Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RebSmith (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 17 March 2015 (→‎User:Nishidani reported by User:Bkalafut (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.

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

    Page
    Everton F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Sniffdafanny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Crest */"
    2. 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Revert. Original Latin translation"
    3. 21:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651105255 by WikiDan61 (talk). Already explained"
    4. 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651105620 by WikiDan61 (talk). Already explained"
    5. 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "I added some new information"
    6. 21:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    • This isn't edit warring, it's just persistent vandalism. It's not like the user has a different opinion about the topic. He is changing the translation of the team's motto (Nihil satis nisi optimum) from "Nothing but the best" to "No goals this season". That's just vandalism. And it has been repeatedly reverted. The user is currently reported at WP:AIV for vandalism past a level 4 warning, as well as spam (two article creations that were clearly promotional) and an offensive user name. I think the AIV people will resolve the issue and no action need be taken here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    See also [1], [2], [3], [4]. So if I breached then so did Wikidan! Sniffdafanny (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:3RR clearly states an exemption for reverting obvious vandalism, which this was. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SDF, it's not going to help your case by acting immaturely. While I also believe your edits to be disruptive, if you truly believe your version is correct, you should bring it up on the talk page first rather than edit war. - Amaury (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely – for vandalism. Also, repeated creation of spam articles and offensive user name. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page
    Drake Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651410252 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Again, I provided a source for record producer. Stop ignoring your talk page, and learn how to discuss instead of edit warring."
      2. 00:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651409661 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I have provided sources. Stop Edit Warring and removing sourced info."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651408406 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Stop ignoring me, and stop edit warring before I report us both and get us both blocked."
      2. 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 00:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651407975 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) stop ignoring my message on your talk page"
    5. 00:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Find a guideline telling you this. And his net worth in the negatives now. . (TW)"
    6. 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Actually, videos can be used. Refer to User talk:SNUGGUMS. And it is from his real account. (TW)"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651406147 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Again, I have explained my edits. Take it to the talk page before making edits like this."
      2. 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Provided ref to already obvious fact."
    8. 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "No, he has produced his EP A Reminder as well, under his own label. And other people such as Jennette McCurdy, are taken as comedians as well. Discuss on the talk page before you make a change."
    9. 23:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651403676 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He is a comedian, having worked on multiple sitcoms, and he produced his first album Telegraph, and his EP A Reminder."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "/* March 2015 */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    WAY over 3RR. Was just released from a 48-hour edit warring block a couple of days ago (see here: [5]). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor I am reverting is removing sourced information and ignoring the message I left on his talk page. He's over 3RR as well, why is he not being reported? This really is starting to seem like a personal problem. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that Atomic has a history of edit warring accusations also (talk page), and is also warring over what seems to be a reasonable and constructive edit on the page A Reminder. Furthermore, Atomic has refused to respond to discussion opened by Prasad, both on article and user talk pages. If a certain punishment is found wanting for Prasad, should Atomic not be liable for the same? -- Jhill270 (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The revert JP was making looks reasonable to me. I think it should be thoroughly observed that the claim JP kept adding did have a source. I don't know what is done in such cases. I would hope that seeing the situation, and not just the number of edits, JP is not blocked in this situation. MaRAno FAN 06:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User continues to revert A Reminder page without finding a reliable source.(Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Tells one to provide source. Others tell him to do the same on other pages. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At least I find reliable sources like Entertainment weekly, Hollywood Reporter, etc. you put unknown sites. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

