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

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:Factfindingmission reported by User:Springee (Result: Warned)

Page: Smith_&_Wesson 
User being reported: Factfindingmission (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: As an IP address First add of material (not a revert) [1]

1. [2] Note accusations in edit comments - this continues in later edits
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Page was protected at this point

As a logged in editor

1. [6]

Editor blocked 1 week at this point for abusing multiple accounts.

1. [7]First restoration after block and first of 4 in 24 hours.
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Editor was returning from block for same edits.

Notice on editor talk page: [[11]]

Comments:

• Warned. I am watching the page and will consider future events to be block-worthy. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MapReader reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Not blocked - use dispute resolution)

Page

The Crown (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832558920 by Drmargi (talk) Restore WP:Commonality edits made this morning. Further revert by Drmargj would breach 3RR."
2. 18:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832557525 by Drmargi (talk) No - first use was British, longstanding mix. WP:Commonality is preferable to your edit warring"
3. 16:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Season 2 (2017) */Wp: commonality. Reverting editor warring unnecessarily."
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC) to 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832529708 by 79.169.136.217 (talk)"
   2. 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832523893 by Drmargi (talk) unnecessary, WP:commonality"
5. 05:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832468767 by Drmargi (talk) hence the right thing to do is restore what was there before your recent editing."
6. 05:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "rvt inappropriate changes; talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Seven reverts in a 24 hour period and no sign that it will stop if the other editor he's warring with (Drmargi) decides to revert again. They've both been going at it for more than a day. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. There has as yet been no breach of 3RR by either party. Your diffs overlook my having raised the matter on the article talk page, and on the other editor's talk page, neither of which she has yet meaningfully engaged with (and on the article page not at all). In summary, this article (concerning a US/UK tv drama co-production about the British monarchy) contained a mix of British and American English usage. To resolve the matter I traced back the edit history and identified that the first post-stub version that introduced an Engvar was early on 7 November 2016, which used British English. Hence I applied the MoS and edited the article into British English. This was opposed by Drmargi who edited the article into American English. I raised the matter on the talk page, and restored the mixed usage version as a compromise. This was rejected by Drmargi who again edited the article into American English. As a further compromise this morning I applied WP:Commonality and edited the disputed wording so that common UK/US terms were used instead. Once again Drmargi edited back into American English, with three reverts so far in the past few hours. In the circumstances I am surprised to find that I, rather than the other editor, am the subject of this report. In any event, administrator assistance to resolve the dispute would be helpful, as I have run out of compromises to offer. MapReader (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone want to explain how "has received critical acclaim for its directing" is American English and "was praised for its direction" is British English? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't the words at dispute. If they got caught up in today's to-and-fro it will be because Dmargi added them into her mass-edit removing my Commonality changes in favour (/favor) of US English (or more likely, made her mass-revert by returning to an earlier version of the page and the acclaim edit got rowed in by accident). Perhaps she can explain why? The "acclaim" words were added originally by an IP editor (User:79.169.136.217) who spends his/her time adding identical wording into numerous tv and film pages, and there are a number of editors including me who have been restoring the original wordings. As far as UK/US goes it's a red herring (in any event when I removed the IP edit originally, Dmargi suppported the change). MapReader (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that the article has settled down, perhaps this matter is best moved to the disputes page? MapReader (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not blocked NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Koranion reported by User:Heliotom (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

List of terrorist incidents in March 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Koranion (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 15:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC) to 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "fixes"
   2. 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "+attack"
2. 15:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "fixes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of terrorist incidents in March 2018. (TW)"
2. 14:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on List of terrorist incidents in March 2018 . (TW)"
3. 14:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 14:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Comments:

User repeatedly adds unsourced attributions of terrorist attacks. There are sources that do not specify the perpetrators. When these are removed he makes reversions along with other additions to mask the reversions. Has made no response at dialogue on article talk page or on his own. Heliotom (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned This series of articles are a magnet for disruptive and poorly sourced edits. So much so that I've had to add an editnotice, Per Wikipedia's no original research policy sources should clearly ascribe events to "violent non-state actors for political, religious, or ideological motives" like ISIL or directly call the event terrorism or suspected terrorism on quite a few of them (thanks to EvergreenFir for highlighting the problems in this area). @Koranion and Heliotom: Please read the preceding and edit accordingly. A lot of the content also falls under WP:GS/SCW&ISIL so also please keep that in mind. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Heliotom reported by User:Koranion (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

List of terrorist incidents in March 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832712007 by Koranion (talk)"
2. 14:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "It says militant organisation, not ISIL."
3. 18:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC) "Adding unknown"
4. 18:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 832060125 by Heliotom (talk): Last clean sourced version. Attacks should not be attributed to groups without a reliable source. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

- removes sourced content (perpetrators) - does not know that Naxalites are members of the CPI (Maioist) => terror organisation - reverting to older versions without correcting the errors - not able to translate arabic sources / does not read the complete text - (often) removes the whole edits (instead of fixing)

Point one: I restored that removal immediately Point two: the issue isn’t whether these organizations are terrorist, it’s you’re UN sourced attributions Point three: when you have made edit after edit of unsourced reversions mixed with new additions it’s hard to clean up without going back to an older version, which is precise;y why you edit in this way Point four: my Arabic is admittedly limited, I have only edited one with an Arabic source and have left it once you pointed out the error point five: see point three

You have made no attempt to discuss this despite my reaching out to you across multiple talk pages, including your own, though I note you recently chose to delete an range of warnings and requests to stop this unsourced editing behaviors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koranion&diff=832087197&oldid=832060285 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned See above NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:CaptainPrimo (Result: No violation)

Page: Isle of Dogs (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheOldJacobite (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. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

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

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

Comments: Multiple people have removed content backed up by links to tweets by random users. This user keeps readding the content reverting the edits of multiple users. CaptainPrimo (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

CaptainPrimo's version of events is flawed, as can be seen by anyone who looks at the article's edit history. The white savior narrative link was added to the see also section by an anonymous editor on March 26. On March 27, I reverted a series of unhelpful edits, which included removing the link from the see also section as well as smaller section regarding the controversy over accusations that the film is an example of cultural appropriation. The second edit on March 27 was to the cast section and is irrelevant to this discussion. My third edit on the 27th was reverting GrossesWasser, who removed the cultural appropriation section and the see also link with no explanation. My fourth edit was again reverting the deletion of the see also link. The link has since been deleted again, but there is now a post on the talk page explaining the reasoning. So, yes, I made four edits in just over 24 hours, one of which was irrelevant. Two edits were to restore content that was removed without an adequate reason. The latter, to my mind, is simple vandalism patrolling. Again, the version of events offered by Captain Primo is dubious, at best, and the claim of content backed by tweets is simply untrue. It should be noted that this is the same dubious logic he offered when he deleted the cultural appropriation section again. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Declined @TheOldJacobite: When you have a high traffic article, and you have to clean up questionable edits while continuing to reach consensus on the talk page, I can allow a bit of give and take. I certainly wouldn't take any sanctions just by you reaching the letter of 3RR but not the spirit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ritchie333. I know I skirted the edge here, which I will avoid in future, but I did feel the reverts were necessary and justified. It seems to me that consensus was reached pretty quickly on the talk page, which helps. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Bloodybrilliantmusic reported by User:Kohoutek1138 (Result: blocked indef)

Page: Whitewashing in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:Bloodybrilliantmusic]

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

Comments:
I believe that User:Bloodybrilliantmusic is probably a new account for User:Cpurcellartwork, who was reported and banned last week by Ronhjones  ^(Talk) for these exact same sort of Original Research additions and edit warring on the "Whitewashing in film" page. See Cpurcellartwork's talk page here and my previous report for edit warring, here [20]). Hopefully the administrators can look into this and, if it is indeed the same user up to his old tricks, or a new user who is simply edit warring with some kind of agenda, you can bring the situation to a resolution. Many thanks. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

