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:Calton reported by User:CobraSA (Result: filer warned)

Page: M.U.G.E.N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Calton (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Comments: Some user is trying to suppress a valid and perfectly factual source. Supposedly for "political" reasons. Although 3 of the 4 edits were done by a guest, I think it's the same individual.

• Declined. CobraSA, Calton has edited the article only once AFAICS. Your assumption that the IP edits were also made by him is unproven and in my opinion without merit, since it might well occur to anybody to remove your reference; the link you keep inserting is promotional rather than a source. As people have pointed out, no source for the statement is needed, and a forum wouldn't cut it in any case. You should stop your slow edit warring before you're blocked. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC).

This is an appeal to the above decision, reason :

You said "the link you keep inserting is promotional rather than a source".

First I am not in any way affiliated to the link. Secondly I have myself cleaned up the article from all promotional links. [[6]] Third, I had to appeal to an admin for the removal of a spam link to an open wiki.

You said "As people have pointed out, no source for the statement is needed".

Please explain how giving a figure does not require a source. If that was the case I could say indifferently thousands, millions, billions, and everyone would have to accept it, that doesn't make any sense.

You said "a forum wouldn't cut it in any case".

The link is not showing a forum despite the misleading url, but a content repository. The article explains thousands content items exist, and the link points to a content repository that displays a counter that backs up this statement and figure.

I think you might not have analyzed the situation accurately, so please either reconsider and protect the page after restoring the valid sources, or kindly point out who I should contact to appeal to your decision. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraSA (talk • contribs)

• You cannot successfully appeal Bishonen's decision not to sanction Calton for edit warring, because Calton clearly wasn't edit warring. Edit warring does not mean "doing something that CobraSA doesn't like". Please read WP:Edit warring to understand what it does mean. Also, claiming without any evidence whatsoever that the IP's are Calton's just because they all disagree with you is baseless. By the way, if Calton and the IP's "combined" were edit warring, then you were too. The way to determine what to do is to discuss it on the article talk page. Since multiple people disagree with you, the link needs to stay out of the article until there is consensus to add it. Finally, on a different subject, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Bishonen is also right about you calling edits you disagree with "vandalism". Please see WP:Vandalism to understand what this word means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Equilibrium103 reported by User:General Ization (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Equilibrium103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC) "Additional journal citations for header added by request."
2. 14:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 802937232 by Rockypedia (talk) Fears of misuse of verbatum cited information from NBC in no way justfies obfuscation. Please see WP:AGF"
3. 14:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799821942 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Precisely as due as the adjacent editorial. Please see WP:NPOV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC) "Discretionary sanctions alert"
2. 15:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This article is under posted WP:1RR restriction. The editor has not participated in Talk page discussion concerning their edits as requested. The last revert occurred (with addition of additional source, but without discussion) after they were warned that they had already violated 1RR at this article. General Ization ^Talk 15:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Equilibrium103 tried to add the same contentious content multiple times back in August:

[7] "Added relevant counter-claims to headline"

[8] "re-inserted unduly removed relevant counter-claim"

[9] "Undid revision 798138813 by EvergreenFir (talk) More citations were provided than the example given. Subject is notable and representative of it's politcal alignment. Feel free to add more."

It was brought up on the Talk page where Equilibrium made a comment, but then made the edit again without reaching concensus:

[10] "Undid revision 798153505 by K.e.coffman (talk) Pls see talk."

They are aware that this is to be discussed on the Talk page but have chosen to continue to add the content anyway while making comments in the Edit summaries. The Cause of Death sentence has also been added numerous times by various editors who ignore the Talk page discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not noticing the change to WP:1RR is my error, however the reporting user is lying about a reversion after warning. The subsequent edit was the insertion of new sources after the first, a pair of articles from National Review, were deemed inadequate despite being the counterpoint to a claim cited by a single editorial that has never been deleted.

But more overtly, the user is also lying about lack of talk participation regarding the relevant edits. The last response was my own, and went unanswered for 2 weeks (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Recent_edit), the only apparent objections ultimately rectified by edits deleted arbitrarily by the user.

Moreover, the article appears to be subject to edit brigading by a small number of users, deleting contextual, well sourced opinion and information with spurious reasoning and even personal attacks in edit summary, and I would ask that the edit history for the past several weeks be reviewed, and further action to secure the article be fully considered. Equilibrium103 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The editor is not permitted to rely on their comments from two weeks ago, which clearly did not achieve consensus. They were invited to discuss the edits further today after their first reversion today, and declined to do so after they were reverted today and before reinstating them today. The sanctions notice is abundantly clear that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." That the editor did not see or did not understand the notice is irrelevant, since they have been here long enough to know this is a standard policy with regard to reverted edits. The editor is also reminded that accusing other editors of "lying" is incompatible with WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The timestamps tell the tale about whether or not the editor performed a third revert after (nearly 45 minutes after) the 1RR warning. Restoring the disputed text without discussion counts as a revert, even if in the same edit the editor adds additional citations that they happen to think justify the edit. General Ization ^Talk 17:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Further, the arbitration notice has been in place and advertised on this article's Talk page since August 28 and the 1RR restriction has been clearly spelled out since September 4, so I'm not sure what the editor means by "the change to WP:1RR". General Ization ^Talk 17:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit curious that this user shows up a few hours after the user "TheAaliyahJones" tried to make similar edits, and was blocked at the Enforcement page for doing so. ValarianB (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked them before I saw this; their behavior in the article, after being informed and warned, was clearly over the line. Moreover, the editor's comments here evidence a battleground mentality. BTW, ValarianB, I see no reason to think that this and the other user are socks. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

