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:DDF19483 reported by User:Attilios (Result: Protected)

Page: Teramo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user (probably an Italian one from Teramo, as he edits only this article), is continuously reverting the article to this version, reverting all modifications made between this version and his first reverts.

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

I tried to warn him to stop revert the article to his rather crude version, but he did not reply and continued in his reverting actions. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Both of you are at 3R, so this pretty much needs to stop, the next revert will draw a block. Courcelles 09:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How can we be both at 3RR? My reverts are just the deletion of his ones! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And his are just the deletion of yours. See how this goes both ways? - CETTALK 10:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please notice that my version is a large-effort wikification of his previous version, to which he is endlessly reverting to. Give just a glance to the two version, and notice there's no comparison as for Wikipedicity. He is also reintroducing errors which have corrected in the meantime. Check this correction by another user, which is already implemented in my version. Notice also that the other user is now using different IPs to make his reverts. Let me know. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this user keeps on reverting the article to his very personal version deleting the long work of many. He constantly comes to my talk page insulting me in Italian. I'm tired of telling him wikipedia is cooperation and community. Please get things fixed asap. There is no doubt he has issues.

DDF19483 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected two weeks. The revert war continued after Courcelles' warning. If the editors will begin a good-faith discussion on the article talk page, that could be enough reason to lift the protection. It seems that this war has been going on since May. Editors are expected to be able to use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, such as WP:3O. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

as you could see from talk, I started with a polite comment on his talk page, which he deleted. I tried again with another, he again deleted it. So (also judging from the very poor quality of his article, including some major error i basic English) I considered him a wikijerk, and went on into deleting it. Further, his recent accuse in my talk page that I've numerous edit wars is totally false. I am not involved into an edit war since ages. You can easily see that all debates involving pages I am editing were solved nearly immediataly, with no edit war or 3RR violations at all. Let me know and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:SexyKick reported by User:DCEvoCE (Result: Declined/warned)

Page: Mega Drive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

1. 19:22, 21 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 392077513 by DCEvoCE (talk) images show what add ons are capable of")
2. 04:07, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 392924807 by DCEvoCE (talk) You aren't an admin, and you are disruptive here.")
3. 04:14, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 392929108 by DCEvoCE (talk) It was here because of multiple NFC Logos, read the improper use section")

• Diff of warning: here

The original report is collapsed, because it made my eyes hurt and my brain bleed. Haven't edited the diffs, checking now. --slakr^\ talk / 07:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

