Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR Update this page 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. Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 00:04, 28 November 2013‎ (this is named account before logging in)
2. 00:12, 28 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Vogue article */ Seriously? What relevance does this Vogue article have? We argued this TO THE BONE and I'm upset that someone (under Bbb2's watch, no less) has resurrected this article on this page. Refer to Talk Page for debate.... yet again.")
3. 00:22, 28 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Vogue article */ Refer to Talk Page for discussion.")
4. 20:50, 28 November 2013 (edit summary: "Consensus on Talk Page. Due for further discussion.")

Warned: [1]

Discussion on talk page: [2]

The editor is very passionate and stubborn.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am passionate and stubborn, but I believe the same can be said about Bbb23. There is agreement by at least another editor (2 vs. 1) on the talk page of the Asma al-Assad who agrees that the Vogue piece should have limited place on the article. The article, as it stood prior to my edit, was sensationalist at best and a tabloid, at its worst. I would like for a outside mediator to look at the article with objectivity and neutrality, as this is clearly a quality that Bbb23 lacks. Thank you.

I must further add that I have expressed yesterday that the talk page should be used, as I told Bbb23 after he issued out a warning last night. However, Bbb23 then proceeded to undue the edits today, alleging supposed "status quo". I am under the notion that Bbb23 assumes he is the "status quo" as another editor, FormerIP, has agreed on the talk page of the Asma al-Assad article that the Vogue article deserves no more than a sentence of a mention. As the article originally was, the Vogue article was given it's own actual section. The Vogue article in question was retracted by the publisher and therefore does not deserve it's own personal section "sensationalizing" the person in question. Again, I would like to request an outside/unbiased set of eyes to have a look at the Asma al-Assad article, as it appears Bbb23 believes he owns the article and can do as he pleases, without reaching consensus on the talk page. I would also like to note that there is an incredible amount of repetitive information (repeated information) in the article. This needs editing, which I am reluctant to do myself, as I am sure Bbb23 will undo such changes as a tyrannic editor. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – 24 hours. This is four reverts in one day. Though Les Etoiles seems to be arguing 'sensationalism' on the Vogue issue, there is no claim that the Vogue material was factually incorrect or defamatory. The four reverts thus are not justified by the BLP exception. The claim that there was consensus to *exclude* the Vogue material can't be verified from the talk page. I take no position on the ultimate value to the article of the Vogue material: it is simply wrong to edit war about it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7].

Comments:
After being unblocked today, User:Shervinsky is continuing editing war by adding a controversial data to the article. Although the discussion has been started at the talk page, user ignores it.

• Blocked – for a period of one week per WP:ARBEE.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Andheri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farsheed96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Farsheed96#Edit_warring

Comments:
User Farsheed96 has been warned about disruptive edits and adding un-sourced, inaccurate, promotional and other non-encyclopedic content on previous occasions resulting in a temp-block (and a protective edit lock on some pages). User thankfully seems to have not discovered the revert functionality, resorting to manual reverts by adding/removing the same undesirable content repeatedly despite being warned/his edits being reverted. 115.248.130.148 (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.35.243.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

NB: Warned by myself shortly before this report was made.

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

Comments:

4 reverts within 24-hours, none appropriate to WP:3RR exceptions. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale —Darkwind (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Vietnamese language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Thainguyencc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "find source yourself, scammer"
2. 14:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "find source yourself"
3. 15:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583916344 by Kwamikagami (talk)^{[page needed]}"
4. 15:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583917988 by Hell in a Bucket (talk)I need page(s)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has just returned from a block for edit warring that was extended for IP socking and is continuing personal attacks and edit war. Source has been discussed and provided previously. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston if you are able to look at this it would be appreciated. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I add ^{[page needed]}, it's normal, Hell in a Bucket and Kwamikagami are bullies--Thainguyencc (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remind you again to not make personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 1 month. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that the editor has changed their mind about edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Party in the U.S.A. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

TheRaulRomero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 19:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583932803 by STATicVapor (talk)"
3. 17:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583926145 by STATicVapor (talk)"
4. 16:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Correct tracklist"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Party in the U.S.A.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to revert to their preferred changes after a 3RR warning. Not to mention they keep removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content. The user is already reported at WP:AIV for disruptive editing after receiving a final warning, but now they have violated WP:3RR on top of that. STATic message me! 19:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I've blocked only for a breach of WP:3RR. I have no idea about the content dispute itself, except, STATicVapor, that the blocked user has made edits to other Cyrus song articles that I imagine are consistent with their viewpoint. Somehow this should be straightened out. The best option, at least as a start, would be a discussion with the user about the dispute itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

PlayStation 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bhny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583943500 by ThePowerofX (talk) sources say 399.99, as I say on talk page"
2. 18:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583929335 by The1337gamer (talk) official price actually has the 99c i.e. US$399.99"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. See Talk:PlayStation 4#99c rounds up to $1

Comments:

Is edit-warring inaccurate pricing details into the article based off rounding methods ViperSnake151  Talk  22:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. The edits do not appear to have reached the point of an edit war otherwise. —Darkwind (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Mara Jade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Queen Azshara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User recently was blocked for 48 hours for attempting to edit war a picture into a fictional character's biography (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Cosplay image back and forth and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive228#User:Queen Azshara reported by User:Korruski (Result: 48 hours). User appears to have sat the block out and attempted to restore the image. User has not used the Talk page to explain why they believe that the image should be used or to attempt to change the existing consensus. Hasteur (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC) * Comment It might be better to table this as both the reporter and offender are parties to a current request for Arbitration. Hasteur (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What arb case? I issued the previous block of Queen A. per the original 3RR case. This is an obvious case of self-promotion, since she trying to force inclusion of her own photo or artwork to the article which already has the official image of the same Star Wars-related character. There is no discussion whatever and there are no edit summaries. It seems logical to issue an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment was intended several times for the discussion just below. Somehow the comment gets being moved back to this report. Hasteur (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indef. —Darkwind (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Barney has violated 3RR with five edits in a 24 hour period.

Diffs of the user's reverts

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583962799&oldid=583954786

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583836460&oldid=583833462

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583895829&oldid=583859534

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583912438&oldid=583912061

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583914473&oldid=583913057

Despite my repeated request, Barney has failed to make a case on the talk page in support of his edits. Here are the relevant threads:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#RfC_work_in_progress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Some_recent_edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#sokal_affair

Comments:

I myself have made three edits in the same 24 hour period. Two of those, however, involved the same section of the Sheldrake article and were reverted by Barney in a single edit. As the above threads demonstrate, all of my changes were accompanied by talk page discussion. Alfonzo Green (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Mark Arsten, both of these editors are parties to a ArbCom request that is in the works, and for lack of a better term it appears the AN3 report is a end run of trying to silence a discussion that is in the works. Hasteur (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was vaguely aware that a request had been filed, but I haven't been following the situation very closely. I blocked Btbb because it was a pretty clear 3RR violation that he made today. While he wasn't the only editor engaged in questionable behavior there recently, he did violate the bright-line rule. This block doesn't preclude WP:ARBPSEUDO sanctions against other participants in the Sheldrake dispute. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

Here are the relevant threads to prove that sources are not context:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_reliable.3F

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_link_reliable.3F

The user AmericanDad86 is currently edit warring because due to the fact that the user keeps on adding sources that are not reliable, nor they are context. The user has been told times to choose sources that are reviewed by experts, and most of the sources he provides are from Google Books, not from anything that has to do with expert reviewing. Otherwise, the user complains that the sources are reliable, and context, in which I can't tell how that is possible to say that it is without an excuse why. Well, the links that I provided above, the user makes points to the RS noticeboard, that is not helpful, nor a excuse to put in very weak context source on an article. Blurred Lines 04:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that you're edit-warring in much of the same lieu as AM86 with regards to this dispute and are not approaching this from a high ground. I would suggest withdrawing this claim and instead allow for your page protection request to be attended to and to allow for consensus to develop on the reliable sources board. This is from the perspective of somebody who is not involved with the dispute, but here to give a third opinion. DarthBotto _talk•cont 04:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend that this be closed with a warning to both parties not to continue to revert the article until a consensus has been found on the article talk page. Both parties should also be warned not to remove any sources from the article until agreement is reached. (Blurred Lines has been removing AmericanDad86's sources that he was trying to use to justify the 'adult' description). I don't see a case for full protection when this is really just a fight between two editors. Neither party has been behaving well. It's a traveling circus involving multiple noticeboards and lots of rhetoric. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours based on prior history. You are both edit warring, even if it is a slow-motion edit war, and in fact, Blurred Lines (t c) was just off a previous block for edit warring on this very same article. STOP IT. Really. Take it to some form of dispute resolution if the talk page discussion doesn't resolve things. —Darkwind (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Relics associated with Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

83.29.181.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583997471 by Editor2020 (talk)The source is RS, no matter if you like it or not."
2. 13:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 584048857 by C.Fred (talk) It stays here, opinions of those who haven't read it are irrelevant."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Discuss to reach consensus; don't edit war */ same as 83.4.156.158"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is also 83.4.156.158 (talk · contribs) with reverts at [22]17:13, 30 November 2013‎ and [23] 30 November 2013‎ Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit has been reverted now by 3 editors (me being one) with a 4th at WP:RSN#Is a book by a journalist and a photographer a reliable source for an analysis of religious relics? saying it is not a RS. The IP has responded there with insults. Thinking about it more, the article needs semi-protection given the changing IP address. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for four days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Eskimo–Aleut languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]

Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwamikagami&oldid=584081130

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28].

Comments:
The user continually reverts edits made in good faith. Three reverts and messages to "refer to talk" where the IP (reported) was the only one making any arguments, including the first, on the talk page. Three reverts of good faith edits is beyond the pale