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:Tzily reported by User:Doc James (Result: blocked)

Page: Metformin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tzily (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours --slakr^\ talk / 02:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Aricialam reported by User:Khairulash (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

Hello. I had written a section on a biography of a living person. It is by no means perfect, of course, but it is well-sourced, factual, and neutral. Aricialam, however, reverted this substantive edit for four times over the span of about 8-9 hours, thus blanking the entire section. In response, her reverts were undid by three different Wikipedia users including myself. Throughout Aricialam's reverts, a total of five warnings were given, none of which were heeded. It must also be noted that Aricialam had previously removed the warnings, although I had subsequently reverted them back. Finally, I'd like to humbly point out that Aricialam is extremely possessive over this article: she has reverted many, many worthwhile edits to the article prior to mine. A brief survey of Aricialam's reverts reveals that these edits share a striking similarity: that they usually cast the subject of the article in a poor light. I'm admittedly new to Wikipedia as an editor, but I'm sure this is inimical to the spirit of the Wikipedia community that I so greatly adore. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mark Arsten: Hello Mark Arsten, thank you for protecting it. Is it possible for you to undo her reverts before protecting it? At the moment, the page is missing an entire section due to her repeated reverts, which had breached the WP:3RR. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, sorry. Absent a compelling reason, admins generally default to the present version when fully protecting a page to avoid the appearance of taking sides. Also, the possibility of WP:BLP issues would have to be examined in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dinesh kanwar singh reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: )

Page: Bigg Boss 9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dinesh kanwar singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of warnings: [20] [21] [22] [23]

Comments:

• User is edit-warring to remove surnames from an article in violation of WP:MOS, and has continued to do so after four messages from two editors telling them to stop. Psychonaut (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Long-term edit-warring. User's only edit in talk space was here where they didn't acknowledge the surname issue. This comment was left approximately 2 minutes after TPROD warned Dinesh to stop removing surnames. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Einstein95 reported by User:Natsume96 using Patrol. (result: reporter blocked)

Page

Beats of Rage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Einstein95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism and nuisance edits made at 14:53, 24 November 2015

1. [24]

Comments:

• User did his edits under the guise of User:Vague Rant. Got three warnings including final warning. Did his edits as "Removed nonsense" or "Removed fake games".
  • Natsume96 was previously reported for edit warring and was blocked for one week for edit warring not only on another article, but also on this page. When asked to provide proof of these games existing or their notability, Natsume96 failed to do so. I also object to me and Vague Rant being the same person, as any administrator can verify that the two users do not share IP addresses and have edited different articles. Also why would a non-admin edit under the guise of an admin? -Einstein95 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• User:Natsume96 appears to be a persistent vandal, repeatedly adding unverifiable information about supposed games and game platforms to articles and threatening other users with immediate bans when they undo those changes (see user's history of edits to user talk pages), frequently pasting imposing templates onto user pages even after being warned against doing this. The same user has previously been banned from Russian Wikipedia for what seem like similar reasons, although I don't read or otherwise understand Russian, so I can't confirm that reliably. The user has displayed a moderate awareness of Wikipedia protocol (cf. posting block warning templates on user talk pages), e.g. attempting to divert a deletion discussion on Articles for Deletion by claiming the discussion had closed and removing the notice from the (since deleted) article and now filing an edit warring dispute here.

When Natsume96 first registered on English Wikipedia, their posted user page seemed to acknowledge this history of vandalism and even recommend that they be banned from all Wikimedia services: [25] I must confess to struggling with the doctrine of assuming good faith with regard to this user; all evidence is in fact suggestive of the opposite. I won't take any further action on this user as long as I'm (proxy-) accused of edit warring with Natsume96, but I present this information in the hope it will assist other admins in their dealings with user. Lastly, and perhaps needless to say, I explicitly disclaim the assertion that I am editing under the guise of User:Einstein95 or vice versa. Vague | Rant 13:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Natsume96 then began edit warring and vandalizing *this* page, and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Now blocked 2 weeks for vandalism. Clearly !HERE. Extension to Indef in order. Keri (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked by another admin --slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:2.86.255.196 reported by User:Bovineboy2008 (Result: page protected)