User:SexyKick Hello there, I would like to report User:SexyKick for initiating edit wars by continuously reverting valid edits made to the Mega Drive article, removing tags set by admins, and re-inserting non-free content. My attempt to contact this person via his/her talk page (several times) remained fruitless. He kept reverting edits (even those by admins, removing the non-free & cleanup tag, repeatedly: August 10th A, August 10th B, August 8th, and did not stop until tonite). Prior to that, this person contacted me accusing me of vandalism when I tried to reword a few sentences of a section of the article ("Console Wars") with the goal to eventually clean the entire article of bias, speculation and weasel words to focus on facts alone. Here's the edit in question. I have observed that since I made that edit (made June 28th!), practically every single edit made to the article was reverted by this person. I hope you can help. I really don't know what to do with this guy. DCEvoCE (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC) From previous "discussions": Just a quick glance at the edit history of Mega Drive, looks like Alphathon and SexyKick are in an edit war and both violated WP:3RR, WP:BOOMARANG? — raekyT 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Oh no, me and User:Alphathon aren't in an edit war (at least not IMHO) we're just building on top of each others edits (as well as updating per talk page changes.) We work pretty well together IMHO.--SexyKick 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC) He changes, and you revert, you make some changes and he reverts then you revert his revert (and a change after that) without a reason given, then he reverts you again. You change a caption, and he reverts. Seems like something's going on here. — raekyT 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC) A word by J Milburn (the admin who tagged the article for non-free content) as can be read on the article's talk page: Alphathon, Miramare, and myself have already agreed that the screenshots have to go. Seems J Milburn agrees, despite your claims that he would be okay with the screenshots and that the logos would be the only issue. @SexyKick: You reverted the changes made to the article again without having read what we discussed here. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC) I had discussed it with him before. He's only saying that because you went and told him you thought they should be removed, and he knows the less NFC the better. Right now I have no hope of the article going FA this year, and probably not GA either. The article has to be stable, and it was only stable until he came and complained about there being 3 logos, and then all hell broke loose.--SexyKick 00:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Don't be ridiculous. An article like this will never pass GAC with a decent reviewer, and certainly not FAC, purely because of the ridiculous amount of non-free content. The fact that "all hell broke loose" "because" of me is nothing to do with the problems in this article. If you'll note, I haven't actually removed any of the logos- I pointed out the problem, and left you (collective you, "you" referring to "the regular editors") to deal with it, but you haven't even managed that. And do not put words into my mouth regarding the screenshots. I have pointed out issues with the screenshots, but when you try to wikilawyer your way out of having three separate logos in the infobox, what chance have I got of getting rid of superfluous screenshots that are going to be edit-warred over until the cows come home? J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC) God, I've just skim read some of the more recent posts, and been reminded of why I got on with other stuff. This is not controversial. The fact that you people all want your pet articles to have a bazillion non-free images does not mean we need some sort of "higher authority" (whatever that means) to tell us that whoops, yes, actually, we do have a policy on this. Just deal with it. Look at every non-free image, and think "right- do we need this image? Would the article be worse off without it?" In all the articles I list on my userpage put together, there are fewer non-free files than there are on this article- and yes, I've written about television, music and other topics that tend to attract non-free content. I'm not saying that all of the images need to go, and I'm not providing detailed arguments for/against each one, I'm just telling you how this works, and telling you what you're gonna have to do if you want this article to get anywhere. Not only do I have experience with regards to non-free content but I have experience with regards to writing decent articles. This is not some kind of ego-trip- common sense would tell you that listening to my thoughts may be beneficial. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC) A warning handed out by admin KieferSkunk on SexyKick's talk page a few days ago: [...] and KieferSkunk obviously don't mind them being there. SexyKick 23:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Please consider this a friendly warning to cool it on the revert war with User:DCEvoCE. Even if you're not doing three reverts in 24 hours, you can still be blocked for disruption if it continues. Work toward consensus in the talk page. (I realize this discussion has been going on for months, but getting into an edit war isn't going to help matters.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC) One more point (I missed this earlier): Just because I haven't removed an image myself doesn't mean I necessarily think it should be there. I don't have the bandwidth right now to deal with the entire article or all the discussions surrounding it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC) DCEvoCE (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC) DCE is a bold editor, and while I respect that, and find nothing wrong with it, he does not always act with consensus, nor wait for it to take form. JMilburn placed the NFC tag on the article because too many NFC logos were being used (3 NFC logos.) Currently one NFC logo is being used, which is what JMilburn said we were limited to. DCE constantly removes sourced statements from the article, and I add them back in. I did think it was vandalism at first, but his consistency clearly shows he means well by removing information, and that I must have been mistaken. I don't know what to do other than add the removed sourced statements back in however. In reference to the cleanup tag, the other editors and I addressed the issues which DCE pointed out that were in need of cleanup, and when I removed the tag, he re-added it and was angry with me.--SexyKick 04:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Consensus was to remove the screenshots. The tag was for non-free content, not some logo. I am angry with you because it is impossible to edit the article because you keep reverting every single edit. - And no, your lies won't help you out of this this time. DCEvoCE (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I am not a liar. The reason the NFC tag was there, was because of the three logos, and was talked about extensively in the articles talk pages. You removed those screenshots before consensus, and more people have weighed in since you removed them. I'm sorry you have an issue with me.--SexyKick 05:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Will the template on the Sonic CD image and Mega Drive article be removed for now then?--SexyKick 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC) You are welcome to remove it. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC) The issue then moved on a couple weeks later to the 3 logos. Here's the edit in question. [5]--SexyKick 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I should also add for everyone's knowledge that I did add the Sonic The Hedgehog cover art into the article, as well as a picture of the Mega Drive box art. J Milburn removed both of these from the article, and helped me to realize that they were not proper uses of NFC. Both of the things shown by the pictures could easily have been written about, or already were. I also deny reverting "every single" edit of DCE's, he's added the picture of the High Definition Graphics Genesis (currently under consideration for removal by another user, as questionable notability) and he also added the screen shot of Sonic 1, I did not revert either. Anytime DCE has something helpful to add I do not revert, however most of his contributions consist of removing sources, sourced statements, changing statements that already have sources, removing pictures, etc. I'm sure it seems frustrating to him, but when I try explaining myself to him, he says I "spam" his talk page, and he never accepts what I have to say about things anyway. I know he thinks he's helping in some way, but no matter how nice I am to him, he's always angry.--SexyKick 07:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Declined — As of this report it doesn't look like there's an actual violation of the three revert rule. Granted, three reverts isn't a privilege, and there's still some sort of minor edit warring going on, but it's borderline to the point that if it continues, 3RR or not, it will definitely be an edit war. What concerns me the most is this new account magically appearing (Uberdrivefan123 (talk · contribs)), which is almost certainly a sock or meatpuppet. Still, even though that's shady, the puppet's revert wouldn't put the puppetmaster over the revert limit, but using socks in an edit war, alone, puts you on the losing side due to the inherently abusive attempt to game the system. If any of you continue to use socks or edit while signed out in an attempt to try to "win," you will likely be blocked twice as long as the person with whom you're warring. Consider this the last warning for all parties involved: take it to the articles talk page --slakr^\ talk / 07:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Shimman reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result:no violation )

