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:Sitush reported by User:QuickEditor (Result: No violation)

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

• 1st revert: [1][diff]

Comments: Sitush is an experienced user, but is causing problems at Kim Kardashian. He has only made one revert, but I thought I would catch it in the beginning before it spirals out of hand. I removed the section "cookie diet lawsuit" from Kim Kardashian for the following reasons: (low in importance and notability to be mentioned in the article: kim kardashian), and user Sitush (talk) reverted it immediately after I warned him not to. The user continued to argue with me on the article's discussion page after I warned about Wikipedia:Edit warring and explained how article's discussion pages is not the place to argue and asked the user to continue to argument with me on my talk page QuickEditor (talk) rather then the article's discussion page if necessary. [2]

I have not reverted back to my original revert[3] to avoid edit warring with user Sitush (talk). --QuickEditor (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. Please don't claim to have consensus when so far nobody has supported your position. One edit in each direction (unless it's BLP) is below the threshold where this board is appropriate. You wanted Sitush to continue the discussion on your own user talk; it is normal for this kind of issue to be debated on the article talk page. Please continue there if you are not satisfied. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Omar-Toons reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 12 hour block for Omar-Toons and 1 week block for IP user)

Page: Marinid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omar-Toons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

This is the edit war on just one article by this user. Is in at least two other edit wars as well right now. The IP he is edit warring with should also be blocked.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

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

Comments:

The user has already been blocked for 12 hours, but, I believe the IP he is edit warring with also needs a block.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week for showing up and starting multiple edit wars as well. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think 12 hours is a little too short considering this user is also engaged in multiple other edit wars as well?Jasper Deng (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For a user that's never been blocked before and has a history of quality contributions to Wikipedia, I feel that 12 hours is an appropriate first block. If the behavior continues after the block, I would support a longer (1 week+) duration re-block. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You may want to semi-protect some of those articles, because there are other IP-hopping editors edit warring on pages of the same topic. One is from this range. There's also 78.251.220.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (from 78.251.220.0/24) and 41.200.0.0/16.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Almoravid dynasty, Almohad Caliphate, Saadi dynasty, Marinid dynasty and Abu al-Abbas as-Sabti all semi-protected for a period of one week now that the worst of the edit warriors are blocked. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

While "my issue" was discussed here, I had already reported a vandalism by the concerned IP on the Incidents Board [12]. Maybe it could be interesting to take a look on the other board before blocking me (even if I don't contest the blocking itself), and to be aware of the previous issues (the fact that I was reverting some IP edits with the quasi-approbation of the Incidents Board [13][14][15]).

Note (also) that Bokpasa started contributing with his own account on these articles since they were protected... maybe this is a good start to ask him to discuss his changes [16], not?

Regards,

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:143.236.34.52 reported by User:Mato (Result: Protected)

Page: Ethnic cleansing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 143.236.34.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]
• 5th revert: [22]
• 6th revert: [23]
• 7th revert: [24]
• 8th revert: [25]
• 9th revert: [26]
• 10th revert: [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29][30]

Comments:

Mato (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Fully protected two weeks. I see an edit war in which the IP has broken 3RR, but he is removing material for which there is no consensus on the talk page. There are the beginnings of a discussion at Talk:Ethnic cleansing#African Americans, where one person favors including the material and two people oppose it. Inflammatory charges against entire groups of people should probably be vetted before being placed in the article. Protection may be lifted if consensus is reached on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Julianbce reported by User:Cold Season (Result: 1 week)

Page: The Myth (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Julianbce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

• 1st revert: [32] as Special:Contributions/92.40.111.43 (same articles, same edits)
• 2nd revert: [33]
• 3rd revert: [34]
• 4th revert: [35]
• 5th revert: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have asked repeatedly to take it to the talk page, he seems unwilling to respond [38][39]

Comments:

• He has persistenly reverted back to his edits at several articles.
• It seems to be original research
• It's rather difficult to read (yet he does not attempt and seems unwilling to correct it)
• He seems to place references on those several articles while quite often those references don't state the same as he is (he misrepresents the sources), like for example explained here: Talk page for "Dalian"

I have attempted to fix some edits like at Shangri-La, which he can't be bothered to do himself Here's another article full of edit warring: [40][41][42][43] --- Cold Season (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Technically no violation of 3RR (the edits are quite spread out). Have you tried to discuss with the editor? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The user has the habit to make many consecutive edits after eachother, thus it seems rather spread out. So far he hasn't replied to any of my approaches. Also left a message at User_talk:HypatiaPrometheus, which I believe is the same guy. Though the user (Julianbce) has been blocked before for this, so I don't know how to solve it. Cold Season (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

92.40.0.0/17 rangeblocked for 1 month, HypatiaPrometheus blocked indef as an quacking sock, and Julianbce Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Aaronwayneodonahue reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24h)

Page: Atheism and religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aaronwayneodonahue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Also editing logged out as 66.188.228.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: [45] (Editing while logged in)
• 2nd revert: [46] (Editing while logged in)
• 3rd revert: [47] (Editing as IP)
• 4th revert: [48] (Editing as IP)
• 5th revert: [49] (Editing while logged in. While not a "undid revision..." type revert, it does undo this edit which was recently removed, that Aaronwayneodonahue reinserted to make a WP:POINT.) Here, the user admits to making this edit for the sole purpose of making a WP:POINT.
• 6th revert: [50] (Editing while logged in)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User: [51] IP: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Atheism and religion#Atheist Churches and Talk:Atheism and religion#ACA Article

