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:OperationPipi reported by User:PortugeseIndian (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Operation C (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:OperationPipi

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_C&diff=520023821&oldid=520015067
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_C&diff=520214065&oldid=520213134
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_C&diff=520216320&oldid=520216154
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_C&diff=520218126&oldid=520216358

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OperationPipi

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:

Users 92.13.77.121 and OperationPipi have been edit warring on the article Operation C. Both were warned by user Shaun9876 but still continued to edit war on the article. Can something be done about this??? Thanks!PortugeseIndian (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The IP and OperationPipi.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:86.156.161.55 reported by User:SuperMarioMan (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.156.161.55 (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 IP address has been edit-warring against multiple editors over the last three to four days - their most recent revert being their sixth in 24 hours. The purpose of these repeated reverts has been the removal of all or part of a newly-added paragraph on the basis that sourced statements within are "irrelevant". SuperMarioMan 21:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

User:HeslinJ reported by User:Qworty (Result: Page protected)

User has reverted sourced information more than three times today, despite warnings on his talk page from different editors:

[10]

• Malformed report, but Page protected because there's too much edit-warring from multiple editors. Develop consensus on the talk page, please. For the record, I protected because the article is under warring from multiple sides (reading the history of Marsha Mehran), so evidently discussion needs to take place. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:88.104.5.244 (Result: Both blocked separately for 48 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)
User being reported: Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

(Sorry, I didn't get them all; there's loads more)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion in above-linked sections

Comments:

Both editors blocked - IP by Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Joe by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), both for 48 hours. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Festermunk reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: 1 week)

Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Festermunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [21] wholesale revert to a version previously rewritten as too POV by two editors]
• 2nd revert: [22] Revert of material he didn't like, though after I explained the POV of his revert in WP:DRN discussion he agreed to change it back but insisted he'd change more of it; I'm not touching it myself right now.
• 3rd revert: [23] Removal of important NPOV Stephen Cohen sentences explaining that despite the pro-government slant, “any intelligent viewer can sort this out.(i.e., propaganda from non-propaganda).
• 4th revert: [24] Removal of much discussed historical info about person chosen as editor; he only wants it in the criticism section.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]. Note that I mention here Festermunk's recent block on this same article for 3rr but obviously Festermunk did not take heed.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit history shows efforts to engage Festermunk, mostly ignored by him until after he made all these changes today. These include: [26]; [27]; [28]. I then filed a Dispute Resolution case notice after he mentioned "Arbitration." See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#RT_.28TV_network.29 discussion with volunteer.

Comments:
User: Festermunk has constantly added negative information and opinion to this article and deleted neutral and positive information. His basic view is such positive information is just a minority opinion and doesn't belong. After his first block on this article another editor and I cleaned it up to add more neutral or positive info, deleting some WP:Undue negative info and especially primary source opinion. As soon as Festermunk returned to this article he reverted most of our changes in a series of edits, which were reverted back in this one edit by another editor to our more NPOV version. After WP:Dispute Resolution, where Festermunk largely retained his previous views about adding criticism and removing neutral/positive material, he again reverted back to his version of the Controversy section which I reverted here per the previous editor's revert.

Meanwhile as part of the edit warring behavior, Festermunk has been quite uncivil. The Volunteer at Dispute Resolution told him on his talk page he was being uncivil in the Dispute Resolution. (I complained at length about incivility in my original WP:DNR notice.) I then complained at his talk page about two more new incidents of incivility here and mentioned a possible Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. But then I saw he'd done 3rr again so decided to complain here.

Frankly his POV against RT (TV Network) is so overwhelmingly strong, I don't think he can be allowed to edit this article or he will constantly revert to uncivil edit warring behavior. CarolMooreDC 05:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Frankly his POV against RT (TV Network) is so overwhelmingly strong, I don't think he can be allowed to edit this article" I hope all the administrators dealing with this case read this sentence carefully and then think about the kind of opposition I've had to deal with in editing the RT article. As per this edit, I tried directing the user's attention to Wikipedia editing guidelines that would disprove her battery of charges, namely thatWikipedia articles (with properly referenced sources) need not be written from that viewpoint are "consequently objectively true", but written in a way that "describe debates rather than engage in them.", that the NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. and that Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. but unfortunately this was all to no avail.

Generalities aside, I'lll deal with the specifics

• 1st issue- As per the DNR on RT, there are at least two occasions in which a third-party observer (user Nolelander) has said that the lede for the criticism and controversy section is not needed

a) under the, "RT (TV network) discussion" sub-section, in which the user writes (as the discussion is lengthy, I suggest using the control F function to find the specific text being referred to), "3) Lead for controversy section seems like a convenience, but not critical."

b) under the , "Threaded discussions of 8 issues" (point 3) sub-section, in which the user writes, "Turning to the issue of an intro paragraph within the Reception/Issues section: It is best to omit it"

User CarolMooreDC made no response/no relevant comment to the user's suggestion, so as per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, I removed the intro paragraph.

