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:Stiarts erid reported by User:2602:306:BD20:C060:48F4:F811:1134:9984

User repeatedly engaged 3RR, first on The Fog (2005 film) and now George of the Jungle 2.--2602:306:BD20:C060:48F4:F811:1134:9984 (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Mdw0 reported by User:SummerWithMorons (Result: No violation)

Page: Stand-up comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mdw0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] (24 September 2013)
2. [3] [4] (26 September 2013)

Comments:
User deletes reference and the article text that it supports.

The first revert did not give any comment/explaination. In the second user said ref only amounts to "one non-conformists' opinion". It is actually from one of the most prominent authorities in the field (Milton Berle).--Sum (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2013 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple of notes on this. First, as stated, we've got someone who doesn't understand what an edit war is - three reversals, and it usually requires no explaination or twisted explaination of reasoning for an editor to be sanctioned. Rather than talk about their insertion and its appropriateness, SummerWithMorons has gone straight to edit war sanctioning. As explained in the revert and not mentioned here by an editor pushing their own case, the reasoning for deletion was that talking about 'epoxy' in reference to stand-up comedy in general cannot use a reference where one comedian comments about his own act. This does not apply to comedy broadly, and trying to use a concept of comedic 'epoxy' makes no sense without extensive context and explaination which is inappropriate in the opening paragraph about stand-up comedy.Mdw0 (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:TweetiePie1947 reported by User:Trivialist (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Person to Bunny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TweetiePie1947 (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]
5. [10]
6. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

TweetiePie1947 has been claiming that this animated short "was offically canceled out of theaters," but has not provided any sources for this claim. I recently added a sourced release date for the film, and TweetiePie1947 has been removing it and reverting the text to claim that the film was cancelled. I have left messages on TweetiePie1947's talk page and the article talk page, but have gotten no response. (Also, I'm aware that in the course of this edit war, I've done more than three reverts within a 24 hour period, and that I've probably earned some blocking too.) Trivialist (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition: TweetiePie1947 has been blocked, but now 205.223.222.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tweety1962compostion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are making the same edits. Trivialist (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Obvious sock is blocked indef and the page is protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

New sock: BugsBunny1957 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Trivialist (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition: The account Garrejones44444777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making similar edits to The Jet Cage, claiming that it was "Originally Cancelled," and replacing sourced material with unsourced material and claims. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:67.6.98.234 reported by User:The Devil's Advocate (Result: Protected)

Page: American Renaissance (magazine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.6.98.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14] and [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]
6. [21]
7. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments: A range block would be necessary as the editor has an IP that switched over the course of the edit war. Seems there is a recent history of edit-warring sparked by IP editors so semi-protection may also be desirable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected I blocked the IP on principle, although he'll probably return with another. I'd have to get a second opinion on a range block though, it looks like a fairly large range to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't even have the decency to look into both sides of the dispute or block the other edit warring parties. The complainers are blatantly POV pushing. 67.6.112.190 (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Mitrabarun reported by User:Titodutta (Result: 48 hours)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User_talk:Mitrabarun and User_talk:Titodutta

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

Comments:
They are continuously changing BLP's surname spelling, the surname was decided after an RM. So, just can't not be changed like that. And they are uploading copyrighted images, claiming as "PD" and using in articles. The worst thing is, they are impolite. You generally lose interest to teach someone when he starts shouting at you (see my talk page). I have not reverted recent edit. --Tito☸Dutta 10:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - 48 hours. User was previously blocked on 9 September for a copyright issue. I'm also move protecting the article. Any further changes of the title should go through WP:RM. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Jgbuford, User:68.11.129.178, and User:106.177.33.149 reported by User:Thibbs (Result: Protected)

Page: Patriotic Nigras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
Jgbuford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.11.129.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
106.177.33.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29] - original inserted 30 May 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Insertion of falsely cited material:

1. [30] - revert of 24 September
2. [31] - revert of 28 September
3. [32] - 2nd revert in 24h (9/28/13)
4. [33] - 3rd revert in 24h (9/28/13)

Removal of cleanup tags indicating that material is falsely cited:

1. [34] - revert of 28 September
2. [35] - 2nd revert in 24h (9/28/13)
3. [36] - 3rd revert in 24h (9/28/13)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings:
[37]
[38]
[39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
[40]
Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on user talk pages:
[41]
[42]

Comments:
I was recommended here from RFPP. I know 3RR hasn't yet been violated but edit warring is clearly taking place and I expect it will be very shortly. I have tried both strategies of (1) removing the falsely cited material and (2) tagging it for cleanup, but both efforts have been reverted multiple times. The editor seems to only communicate through rare edit summaries, and he is clearly using a dynamic IP and possibly proxies or meatpuppets (IPs geolocate to Southern USA and Japan) so I believe we'll need page protection to coax him to the talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for 2 days. I noticed that you also violated 3RR on that article; however, I can see that the edits you were reverting could be perceived as vandalism. I'm not certain that the vandalism is as obvious as is required at WP:NOT3RR, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I suggest you continue trying to discuss this with the editors - if they continue to be unresponsive it will be a clearer indication that they are not acting in good faith. I would advise that, in the future, you take more care with this kind of edit which is not blatant vandalism (in the way that page blanking or inserting offensive material is) and avoid breaching 3RR. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for protecting the page. I hope this will inspire Jgbuford to use the talk page. I don't believe I violated 3RR, though. I reverted the addition of this information only 3 times, and after adding citation-needed tags I reverted to restore them only 3 times. The original placement of the citation-needed tags can't be considered a reversion, right? I agree that there should be better ways to go about this. The bottom line is that the falsely-cited information had to either be removed or tagged as unreliable, but perhaps it would have been better to have drawn it out over several days or something. What I actually did was to go to WP:RFPP where I was told to file a report here. At that time neither Jgbuford nor I were up to the 3RR line yet so I worried that I'd be dismissed here too unless I carried on for a few more iterations. As indicated above, I don't believe Jgbuford has violated 3RR yet either. At least not the letter of the rule. The only reason I came here was to get page protection after RFPP passed the buck. I find RFPP to be singularly difficult to get help from. -Thibbs (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• In retrospect, actually, I should have started escalating warning templates immediately and then just gone to AIV. I've had a lot more success with the admins there than those at RFPP. -Thibbs (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, 3RR explicitly states that 3RR applies whether involving the same or different material - so the fact that you first remove content, then restored tags wouldn't justify exceeding three reverts on the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize how strict the rule is and I'll certainly avoid a repetition in the future. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Legendaryloser reported by User:NeilN (Result: 72h)

Page

Rahul Gandhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC) "achievments"
2. 15:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574870760 by NeilN (talk)"
3. 16:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC) "refreced nickname"
4. 16:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Rahul Gandhi. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[43]

Comments:

Editor warring to add derogatory nickname to infobox and lede. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72h. I'd just blocked on this one and noticed this report when I came to leave the block notice. Black Kite (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:67.169.46.25 reported by User:immblueversion (Result: No violation)

Page: Fairy Tail the Movie: Phoenix Priestess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.169.46.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]

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

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

Comments:

IP user 67.169.46.25 has periodically changed name translations for one section of the article to reflect non-primary works. As per MOS:AM, all other pages related to Fairy Tail use the translations in the primary Kodansha USA manga releases. User:Immblueversion (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• No violation, and I can't see any evidence that you've tried discussing this with the user. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:159.83.196.1 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked)

Page: Randy Rhoads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 159.83.196.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. You are wrong. There are three LEGITIMATE sources that prove his name as Randall William Rhoads. iTunes has to use REAL NAMES.
2. No, it does not.
3. diff
4. iTunes biography is a reliable source.
5. iTunes biography is very reliable.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, I was HGing and I found this.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnny Squeaky reported by User:SummerPhD (Result: Article locked; Johnny Squeaky warned)

