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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:53, 19 October 2015

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Stolichanin reported by User:Serdik (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] [8]

Comments:
A number of reverts the previous days, 8 reverts [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] on 10th October alone, having been warned [17]. This is almost a triple violation of the 3RR.

User:DPGCMonsta reported by User:Infamous30 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ice_Cube_discography&oldid=684294366

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

Apologies...I do not know how to report incidents regarding users' vandalism of the site. But the evidence demonstrates that this user is clearly doing so. Please send any instructions on how to stop this behavior. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infamous30 (talk • contribs)

User:Jojhutton reported by User:190.20.157.16 (Result: Boomerang)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User has made 4 reverts in a little over an hour, undoing clearly described improvements without any explanation, though leaving attacks and false accusations of vandalism on my talk page. 190.20.157.16 (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typical vandal adding false, misleading, uncited, and possibly libelous original research to an already contentious article. Vandal was warned several times. JOJ ^Hutton 02:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typical liar slandering beneficial edits for pathetically self-serving reasons. I added nothing of any kind to the article. I only removed material. So what, pray tell, could possibly have constituted libellous original research? Kindly retract your own libellous accusations at once. 190.20.157.16 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP account just blocked one week for block evasion. JOJ ^Hutton 04:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 year anon only on range 190.20.0.0/16 per previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gothicfilm reported by User:Lapadite77 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[25]
[26]
[27] (diff w/o hidden intermediate revisions)
[28])
[29]

Discussion link: [30]

Comments:
User has reinstated controversial info (of which its adherence to WP:NPOV AND WP:UNDUE is disputed) in the article of a just-released film soon after his edits were reverted and when discussion (which he has participated in) has only begun. User has recently done the same thing at another article, except remove content under discussion that he's disagreed with while discussion is still open and set to continue. This is at odds with WP:BRD etiquette and disruptive. The aforementioned controversial/disputed content remains in the article because he has reinstated it and I won't restore the previous version to not violate 3RR and because discussion is open. Lapadite (talk)

Only two reverts are listed. Is this article under a 1RR restriction? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not that I'm aware of. Reported Edit warring, not a 3RR violation, which would only happen if I'd reverted again his restoring of currently disputed content. Like I said, not doing that to avoid a 3RR issue, even though the disputed version remains as he'd restored it without waiting for recently-opened discussion to go beyond two posts (his & mine). My concern also is he's done it back to back during two article discussions - restoring or removing content that is still under discussion, disrupting the process and disregarding WP:BRD etiquette. Lapadite (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heimstern Läufer, added two more diffs ([31], [32]) - more edit warring from Gothicfilm, restoring quote farm, close paraphrasing, redundant quotes, and undue weight favoring lengthy negative commentary, disregarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV discussed on talk page at length). Lapadite (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another - restoring redundant and WP:UNDUE quoting, close paraphrased & a plagiarized statement. ([33]). Another editor in the talk page agreed, with "You're right, there are some unnecessary long quotes and redundant phrasing...So it could use some tightening." Lapadite (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading. The quote was already trimmed before Lapadite put in these latest additions (well over 24 hours later), so the other editor Light show's concern was already addressed. The rest of the quotes belong, as explained on the Talk page. Lapadite put in other material less important, yet complains about UNDUE. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your excessive and redundant quoting was trimmed by Light Show, part of which you reverted. I further trimmed a redundant quote plus close paraphrasing and bit of plagiarism brought up on the talk page. And again, you reverted. Lapadite (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More misleading statements. As anyone clicking on it can see, the second dif just above did not put in any more of a quote. It was a clarifying copy edit. The third dif features an edit summary by Lapadite that claimed per talk 2-1 agreement when the Talk page had no such agreement on the edits he was making - as I point out in the fourth dif. Apparently Lapadite doesn't think anyone will take the time to look into this beyond what he claims. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mneshat reported by User:William Avery (Result:24 hour block)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

02:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Added Persian Spelling of the name in the introductory line"
09:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Name added in Modern Persian"
10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

10:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Name in Farsi (Modern Persian) is omitted at the top ?! */"

Comments:

In a minority of one. Warned by User:Doug Weller. William Avery (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While three reverts within 24 hours do not constitute a violation of 3RR per se, previous edit warring ([34], [35]) is sufficient to justify a 24-hour block for edit warring regardless of 3RR. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia reported by User:Bubaikumar (Result: )

Page: List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

13:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686146054 by Bubaikumar (talk)"
05:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686043271 by Bubaikumar (talk)"
10:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685999166 by Bubaikumar (talk)"
16:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685882078 by Bubaikumar (talk)Mamata Ki Chhaon Me is a new Devotional album by Awnish Khade..!!!!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:SundayRequiem reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: 685110161 vs. 685493772

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Initial edit (No edit summaries)
- Contested by Codename Lisa
Blanket revert
- Contested by JzG
Blanket revert #2
- Contested by Benlisquare
- The reported user apparently forfeited, but...
Blanket revert #3

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: choice

Summary: It is an RfC in which ChamithN, JzG and Clpo13 participated; the user apparently agreed to forfeit.

Comments:

In summary, this editor is edit warring over very lame edits (borderlining on vandalism) that six editors unanimously contested; he himself apparently forfeited but defied it by making one last revert with a bogus edit summary. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Burbak reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

19:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686216163 by Mahensingha (talk)"
19:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686209020 by Mahensingha (talk)"
17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686047595 by Burbak (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Bihari Rajputs. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:Zacksfenton reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Warning )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686220973 by Dbrodbeck (talk) Ahh so he admits it"
20:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686220613 by Dbrodbeck (talk) This rendering is clearly less polemic and better reflects a NPOV."
20:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686207235 by Roxy the dog (talk) NPOV is not merely 'consensus'. Diversity of views and neutrality cannot be claimed while conducting censorship."
18:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686189014 by Robynthehode (talk) It has been discussed in the talk page. This page, as it stands, is outrageously biased. A NPOV is not inherently atheist naturalist."
12:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686160124 by Robynthehode (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* October 2015 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Undue weight, and don't edit war. */ new section"

Comments:

User:Zacksfenton, it's pretty clear that you're edit warring. That is a blockable offense. What's more, your account seems to have been made specifically to make this one edit. Now, you may discuss this to your heart's content at Talk:Discovery Institute, but if you revert one more time, or remove the informaiton one more time, without having gained consensus for it on the talk page (hint: you won't get it--it's a pretty clear case, I think, but please try and prove me wrong) you will be blocked, and it's entirely possible that it will be an indefinite block with an admin linking WP:NOTHERE. So please heed this warning. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.218.112.1 reported by User:Stabila711 (Result: Semi)

Page: Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.218.112.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "it was clearly one of the most memorable moments from the debate and deserves to be quoted in its entirety. Chopping off half the quote certainly violates WP:NPOV as doing so feigns support for HFA & takes the statement out of context"
20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686215606; quoting the entirety of the statement made by Bernie does not violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR"
19:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686214598 by 2600:1003:B85B:8C2A:0:49:CAEA:7401 (talk)"
19:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686213915 by JayJasper (talk)"
18:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686184325 by 63.131.224.128 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated attempts to insert OR material into the article that fails NPOV. Stabila711 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted material does not fail NPOV. It is simply the full version of the exact quote. Thanks.66.218.112.1 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.231.26.111 reported by User:Gizmocorot (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Portal:Current events/2015 October 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.231.26.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686236869 by Calinjaxnc (talk)"
22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686236635 by Gizmocorot (talk)sockpuppet you are in violation of 3R - you have given no source!!!"
22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "I dont need to discuss sht with you sockpuppet - you have given no citation which anyone but a sockpupet like you would attempt to convince anyone is real"
Consecutive edits made from 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) to 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
1. 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686234377 by Gizmocorot (talk)"
2. 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686234307 by Gizmocorot (talk)i'm a vandal but you are trying to put in an item cited by no one anyone has ever heard of"
22:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "pseudo science tripe"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Portal:Current events/2015 October 17‎. (TW)"
22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ""
22:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Portal:Current events/2015 October 17. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 1 week Gizmocorot, you are very, very close to being blocked as well. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vaselineeeeeeee reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
00:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686243498 by Nonc01 (talk) it is not a run on sentence, it is a list. Perfectly fine"
Consecutive edits made from 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC) to 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
1. 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "how is qualifying for the playoffs for the first time in franchise history a weak achievement? First time in its history is a strong achievement and should be stated."
2. 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
01:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
01:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "It has not been concluded that this should be removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

01:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "/* TFC article */ new section"
01:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "/* TFC article */ Moved from my talk page, as my talk page notice requests all conversation in one place and TB templates to be used, and replying"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I tried to discuss, but editor accused me of page ownership and continued to edit war over his preferred version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, to be fair, it is really a double edged sword. He accused me of page ownership even though it had yet to be concluded if the statement should be removed or not. All I am saying is, is that to accuse me of page ownership to my "preferred version" can be said the same for the version you "preferred". It has not been discussed yet on the talk page fully so there is no way to tell if either of us were attempting unintentional page ownership. Not pointing fingers, just my two cents. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was also taken to the talk page after a few edits to have a calm discussion. Before I even knew how many reverts I made, I took it upon myself to not revert anymore edits before it has been concluded by discussion on the talk page, which I have made contributions to. My intention was never to edit war. I am much happier to see it settled by discussion. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nonc01 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: No blocks. Just stop it, please.)

Page: Toronto FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nonc01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685975471 by Bluhaze777 (talk) better before"
23:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686085091 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) run-on sentence doesn't make sense check grammar"
01:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "see talk page"
01:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686257180 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) it has to be concluded that it should be added, first."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Weak edit war with Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs). Has been in edit wars over this article (or was it a Toronto FC season article) in the past. Fewer edits and this editor's changes were usually attempt to come to a compromise, but to be fair to other editor, I feel that I should report 3RR violation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is too mild. No action should be taken. It is worth noting that the "run-on sentence doesn't make sense" edit undid a punctuation error. Walter Gorlitz, I don't know why you are reporting this since you also removed Vaseline's edit--unless you are suggesting that the patrolling admin of this board look carefully at Vaseline's edit warring in the article: they're at 5, and Nonc is at 3 or 4, depending on how you count. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs), kindly don't revert anymore and wait for talk page consensus. I'll be glad to weigh in as well: I can find Toronto on the map and I have a Canadian friend, so I know this subject matter. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:189.173.10.145 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

Page: Corazón que miente (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 189.173.10.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
01:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
01:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC) to 21:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
1. 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
2. 21:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
3. 21:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
4. 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
5. 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
6. 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
8. 21:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

01:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "←Created page with '== Corazón que miente == Please do not continue including the name of Dulce María in the article "Corazón que miente". The actress has not yet confirm...'"
01:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I've left two messages to the user, but apparently did not care. If I reversed its edition is because Dulce María has not yet confirmed their participation in the project. In this interview he did the same actress I confirm that it is still unofficial she was part of the telenovela. But of course that interview is in Spanish. Although there are many references state that the actress was part of that telenovela, this is false, for the same Dulce Maria has not confirmed. Philip J Fry (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mabelina

violation of one revert restriction on Jeremy Corbyn - one two Govindaharihari- I notified the editor Govindaharihari (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yppieyei reported by User:Richiguada (Result: no violation)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686058152 by Richiguada (talk)Richiguada appears to be connected to the project and pushing a POV."
16:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686305362 by Richiguada (talk)"
17:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686348860 by Richiguada (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Asturix. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

17:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Discussion about revertions */ new section"

Comments:

This user (Yppieyei) is reverting my changes in the article without any reason (apart from an ad hominem justification) Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 17:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kworbi reported by User:IndianBio (Result: no violation)

Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kworbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

17:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686270030 by LLArrow (talk) Stop being difficult. Peters appeared in the first episode and the proof was his essence."
03:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686242658 by LLArrow (talk) As I have said multiple times now, his distinctive mask (hallway scene) and his distinctive 30s clothing (house scene) give the proof needed."
21:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast and characters */ Peters was in fact in the 1st episode. He can been seen both at the house of the twin boys murders and in the hallway as Gabriel walks to his room. His distinctive clothing in both situations proves it is him."
20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Cast and characters */ Mr. March appeared multiple times in episode one without saying a word. Although he never spoke, Peters should still be credited as he appeared in the episode regardless."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues as before, have been blocked previously also for the same editwarring —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Kworbi has never been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why I am the one being reported. Peters' character is clearly in the first episode. He can be seen multiple times. For example, he is seen in the scene with Gabriel walking down the hallway to his room. March is wearing his distinctive mask as he peers out of the doorway from another room. Another example is at the house of the murdered twins. His ensemble is the exact same as it was in the character preview that was released a couple weeks before the season premiered. I have been asked to prove my edits and I did. I do not understand why they keep being reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kworbi (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This report is now stale and there was no violation of 3RR anyway. Closing as no action. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:FkpCascais reported by User:LjL (Result: no action)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments: I was originally an uninvolved editor who came across this editor's request to review an RfC they "lost". My attempts to point out specific points of contention (by, among other things, adding tags to the article) have been met with... the above. I've tried to point out that such tags only reflect the pretty obvious fact debate/discussion is going on, but to no avail, so I now have to resort to this.