Page

2015 in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693461911 by Blaze The Movie Fan (talk)"
2. 18:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693460933 by Cyphoidbomb (talk)"
3. 16:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Note: A report already exists at ANI about this user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin --slakr^\ talk / 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Cr7777777 (Result: nominating editor blocked)

Page: Robert Sarah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Contaldo80 (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. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30] [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32] [33] [34] [35]

Comments:
Contaldo80 repeatedly reverts any edits identifying Charamsa as a fired Vatican official, which is a well documented fact. Is this Wikipedia entry supposed to be like an encyclopedia article, or is supposed to be gay propaganda that hides the identity of cited sources? Cr7777777 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked — clear continuing of disruptive editing. --slakr^\ talk / 02:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A good administrator is worth their weight in gold. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:108.20.179.31 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Best Friends Whenever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 04:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 20:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 23:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User persistently adds, at least three or four times, that the Disney Channel sitcom is of the science fiction genre, while providing no reliable source for the addition, even though time travel is a premise to this series. User is not violating WP:3RR per se, but has been disruptive to continuously add the unsourced genre. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Swarm ♠ 04:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Cla68 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Declined)

Page

2015 San Bernardino shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "reliably sourced statement from law enforcement authorities. It is not media speculation."
2. 01:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "This is a report on law enforcement speculation, not media speculation"
3. 01:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "reliably sourced"
4. 00:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Pursuit */ tweak"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Disgruntled employee */ resp"
2. 01:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Disgruntled employee */ +"

Comments:

Editor refuses to stop reverting back in content that is inappropriate at this time. As we all know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and content that reads "may have been" is not appropriate as it is not proven - regardless of what reliable source it comes from.

The editor in question added the content originally and seems to be unwilling to let it go - even though it is not encyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NODEADLINE, and WP:RSBREAKING has been pointed out to him. Discussion has started at the article talk page, editor has not yet attempted to join in the discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: — do you intend to keep attempting to re-insert that material without consensus, or will you take it to the talk page / other forms of dispute resolution instead? --slakr^\ talk / 02:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't checked, but it doesn't appear that either Winkelvi nor myself crossed the 3rr threshold. Here's the thing, however, the edit I made was reliably sourced and no other editor objected to it. Instead of reverting me, Winkelvi should have started a discussion on the talk page. By reverting an edit that was neither vandalism, nor a BLP violation, he/she was the one who was revert warring. In other words, Winkelvi's behavior is counterproductive towards building a good article. And, he has wasted your time by bringing this here when a violation of 3rr did not occur. He was also dishonest, because he tried to represent my first edit to introduce the new material to the article as a revert to make it look like I had crossed the line. I suggest WP:BOOMERANG and be done with it. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• In addition, it's starting to become more clear that the information contained in my edit was correct. I expect Winkelvi to now go add the information to the article if it isn't there already. I will not revert him since I was the one who tried to introduce it in the first place. Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Declined This dispute has been rendered moot as new information has surpassed the disputed content, so no one is getting blocked over this. Please remember that these disputes on major news events are understandable and okay, and our readership is notified that the information presented can change rapidly. This was a reasonable dispute on both sides and there's no point dwelling on it. Swarm ♠ 05:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Kitplane01 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned)

Page

Cultural appropriation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kitplane01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "See Talk Page"
2. 23:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "Now Sourced"
3. 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "Yes, there are many people who think this concept is controversial. See Neutral point of view."
4. 04:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693530999 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
5. 04:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "Added links to new york times, washington post. This is VERY mainstream media."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Cultural appropriation. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Controversial in the lead */ new section"

Comments:

I keep trying to edit the changes to answer criticisms. This seems an unreasonable charge to make. I've been editing since 2004 with thousands of edits and never had anyone do this to me.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

This procedure was not followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs)

