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

Request

Page: Negroni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
reported by: Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

By this means I'm requesting the opinion of other administrators in the situation being discussed here: Talk: Negroni. My intentions are that the situation does not become a full blown edit war and opinions from noninvolved administrators are more them welcomed. I apologize if this is not the proper forum to announce such a request. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Vividuppers reported by User:ChrisO (Result: 31 h)

• Page: Michael E. Mann
• User being reported: Vividuppers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st reversion: 11:56, 25 December 2009
• 2nd reversion: 12:22, 25 December 2009
• 3rd reversion: 12:33, 25 December 2009
• 4th reversion: 13:27, 25 December 2009

• Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Comments

User:Vividuppers is repeatedly reverting to an old version of this article to restore material that was previously removed by several different editors on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV grounds. He has been requested to discuss his changes but has dismissed the previous discussions of this material as "bullshit" [3] and has continued edit-warring to reintroduce it. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The first diff doesn't count because I immediately reverted it as it was a mistake. A look at the talk page shows I am discussing the issue, whereas ChrisO isn't, and is simply attempting to get me blocked. Vividuppers (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The presence of an ongoing discussion involving BLP issues is what makes this case particularly worrying. Vividuppers is warring against the efforts of multiple editors to keep the problematic material out of the article while issues are resolved. Chris Owen's pertinent comments about the material were given in a discussion on 20-21st December, which Vividuppers studiously avoids addressing. --TS 13:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This guy has a history with BLP problems. Remember the Robert Fisk problem? Of course you do, as that was Vividuppers over at fisking in May.[4][5] Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours. WP:BLP/N is the appropriate venue if you believe that the Biographies of living persons policy is being used to chill debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  Probably a bit too much as he had ceased editing some hours before the block. For that reason, should he come back soon and resolve to work in community with the other editors I would recommend an early unblock. --TS 03:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be okay with that. If Vividuppers resolves to wait for consensus at the talkpage (and, ideally, engage a little more productively), unblocking would be a good move. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User:suwaidanmd reported by User:sgmiller (Result:Page protected for two weeks )

Page: Tareq Al-Suwaidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: suwaidanmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tareq_Al-Suwaidan&diff=334023181&oldid=334010759

1. 00:11, 26 December 2009
2. 00:12, 26 December 2009
3. 00:17, 26 December 2009
4. 00:35, 26 December 2009
5. 01:09, 26 December 2009

Also: (this is same user with I.P. 199.212.7.17 but not signing , see discussion page)

1. 02:39, 26 December 2009
2. 03:16, 26 December 2009
3. 00:17, 26 December 2009
4. 00:35, 26 December 2009
5. 01:09, 26 December 2009
6. 21:46, 25 December 2009

1) The sentence "is a Kuwaiti entrepreneur, Islamic author and speaker, and a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood." has been changed to ""is a Kuwaiti entrepreneur, Islamic author and speaker" multiple times in the last 12 hours.

This section has been deleted multiple times in the last 12 hours:

"Al-Suwaidan has been linked to activities associated with Hamas and has called for Muslims to "liberate the Holy Land" saying that "Muslims would sacrifice their sons for the holy mosque of Al Aqsa.[16] In May 2007, Al-Suwaidan was listed by federal prosecutors, along with a group of U.S Muslim Brotherhood members, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, convicted along with its leaders of financing Hamas.[17][18] [19] Al-Suwaidan has not been charged in any associated prosecutions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Suwaidanmd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tareq_Al-Suwaidan

Comments:

This article has been continually reverted by the same user acting under his user ID and unsigned with the same ID address. Basically, the user reverts almost all material that he feels is "negative" using constantly shifting rationale. Where discussion is provided, it usually concerns one aspect but the entire page is being reverted to the same version . The reversions center on three issues:

1) The identification of the subject as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood. The identification has been referenced to an article from a Canadian newspaper which "which called the subject "a U.S.-trained management consultant and a leader of Kuwait's moderate Muslim Brotherhood party." The user requested a reference yet despite this reference, all mention of the subject as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood have been reverted multiple times.

2) The subject's statement calling for Muslims to "liberate the Holy Land" saying that "Muslims would sacrifice their sons for the holy mosque of Al Aqsa." This was referenced to a Chicago Sun Times article. It has been continually reverted because the user has stated that such statements "give a false impression." No evidence has been presented to document this such as statements about the Mideast conflict that are in contradiction.

3) The inclusion of the subjects designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. This fact has been reverted perhaps 50 times in the history of the article on the basis that the subject was not charged although, by definition, an unindicted co-conspirator is one who is alleged to have participated but is not charged.

First, the user demanded references and references had either been provided or were further enhanced.