LjL (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That user inserted the tag and was reverted. They now edit-war to restore it. I asked her to please provide evidence at the talk-page that would back the tag, they were unable till now. Please explain to them WP:BRD. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you self-reverted at 02:21, 19 October 2015 and think that wise, even though 3RR had not been reached. I don't think any action is required for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I'm also happy with the self-revert and glad the situation seems to be de-escalating. (I was, however, not by any means "unable" to back the tag, which was backed by a very lengthy debate that I did not start.) LjL (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charlesaaronthompson reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: 16:54, 14 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:34, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City]], [[New York]]
21:03, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City]], [[New York]]
22:54, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]
23:40, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]
23:50, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City|New York, New York]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
The user has already been blocked for 3RR in the past on 21 September 2015.[43] In the last few days, the user has received a warning by administrator Resolute and two followups by myself in three unrelated incidents where the user continued reverting even as talk page discussions were ongoing.[44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Brooklyn_Nets#Home city location for the Brooklyn Nets since 19:56, 14 October 2015.

In another discussion started 21:58, 18 October 2015 by Rikster2, the user is repeatedly asked to respect WP:NOTBROKEN for the same |city=, as Charlesaaronthompson was continuing to edit even with the other issue outstanding.

Comments:
The user has a persistent habit of continuing to revert even after other editors attempt to engage in discussion. In the above report, talk page discussions started October 14 and are still ongoing, yet the user resumed editing |city= on October 18.

Here is another discussion started by me on 05:58, 18 October 2015, asking the user why they removed information from another article, only to have them continue to revert.

Charlesaaronthompson mostly avoids egregiously violating 3RR (aside from the previous block), but is frequently in multiple isolated cases still reverting even after the WP:BRD should have reached the discussion phase. I'm not seeing a noticeable improvement in this behavior. WP:CTDAPE is a concern if the lack of restraint of reverts during ongoing discussion continues..—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Flushout1999 (Result: No violation)

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

Consecutive deletions of previous edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:
More than 12 reverts in less than 1 hour. Massive deletion of sourced material (around 30,000 characters) occurred under the claim that content was too similar to the inline sources and that they were "quotations". Can this be considered "vandalism" or "disruptive"? I reverted the deletions and added more sourced material, and then I left a long message on the talk page in order to further check the issue with this user in the existing discussion ongoing.Flushout1999 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Those are consecutive edits and count as one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:]] reported by User:Kalope (Result: Kalope blocked)

Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff] [59]
[diff] [60]
[diff] [61] Under Carlos Rojas77's problem

I've Blocked Kalope for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arjann reported by User:MichaelQSchmidt (Result: no violation)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

I found this article through researching a related on at AFD. While User:Arjann has some addressable concerns that this current article on a Telugu film at one time partially duplicated the related one about a Tamil film now at AFD, I warned him on my talk page to avoid edit warring and repeatedly explained the proper usage of {{fact}} tagging being the way we handle sourcable topics,diff and how notability is determined through sources BEING available, even if not used to deaf ears. His preference appears to be to argue his POV, to not listen and continually remove sourcable information. Though myself an Admin, I am involved and seek others to do what I cannot. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:
The removed information does not cite source(s). I'm not lying. I have discussed the matter on the talk page of administrator MichaelQSchmidt. I agree that I nominated the article for deletion but when Sir Michael Q Schmidt told me about the policies laid down, I agreed to him. But how can a sourceless information be put on a page. Not even a single source is mentioned for that see the paragraph under the production section of the page before taking any action. The page has so many issues. This decision of blocking me is taken in haste. Arjann (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no assertion that the information "was" sourced, ONLY that it "was sourcable" and, as this is not a BLP, a sourcable topic not being sourced is not the issue when sources ARE available. Please read and try to understand the meaning and intent of WP:NPOSSIBLE rather than continuing your demand that available sources must be used now. Point here is that it's really proven not at all that difficult (away from unhelpful edits) to begin some work. Your own intransigence and repeated and unhelpful removals after being carefully cautioned as to why you should refrain is why a temporary brief block for edit warring is now under consideration. There is really no the rush to fix what you demand, so please step back and let those wiling and able do some work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no violation here, although you are both getting close to 3RR. Per WP:PROVEIT, "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" so arguably MichaelQSchmidt should not be restoring this content unless a source is provided at the same time. However Arjann is advised to listen to advice of other editors and not to be disruptive unless he/she actually believes the content is untrue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... thanks Martin. Under WP:PROVEIT, sources offering verifiability were offered but were followed by actions indicating a possible attitude that he felt the offering of available sources can be disregarded contrary to policy and guideline until someone besides himself (the questioner) physically added them. As he will not, I've been working on it. Oh well... and thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Rambling Man reported by User:Yossimgim (Result:Yossimgim blocked)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Reverting for over 5 times in a row, deleting warnings of edit warring from his own talk page and others. Comments with childish summaries like "HUSH NOW".

Diff of edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page

Comments:
Sorry to waste anyone's time reading this. The posting editor has clearly no idea that I can remove anything I like from my own talk page, and has, himself therefore violated WP:3RR in which case he should be blocked for edit warring. Cheers. (Oh, and he didn't notify me of this attempt). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Accused me of edit warring when I was making a single edit out of good faith. Continuing to re-implement bogus warnings. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Also accused me of edit warring here. — Cliftonian (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's charming how the moment you were warned about edit warring, a whole new user started to edit war for you to deflect the 3RR rule. Yossimgim (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You violated the 3RR rule, I hope you don't get blocked for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I write detailed summaries every time I do so. Thanks for noticing. Yossimgim (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but I still hope you don't get blocked, it's good of you to admit to edit warring and breaching 3RR though. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note On User talk:The Rambling Man there is no violation, and comments should not be restored on user talk pages once they have been removed by the owner, per WP:OWNTALK. On Natalie Portman, Yossimgim has exceeded 3RR. I suggest 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:4TheWynne reported by User:Yossimgim (Result: already blocked)

Previous version reverted to: His talk page- diff Natalie Portman- diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Reverting for over 5 times in a row, deleting warnings of edit warring from his own talk page and others.

2. Edit warring via Natalie Portman's article as well.

His talk page- Diff of edit warring Natalie Portman- Diff of edit warring

His talk page- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page Talk page of Natalie Portman- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page

Comments:
I'm beginning to find this quite funny, actually. Didn't even bother to notify me, either. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's charming how the moment you were warned about edit warring, a whole new user started to edit war for you to deflect the 3RR rule. Yossimgim (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring here is by the OP who is already blocked. Closing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Again, sorry about all of this. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Doctor Franklin reported by User:Faustian (Result: blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69] (using an IP)
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

He had also been warned earlier, here:[77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:

He made 4 reversions within a single 24 hour span (October 16 to October 17, he wasn't reported, then made 2 reversions in 24 hours on October 19th), and as is clear from the discussion linked to above, he has not achieved consensus on the talk page and despite warnings from several others he has continued to edit war, reverting multiple other editors (and being reverted by them and others) after failing to gain consensus for his POV. Comments by others about his edits include but are not limited to:

[79] A week ago I gave Dr. Franklin the benefit of the doubt and assumed that his edits were made in good faith. During the past week we have seen a pattern of disruptive editing that is obviously aimed at wearing down the patience of other editors in an attempt to gain control of this article and turn it into a soapbox for his OR and fringe theories. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This entire section: [80]
[81] What consensus are you talking about? Do you understand what consensus means? Read the policy carefully. You seem to be continuously confusing consensus with WP:OWN and, no, you do not own this article. There hasn't been any consensus on the use of galleries or anything else that you've introduced. In fact, the end product will not be a consensus version until there is consensus that it is satisfactory, doesn't violate OR, POV, UNDUE, or any other policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faustian (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Knowledgebattle reported by User:Huritisho (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686532534 by Jobas (talk) -- "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Prot"
18:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686531963 by Jobas (talk) / http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm"
18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686531055 by Jobas (talk) 54% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% Deists... 1.5% irreligious Religion in Nazi Germany / Persecution "BY" Christians"
18:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686530349 by Jobas (talk) Doesn't have to be done "in the name of Christianity". Nazis were almost unanimously Christians. Persecuted atheists, Jews, gays, etc. Often invoked Christ-God."
17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686248693 by Jobas (talk) If the Jews were being persecuted, then someone was doing the persecution. It was the Christian Nazis. Don't like history? Not my fault."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Holocaust. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

18:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* "54% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% Deists... 1.5% irreligious" */ new section"

Comments:

Jobas is also a belligerent. This edit war should go straight to the Hall of lame (WP:LAME) Huritisho 18:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it, whole-heartedly. Yes, I undid his revisions. Guilty as hell. As @Huritisho: said, the kid is belligerent. Was aggravating by undoing several of my edits, because my edits weren't revering enough to his religion. Guilty of that. In response, I did the same thing, by undoing his edits in response. Yup, I did it. Yup, I know it was lame. I got fkn irritated. Not gonna lie - not only do the edits belong, but I kind of feel like doing it, specifically because it's bugging him. That's how irritated I am with him. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I edit warred in the past, and it sucks. It is just a dumb thing to do and leads to nothing good. Plus, stop and think of the reason why you're warring. In this case, it is just a mere link in the See also section. Cheers, Huritisho 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep a nice languge here?, here a user warned evidence of harassment., after the warning you stay to revert edit's here, today only you brake several times a here, most of the user edit which pushing make realtion between christianity and Nazi been revort as here. your edit's been mostly revort as user can see for several reasons as you pushing your personal opinion.--Jobas (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"pushing make realtion between christianity and Nazi" ... ... that's because there was a relation between the two. "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity" - Hitler, and almost all the Nazis were Christians. That's not my opinion, that's historical fact. The Holocaust was Christians persecuting Jews. Fact. Because of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies, and was anti-Semitic. All facts. Sorry if that makes you feel sad to know people in your religion have done horrible things. But they're all facts.

Your spelling and grammar... you sound uneducated, which might be the reason that you don't understand all this. Where are you from? What's your first language? Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:173.161.70.141 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: )

Page: List of Sam & Cat episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.161.70.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686535663 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686535475 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
18:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686527154 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
17:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685908910 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

18:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Sam & Cat episodes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

@@ Line 753: / Line 753: @@
 ::Yea, I edit warred in the past, and it sucks. It is just a dumb thing to do and leads to nothing good. Plus, stop and think of the reason why you're warring. In this case, it is just a mere link in the See also section. Cheers, ''[[User talk:Huritisho|Huritisho]]'' 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 :Can you keep a nice languge here?, here a user warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knowledgebattle&diff=prev&oldid=686533091 evidence of harassment.], after the warning you stay to revert edit's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&curid=10396793&diff=686533731&oldid=686533462 here], today only you brake several times a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Knowledgebattle here], most of the user edit which pushing make realtion between christianity and Nazi been revort [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_terrorism#Nazi_Germany as here]. your edit's been mostly revort as user can see for several reasons as you pushing your personal opinion.--[[User:Jobas|Jobas]] ([[User talk:Jobas|talk]]) 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
+::"pushing make realtion between christianity and Nazi" ... ... that's because there '''was''' a relation between the two. "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity" - Hitler, and almost all the Nazis were Christians. That's not my opinion, that's historical fact. The Holocaust was Christians persecuting Jews. Fact. Because of [[Martin Luther]], the founder of [[Protestantism]], who wrote [[On the Jews and Their Lies]], and was anti-Semitic. All facts. Sorry if that makes you feel sad to know people in your religion have done horrible things. But they're all facts.
+::Your spelling and grammar... you sound uneducated, which might be the reason that you don't understand all this. Where are you from? What's your first language? [[User:Knowledgebattle|K<sup>n</sup>o<sub>w</sub>l<sup>e</sup>d<sub>g</sub>e B<sup>a</sup>t<sub>t</sub>l<sup>e</sup>]] 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 == [[User:173.161.70.141]] reported by [[User:Geraldo Perez]] (Result: ) ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards