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:Minar-e-pakistan reported by User:Darkness Shines

User has managed to find the talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Page: Rape in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Minar-e-pakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [1] 1st revert: [2] Removes reliably sourced content 2nd revert: [3] 3rd revert: [4] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] I have asked the user to self revert as the edits he is making are not supported by the sources, he continues to restore them. [7] this is pure WP:OR as is this[8] which I can only describe as a hideous attitude. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

User115.188.247.153 reported by User:Callanecc (Result: )

Page: India and weapons of mass destruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 115.188.247.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (see comments section)

1. 21:28, 19 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 05:55, 21 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 01:45, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 07:55, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 12:23, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 19:32, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 19:31, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
8. 11:52, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
9. 22:40, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
10. 21:01, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
11. 01:06, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
12. 02:26, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
13. 03:02, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Comments:

Regarding the previous version reverted to - this is a long term issue so I'm not 100% sure where the best version to return to would be. This report is on the IP user, but it may also be worth looking at the actions of Anir1uph (talk · contribs). Note: there has also been a talk|history|links|watch|logs)|submission on WP:RPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:SumerianPrince reported by User:Abhishek191288 (Result: 31 hours)

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

• 1st revert: 1
• 2nd revert: 2
• 3rd revert: 3
• 4th revert: 4

Link of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Comments:

May not be a violation of 3RR in 24 hrs, but it is a slow motion edit war. User has been in an edit war in the same article before. — Abhishek  ^Talk 13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Tourbillon reported by User:Ceco31 (Result: stale)

Page: Bulgaria
User being reported: User:Tourbillon

Previous version : [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]
• 5th revert: [15]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17] - I suggest that this is the attempt, but as I was not participator in the edit-war I am not sure

Comments: I was sure I missed to report Tourbillon for breaking three revert rule somewhere back in time and checked the history of Bulgaria article for the near past, I find myself wrong and found maximum 3 reverts by Tourbillon in the edit-wars between me and him, but I came to May and I saw that he made 5 reverts in a 24 hour period in edit-war between him and different person/s, I am noting that this edit-war was not between me and him but between him and three others - 109.242.16.227, 69.253.167.49, 65.95.212.202 - and that these IPs are not mine, because I am falsely accused that I have sock-puppets. That's the only one for which I report the user- three revert rule. He has also bad behavour, but I do not want to describe it, you can start with his statements in the talk page of Bulgaria, usually he do not humiliate himself to answer the others' statements wheter they are long or short while intrudes insolently his opinion in the page without proving why and without missing a revert as the onlyone owner. --Ceco31 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: The filing user has been suspected of sockpuppetry by me and at least three other users. At least one of his suspected IP socks was involved in block evasions. [18] He has been continuously edit-warring against me, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Chipmunkdavis, User:WilliamThweatt, and at least one other user (User:Jingiby) has reverted his edits. Currently he and the suspected puppet are the only ones partaking into a lengthy content dispute, in which the user/his meat/sockpuppets are actively refusing to WP:HEAR the other side. Other POV-pushing can be found in the contributions history of the user. I believe this proposal is yet another classical example of WP:POINT. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: I am only noticing to the administrators that all this is defamation against me, I have no socks nor three other users say that. I will not engage with lies anymore.--Ceco31 (talk)

• Stale. The diffs supplied above are two months stale. Accusations of sockppetry can be resolved at SPI. Kuru (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: )

Page: Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kazemita1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: [21]
• 3rd revert: [22]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24] and [25]

Comments:
Editor is editing pretty clearly against consensus. Took it to WP:AN for unknown reasons and now seems to think that (s)he has some sort of administrative carte blanche to add material. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think that a 24 hour block would be in order. Electric Catfish 23:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

On my defense, there was no attempt in resolving the dispute from the plaintiff's side. There was no mention of a specific part of my edit except for the removal of the summary of the viewpoints of the criticizers here. Which I addressed immediately and gradually during my last 3 edits; yet the plaintiff is counting that as an edit war. Moreover, on the talk page I kept requesting them to mention which specific part they disagree, but heard no response other than bulk reverts of disputed and non-disputed material by different users. I also, argue that wrong sentences, such as "Dawkins' criticizers are all Christian thinkers" does not require consensus to correct when we have atheist like Michael Ruse in the article on his opposite side.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Besides the fact that my edits are all different and are moving towards the middle-ground, don't we need 4 edits for 3RR?

I issued the warning a full half hour before your third rv. Had you read the warning you would have seen this "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of "behavior", I am continuing my effort in resolving the issues in the talk page. You are also invited to attend.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You still do not seem to understand that you violated 3RR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:GabeMc reported by User:99.251.125.65 (Result: )

Page:Pink Floyd  
GabeMc:

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

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:This the/The argument has been under dispute for many years. This editor has launched a mediation for this edit and while the medcom board is deciding continues to make the same changes at various musical group articles. He was warned and stopped on several Beatles articles in the previous week for the same edit.

99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I have stayed away from Beatles articles this weekend to avoid this constant drama and harassment. Now, you have followed me to Pink Floyd and a boomerang is forthcoming. Can an admin please put an end to this time waster. This account was made for the sole purpose to fight for this issue while attacking me and posting creepy messages on my talk page, they have accused me of having an "agreement" with them, and are trying some type of psychological warfare/stalking/harassment. They are perhaps even the master of the Beatlesgirl socks, I don't know, just please, someone end this nonsense! I'm not gonna bother posting diffs unless needed or asked, just take a browse through, you'll see what I mean. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oh yeah, this is also a fake report because I never reverted them once at Pink Floyd, or anywhere to my knowledge. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  Slay the troll. Now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: )

Page: Chick-fil-A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

• 1st revert: [32]
• 2nd revert: [33]
• 3rd revert: [34]
• 4th revert: n/a -- this report is for persistent WP:EW

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [35], warning for edit warring at Focus on the Family 2 days ago
2. [36], warning for ew at Poli positions of Mitt Romney
3. [37], warning for EW at Chick-Fil-A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:

This user is edit warring across multiple political/controversial articles, against multiple editors, and without consensus.

While this is a new user, they demonstrate familiarity with our policies and I'd recommend waiving WP:BITE due to the rampant disruption. A review of their contribs suggests that they are a WP:single-purpose account. While there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, a SPA who edit wars is particularly troublesome. To their credit this user does use the talk pages and WP:DRN, but IMO that does not excuse the edit warring across multiple pages against multiple editors. I would resist allowing the user to use their talk page participation as an excude to revert "per discussion." The edit summaries they leave when reverting make no claim of exemption under WP:3RRNO. As we move closer to the US Elections, we can't have these types of users wreaking havoc with our political articles. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For context, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ViriiK&diff=next&oldid=504532076, in which Lionelt outlines his plan to get me blocked. If you want to help him game the system by using you like a tool, please block me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I updated the links for notices of edit warring to show my responses, in which I pointed out that the warnings were false. Feel free to ask them to show actual edit warring as opposed to their false reports of edit-warring. While you're at it, ask why this[39] was mislabeled as a minor edit. Good day. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no plan to get Still blocked. Noone is forcing him to repeatedly hit the "revert" button. The warnings were not false. They were placed in good faith and based on disruptive behavior. He chose to 1RR, 2RR, 3RR. Noone made him do it. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your own words, which I linked to, contradict your claim. Nothing you say now can unsay what you already admitted to. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A comment: I'm not part of this dispute (I've just been watching Still and trying to offer helpful advice), but if you want to consider whether Still is a SPA, you may also want to also look at his contribs under his IP before he signed up. It's true that most of his edits since signing up have been on political articles, but he started out broadly and for a while had an emphasis on philosophy articles (which is where I first met him). It seems to be a shared IP, but I'm pretty sure most of those edits were his based on our interactions, and perhaps he could clarify that. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair question, so I'll be glad to answer it. Yes, the edits from my IP for the last few weeks before I created the account all look like mine. Frankly, I'd prefer to go back to improving philosophy articles, but I keep running into serious WP:NPOV violations on political pages, which I've had to escalate to dispute resolution. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So, will you stop edit warring? Both of you? Pro-family and anti-gay can be dissembled to mean whatever you like... why don't you just take out the terms entirely? Chick-fil-A isn't anti-gay, they just don't believe their company needs to support gay marriage. Pro-family tends to mean pro-traditional-family. And anti-gay can be construed however you like. Some people might call Chick-fil-A anti-gay. Some people might not. Point is... don't edit war. If you think some other wording is wrong, don't keep warring over the content. Get a consensus and then put that in. Like I said, this might have been easily resolved by just taking that wording out entirely. Instead of saying Focus on the Family is pro-family or anti-gay, why not just say something like "Focus on the Family, which is opposed to gay marriage and encourages a traditional family, blah blah blah." OK, no more edit warring, yes? -- Avanu (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Woa cowboy. "Both" of you? I wasn't edit warring. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I have no interest in edit-warring. I have brought multiple articles to Dispute Resolution in order to resolve these issues. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's great that you went to DRN. However that is not a license to edit war. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have redacted the ad hominem comment above --DBigXray 07:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)