Next, the user shifted his opposition stating "In the coat rack article WP states that it does not matter if the references are true, what matters is that the article doesn't become a coat rack for everything a subject has ever said or done. I will continue revisions based on this." The user has stated he feels that even though all of the facts are true, it is misleading and an example of a "coat rack" article saying "until you pose an argument against the abovementioned WP article [on coat rack articles] I will continue to revert WITHOUT discussion." An argument was made against the article yet the user is still reverting without discussion.

In the latest iteration of the reverting, the user has stated that he is enforcing "the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced" event though there is no such unsourced content.

I would also note that the user has engaged in personal attacks call me at different times a " skewed pundit", an "anti-Islamist activist with slanted views", and "anti-Islamic."

Sgmiller (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for two weeks, the alternative, without being sure about the BLP issues, seemed to be to block everyone and I'm loathe to do that. This should provide time for sorting out any BLP issues. I note what appears to be sockpuppetry - Sgmiller, you might want to file an SPI request. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to resolve this in discussion and if not, put up a notice on the BLP board. I assume SPI is Sock Puppet Investigation but I am not sure how to do this. Can you help me with this?Sgmiller (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes - read WP:SPI. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars

Some anonymous user with a changing IP address keeps changing "Casshan" (the way it is spelled in the latest version of the game) to Casshern (the way it is spelled in every other English translation). He has changed it about seven times now. Link. Also, this edit summary includes a personal attack. Pikamander2 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User:The359 reported by User:MDesjardinss (Result:Page protected for two weeks )

I don't know what this user's problem is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The359

Edit warring on Yuma, Arizona. *Note user has been blocked for edit warring before.(MDesjardinss (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Protected the article for two weeks. Looking into sockpuppet issue as well; seems fairly clear what his issue is.  :) Kuru ^talk 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Kuru! :)(MDesjardinss (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

User:Epeefleche reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: )

Page: Northwest Airlines Flight 253 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]: Best I can tell as far as text goes (the original addition; issues with image is pretty simple to see

• 1st revert: 10:34 26 December
• 2nd revert: 3:39 27 December
• 3rd revert: 3:51
• 4th revert: 4:00
• 5th revert: 4:04
• 6th revert: 4:45
• (7th revert: 10:57)
• I don't know if this gets counted too.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] for a recent one.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] Not a diff, but section.

Comments:

More recent reverts are adding an image that multiple editors felt was not needed and inappopriate. Grsz¹¹ 05:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:92.14.114.234 reported by User:The JPS (Result: )

Page: Waterloo Road Comprehensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 92.14.114.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resistance to implement the consensus achieved at the AFD. Three different editors [9] [10] [11] turned the article to redirect to the main Waterloo Road (TV series) (per AFD). The user's comments [12] [13] indicate that he intends to go against the AFD decision. Please note the dynamic IP. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Zsero reported by User:Mamalala (Result: No vio)

Page: Witelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]

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

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

Comments:

I'm new here but I feel already fully unwelcome by the behaviour of this established editor. He repeatedly reverted almost every edit of mine[[21]][[22]][[23]][[24]][[25]][[26]], even removed the picture I added[[27]].--Mamalala (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) User notified about the report[[28]]--Mamalala (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question is obviously bad and needed to be reverted. All one needs to do to spot the problem is look at it. The first time Mamalala made it, I assumed the duplication was inadvertent; but her repeated reinstating of it constitutes vandalism. I should add that I'm not the only one to have reverted her edits, but having seen a few bad ones by her I took it on myself to go through her log and check each one, reverting or fixing the ones that needed it. -- Zsero (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is bad edit for you may be good edit for me. Who are you to judge my edits and follow me around? I think you should discuss the problem on the talk page instead of reverting me so many times (here[[29]] you reverted me 4 times describing my edit as "nationalistic".) I do not wish to be called such names.--Mamalala (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No violation of 3RR. If you were only adding a nationality, this might be considered edit warring, but you were also creating a tandem duplication of material --> reverting that is always OK. Also, since you're new, I should let you know that 3RR isn't a game where the first person to reach four reverts loses. It's just an arbitrary line to avoid endless disputes over when edit warring becomes disruptive. You can be blocked even if you didn't break it, if you were found to be disruptive regardless. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But is this o.k. to follow somebody around reverting everything? What makes his opinion more important than mine[[[[30]]]]? Can you at least advice him to stop stalking me? What is this? Are you guys some kind of closed gang that owns Wkipedia?? Can I appeal your decision?--Mamalala (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You can take your issue to WP:ANI, but you should consider that what has happened here is not a bunch of veteran users gangning up on a newbie, but rather a bunch of experienced editors reverting what they know to be bad, albethem good faith, edits. The page you link to is better off without the image of Copernicus; it is an article about a siege, and unless you intend to make such an argument on the talk page, there is no obvious reason that knowing what Copernicus looks like will help any readers understand the siege better. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If the article were longer, or didn't already have enough pics all of which are more relevant than this one, then I wouldn't object. But as it is, this pic just clutters it. -- Zsero (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, please help me by not jumping on me and reverting in mass all my edits. I know what you meant now by "clutters". Thank you.--Mamalala (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mamalala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99.64.215.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please note that the editor also appears to be operating under an IP address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I should add that while most of this user's edits appear to me to have been unproductive, almost all of them seem to have been made in good faith. Some of them seem to be due to a certain lack of fluency in English, and some to seeing things from a Polish nationalist POV. Some come down to a judgement call. The specific edit discussed here seems to have been a mistake, but the user took the reversion personally and kept reinstating it instead of looking at it to find what was wrong. The user is not a vandal, even though I labeled some specific edits as vandalism. -- Zsero (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Scjessey reported by User:jheiv (Result: )

