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:WarriorsPride6565 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: A week)

Page: Indigenous peoples of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WarriorsPride6565 (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]
• 5th revert: [6]
• 6th revert: [7]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:This user has been blocked for edit warring previously, so should know better. As well I think the IP 94.175.118.39 may be the same user. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've raised an SPI on this editor,[10] he's obviously using not only the IP but PeteMerscury (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a week Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Kermansh reported by User:Fram (Result: A day)

Page: List of people known as The Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kermansh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Comments:

User has also acted vindictive by reverting completely unrelated edits made by the first user who reverted him on this page, including a removal of an AfD message [17] and a few others. Fram (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hounding is obvious and editor could be blocked for that alone. I'd block for the 3RR but I've reverted this editor before this was brought. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of a day. I have no objections if another admin wants to increase the block due to hounding. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiaxar/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Vice regent reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Stale)

Page: 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [18] Removed content regarding traveling abroad to be indoctrinated in terror
• 2nd revert: [19] Amended reliably sourced undisputed content
• 3rd revert: [20]Removed reliably sourced content on facebook tribute
• 4th revert: [21]Removed The Independent as a source because of typo within article
• 5th revert: [22]Removed sourced graveyard vandalism content
• 6th revert: [23]Removed sourced content relating to rallies
• 7th revert: [24]Removed sourced content relating to rallies and graveyard vandalism
• 8th revert: [25]Amended sourced content
• 9th revert: [26]Removed Koran content
• 10th revert: [27]Removed "Allahu Akbar" content

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28][29][30] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31][32][33]

Comments:I must stress I have no 3rr complaints. My concern is the disruptive style of editing of this user. The user has frequently removed sourced content from the article and sources themselves. The user rarely discusses his changes on the talk page, and when they do, it is after several requests and a fait acompli amendment. There has been no WP:BRD as user has not discussed many of the above edits on the Talk page. For example the content removal regarding travelling abroad and today's removal of all references to the Koran and Allahu Akbar remain unexplained. I have asked whether third party assistance or arbitration will be of help but have been ignored.

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, I would like to say several things. First, AnkhMorpork seems to have violated 3RR (and I reported it), but I asked the user to self-revert, and once he did so I withdrew my report.

The above quote "reverts" are not characteristic of edit-warring. When looked at along with the discussion, they resemble the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. My edits reflect the updated consensus I have formed with users on the talk page.

The following sections show that I do discuss: Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Deletion_of_Celebration_of_the_massacre, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Description_of_shooter, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Rallies, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#WP:UNDUE.

"I have asked whether third party assistance or arbitration will be of help but have been ignored". I suggested third party assistance, and have welcomed it. Yes, I have ignored requests for arbitration - its far too early for that.

(A report was filed against AnkhMorpork for making personal attacks against me, and it was resolved.)

VR _talk 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Stale. The last revert shown above is from 30 March. Edits of the article by Vice regent and AnkhMorpork appear to be swamped by a large number of edits from others. Without great patience an admin would have trouble seeing if an actual revert war is taking place, in any direction. If you can focus on a specific issue, consider opening a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for other options you might consider. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ANKMALI reported by User:Shshshsh (Result: 24h)

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

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]
• 5th revert: [38]
• 6th revert: [39]

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

A similar dispute was on another article, Screen Award for Best Female Playback - where the user changed the name of the actual winner to the name of Alka Yagnik. In spite of having found reliable sources from newspapers to prove otherwise, I was still reverted. I started a talk page discussion, on which two more editors agreed who the winner was in accordance with sources. In the meanwhile, I left the line of the winner blank until the discussion was over. As the user continued edit warring on several pages, I started an ANI discussion, on which several users tried to make the user understand the process of Wikipedia editing and the importance of policy, without much success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. This editor has been struggling with others on a variety of articles over the past few days. They appear to have made seven reverts at Alka Yagnik since 25 March. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:B6606099 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Indef)

Page: Pink slime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: B6606099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 15:09, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 15:20, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 15:25, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 15:51, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Production process */")
5. [41] -- this one performed by a brand new username so close to the other that it's entirely obvious what's going on

