Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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:Shookallen88 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: Blocked)

Page

Fast Five (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Shookallen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565824264 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)Not the only article with linking problems."
2. 23:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565750593 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)what's wrong with this?"
3. 11:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565717177 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)Nothing wrong with that is only a single liking there's no double"
4. 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Fast Five. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was reported previously at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive217#User:Shookallen88_reported_by_User:Darkwarriorblake_.28Result:_Warned.29 and temporarily blocked. Despite this user has continued behaviour at Fast & Furious 6 and now has begun doing the same thing at Fast Five, refusing to discuss, ignoring anything brought up and repeatedly editing to get his way, has no intention of stopping or acknowledging why he was initially blocked. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There are more articles with linking issues. You can show me a linking right or wrong reality it's not something you have to use, there can be double linking or linking a name second instants instead of first. User:Shookallen88 July 26. —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Just a clarification. Shookallen88 was not blocked based on the previous report. He was warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Jdremix540 reported by User:Suzuku (Result: )

Page: The Wolverine (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jdremix540 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] and continuously made this same revision more than 5 times despite being to ld to take his concerns to the talk page and wait for a consensus.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
  • As you can see user repeatedly made the same revision over and over despite being told by two users (myself and another) to go to the talk page to voice his concerns and wait for a consensus. Instead of engaging in conversation, he chose this route and simply makes the same statement over and over no matter how many times myself or another presents logic against his claims. Keep in mind we had already had a debate about which poster to use in the article weeks before and came to the general consensus that the artistic poster should be used for several reasons.

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

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

*Unfortunately that is as far as the conversation with him went for me because he didn't bother to respond after that, until I told him I was reporting him.

• Stale. Looks like they stoppped editing. If it recurs, you can add to this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  He's at it again. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Whiteswanlake reported by User:Bonkers The Clown (Result: Warned)

Page

TWG Tea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "This page is not simply advertising for a court case, either. Cut it out."
2. 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566253743 by Bonkers The Clown (talk)"
3. 06:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "Provided full company background with sources."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "←Created page with '==TWG Tea== Anyone is welcome to edit this article, but please remain neutral and please do not remove legitimate and encyclopaedic content, i.e. the lawsuits. I...'"
2. 09:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "/* TWG Tea */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 1st revert in face of blatant advertising
2. 2nd revert in face of blatant advertising

Comments:

First and only edits (with exception to one) were to this article. He or she is clearly out to advertise the subject in a non-neutral way and has removed all the DYK-worthy content that I added. By doing so he is affecting my work. He has ignored my warning(s) and continued to revert. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, I only informally warned him, not wanting to slap a boilerplate warning on his face. Perhaps that's what he should get, though. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. The user has not edited the article in a while and has not attempted to restore the promotional material. Therefore, I've given them a warning that any inappropriate edit will result in a block. @Bonkers, I agree with your conclusion about the user's motives, but your warnings are, albeit entertaining, rather flamboyant, e.g. "I am seething in rage" and "you'll see blocks being flung at you". You might consider being more serious when you're in a serious setting.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Jonathan.bluestein (Result: No violation)

Page

[[14]]

User being reported

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

Hi folks. Sorry for not using the acceptable 'codes of report' - it looks kinda complex and I wasn't sure how to do this right. I did put the "Edit Warring Notice" tag on the reported user's page.

I wish to report user Chesdovi for his continuous pursuit of altering the page [[15]] in favour of his view of the subject matter. He has been deleting contents off that page, by myself and others, every day, for at least several days now. He dismisses any claims on the talk page and would not reach compromise. Whenever an additional reference is added, he dismisses it as well, with claims such as: "advertisement", "state-funded conspircay against Haredi Jews", "illegal under Israeli copyright law", etc. His common method of action is deleting the parts he wishes to delete slowly, bit by bit. He'd wait a few hours to a day after discussion on the talk page, and would then start deleting again. Sometimes he'd appear to have agreed to keep some material, but would delete them two days later. I myself have refrained from deleting any of his materials (!), and have only edited small parts of them - slightly changing phrasing or providing additional content - also mentioning the reasons and discussing matters on the talk page... Which he had refrained from doing. Whenever I have myself undone any of his deletions, I kept his added materials and made sure to mention it. His presence on the page is somewhat vandalistic. I have no means with dealing with his excessive deletions, which are heavily based on his own self-proclaimed agenda ("to act against those harassing and spreading hatred towards Haredim"). Even when he discusses, he later ignores. =\ The talk page and edit notes on the page's history would easily reveal the nature of the problem. I thereby wish to request some form of intervention on the matter. Thank you.

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. There appears to be a content dispute on the page though. Consider dispute resolution (WP:DR).Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Shovon76 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)

Page: Assam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shovon76 (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. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:

• Comment: This user has been trolling me because of my opposing !votes against his proposed move requests in multiple articles. If you see, I had re-inserted all the references added by the user. I have only reverted the edits of the User:Nborkakoty, who had either added redundant things in to the article or had added purely personal opinions. Lastly, those edits also introduced bad sentence construction, grammar etc. in to the article. Instead of trying to correct those, the concerned editor Darkness Shines went in to a behavior of ownership and ordering, which may be seen from the edit summaries themselves. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well done for resorting to personal attacks, and your restoration of the references only means those references were then being misrepresented, as I had added them to support the content you had reverted in the first place. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What about your edit summaries? And, by the way, as I said, all edits by Nbarkakoty were either redundant or personal opinions. So, the references are good to support the existing content, if you care to see. And, regarding personal attacks, have you not indulged in the same type of behavior against other editors who were opposed to your POV in articles related to Gujarat riots of 2002 and the Godhra train burning? I will leave it up to the admins to decide. Shovon (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The references to not support the existing content at all, this one you readded was to support the fact that the tea was being planted in eastern not upper assam. this reference was to support the content that there are four oil refinarys in Assam, you have used it to support "Assam has few industries of significance." which is an obvious misrepresentation of the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the wiki link that I provided about upper Assam? Regarding the 4 oil refineries, the same can still be found in the current version of the article. As I said, you are picking up personal fights against editors who oppose your POV in some other articles. Shovon (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw, please see User:Darkness Shines' reversals in the article & his edit summaries too -

1

2

3 Shovon (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would I look at a wiki link? I reverted you because you removed sourced content and then misrepresented the sources, what exactly is wrong with the edit summaries? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would not be saying anything more here and would leave it to the closing admin to decide on the whole issue! Shovon (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I am a new user, I am quite surprised to find that this user Shovon has reverted all my edits to the page Assam. I do stand by whatever edits I made to this page. It is clear that this user Shovon is less informed about the latest developments in the industrial front in Assam. Moreover, using 'Upper Assam' and 'Lower Assam' to mean regions/administrative divisions inside Assam sometimes generate undesirable sentiments. So, knowledgeable circles, of late, preferred using 'Eastern Assam' and 'Western Assam' to mean the same, which is more logical and hence scientific and more clearly understood even by a foreigner. As 'Gauhati' was changed to 'Guwahati', 'Madras' was changed to 'Chennai', there is no reason, why 'Upper Assam' and 'Lower Assam' cannot be changed to 'Eastern Assam' and 'Western Assam'. According to 2012 data, Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport at Guwahati is the 12th busiest airport of India. Dibrugarh is presently not the 2nd highest revenue yielding district of India. I had updated these and other important and relevant information on the page. Anybody can point out if a single piece of information I had updated on the page was wrong! Unfortunately users/readers of wikipedia will now be deprived of all these updated information on the page. Thanks to Shovon. This user reverted all my edits by making generalized statements '...either added redundant things in to the article or had added purely personal opinions' and '...those edits also introduced bad sentence construction, grammar etc. in to the article.' Such statements are not specific to any information/sentence and hence superficial and do amount to personal attack on me. This may be due to the information I had updated/supplemented in the article goes against Shovon's prejudice. At last I again do stand by whatever edits I made to the page and hope that the administrators would do justice to me by over-ruling the reverts to my edits done by the user Shovon. --Nborkakoty (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that I would not comment here again till it is resolved, but the accusations prompted me to write something. Ghits for upper Assam gives 133,000 results while that for eastern Assam throws up 61,500 results. Btw, all edits by the above user were without any references. Anyone may check the article history to understand the same. At the same time, I do agree that I should have waited for a third party's opinion post User:Darkness Shines' reverts, but probably I was carried away by his acerbic edit summaries. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Shovon76 has made four reverts in 24.5 hours. Per the standards used here, this is enough to justify a block. He could avoid admin action if he will agree to stay off the article for seven days and limit his edits to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I do agree to abide by your suggested action. I also accept that it was purely wrong on my part to revert the article so many times. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: User:Shovon76 is warned for edit warring. There is no block because he has responded here and agreed not to edit the article for a week. He may still edit the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:207.38.225.26 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Marcos Stupenengo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.38.225.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Comments:
IP-user fighting to keep a CV-style (self)promotional article that has been nominated for deletion ([28]) for being about a non-notable individual, also removing maintenance templates indicating that the article is suspected of being an autobiography. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Tranquil Pepere reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Mathematics in medieval Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tranquil Pepere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]
5. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Edgth reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48h)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Latest revision as of 23:27, 30 July 2013 that only matters if it´s ambiguous as to what it´s referring to, it´s not though. see talk page on the long discussion that resulted in humanity. dr.k, feel free to edit the terminology section, per the agreement only including the lead
2. 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Terminology */ avoid repition even more by just getting to the quote that explains it more than enough"
3. 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "doesn´t need to be attributed. since paul doesn´t like human race, is the agreed to humanity on the talk page ok?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) to 06:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
   1. 00:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566359180 by Dr.K. (talk) stop edit warring"
   2. 06:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "resolved via the talk page"
5. 00:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566358743 by Dr.K. (talk) reverting your disruption. there´s nothing wrong with this edit"
6. 23:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "sock investigation went well"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bahá'í Faith. (TW★TW)"
2. 00:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mythology. (TW★TW)"
3. 00:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mythology. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "/* "Mankind" versus "Humankind" */ comment"
2. 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "/* "Mankind" versus "Humankind" */ replied"