User:62.231.238.166 reported by User:Adamgerber80 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Al-Khalid tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC) "Since I have grabbed your attention now, go to the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP editor has been engaging in an edit war even after consensus was reached by multiple editors. The editor is now resorting to canvassing for support. Other IP's used for edits earlier were 85.154.25.92,5.36.66.30. Has been given a 4 level warning earlier. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for personal attacks by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamgerber80 reported by User:62.231.238.166 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page

Al-Khalid tank, Sukhoi Su-30MKI

User being reported

Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Editor is avoiding facts presented on talk page to keep their biased edits up and then threatening with a ban once corrected or an attempt is being made to discuss.

This editor is engaging in biased editing and has a hypocritical history of edits, and protecting certain pages out of personal interest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk • contribs)

• Result: Filer blocked 24 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Winged Brick reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked 31 168 hours)

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

Removal of the sourced statement, "[The late WWI Bentley BR2] represented the peak of rotary engine development" Re-instated by multiple editors.

This is an almost literal quote (they use "pinnacle") from one of the best-known RS authors in the field. It is hard to contest that.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. " Really? That's an opinion." (tagging as "dubious")
2. "removing unsupportable statement. Since rotary engines are still being designed and built, one built during WWI seems unlikely to have been the 'peak' of anything."
3. "Since the article includes Wankel engines, no, I don't. You seem to fail to understand the unsupportable nature of the statement. Rotaries, by your narrow definition, were used well into the 30"
4. "That's an opinion from an encyclopedia. It's not what the article says and it is not supportable. Take it to talk and make your case for inclusion. You're just repeating it. You do a good job of stalking me, I'll give you that. Doesn't make you right"
5. "First, Wankels are Rotary engines by most definitions. That's not the issue. The issue is putting somebody's opinion that a certain British engine is the 'peak' where others from any other country might rightfully argue that's VERY Anglo-centric."
6. "The Wankel is a red herring. For the record, this was neither the last nor the best rotary engine, therefore the opinion expressed in this statement is unsupportable and false. It stays out. Please make the case in talk instead of re-adding."

They seem confused. Are they including Wankels or not? The article specifically and very clearly excludes them, as does the source. I don't believe they have any point here, they just like arguing. I encountered this same editor at Shotgun slug (Talk:Shotgun_slug#Spin, WP:ANEW (Blocked for 48 hours), Block log/User:Winged Brick ) and they are obdurate to say the least. They clearly have zero respect for other RS, only their personal opinion matters.

Others commenting at Talk:Rotary engine#Wankel revisited!. Lots of IDHT.

Comments:
I removed the content because it was not the last rotary engine and saying it was the 'best' is an opinion. Just because somebody says the opinion in a source does not make it a fact nor is it supportable. I used the Wankel as just one type of rotary that has come since the engine in mention. If you want to split hairs, then the Wankel isn't the same type of rotary, but the fact remains that there were engines after it, there were better rotary engines in my opinion, and saying that one was the 'peak' or 'pinnacle' does not make it so. The fact that you could not understand the content on "Shotgun Slug" and you don't seem to understand what 'peak' or 'pinnacle' mean or don't mean does not make you right. It was only AFTER you stopped edit warring that the Shotgun Slug editing came to a consensus that the word "rotate" was a reasonable substitute for "spin". Instead of discussing, you just slap reverts on my edits and don't address the language being used. --Winged Brick (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• With that many reverts it doesn't even matter if you're right or wrong. When your block is over you may argue your point on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• I lengthened it a bit after seeing that the editor had been blocked before, fairly recently, for a similar offense. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Koncorde reported by User:202.159.191.219 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:
Evening. Drive by tagging with CN by anonymous IP. I have directed to WP: CITENEED and asked the user to clarify, instead user continued to revert. Now has taken me to Noticeboard, and finally contributed to talk page. Didn't believe I was being particularly harsh in asking what exactly the user was asking us to cite. Still unclear from Talk Page to be fair, but more than happy to discuss. Koncorde (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You broke 3RR by reverting 4 times. That's how it works. I have only reverted 3 times. The initial edit is inherently not a revert, for reasons that should (one would hope) be obvious. But apparently not.

"Still unclear from Talk Page to be fair".

Incredible! 202.159.191.219 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies I appear to have counted incorrectly due to earlier edit by IP and have redacted. Points otherwise still stand. Koncorde (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

User:80.189.93.6 reported by User:MarkSewath (Result: )

Page

Nyeri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• here

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring stop rollback. MarkSewath (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Eipviongll reported by User:Dereck Camacho (Result: Both editors blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – 24 hours. This is the second report of the same thing within four days. By this time we would expect that the two of you would be making some progress on dispute resolution. If no consensus has been reached you should not both be continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna reported by User:Swetoniusz (Result: )

Page: Jadwiga of Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Surtsicna (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. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

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

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

Comments:

The user earlier removed sourced information from this article [21]. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The user adds nonsense despite being told not to by two users. He even had the nerve to accuse Borsoka, who turned a mess into the brilliantly cited article, of destroying it. He is purposefully ignoring the discussion I started on the talk page more than a week ago. Borsoka[22] and I both urged him to take part in it, but he is only reverting both of us. If anything deserves a boomerang, it's this. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Cathry reported by User:Zefr (Result:Blocked 1 week)

Page

Rheumatoid arthritis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "reverting because info about possible links to infections was deleted as well as some other with soures"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Research section */ new section"
2. 14:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "/* EGCG vs GTE */ org refs"

Comments:

User is a repeat vandal and disruptive editor on numerous articles. Also see EGCG, GMO. User Cathry has been warned by other editors -- see user's Talk page. Zefr (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually i described why i revert Zefr's edit. He delete very huge amount of info from Rheumatoid arthritis, and there was not only current issues (discussed at talk page), but valuable data added long time ago by various editors, as far as I understand. He deleted 4,702 bytes . After my revert he deleted this one more time without discussing at talk page He did similar thing in EGCG first deletion, second deletion. Note, that was not info added by me, but it was added by another user and was previously discussed at talk page Cathry (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Cathry is constructive and community consultative. Zefr has been trolling. Repeatedly ignoring the use of Talk pages and sections that were intentionally opened to constructively resolve disagreements. Acting in a hostile and aggressive manner, generally unbecoming of an Administrator. He's also taken to stalking particular users like Cathry around pages and acting in an editing cabal to destroy balanced NPOV and non Anglo-American centric viewpoints. DM. 120.17.210.246 (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Zefr's continual deletion of content using dismissive and disrespectful comments like "non-sense" (without discussion), in response to accurately and reliably secondary sourced text from exemplified sources named in policy, really goes against WP's spirit. Zefr's hamfisted approach to multiple users, including Cathry, suggests the admin rights are being abused for bullying. 120.17.210.246 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Cathry is indeed getting problematic in that they are purposely trying to skirt 3RR (and 1RR in GMO topics) while avoiding the brightline, so a close of there weren't more than 3/1 reverts with no action would be inappropriate here. Cathry archived much of their talk page, so see this for the history of problems, edit warring block, etc.

The general trend across multiple articles is that Cathry comes in trying to establish a new version either written themselves or by another by edit warring it back in rather than gaining consensus on the talk page and addressing the reasons provided in initial edit summaries. It's just been pure reverts for the sake of reverts.

This has happened at:

• Neo-Nazism:[23][24]
• Varicocele:Following around reverting editors they've previously been in dispute with.[25]
• Epigallocatechin gallate: More following around reverts[26]
• Neonicotinoid: Removed malformed edits from an IP[27] only to have Cathry restore the nonsensical edits.[28]
• Glyphosate I reverted back to a previous version after edits by another editor; one reason was using an opinion piece of a journalist as a source who's selling also selling a book Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science.[29]. That would have been the time for editors wanting that new edit to come to the talk page. Yet again, Cathry comes in trying to edit war in the new version[30] saying "i don't agree with your version, Kingofaces43, take it at talk page" in clear edit warring behavior and pure WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to blanket revert in policy violating content.

The last two fall under GMO DS where 1RR was imposed with the assurance from arbs that the DS were meant to combat exactly this type of gaming of 1RR so that someone trying

There are also problems with sniping behavior. Cathry has already stated they view editors who disagree with their GMO edits as worse than shills [31], which is also in violation of a GMO ArbCom principle. When Cathry finally does come to the talk page, they're typically ranting and ignoring issues with sources saying things like You name it "inadequate" because you don't like it.[32] among other sniping.

This editor is actively flouting WP:EW while getting around 3RR, so this does need to be dealt with to prevent further disruption. Otherwise, this is just going to end up at WP:AE soon, but admins can also enforce DS here too if needed in addition to treating the edit warring behavior outside the DS area. It's taking too many editors to try to contain this behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week, the user was edit-warring and adding fringe theories and original research all over the place, was reverted and warned by multiple users in good standing, previously blocked for 48h.Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)