Kitplane01 might avoid a block for 3RR violation if they will promise to stop reverting until consensus is found on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, per WP:BRD, you should have taken it to the talk page after being reverted the first time, instead of responding in edit summaries and continually reinserting the same content! I will leave it up to you as to whether you will accept Ed's offer. Swarm ♠ 04:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but it wasn't vandalism so EvergreenFir is at 3RR also in the reverts. Its a content dispute, not vandalism, so we have more than one party edit warring here.--MONGO 05:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm at the 3rd revert, but I did not pass the "bright red line". TBH, the last revert is just so Twinkle would load the relevant info. Note, this is not really a content dispute. Two editors (CorbieVreccan and myself) removed Kitplane01's edits and this was a continuation of edits from Nov 24. User was warned, reverted many times, and did not engage in discussion until this noticeboard posting. This is more POV pushing, even if not bad faith. I do think Kitplane01 is trying to "do the right thing", but in the wrong way. Kitplane01 as finally engaged on the talk page. If that's where it continues, I'm fine with that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I would have reported it after I did one revert, if again reverted. 3RR is not an entitlement.--MONGO 08:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. User:Kitplane01 may be blocked the next time they edit the material in dispute unless they have first obtained consensus on the talk page. Your above comment about DRN makes no sense because this is not WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User: H1N111 reported by User:Bleckter (Result: )

Page: White Latin American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: H1N111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 186.151.51.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same person)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]
6. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user insulted me.

Comments:
The user removes sources, information and images. I put a warning in his user talk but he blanked the page. He attacked me in many times. He told me " so shut your mouth!". [43], "use the brain" [44], "miserable" [45] and "tonto" (stupid in english). [46] He wrote in spanish here [47] and here [48] --Bleckter (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Good afternoon, everyone, now I come to clarify everything because I have freedom of expression. At first, wich Mr. blecker says that I "insulted" him for to be the victim and now all say that I am vandal without verifying the situation, that sucks, so I reply him in this way. Arriving at the important point, remove the fonts placed by Mr. Bleckter because the "genius" mistook race with genetics, for example, in the table of white populations of Latin America, Mr. blecker put that in Argentina 44% of the population is white, I take the trouble to check their sources and the sources clearly talk about genetics, this mean that 44% of Argentines have pure European genes, but racially 85% of Argentines are white because the race is measured across racial factions (including skin color), and many white Argentines are in some case mestizos but their factions are mostly European so it can take them into account as part of the white race, this is the same case for mestizos with indigenous, black, Chinese and even Arabic predominance, This I had already explained to Mr. Bleckter but his brain will not let to understand, also, the reference placed in Nicaragua was only tourist information, and wikipedia need serious sources gentlemen, thanks so much.--H1N111 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Please check his vocabulary, "fuck", [49] "sucks" [50], "I am removing your trash" [51] and "other librarians accuse me of vandal by influences of Mr. bleckter" [52]. Check his redaction [53] and the spanish words [54] obviously he doesn't know speak english. --Bleckter (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• • • I can speak English, also I can speak English and British English, Australian English, French, Portuguese, Italian, German and Argentine Spanish, without lying. But to try to explain to ignorants as you, I get angry. Many greetings--H1N111 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:ParkH.Davis reported by User:Legacypac (Result:Combine with report below)

Page: 2015 San Bernardino shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ParkH.Davis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Lots of versions in a rapidly evolving story

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55] calling on others to stop edit warring
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. +2 more reverts as I was filing the report - see below.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59] and response deleting warning [60] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments: Edits are all to scrub the shooters reported religion from article, which is basic biographical info. These are all the recent edits to the article by this user. Various other editors adding info.Legacypac (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• The content in question violates WP:NPOV. Consesus exists for its non-inclusion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• With respect to Legacypac, to term this "basic biographical info" is, at best, contrary to any spirit of neutrality. It is also the topic of a lively back-and-forth here. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the 3RR board for dealing with edit warring parties who refuse to stop, not for debating content. Take it to talk. Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct; meaning, it is not the board with which to attempt to color a reponding admin's opinion with phrases such as, "which is basic biographical info". That sentence should have stopped at "... religion from article." —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:ParkH.Davis reported by User:Viriditas and User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

