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:ChiefPrinceAndDuke reported by User:Jamie Tubers (Result: Declined)

Page

Igbo people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC) "Removed declarative statements that are not backed up by citations."
2. 09:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) "These are not Igbo communities. Always get your facts right."
3. 18:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Igbo Jews are members of the Igbo ethnic group who practice Judaism and not a distinct ethnic group."
4. 17:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Added links and content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Igbo people."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has been trying to disrupt the article Igbo people for a while now. inflating population figures, without citation, removing content that are well sourced, just because he disagrees with the information. Basically, he is just been trying to push his own views into the article. Spot checking his other edits, it seems this user is not here to build an encyclopaedia, as larger percentage of his edits (that are often Igbo related) are always reverted, and there are several warnings on his talkpage. Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Declined – If you believe the editor's changes are wrong or can be disproved by sources, you should be making your argument on the talk page. Admins aren't likely to issue blocks when 3RR is not violated and there is no evidence of any discussion on the article talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Eckstasy reported by User:NickW557 (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 742265050 by Andrewgprout (talk) Users need to stop violating the policies set against removing other people's discussion comments for no valid reasons. Disgusting behaviour."
2. 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 742263095 by Ahunt (talk) There is no advertising, promotion, scaremongering or propaganda. Infact this article is a SOAPBOX. it is one sided propaganda, the comment is asking to alter it"
3. 17:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 742261126 by Ahunt (talk) An improvement was clearly suggested to add all sides of the story. Did you read the comment?"
4. 17:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 742257692 by Arnoutf (talk) There is no off topic discussion here, there is definitely a valid point. Wikipedia isn't a propaganda tool for one sided stories."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[1]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

A warning was given to Eckstasay between the third and fourth reverts. Eckstasay then proceeded to issue their own edit warring warning to other users (here, here, and here), before performing a fourth revert themselves. The fact that they're giving other users 3RR warnings suggests to me that they're very aware of the 3RR restriction. This user is continuing the edit war that 80.229.10.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked for. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Never mind. The user was blocked by Ymblanter while I was navigating the Twinkle prompts. Withdrawn/already blocked. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

IP editor reported by User:Aviationspecialist101 (Result: Semi)

• Page: Southwest Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

I'd like to get a total IP block on the Southwest Airlines page. It appears that there is a sock puppet that continues to change focus city information without providing a source. Thanks for the help. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. A widely-hopping IPv6 is reverting the article without using any sources. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Wash whites separately reported by User:Adamstom.97 (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Doctor Strange (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wash whites separately (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original version: [2]
Original disputed edit: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]
Comments:

I came across this dispute after the accused had been asked to start a talk page discussion, done so, then decided that no reply within an hour meant that they got to choose the discussion's consensus. I reverted the subsequent change, and explained that the discussion needed to be completed first, contributing the next comment in the discussion to help facilitate this. However, the reverts continued after this, showing behaviour that is hardly conducive to working out the issue and finding consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:IvanAbrenica reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: )

Page

Eddie Gil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "Eddie Gil Article corrected again. Because the image of the true copy can't go through"
2. 14:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "Eddie Gil Article corrected"
3. 11:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "Mr. Eduardo Gil won the case a long time ago. So this is irrelevant already."
4. 11:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "Please, who ever you are. PLEASE DON'T SHOW THIS AGAIN!!! This is irrelevant information about Eddie Gil"
5. 11:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "Please, do not show this information again. This is completely irrelevant and we have proof to show you."
6. 10:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "Latter part of article was irrelevant"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Eddie Gil. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly removing content- the article subject is known personally to the editor and has als made a legal threat. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:213.205.198.74 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked)

Page

National Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC) to 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
   1. 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "SPLC is not a reliable source"
   2. 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "remove unreliable sourcing + restore NPOV"
2. 15:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "if you revert this further you will be breaching the 3RR and as you have a long history of edit warring I don't think that would be a very good idea"
3. 15:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "the source clearly states that SPLC are anti-christian"
4. 15:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "stop vandalising wikipedia because you disagree with sources, if you further vandalise wikipedia you will be reported"
5. 15:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 742410651 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on National Policy Institute. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No attempts have been made by this editor to justify their edits on the talk page when challenged. clpo13_(talk) 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I explained every edit and provided sources in each edit summary. 213.205.198.74 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours 86.22.8.235 (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

User:213.205.198.74 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result:IP Blocked )

Page: National Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.205.198.7 (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. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]
6. [16]

by the time someone gets around to looking at this I'm sure there'll be a few more reverts to add

Also, on a related page, Southern Poverty Law Center:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Eh, it's not really constructive enough to have a discussion about it, it's more or less IP putting in sketchy info into an article, but here is some [22]

Comments:

This isn't a brand new user. Here they mention the guideline WP:NOTAFORUM, no way a brand new user knows about that. Here they indicate that they've been following my edits for a long time.