• Diff of warning: here

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day. Was tempted to indef as a POV-pushing spa, but decided to be lenient instead. Let's call it WP:ROPE... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • After running a checkuser, I found a sockfarm; all socks and sockpuppeteer indeffed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Thecatholicguy reported by Me-123567-Me (talk) (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Universal Life Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. [42]
2. 18:36, 30 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "The ULC does not have a department of education. There degrees and titles are honorary. The previous editor keeps attempting to glorify such degrees as a clear solicitation thereof. This is not an advertising medium.")
3. 18:47, 30 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "The ULC does not have a department of education. There degrees and titles are honorary. The previous editor keeps attempting to glorify such degrees as a clear solicitation thereof. This is not an advertising medium.")
4. Forth revert

• Diff of warning: here

He's been blocked previously for edit warring on this article. —Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:71.255.245.137 reported by AzureCitizen (talk) (Result: Article semied)

Page: Bradley Manning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.255.245.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Diff of warning: here

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

1. 06:29, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Given Manning's female gender identity, only female pronouns are correct. Included in this article is a quote implying she would rather be executed than misgendered.")
2. 06:39, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484657538 by Meco (talk) due to uncorrect pronoun usage")
3. 06:57, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484659173 by SatenikTamar (talk)")
4. 17:40, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484660805 by 180.254.97.177 (talk) It is incorrect to refer to a female-identified person by male pronouns.")
5. 22:30, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484760635 by Srich32977 (talk) Manning clearly identifies as female; reffering to her with masculine pronouns is both incorrect and disrespectful.")
6. 22:47, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484767749 by AzureCitizen (talk) See talk comment.")
7. 22:54, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484768170 by AzureCitizen (talk) If anyone had evidence for Manning identifying as male it might be appropriate to default to masculine pronouns; this is not the case.")

It appears this IP editor feels strongly that they are "right" and they do not understand the consensus process. The warning diff provided above happened between the IP user's 2nd and 3rd revert, so either they don't understand WP:3RR in this respect or they are simply ignoring it. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by Department of Redundancy Department Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers reported by User:cloudz679 (Result: Stale, but warned about NPA)

Page: Stephan Schröck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Banana Fingers (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: some discussion here: User talk:Cyrus35334

Comments:
Banana Fingers is being very disruptive at a number of other articles including Rob Gier, usually making a high number of reverts without leaving comments anywhere, e.g. absent edit summaries, and making it difficult to establish reasons for change. After placing an edit warring notice on his user page this morning, he continued reverting in disregard of the matter. His manner and conduct should not be allowed to continue. Cloudz679 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stale; last revert was several hours ago. Rereport if it starts up again. Given that Banana Fingers has been blocked twice for personal attacks, I will also issue an NPA warning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/69.210.244.202 Reported by User:Musicfreak7676 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Nicole Scherzinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.210.244.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Comments:
This IP keeps undoing edits to Nicole Scherzinger and is acting a very "stan" way, and is very disruptive to the editing of Wikipedia. Their edits are not constructive or sourced. I warned them that YouTube is not a source, and they continue to add it and laugh in my face. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:216.227.26.56 reported by User:Tampabay721 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Florida State Seminoles football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.227.26.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50]
• 4th revert: [51]
• 5th revert: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

Hasn't responded to others' comments in edit summaries, discussion on the talk page, or 3RR warning. Just puts all the material back without explanation or acknowledgement of disagreement with other editors. I have never reported anyone for 3RR before but this is all I know I can do without violating 3RR myself. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesrand reported by User:Edcolins (Result: A day)

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

Previous version reverted to: [55]

• 1st revert: [56]
• 2nd revert: [57]
• 3rd revert: [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Brian Camelio#Patent Dispute sections (search for instance for "I agree with Nowa that "we should avoid burdening the article with the ongoing play by play of the lawsuit"." and "Neither I nor Nowa (I presume) are willing to remove the complete paragraph. In other words, I agree with this edit by Nowa")

Comments:
Very similar edit warring on the page Kickstarter [60] (which includes almost the same section...). --Edcolins (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:NikosGreencookie reported by User:SentienContrarian (Result: )

Page: Takis Fotopoulos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [61]

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

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

[66]

And on my talk page, I have been repeatedly harassed by this user who immediately accused me of vandalism.

[67]

Comments:

I ran into this article on Mr. Takis Fotopoulos, saw that the majority of the sources were either primary sources or sources affiliated with him or owned by him (as in the article on Jamie Zawinski and the user I am reporting started immediately putting up "vandalism" warnings on my Talk page and accusing me - without the slightest piece of evidence - of being here only to attack Mr. Takis Fotopoulos, the subject of the article. And now he even claims that I am... threatening the supporters of Inclusive Democracy (the political movement founded by Mr. Takis Fotopoulos). SentientContrarian (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)