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:92.11.165.71 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 92.11.165.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edited under: 92.4.91.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold#Marilyn Manson/Misleading use of quote

Comments:

• Not blocked because (1) the IP user is talking it out on the talk page and (2) the IP user is pretty unquestionably correct in that the quote was falsely putting controversial words into someone's mouth and thus a BLP violation. Rollback removed from requestor for using rollback in an edit war. After some reasonable period of time of demonstrated behavior of not edit warring (eg, 1 month), please feel free to ask that I or another admin restore it. --B (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say this was an incorrect decision, not particularly the rollback, but letting the IP slide on his overt 3RR violation. And let's not overlook that the IP did in fact break 3RR without providing a source to support his contention and other editors have commented that what was meant is subject to interpretation but now he gloats that he didn't in fact exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours, when if one looks at the diffs above, he mostly certainly did. The IP was asked to provide a source that can reliably support his statement. He has not produced such a source and continued on to revert. Unless the reviewer here has his own reliable source to support that the IP "pretty unquestionably correct in that the quote was falsely putting controversial words into someone's mouth and thus a BLP violation." and is prepared to treat the IP equally, I'd say the conclusion is biased. It's beyond me how anyone can state that the IP is right, without supporting that, and make a decision based on something unknown. It is clear from talk page discussion that what is meant by that answer is subject to interpretation, and it is in no way a BLP violation to interpret that Manson meant the killers. The IP kept contending that to say Manson meant no one listened to the killers was saying that Manson supported mass murder and the killers. To state no one listened to them is in no way a violation of BLP. That is quite a speciou claim. Without a reliable source that isn't YouTube, I stil maintain he meant that the killer's early conduct and behavior was a way of asking for support, which was ignored. One isn't breaking BLP to say that.Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Murderdan537 reported by Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Scouts-in-Exteris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Murderdan537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Never figured out how to make those diffs work properly, so... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouts-in-Exteris&curid=3752790&action=history

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

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

Actually, given the user's history, I have also had to take this to ANI and WP:Vand, but for this specific article, this goes here. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked by Cirt (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for vandalism --B (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Nutriveg reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

This user has removed reference three times in the last 24 hrs:

Here [7] Here [8] Here [9]

Edit warring also occurred on June 8th

Here [10] Here [11] Here [12]

User was warned by three different user here [13] here [14] and here [15]

I have linked this report on the users talk page here [16]

Talk page discussion was ongoing.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, this article has a high number of different edits, it should also be observed that many of the diffs provided omit intermediary edits, or large single edits that removed content that were reverted to restore such removed content but the changes of such large single edits were later added.--21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutriveg (talk • contribs)

(Involved editor) While there is probably not a technical 4-reverts-in-24-hours bright-line violation, there is definitely a serious and ongoing problem with edit-warring on Nutriveg's part which violates WP:EW. I'll put in a plea for administrative intervention of some sort, because he has basically rendered the article un-editable, to the detriment of its actual content. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly not an edit war case, since I've taken an effort to resolve those issues on the talk page and I'm impressed to see how that section evolved in quality since I first edit it. It's not my problem if we have many people making many different changes to the article and they prefer do bold edits instead of discussing the changes first so a large number of reverts is naturally expected.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because you haven;t made 4 reverts inside a 24 hour period doesn't mean there wasn't an edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never said it was a problem of numbers but I only reverted a lot because a lot of people boldly made a lot of different changes to that article instead of discussing those first, what I don't see as problem if they acknowledge that bold edits of problematic text are likely to be reverted, but I was always open to discussion on the talk page and most of those changes in the end were added to article.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you find yourself single-handedly reverting "a lot of people", then you should at least consider the possibility that you are acting against consensus. If your objection is that the edits haven't sought your approval before making their edits, then please take a look at WP:OWN. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen WP:Consensus being defined by how many people are involved in an edit war since I understand that as a discussion process and those reverts were many because there were many distinguish changes. I didn't say it was a matter of approval but of people addressing problematic text by making bold edits instead of discussing those problematic issues and listening to the other part, to later complain they were reverted because of those same bold edits they earlier decided to make.--Nutriveg (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There was another recent block at the same article.[17] I'd urge that extra care be taken so that blocks are not handed out to only one group of editors and not another. If conduct is reviewed as part of this report by User:Jmh649, then the conduct of all editors at this article ought to be considered, and that includes admins too.[18]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Nutriveg for 24 hours for edit warring; the reverts are not acceptable, and the tenor of the discussion on the talk page is not constructive. If there are issues with other editors' behavior, those should be pointed out by further submissions to this board or dealt with through dispute resolution, but at this point I do not believe that any other editor on the article merits blocking. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I concur with the above. A 24 hour block is not unreasonable in the circumstances and, with the article protected for the time being, I see little to be gained from further blocks but that's not to say they won't be swift and possibly lengthy if the edit warring continues after the protection expires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mentuhotep23 reported by User:Tim Shuba (Result: 24h)

Page: Cheikh Anta Diop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mentuhotep23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: 06:07 10June
• 2nd revert: 05:03 10June
• 3rd revert: 22:40 09June
• 4th revert: 14:38 09June

Plenty more going back days:

• 01:49 09June
• 19:28 08June
• 19:05 08June
• 12:05 08June
• see page history for more

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22] and associated section. Tim Shuba (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to get him to read 3RR after he accused me of edit warring after just one revert, and he's now had 3 warnings. He just continues to revert, although 3 editors (now 4) disagree with him and he has no support on the talk page either. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 24 hours. Edit warring over several days, plus a technical WP:3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Greensburger reported by User:DavidOaks (Result: protected)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genealogies_of_Genesis&oldid=366765594

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]
• 5th revert: [27]

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

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

Comments:

I kind of hesitate to report, as I'm not sure the user is understanding quite what's at issue, but I also don't know of another way to make it clear that the material is WP:Fringe whether it's sourced or not. DavidOaks (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected This appears to be a good-faith dispute with plenty of discussion. I have locked the article for now to encourage discussion without the distraction of the edit war. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sugar Bear reported by RG (Result: 1 week block)

Page: List of nu metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Sugar Bear (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

Snot's inclusion on the list was discussed earlier as well as the other groups Sugar Bear (then known as Ibaranoff24) disputed.

Comments:
Sugar Bear is consistently edit warring on this article. Others bands who that he didn't want on the list included Hed PE, Incubus, System of a Down, and Rage Against the Machine. The consensus was always to keep these acts, but the edit warring kept continuing for months. These conflicts are really becoming disruptive. It's also important to note that Sugar Bear has been blocked in the past for 3rr relating to Mudvayne. RG (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• For one thing, there's no violation of 3RR. There are two different edits being reverted to. Secondly, none of the sources refer to the band Tons, but to Snot. Continously adding sources for a different band is vandalism. Reverting vandalism does not equate to any 3RR rule. Secondly, I never violated 3RR, and any previous activity by any editor is irrelevant. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
  • I should point out that Rockgenre/RG actually has violated 3RR. Repeatedly. In addition to vandalising this and other articles. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

• Blocked Blocked 1 week. Has had previous blocks and deleted this report twice. Vsmith (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:71.219.172.174 reported by User:Vsmith (Result: )

Page: Raft River Mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.219.172.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

• 1st revert: [31]
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34]

• 3rr warning

• Comments:

User has been slow edit warring on several pages and refuses to discuss their concerns on talk pages although asked repeatedly. On this article some of the above edits were only partial reverts with other changes made. The ip is in the same range and exhibits the same behavior as those discussed here. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lion and Sun reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (talk) (Result: )

Page: Lion and Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: nobody pending review

There's an edit war going on at Lion and Sun, it's not my fight, however I am concerned about repeated removal of large amounts of sourced text, and have reverted to the sourced version.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• talk:Lion and Sun#The seal does not represent the Lion and Sun motif

Comments:

User:99.243.108.148 reported by User:Ophois (Result:Reporter blocked 3 months)

Page: Lee Jun Ki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 99.243.108.148 (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

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

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

Comments: This is the banned user User:InkHeart, who has continuously evaded her block through proxies such as this. Ωphois 04:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

ophois keeps adding unsourced information to a BLP 99.243.108.148 (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note The reporter is in fact a block evading IP sockpuppet of User:InkHeart -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: )

Page: Filioque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]

Entry- Photius responded to the practice of certain Frankish monks in Jerusalem who attempted to impose the practice of the Filioque on their Eastern brothers.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:Editor Esoglou is adding outrageous and simply unjustifiable amounts of citation requests after I have sourced my contributions and given citations. Under the justification that the sourcing failed verification, Esoglou does not see the information in sources I have added. Esoglou is engaging in this and other policy abusive behavior. This is making it so my contributions to the article will be removed later on. Removed as justified under the reason of the contribution being "unsourced or improperly sourced" content. Esoglou is refusing the sources I have posted and I have started to copy and paste content from sources in order to try and appease Esoglou. This has started to fail to appease Esoglou as well. This example and difs I provided is just that. If an administrator were to open the link to the google books page and actually read the entry. They will notice that I have copied it word for word. Even so Esoglou keeps adding back into the article (really to almost all my contributions in general) the citation tag stating failed verification and requesting that I copy the text word for word. When I have already done that. Since I have reported Esoglou before and nothing was done [41] Esoglou has become even more uncompromising and unruly. Esoglou's appears embolden in their conduct. Which is not hidden nor is it hard to miss what they are doing (go look at the mess they have made of the article, every entry of mine is attacked, reword, deleted etc). Esoglou's refusing sourcing to the filioque article for no other reason then to frustrate and discourage editor contributions. Contributions of opinions that Esoglou opposes and does not want to hear.