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:Poofdragon reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: )

Page

Jim Morrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

05:01, December 28, 2015 (UTC) "Add mention of Mary Werbelow, with reference. The interviewer and Doors drummer Densmore refer to Werbelow as a major inspiration in the early Doors lyrics"

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721128561 by CorbieVreccan (talk) I put all my sources there. Be specific to remove ONLY what is not sourced not all the information."
2. 22:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721122019 by CorbieVreccan (talk) I sourced the added information."
3. 22:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721122019 by CorbieVreccan (talk) I did put sources. Be specific of what isn't sourced before removing anything,"
4. 17:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721066407 by CorbieVreccan (talk) Mary Werbelow is well documented as as early girlfriend of Jim Morrison in books, articles, and documentaries."
5. 14:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697163101 by CorbieVreccan (talk) Mary Werbelow was Jim Morrison's girlfriend in college. https://madameask.com/2014/10/06/interview-with-paul-ferrara-doors-photographer/"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jim Morrison. (TW)"
2. 22:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jim Morrison . (TW)"
3. 22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jim Morrison. (TW)"
4. 22:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "ANI"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Mary Werebelow or whoever she is */ new section"
2. 22:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Mary Werebelow or whoever she is */ BLP concerns from this SPA"

Comments:

User has refused to engage on their talk page, on article talk page, or at ANI. User inserts bare URLs to google results, blogs and fanzines and deletes stable content sourced to major publishing houses. User is a SPA who has only edited this article. User hits "undo" and calls it "sourcing" in edit summary. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: User finally responded at ANI, wanting to argue about the girlfriends of Morrison's youth. The issue at hand isn't what love affairs of a notable person should or shouldn't be footnotes in their bios, the issue is with this SPA's edit-warring, the unusable, WP:BLP-vio text, the non-WP:RS sourcing and refusal to engage with other editors. The SPA continues to just hit "undo" and is now removing stable text to put in complete crap. I know fan-driven disruptions like this drive good editors away and it's happening now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have responded many times and did not get a response. User:KoshVorlon responded and acknowledged that I had properly paraphrased and sourced my information. [[Ping}} [[User:KoshVorlon] ] [[User::CorbieVreccan]] removes information without explanation and in this case a simple search would prove Mary Werbelow was a documented influential relationship for Jim Morrison. Here is what CorbieVreccan removed: CorbieVreccan said: "Reverted to revision 697010607 by Ptb1997: Take it to the talk page. This was here in past then deleted. It needs more sourcing than just one statement/interview by someone no one else seems to have heard of. ." Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV by removing "allegedly": Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV by removing "allegedly": Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV altho a simple search would show that the couple obtained the marriage license on a visit while the band was on tour: CorbieVreccan repeatedly has wiped out fact-checked relationship information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Morrison&diff=583017737&oldid=583017404 Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV with and removing good information with: "Jim liked to read about Natives. I care about Jim, but he didn't know anything about the Ghost Dance ceremony." Can CorbieVreccan verify what Jim knew?: Poofdragon (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: This issue was resolved so I put the sourced and paraphrased information back. Here was the resolution:  Poofdragon (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-Warrior_at_Jim_Morrison

References

The proof is here that I sourced and paraphrased correctly: "Heck no, what he's posting , for example | this link you pointed to in your post above is referenced to a reliable newspaper, and he's accurately paraphrasing what's in that article, as he did in the Jim MOrrison article. I think a boomerang is due. KoshVorlon 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)"

Nothing was resolved. Long after passing 3RR with the bare URL dumps and 4 hits on "undo", long after being reported here and at ANI an uninvolved user - who seems unfamiliar with the material - made a comment. That is not "resolution" as this requires admin intervention. More recently, this SPA has started dumping long, confusing rants here and at the talk page. None of it helps resolve anything as the user still does not understand how to properly source or write an article. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the history of Jim Morrison as you say, you would know how influential Mary Werbelow's relationship with Jim was to their music as he claimed the first two albums were about her besides she is well documented. This is easily searchable.

This page is about Jim Morrison not Patricia Kennealy who is the only person claiming their was witnesses at her apartment for a late night "hand-fasting ceremony" and she is the only witness that he called her his wife nor have any letters she claims to have been made public. (Sole source/Self-reporting at a later date/No collaboration with Morrison's family,band, or friends). If you want to promote her point of view then you must mention that in her autobiography where she claims there were witnesses she also shows a picture of the certificate with "blacked out" names where the priest and witness's names would be' so no there any proof that anyone other than Patricia performed this ceremony or she had seen him more than a handful of days before the ceremony. She made claims to be his wife much later when she started using Morrison on her book that came out 20 years later. The Doors or the family of Jim did acknowledge her in any way. There is only one picture of her and Jim where she cropped someone else out that was at the office with them. There are plenty of accounts of woman who knew well. Kennealy seems to have only seen him a handful of times since meeting in January 1970 and the ceremony in June 1970 which she stated she did not think he took it too seriously with "probably not too serious". Poofdragon (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This link shows that CorbieVreccan has a history of removing this same information that I added back with a book reference and they removed again. Who really is the "edit warrior"? They added unspurced information and a blog. I see CorbieVreccan has dozens of edits at that same Wikipedia page but on Jim Morrison's page there needs to be a fair representation of who he actually was his girlfriend or wife versus who he dated . Poofdragon (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Poofdragon doesn't appear to know the difference between including a link to a BLP's official site/blog, and relying on fanzine blogs as sources in other articles. Reliable bok publishers vet their content with their legal teams, and it's rather offensive to a reputable publisher to sprinkle "alleged" on some content and not on others, due to POV pushing.

But again: any discussion about sources should have happened on the article talk page. This noticeboard and report is about Poofdragon's aggressive violations of 3RR. Productive editors get driven away when aggressive SPAs are allowed to disrupt like this. Usually, we find other, connected issues with SPAs and I expect this situation will be no different. Clearly not enough productive editors have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the skeleton armies that cluster round fan-attracting articles like this one. It's unfortunate. Maybe protecting the article would be better if no one is willing to act on the 3RR violations. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 05:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

References

User:24.251.29.163 reported by User:Strawberry4Ever (Result: Blocked)

Page: Drew Massey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.251.29.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Initially the edit war was over categories. Later I made this edit to remove redundant maintenance tags and empty sections, which was reverted with the 3rd and 4th diffs below: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

24.251.29.163 also reverted my comment on the talk page: [9]. Semi-protection of Drew Massey might avoid disruptive edits by 24.251.29.163, at least for a while. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP one month for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User:87.3.91.177 reported by User:MjolnirPants (Result: Semi)

Page: Talk:Electronic harassment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.3.91.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]
6. [16]
7. [17]
8. [18]
9. [19]
10. [20]
11. [21]
12. [22]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None - these reverts are pure vandalism, look at the edit summaries.

Comments: Other IPs this individual claims to be using are:

• 80.117.21.77
• 95.252.92.104
• 87.1.112.55
• 87.3.91.177
• 87.6.119.119
  

I think a range block might be needed. I've already requested page protection, but this IP seems intent on having a meltdown and hiding behind a range of DHCP addresses. I'll do whatever needs to be done to get this happening, if anyone can direct me where to go to get the ball rolling. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Talk page semiprotected one month. A range block would be impractical. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:174.31.139.166 reported by User:Dhinawda (Result: Page protected)

Page: Galkayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.31.139.166 (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. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

This user has various IP and has been causing vandalism to the Galkayo page

Page protected – 2 weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Urutine32 reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: )

Page: Capital punishment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Urutine32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25] 12:58, 1 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,109 bytes) (-503)‎ . . (Details about US unfit for this worldwide article)
2. [26] 13:01, 1 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (143,791 bytes) (-503)‎ . . (Because I have justified my edit, Clubjustin4 should explain why he disagree for reverting it)
3. [27] 15:20, 1 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (143,791 bytes) (-821)‎ . . (That "international statistics could also be included of course" is not a counter argument to my 12:58 edit summary. That "I think it's valid info in that section as it stands anyway" is petitio principii. Give real arguments in the talk page.)
4. [28] 08:12, 3 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,610 bytes) (-703)‎ . . (→‎Movements towards non-painful execution: See talk page)
5. [29] 07:37, 23 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (142,475 bytes) (-716)‎ . . (Undid revision 721630856 by Signedzzz (talk) See talk page)
6. [30] 18:57, 23 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (142,501 bytes) (-716)‎ . . (Undid revision 721688506 byMr Serjeant Buzfuz --- I have already explained this and refuted you in the talk page. Stop this edit war without giving argument other than petitio principii)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Capital_punishment#.22Botched_executions.22, User_talk:Signedzzz#Edit_warring_.E2.80.94_Capital_punishment

Comments:

This is not about 24hour-3RR, this is edit-warring and general disruption. User has reverted 3 other users, including 3 reverts after being warned. Claims to have "refuted" everyone. zzz (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Read attentively the two (short) talk pages, to see how Signedzzz completely avoided to answer my arguments, with bad faith, and now issue this false report to avoid continuing discussion by lack of serious argument to maintain outdated domestic data in a worldwide article. Urutine32 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the first to complain about Signedzzz, an administrator do so recently. He had been blocked four times the previous two years by four different administrators, me never. Urutine32 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Diffs 1 through 6 seem to show a pattern of long term edit warring by User:Urutine32. They may be able to avoid a block if they will agree not to remove this material again until they have obtained consensus to do so on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Venkat sagi reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked)

Page

Perike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Venkat sagi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721828420 by Sitush (talk)"
2. 09:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721828006 by Sitush (talk)"
3. 09:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721824516 by Sitush (talk)"
4. [32]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [33]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [34]

Comments:

• This is just repeating the same poor, puffed-up claims that led to RegentsPark semi-protecting the article in April. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Now another revert - see this. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked--regentspark (comment) 13:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:165.225.32.70 reported by User:Vorziblix (Result: Blocked)

Page: Boris I of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 165.225.32.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments: Since this IP’s edit-warring concerned multiple articles with the same issue, I made the attempt at discussion and resolving the dispute on the user’s talk page rather than duplicating it across multiple article talk pages.

Vorziblix (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Nyttend. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Jwe345 reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked )

Page

J. Edgar Hoover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jwe345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC) "rewrite section then readd, reduce length."
2. 01:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC) "will continue to remove sexuality section until the content is rewritten in less rambling, conspiratorial fashion"
3. 07:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Sexuality */ Until a rewrite can be conducted with a beginning, middle and end, this section needs to be removed from the article. Out of order anecdotes need to be put in order or removed entirely. If section reintroduced, condense"
4. 06:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Sexuality */ Removed the entire section on sexuality. Section is rambling and poorly written. Section should not be added until sources reevaluated and are removed. Considering the work/life of the figure, sexuality section is too large in scope"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on J. Edgar Hoover. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Section opened on talk page: Talk:J. Edgar Hoover#Sexuality redux: What belongs in this section? - MrX 01:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am willing to block as the User:Jwe345 has clearly violated 3RR. Their last edit was one minute after the final warning. However, it is possible that they didn't see the final warning till after they made that revert and they have not edited since then. If they revert any one of the multiple people who have reverted them, I support a block and, if needed, will do it myself when I'm back on. For the moment I'm willing to wait a bit longer and see if they will accept the obvious consensus here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 04:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment They did it again, twice, CorbieVreccan. 1 2: That is too bad. MisterRandomized (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 05:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Gentlejackjones reported by User:Meters (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48] left on the user's talk page (not mine)

Comments:

User has the interesting idea [49] [50] that I am edit warring by removing his repeated unwanted comments from my own talk page. The article edits he was initially warned for [51] had been discussed on his talk page, and I had left notice that I would open discussions on the talk pages of the articles being discussed The Hunger Games (novel), The Hunger Games and Suzanne Collins. After being told twice to stay off my talk page [52] and [53] he restored the edit twice more on my page, and then left a further comment [54]. Meters (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And now a false notice of an AN3 case against me [55] Meters (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Meter reported by User: Gentlejackjones (Result: )

Page: The Hunger Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Meter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56] Too many to place diff for each.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:

Extremely unfriendly and hostile user who garbs themselves in the apparent authority of an admin and set the tone of me for this interaction by accusing me of disruptive editing and threatening a block. A true internet bully who has already chilled the speech of many others. See the abuse of warnings here: [59]. I tried to reason with this user, and their harassment only continued. See: [60].

I wanted to avoid y'all having your time taken up by this, but in retrospect, this user is a true problem user and should get an official sanction for their repeated violations of Wikipedia's salutary policies of openness and inclusion. I truly hope that someone reviews User:Meter's conduct and lets them know that they are acting to the community's detriment. If corrected, I think the user's apparent time investment in the site could be a benefit to Wikipedia and its community.

On the issue of The Hunger Games, I'm fine with the present version as edited, and I was only trying to present the controversy in a manner commensurate with the fanfare it received in the media. I no longer care about the Hunger Games issue and simply don't want to be bullied by Meter, because all my life I've stood up to bullies and tried to support the underdogs.

Thanks and sorry for taking up your time!