Comments:
Aaronwayneodonahue and 66.188.228.180 are same the person according to the intersecting contrib histories. They edit the same articles on or near the same day with similar edits and talk page comments on too many occasions to not be the same person. - SudoGhost 19:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Brmull reported by User:Berean Hunter (Result: 24h)

Page: Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brmull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reverts

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

• 3RR warning given before last revert

The entire talk page is an attempt to resolve issues. In particular, July 2011 factual dispute (Part I, II & III) sections of the page.

Comments:
In addition to reverting/changing wordings, user has stated that 3RR doesn't apply to edit-warring over tags.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fry1989 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: Cautioned)

Page: Template:ElectionsCT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 05:18, 27 July 2011 (edit summary: "the coat of arms is the primary symbol of the State, want proof? ask me")
2. 20:30, 27 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 441709101 by Rxguy The Coat of Arms is the State symbol and I can prove it")
3. 22:29, 27 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 441764244 by Muboshgu Standardization does not over-ride accuracy http://www.nhregister.com/content/articles/2011/01/05/news/doc4d24b6d09afca4483260832.jpg")
4. 23:14, 27 July 2011 (edit summary: "no explaination of removal of State flag and revert to inaccurate flag stub")
5. 23:35, 27 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 441785376 by Muboshgu STOP REMOVING the FLAG of the state. It is identical to the Stub version of the flag, except in colour, which was changed on Commons per talk about the Flag's proper colours")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54] BONUS: Fry1989's response (see edit summary): [55]

—– Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Commons prefer File:Flag_of_Connecticut.svg, it seems. Will caution to be less confrontational. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I have a right to edit MY page. So you can't use my personal page against me. If I remove your warnings, thats my choice. Second. I am not in the process of editing the template anymore, I am trying to engage in the talk, and I have given sources to my cause. Third, TWO reverts I wouldn't have even had to make, if Muboshgu didn't confuse the argument over the Coat of Arms vs. the Seal with the separate issue of the flag. The flag was changed on Commons per the State Government source and a discussion on it's proper colours. Lastly. Muboshgu has reverted me 3 times as well, so if I get punished, so should he. He knows the rule and is trying to apply it to me, but broke it himself. As I said, I'm not editing the template anymore, and am engaging on the talk page, so there's no point in punishing me as an attempt to teach me a lesson. The issue at hand has resolved itself. Fry1989 (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, you need to have performed 4 reverts to violate 3RR (you're allowed 3 reverts of any kind to the same page). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And as I said I wouldn't have even made the two extra edits, which would have put me over the limit, IF Muboshgu had payed attention, and realized that the Coat of Arms vs. State Seal debate was SEPARATE from the Flag, which I was enforcing per Commons discussion. I told him that the flag was wrong, but he ignored me, and is still trying to use it against me in this AN3. Fry1989 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why this report is Declined. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lasjan reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result:48 h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]
• 4th revert: [60]
• 5th revert: [61]
• 6th revert: [62]
• 7th revert: [63] (editing as 125.19.68.205)
• 8th revert: [64] (editing as 125.19.68.205)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Comments:
WP:COI editor repeatedly trying to add promotional Facebook link to article, removed by XLinkBot and multiple users. While editing as IP, tried to hide the 3RR notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:SteveyCap reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )

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

User made exact same edits with an IP; his sockpuppetry was noted by an editor other than me [his IP sockpuppetry noted here.

Previous version reverted to: [66]

• 1st revert: 14:38, 27 July 2011 SteveyCap (Undid revision 441707172 by Fortdj33 [67]
• 2nd revert: 06:15, 28 July 2011 81.101.241.130 (Undid revision 441726326 by Tenebrae) [68]
• 3rd revert: 12:40, 28 July 2011 SteveyCap (Undid revision 441862403 by TriiipleThreat) [69]
• 4th revert: 13:01, 28 July 2011 SteveyCap (53,347 bytes) (Undid revision 441865098 by Fortdj33 [70]

He was then given the latest several edit-war warnings here and his IP sockpuppetry noted here.

He would have been reported then, after that 4th, but he appeared to have stopped. But he then made another revert here.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71] and [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73] and [74] Comments:

--Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Misessus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [75]

• 1st revert: 19:32, 28 July 2011
• 2nd revert: 21:14, 28 July 2011
• 3rd revert: 21:23, 28 July 2011
• 4th revert: 22:11, 28 July 2011

also some of his earlier edit warring over the involvement of 6 editors opposing his approach:

• 15:34, 24 July 2011
• 08:47, 25 July 2011
• 16:43, 25 July 2011
• 16:53, 25 July 2011
• 17:02, 25 July 2011
• 22:40, 26 July 2011
• 23:13, 26 July 2011
• 23:41, 26 July 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:

Sadly, even after 3 previous edit warring blocks, it appears that User:Misessus thinks edit-warring is an acceptable approach to editing. BigK HeX (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)