To the unsigned comment above by Marek, I haven't "followed his edits for a long time", I merely went to his talk page to discuss his edit warring and found that it's a long list of arguments and edit warring. 213.205.198.74 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Marek also failed to notify me that I was being reported here. 213.205.198.74 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Danishkan reported by User:106.209.153.145 (Result: Page protected)

Page: India and state-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danishkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

As indicated on article's talk page, the article comes under discretionary sanction underwhich WP:0RR is applicable. User has reverted me twice, reverting a typical twice and reverting other edits once. 106.209.153.145 (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Ip is a disruptive sock, DS is active on such articles but no 0PR has been activated. Danishkan (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the article's history would also show that the user has performed total 4-5 reverts in their total less than 50 edits on Wikipedia. The user is also without any evidence accusing me of being a sock and even reverting grammatical corrections i made. 106.209.153.145 (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Page protected Go use the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather This article is up for deletion. Many issues are being identified at the talk and AfD. The article is being improved since then. So, I suggest that it should not be fully protected. --SMS ^Talk 06:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw the AfD and that there are more than just the one editor reverting. Rather than block all of them they can now discuss on the talk page and make edit requests. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

User:NPalgan2 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

Page

Richard B. Spencer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

NPalgan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 742538835 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) please read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE"
2. 03:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 742506646 by Grayfell (talk) No, the burden is not on me. Read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE"
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC) to 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 742504999 by Grayfell (talk)"
   2. 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 742504311 by Grayfell (talk) If Spencer denies he Wsup, howvr ludicrous it may seem, BLP requires that his denial and a reliably sourced rebuttal be given. Don't revert, go to talk"
4. 03:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 742503757 by Grayfell (talk) Yes, because the sources are not good enough. wonkette.com? Read WP:BLP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[24]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC) "/* WP:BLP */"

Comments:

NPalgan2 began editing on 21 August 2016. I'm intrigued by a possible connection to Connor Machiavelli (talk · contribs), who was also interested in Spencer... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not Connor Machiavelli. Also, I remind you of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:BLP/3RR#BLP_vio_removal_and_3rr In what universe is wonkette a RS for contested info in a BLP? NPalgan2 (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't like Wonkette, but that doesn't explain why you outright removed, without explanation, a NY Times citation that also supported the article's lead, in between your edit warring changes.

I have also noticed that you're quite well versed in Wikipedia policies and formatting for someone who started an account just over a month ago. You may or may not be Connor Machiavelli (talk · contribs), but if this is your first and only Wikipedia account, I'll eat my keyboard. Rockypedia (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Because that NYTimes article described Spencer as a WN. "Richard B. Spencer, the 37-year-old president of the white nationalist National Policy Institute in Whitefish, Mont., embodies this new generation." It describes Dylann Roof, Don Black et al but conspicuously *not* spencer as WSs. It's the only use of WN in the article and thus significant. It's a fair cop guv, I'm also NPalgan and Kolyaaylok (I forget passwords.) But I have never misused them, I just stopped using those two. Please compare the sockpuppet's accounts and mine and see that we have ... very different interests. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is related to the report below by Solntsa90. Basically Solntsa90 jumped in to continue the edit war started by NPalgan2 once the former ran out of reverts. Yes, there was one unreliable source given for the info (wonkette) but it was one of THREE sources, the other ones being New York Times and Slate. I've also tried to add additional sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no nytimes article. There was a) a slate article that used WN and WSep in the body, WS only was in the headline, and frankly slate getting very clickbaity with headlines these past few years b) wonkette c) a unscripted rachel maddow clip. not sufficient sourcing for using wikipedia's voice for something the subject makes a big song and dance of denying. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• The diffs presented here show that Grayfell violated 3RR to restore material that was removed by an editor citing BLP. This is something that they do regularly, but usually avoid violating 3RR by having another editor like Nomoskedasticity, Rockypedia or Volunteer Marek carry on the restoration of the challenged material. This is more of the same of what Ryk72 stated at the bottom of a similar filing, a group of the same few editors collectively reverting in an attempt to WP:OWN an article, except in this case user:Grayfell violated 3RR. Zaostao (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer_Marek reported by User:Solntsa90