2015 San Bernardino shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ParkH.Davis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693549076 by Bus stop (talk) WP:NPOV this information has nothing to do with the shooting"
2. 07:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693548659 by Viriditas (talk) WP:NPOV"
3. 07:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693548059 by Harizotoh9 (talk) WP:NPOV Please stop edit warring."
4. 07:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspects */ WP:NPOV and has nothing to do with the shooting"
5. 07:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspects */ WP:BLP and WP:NPOV"
6. 06:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspects */ has nothing to do with the shooting"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [62] and Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63] and response deleting warning [64]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[65]

Comments:

We reported this User at the same time. At Viriditas's request I've merged the reports Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The content in question violates WP:NPOV. Consesus exists for its non-inclusion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, however the above diffs show that you removed the sourced claim that the suspect was of the Muslim faith six separate times in less than 24 hours, reverting multiple editors in the process. As the above warning diff shows, you had received a separate 3RR warning several days earlier, so you were fully aware of the rules. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus exist for the non-inclusion of the content in question as it clearly violates WP:NPOV. The status quo exists without the content in question. My reverts were simply preserving the status quo. ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no concensus to remove all the bio info, and 5 or 6 other editors added it. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Trying to be fair to everyone, there is no question that ParkH.Davis is edit-warring. That said, it is generally accepted (and at times a requirement) that disputed content—and especially so if more than one editor has expressed a potential violation of policy—stays out of the article during the discussion. Specifically, while 2015_San_Bernardino_shooting is not a BLP, it does describe an event with living victims, living relatives of the deceased victims, and living relatives of the deceased perpetrators. Per policy, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

With Muslim leaders at press conferences and the Director of an Islamic group in LA talking about their daughter, and no one saying he is NOT a muslim, there is nothing to debate here. WP reports facts, and like his job, name, age, and travel history his faith is just a fact. Not including the fact is POV - are you trying to save readers from info that is in major media reports? Legacypac (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

See here—and, if there was nothing to debate, why are we debating? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The credibility of the edit warring's position that the removed info on religion is not relevant is undermined by this edit [66]. Not clear why they continue to be able to edit this topic [67]. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Johannesgotha reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: List of Star Wars Rebels episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johannesgotha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/693560631

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/692293664
2. Special:Diff/692413052
3. Special:Diff/692428000
4. Special:Diff/692668173
5. Special:Diff/692857178
6. Special:Diff/692947997
7. Special:Diff/692949165
8. Special:Diff/692949631
9. Special:Diff/693007191
10. Special:Diff/693232167
11. Special:Diff/693281343
12. Special:Diff/693284681
13. Special:Diff/693538681
14. Special:Diff/693539057
15. Special:Diff/693545486
16. Special:Diff/693547520
17. Special:Diff/693550430
18. Special:Diff/693558179
19. Special:Diff/693562813

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/693546219

Comments:
As per the user's block log, the user has been blocked previously for this issue for 24 hours; however, they continued their persistent forcing of their preferred revision of the linked page. There seems to be no ability to discuss the issue with this user. Alex|The|Whovian 11:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Feel free to let me know if they continue edit warring when the block expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This user had proposed the change on the talk page, where it was rejected, as the standard for the presentation of the list is the episode guide at starwars.com. The user has refused to discuss further, and keeps reverting to his preferred version, despite the demands of multiple editors that he discuss. His edits also outright remove sourced information. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:Caballero1967 (Result: )

Page: Stirling engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]

New GF editor Jcflyer58 (talk · contribs) recently added some new content to the article. For some unfathomable reason, ClueBot took exception to this and reverted it, with warning [73]. I can see no good reason for this. I thus restored it and improved the technical citation of the pre-existing NASA source (presumably ClueBot didn't recognise the prose citation).

This is a good addition.

Jcflyer58 continued to work on it. Caballero1967 then reverted it, with a further warning [74]. I struck this warning through as incorrect, restored the content and invited Caballlero to comment further.

This addition is sourced. It is part of a two line para, with a cite at the end of the para. We have no reason that each sentence must be individually cited, when the cite at the end of a short para covers it.

Caballero1967 has now reverted this three times, as if it were unsourced. They have issued warnings to all concerned:

• User_talk:Jcflyer58
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Stirling_engine
• User_talk:Caballero1967#December_2015

They have not however discussed the substance of this, why they are reverting continually. If it's "because it's unsourced", that's a failure of WP:CIR. If it's because it's unclear, they could discuss it. They have not done this, they have simply dismissed both other editors as if they were idiots adding unsourced content, "Every addition should be explained and sourced. It is simple".

I don't like this addition. It is too close to "close paraphrasing" of the source and the extent of the claim (as is not unusual for Stirling engine material) is "optimistic" to a point that raises eyebrows (Stirling engines have been "the next big thing" for a long time, yet they still have yet to deliver.). I would like to see this claim toned down and put in NASA's voice, not WP's objective voice. However one thing that is clear about this is that it is sourced content. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

They have now added [75] a {{citation needed}}, adjacent to the citation. I think WP:CIR now applies. Caballero1967 (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Caballero's argument: Three reverts is the maximum for a day. Thus, there is no war edit. Moreover, they were not reverts to the same editor. One was for Jcflyer58 and two for Andy Dingley.

It seems that Andy Dingley is not assuming good faith in my reverts even when at every instance I mentioned that an explanation or a source was needed for additions to the article. These were my annotations:

1- In User_talk:Jcflyer58 I left an automated welcoming message that also informed the user about sourcing new additions. It also invited the user to return to the article to include a source in addition to the change (no source was included with the user’s contribution).

2- “Reverted good faith edits by Andy Dingley: If you bring an argument that's new for the article, explain it in the comments sections, justify it in Talk Page or place a reference. How else would we verify it?”

3- “Reverted good faith edits by Andy Dingley: One more time. Verify, explain, and source. You know how it works, and you know the time it takes to make sure these rules are followed.”

The changes inserted were not clear about the source. Perhaps the editors working on the article presumed the evidence and sources, but from a patrolling perspective, these changes were not sourced and worse, they were not explained. These were the comments left for the changes:

1- [76] None

2- [77] "That thing in the "< ref >") tags? It's called a reference." (note: as explained below, there was no reference (< ref >) attached to the new contribution or at the end of the new sentence)

3- [78] "Rv repeated blanking on sourced content."

To the first attempt for input/change without a comment and from a user that had already been warned by a bot, I performed a good faith revert and only asked for a source. There was no source connected with the new addition and, as you saw above, no comment about how this new addition may have linked to whatever sources had been cited already in the paragraph.

To the second attempt for input/change with an unclear comment, I reverted it and, as shown above, explained what was necessary with the addition of new information to the article. I also went to the user’s talk page and explained the reasons for this action.

To the third attempt for input/change with another unclear comment added to an unfair accusation (unfair because blanketing is meant for changes without explanation), I reverted the change and went, for the second time, to the user talk page and re-explained my case. I also went to my user talk page and commented on the issue since the user had tagged me there.

As soon as I noticed that behind the lack of good communication was a group of dedicated editors working on this article, I went back and undid my reverts and placed the citation tag at the end of the new sentence so the contributors would notice where was the issue that provoked the reverts.

As I explained in my annotations, a comment, a Talk Page explanation, or a citation linked directly to the sentence being added should have avoided all of these problems. A critical step was when user: Andy Dingley, instead of merely explaining that this was an addition linked to the sources already cited in the paragraph, chose to write “That thing in the "< ref >" tags? It's called a reference.” Not only is this comment vague, but also contains a subtle insult, which cast doubts about the purpose of the reverts.

• I wish to set a formal complaint about the gratuitous reference to WP:CIR and for the unnecessary reaction to a work that only asked for explanations to changes done to the article. Historiador (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"at every instance I mentioned that an explanation or a source was needed for additions to the article"

At every instance, even now, you are treating other editors as idiots who don't realise this.

