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:Deroque49 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)

Page

Second anointing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Deroque49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 862075563 by FyzixFighter (talk) You're right about the claim about a third-party, living person (Elder Rasband), so I took that out. However, you're wrong about it not satisfying WP:SPS. Mormon Stories is not a "self-published source." It is not my "personal webpage.""
2. 16:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 862007783 by ChristensenMJ (talk) There is no reason to leave either account out. Both speak to how the ordinance is performed and given out currently. They are the only such accounts. To leave them out would only be a result of rank bias on your part. Bias that comes about from not wanting "sacred" things like the second anointing to be discussed publicly, especially by someone who has distanced themselves."
3. 15:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 861986380 by FyzixFighter (talk) (It is the exact same source as the sentence just before it about Tom Phillips. The source for both sentences is the Mormon Stories Podcast. If Tom Phillips stays then Hans Mattsson stays."
4. 12:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 861848201 by ChristensenMJ (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Second anointing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Fireflyfanboy reported by User:Calton (Result: Warned)

Anthony Bourdain: Anthony Bourdain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fireflyfanboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] - 23:50, October 1, 2018‎ someone removed Trump's reaction with no reason given
2. [3] - 01:48, October 2, 2018‎ Undid revision 862070292 by Calton (talk) It's a statement from a sitting president...? Protocol states that they're included. Obama's included. I hate the guy, but why not Trump?
3. [4] - 02:03, October 2, 2018 ‎Reactions and tributes: If Trump goes, Obama goes. So sick of overzealous editors picking these kinds of fights.
4. [5] - 02:21, October 2, 2018 Undid revision 862084993 by Calton (talk) No Obama until consensus met on Talk Page. Either they're both included, or neither are

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:
I would like to say that User:Calton has been completely belligerent to me, including bringing up a previous citation that in no way relates to the current discussion on the Talk Page for the Anthony Bourdain article. When I called them out on it, they did not respond. I take issue with something being restored that had previously been deleted by unregistered user with no explanation being considered a "revert", but that's neither here nor there. If I face some sort of punishment, then go ahead and give it to me, but I think User:Calton's behavior also warrants examination.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, they went ahead and reverted despite no consensus being reached on the Talk Page. It is clear that I am willing to discuss in order to achieve consensus, while User:Calton essentially plays by their own rules.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Fireflyfanboy, you need to stop this nonsense. I've met my block quota for the day, but if you make one more of those reverts, or one more of those pointy reverts, I will gladly block you for disruption. I don't see anything that Calton has did that warrants some kind of censure, but your fighting, and then the pointy removal of Obama, that's quickly blockable. (Obama's response is verified by CNN too, I believe, which is better than a YouTube video--and everybody should have seen the episode where Obama and Bourdain eat noodles in Vietnam.) Anyway, no more please. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Am I not in the right for believing the Trump comments should be added? I don't intend on doing anything more on the article (because I think I'm in the right and consensus will show that), but I think examination of the issues would point to my trying to achieve consensus while User:Calton has been nothing but obstructionist.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong for thinking that. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Evanand1 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked for 1 week )

Page

Meadow Brook Hall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Evanand1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 862107466 by Bonadea (talk)"
2. 05:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */"
3. 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */"
4. 00:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ The size of Meadow Brook hall is not 88,000 Sq. ft. please use Google measurements and compare to other historic homes for accuracy."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC) "/* October 2018 */ ew warning again"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

EW warnings also given here and here. User has also been warned about removing reliable sources and replacing them with original research (which is what they are edit warring over). bonadea contributions talk 07:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

They are now edit warring to remove this report, too. Reported to AIV as well. --bonadea contributions talk 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week A longer block than usual but given their behaviour here and their comments on their talk page I think this is justified. Doug Weller talk 08:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jim142 reported by User:Qzd (Result: Indef)

Page

Bikini Atoll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jim142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 23:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 23:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 22:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC) "Added good info"
5. 22:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC) "It helps a lot this way"
6. 22:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 22:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Luluplatz reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cheryl Studer#Uncited material

Comments:

Extremely disruptive COI SPA who has been edit-warring on the article for the past 1.5 years. Currently engaging in retaliatory mass disruption on the articles of other opera singers (see ANI thread). -- Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Technically not within 24 hours (46.75 hours), but might as well have been for all the disruption the editor has deliberately caused in the meantime. Also of note: the editor is one of three SPAs who wrote the bulk of the Cheryl Studer article, mostly without citations; the other two being:

• Gcdea (talk · contribs) (multiple usertalk warnings about the article)
• Goustaff (talk · contribs) (blocked for behavior at the article)

They may all be the same editor, but the first two accounts are stale. Softlavender (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – Now indef, per discussion elsewhere. The ANI discussion was here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

User:James343e reported by User:Natureium (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

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

User being reported

James343e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 862312243 by Natureium (talk) Yes, but they gave no reason. "Lack of consensus" is circular reasoning. Why did they deleted my 9 scientifc references? Because there is lack of consensus. Why is there lack of consensus? Because there is lack of consensus. They DIDN'T GIVE ME ANY REASON TO DELETE ALL THE REFERENCES."
2. 15:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 862311588 by BullRangifer (talk) "Lack of consensus" is not a valid argument, It is a circular reasoning. Why was my edition deleted? Lack of consensus. Why was there lack of consensus? Lack of consensus. NO ONE HAS GIVEN ANY REASON TO DELETE ALL THE SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES I ADDED."
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 862305220 by JzG (talk) Changes explained in the talk page. Please, stop deleting modern scientific references only because they don't fix your agenda. That is vandalism. The scientific consensus is NOT that the placebo effect is not real or relevant."
   2. 15:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 11:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "Changes explained in the talk page. If possible, I would really appreciate complementary changes rather than destructive changes (adding new references rather than simply deleting all my references):"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Placebo. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Is participating on the talk page, but still reverting several people. His talk page is also full of other edit warring warnings. Natureium (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I stopped editing. (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

User:82.43.73.194 reported by User:Nzd (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Timmy Matley */Correct cause of death."
2. 20:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Timmy Matley */Put the correct article surrounding Timmy’s death."
3. 19:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Timmy Matley */Deleted fake news from bbc news article."
4. 18:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Timmy Matley */Removed lies about his passing."
5. 16:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Timmy Matley */Removed inaccurate information about Timmy’s passing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Overtones. (TW)"
2. 21:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC) "follow-up"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Removing sourced content, seemingly because they don't like it. Nzd (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers reported by User:Waleswatcher (Result: )

Page: AR-15 style rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72bikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The page is under 1RR, so it's hard to warn. Also, 72bikers has banned me from posting on their talk page, and when I posted a non-mandatory warning recently I was threatened with a block by an administrator. Normally in this situation I would have posted on their talk page and asked for a self-revert before reporting this incident here, but I can't do that either.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page is full of endless discussions on closely related questions. The material in the first revert was discussed here, and 72biker's revert was against the consensus there. The second revert was new material I just added; I created a section (before the revert) here, but 72bikers didn't explain their revert their or anywhere else (their edit summary is simply "challenge discuss before restore").

Comments:

AR-15 style rifle is under the 1RR. 72bikers is fully aware of that, having had multiple ANIs against them and having been blocked at least once for revert rule violations (also notice their edit summary "challenge discuss before restore", which refers to the specific restrictions on that page).Waleswatcher (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this is editing warring. The reverts dealt with two different things. Afootpluto (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. On the AR-15 page it says:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

It doesn't say anything about the two reverts having to be the same material. If you look at the 1RR rule it says it's the same as the 3RR rule but with "more than 3" replaced by "more than 1", and one the 3RR page it says

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.

(my bold).Waleswatcher (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have concerns that Waleswatcher may have also violated the 1RR by restoring their own material via a sock account. The material was restored by Timonalarm. That restoration was the accounts only edit and the edit summary stated, You’re well aware of the 1RR on this article, you’ve edit warred on this article before, you’ve been warned many times. I took the liberty of filing another edit warring report. That restoration and this report were filed 12 minutes apart. If WW did in fact restore using a different account then this may be a sock puppet account violation. It also would be a 1RR violation since WW initially added the material earlier today. It was challenged and removed. WW would have self restored using the second account. Springee (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I to believe a sock was created [16], [17]- 72bikers (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

As to the claim of policy violation it is my understanding it has to be on the same content or similar content. As there is this clause as well "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." of which there was a discussion in favor to remove beforehand. -72bikers (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with that edit or with Timonalarm - as you already asked me and I've already told you, Springee. This kind of unfounded accusation against me is par for the course for you. Someone please go ahead and do a sock puppet investigation and check. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• This isn't technically part of 1RR but for what it's worth I did warn 72Bikers that the first edit was in violation of the "Consensus required" restriction. Both edits could be subject to discretionary sanctions if an admin sees fit. –dlthewave ☎ 01:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The first edit wasn't in violation of the consensus required restriction. because springee self reverted his revert, thus it is really like it never happened. Thus 72 could add it back. Afootpluto (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The first edit is clearly a revert. If you want to trace it back, I initially removed that reference, which is a duplicate of another. Springee reverted me and then self-reverted later (that's the first diff above) when a clear consensus emerged that it should indeed be removed. 72bikers not only reverted that (so, reverted my original edit), but reverted it against talk page consensus. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Afootpluto's read. Since I self reverted, 72biker was restoring material that Waleswatcher removed. WW's removal was effectively a challenge to status quo. 72biker was restoring status quo. The removal had been challenged so it should stand until consensus is for removal. That said I think it would be good if both 72biker AND Waleswatcher would propose changes on the talk page before adding/removing controversial material. This feels like an attempt to get content added by silencing opposition vs through consensus. Springee (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if that were true, it's still a revert. But it's not true. I did discuss that change on the talk page, as you well know since you participated here and here, where you agreed wit the consensus that it should be removed ("I'm now inclined to say remove it as redundant"). You then removed it (by self-reverting), in accord with that consensus, and 72bikers - against consensus - restored it. So not only did that (along with the next revert) violate the 1RR, it also violates the prohibition regarding editing against consensus. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: Timonalarm is Architect 134 (talk · contribs), who engages in random frameups. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Per note above, WW, sorry for the accusation of bad faith regarding sock editing. Springee (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a minor (and purely technical) violation (though to what degree I do not know, there is no consensus for inclusion, but none for exclusion either of one of the edits).Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think the dispute with 72bikers is best addressed by the current thread at AN/I (yet another revisit of his user talk page proclivities) than here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Pugland (Result: )

Page:  
User being reported:

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

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: