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:Whoneful reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Indef)

Page: Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whoneful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2] "Undid revision 442107267 by Malik Shabazz (talk): Rv. POV editing"
• 2nd revert: [3] "Reversing POV"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4][5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert rule. That means an editor may make only one revert during any 24-hour period. Please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies for more information.

Please note that there is a large white edit notice that appears above the edit box on this page: Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note User:Whoneful's response to edit-warring messages: "Removing anti-Semitism trumps your rediculous Wikipedia regulations." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The user has been indef-blocked as a sock of JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) (Grawp).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Look out guys, Grawp is at it again! If he attempts to vandalize Wikipedia again, try to contact Jimbo wales. Or report him to ANI. StormContent (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:The-Expose-inator reported by User:CutOffTies (Result: technical decline as stale)

Page: Draft dodger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The-Expose-inator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 4th revert: [10]
• 5th revert: [11]
• 6th revert: [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

• I realize this was given a bit late, sorry.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

I realize this isn't a violation of 3RR, but it is edit warring where the user is not making an attempt to discuss this specific issue on talk. I brought in a third opinion which stated that the content isn't relevant to the article, but did not address my concerns about synthesis. I then posted on the original research noticeboard where two users have said it is clear original research. These links have been provided on the talk page when I made my revert, but The-Expose-inator continues to revert. The user has posted on the article talk page but did not address this specific content. The only discussion the user has given about this content is on my talk page [15] which is mostly in regard to the user's personal experience, which furthers the original research, and does not address that the content is out of place in the article. If you look at the user's talk page, the original research issue has come up before.

Thank you--CutOffTies (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Stale This is a technical decline only. For the edit warring alone, the issue is just too stale, and you both look equally at fault. However, the original research/proper sourcing issue is too difficult to be decided on the edit warring noticeboard, but it is appropriate to take up the issue on the other noticeboards. I recommend taking it to WP:ANI, because it is a combination of both edit warring and reliable sourcing, so a disruptive editing block isn't appropriate for either WP:ORN or WP:AN3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank you, but I'm quite confused about the 'equally at fault' part. I expressed my concerns at the talk page, I brought it to third opinion, I posted on the OR noticeboard. The consensus there was to remove the content. Even after this, am I supposed to do nothing in reply to the editors' reversions? --CutOffTies (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Caiboshtank reported by User:bjmullan (Result:Caiboshtank blocked )

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

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

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
As well as breaking the 3RR rule I'm guessing this user is a sock of either User:MidnightBlueMan or User:Triton Rocker. If you look at the edit history their first edit was to remove reference material and label it as vandalism here. All their edits since they have appeared five days ago is to revert material added by User:HighKing. I will notify the user of this report. Bjmullan (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Caiboshtank Blocked. Another instance of a troubles troll. Blocked indef for sock-puppetry per wp:duck, block-evasion, harassment and edit-warring--Cailil ^talk 23:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• This is nothing to do with The Troubles. This is a reaction to the long term problem of a single user being rather successful at imposing his world view on Wikipedia in defiance of many policies. The matter should not be handled here. Instead, I expect WP:ANI is the place. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's regrettable, but until the constant push to curb the usage of British Isles by the editor-in-question ends? those on the opposite side, will likely continue to sock. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Intervention in edit war with User:TheFarix requested (Result: Reporter Warned)

Page: Blood-C
User being reported: User:TheFarix

Original: 16:35, 30 July 2011

1st Revert: 12:32, 31 July 2011

2nd Revert: 16:18, 31 July 2011

3rd Revert: 16:25, 31 July 2011

4th Revert: 16:45, 31 July 2011 (Current version)

I have been involved in an edit war with User:TheFarix, in which disputed content provided by myself was repeatedly deleted. A copyvio report was submitted by this editor in the conclusion of a prior edit war, involving possible copyright infringement by content translated nonverbatim by myself and others; it is claimed that said content does not fall under fair use for non-close paraphrasing. No real effort has been made to address these two disputes in Talk.

Regardless of whether a copyvio is judged to exist by administrative staff, there seems to be some sort of problem that this editor has with edits submitted by myself. The reverts noted above do not involve the only unsourced content in the article, but it was singled out for dispute. I don't want to assume bad faith, but it seems that the editor takes issue with me -- and the copyvio injunction seems somewhat gaming. I thus request some sort of 3rd party intervention. For the time being, I will cease to make any edits to the page involved.