The content is sourced. It always has been. Why are you demanding sources when they're already there? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Contennt needs to be sourced. Why is that so hard for you to comply with? 82.132.225.115 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, you appear to say that your gripe with my interventions take you and the other editors working with this article as "idiots." I regret that. That was never my intention. Your comments on my page, which you posted after I have already reverted your changes for the second time and left a message in your own talk page (things were moving rather quickly), were enough to warn me about the way you were feeling. Taking your grievance to this level is not only a waste of time and an unnecessary investment of energy, but it also leaves adverse tracks of its own, like your gratuitous reference to WP:CIR (when the page clearly warns you against its use for issues of this type) and your accusation of bad faith (on which this entire report is based). I took the decision to leave your input on the page with a tag for citation before learning that you have appealed to this noticeboard. It is still puzzling. Historiador (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The section that was tagged was covered directly in the citation at the end of the paragraph. I duplicated it in place of the cn tag. Why is there no discussion on the article's talk page? Did anyone actually read the source that was provided? My only concern about the content is that the sentence is nearly verbatim from the source. One does not need to cite every sentence in a paragraph, when the section is covered by the source at the end of the paragraph. Scr★pIron^IV 18:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, I should mention that I never received notification of your question in User_talk:Jcflyer58, which you posted at 7am on Dec. 3: "Perhaps Caballero1967 would care to explain further?" My entry on that page was automated (as explained in my edit summary comments and above)-- and you never allowed me time to even get to it. Otherwise, I would have answered it. Historiador (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, thanks. My request were an explanation in the summary comments or in Talk page. If none of these, then a source would have hinted to the purpose of the addition. Again, more impotant was a summary/comment/explanation. None of them were provided, but until the end, when all the reverts were already done. Historiador (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: The edit summary that you referenced yourself, while a bit sarcastic, should have been explanation enough. It occurred at the beginning of the edit summaries. You mean, you did not check the reference, and just continued to revert? I would strongly suggest you drop it at this point, and withdraw the complaint. Scr★pIron^IV 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, I suggest you read this entire thread more carefully. I am not the one making an accusation here. I did read the comments, and as I explained above, did not understand it as an explanation for the change (in retrospection, many things look perfectly clear). Not only because it was unclear, but also because there was no reference linked to that specific change and addition: none!. I took the extra step to read the sources linked to other parts of the paragraph and it was still not obvious to me. And since I was guarding the page against vandalism, and my requested had been unheard, I reverted it back, IN GOOD FAITH, and asked for an explanation, again. That's it. Keep in mind, that at every moment, I explained that I was asking for an explanation, a simple comment that would warn me that this was a collaborative project and that these additions were not random. Following WP about acting bold, I, again asked for explanations (or sources), nothing fancy. I am raising a complaint only as a reaction and linked to the accusation of war editing. The case drops, and as a result, the complaint falls with it too. Otherwise, there is a different place to raise a formal complaint. Historiador (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, let me repeat, as to be as clear as possible (even though I have made it a focal point here), Andy Dingley's first comment to my revert, not only was sarcastic (a bit, because the space only allowed for a bit), but hinted to a reference that was none-existant. There was no < r > in the change being added or at the end of the sentence that I could look at. It was a reversion, an undid, a revert done in a hurry, without a proper explanation. And then, the user accused me of war edit, when I only reverted two of the user's edits (both without proper explanations of my own reverts). I searched for explanations, and as soon as I learned what was going on, I fixed the problem. All of this took very little time, but the accuser jumped to this page as soon as possible. In fact, my fixing of the page was done prior or at the same time that the accuser was writing on this page. No assumption fo good faith and lack of good communication. Historiador (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest you merely apologize for misreading, and be done with it. Read the sources before reverting. I'm done here. No need to ping me any more.Scr★pIron^IV 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I did not misread. The message was unclear. You misread something when the message is clear. And yet, I did apologize. let me quote, "you appear to say that your gripe with my interventions take you and the other editors working with this article as "idiots." I regret that. That was never my intention." The thread has grown, I understand, but it still important to read all the information before making any comment or passing any judgement. Historiador (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above, there was no source to read! No reference linked to the addition. None! And yet, I read further, and the link was not obvious at first. The context, keep in mind, is a persistence of adding information without explanation, and again and again, I asked for an explanation, a comment, something that would make sense.Historiador (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Jojhutton (Result: )