Page

Soylent Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Johnny Squeaky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Cultural impact */"
2. 16:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Cultural impact */"
3. 01:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Cultural impact */ Being HONEST. That's what Wikipedia is about, right?"
4. 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Cultural impact */ This is trivia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warning to subject: [49] Resolution initiative: Talk:Soylent Green#Trivia? SummerPhD (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I locked the article for three days and warned Johnny Squeaky on his talk page. If anyone wishes to know why I did not block Johnny Squeaky, it's explained in my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Computerarts reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Reinserted important fact
2. Undid revision 574716989 as it removed important info
3. [50]
4. Undid revision 573520946 by Ihardlythinkso (talk) Put back vital tournament information
5. [51]
6. Added back important fact about the tournament, the fact is referenced in the chess.com article.
7. Undid revision 573174102 as info is highly relevant for tournament

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Magnus Carlsen#Trivia ‎

Comments:
Computerarts has only reverted twice in the last 24 hours but has reverted the disputed content into the article seven times over the last two weeks. When they do go to the article talk page they remove others comments such as [53], [54] and [55]. Warnings on their talk page are removed with responses of "yawn", [56], [57], [58], and [59]. They do not seem to understand the necessity of discussion. GB fan 12:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. In addition to the points made by GB fan, the user has created two articles that have been speedily deleted as hoaxes and edit warred in other articles. In their short editing history here, they don't appear to do anything useful. I came close to indeffing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Dondraper1993 reported by User:TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: )

Page: Delhi state assembly elections, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• Dondraper1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and the potential sockpuppets

• Draperdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.171.137.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]
5. [65]
6. [66]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:

• its not clear to me if the Draperdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a particularly st00pid attempt at sockpuppeting or an attempt to frame Dondraper1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? but the IP is making the same edits as the primary account. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Xmisstree reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Shraddha Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "Kapoor's Official Page on Twitter - I cannot imagine a more credible source than the actress herself! She received all her Birthday wishes on March 2. References for age are fresh - leading national magazine & national news channel. Thanks."
2. 20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575043938 by SpacemanSpiff (talk)"
3. 20:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 18:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Birthday sources */ 3RR"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The edits are a bit messy, but the gist of it is that they are adding a poorly sourced DoB. I left a message on their talk page before they added it again for a fourth time. James^x12345 20:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:184.97.132.157 reported by User:Astrocog (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

Blue Line (Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574939261 by Astrocog (talk)"
2. 13:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574761319 by Astrocog (talk)"
3. 16:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574480646 by Astrocog (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Blue Line (Minnesota). (TW)"
2. 00:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Blue Line (Minnesota). (TW)"
3. 00:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Deaths sections on the Blue Line (Minnesota) article */ new section"
4. 21:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "edit warring warning - please engage in a discussion"
5. 21:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Deaths sections on the Blue Line (Minnesota) article */ sig"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Deaths Section */ continuous reverts - if it keeps up an administrator should be consulted"

Comments:

This IP continues to revert edits despite a talk page consensus, and despite repeated requests to engage in a talk page discussion. AstroCog (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lollywoodcafe reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Malik Noureed Awan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lollywoodcafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 27 September
2. 27 September
3. 28 September
4. 30 September
5. 30 September

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Welcome message with link to EW policy, Edit Warring warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Malik Noureed Awan#Problems with the article

Comments:

A single purpose account dedicated to promotion of the subject is persistently edit warring without participating in any discussion at the talk. --SMS ^Talk 06:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:128.147.45.149 reported by User:Mike Rosoft (Result: )

Page: Cehu Silvaniei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (See also the user's edits at Szilágy County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs))
User being reported: 128.147.45.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original revision: [68]

The user is adding unreferenced material/original research to the two articles; when reverted, restores his version and continues expanding it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. dif1
2. dif2
3. dif3
4. dif4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69] and [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Not on article talk page; asked to stop and explain the edits on user talk page, to no avail. See above.)

Comments:

User:Ajaxfiore reported by User:AbuRuud (Result: )

Page: Jorge Erdely Graham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Page: Casitas del Sur case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments: This case involves the same information over two different pages

AbuRuud (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)