Page: Hyundai Elantra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 15:39, 24 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "updated the default picture to the current model (2011) picture")
2. 08:22, 26 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 392678777 by OSX (talk) reverted back to the better quality picture")
3. 08:29, 26 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 392954678 by Bidgee (talk) 4th gen picture looks sharper with noticeably less post-processing artifacts than 2002 euro picture")
4. 09:01, 26 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "5th gen picture would be better IMHO, but there are people who cannot relate 5th gen yet, so 4th gen with better quality than 2nd gen euro model picture which i don't think too many can relate")

• Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that both of you have expressed your reasoning for your reverts quite differently. I now know that Shimman wants a quality picture but Bidgee is reverting due to WP:CARPIX. Is protection in order? Minimac (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for me to repeat on what WP:CARPIX states, I said in the edit summary to take it to the talk page and warned the editor (in regards to 3RR) but the editor just breached the 3RR by changing the image again. Protection is pointless when it is one editor in the wrong. Bidgee (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You've both made three reverts today. Discuss this out, or I'm going to start issuing blocks. Neither of you is in the clear here, you are both edit warring, that some Wikiproject style guide may support one of you is no justification whatsoever for engaging in this edit war. Courcelles 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact I did three but Shimman has breached the 3RR. Your threat is unjustified since two editors (OSX and myself) support the current image [and as does the consensus on the article's talk page from the past] and there is no need to insult me (especially with the edit summary of Time to quit, as I've not pasted the 3RR and could be seen as a comment to quit Wikipedia). It is no wonder why long time editors are getting sick of Admin's acting like you have done here. Bidgee (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he has not broken the 3RR, as your own timestamp shows- the first edit you list is ~48 hours old. 3RR requires more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. However, you are both edit warring, which is block-worthy even in absence of a 3RR violation. I take a particularly dim view of people who revert 3 times and then run here to ANEW to report the other party- your third revert was at 0953, and this report was filed at 0957. If I'm going to block anyone for this, I'm going to block both of you. You need to take a very careful read of what constitutes edit warring and what does not- talk page consensus, or even WikiProject consensus is not in any way an exemption to the policy against edit warring. Yes, it is time to quit. Time to disengage and walk away from this dispute. Until someone makes another revert, this one is No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.. Courcelles 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:MR90 reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result:Page protected)

• Page: Lauren Hodges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: MR90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Time reported: 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 19:34, 25 October 2010 (edit summary: "Removed section does not identify the person for their public notability. More appropriate that it be placed in separate section of "Life and Education."")
2. 02:41, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Biographical information removed because two facts which occurred eleven years apart are linked in same sentence. This does not constitute a biography. It is senseless.")
3. 13:11, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "to construct a biography of a living person off of one interview is misleading and irresponsible. see rules on BLP. i shortened the biography to facts verified in sources. and, fixed grammar.")
4. 14:27, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 393000236 by Scjessey (talk)")
5. 15:10, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 393000821 by Scjessey (talk) Vandalism. Not significant information. Poor sourcing. {{db-a7}}, {{db-person}. {{db-")
6. 15:22, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 393008082 by Scjessey (talk) WP:VAN, WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E, {{db-a7}}, {{db-person}. {{db-)")
7. 16:06, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "WP:VAN, WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E, {{db-a7}}, {{db-person}. Non-professional information obtained from web interview not a source. Notable for one-event only. Historical info inappropriate.")

