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:Mosmof reported by 68.173.122.113 (Result: Semi)

• Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mosmof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mosmof a user who has commented on this page extensively is adding serious accusations against something which accured nearly 2 years ago, and was debated ad naseum in a debate he lost. There have been no charges nor anything of the like. Torossian's firm was recently named one of the largest in the US but this is whitewashed. Help revert to original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm guessing this is not a serious 3RR accusation, but I should comment. Both the aformentioned article and 5W Public Relations, a mildly controversial firm owned by the former, were heavily edited by its staffer(s) using multiple IDs (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman makes for a good Sunday reading), generally reworking content to be more favorable, to the point and removing information that's uncomfortable for the firm and its clients, while making un-WP:AGF accusations against anyone who disagrees using specious reasoning that ignore Wikipedia policies. My understanding is that I'm an anti-semite who works for the Lower East Side B.I.D. Judging by the tone, type of edits and language, my guess is that 65.112.21.194 (talk · contribs) and 68.173.122.113 (talk · contribs) is a reemergence of the above, but I don't think they're being overly disruptive yet. Mosmof (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof is using his continued agenda to slander 5W. There is no reworking other than readding information which was there prior to vandalism. Unaware why the firm being named one of the 15 largest in US shouldnt be present nor why INC magazine wouldnt be not present. Also it should be noted this fight began regarding an issue Mosmof posted in contrast to items he posted years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to "heavy editing" nearly 2 years ago by people who are no longer employed by the company, right ? What is the justification for removing language which says they are 1 of the biggest firms in the US ? Why would that be the case ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong forum for continuing content-related discussion, but I should point out that the IP editor wants to insert more detailed information about the firm in the Torossian article. My point is, and has been, that the article should contain information that's about the person and some basic information about the firm, but anything about how awesome the company is should be in the company article, and there's a convenient {{main}} link will help any curious readers. -Mosmof (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was actually on the way to the IPs page when I saw this, the IP is currently in violation of 3RR on the page. Since he brought this here, it seems like he's knowingly trying to get Mosmof blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It has to be added here because Mosmof ignores direct messages. If the company info suffices, then why does Joe Francis remain ? He's noteable bc of the company he owns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe both of them should be blocked. They seemed to have tried to discuss it on the talk page, while simultaneously reverting each other. –Turian (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You can see me ignoring direct messages here, here and here. Honestly, I haven't kept count of my reverts, and I acknowledge, I may have been revert-happy because of the history of editors associated with the IPs. If I need to be blocked, then I'm okay with that. --Mosmof (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. This article has been the subject of so much abuse in the past that we shouldn't need to think long and hard before taking admin action. Anyone connected with Mr. Torossian who wants to make the article more favorable to him would be well-advised to cooperate with our WP:COI policy. Creating a registered account would be a good first step, and impeccable behavior would do a lot to earn respect here. The apparent return to promotional editing is not charming and does not give us much reason to extend good faith. Listening for consensus on the talk page before making controversial changes could be a winning strategy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof again has refused to this page to yet again make edits ? Did not this forum recommend he stay away ? Why did he revisit again ? Can he finally be banned from touching this page ? Please just look @ the facts. You cant say that the fact that Torossian's firm is one of largest isnt relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 09:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Varsovian reported by User:Howelseornotso (Result: No action)

Page: London Victory Parade of 1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Varsovian (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]
• 5th revert: [6]
• 6th revert: [7]
• 7th revert: [8]
• 8th revert: [9] including removal of source

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11] [12][13]

Comments:

Past Arbcom sanctions warning: [14] for tendentious "original research" and aggressive edit-warring.

To my mind user is being disruptive and ignoring WP guidance and policy.--Howelseornotso (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian was edit warring with multiple editors and he continues [15] [16] [17] with new IP's. To clarify, I'm not is the same editor as the IP's.--Howelseornotso (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether Varsovian broke 3RR here, as some of the diffs above are not technically reverts. It also seems that Howelseornotso is edit warring on the same article. A newly registered account, and first thing this account does is edit warring. Even more worrisome are that mysteriously three anon SPA's appeared (69.165.137.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 76.10.167.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 69.196.131.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) at the article and another article, with the only purpose to revert Varsovian's edits. It seems that sockpuppetry is the problem here, not edit warring. Pantherskin (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Add this ip 69.196.129.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. Not sure whether a range block is possible, otherwise the page should be semi-protected. Pantherskin (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that you are unrelated to these mysterious IP's. In any case you created your account on April 2, and you already know about 3RR, arbcom and correct wiki formatting. So you might or might not be the same editor as the IP's, but you certainly do not look like someone new. Pantherskin (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action. Suggest following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, for example, a WP:Request for comment. The mysterious IP editors are all from Ontario. Getting this article right seems to require a lot of patience since there are so many conflicting explanations for the Polish non-participation in the parade. Finding more sources would be a worthwhile effort. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:TheDarkLordSeth reported by User:CheesyBiscuit (Result: both blocked)

Page: Armenian_Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: TheDarkLordSeth

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354161975

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354238589
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354258963
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354263063
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354317849

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

Warned.