-- Fallacies (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Declined Please refrain from edit warring and repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into Wikipedia. The next time you do this, you will be blocked from editing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:MikeLynch reported by User:Boolyme (Result: No violation)

Page: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MikeLynch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: N/A
• 3rd revert: N/A
• 4th revert: N/A

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments: This editor is not willing to consider any logic. He is also provoking me to complain to some administrator. (This can be seen by the smiley that he put after his argument. In spite of giving point-wise arguments, he thinks most of my points are redundant and refuses to answer them. This will boil to an edit-war hence, I am appealing it here as I don't know anyplace else where I can do so
Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 20:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misconstrue my comments, I do not intend it to be provocative. In fact, I would want a mediator to review the discussion and bring an end to it; I want to resolve this issue peacefully. Anyway, I have not broken 3RR, so I don't think its an edit war as such. Probably Boolyme is looking for dispute resolution. Lynch7 20:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. Boolyme, your statement on the article talk suggests you are planning to fix the article all by yourself. This is unlikely to work. Please present your arguments on the talk page and wait for consensus. An WP:RFC could be opened to bring in more participants. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:AngBent reported by User:Pylambert (Result: Declined)

User:AngBent is busy since several days on edit wars on many articles related either to Greek topics and some other ones. From the nature of the edits he seems to have a chauvinistic Greek and pro-Pyongyang Communist agenda. There are at least a dozen articles involved. He also edited as Special:Contributions/46.177.71.53 and Special:Contributions/46.176.13.209 (precisely the same type of POV edits). This seems to be going on since at least two months, some edits have been reverted but he is going on with disruptive edits. --Pylambert (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Typical examples:

• Hu Qiaomu : [22] and [23]
• Culture of North Korea : [24] and [25]
• Imperialism : [26] and [27]
• Macedonian Struggle: [28] and [29]
• Aromanians : edit war, see [30]

Pylambert is behaving in an authoritarian manner, and tries to censor me. He/She even removed many well-referenced edits that I made. He/She accuses me of edit war, yet he/she is the one who began the edit warring. If he/she had grievances about my contributions, he/she could have started a discussion with me to express them. Instead, he/she first deleted much of my work, which took hours of serious work to complete, and now accuses me in a truly insidious manner. I think I deserve an apology... AngBent (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

The examples above show the type of "well-referenced edits" AngBent introduced on wikipedia, plus the use of an IP address in the edit war on Aromanians. There is no discussion possible with someone whose presence on wikipedia obviously has for main (only) purpose to make that type of chain edits with a political agenda (or political agendas). --Pylambert (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: On what grounds exactly is this [31] "POV vandalism"? Athenean (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the 99% of his other bad faith POV "edits" (vandalism) I didn't try checking that one in particular, I assumed it was of the same kind and reverted it, that's a consequence when you vandalize articles like he systematically did, other users can't trust any of your edits. --Pylambert (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So basically you're saying you blindly reverted everything. This is rather poor form for an editor as experienced as yourself. While I agree that many of his edits are indeed problematic, I wouldn't say "99%". There is also a difference between POV-pushing and vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND. Neither of you has made any attempt to discuss things on talkpages, and again that is poor form. Also, please consider that your tone isn't helpful (calling everything another does "POV vandalism" will only serve to inflame things further). I revert problematic edits ALL the time - but I don't use labels, simply because there is no need and such things are best avoided. Athenean (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the type of edits, and the number of them, simply reverting them would encourage the vandal user to go on, rereverting them under his pseudo or under an IP identity (as he did on the Aromanians article). My attention was drawn on this "user" because of an edit on Western Thrace, which is on my watchlist. I immediately recognized the typical Greek chauvinist vandal and I went to watch his other edits, after a dozen my suspicions were confirmed, even if he's also a pro-Pyongyang POV-pusher in addition. These are not just problematic edits, but a mala fide editor who should be prevented to go on. When I finish writing this, I see the decision on this dispute, I won't go on losing my time with this, I am leaving now for work and I will not be online before dayshours, sorry. --Pylambert (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Please take this issue to WP:ANI. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that justice has been done. Let this be an example to other would-be censors with a totalitarian mentality like Pylambert.AngBent (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

User:Opbeith reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 31 hours)

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

• 1st revert: 14:22, 28 July 2011
• 2nd revert: 15:11, 28 July 2011
• 3rd revert: 13:39, 31 July 2011
• 4th revert: 17:59, 31 July 2011

Comments:
User:Opbeith has insisted on linking Anders Behring Breivik to Srđa Trifković, despite discussions on his user talk page (User_talk:Opbeith#Breivik), the article talk page (Talk:Srđa Trifković#Breikiv) and an extensive discussion at BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Anders Behring Breivik (3) indicating he should not do so. While he has not technically broken 3RR, this edit-warring is particularly inappropriate because:

1. He has been reverted by 3 different editors, and has been told by one that "this is so 100% wrong that I believe it meets the BLP exemption for crossing 3RR".
2. There is an extremely strong consensus at WP:BLP/N that this material does not belong; in fact, eight uninvolved editors there agree it doesn't belong, and no uninvolved editors agree it belongs. Despite this, and despite realizing that people consider this to be a very significant BLP issue, Opbeith pretends the consensus doesn't exist, and continues to edit-war.

I think a strong message needs to be sent here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The points I raised simply haven't been answered either at the article talk page or at the BLP noticeboard. All that happens is the consensus is insisted on. Jayjg seems to consider the references I've cited are irrelevant. "this is so 100% wrong" etc. was not accompanied by a convincing explanation of its so 100%ness. Apologies if I sound flippant, I'm actually rather angry about this because I consider the information excluded to be serious and relevant and I find it rather offensive that my arguments are dismissed simply as an attempt at implying "guilt by association". I would like to be treated rationally, not just told off. Opbeith (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Courcelles 06:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:MikeWazowski and User:75.80.79.246 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Declined)

Page: The Soska Sisters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MikeWazowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 75.80.79.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mike is experienced enough to know 3RR. The IP has been here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (None)

Comments:
I'm not involved in this dispute, but would like to bring it up. The IP has also made personal attacks on Mike's talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Mike actually crossed 3RR. Mike redirected the article (not a revert, as this was the first time it was done), then twice reverted the IP on undoing that redirect. Then Mike stopped edit-warring on that, and instead included several maintenance templates. The IP removed them, and Mike reverted once (up to 3 reverts). Since then, no editing has taken place. While the IP did cross 3RR, xe did so only before being notified of the WP:3RR by Jasper Deng. I don't think either editor should be blocked here, but I'd like other admin opinions before explicitly declining this. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Mike notified the IP long before my own warning. See the diff I supplied.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Agree with Qwyrxian. I'm watching the page. FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:76.125.58.198 reported by User:BusterD (Result: 24h)

Page: American Revolutionary War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.125.58.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

For the record, User:Magicpiano engaged in this edit war of reversions (more than 3), but has made an honest effort to discuss with the user on page talk and user talk. I've templated both users, in order to maintain a fair tone between editors. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: the IP was actually warned here by MagicPiano prior to Buster's warning posted above with the significance being that this warning was received before the IP's last revert.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

{{AN3|d}} No reverts since 3RR warning. If the IP makes another revert, leave a message on my talk page and I'll block them. -big>FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Was MagicPiano's warning (which preceded the IP's last revert) not considered as valid?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It was indeed. Not sure how I missed that. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily assistance requested by User:Alecmconroy (result: no vio)

• 1st deletion of comment: [37]
• 2nd deletion of comment: [38]
• 3rd deletion of comment: [39]
• 4-- issues a "block warning" for inappropriate comment "formatting": [40]

(is there any such rule preventing mid-text-block replies? I've never heard of one, I had no idea a sitting admin would think it was blockable)

Comments:
This isn't a clear-cut article edit war over content. This is a user who three times removed my own comments in a discussion I was actively involved in. He also issues a block-threat for something I don't believe is a valid reason.

Others and I have problems with how he's using the delete tool, but that's a different issue. I don't think a 'calm down' block actually helps anyone calm down, I won't ask for blocks or anything. Just please remind people to not delete others' comments or threaten blocks for invalid reasons, especially when in policy dispute with them.

That's all the needs be said. He doesn't need a "time out"-- just please remind him that deleting comments and threaten bogus blocks is still verboten.

I may be an aggravating factor at this point, so my role on the discussion will now wane. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not notified the user, pending vetting of my comments. If they're baseless, he needn't be bothered. If someone needs to talk to him, let it be someone he trusts, no someone he's mad at. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the first diff you link to above; it seems to have been some genuine confusion about edit conflicts in the heat of a rapid exchange. But in the subsequent edits, you had been doing something rather odd, duplicating a whole section of discussion from other people. Of course that duplicated batch should have been removed. Now, please go back to the ANI page and clean up the mess. If there's a comment of yours that was in danger of going missing, restore it to where it originally fit, but remove all that duplicated stuff, it's very annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

EC is a totally plausible explanation, though since you've been active in the discussion you're hardly the person to make the call.

If you too hate my 'formatting', delete the whole thing section and be done with it-- the needed audience has heard my words. If the behavior doesn't change, more people will just show up after me to say the same thing.

I think you guys need to get on irc and pow-wow, try to think harder, about why I should have been threatened with a block for "bad formatting". Being 'messing' during ECs? You're letting people block over that, are you? Explain to me again why anyone could be blocked for good-faith 'bad formatting'? Explain to me again why ANYONE should even be THREATENED with a block for good faith fortmatting style problems on a frickin talk page. Think long and hard on that one. "Messy" doesn't cut it.

I get the sensation that a lot of these new "hard line" stances about 'no fair use' and 'no unapproved talk page formatting' are 'improvisational' rather than 'consensus-based'. That is, at least one admin looks like he's just making these 'rules' up as he goes along. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Alecmconroy has created a horrible mess: [41][42][43][44][45] (ugh!) [46] [47] (double ugh!) That mess is his responsibility. Reporting somebody here who tried to clean it up is disruptive, Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, aren't I verbose! So, are we blocking people for good faith vebosity now, or just threatening them for it? Oh, you guys still haven't come up with the answer for that? back to the old irc drawing board, as they say. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

-rolls eyes- Tell me about it. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So, you were just BSing about formmating blocks being justified under policy? Still waiting for the citation on this. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing this. The mess has been cleaned up (not by the person who caused it, unfortunately), there's clearly nothing more to do here, nobody broke 3R, and the thread is producing only heat and no light at this stage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Fastily, you lied to try to threaten me with a block you had no right to give. You lied to say I intimidated you. And to all involved, the heat you've gotten from me is nothing compared to what you'll get when you start deleting images other people took time to upload in good faith.

If you want light, don't delete in use educational legal content.

if you want heat, just keep up the work. You will all be burned out so fasts you won't know what hit you, and if you survive, the project will likely fail. Goodluck, and my last word --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)