    Page
    A Reminder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:15, 15 March 2015‎ (UTC) Undid revision 651451025 by Atomic Meltdown (talk): at the end, label name in vid.)
    2. 08:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Undid revision 651450784 by Atomic Meltdown (talk): these links are irrelevant, as I said, the label in the music videos.
    3. 07:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) again, Wiki's all about discussion. YOU don't know how to do it. And I have said stop reverting and give me time, but you won't. Oh, well. We're both getting blocked purely for 3RR.
    4. 07:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown (talk): I have explained myself multiple times. Maybe if you learned to actually DISCUSS. (TW)
    5. 07:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown (talk). (TW)
    6. 07:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Undid revision 651448331 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) per my previous edit summary. I'm getting blocked anyway, why not?
    7. 07:31, 15 March 2015‎ (UTC) Undid revision 651448187 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) That would be original research, nothing more reliable than what I'm doing here.
    8. 07:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown: Don't assist in reporting me then revert. It is under his name, he produced it. Actually, you didn't on that Billy Crystal thing. (TW)
    9. 07:11, 15 March 2015‎‎ (UTC) Undid revision 651446943 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Telling me to find one when you have been warned for original research, unsourced info. Kinda hypocritical.
    10. 07:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Ugh... how many times have I told you, that doesn't matter? Me and other editor have tried to discuss, you simply ignore. Maybe start there. Like I said, do you want me just to snitch to an admin and get us both blocked?"
    11. 07:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651446094 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) As it is under Drake Bell Entertainment, it does not need to be."
    12. 06:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Sources provided. I have been told that the source for the label is enough. (TW)"
    13. 06:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "No. You're the one who wants the change. You're the one to do it. And you've ignored me trying to discuss with you, showing you're doing this on pages I frequently edit to be disruptive."
    14. Consecutive edits made from 06:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "How bout instead of reverting, YOU TAKE IT TO THE TALK. unless you don't know how wiki works."
      2. 06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Lawsuit */"
    15. Consecutive edits made from 06:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "we were almost blocked. You brought it up, you take it to the talk page, heck, I could use a break, I can just go snitch to an admin."
      2. 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651444082 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) per my previous summary."
    16. Consecutive edits made from 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "corrected italics."
      2. 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651444156 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I can find other sources."
    17. Consecutive edits made from 06:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): I have REPEATEDLY told you I left a message and to take it to the talk page. Why do you refuse? (TW)"
      2. 06:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    18. Consecutive edits made from 00:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 00:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 00:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Source provided"
    19. 00:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651410380 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He doesn't need to be as it is under his name. Stop the edit war."
    20. 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651409945 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I actually am. Stop. Do you wanna get reported? Learn how to discuss on Talk Pages."
    21. 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651409166 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) stop edit warring before I report both of us"
    22. 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651408263 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) It is enough that it is under a label dubbed with his own name."
    23. 00:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651407718 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) it is under his own label, so it is obvious. Stop stalking the pages I edit, as you weren't on these ever before."
    24. Consecutive edits made from 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) to 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

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

    • Note: His comments on his talk page regarding the edit warring are: "I'm not giving a crap at the moment. Granted, editing Wikipedia has been the only thing I do, if that editor doesn't at least get blocked too, I'm going to get pissed. Really, all the info is there. He just started editing those articles after I proved him wrong on 84th Academy Awards, as the Drake Bell articles are among the main ones I edit." (found here [6]). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again, you worry nothing of the other editor, and I have tried to make a discussion, continued ignorance. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to block me, you have to take some action against Atomic Meltdown as well. That just wouldn't be right, I tried to discuss on his talk, I'm getting singled out here. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why me? I'm the one who's telling you to find a reliable source and keep putting unsourced material. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    You, Atomic Meltdown just started on these articles because the Drake Bell articles are among the main ones I focus on. You're doing this to deliberately be disruptive. If you were really in good faith, you would make an attempt to find sources, instead of just removing over and over again, or at least tagging the info, you doing this just cause I proved you wrong at the 84th Academy Awards article. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And Winkelvi The only reason "I'm not giving a crap" is because I will be blocked regardless, and know it. And I have been agitated to no end. And again, nothing on the other ediotr. WOW. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I'm telling you to find a reliable source and ignore me. This guy needs to be blocked for reverting unsourced material. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    I had to revert you for the same reason. And seriously, again, don't know how to discuss on talk pages. If you did, none of this would be happening. You just ignore everything. It wasn't anything better than what you were doing, yet you thought you were in the right. And if the label is under his name, he produced it. No sourcing needed, as I have been told, by DISCUSSING. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You see what I have been through yesterday. This kid needs a source. A source and he refused to find a reliable one. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Both need blocking IMO. Joseph Prasad has just come off a 48hr block only five days ago for, guess what, edit-warring. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both editors blocked. Sorry, it's just too much. Both were edit warring to the point of having another article locked, then took the dispute here and continued to edit war after warnings. I've blocked Atomic Meltdown for 24 hours for a first offense, and Prasad for one week as this is his third consecutive block for this and is just coming back from a block. Kuru (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page
    Toy Story (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Danny.rudolph5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Toy Story 4 (2017) */"
    2. 21:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 06:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Fixed Everything"
    4. 07:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 07:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


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

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

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

    a link to a version from before all the reverting took place: [7]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8]
    2. [9]
    3. [10]
    4. [11]
    5. [12]



    Comments:

    He started a discussion about a map yesterday [13] (he mentioned this matter a couple of days ago but it was an "off-topic discussion", here: [14]), and now he says that the issue has been "already discussed on different place" [15]. However the discussion is still ongoing. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    a link to a version from before all the reverting took place: [16]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [17]
    2. [18]
    3. [19]
    4. [20]



    Comments:

    Same issue as above (this is my second report about this user). He started a discussion about a map yesterday [21] (he mentioned this matter a couple of days ago but it was an "off-topic discussion", here: [22]), and now he says that the issue has been "already discussed on different place" [23]. However the discussion is still ongoing. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:77.238.218.96 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: 24 hr block)