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

Comments:

Article is subject to a 1RR rule - mentioned at the top of the talk page. I've tried to engage with the user on both the talk page and their user talk (I've not been directly involved in the edit war myself <UPDATE: I have now>).

I recommend a topic ban for TheDarkLordSeth.

Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Both clearly violated the 1RR imposed by Moreschi, and both are aware or apparently aware of that. The 1RR is prominently advertised on the talk page, which TheDarkLordSeth has edited. Tim Song (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User: O Fenian reported by User:The C of E (Result: no violation)

Page: List of active autonomist and secessionist movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: O Fenian (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: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments: This user has been reverting/vandalising continuity of the page and falsely accuses me of vandalism in his edit summary's. Also giving what I belive could construed as him threatening me with a block. I believe that if I try to fix it again he'll make good on his threat, revert again and try and get me blocked before I can report him hereThe C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are not even four reverts, and it does not apply to reverting vandalism. The C of E even acknowledges on his userpage that Northern Ireland does not have a flag, since it does not. He is a fine one to talk about edit summaries, given "rv vandalism". It is also worth looking at what was said to him here, "stop adding flags against policy and/or without achieving consensus. The alternative is that your next block is your last, as far as I'm concerned. We cannot and will not tolerate this single-minded disruption." Despite being told many times, The C of E persists in disruptively adding unofficial and sectarian flags, even though he knows Northern Ireland does not have a flag. O Fenian (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No violation but both need to re-read WP:VANDALISM and stop applying that tag to edits that they simply disagree with. Even disruptive or tendentious edits are not vandalism. Tim Song (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:TakuyaMurata (Result: No vio)

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

Previous version reverted to: [23]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [28]

Comments:

Please make him stop. -- Taku (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No violation, in fact the reporter has reverted four times to the reportee's three, though it's over a 36 hour period. Content dispute; dispute resolution is this way. Thankyou. Black Kite 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 reported by User:Emmanuelm (Result: )

Page: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Under "Claims that the UN is antisemitic", 23:54, March 26, 2010 Emmanuelm added first version of paragraph about EAFORD statement. Zero000 deleted it with valid criticism (this delete is not counted in the list below). Emmanuelm rephrased the text and inserted it 22:13, March 28, 2010 as such:

In March 2010, the statement of an NGO, re-printed as UNHRC publication A/HRC/13/NGO/23, contains accusation of organ theft. This accusation was deemed antisemitic by the Canadian Jewish Congress, "a take-off of the historical calumny of the Jewish blood libel"

The following log refers to insertion/deletion of the text above, which remained unchanged throughout.

• 1st revert: text deleted March 28, 2010 Zero0000
• 2nd revert: text reinserted 22:04, March 30, 2010 Emmanuelm
• 3rd revert: text deleted 11:09, March 31, 2010 Zero0000
• 4th revert: text reinserted 17:43, March 31, 2010 Shuki
• 5th revert: text deleted 18:54, March 31, 2010 Zero0000
• 6th revert: text reinserted 20:53, April 4, 2010 Emmanuelm
• 7th revert: text deleted 22:09, April 4, 2010 John Z
• 8th revert: text reinserted 18:02, April 6, 2010 Shuki
• 9th revert: text deleted 22:23, April 6, 2010 Zero0000

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: in the talk page.

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

Comments:

The argument is spelled out in the talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that should be at the NPOV noticeboard, not here. Along with several other editors, I believe Emmanuelm's text is inappropriate, mostly on grounds of lack of balance and weight. The background is that the Human Rights Council receives large numbers of submissions from NGOs and publishes them in the agendas for its meetings. For the meeting ended recently, there were 139 such submissions [31]. All of them were published with a disclaimer stating that they are being presented unedited according to the rules of procedure. (Here (click on the "E" of A/HRC/13/NGO/111) is an example of a submission by the pro-Israeli NGO UN Watch making charges against various Islamic countries; see the disclaimers on the front page.) One of the submissions this time was from a little-known NGO called EAFORD, which included a charge that Israel harvests body organs of Palestinians. This is an obnoxious charge, and if someone wants to write an article on EAFORD it should be mentioned there. However, Emmanuelm wants it to be on this page in a form that many readers will take as meaning that the UN itself made charges about body part harvesting, and shows no interest in mentioning the disclaimer published with it. EAFORD's charge was not raised at the HRC meeting at all, according to the on-line video minutes, and as far as anyone has claimed no UN organ has ever made any sort of statement in support of EAFORD's charge. Also, the quote from CJC that Emmanuelm wants to include is a (justified) attack on the EAFORD claim; why does it belong in an article on the UN? The only real claim against the UN in the given source (a newspaper polemic) is an argument that they should censor submissions. Maybe that issue is one that deserves coverage in Wikipedia, but much more material than this minor incident would be needed. Zero^talk 04:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Zero for mentioning UN Watch. [Hillel] Neuer told The Jerusalem Post that the UNHRC in the past has asked UN Watch to change the language in documents that UN Watch plans to submit, including in this session where UNHRC asked UN Watch to edit their words with reference to Iran and Libya. If UN Watch can’t use the word “regime” when talking about Iran, then one would think that a “blood libel” would be unacceptable, Neuer said.. This is precisely the nature of the accusation against the UN in the National Post article. The antisemitism & CJC part is there merely to explain why they want the UN to censors this kind of text; antisemitism is condemned by several UNGA resolutions.

