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:Veronica19 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: WP:BLP block)

Page

Tanya Plibersek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Veronica19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 03:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC) to 03:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 03:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572837334 by Euryalus (talk)"
   2. 03:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 02:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572864295 by Elekhh (talk)"
5. 02:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573101802 by Loriendrew (talk)"
6. 03:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid vandalism"
7. 03:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision which removed sourced information"
8. 10:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "Removed subjective word "progressive" (one person's view of progress can be entirely different to another's) and provided more information about what Emily's List stands for. Simply saying it supports women is deceptive")

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[1], [2]. Previously warned over this material as well: [3] (included an invitation to participate in a discussion on the talk page) and [4])

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Thread at Talk:Tanya Plibersek#The nature of Emily's List, in the context of this article.

Comments:

User has been asked a few times to participate in the talk page discussion ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The two editors (Euryalus and I) who have discussed this material on the article's talk page agree that it is POV. The most recent edit warring by Veronica19 is also blatantly POV pushing around Plibersek's husband - while he was convicted for drug dealing in his youth, he's since held a number of very senior public service positions yet this was excluded (it's since been added by an IP account). As such, this appears to be a POV-pushing only account. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just blocked this editor for an indefinite period after seeing these changes to the Penny Wong article. As this is a BLP violation-only account, the block has been made under the provision for "involved" admins to respond to clear BLP violations at WP:BLPREMOVE. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Antopandeth reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: blocked indefinitely)

Page

Deepa Miriam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Antopandeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573092037 by EuroCarGT (talk)"
2. 01:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573084934 by EuroCarGT (talk)"
3. 23:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 13:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572966171 by Tbhotch (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Deepa Miriam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Already blocked for 3RR before, went back to it as soon as it expired. No amount of explanations will help here, apparently. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Antopandeth is possibly the husband of the article subject. He adds the assertion to the article and supplies Youtube videos as confirmation. However we still have no reliable source for this change in a BLP article, and it looks like he is going to revert forever, since he didn't miss a beat after the previous block. My suggestion is an indefinite block until he takes on board the point that we need a WP:RS. If this is a famous singer, her marriage should have been covered by at least one reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely per Ed Johnston for continuous violation of our BLP regulations and repeated edit warring. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Urməvi reported by User:Proudbolsahye (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11] and with edit-summaries [12] and [13]

Comments:
He/she repeatedly calls the edit-warring information "Armenian vandalism" and refuses to cooperate. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:200.164.223.179 reported by User:Taivo (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Ancient Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 200.164.223.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:76.164.103.108 reported by User:Lesion (Result: 1 week)

Page

Insulin glargine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

76.164.103.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 14:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 05:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Medical uses */"
4. 04:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Medical uses */"
5. 04:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Medical uses */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "/* edit war */ ce"
2. 13:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "/* edit war */ ce"

Comments:

Repeated warnings, temporary block and now still edit warring+ Not willing to discuss on talk page of article. Lesion (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please also look through this IP editors' User Talk history, including my comment to them that they overwrote. This editor seems to have stated that they are uninterested and/or unwilling to work within Wikipedia's rules toward its stated goals, and may be a WP:NOTHERE problem. Zad68 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the users second go round. There does not seem to be any indication that he will begin using refs rather than personal experience. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:62.168.13.98 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 3 days)

Page

Bilingual sign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

62.168.13.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC) to 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 13:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "helpful substitutions"
   2. 13:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 11:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC) "Yopie, the lover of geographical names, excluding Czechia :-) The geographical name of the Czech Republic is prohibited by Yopie! Yopie is a king of logic."
4. 13:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC) "Vandalism of Yopie"
5. 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC) ""
6. 13:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "Vandalism!"
7. 16:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "You are (unintentionally?) vandal! (see Beograd)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bilingual sign. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Tried on his talk page, without any substantial result.

Comments:

• Warned before [21]
• Personal attacks to other editors [22]
• Edit warring in other article - Prague, Yopie (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:No such user reported by User:Iadrian yu (Result: No action taken for now)

Page: Novi Sad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: No such user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29] - I think this is 4th revert in 24 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

