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:Rayburne1997 reported by User:Aditya Kabir (Result: )

Page: Jayne Mansfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rayburne1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st set: 10 edits (reverted by User:Shearonink)
• 2nd set: 6 edits (reverted by User:Aditya Kabir)
• 3rd set: 6 edits (reverted by User:Aditya Kabir)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Rayburne1997 (the whole talk page is essentially a collection of various warnings, including warnings about the Mansfield article (this by User:Shearonink; this, this and this by User:Aditya Kabir; this and this by User:Spinningspark. This user never replies, never discusses and never responds. Never a single edit to any talk page (check the contribs), though he/she has been warned about a number of edits. And, never an edit summary, which is strange for someone who has the level of intelligence and expertise to change wikicodes and mangle refs (not necessarily on the same article).

Comments:

User:Spinningspark commented - "There is definitely something fishy about this user." (see here). I can totally agree. It's the strangest piece of WP:DISRUPT I have met so far. But, no matter how curious, this can't go on indefinitely. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

To explain what I meant by "fishy": this user shows every sign of being an experienced user, but openend an account only on 2nd April. Day one saw a long list of edits to multiple articles with some bold deletions of material, examples: [1][2][3][4]. The third example also shows a working knowledge of templates and MOS:CAP. All this apparently without any learning process or discussion. These are not the actions of a newbie. I am not necessarily claiming that the edits are wrong, but the lack of communication and the edit warring are extremely problematic. SpinningSpark 16:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yuck. Not sure on the action to take here; that's pretty mild for "edit warring", and I'm not sure I'd go as far to call it vandalism. Annoying, maybe. Concur that this is likely an account that is picking up from another account, but a quick look at some of the articles did not reveal an obvious candidate. Maybe s/he will communicate at some point? Seems to have completely ignored Mr. Spark's note and just moved to other pages. I'll drop a note there, too. Kuru (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say the way forward on this one is to give the user the templated warning (which I have already done). If there is a subsequent complaint of edit warring on any page, from any user, then indef block until they start to communicate. SpinningSpark 01:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Spark, that makes it even more curious. He/she has registered only a few days back, started making bold edits, shows clear knowledge of templates, MOS, wikicodes and other stuff, but no clue of content guidelines, never discusses, never makes and edit summary, keeps warring for silliest edits (like making sortable tables unsortable), shows interest in a particular area (not randomized edits at all)... fishy? You bet.

Kuru, I really have no clue what to do. This editor doesn't transgress 3RR, doesn't stalk or harass, but keeps stubbornly repeating annoying little disruptions, and almost nothing else. We met a similar strangeness in Ilovechocolate (see talk page and AN/I thread), who kept claiming and pretending learning disabilities and eventually vanished. I don't think this person is going to respond to your post to his/her talk page. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the user has now been warned. If there are any further incidences of repeated insertion of the same material, in any article, then report back - you can contact me directly on my talk page if you like. Don't worry about whether or not it is 3RR, I am quite prepared to block on a single instance if it is not accompanied by discussion. SpinningSpark 10:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Csvgb reported by User:75.197.42.173 (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [5]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments:

This particular user is trying to use Wikipedia to promote personal interests and commercial pursuits by removing outside to links and references to public organizations, and replacing them with links/ads to a commercial organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.42.173 (talk • contribs)

• Warned I made the account aware of the 3RR policy. I see no attempts to communicate, except through edit summaries. A discussion about the link on the article's talk page would be an important next step (not on some other site's forum as linked above). Frankly, there seem to be several questionable links on that page, but I'll leave it to you to work it out. Kuru (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:‎31.205.9.255 reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Jessica Simpson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.205.9.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

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

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

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

Comments:

Relentless edit war, unsourced information. User has been duely warned, twice. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 23:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear problem; warned. No other blocks as BLP is claimed. Kuru (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note that a similar IP User:31.205.10.9 has just shown up to make the same edits.[17] Dawn Bard (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Si. Blocked that IP and semi-protected the article. May protect some of the others if he pops up again. Kuru (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:98.94.204.96 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: )

Page: Clemson Tigers football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.94.204.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

• 1st revert: [19]
• 2nd revert: [20]
• 3rd revert: [21]
• 4th revert: [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23] (Reported user deleted this warning before carrying out 4th revert.)
[24] (Warning issued by another user for IP sockpuppetry)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25] (Reported user initiated discussion on their own Talk page after deleting 3RR warning, then performed 4th revert before continuing discussion.)

Comments: Anonymous IP user kicks off Wikipedia editing career by deleting sourced and verifiable material that was merged into this article by consensus back in 2008[26]. I reverted this deletion of content. IP user reverted, and an Undo was performed along with a vandalism warning being posted on IP user's Talk page. IP user reverted again, an Undo was performed and a second vandalism warning was posted on user's Talk page along with a 3RR warning. IP user deleted 3RR warning, and then performed yet another revert. This is a pretty clear cut case of 3RR violation by a user who clearly shows no interest in following relevant Wikipedia policy or seeking consensus for significant edits. I'd ask that the article be semi-protected in case this user should decide to use additional IPs to continue this disruptive behavior. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Seems like 2 of those reverts are corrections of the same information. Edit-warring with every other editor [27][28][29][30][31]& requesting page protection over content you snuck on here against policy doesn't make the content "notable" nor "verifiable." The necessary citations are all there. The section was inadvertently refocused back to it's original subject. Even User:Darkness Shines who you attempted to cite above, seems to agree. [32]. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This reply confirms that User:ThomasC.Wolfe is using IP socks to edit war/avoid 3RR. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't confirm anything. GarnetAndBlack mentioned it in the more lengthy edit warring section below that I had already started working on. And, realistically, I have to work and get some rest at some point. I also noticed that GarnetAndBlack is back to random reverts on the same content on the exact same pages again. Check his contributions. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:GarnetAndBlack reported by User:ThomasC.Wolfe (Result: )

Pages: Clemson Tigers football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); also Carolina-Clemson Rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Clemson Tigers men's basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) related to Clemson University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GarnetAndBlack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 129.252.69.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33], [34]

• 1st revert: [35] as GarnetAndBlack
• 2nd revert: [36] as GarnetAndBlack
• 3rd revert: [37] as GarnetAndBlack
• 4th revert: [38] September, 2010
• 5th revert: [39] September, 2010
• 6th revert: [40] September, 2010
• 7th revert: [41] as 129.252.69.40
• 8th revert: [42] as 129.252.69.40
• 9th revert: [43] as 129.252.69.41
• 10th revert: [44] August, 2008
• 11th revert: [45] August, 2008

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

[47], [48], [49] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:
Repeat offender: with pattered behavior brought up on charges for edit-warring [51][52] and sock-puppetry [53] by editors / administrators in the past, all related to Clemson University articles. [54][55][56]. In addition to content removal, school logo & tag removals, "bate & switch" complaint filings, all through various socks cited above, User:GarnetAndBlack seems obsessed with re-posting redundant and biased content in negative reference to accolades won by a University. A consensus had been reached back in early 2008 [57]that a reference to recruiting violations would be "merged," but "mentioned" and "cited" in the Clemson Tigers Football article as in similar articles, but the consensus was obviously not to re-vert the same information in bulk, using multiple citations of the same source, with various socks over the course of 4 years. Please review and compare the user/sock edit histories.

Sorry for not WP:KIS, but I needed to reveal patterns on multiple pages.