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Note: this is not a report about a 3RR vio but rather a report about an editor who insisted on continuing to remove content involved in an edit war despite being warned)

Previous version reverted to: [31] (This is the version before Scjessey's first revert)

• 1st revert: [32]
• 2nd revert: [33]

5 reverts in 24 hours by Scjessey

1st revert 2009-12-27T16:15:08 2nd revert 2009-12-28T01:50:00 3rd revert 2009-12-28T05:09:34 4th revert 2009-12-28T05:30:33 5th revert 2009-12-28T05:32:17 (successive revert)

The malformed report is implemented.--Caspian blue 15:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Direct link to attempt to resolve dispute: [36]

Comments:
I noticed an edit war going on with a few words in the article and made a note on the talk page (I hadn't and haven't participated in the edit war). Ten minutes later Scjessey continued the edit war by reverting ("1st revert"). I noticed this, and put the warning on his page, even putting in the comment section that there was a discussion about the edit war going on on the talk page. Scjessey seemed to get really upset with the warning and put a note on my talk page [37] and a note on the edit war section [38]. He refused to admit he perpetuated the edit war (I actually don't care if he admitted it) and continued to comment about being warned about continuing it. Later the section was added back [39] and once again, despite my warning on the talk page, Scjessey reverted the edit (along with another one he just didn't like) [40].

I would like to note that I have tried to be civil about the whole "hey, you're involved in an edit war" thing but Scjessey has been uncooperative and rude (as you can see here) ever since. Scjessey has continuously pushed his POV on the article and, despite my clear warning about him being engaged in an edit war, refused to follow wikipedia policies and unbelievably, again continued to remove the exact same sections. I thought the edit before I alerted him was in good faith but the edit since is clearly not and should be appropriately handled by an admin. jhe_iv (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To put this in context, a number of editors have been adamant about various points in the article, which is rife with edit warring over many details. Scjessey, though opinionated and somewhat aggressive on the topic, is not an outlier here - it is a dispute over whether the obtaining and release of unautorized emails from a computer server represents data theft, hacking, or something unknown. Addressing the problems on the article requires some thoughtful engagement, not blocking editors randomly for reaching 2RR. This report is just not ripe. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that comment means. The facts are clear:

• I made an effort to point out to Scjessey that he was involved in an edit war
• He obviously realized that by his responses
• He continued to revert the edits ignoring the warning

I'm not in support of blocking anyone for "reaching 2RR" but I am in favor of blocking people who, despite being fairly warned, and despite there being a perfectly reasonable section of the talk page to discuss, continue to perpetuate the edit war. Edit wars are annoying and distract everyone. If the commitment to preventing edit wars is as strong as it is stated on the Noticeboard than this issue should be open and shut.jhe_iv (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this article for the past couple months or so and I've noticed that Scjessey has been edit-warring over this article and many others in the global warming topic space during this time period. I only have a couple hours a day to devote to Wikipedia, so I don't know if Scjessey has violated WP:3RR, but it's quite clear that there is a pattern of abuse that extends over a long time frame. A topic ban for Scjessey would improve the project. Let Scjessey work on other articles for a while. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence of edit warring on my part, as this malformed report demonstrates. Furthermore, it is quite extraordinary that you would have the audacity to suggest a topic ban for me. My edits in article space are all discussed on talk pages, with proper justifications given as routine. In contrast, you seem to think that an edit summary is sufficient to explain disruptive, agenda-driven reversions. I will remind you that I am not the one who thinks the word "scandal" is appropriate in an article when there are no sources to support it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I added diffs to implement the malformed report regarding Scjessey's edit warring. He indeed violated WP:3RR and all list edits are reverts per the edit summary.--Caspian blue 15:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain that Scjessey actually did violate the three-revert rule, since it was not the simple back-and-forth edit-warring that normally characterizes this sort of thing. Even in absence of that, I am not convinced that a block will accomplish anything other than "punishing" Scjessey, since the page has been protected. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)