The problem is about additional pushpin map of Vojvodina. At Novi Sad article, since it is the Capital of the province I believe it should be presented on the province map too. The map was added on March 2, and after 1 month it was contested by User:No such user. We asked for a third opinion but without a solution. I asked User:No such user several times to provide valid reason why should we delete this map but no success. Lately, this user has engaged in a slow edit war, and today he violated the WP:3RR. Adrian (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about revert count, though it's plausibly fourth. I plead guilty to the edit warring, though the behavior of my opponent is no better whatsoever, and he apparently plans to gain upper hand by reverting just enough times to get his way; I do not plan to further engage in the edit war, but the issue remains unsolved. I also acknowledge that it's rather WP:LAME, but I can't help but notice that no amount of rational argument (amply provided on the talk page by myself) can cause Adrian to even give a thought about the issue. No such user (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If it is a case of WP:LAME, please bare in mind that the article was fine until this dispute was created. Adrian (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have different notions when the dispute was created. No such user (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's a heck of a lot of reverts you've both done, and I can see no way to justify blocking only one of you when both of you are clearly edit warring. So it comes to me blocking both or neither of you, and I'd really prefer the latter, leaving both of your block logs untouched at least for the past three years. I suppose I could full protect, but I really don't see why anyone else should be locked out of the article for your sakes. So is there any chance I could get you two to just decide not to revert anymore? I would really advise getting some more eyes on the article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but No such user violated the 3RR. For me the current version of the article is unacceptable. It is a simple pushpin map, don`t see why is this such a problem. Until this user appeared, the map did`t bothered nobody. However I would accept a solution provided by an uninvolved party, whatever the solution might be. Adrian (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Warned both users. Why don't you try out dispute resolution (again)? If there's another revert war (and even if it doesn't reach 3RR, you both may be blocked. So please continue discussing on the talk page and constructively contributing to the article. Wifione ^Message 17:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the point? The current version of the article is according to No Such User. So I have to revert ? And get blocked? What about the violation of the 3RR ? One user want a map to be included , one doesn`t. How to solve this?Adrian (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Adrian, both of you have already violated 3RR. Heimstern has been quite lenient in allowing you both a chance for further discussions. Have you gone through dispute resolution appropriately? Please follow the steps listed out there and kindly do note that there is a high possibility of either of you getting block if another revert war ensues. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 19:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:79.22.0.23 reported by User:Insulam Simia (Result: 31 hours )

Page

Naples Metro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

79.22.0.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "is its official name, read the source: http://www.eavcampania.it/web/content/la-linea-napoli-giugliano-aversa"
2. 15:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "is its official name, read the source: http://www.eavcampania.it/web/content/la-linea-napoli-giugliano-aversa"
3. 15:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "here you write the truth, invented things, and the sources do not count the personal opinions"
4. 14:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "this is not the common name, but a made-up name, it is a not a railway station, read the sources"
5. 14:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "is its official name, read the source: http://www.eavcampania.it/web/content/la-linea-napoli-giugliano-aversa"
6. 14:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "is its official name, read the source: http://www.eavcampania.it/web/content/la-linea-napoli-giugliano-aversa"
7. 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "is its official name, read the source: http://www.eavcampania.it/web/content/la-linea-napoli-giugliano-aversa"
8. 12:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "removed no reason, is a subway not a railway"
9. 12:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "removed no reason, is a subway not a railway"
10. 12:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "removed no reason, is a subway not a railway"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "Final warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:FS Italia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Unfortunately, nobody has actually explained why these edits were reverted until I came around. But anyway, this user has attempted to change the name of a link to something different. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 17:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DonQuixote reported by User:41.132.116.122 (Result: No action taken)

Page: List of Doctor Who villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DonQuixote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

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

Comments:

User:DonQuixote considers himself an authority. We had a disagreement earlier on another article. Here, after I'd made 2 reverts he alerted me to the 3RR[38]. Later, he started editing the article List of Doctor Who villains, making the same edit 4 times. After his second [39] and third [40] revisions I pointed out the 3RR in my edit sumamries(as he himself had done on the previous article mere hours before). However, he would have none of it, almost immediately making a fourth revision. He claims WP:SYNTHESIS, yet this is clearly untrue. Even if it were true, he has still made the same revision 4 times on one article, after being warned twice, and after having warned me of the same thing on the previous article just a few hours earlier(I stopped editing the other article after 2 revisions and his own 3RR warning). 41.132.116.122 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why haven't you informed Don that you're discussing him here? Wifione ^Message 17:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Technically, I only reverted 3 times (I just copyedited the first time and removed the part that quoted one source saying one thing, quoted a second source saying a second thing, and implied a connection that wasn't stated explicitly). Anyway, this has already been discuss at talk:Master (Doctor Who). Anonymous dynamic IP is ignoring the talk page, and the people who agree that this is synthesis, and refusing to provide any new arguments on talk page. Was going to bring this up here myself, thanks for getting the ball rolling. DonQuixote (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Don, you've crossed the 3RR line. You have a clean block log. I'm going to block you in the next few minutes unless you show, through a statement here, a clarity of policy and an understanding of why you transgressed 3RR. Wifione ^Message 17:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I should have started a discussion on the dynamic IP's talk page, even if he ignored the ones I started on his other IPs. No excuse on my part, really. I apologise. DonQuixote (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kindly self-revert your last revert yourself. Take the discussion to the talk page. Let any other editor revert back to your (or the ip's) version for now. In the next 24 hours, please don't undertake any other revert (apart from the self-revert I expect you to be making in the next few minutes). Wifione ^Message 18:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I think it's a bit unfair that only one of the editors cops for the block here. Both editors have made the same edit four times each, but since one editor was actually removing content then that counts as a 3RR violiation, but the other editor slips the net on a technicality because he was adding content? Let's not ignore it is the editor adding content who is attempting to introduce a controversial edit. They should both get blocked, or both let off with a stern warning. The article should go back to the status quo and the issue resolved on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Only one editor has made a revert four times in the past 24 hours. The ip has reverted only three times. But I think rather than discuss this particular technicality, it's important to note that there is not going to be any block. Don's move to self-revert is a clear pointer to the fact that he may have made the fourth revert without realizing that he's crossing the line; and would keep a check in the future. So closing the discussion here with a no action taken note. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Warned and no action taken. Wifione ^Message 18:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:JTBX reported by User:Capitalismojo (Result: )