• Diff of warning: here
• Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments: WP:SPA user who removes sourced information which he calls unencyclopedic and inaccurate. Some edits partly contained correct edits, bit all removed the same sourced information of her graduation. Edits from the last 24 hours, went on before that. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protected by SlimVirgin Secret ^account 20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:208.54.86.35/User:69.26.208.78 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Palestinian freedom of movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.54.86.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)69.26.208.78 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Comments:

The two IPs above are obviously controlled by the same user, both go back to the exact same location, besides edit warring on Palestinian freedom of movement above, the user who controls these two IPs have been edit warring at Israeli salad:[13][14][15] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Purely for the record; I attempted to address this w/ a SPI. NickCT (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected due to probable sockpuppetry. Two IPs from Dallas show up out of nowhere to edit the same article. They are presumably the same person. WP:SOCK explains why this is a bad idea. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

IP et al. reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Editors warned; article semiprotected)

Page: List of the verified oldest people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP et al.

Previous version reverted to: [16] Note that I initiated the debolding of the then-roman text in second graf first sentence "As of" per WP:MOSBOLD. Most edits by IP range familiar to NickOrnstein [17] [18].

• 1st revert: [19] by 218.109.121.101
• 2nd revert: [20] by 218.109.120.239
• 3rd revert: [21] by Dhanson317
• 4th revert: [22] by 218.109.117.5
• 5th revert: [23] by DerbyCountyinNZ
• 6th revert: [24] by Brendanology
• 7th revert: [25] by Ryoung122
• 8th revert: [26] by Brendanology
• 9th revert: [27] by Brendanology
• 10th revert: [28] by 218.109.115.156
• 11th revert: [29] by 218.109.116.194
• 12th revert: [30] by 218.109.115.102
• 13th revert: [31] by Brendanology

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33] last in long thread

Comments:
Both sides are engaged in long-time edit war (without true 3RR violations), but one side is citing what they see as an unambiguous WP:MOSBOLD rule, while the other is citing "common-sense exception", meaning local article tradition. In favor of bold are listed above (5 counting IPs as 1); in favor of roman or italic are myself, Itsmejudith, Griswaldo (the other side of the reverts, naturally); also on talk, Tcncv, Canada Jack, Frank (6). Advice requested. JJB 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected, due to the reverting of the article by anonymous editors who don't participate on the talk page. The guy from the 218.* range should register an account, or used a fixed IP, if he plans to continue reverting a disputed article. All editors are advised that WP:MOS is only a guideline. The continued removal or addition of bolding, before a consensus is reached on the talk page, could lead to blocks. Consider an WP:RFC or the other possible steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ed, didn't think of semiprotection, good warning shot. JJB 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It should be noted that JJBulten began this self-proclaimed "bolding war" and that he CANVASSED to recruit Itsmejudith and Grismaldo as part of a WP:POINT (another violation) to demonstrate that editors of articles on supercentenarians tend to "work together." Duh. Of course they do. But aside from the larger issues, I think the discussion needs to separate out "bolding in text" versus "bolding in tables." The rules or guidelines for WP:MOSBOLD refer to article text in narrative format, not bolding in a table.

Aside from this, I see Brendanology's bolding being applied in a logical manner, such as "bolding" the "as of" date which changes every day. It's something that needs constant visual attention. As for italics, they often give the idea of special meaning or emphasis per what the sentence is trying to say. In this case, an exception should be considered because the "bolding" being employed is being used NOT to bring notice to the sentence itself, but to the date. In other words, the "article text" is little more than an explanation of what the information in the tables mean. Since the purpose of use is different, a different treatment than "italics" should considered.

Finally, I'm NOT going to employ JJBulten's stack-the-deck political machination to make it appear that one position or another has overwhelming/widespread support. The fact that the "bolding" on these tables and lists stayed the way they did for over a year, maybe two, speaks to the implicit consensus of the many editors who read them. A search of the talk page finds others in support. They can comment here if they so choose, no need for me to "name names."

The bottom line is that practical exceptions to Wikipedia "guidelines" regarding "style" should be employed, and that the edit history of JJBulten starting and causing trouble (not surprising, considering he is a right-wing conservative blogger, so he has perfected the art of online aggression off-wiki) should lead a neutral third-party person to consider what his motivations are, and more so whether his "changes" make the article worse, which I think they do.Ryoung122 17:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert, your characterization of my user-page disclosure and other characterizations are bordering on personal attack. The bolding of today's date is contrary to WP:RECENTISM and (indirectly) WP:DATED, and WP:CCC also applies. Your failure to interact at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths and defend the positions on which we agree is not helping. To build consensus about these topics, including the use of bolding and related styling in several other longevity articles, it is necessary for you to interact with the mediation you agreed to. I am unwatching this page. JJB 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chartinael reported by User:Kaddoo (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [34]

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]
• 5th revert: [39]

Comment:--Kaddoo (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Both above and Lagoo sab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)