(Had difficulty logging into my account / Schedule, family illness may keep me from responding promptly) Apologies. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this report supposed to be a joke? Diffs from 2-4 years ago? This is clearly a retaliatory action by the IP user reported above by myself [58] who it is now clear is User:ThomasC.Wolfe using an IP sock [59] to edit war (family illness or some other excuse is always claimed as the reason for this) and remove notable content that is sourced and verifiable from Clemson Tigers football. This type of misuse of Wikipedia's reporting boards is disruptive behavior of the worst sort. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been using this account to make edits because I have been too busy with r/t things (which is beside the point). It seems upon further review that the only user using multiple accounts in tandum to push the "same content" has been GarnetAndBlack. I just found where one of his sock IP's was blocked again recently for edit warring on these same pages: [60] [61]by slakr^\ talk / on February 17, 2012. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Too busy" to type a couple of words into two boxes and click a button? I'm sorry but this is getting absurd to the point of being almost comical. Is anyone else buying this nonsense? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:70.26.178.93 reported by User:Hertz1888 (Result: )

Page: Brooklyn Bridge
User being reported: 70.26.178.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66]
• 5th revert: [67]
• 6th revert: [68]

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

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

Comments:
Frank edit warring behavior, repeatedly inserting same material (without comment) despite its removal by a series of other editors. Continuing after 3rr/ew warning. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• 5th revert added. Please put this nuisance out of business for a meaningfully long time. No other message is getting through. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• 6th revert added. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by User:Bittergrey (Result: )

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

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

• 1st revert: 21:26, 1 April 2012 [70]
• 2nd revert: 01:11, 2 April 2012 [71]
• 3rd revert: 11:00, 2 April 2012 [72]
• 4th revert: 22:59, 2 April 2012 [73] (Sockpuppet Investigation result[74])

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

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

Comments:
I know this is stale, but I wanted it on record that WLU, who reported me for making four reverts in 41 hours[77] himself made four reverts in 25 hours 33 minutes in the same conflict. He also used a sockpuppet to do so[78]. I didn't file this report before, since I was waiting for confirmation from SPI.

WLU wrote "I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in." Of course, were there any substance in his "thousands of words" he wouldn't have felt the need to resort to sockpuppetry and personal attacks. He hadn't shown any interest in this article (or several others he's fought me at) before his wikihounding campaign started over a year ago. I think it is best that he leave me and the several articles he hounded me to alone. BitterGrey (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:24.85.145.1 reported by User:WhiteWriter (Result: )

Page: Attack on Prekaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.85.145.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

IP is evidently sock of some other user, so block is highly in place. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I gave the 3RR warning (after the 5th revert though). The other IP was[79] (I didn't hand out a warning to that one, because it has been causing other edit-wars). Would be prudent if it doesn't revert after the warning, but if does please block immediately.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:70.26.178.93 reported by User:Doniago (Result: )

Page: Brooklyn Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.26.178.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert: [84]
• 5th revert: [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

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

Comments: User violating 3RR, adding OR without explanation, multiple editors have reverted.

Doniago (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Footwiks reported by User:Curb Chain (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [87]

• 1st revert: [88]
• 2nd revert: [89]
• 3rd revert: [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:

Extended complex edit warring by User:Footwiks. Mislabels edits as vandalism. Reverts against consensus and against editors who have provided AND linked policies and guidelines as to their justification for their changes. Tendentious editing by User:Footwiks going back to [93].Curb Chain (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Nmate reported by User:Samofi (Result: )

Page: Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 1st set: [94]
• 2nd set: [95]
• 3rd set: [96]
• 4th set: [97]
• 5th set: [98]

Comments:

User:Nmate doesnt assume a good faith and he is often involved in edit warring and national disputes. He is also placed under editing restriction at WP:DIGWUREN. Its question if his behavior is an apport for Wikipedia. --Samofi (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nmate is also deleting User:Koertefa 's talk page comments without his permission, thus breaking WP:TPO: [99]

Nmate does not adhere to WP:SPIRIT ("Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing.") and most of his activity is represented by reverts and reports.

He is also gaming the system by deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia. He speculates the fact that anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban.