Comments:

A few days after his edit-warring block this editor is back at it edit-warring at Mythology and showing no signs of abiding by consensus. Notice his edit summary sock investigation went well. He seems to enjoy all this disruption and shows no signs of stopping: I´m replacing humankind with humanity. Both words mean the same thing so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind. . I thought we had an agreement and withdrew my report yesterday. But he started again today trying to eliminate all occurrences of the word "humankind" from the mythology article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see also recent edit-warring report which resulted in a 24 hour block. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• He is also resorting to personal attacks: [37]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I also thought we had an agreement. You said you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article but you´re back to removing it. I´m not back to edit warring. I was trying to implement our agreement when you decided to go back on it. Also, why is it edit warring when I do it but not you? A ridiculous report. Edgth (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The word "humanity" is still at the lead. I stuck by the agreement and left it at the lead. You removed the one single remaining "humankind", that is the problem. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You said that you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article. It seems by that you just meant the lead. Nevertheless, the editing we´ve been doing over the last hour isn´t edit warring but trying to come to an agreement after the confusion over the agreement. Edgth (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, because that is where you put it. In our agreement I was referring to your original edit specifically where you replaced a single "humankind" with "humanity" at the lead. I'm also willing to AGF you were confused about that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I´m also willing to AGF that you misspoke and didn´t intend to break the agreement. YAY we´re friends now. Edgth (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So have you reached an agreement? Is any administrative action needed at this stage? Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Edgth has now performed a sixth revert. It is clear he will not stop. He also does not appear to understand the concept of 3RR. I recommend a block to stop this ongoing disruption. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question Alex. I did reach an agreement with Edgth, subject to some misinterpretations (AGF), but Paul August, who was not part of the agreement, edited the article today in favour of the word "humankind". I happen to completely agree with his position because that was my original position and I agree with his edit-summaries. So there is another consensus forming at the present time which is not covered by the old agreement. I'll AGF and I would settle for some advice to Edgth not to revert Paul's edits because he does not have consensus any longer. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Buster seems to be happy with humanity, judging by his talk page comment. I´ve reinstated humanity and am inviting you to edit the terminology section again if you´re not happy with its current state. Edgth (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That was exactly the wrong move. You now have six reverts. I struck my comments about leniency to Alex. I now recommend a block for Edgth. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I stuck to the agreement on the talk page that you, buster and I support? Stop being annoying and move on. Edgth (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Paul was not part of the agreement and he reverted you. The 3RR is a bright line. You should not have reverted his edits. Period. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

He went against the talk page consensus so he didn´t just revert me. Since we´ve been editing all over the article trying to reach a suitable version, most of your accused reverts are not even reverts anyway and you´ve done more than a fair share of them. Edgth (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No amount of justifications justify going over 3RR. I had my timing wrong and when I realised the time in history was not UTC I self-reverted and did not edit since. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I´ll list them then. The ´resolved via the talk page´ isn´t one as I was implementing our agreement. The ´avoid repition even more by just getting to the quote that explains it more than enough´ isn´t one, as we were both editing the article several times like that trying to come up with a sutable version. The ´doesn´t need to be attributed. since paul doesn´t like human race, is the agreed to humanity on the talk page ok´ isn´t one as I was implementing the agreement again, minus some of the confusion. Edgth (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edgth/Archive. Well-meaning advice does not seem to have made much of an impression on this editor (see "Stop boring me with your templates" on his talk page). This is the second time in a week that he has been at AN3, and his account was newly created on 20 July. He ought to read WP:EW to get clear on the definition of a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:64.237.226.40 reported by User:MusikAnimal (Result: 31h)