NB - the reported user deleted this entire thread as seen here - Arjayay (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Your 'belief' does not comply with a neutral point of view. I have not engaged in any 'edit warring'; if you consider my edits to be 'edit warring' then you must acknowledge the fact that a 'war' is comprised of at least two sides (it takes 2 to tango) and thereby you implicate yourself as a participant in the 'edit war' - if my account is blocked due to this Kohoutek1138 should receive the same penalty.

• Blocked indefinitely SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry reported by User:Saqib (Result: Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry warned)

Page

Shehbaz Sharif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832885781 by Saqib (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC) to 15:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832890574 by Saqib (talk)"
   2. 15:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 15:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 14:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shehbaz Sharif. (TW)"
2. 15:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shehbaz Sharif. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This newbie keep adding unsourced material which is sensitive to a BLP on a high profile Pakistani politician, despite two warnings. Saqib (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry strongly warned not to add unsourced content to a BLP NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Lptx reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Page

Arabic numerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "sock puppetry"
2. 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Sock puppetry!!! I have not removed your fucking sources!!! Simply leave your concern on talk page!!!"
3. 22:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Removing incorrect information which is baised and unsourced or taken from redundant or unverified sources which do not stand any scrutiny and hence lack neutrality. POV concerns."
4. 21:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Disruptive edit. No response on talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Arabic numerals. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Lptx was editing against consensus on the talk page. _{Vermont | reply here} 01:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User:FriendlyRiverOtter reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Warned)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

#	Time	Revert	Diff	Previous version
1	10:09	Line 183: changes 51% to 50.7%	[21]
2	10:22	Line 183: rearranges text to put popular vote first	[22]
3	10:36	Line 56: changes "easily won" to "locked up" and removes "landslide"	[23]
4	11:46	Line 183: changes 51% to 50.7%	[24]	FRO was reverted at 10:30
5	11:53	Line 56: changes "easily won" to "locked up"	[25]	FRO was reverted at 10:43
6	11:59	Line 56: removes 90.9%	[26]	90.9% was added at 10:53
7	12:33	Line 56: removes 90.9%	[27]	FRO was reverted at 12:21

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

FriendlyRiverOtter is a tendentious POV pusher. His purpose in this episode of edit warring is to remove "landslide victory" from the article. He attempts to circumvent WP:BRD by starting a discussion and then edit warring. He justifies edit warring by claiming that we're discussing the changes. When in fact, his efforts are being resisted by several editors and he is editing against consensus.

He is attacking the article on multiple fronts to push his POV and obscure his actions. As you can see from the above table of edit warring, he is attacking Lines 56 and 183 to spread out the reverts. He is also using confusing edit summaries.

FRO has been reported for edit warring before just a mere 3 weeks ago [30]. This time we need to send a clear message to this editor that pretending to discuss issues while edit warring is unacceptable. This is not a content dispute. Protecting the page would be a mistake and only embolden this editor.– Lionel^(talk) 01:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

---

I invite an administrator to please take a look at the Ronald Reagan edit history and Talk page.

Yes, correct, there was a previous charge of edit warring. The decision by an administrator was 'No violation.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive362#User:FriendlyRiverOtter_reported_by_User:Rja13ww33_(Result:_No_violation)

Earlier today (March 29) on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article review page, I started a topic entitled "article on Ronald Reagan controlled by handful of pro-Reagan partisans."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#article_on_Ronald_Reagan_controlled_by_handful_of_pro-Reagan_partisans
Two separate persons inform me that FAR is not a dispute resolution process, which I can accept. I would like to know what is an appropriate dispute resolution process where I might ask for help, for our Ronald Reagan article really is controlled, primarily, by three pro-Reagan partisans. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look at this edit by Drdpw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=832726042&oldid=832724993
(Reverted good faith edits by FriendlyRiverOtter (talk): Lead with EC as that is what is most important in a US presidential election. (TW))
Even though in two edits, I had included a new source and included what the source states are the accurate numbers for percentages of popular votes, my fellow editor reverted all of it.