He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users, like uncontroversial page moves [100][101]. Both of these moves were later re-instated by administrators: [102] [103]

Relevant for Nmate's battleground mentality is his request for deletion of a cooperation board: [104] Bzg1920 (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users" means that he is a self-confessed sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi, therefore; my reverts do not fall under the 3RR rule.--Nmate (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you only broke the the "rule of common sense". Deleting parts of a civilized talk page discussion is far from being constructive. Koertefa knew very well who I am: [105], but unlike you he is preocupated in improving articles, not in annihilating other users. To quote from him: "My experience with (the sockpuppets of) Iaaasi so far is that he is a reasonable editor with whom you can argue with based on sources" Bzg1920 (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The rule is that ALL edits made by socks of a banned user may be reverted on sight, and 3RR/1RR will not apply in those cases. That's why we enact bans - heck, we can delete their article on site, even if they're useful. Common sense is that a banned user is supposed to be smart enough to know that banned means banned; period (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, edits of banned users may be reverted even if they are helpful (it is not against the formal rules). But unfortunately this is not in the interest of the readers, who need articles of a quality as high as possible. So according to you it is against commons sense that I improved some articles? Bzg1920 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that I am not placed under 1RR. I was under editing-restriction in 2008, which means that any administrator may imposed upon me what they see fit under Digwurren, but there is no such recent case, however.--Nmate (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)::::::I think Nmate should wait for official results of investigation. 2 sockpuppets of Iaaasi were marked as my socks (I had lessons in that time at university, so it was a surprise: [106]). Its not normal reactions from him, it looks like an obsession. He found a lot of sock puppets, I agree , but he also scandalized an innocent people with his fast reactions. I am asking, is this normal, civilized behavior? --Samofi (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I will report you to the Arbitration Comitee if I have time, Samofi.--Nmate (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you threaten me? Look, your reactions are not normal according to WP:EQ. You broken a lot of rules of principles of Wikipedia etiquette. I dont see that he would be confirmed sock of Iaaasi [107]. You continue with your batlleground mentality [108]. You could just a wait for confirmation that he is a sock puppet. --Samofi (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet. Read what is written above.--Nmate (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite the rule what says that? Hypothetically he can be a new user who makes a provocations.. In my opinion, you should wait for official confirmation. --Samofi (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here? User Nmate is deleting other people comments? Again a new problem with this user? I don`t know who Bzg1920 is, he can be a sock-puppet as any other user could be until a check user is beign done( this is not an accusation ) but I am 1000% sure that Koertefa isn`t any sock. Why are his comments being removed????Adrian (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted verified user comments: [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]. I don`t know who Bzg1920 is but Koertefa is a verified user and in this examples it is clear that Nmate violated the 3RR several times and of course the battleground mentality of edit warring. Also Nmate`s WP:DIGWUREN restriction [115]. Also this user had 2 arbitration enforcement in 2011.Adrian (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Iadrian yu is block-shopping again based on frivilous reasons of which I will notify the Arbitration Comitee. Restoring a comment made by a site-banned user is not allowed. Second, I haven't encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipaedia for a while and still he is block shopping. It is disgusting. On the other hand, I am not placed under editing restriction in that saense that I am not allowed to make reverts, as I mentioned above.--Nmate (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that User:Bzg1920 is a sock of any kind please file a report about that and if proven THEN delete his comments only, while leaving the verified user`s(Koertefa) comments. Adrian (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet, read what is written above.--Nmate (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

? He confirmed? (That doesn`t imply to delete Koertefa`s comments also). Where? Adrian (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Has this anything to do with you? Note that Iadrian yu does not interest to edit the article; his only aim is block shopping. Second, I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet: which part of it do you not understand?--Nmate (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, another sign of a constructive, friendly editing I guess. I don`t understand anything, especially the part where User:Bzg1920 admitted that is a sock of any banned user and when User:Koertefa gave you permission to delete his comments, 7 times in a row after several arbitration enforcements on your account.Adrian (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)