4 reverts in the last 24 hours of the page Richard B. Spencer, beginning at 16:14, 3 October 2016, here again at 14:00, 4 October 2016, here again at 14:10, 4 October 2016, and finally again at 14:16, 4 October 2016.

That is 4 reverts in the last 24 hours, a clear, blatant violation of the 3RR rule by someone who knows the rules very well, made even more contenious by gross potential BLP violations and using headlines (as opposed to the actual content) and gleaning off these by-lines to make assumptions about a living person known for being libel-happy with WP:ORIGINAL. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I forgot about the Oct 3 edit. I self reverted. However, Solntsa90 is utterly and completely wrong in his claim that this is "gross potential BLP violation". In fact that's ridiculous - putting in what the subject is actually notable for, backed by a half dozen sources is not a BLP violation. Here is the talk page, where consensus is pretty much for ... including information about what the subject is known for. Notice who's NOT on the talk page? Solntsa90 who started this edit war. He's just pushing POV there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Should also mention that Solntsa90 was blocked before for edit warring, as well as stalking and harassing my edits. I actually thought he was under interaction ban, but I guess not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note also that my edit, though it restored content being removed by SOlntsa90, also added three additional sources so I'm not sure if that really counts as a revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You knew very well about the 3rd October edit; I even put an 3RR notice on your wall regarding the article, which you subsequently deleted, so it was either your deliberate ignoring of the warning, or you knew very well you were in violation of 3RR.

As far as an interaction ban--you were the one who interacted with *my* edits this time, not the other way around. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I forgot about the Oct 3rd edit because it was ... 23 hours ago (man, you just managed to squeeze that in, didn't you?) and it was of a different nature. You first were WP:WEASELing text to push POV:

Changing "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American writer, publisher, and self-described "identitarian" known for promoting white nationalist views" to "and identitarian known in the media for his white nationalist views", which is about the most transparent attempt at POV pushing I've seen in a while. "Known in the media" basically means "described by sources as".

Then you doubled down and just started removing the sourced text entirely. You were trying to start an edit war - or rather to escalate the edit war by NPalgan2. And you were successful. Hint for next time - make at least a comment or two on the talk page for appearance sake.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This has literally nothing to do with your blatant and obvious violation of 3RR. 'Forgetting' the rules doesn't justify violating them. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, how could you forget about the 3 October edit when I even put a notice on your wall telling you about your 3RR violation, which you subsequently deleted? Solntsa90 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Volunteer Marek has edited the article before you arrived at it. Your first edit was yesterday, his was in April. As VM has self-reverted, you are now both at 3RR. This doesn't entitle either of you to revert again at 24 hours + 1 minute of course. Solntsa90, give over. He hasn't exceeded 3rr. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec - reply to Solntsa90) It has everything to do with them (and like I said, I self reverted my last edit) - it shows you purposefully escalated an existing edit war and that your claims of BLP violations are just a bullshit cover for your own tendentious POV pushing where you're trying to whitewash an avowed racist (in case anyone is in doubt, here is the subject standing with a sign that says 'Wanna talk to a racist?'. And why in the world are you removing my comments from this page [25]? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

(For the 3RR template, the fact that you stalked my edits and got blocked for harassment just made me think you were just doing that again).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Self-reverting at the last minute (and only after someone reports you for 3RR) negates the consequences of 3RR? The More You Know™. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying, Doug, that it is OK to edit war on various articles on a daily basis like VM is doing unless they break the 3RR directly? That's an odd understanding of the edit warring policy! VM has now also taken to stalk my edits and invariably revert my noncontroversial edits such as here or [26], [27] here just because he believes me to be a sock puppet of a banned user in his edit commentaries. Without of course ever presenting any evidence whatsoever, and he is not a checkuser an not even an admin either. How long will this behaviour be tolerated?Paul Keller (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Rules apparently don't apply to certain power users. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)