Page

Star Wars (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "no consensus to restore cluttered version"
2. 05:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "I did take this to the talk page, 2 & 1/2 hours before your revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_(film)&diff=693333221&oldid=692866496"
3. 22:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC) "restore easily read version that doesn't clump everything in the predicate, see talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Star Wars (film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Lead sentence word order */ get consensus first"

Comments:

User has continued to edit war over this edit. User has been reverted by several other editors and has reverted again after being warned. Not all of these edits occurred in a 24 hour period, but this user has been blocked for edit warring in the past and should know better. JOJ ^Hutton 14:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I clearly did not violate 3rr. I was thanked for my edit by User:GoneIn60. Joj reverted me here for the second or third time with his first edit summary suggesting that I needed to make a case on the talk page two and a half hours after I had already started such a dicsussion, to which he did not respond for another seven and a half hours after reverting me. His prior reverts were without comment. It appears he reverts first, then issues warnings, and then engages in discussion. I am not wed to any version of the lead, which I have tried in various ways to make more readable. Joj is wed to only the prior version, and reverts to that alone, opposing any improvement. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Originally, I reverted the first edit which separated the terms epic and space opera used to describe the genre in the opening sentence. That was my beef initially. Then in a series of later revisions, μηδείς addressed my concern and reinstated the other changes in a good faith attempt to improve the opening sentence. These additional changes are now being contested by other editors in a discussion on the talk page. While I do believe μηδείς acted in good faith initially, I think at this point it is counterproductive to continue to reinstate the changes while the discussion is ongoing, especially since there are multiple editors that disagree with them. I don't have a preference either way at this point. It doesn't appear that a strict violation of WP:3RR occurred, so perhaps getting everyone on the same page here with warnings instead of a block will be enough to cool the situation. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I made it apparent in my comments that this isn't a 3RR issue, but an obvious problem with habitual edit warring. You were warned, yet decided to continue edit warring. This isn't your first time with edit warring. Obviously the lesson hasn't sunk in with the previous blocks. JOJ ^Hutton 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• As an admin, I'm disinclined to block anyone here. The discussion is ongoing, and my only recommendation is for both parties to leave "The wrong version" (whichever version they think is wrong) to be visible until after the dispute has been resolved. It is always seen as an act of good faith to leave it wrong, and then let the discussion play out. So here is my recommendation on how to proceed, to be applied equally to both parties: 1) If the version is exactly what you want, leave it alone and don't edit it until after the discussion has concluded. 2) If the version is what your opponent wants, leave it alone and don't edit it until after the discussion has concluded. 3) If the version USED TO BE what you wanted, but then your opponent changes it, so now it is what you don't want, ignore this action, don't report them for anything, leave it alone and don't edit it until after the discussion has concluded. Literally almost every single edit war ever would conclude with no one being blocked, and the consensus version of the article eventually being publicly visible if people just left the article alone during discussions even if other people aren't leaving it alone. So, moving forward that's my recommendation to both parties: Do nothing, allow the discussion to play out, and then enact consensus. Also, if your perceived opponent does something, still do nothing. Don't even report them. Just let them be the asshole, and let yourself be the good person for once. --Jayron32 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:75.80.175.107 reported by User:Pemilligan (Result: )

Page: Vaughan Foods beheading incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.80.175.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]
5. [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Comments: User repeatedly removes "murder" categories, giving different reasons at different times, but apparently assuming that including the categories is a WP:BLP violation against the person accused of the crime. Same behavior at 2015 Washington, D.C., mass murder and other pages.

Pemilligan (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Better report InedibleHulk as well, because he's been very zealous about this issue and I just caved in with his reasoning. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't blame you. It was pretty solid reasoning. Another guy tried this same passive-aggressive pointy edit game after I schooled him on the topic at a different article. Are you him again? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, December 3, 2015 (UTC)