Please particularly look at this edit, also by Drdpw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=832728821&oldid=832727605
Drdpw added to our lead: "winning 44 of 50 states and receiving 90.9%."
Does this clarify the topic, or is it rather an example of sloganeering and politicking? Now, the source does include in a table that Reagan won 90.9% of electoral votes. But if this is read quickly in our article, people are likely to assume it refers to the popular vote. Percentages in text typically refer to the popular vote. And Reagan certainly didn't win 90.9% of the popular vote (!) (!) (!)

I have strived to remain middle-of-the-road and moderate, I think largely successfully. However, I welcome any constructive criticism of edits I have made. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the edit in which I perhaps most pushed the envelope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=832738653&oldid=832737619
I do not think excessively. And if it makes a difference, removing the word "easily" from the description of Reagan winning the 1980 Republican nomination seems to have been accepted.

And this is the edit of how I think things should be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=next&oldid=832738653
If we're going to say Reagan won 44 of 50 states in our lead, we should also say that the popular vote was Reagan 51%, Carter 41%, and the bulk of the balance to Anderson.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Lionel writes: "he is attacking Lines 56 and 183 to spread out the reverts."
I used a reference to edit both the body of our article and our lead.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

+++

On March 19, Drdpw reverted my work on the Legal guardian page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_guardian&diff=831166220&oldid=830747707
A page which he or she has seemingly expressed no previous interest.

I sent Drdpw a message to his or her Talk page asking, are you following me about Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drdpw&diff=prev&oldid=831736016

And once there I saw that Rja13ww33 had previously sent Drdpw a message as follows: "Hi. Hate to bother you but if you could weigh in on the Reagan talk page with this on-going thing with NYCJosh, I'd appreciate it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)"

And Rja13ww33 seems to be the third very active member who "guards" the Ronald Reagan page. This may be our best opportunity to get some help. Yes, the page basically needs some adult supervision for a while.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. It seems unnecessary to issue an edit warring block when FRO has not touched the Ronald Reagan article since 27 March. Even so, User:FriendlyRiverOtter is warned that per WP:POV we expect that people will edit neutrally. Whenever FRO does offer his proposals for review on talk pages there is generally a landslide against him. We do not associate neutral behavior with phrases like "cartel of a handful of pro-Reagan partisans." The Ronald Reagan article is covered by WP:ARBAP2 which sets expectations for editor behavior on modern American politics. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:RobThomas15 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: RobThomas15 warned)

Page: Back to Beautiful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RobThomas15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32] no edit summary
2. [33] "There's no reason why this page should be redirected."
3. [34] "Well then, instead of redirecting, why don't you go look for sources?"
4. [35] "Never [going to stop restoring the page]. You're just a big jerk if you don't want the page to be restored."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:

• Warned Two editors have used the talk page, RobThomas15 hasn't. They are warned that any more reverts without gaining consensus may result in a block.--NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC) NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:198.46.126.2 reported by User:Elmidae (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Harpy eagle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.46.126.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]
6. [44]
7. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46],[47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
Constant re-insertion of statement based on unsuitable YouTube reference (tape of TV broadcast) combined with clear OR (extrapolation based on unrelated source). I don't quite know how to make it much clearer than with the current edit summaries and notes on both their and the article's talk page. Behaviour actually predates with different IP, but seem to be static on this one for the nonce. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Heliotom reported by User:Keivan.f (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 11:24, 20 March 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:39, 29 March 2018 Reverted good faith edits by Keivan.f (talk): Unexplained change.
2. 12:44, 29 March 2018 Undid revision 833121841 by Keivan.f (talk)unexplained
3. 12:47, 29 March 2018 Undid revision 833122784 by Keivan.f (talk)there a specific admin note, but fine, go ahead and see who they side with
4. 12:50, 29 March 2018 Undid revision 833123453 by Keivan.f (talk)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: 1