Now, I sense that you are changing your mind on the acceptability of this item in the article. The spirit of WP is to edit rather than delete. You might want to insert your version in the paragraph called "Claims that the UN ignores antisemitism", along with other documented incidents. You see, the article already contains "more material than this minor incident".

As for where this edit war should be arbitrated, I am no expert. You may move it where you wish. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Kedadi reported by User:Tadija (Result: No action )

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 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:

Article is part of the ARBMAC restriction. --Tadija^taking 09:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tadija you are not allowed to edit Kosovo-related articles for 2 weeks[32] or to make any edits related to them. [33] [34] [35] This report is a violation of your restriction. For the record this is not a revert-war case as kedadi was reverting a user who was pov-pushing and now retired shouting and insulting admins. [36][37]. Also if you read the 3RR article you'll see that the point of 3RR is to prevent damage to encyclopedia not to punish users, now there is no disruption because Shanticm has retired and therefore no need for any action is needed.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is related only to article-space, not this one. And it is unrelated what i am, and what other user is. --Tadija^taking 09:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That applies to all areas as defined by the policy. You aren't allowed to edit areas related to the Balkans or make any edits related to them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No. "he may not edit pages in article-space related to the Balkans". I agreed on that, so i know. --Tadija^taking 09:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That applies to all areas so you're violating your restriction.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tadija is absolutely correct. He is allowed to edit talk and project pages and whatever else, as long as he does not edit the articles themselves. I've been watching him to make sure he sticks to the restriction, and he has, which is a credit to him. --Deskana (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, if it's an article-only restriction.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There seems to be no disruption caused by Shanticm as he left [38][39] wikipedia by insulting users, so we should close this case.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kedadi hasn't made another revert since the warning he was given so I'm taking no action. If he reverts again, by all means re-report it. Pop by my talk page if you want should he revert - I'll be around most of the day. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Knorrepoes reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: Warned)

Page: Hungary-Slovakia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Knorrepoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: March 27

• 1st revert: 10:20, 28 March 2010
• 2nd revert: 10:23, 28 March 2010
• 3rd revert: 10:29, 28 March 2010
• 4th revert: 10:59, 28 March 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion was a bit scattered and mostly not on article talk [41] [42] Knoerrepes did not take part in any discussion regarding the article.

Comments:
Description: Repeated page blanking. All the original reverts are within 40 minutes. As can be seen from the dates this case is a bit old. This is because in hopes that this person will reconsider and give up edit warring on this article, he was not reported earlier. Unfortunately this has not happened and he continues his blanking repeatedly ever since, just a few additional examples [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. It is notable that this blanking leaves over 40 from the over 100 sources in the article, and most of the content is deleted as well. This mass removal of sourced information is extremely disruptive in addition to the original 4 reverts within 40 minutes, so I would ask that an admin look at the situation here and stop the disruption. It is also clear that there is no consensus for this move and ignoring the BRD cycle he continues to blank the article. It is also notable that Knorrepoes's recent contribution history shows, he has not a single edit to any talk page or user talk page recently it's all reverts. Hobartimus (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Warned. It's simply too long after (around 30 hours) the last revert to act here and even then the 3RR violation goes back over a week. I've given him a warning and another undiscussed revert will end in a block. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User: Kazimier Lachnovič reported by User:M.K (Result: )

Page: Lithuanian language (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kazimier Lachnovič (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

• 1th revert: 2010-04-07T18:20:47
• 2rd revert: 2010-04-07T20:16:10
• 3nd revert: 2010-04-08T10:41:48
• 4st revert: 2010-04-08T16:43:03

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Comments:
For the past weeks user:Kazimier Lachnovič‘s only “contributions” are exclusively reverts on multiply pages. Already several articles are affected by his weeks’ long edit warring (Lithuanian language as well). The previous clear warning to stop edit warring failed to stop such practice. M.K. (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)