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:AbuRuud reported by User:Ubikwit (Result: )

Page: Daisaku Ikeda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AbuRuud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:28, 12 March 2015
2. 22:31, 12 March 2015
3. 01:30, 13 March 2015
4. 02:05, 13 March 2015

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Comments:

The first two diffs are a series of edits to revert back to a previous lead. They should therefore count as one "revert." The other two are me reasserting that the material shouldn't be on the page. All the reverts had to do with:

1. Reintroducing sourced content that provided context to the lead and was originally removed by an IP editor whose apparent motivation is the make the article an attack page.
2. Getting rid of a sentence that (at best) was poorly worded and biased to the point of violating wp:BLP. This was clearly explained on the the talk page. [3]AbuRuud (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

1 and 2 are contiguous edits, thus counting as a single edit, - thus just hitting 3RR at worst - but the edit they reverted is from an IP in any event. Ubikwit has made two specific and separate reverts on non-IP edits here, and should be warned, as should AbuRuud as I am unsure that calling a small group a "cult of personality" centered on one person is a contentious claim about that specific person -- if so, then such claims should be considered a BLP violation in themselves, and anyone restoring that language would be the violator. Collect (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I also notice a lack of the required warning - a minor but fatal oversight when making an edit war complaint, if I recall correctly? Collect (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The policy explicitly states, "A warning is not required".[4]

If you're going to follow me around and suggest that I be warned for no good reason, you should at least read the policies beforehand.

Regarding the claim about "contiguous edits", that does not seem to be correct, either. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Sniffdafanny reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indef)

Page

Everton F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Crest */"
2. 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Revert. Original Latin translation"
3. 21:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651105255 by WikiDan61 (talk). Already explained"
4. 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651105620 by WikiDan61 (talk). Already explained"
5. 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "I added some new information"
6. 21:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• This isn't edit warring, it's just persistent vandalism. It's not like the user has a different opinion about the topic. He is changing the translation of the team's motto (Nihil satis nisi optimum) from "Nothing but the best" to "No goals this season". That's just vandalism. And it has been repeatedly reverted. The user is currently reported at WP:AIV for vandalism past a level 4 warning, as well as spam (two article creations that were clearly promotional) and an offensive user name. I think the AIV people will resolve the issue and no action need be taken here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

See also [5], [6], [7], [8]. So if I breached then so did Wikidan! Sniffdafanny (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR clearly states an exemption for reverting obvious vandalism, which this was. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

SDF, it's not going to help your case by acting immaturely. While I also believe your edits to be disruptive, if you truly believe your version is correct, you should bring it up on the talk page first rather than edit war. - Amaury (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef for vandalism. Also, repeated creation of spam articles and offensive user name. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Moorrests reported by User:Sunrise (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: any version without the contentious statement in the lead - the most recent is [9].

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10] (24 January)
2. [11] (25 January)
3. [12] (10 February)
4. [13] (11 February)
5. [14] (4 March)
6. [15] (5 March)
7. [16] (6 March)
8. [17] (7 March)
9. [18] (7 March)
10. [19] (10 March)
11. [20] (11 March)
12. [21] (12 March)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Science#Should_we_add_this_line_to_the_lead.3F. The same sources were discussed at Talk:Alhazen#Excess citations - some edit warring took place at Alhazen also.

Comments:

The user is edit warring against multiple other users to insert their preferred content into the lead of Science. The first few diffs are from January and February, as are the linked discussions in which they initially tried to talk. After they couldn't find a consensus for inclusion, they returned to try and force the content in, especially over the past week, trying to say that the previous discussion supported their opinion.

There is no 3RR violation, but clear edit warring. I'm not necessarily requesting a block - anything that resolves the repeated reversions would be good. Protection would not be ideal, as productive editing is continuing while this is taking place. Sunrise (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There has been no actual violation of three-revert rule here though I see there is an ongoing content dispute issue, all I can see is that User:J8079s is heavily implicated and the two editors have been equally responsible for the activities these past two weeks, so perhaps that editor's actions need to be looked into as well. Note that I am not party to this debate and have not looked into the logistics or any discussions on the matter. --!BSGT! (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's very much an asymmetric situation. J8079s reverted the majority of the 12 edits I cited above, but there are three of us who have done so - several more if you count the reversions at Alhazen - and even more who have commented in the talk discussions. Nobody other than Moorrests has been attempting to add the content. Sunrise (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinging those editors who have reverted or opposed the edits: J8079s, Mikenorton, Ninmacer20, Dmcq, William M. Connolley, Johnuniq, and the one editor (Ancheta Wis) who I think is neutral. Sunrise (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear case of edit warring by the user. Swarm... ^—X— 02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't realized it had been going on so long or been reverted so many times. Why do people get bees in their bonnet like this one about saying in the lead of the science article that their hero is the father of science? The right place to look to get weight for the lead in an article about science is a general book about science, not a book about the person themselves or about medieval islamic science. There's a subsection about the history and that's where things like that should go and they were told that. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:X1942 reported by User:Amaury (Result: three socks indeffed)

Page

Alan Hochberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

X1942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651097051 by Amaury (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to remove sourced information with no explanation or elaborate explanation as to why. Amaury (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked three sock puppets indefinitely. Amaury, you need to be a bit more elaborative when filing a report of this kind. On its face, it looks screwy to see one revert listed. I actually looked first at the one edit by the reported user and was still mystified. It was only when I looked at the edit history did it suddenly become clear. I also semi-protected the article for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Will do. Apologies, @Bbb23. - Amaury (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Caseeart (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25] (Reverted from [26])
3. [27]
4. [28]

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

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

Comments:
Before the first revert the user already stopped responding on the Talk Page about the dispute.[30] The user falsely (attacked me?-)accused me of "has repeatedly deleted a section agreed upon in the talk section"[31] despite the talk section showed otherwise [32]. The user has been edit warring for a few months with other users. I will admit that I did revert an edit 4 times within a 66 hour period - but it was with an ongoing discussion on the talk page.

Addition: Just realized an active discussion on ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseeart (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 March 2015

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm... ^—X— 20:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:213.81.80.153 reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: No action)

Page

Kieran Sadlier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "/* International career */"
2. 16:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kieran Sadlier. (TW)"
2. 06:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kieran Sadlier. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [33]

Comments:

Editor claims to be the subject's father and repeatedly adds content unsupported by references. I have explained the need for reliable sources both on this talkpage and my own only for editor to revert again. Egghead06 (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Declined per WP:AGF and WP:BITE; perhaps rather than summarily rollbacking all of this editor's edits and telling them to read WP:RS, you can leave the non-contentious wording changes, tag the additions of information that are not at this time supported by reliable sources, and revert only the removal or alteration of something that is already sourced. Perhaps this is an editor you should attempt to help rather than attempt to shut out; our reliable sources policy is not an outright ban on someone making a change to incorrect information on an article about a family member. Swarm... ^—X— 21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks but your view goes against WP:COIADVICE which specifically asks that they add reliable sources.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: 24h)

Page

Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Discussion still in progress - consensus majority voting. (TW)"
2. 11:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Consensus takes some time, discussion occurring, dont edit war. (TW)"
3. 02:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Joseph Prasad (talk): There's no discussion since 2/28/15 - no consensus was sought - reverting back and please do not edit war over this. (TW)"
4. 02:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "reverting back to photo added by Angellene10 - disagree? please take it to the article talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. "Warning" given to WV

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Resolution initiatives

Comments:

I'm uninvolved in this so it may not be 100% edit warring^{I was reffering to I don't know the background of it but since WV is being super picky about everything, yes 4 reverts is a violation of 3RR}, but I see 4 reverts in 24hrs.... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Amended at: 19:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't "100% edit warring"', why did you file this report. EoRdE6?

The facts are that both User:Joseph Prasad and User:MaranoFan had just come off blocks and returned immediately to their old behaviors: Prasad reverting in a manner that equates ownership, reverting rather than discussing; Marano aggressively edit warring when there is a discussion about the disputed content already occurring. I reverted Prasad here in part because he had not used an edit summary to explain his reversion [34], the edit summary I supplied was, "reverting back to photo added by Angellene10 - disagree? please take it to the article talk page" (I saw nothing wrong with the photo the other editor added). Prasad then reverted again here:[35] with the following edit summary "It's already a discussion, and since there has been no consensus, it can't be changed since it is still an ongoing discussion". This was untrue, there hadn't been discussion for nearly two weeks and there had been no actual consensus sought. I then reverted here[36] with the following edit summary, "There's no discussion since 2/28/15 - no consensus was sought - reverting back and please do not edit war over this." MaranoFan (who has been involved in tag-team edit warring with Joseph Prasad in the past) reverted here[37] with this edit summary: "Winkelvi, the one edit warring is YOU. When there isn't consensus, the version before the change (being discussed) is kept. Don't change the image until everyone agrees on it." My response was to revert back to the "wrong version" because there was a discussion taking place here [38] with the edit summary, "Consensus takes some time, discussion occurring, dont edit war." Marano then aggressively reverted again (despite now being aware there is a discussion about the disputed content taking place) here [39] and put in a completely different photo than the two being discussed - no consensus, no discussion about the new photo, no agreement that the newest photo was the one that should be added. Marano's edit summary was thus: "The user argues on the talk page that the photo should have a guitar. Until the discussion progresses, here is a non-blurry with-guitar pic not supposed to be reverted." And yes, because the reverting while discussion was still occurring happened again, I did revert for a 4th time (here [40], "Discussion still in progress - consensus majority voting." I had placed two edit warring warnings on his talk page here [41] and here [42]. He continued, nonetheless. Even before this report was filed, I had no intention of reverting further, Believing that WP:ROPE might be the best solution to their continued edit warring behavior. My actions were solely based on keeping things in order and according to discussion policy -- actual edit warring was not my intent. Further, I have followed up at the article talk page with a comment in order to hopefully reach consensus here: [43]. Not trying to distract or shift any blame, but in my opinion, MaranoFan and Joseph Prasad, both released from blocks for edit warring and disruptive behavior less than 24 hours ago, still appear to have no concept of consensus, discussion, disruption, edit warring, and that WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIN are not appropriate editing mentalities and behavior. I think their behavior right after being unblocked is evidence of such: not wanting to truly discuss/reach consensus, just warring and winning. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation but that doesn't change the bright red line of 3RR which you ran right over. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(1) The explanation isn't meant for you, EoRdE6.

(2) You struck out what you originally wrote, but it doesn't change that you came to the edit warring noticeboard believing "it may not be 100% edit warring". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The original change was made without any comment or explanation, it was disputed and reverted, and the proper course of action following this would be to discuss the proposed change, not to revert multiple times to keep the new image in the article; Winkelvi violated 3rr in trying to prevent the removal of their preferred addition and has not self-reverted as of this review. Also protecting the page to prevent further disruption. Swarm... ^—X— 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Naturalevasion reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Multiple blocks)

Page

Evolution (marketplace) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "added community forum link"
2. 10:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651140688 by Fixuture (talk)"
3. 01:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 05:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 22:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "correct link check contingency links update on evo forum & reddit & dnm"
6. 17:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "2 typos + wiki link"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 13:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Evolution (marketplace). (TW)"

• Note. I've indeffed NaldusMain, Matibenbaruch, and Naturalevasion as socks (it's possible they are meat puppets). I've semi-protected the page for one week. There is one other account that I didn't touch as I'm less sure of it (it is auto-confirmed).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kaalekauwesedariyo reported by User:Snowager (Result: Blocked)

Page

Santosh Anand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 16:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651182241 by Flyer22 (talk)"
3. 04:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651222759 by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk)"
4. 04:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 651291165 by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) as"

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Although I don't think the SPA is interested in improving the article, the section on suicides needs a lot of work.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: Page protected)

Page: 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: summichum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Even after having discussed in the previous Editwar Notice[[44]] this user ignored my request to have discussion and reverted the tag consequently.[[45]]Rukn950 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff][[46]]
2. [diff][[47]]

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

Comments:

Though his reverts are not 3rrr but summichum immediatly started to revert even after being requested by Admin in the Notice boardRukn950 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"No violation. The proper course of action when someone adds something you disagree with is not to edit war over it, but to discuss it on the talk page. Since you've already jumped to the conclusion that the tag is referring to you, whether you like it or not, it's not appropriate for you to be removing it. If no consensus forms to support the tag being there, it can be removed. However you're both accusing each other of having a COI, so I certainly don't see the tag as being inappropriate. Swarm... —X— 2:19 am, 10 March 2015, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC+3)"

• Page protected While I could certainly block this user, I think it would be more productive if you both proceeded to WP:COIN and sought out some additional feedback, as you're obviously at an impasse, accusing each other of COI, and you're not getting sufficient feedback on the talk page. You'll have a week off of the article to attempt to sort this out through discussion. Swarm... ^—X— 18:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Swarm cc:User:Bjelleklang Do check my talk page where I have given proof that this user ruqn has close connection with the subject , and is infact a clergy of this group, I have no connection whatsoever with either of the claimants nor do I support any. Hence I request editors to not just look at claims but also evidences for the same, this user was reported for clear 3rr violations twice and yet due to his false claims action was deferred , later an admin asked for proof for COI accusation which I duly provided yet the action on my 3rr report remains. ALso you clearly said " If no consensus forms to support the tag being there, it can be removed. However you're both accusing each other of having a COI". Summichum (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

121.220.98.113 reported by AcidSnow (Result: 1 month)

Page: Arab Capital of Culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.220.98.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 08:34, 13 March 2015
2. Latest revision as of 12:22, 14 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk page link

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

Comments:

This IP has violated 1R by reverting twice on the Template:Arab Capital of Culture. Also, where does someone go once they receive a death threat? Him and another individual have also been calling me "A MUSLIM TERRORIST", an "Arab nationalist vandal", a "CUNT", and that I poses an "extremist Arab POV". AcidSnow (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month. Can't confirm the other IP is the same person but I've blocked them for two weeks for similar but less severe violations. Swarm... ^—X— 18:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help. AcidSnow (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Sarderzahidrahman111 reported by User:Nath1991 (Result: )

Page

Sarder Majibar Rahman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sarderzahidrahman111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 19:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 19:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removing file deletion tags on Sarder Majibar Rahman. (TW)"
2. 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing file deletion tags on Sarder Majibar Rahman. (TW)"
3. 19:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "/* March 2015 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has created a page (Sarder Majibar Rahman) which appears to be about him/her. Continues to remove deletion tags, and has been warned a dozen times about doing so, in addition to other Wikipedia editors re-applying for deletion of said page without possibly being aware of the fact that the page has been up for deletion for a week, and the user in question has been warned multiple times for deleting the deletion tags on the page. Nath1991 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I would support deleting the page and banning the user. They are clearly only here for self-promotion, not to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi - Drake Bell (Result: page protected; editors blocked for another article)

Page

Drake Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Joseph Prasad (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 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651410252 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Again, I provided a source for record producer. Stop ignoring your talk page, and learn how to discuss instead of edit warring."
   2. 00:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651409661 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I have provided sources. Stop Edit Warring and removing sourced info."
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651408406 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Stop ignoring me, and stop edit warring before I report us both and get us both blocked."
   2. 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 00:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651407975 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) stop ignoring my message on your talk page"
5. 00:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Find a guideline telling you this. And his net worth in the negatives now. . (TW)"
6. 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Actually, videos can be used. Refer to User talk:SNUGGUMS. And it is from his real account. (TW)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651406147 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Again, I have explained my edits. Take it to the talk page before making edits like this."
   2. 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Provided ref to already obvious fact."
8. 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "No, he has produced his EP A Reminder as well, under his own label. And other people such as Jennette McCurdy, are taken as comedians as well. Discuss on the talk page before you make a change."
9. 23:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651403676 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He is a comedian, having worked on multiple sitcoms, and he produced his first album Telegraph, and his EP A Reminder."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "/* March 2015 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WAY over 3RR. Was just released from a 48-hour edit warring block a couple of days ago (see here: [49]). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor I am reverting is removing sourced information and ignoring the message I left on his talk page. He's over 3RR as well, why is he not being reported? This really is starting to seem like a personal problem. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Atomic has a history of edit warring accusations also (talk page), and is also warring over what seems to be a reasonable and constructive edit on the page A Reminder. Furthermore, Atomic has refused to respond to discussion opened by Prasad, both on article and user talk pages. If a certain punishment is found wanting for Prasad, should Atomic not be liable for the same? -- Jhill270 (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The revert JP was making looks reasonable to me. I think it should be thoroughly observed that the claim JP kept adding did have a source. I don't know what is done in such cases. I would hope that seeing the situation, and not just the number of edits, JP is not blocked in this situation. MaRAno ^FAN 06:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User continues to revert A Reminder page without finding a reliable source.(Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

Tells one to provide source. Others tell him to do the same on other pages. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

At least I find reliable sources like Entertainment weekly, Hollywood Reporter, etc. you put unknown sites. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

I had already protected the article and left messages for both editors before seeing this report. If another admin chooses to block one or another of the editors, I won't object. In the absence of such a block, I will continue to monitor the discussion (and I've already had some discussion at User talk:Joseph Prasad#Drake Bell.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi - A Reminder (Result: both blocked)

Page

A Reminder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:15, 15 March 2015‎ (UTC) Undid revision 651451025 by Atomic Meltdown (talk): at the end, label name in vid.)
2. 08:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Undid revision 651450784 by Atomic Meltdown (talk): these links are irrelevant, as I said, the label in the music videos.
3. 07:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) again, Wiki's all about discussion. YOU don't know how to do it. And I have said stop reverting and give me time, but you won't. Oh, well. We're both getting blocked purely for 3RR.
4. 07:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown (talk): I have explained myself multiple times. Maybe if you learned to actually DISCUSS. (TW)
5. 07:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown (talk). (TW)
6. 07:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Undid revision 651448331 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) per my previous edit summary. I'm getting blocked anyway, why not?
7. 07:31, 15 March 2015‎ (UTC) Undid revision 651448187 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) That would be original research, nothing more reliable than what I'm doing here.
8. 07:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown: Don't assist in reporting me then revert. It is under his name, he produced it. Actually, you didn't on that Billy Crystal thing. (TW)
9. 07:11, 15 March 2015‎‎ (UTC) Undid revision 651446943 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Telling me to find one when you have been warned for original research, unsourced info. Kinda hypocritical.
10. 07:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Ugh... how many times have I told you, that doesn't matter? Me and other editor have tried to discuss, you simply ignore. Maybe start there. Like I said, do you want me just to snitch to an admin and get us both blocked?"
11. 07:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651446094 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) As it is under Drake Bell Entertainment, it does not need to be."
12. 06:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Sources provided. I have been told that the source for the label is enough. (TW)"
13. 06:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "No. You're the one who wants the change. You're the one to do it. And you've ignored me trying to discuss with you, showing you're doing this on pages I frequently edit to be disruptive."
14. Consecutive edits made from 06:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "How bout instead of reverting, YOU TAKE IT TO THE TALK. unless you don't know how wiki works."
    2. 06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Lawsuit */"
15. Consecutive edits made from 06:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "we were almost blocked. You brought it up, you take it to the talk page, heck, I could use a break, I can just go snitch to an admin."
    2. 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651444082 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) per my previous summary."
16. Consecutive edits made from 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "corrected italics."
    2. 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651444156 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I can find other sources."
17. Consecutive edits made from 06:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): I have REPEATEDLY told you I left a message and to take it to the talk page. Why do you refuse? (TW)"
    2. 06:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
18. Consecutive edits made from 00:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 00:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Source provided"
19. 00:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651410380 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He doesn't need to be as it is under his name. Stop the edit war."
20. 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651409945 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I actually am. Stop. Do you wanna get reported? Learn how to discuss on Talk Pages."
21. 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651409166 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) stop edit warring before I report both of us"
22. 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651408263 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) It is enough that it is under a label dubbed with his own name."
23. 00:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651407718 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) it is under his own label, so it is obvious. Stop stalking the pages I edit, as you weren't on these ever before."
24. Consecutive edits made from 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) to 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Second edit warring report filed in the same day. See above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: His comments on his talk page regarding the edit warring are: "I'm not giving a crap at the moment. Granted, editing Wikipedia has been the only thing I do, if that editor doesn't at least get blocked too, I'm going to get pissed. Really, all the info is there. He just started editing those articles after I proved him wrong on 84th Academy Awards, as the Drake Bell articles are among the main ones I edit." (found here [50]). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, you worry nothing of the other editor, and I have tried to make a discussion, continued ignorance. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to block me, you have to take some action against Atomic Meltdown as well. That just wouldn't be right, I tried to discuss on his talk, I'm getting singled out here. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why me? I'm the one who's telling you to find a reliable source and keep putting unsourced material. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

You, Atomic Meltdown just started on these articles because the Drake Bell articles are among the main ones I focus on. You're doing this to deliberately be disruptive. If you were really in good faith, you would make an attempt to find sources, instead of just removing over and over again, or at least tagging the info, you doing this just cause I proved you wrong at the 84th Academy Awards article. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And Winkelvi The only reason "I'm not giving a crap" is because I will be blocked regardless, and know it. And I have been agitated to no end. And again, nothing on the other ediotr. WOW. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm telling you to find a reliable source and ignore me. This guy needs to be blocked for reverting unsourced material. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

I had to revert you for the same reason. And seriously, again, don't know how to discuss on talk pages. If you did, none of this would be happening. You just ignore everything. It wasn't anything better than what you were doing, yet you thought you were in the right. And if the label is under his name, he produced it. No sourcing needed, as I have been told, by DISCUSSING. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You see what I have been through yesterday. This kid needs a source. A source and he refused to find a reliable one. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

• Comment from uninvolved editor: I doubt this needs to be said, but this is a true and classic edit war in the most brilliant sense of the word. Atomic Meltdown is also a heavy participant. They were both warned sternly for the last incident, but that doesn't seem to have effected a change. J♯m (talk | contribs) 07:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Also notable: they're STILL at it even after the posting of this 3RR discussion. J♯m (talk | contribs) 08:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Both need blocking IMO. Joseph Prasad has just come off a 48hr block only five days ago for, guess what, edit-warring. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. Sorry, it's just too much. Both were edit warring to the point of having another article locked, then took the dispute here and continued to edit war after warnings. I've blocked Atomic Meltdown for 24 hours for a first offense, and Prasad for one week as this is his third consecutive block for this and is just coming back from a block. Kuru (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Danny.rudolph5 reported by User:Snowager (Result: blocked)

Page

Toy Story (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Danny.rudolph5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Toy Story 4 (2017) */"
2. 21:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 06:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Fixed Everything"
4. 07:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 07:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This edit makes it clear that this is all simple vandalism. I've blocked the account. Kuru (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ditinili reported by User:Fakirbakir (Result:Blocked)

Page: Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ditinili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

a link to a version from before all the reverting took place: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]
5. [56]

Comments:

He started a discussion about a map yesterday [57] (he mentioned this matter a couple of days ago but it was an "off-topic discussion", here: [58]), and now he says that the issue has been "already discussed on different place" [59]. However the discussion is still ongoing. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

See the report below.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ditinili reported by User:Fakirbakir (Result:Blocked)

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

a link to a version from before all the reverting took place: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Comments:

Same issue as above (this is my second report about this user). He started a discussion about a map yesterday [65] (he mentioned this matter a couple of days ago but it was an "off-topic discussion", here: [66]), and now he says that the issue has been "already discussed on different place" [67]. However the discussion is still ongoing. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and trouting the nominator for going to three reverts before reporting.Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on IP User:77.238.218.96 for pseudoscientific OR.

The IP has already gone beyond 3 edits at Dimensionless physical constant and appears to be on the same tare at Gravitational constant. User:Quondum and I are trying to stem this IP's likely self-promotional edits. Thanks. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Amortias (T)(C) 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:77.238.218.96 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: )

Page

Dimensionless physical constant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651500691 by Quondum (talk) relative to the rest of the article (also not discussed in talk) this was the well made part"
2. 20:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651528401 by 166.184.170.35 (talk) primary sources are OK in lack of secondary ones, besides this is just a comparison of 2 numbers (1 peer-reviewed, 1arxiv time-stamped)"
3. 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651535495 by 166.184.170.35 (talk) that's exactly the starting point of the guy who had theoretical value of G right. so what's your point again, if any?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring against 166.184.170.35 ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There seems to just be an content dispute here, I'd recommend dispute resolution, or just talking it out. 166.184.170.35 is also involved in the edit warring as well, to the same extent as the other IP. Kharkiv07^Talk 21:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at the citation, the person and the IP. Sums it up pretty clearly. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

One additional comment: "166.184.170.35 is also involved in the edit warring as well, to the same extent as the other IP." NOT to the same extent. The Bosnian IP first took on User:Quondom, reverting his/her edits (which were reverting the Bosnian IP's edits). This is clearly a crank's OR. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)