Comments: The edit that I have made to the article is not controversial in nature as the family concerned in this discussion is of American and German ancestry and the information is sourced in the body of the article. I added the same piece of information to the infobox and he reverted and asked for an explanation, which I provided later in my edit summary. He reverted again without a clear reason and started edit warring with me on another article. Eventually I left a message on his talk page and asked him to discuss the issue on the article talk page. He blanked his page, reverted my edit again, called me Idiot and wrote: "fine, go ahead and see who they [administrators] side with". He also reverted my edit one last time without providing an edit summary. I want the administrators to judge and see whether my edits were disruptive or his, and, based on our policies, I really don't think that it's appropriate to insult other users and call them "idiot". It's worthy to mention that he was previously reported for such behavior in the past. Keivan.f^Talk 20:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is all very energetic. Changes or specifications of some thing as fundamental as national background surely need a source. Citing ‘look at the article’ doesn’t cover it.

A technical but Seeing as the suggestion’s been deleted by himself before, -maybe Keivan.F should apply WP:brd before bothering everyone with this nonsense.Heliotom (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide whether it's nonsense or not. The point of the discussion wasn't about nationality, it was about ethnicity, and that his grandparents were German is a fact, based on the sources that we have in numerous articles related to him. By the way, it's not the right place to bring this up. You should have discussed it on the article talk page when you had the chance instead of reverting my edits multiple times. Keivan.f^Talk 00:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I should point out that your claimed attempt at resolution is nothing of the sort, being 1. A warning 2. In the wrong talk page and 3. About a different article.

In both rticles you’ve comprehensively ignored the principle of WP:BRD, even more egregiously on the Family of Donald Trump where it is clearly noted that changes after a reversion must have consensus, and come running to file a report here for edit warring that you initiated.

Still, things seem to have calmed down, and I see you have posted a discussion on at least one of the issues, to which I have replied. Hopefully we can find a common ground that satisfies everyone.

Heliotom (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I warned you about one of the articles on your talk page. What would be the point of another warning when you had already erased the first one? And yes, I opened an RfC as that's the most appropriate way to solve the issue when two users do not agree over the subject. I had engaged in an edit war already and I don't intend to get blocked. Keivan.f^Talk 18:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:38.122.227.253 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Vassar College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 38.122.227.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]

...and several other identical edits going back to at least June 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:
It may also be necessary to semi-protect the article as it appears that this editor has also used other IP addresses, too e.g., 68.173.106.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ElKevbo (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week For disruptive editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:101.189.113.1 reported by User:Nikki311 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 101.189.113.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]
6. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On going discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Kayfabe memories

Comments:
I'm an uninvolved editor but saw this edit war going on in my watchlist. Despite four different users disagreeing with his edits, an on-going talk page discussion, and a 3RR warning, this IP has reverted well above the limit. Nikki♥311 06:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am reverting vandalism. Talk to the others about proving the source to be unreliable. Until then, the source stays. 101.189.113.1 (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

People disagreeing with you =/= vandalism.★Trekker (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Obviously not vandalism NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Three IP editors reported by User:220.253.123.249 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Roy Wang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 27.247.70.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 58.96.106.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 139.195.213.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]

Many other edit warring on the page itself.

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

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

Comments:

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Foolishgrunt isgay reported by User:TomXP411 (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Hanlon's razor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foolishgrunt isgay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please see the edit summary on [75]. He knows he's trolling.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:
It's been a while since I've done anything on WP, so this might not even be the right place to report this.

This all started on an Ars Technica forum thread, here: [77] The user knew his edit would be reverted, but someone obviously thinks it's funny to keep re-posting the same nonsense. And the "isgay" suffix is obviously a personal attack on Foolishgrunt.

I'm suggesting locking the page for a few days to keep the page from continued vandalism. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Already blocked. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:John Dick 78 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

John Dick 78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "There is nothing to discuss. The Aegean Sea is a border between Europe and Asia. This means that the islands off the Asian coast are clearly located in Asia, not in Europe."
2. 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "The lead is just wrong without the reference to the Asian part of Greece. Accept the fact that Greece is a transcontinental country in the same way as Spain."
3. 20:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Why "keep it clean"? Look at the Spain article. It has all the transcontinental information in the lead. Get over it and accept the fact that Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Kos, Rhodes etc are not located in Europe."
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC) to 10:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 09:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "you've heard what?"
   2. 10:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Is Lesbos in Europe? Is Samos in Europe? Is Kos in Europe? Is Kastellorizo in Europe?? Just look at the map. Greece has islands in Asia, like Spain has islands in Africa. Get over it."
5. Consecutive edits made from 07:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC) to 07:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 07:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC) "Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe."
   2. 07:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Greece. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuous, rapid-fire edit-warring against past consensus. Refuses to discuss. Please see the edit-summary of his/her latest revert. Dr. K. 21:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Miledisco reported by User:Aqooni (Result: )

Page: Tog Wajaale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miledisco (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&diff=833263408&oldid=833263335
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833263190
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833262917
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833262851

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:El_Bardale [diff]

Comments:
This user has been warned on their talk page for their edits. They have deleted valid sources for their tribal agenda as indicated in their comments on their edits , quoted here"There is no Gadabursi settlement in Gabiley District. Mayor and vice mayor of El Bardale are reer Hareed so the town isn't shared. Stop vandalizing or ill edit Gadabursi pages with my sources." This user has a clear tribal agenda trying to erase the Gadabursi presence in the towns they reside in. Aqooni (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Davi58148687 reported by User:In Memoriam A.H.H. (Result: Blocked)

Page: Wanessa Camargo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davi58148687 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833329655
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833329296
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833325570
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833313700

Davi58148687 has been edit-warring on the Wanessa Camargo article despite being warned.
Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 22:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:InternetMeme reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )

Page

Adolf Eichmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "That's not an appropriate reason to ignore WP:EASTEREGG."
2. 00:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "WP:EASTEREGG."
3. 22:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Your tone is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I agree that this isn't an easter egg: Rather, it's WP:EASTEREGG. Please read it."
4. 22:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "WP:EASTEREGG"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Adolf Eichmann. (TW)"
2. 01:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also Admin (it turns out) User:Prodego [78] just told him on his talkpage he was doing things wrong at this page. Acting like a jerk on User:Beyond My Ken's talk as well. [79] Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

See Also: ANi they started Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there,

I haven't undone any edits on the Adolf Eichmann page that were made with any legitimate explanation. User:Beyond My Ken gave the following edit summaries for his edits:

1. No explanation
2. It's not a fucking EASTER EGG, it's a context-sensitive link. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page DO NOT restore
3. you're an idiot
4. Still an idiot

Should I really be taking those edits seriously? I don't think it's fair to consider those as legitimate edits, therefore I don't think my revision of any of them should be counted. Therefore, I have not reverted any legitimate edits, and claims of Edit Warring are unsubstantiated.

Secondly, in the preceding comment above, User:Legacypac falsely claims I was "Acting like a jerk on User:Beyond My Ken's talk". This is an outright lie, as I have been nothing but polite:

1. User:Beyond My Ken gave an edit summary calling me an idiot,
2. I responded with an edit summary stating that this was inappropriate
3. He gave another edit summary calling me an idiot
4. I went top open an issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard, which said that I should try to resolve the conflict on the user's talk page before opening an incident, which I did.

Kind regards, InternetMeme (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)