Page

Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "I don't need to prove to you anything. What YOU need to do is play the game, and pay the fuck attention!"
2. 22:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "You want proof? Play the fucking game, you moron. The whole game revolves around Bowser's action and situation."
3. 21:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Unsoursed? Nintendo and video game critics constantly kept saying he is, you fucking retards!"
4. 21:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566484021 by ThomasO1989 (talk)"
5. 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC) ""
6. 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Here's a better idea: Fuck you, moron."
7. 21:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "There is nothing to discuss."
8. 21:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "YES, it is. And clearly, you're an even bigger waste of air than the pollution, if you can't even tell who's role is who."
9. 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "It is, because they're supporting him. They're just the title characters here."
10. Consecutive edits made from 17:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC) to 17:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    1. 17:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "As THE main character, not A main character."
    2. 17:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story (HG)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [38]

Comments:

Resolution was attempted on article's talk page; Repeated edit warring after warning and personal attacks towards another editor via edit summary. Revision 566482943 perhaps should be suppressed via oversight for language. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Revision 566488111 should also be suppressed for the same reason. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:201.215.187.159 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No action)

Page

You have two cows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566520095 by ViperSnake151 (talk) the image is still not relevant to the article."
2. 00:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "No, this image is not relevant. The article is about a joke. The image does not illustrate the joke in any way."
3. 22:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC) ""Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic". This image is not."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. You have two cows and For sale: baby shoes, never worn

Comments:

Is being confrontational, using very strict interpretations of content guidelines instead of being flexible and bold. Has consented to an open proxy check. Is edit warring in a similar fashion on For sale: baby shoes, never worn, considered my warning about it to be "clumsy intervention". ViperSnake151  Talk  04:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action. This IP does not appear to be an open proxy. Whether to include the picture at You have two cows is open to further discussion. Since three different editors have restored the picture, consensus seems to favor including it. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Smithelen2013 reported by User:SummerPhD (Result:24 hours)

Page

Jenny McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Smithelen2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 01:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
3. 02:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 02:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "it was a lie"
5. 12:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "Names"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jenny McCarthy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Dating Donnie Wahlburg */ new section"
2. 02:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Dating Donnie Wahlburg */ typo"

Comments:

Now an obvious sock has continued the edit war:

• User:Adamsjenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suggest they both be blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:GenQuest reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 12 hours)

Page: Rujm el-Hiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GenQuest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]

Comments:
withing two hours he reverts twice. There is a 1 revert per 24 hours rule at all Arab-Israeli articles:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ARBPIA I told him at his talkpage and he didnt care:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GenQuest&oldid=566560567#1rr --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Tiptoety ^talk 18:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:32cllou reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: )

Page: Cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 32cllou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47] and [48] with many more visible on the users talk page.

This user has been making similar changes to as the above over the past number of weeks. On July 24/25th he made a 6th revert and self reverted here [49] after being warned on his talk page.

1. Removed fish [50]
2. Removed fish again [51]
3. Removed fish again [52]
4. Adjusted the lead sentence [53]
5. Adjusted the lead sentence again [54]
6. Adjusted the lead sentence again and moved discussion of fish [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been ongoing discussion on the talk page and multiple requests for this user to get consensus before continueing to make the changes in question [56]

Comments:

Please see the extensive discussion in Talk. I did not know that small discussed changes constituted a "revert". My changes today are different from prior, and were carefully discussed. I conceded the requirement for "only."[[57]] Note that all the references cited find that recommendations are made (not "proposed").[[58]] Note that the best references (American Cancer Society 2006 and 2012 do not recommend fish to reduce the risk of cancer; Jmh649's text is not accurate.[[59]]32cllou (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to take this argument to Rfc. Wikipedia currently misleads compared to the American Cancer Society references (reviews).32cllou (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is your continued insistence on re-making the same challenged changes over and over without consensus on the Talk page, while the Talk page discussions are still ongoing and unresolved--as I tried to explain to you on your User Talk page. You've been doing this all afternoon. Zad68 21:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The 2012 ACS does recommend fish (as opposed to red meat) as part of a diet to prevent cancer. As does another 2011 review article and the Australian Cancer Council. But this is an issue of continuous reinserting contention changes to the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:132.3.33.78 reported by User:Texas141 (Result: )

Page: Dayton, Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 132.3.33.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]
5. [65]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments:
IP is using unofficial U.S. Census Bureau data to represent a population number that is not referenced using official 2010 U.S. Census data. This user will not participate in civil discussion and has been warned several times of edit warring and personal attacks.Texas141 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)