Page

Smedley Butler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JTBX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Revision as of 18:16, 18 September 2013
2. Revision as of 18:11, 18 September 2013
3. Revision as of 17:54, 18 September 2013
4. Revision as of 17:46, 18 September 2013
5. Revision as of 16:35, 18 September 2013
6. Revision as of 07:04, 18 September 2013

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[41], [42]. [43]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Thread at [Smedley Butler Lede Discussion BRD.]

Comments:

User has been asked a few times to participate in the talk page discussion. He hasn't, although he dropped in to my talk page to threaten sanctions my of edit. The two editors who have discussed this material on the article's talk page have mostly agreed about the recent lede changes. [44] The user (JTBX) has not engaged in discussion at talk and has taken an aggressive and dismissive tone in the edit summaries of his mass reverts. I note that this is an editor has had very similar problems at other articles this year.Capitalismojo (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted both Rjensen and Capitalismojo's (CM's) edits and changes to my minor fix up for the lead because if anyone with a clear conscience looks through them, beginning with his edit here for example [45], it is obvious they are engaging in censorship of views hostile to them. Information regarding the Business plot which happens to confirm some of the events as true is removed and changed and there were several times that words like "purported, supposedly" were used in sentences which made it almost laughable to read through. I tried to present a more neutral POV. CM also stated that the business plot was mentioned twice in the lead, yet his own addition added it twice [46]

In addition to all of this, there is no mention of Smedley Butler sharing left-wing or socialist views in the article, yet under the guise of ["tweaks" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smedley_Butler&diff=572605077&oldid=572592941] Rjensen and Capitalismojo both have added or readded words such as "Butler was a Socialist, left-wing speaker" simply because he happens to share some views, and a minority unknown historian's book who labelled him as such was dug up by Capitalismojo and reinstated by Rjensen in the lead using an amazon link as a reference, which coming from an apparent student of Yale that Rjsensen claims to be, is amazing. I pointed out to CM on his page that refs shouldn't be in the lead and should be moved elsewhere below, let alone the fact that the opinion is of little use. I believe CM and to a lesser extent Rjensen are engaging in slander by putting these labels in the lead without proper referencing and mentions throughout the article. For example, if "right-wing" is used in the lede for Hitler, it makes more sense than using the same descriptive for George Bush, who we know shares some views but wouldn't look proper in his lede. I believe it is they who are edit warring and this is just complete hypocrisy if you look the page history. I beleieve Wikipedia has plenty of editors like this and I do not mean it in an insulting manner, with political POVs pushing agendas whether they even know it or not (RE good faith) and I have dealt with this before, but not to this extent. I do not know what CM is referring to when he says I have had problems with other users this year. --JTBX (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought I should add that I have only realized there was a discussion at the talk of Smedley Butler now, if I was even contacted regarding this discussion then maybe we could have had a break through, but Rjensen and CM didn't contact me in anyway.--JTBX (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:1scruffy1 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: )

Page

Remington 870 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

1scruffy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 09:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 05:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "small edition"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Remington Model 870. (TW)"
2. 21:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Remington 870. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User repeatedly trying to add text about murders where the Remington 870 is said to have been used, in spite of warnings. And the user obviously has no intention of stopping, see communication with the user on User talk:Thomas.W#Remington 870 where s/he claims that the article is just "an outrageous attempt to sell more firearms". Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)