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:Butt888 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: Declined)

Page: The Amazing Race Canada 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Butt888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10]
10. [11]
11. [12]
12. [13]
13. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

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

Comments:

Newly-registered user was adding the results of Leg 3 that hasn't been aired in Canada and continuously added back that gives unsourced claiming. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. First of all, you didn't even warn this new user that their behavior was unacceptable until 5 minutes after you filed this report here. Second, you didn't notify this user that the report had been filed, which is required -- as per the box at the top of this page with the giant red text. This user is new, and may not be aware of the norms that their edits were violating. Filing a report without trying to actually converse with the editor is BITEy at best. —Darkwind (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DogukanOdaci reported by User:Heimdallr of Æsir (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DogukanOdaci (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. [diff] [16]
2. [diff] [17]
3. [diff] [18]
4. [diff] [19]
5. [diff] [20]

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

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

I warned him both in the Turkey page and in his User Talk page: [21]

Comments:
Long-term edit-warring disruption in the Turkey article. The user has also received warnings from other users for his disruptive edits in the Northern Cyprus article. He keeps changing/reverting the GDP numbers in the infobox without making a logical explanation for justifying his changes. This behavior amounts to trolling. Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing. —Darkwind (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:104.33.119.29 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Semi)

Page: Final Destination 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 104.33.119.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]

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

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

Comments:

User has been re-inserting preferred wording despite reverts from multiple editors, discussion at Talk page, edit-warring advisory, etc. Not sure whether page protection may be the better approach here, but they're clearly not listening so far. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. The revert here has been made by more than one IP over a period of weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User:SantiLak reported by User:Plbogen (Result: Protected)

Page: The Truth About Guns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SantiLak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edited Version: [30]

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plbogen (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
5. [36]
6. [37]
7. [38]
8. [39]
9. [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
I'm really frustrated that this user seems to want to police this article and insists on reverting all of my changes even when he admits they are good.

You are describing three reverts, one of which was more than 2 months ago. I haven't violated 3RR, this can be solved through discussion and instead of discussing it, you're just filing a complaint. - SantiLak (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sick of fighting with you and your manipulation of the arcane corners of Wikipedia only to have you revert anything I do when I'm not looking again. I want an admin involved in this. Because I no longer trust you. Plbogen (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. Both editors have been alerted under WP:ARBGC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Great so in three days he reverts my edits again like he did last time? Plbogen (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Admins are unlikely to put up with a long-running edit war. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. From the talk page, it is hard to figure out what the argument is about. It may be easier to try to solve the points in dispute one at a time. An WP:RFC or a WP:3O can bring in outside opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The dispute is that anytime I add to the article he reverts it. After the last incident, he waited until I hadn't been on wiki for a few weeks to revert it again. He wants the article to not only have no criticism whatsoever, but he also insists on putting back in broken citations, citations that don't match what is being said or misrepresent. The other editor appears to have a vested interest in skewing article to make the pro-gun crowd look more positive. When I cited other pro-gun blogs criticising this one and accusing them of theft of articles he declares that the other gun blogs are not reliable and that therefore the criticism is made up and deletes it. Plbogen (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

From a reading of the talk page I don't get any of this. If the situation was really as one-sided as this you'd probably be able to get some admin action. You'd need to provide thorough documentation including all the diffs. Let me know once you've been able to collect the information. The tone of your comment does suggest that your summary may not be completely neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Over three days I made some changes, cleaned up on referenced things, bad links and updated some information. [42].

SantiLak without any talk discussion or attempt to fix the problems reverts all of my changes. [43]

An IP user comes in and restores my changes with SantiLak reverting again and warns me about him and advises me to preemptively support all of my changes in a talk thread. [44] To which SantiLak stalks him in to there.

I then do so. [45]

No comment is made in response in a days time, so I figure the matter is done and don't look at it until yesterday and see that SantiLak reverted my changes again a month after the first incident. [46]

SantiLak then does two more reversions. [47][48]

So then I try just expanding the article without removing some of the uncited parts. [49]

SantiLak does some editing (mostly gutting) and I add some more information, which he then also reverts. [50]

He did some final revisions and I added so more content right before you protected the page.

I'm going to check back on the page when the protection expires and I fully expect him to revert it then. I've also let him know that I won't be disputing any of his changes made since this began (other than the reverts) and I happy for him to update (but not revert) as well as let him know I won't be further engaging him in talk. Plbogen (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DurChalen123 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Ismail I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DurChalen123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:
After being blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on Portuguese conquest of Goa, DurChalen came back with outdated sources, original research, and edit warring to force his opinions into Portuguese conquest of Goa, Ismail I, Yusuf Adil Shah, and Afonso de Albuquerque articles. DurChalen has now taken to using Britannica and writing his own opinion regardless of what the Britannica article actually says(original research). --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. I saw the edit warring at Portuguese conquest of Goa and blocked for a week as the editor was blocked for edit warring on that article just a few days ago. I then saw the link on the talk page to this, but it should address all the problems. —SpacemanSpiff 22:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Glider87 reported by User:Kbrose (Result: page protected, user blocked 24 hours )

Page: Terabyte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Glider87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fnagaton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terabyte&oldid=671017158

Previous version reverted to: good version: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]
5. [63]
6. [64]
7. [65]
8. [66]
9. [67]

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Comments:
Editors User:Glider87 and User:Fnagaton have reappeared from a long hiatus to restart the battle about maintaining the ambiguity surrounding the binary prefixes, this has been discussed at length in the talk pages of MOSNUM and various articles, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Several editors have pointed out the obvious behavior of suckpuppetry by these two users. Glider87 continued the exact same reverts when Fnagaton reached 3RR level (included in the cited diffs) and fell silent. Glider87 all of a sudden emerged from a two-year editing hiatus. They are clearly sockpuppets of the same master.

My warning for edit warring on the user's talk page was removed with the edit summary "Reverting vandalism...": [72]

This pattern of behavior by these two user accounts has endured for years, yet no permanent action has been forthcoming to stop the enormous amount of waste of other editors' time and effort that these users have created.

The linkage of these two accounts is also emphasized in this comment by Glider87 on Fnagaton's talk page: [73]

User:Fnagaton and User:Glider87 are WP:SPA single-purpose editors who only spring into action when an issue arises that is connected with the binary prefixes, or a new user uses them in an article. In addition their only other purpose has been to support edits by their master over the years.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and Page protected I did both because I have no confidence that the other editor will not resume the edit war. If you believe these two accounts to be related, WP:SPI is thataway. Otherwise, this appears to be a dispute over references, so work it out on the talk page. KrakatoaKatie 19:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GabrielKuka reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Please note

This is not a formal violation of 3RR. However the reported user resumed his edit-warring on Pelasgians after he got blocked in May for the identical reason. The reported user also promotes Illyrian fringe theories by disruptively edit-warring across multiple Balkan-related articles. What's worse he promotes his fringe ideas without using any references.

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 14:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Pelasgians are ancestors of Illyrians not greeks, otherwise why ancient greek scientists consider them Illyrians?!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pelasgians. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Got blocked for 48 hours in May by EdJohnston for edit-warring on the same article. Started the identical edit-warring today on the same article. Promotes POV eliminating references to ancient Greeks and replacing them with Illyrians without bothering to even use any type of reference. His edit-warring disruption is long-term and across multiple articles. Also uses uncivil remarks to promote his POV. It also appears this user is campaigning for the WP:TRUTH. Typical case of tendentious editing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the next step is an indefinite block. User has no interest in discussion but persists in unsourced fringe commentary about Illyrians. "Please do not change the information because Pelasgians are the ancestors of Illyrians not greeks!" Don't ask him how he knows these things, he just knows them. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. He seems to think he is the only one who knows the TRUTH and edit wars to promote it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:CFCF reported by Ozzie10aaaa (Result: No blocks. Discussion returned to WPMED)

• User being reported: CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine Diffs of the users reverts

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]

Diffs of attempt to talk to individual

• [77]
• [78]

Notified

• [79]

am asking for a warning /temporary block,based on Wikipedia:Edit_warring thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

One of those diffs is the archiving of a notice concerning Wikimania 2015 - which ended three days ago. Why exactly do you think it needs to remain on the noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

your referring to #2 in the archive process the same post of #1 and #3 was contained (wikimania post was not issue, when the archive was placed the one im concerned about (that was reverted 3 times was reverted as well)...(specifically "neurons/NIH" is the post title.)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am willing to go with just a warning, but all editors should please respect Wikipedia:Edit_warring--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

They should also respect WP:NOTFORUM. It might have helped if the disputed post had actually explained why it was relevant to WikiProject Medicine. You don't appear to be either suggesting that it is relevant to an existing article, nor proposing any new article, and it isn't entirely clear that the subject matter even falls within the scope of the project: "medical and health content". Quite possibly it might be at some undetermined point of time in the future, but for now experiments on controlling rats by wireless-operated brain probes seem to be firmly in the realm of fundamental neuroscientific research, and comments about " reinvent[ing] the remote control toy car as the remote control mouse" are well into WP:NOTFORUM territory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of other editors. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period[80]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean that contributors violating WP:NOTFORUM may not also be held accountable. And incidentally, you'd copy-pasted material from the article you linked without marking it as a quotation - which might possibly make WP:NOT3RR relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• again I am referring to this 3RR link Wikipedia:Edit_warring thank you (that is not correct the quotation was present in this form...neurons)...with the appropriate link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Italics aren't quotation marks. And you really aren't helping your case - you haven't given any explanation as to why you think the WikiProject Medicine talk page is an appropriate place to be posting comments about remote control mice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• that comment was made by another editor you should ask them (before CFCF 3RR).........BTW are you an administrator?AndyTheGrump --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, I have no axe to grind with you and I would hope this discussion could be closed before any of us makes a fool out of ourselves. I understand your wish to have these articles seen by a wider audience, but there are better fora for that.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

as is indicated in the upper left hand corner I informed you twice, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since CFCF is already reported I'd like to raise a slow edit war they're involved in at Electronic cigarette aerosol

CFCF adds 19:35, 7 July 2015 <&Blank>

CFCF reverts removal 19:39, 7 July 2015 (WP:NPOV)

CFCF re-adds 16:03, 13 July 2015 (Reverted to revision 670723632 by QuackGuru (talk): I think you'll find the opposite. (TW)) This was the talk at the time (4 against 2 for, CFCF Blank comment point to WP:Hatnote)

CFCF amends Vapor -> Smoke 16:03, 13 July 2015 <&Blank>

CFCF Re Adds 13:10, 16 July 2015 <&Blank>

CFCF re Adds 15:33, 16 July 2015 (Reverted to revision 671706248 by CFCF (talk): Consensus holds this should be here. (TW)) This was the talk at the time (only 4 new comments, two from me, Two from QuackGuru)

CFCF re-adds 14:30, 17 July 2015 (Vd) This was the talk at the time (only 2 new comments)

CFCF reverts 15:45, 22 July 2015 (The dab link should remain)

CFCF reverts 19:53, 22 July 2015 (Then let us leave it at the most stabil version)

6 Reverts to force inclusion of disputed content he added in 9 days, never more than 2 in a day but it has all the hallmarks of a slow edit war 4 other editors have removed it in that time. SPACKlick (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Further evidence of this editors behavior reverting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion be closed. This carries no standing, as is clearly evident from the previous case which was brought at WP:ANI by SPACKlick. Also I have no idea where you are getting your for/against numbers from. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• the editor who posted the evidence of behavior above, is showing the reverting behavior--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Issue of whether or not this constitutes edit warring aside, I also feel that WP:NOTAFORUM should be read by Ozzie10aaaa, as several posts in recent times appear unrelated to this wikiproject, or wikipedia in general. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

of course 3RR [81] is what is being discussed (though I agree with Mathew Ferguson, this was the wrong approach 3RR is not correct)...BTW CFCF has posted a link asking for help apparently [82],,,is that allowed?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Additionally lets discussion on the talk page at WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent battle groundish behavior by CFCF on another article

CFCF added an NPOV tag to the article Sex differences in psychology without explanation, and without discussion on Talk page. There have been no recent edits or Talk page discussions that suggested the need for an NPOV tag.

• I removed the tag and suggested discussion on the Talk page.
• CFCF restored the NPOV tag. No explanation was given for the restore.
• NFCF added a section to the article talk page, simply titled "NPOV," and added: "This article uses a number of old or primary sources to explain differences in sex/gender that do not exist."
• I responded to CFCF's claim: "That is an over-broad statement, and it is factually incorrect. First, let's not rehash our older discussions (see above [on the Talk page]). Second, if you wish to challenge a specific finding or topic, please do so, and include references. Before placing (or restoring) a NPOV tag, please wait for discussion and consensus here on the Talk page." I again removed the NPOV tag.
• NFCF restored the NPOV tag yet again, without waiting for further discussion or consensus on the Talk page.
• Another user chimed in on the Talk page and asked "What current, secondary sources are available on this article topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"
• NFCF gave no response to this user, and, so far, has not responded to my comment on the Talk page.
• In response to WeijiBaikeBianji's query, I added a list of relevant and recent secondary sources. NFCF has not responded to that.
• Despite no support for an NPOV tag, NFCF placed an NPOV tag on the article three times in one day, each time without an explanation. That may not technically be a 3RR violation, but...

This pattern of editing by NFCF is not collaborative, but, instead, has been rather battlegroundish. Memills (talk)

User:Memills I am seeing three edits over a day with talk page discussion here [83] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That is what I stated above. Although technically not a 3RR violation, it comes close, and, the pattern of editing is battlegroundish and non-collaborative.Memills (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I was just going to give CFCF a formal notice for edit-warring at The Pirate Bay. Given he's been edit-warring at other articles as well, I think this needs close scrutiny in case it is a general problem. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Given this, might User:Doc James, or another admin, consider re-opening this case? Memills (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

None of the above rises to a significant level of concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Doc, you closed per not 3RR and that's absolutely right but 3RR is not the only way something can be an edit war. "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". I think this merits looking at for the fact that CFCF in some cases Reverts repeatedly without discussing to seek consensus or seeking dispute resolution. SPACKlick (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears CFCF has been edit-warring in The Pirate Bay since 11:30, 13 June 2015, ignored and still is ignoring WP:EL and the ELN discussion, and didn't even join any of the discussion until after I made the comment above. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF as responded admirably to my concerns [84]. I think we'll get some consensus quickly now. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:209.49.242.34 reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Sardarji joke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 672629812 by Human3015 (talk)"
2. 20:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 672630043 by CAPTAIN RAJU (talk)"
3. 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 672630267 by Human3015 (talk)"
4. 20:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 672631537 by Staszek Lem (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Sardarji joke. (TW)"
2. 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit War */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP is reverting multiple users. Adding purely unsourced matter. Human3015 knock knock • 20:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —SpacemanSpiff 20:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Seconded. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Warned)

Page

Lost Cause of the Confederacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Janney is a leading expert on Lost Cause and she cites Catton as RS -- he's the most famous cicvil war historian"
2. 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Catton"
3. 06:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ quote"
4. 06:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "the article should state what the critics complain about--no need to Announce the Truth here"
5. 06:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ neutral phrasing please"
6. 07:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC) "restore links--no showing on talk page why there is a problem--all deal with the topic ofthe article"

Comments:

Warned: [85] VQuakr (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Notified: [86] VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

True enough-- i got caught up in a 6-way edit war involving four different sections of the article and was carelessly hyperactive. My apologies.Rjensen (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Rjensen is warned he may be blocked if he reverts again at Lost Cause of the Confederacy without first getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:87.21.184.6 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Semi)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */Explade the page information inovations Selfie Shoes inventor by Miz Mooz mode use by sensore consists in or of cross lega modalite Shoefie click toe feet girls Selfie."
2. 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */Explande Selfie and new future Selfie shoes Miz Mooz experiment inovation company"
3. 19:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Group selfies */Explade page information best Sefie inovation future Selfie Shoes by Miz Mooz New York City"
4. 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Group selfies */Explade pace Selfie"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[87]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps adding, or attempting to add, external links with nonsense explanations. Warnings for vandalism were issued before 3rr warning. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected six months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jjgoatin reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 02:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 672516008 by Spartan7W (talk)"
3. 21:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 23:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 672642453 by NeilN (talk) I need a SOURCE for where he attended college"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016. (TW)"
2. 22:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Kasich&curid=3358923&diff=672651601&oldid=672642680"

Comments:

Note I copied Spartan7W's talk page post to this article's talk page. However the old Talk:John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016 was a redirect so Jjgoatin would have still seen it. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Also edit warring here. Note POV and talk page. [88] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't help that Jjgoatin is continuing his edit war on this page. (See history). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —SpacemanSpiff 03:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:XyZAn and User:179.210.105.123 reported by User:SPACKlick (Result: )

• Chris Froome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• XyZAn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• 179.210.105.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been an ongoing edit war at Chris Froome between an IP editor and User:XyZAn that I stumbled into on a pending edits review.

XyZAn

19:40 18 July, 12:46 20 July, 08:31 21 July, 13:59 21 July, 15:22 22 July, 8:57 23 July, 12:30 23 July, 12:34 23 July

XyZAn was reverting without edit comments excepting "reverting IP fail", and "rv irrelevant red link".

The only discussion XyZAn engaged in across that period was Aahahaha move along pathetic IP in response to a talk page warning for unconstructive edits at 15:23 on the 22 July and then joining a discussion about the edit on the Ip's talk page at 12:34 today in which they opened withI agree with Denisarona, you are adding nothing of value to the article, are being disruptive to existing editors and are not even part of the cycling wiki project. David Kinjah is NOT a notable cyclist, he does not fulfil the notability guide so thus does NOT need linking. the conversation is hard to link as the IP has removed comments they consider attacks.

179.210.105.123

18:09 18 July, 00:41 19 July, 22:59 20 July, 11:42 21 July, 23:12 21 July, 03:30 23 July, 10:45 23 July, 12:29 23 July, 12:33 23 July, 13:14 23 July

The IP's edit comments include "rv vandalism","rv idiot fail" in response to rv IP fail,"obviously not irrelevant. stop editing disruptively.","unexplained unnecessary edit, with spelling errors","rv pointless edit by disruptive user","no reason to remove it)"," rv persistent vandalism"," yet again, no explanation given. pure vandalism" and "rvv" Again there was no talk page usage to discuss the reverting until 12:30 today.

Could someone take a look and deploy appropriate warnings? Note: While I was typing this {{Static IP|[[Net (telecommunications)|Virtua]]|host=b3d2697b.virtua.com.br}} was added to the users page, don't know if that means anything. SPACKlick (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Here, for the record, is the disgraceful history of this dispute: nothing whatsoever to do with content, but simply someone with an account feeling it their right to be pointlessly obnoxious towards someone without one.

• I made a fairly small edit, removing the judgement-laden and verbose "arguably Kenya's only elite cyclist" and adding a link to the as yet non-existent article about said cyclist.[89]
• the user reverted the edit without explanation.[90]
• I restored the edit.[91]
• the user reverted, again with no explanation, but with a personal attack: "reverting IP fail" [92]
• I restored the edit.[93] I also left the user a warning.[94]
• the user deleted the template,[95] and reverted the edit again, this time with the bizarre summary "rv irrelevant red link".[96]
• I restored the edit,[97] and left the user a second warning.[98]
• Denisarona reverted the edit, and then restored it two minutes later, with no explanation (about 90% of this user's edits are reverts and they are rarely if ever explained, but that's a whole other story).
• the user reverted the edit, again with no explanation, and again with a personal attack: "fix ip fail".[99]
• the user then requested page protection, claiming "since July 10th multiple IP edits which are causing BLP issues regarding the topic of doping and lack of evidence". Checking the history, I found four such edits; one on 14th, two on 15th and one on 18th. The request for page protection made on 21st July was evidently spurious, and was simply intended to gain the user the upper hand in their little game.
• The page was not semi-protected as the user wished, but instead pending-change protected
• I restored my edit, and it was accepted by a third party.[100] I left a third warning.[101]
• The user then sought pending change reviewer status, claiming "Would be helpful to keep on top of BLP issues". Thus far, the only edits they have accepted have been their own, to Chris Froome, starting with a badly spelled partial revert of my edit.[102]
• They responded to my warning with another personal attack: "Aahahaha move along pathetic IP" [103]
• They continued to revert without ever bothering to leave a meaningful edit summary: [104], [105], [106]
• Next, like a small child asking their mother for something that their father refused, they tried again to get the page protected, falsely claiming "persistent IP vandalism".[107]. The request was declined.
• They made one more unexplained revert. [108]

So, there you have it. 9 reverts by this person, not a single one accompanied by an explanation; multiple personal attacks; several false accusations of vandalism; two spurious requests for page protection; and a spurious request for pending change reviewer status to try to get the upper hand in their stupid little game. If they had any reason for reverting, other than to disrupt and provoke, they'd have said it in an edit summary, wouldn't they? Or on the talk page of the article. But they didn't.

So who comes out of this having been given extra editing privileges, encouragement to keep on disruptively editing and a free pass to violate the 3RR? And who gets accused of "unhelpful edits"? Well done, User:SPACKlick; well done. 179.210.105.123 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User:*sammy* reported by User:Blaue Max

User:*sammy* started an edit war on Algerian War, he pushed his point of view and broke a consensus established several times here and here without trying to reach a new consensus despite being asked on the talkpage [109]. He acts similarly and on the exact same subject than banned user Historian Student (and its numerous sockpuppets), so it's possibly another case of sockpuppetry. Blaue Max (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)