RFCU in your future and I predict sanctions addressing your behavior will be forthcoming.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking turns reverting in order to stay under 3RR and otherwise avoid scrutiny for edit-warring, as is apparent from the article history (isn't it convenient how NYY, who had never edited the article before, showed up when you'd hit 3RR in order to make that fourth revert?), is the definition of tag-teaming. Threaten all you like, attack admins all you like (I don't think it requires complicity or incompetence to make this mistake, but you seem to do so), but you're only making your behavior more public. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw this on Lionel's talk page, that's why I showed up. It was not coordinated, no need to allege another conspiracy. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at this, apart from the accusations of tag-teaming my bigger concern on those reverts by yourself and NYY is that each of 3 reverts had a different reason and they're simply wrong; there was no BLP violation, Besen's own YouTube channel is an RS to source his own views, and Besen is clearly a notable source on the ex-gay movement. I would suggest you are more careful to provide solid policy-based reasons when removing sourced commentary in future. Black Kite (t) 02:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Be careful, Ros, when relying on controversial essays to make unsubstantiated accusations:

Editors have voiced a concern that the "characteristics" of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy, and that the essay can be used as a weapon against editors who are acting in accordance with Wikipedia's editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work.

– Lionel ^(talk) 02:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Black--I have to disagree. The content sourced to Besen was highly critical of Lisa Ling. The youtube video is obviously self-published. I see no scenario where a youtube video critical of a living person passes WP:BLPSPS. And I see no exception in the policy for a recognized expert. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person

Right, hang on. You're conflating two different issues. If that source was being used to reference a sentence such as "Lisa Ling doesn't do her research" (stating opinion as fact) then you would be correct; but it isn't; it is being used to reference "Besen claimed that the program was poorly researched" (clearly stating that this is Besens's opinion only). Reasonable criticism is allowed in a criticism section (and anyway, the Advocate reported his comments in their own article here, which immediately makes it not a SPS). Black Kite (t) 03:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You're correct the Advocate makes this moot. That said, I did not read in the policy a distinction beimg made between "offering opinion" and "stating a fact." Nor does BLPSPS provide an exception for "reasonable criticism." If I'm missing something please direct me to the relevant policy. With all due respect my justification for removal under BLPSPS was valid then and is still valid now. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:FormerIP reported by User:Local Panel (Result: declined)

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

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

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Warning is right there in plain English at the top of the page when you click Edit.

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

Comments:

Thanks for the non-notification. I was using Twinkle, so I didn't get the 1RR warning. However, you do appear to have been inserting unsourced opinion into the article, which is why I reverted you. --FormerIP (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Page 5, second paragraph of the source. Local Panel (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That paragraph doesn't say anything about "contemporary America" or "European" perspectives. Yes, it is a source, but it has nothing to do with the content you added. Looks like you have a boomerang to deal with below. --FormerIP (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Declined - editor has self-reverted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Local Panel reported by User:Bryonmorrigan (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Local Panel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments: Yes, there is a 1RR warning on this page, and on the talk page[50], User:EdJohnston specifically states that, "If you make a change to this article and it gets reverted, open a discussion on the talk page instead of reverting again." User:Local Panel has clearly violated this rule, and is trying to mask this by reporting the person (User:FormerIP) stepping in and reverting his absurd edits, which are OR and not backed up by his citation.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - significant edit warring over several days against more than one editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Just granpa reported by User:Lisa (Result: Warned)

Page: Template:Adam-Jacob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Just granpa (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

This sort of POV pushing is inappropriate. It's a violation of both WP:OR and WP:RS. The user apparently thinks that because the mistranslation and misrepresentation is found "all over the internet" that it qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Warned. Although 3RR was not formally broken, this slow-motion edit-war is not permitted. Editor has received final warning (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)