• 2nd issue - I don't understand her argument, how can I be guilty of something I haven't done?
• 3rd issue - I removed the Cohen quote because it (seemed - admittedly, that is subjective) wasn't relevant information constituting a defense of RT, though if editors have qualms with this edit they are within their Wikipedia rights to rever this as per WP:BRD. However, aside from an allegation of NPOV, I don't see what Wikipedia editing guideline I am violating.
• 4th issue - We established on the DNR on RT that a paragraph on Margarita Simonyan and that fitting that paragraph in a supra-section entitled, 'RT Staff' can be appropriate (see the "Changes to the RT article" sub-section of the RT section on DNR). As all of the content in that paragraph renders the information that User CarolMoore put about Simonyan in the history otiose, I removed the information as per Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. Festermunk (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, for convenience I mostly described the reverts in question because the reverts usually were hidden in a mass of new material. I complained about his reverts early in the day and then disabused User:Festermunk of his blind notion that we agreed on all points at the end of the the WP:DRN discussion at this diff. So there was no excuse for his going into a 3rd and 4th set of reverts, given his previous 3rr block and my previous 3rr warning to him about edit warring. CarolMooreDC 15:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course you won't find the 3rd and 4th set of reverts in DNR that's because we didn't talk about them in there! (at least, not directly anyway) Festermunk (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. I've also warned Festermunk that if after expiration of this block they resume the same battleground behavior, they may be indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User:175.110.147.104 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: A day)

Page: List of Urdu-language poets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.110.147.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Rashid sandeelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Comments:
After IP user's non-notable entries were reverted out of the list a user account was created, which did same edits as the IP. Now today IP user again partially restored his/her edit. --SMS ^Talk 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings,

I made some valid updates to a political candidate's wiki page, Cheri Bustos. These were valid updates and properly sourced. I do not make a habit of editing wiki pages. Not 1/2 hour later, most of my valid and properly sourced edits were reverted by a frequent editor to this site. I happened to notice that this editor (who I informed on his talk page, per wiki guidelines) has a very detailed trail of editing political pages. He appears to only edit the pages of Democrats with negative information. While this is probably valid, I intended to balance the article with positive items directly related to negative things he and another frequent user to the page have added. How can this not be fair and reasonable. Someone even created an "endorsements" section with negative items, but REMOVED a section I added on a key endorsement this candidate received from a major newspaper in the district. Her opponent's wiki site is filled with similar endorsement. He removed it wholesale. He also removed a study that directly related to an item about Catholics and contraception. He also removed a quote on a technicality. A losing primary candidate stated a Senator who is endorsing Bustos, did not specifically mention qualifications. When I added a quote that listed qualifications, this editor removed it. This is vandalism. I added stuff that was well cited and pertinent. My *thought* is he is watching this page for anything positive and removing it. I smell an agenda here. I only wanted to add balance. Please resolve this war. My additions should stay. Thanks. First down comets (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: )

Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35] Rhode Island Red prefers the version on the left, and GeorgeLouis prefers the version on the right.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red#3RR_warning_on_vanderSloot_BLP

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Improving_GLBT_section

Comments:

I am trying to get the Gay-rights section into proper shape by proposing one new paragraph at a time. A previous attempt at a wholesale improvement to the entire Section was reverted by a different editor (not Rhode Island Red).[40] Perhaps narrowing the focus would help move the article off dead center. Editing was Blocked for one week, and the conversation was taken to the Talk Page.
There was also a reversion by Rhode Island Red of an entirely different Section.

Reply

I’m getting really tired of Frank’s disingenuous conduct in general, and this trumped up edit warring accusation in particular. First of all, I did not violate 3RR -- Frank knows it -- but he’s trying to use one innocuous edit, which he knows full well is innocuous, to back up his charge. The 3rd revert he listed was a self-reversion,[41] made because I had previously reverted to the wrong version – it was a simple self-correction so as to not lose one set of minor intermediate changes. I would normally be reluctant to even go that close to the 3RR line, but in this case, George’s edits were so ridiculously tendentious that I didn’t think the situation would escalate as far as it did.

George was previously making tendentious edits on the article, and the page was protected for a week.[42] During that time, he requested comment on the OR noticeboard and his proposal got shot down.[43] Nonetheless, as soon as page protection expired today, George made the change anyway and then started edit warring when I reverted his edit. [44][45][46] He did not comment as to the reason for his reverts.

I left a comment with the admin who originally looked into the issue and protected the page, alerting him to the nascent conflict and requesting that page protection be extended for another week,[47] reasoning that this would nip things in the bud. George knows this as well; he already left a comment there. He knows that this 3RR complaint is unwarranted, and it’s not the first time he’s tried to pull vindictive shenanigans like this (e.g., harassment). This sort of thing has become a chronic problem and I’m on the verge of filing a user conduct complaint with the admins as a last resort. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RIR has been a long term edit warrior on this BLP, and was rather upset when DRN failed to agree with his POV on using a primary source in the article. Frankly, there is a whole lot of UNDUE stuff in the article, and RIR's belief that everyone who disagrees with him is "acting in tandem" for "vndictive shenanigans" when he was politely told that his edit war tactics were likely to cause him problems (I believe he called my required notice and request to self-revert "disingenuous" on his own talk page, and that I was "threatening" him [48]). Over two hundred edits on one BLP is a lot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect failed to identify himself as an involved participant, and his off-topic ad hominem and suggestion that I'm "rather upset" about some prior incident was entirely predictable given that he and George Louis (both members of the NPOV-challenged WP Project Conservatism)[49] have been marching in lockstep on the VanderSloot article, and one always pops in to back up the other in virtually every dispute. Together they have been trying to game the system and whitewash the article since long before I first visited the Vandersloot page.

But background details aside, notice how Collect's mudlslinging has no bearing whatsoever on the 3RR issue (i.e. the fact that I did not violate 3RR and that George's accusation was off base) or George Louis's attempt to bypass the outcome on the noticeboard by pushing a tendentious edit the instant that page protection was lifted. Nor did he acknowledge that it was I who requested page protection to avert an edit war. The red herring about my edit count was particularly puzzling since I've contributed a substantial amount of carefully written and reliably sourced text in the article, while Collect has probably racked up 200 comments on the article's Talk page alone and still hasn't contributed more than a sentence or two to the entire article. If there were a barnstar for obstructionism...Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)