    Page
    Dimensionless physical constant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    77.238.218.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651500691 by Quondum (talk) relative to the rest of the article (also not discussed in talk) this was the well made part"
    2. 20:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651528401 by 166.184.170.35 (talk) primary sources are OK in lack of secondary ones, besides this is just a comparison of 2 numbers (1 peer-reviewed, 1arxiv time-stamped)"
    3. 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651535495 by 166.184.170.35 (talk) that's exactly the starting point of the guy who had theoretical value of G right. so what's your point again, if any?"
    4. 21:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "(Undid revision 651541777 by 166.184.170.35 (talk) actually, you're already in violation)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

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

    Please take a look at the citation, the person and the IP. Sums it up pretty clearly. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One additional comment: "166.184.170.35 is also involved in the edit warring as well, to the same extent as the other IP." NOT to the same extent. The Bosnian IP first took on User:Quondum, reverting his/her edits (which were reverting the Bosnian IP's edits). This is clearly a crank's OR. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    lol The only crank here is you. I explained everything in my talk and edit summaries. 77.238.218.96 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I have reverted 3 times and no more. 77 has reverted 4 times. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, anonymous editors are welcome to insert uncontentious facts but should not become the champions of disputed issues. WP:SCRUTINY entitles us to review your record if you want to make edits that ignite disputes and use up the time of administrators at admin boards. Either party is welcome to create an account. If you choose not to do so, I recommend that semiprotection be considered for the two articles on physical constants that are in dispute: Gravitational constant and Dimensionless physical constant. It can't be ruled out that the 77.* IP from Sarajevo is the author of one of the papers being reverted in and out at Dimensionless physical constant, for example in this edit. If you are in fact the author, you can come forth, declare yourself and we'll talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Seems to be active as 217.197.137.140 now. --mfb (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    77.238.216.206 appeared today, continuing the edit-war. I'm not familiar with the pages related to vandalism and edit-wars here, should I open a new topic somewhere else? --mfb (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Clibenfoart reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Gone with the Wind (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Clibenfoart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]
    4. [diff]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29] (previous consensus on this matter and further responses to Clibenfoart)

    Comments:
    Unfortunately the film does not provide the roles of the supporting cast, so these have been added to the article using the the descriptions at the American Film Institute. User:Clibenfoart has started linking to still and screencaps on non-reliable websites and adding his own cast descriptions. This has been discussed on the talk page where three editors are against using editor formulated descriptions and have a preference for using the credits as presented in reliable sources, such as the American Film Institute and New York Times. The editor has not violated 3RR but he is aware of the consensus and clearly chooses to violate it. It is clearly disruptive behavior. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I disagree on the 3RR assessment. I see reverts around the "at jail" comment (specifically) back in January; notably 1/11/05 @ 14:27. In the last 24 hours, I see reverts of the same descriptor @ 14:19, 14:45, 22:29, and 22:45. There is also clear consensus on the article's talk page not to use the OR descriptors. For the record, Betty is one revert out of a 3RR as well; please slow down. Kuru (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sorting it out, and given the previous disruption in January you are right I probably shouldn't have reverted so many times today. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Inorout reported by User:Mfb (Result: Blocked)

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

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/651546457

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Special:Diff/651554797
    2. Special:Diff/651623325
    3. Special:Diff/651624827
    4. Special:Diff/651631255

    Additional edit war ongoing at Dimensionless physical constant, same content. Yesterday an IP was blocked for edit warring, adding exactly the same content to the articles.

    Tried to discuss it on his user page, no success. --mfb (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    You used awfully uncivil language and I-own-WP tone in my Talk, so I don't think there is anything to discuss with you. Inorout (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Like the two IPs mentioned in a report above, User:Inorout is helping to publicize the work of Mensur Omerbashich. A Google for that name brings up some online reputation. There is also personal website at sites.google.com/site/omerbashich that may be instructive. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian/Archive, a case which will appear as a search result if you search SPI for Omerbashich. Bosnipedian has been quite active in 2015. One option is to add Inorout and the various IPs to the Bosnipedian sock case. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just adding insults, to me personally and to someone behind another user name. Is civility not required in this case? Can we all run wild? Inorout (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears that this Inorout editor is socked by another similar Bosnian-based IP. And another sock. 73.16.37.124 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hooo-boy!! I had just now explored a little about this Inorout or Mensur Omerbashich character: http://wiki.royalfamily.ba/wiki/Mensur_Omerbashich . Apparently, he fancies himself the King of Bosnia. And he has the mailing address: Bosnian Royal Family, PO Box 1, Sarajevo, Bosnia www.royalfamily.ba to show for it. This might explain Inorout's (and the IP's) sense of entitlement to publish whatever-the-hell-he-wants in Wikipedia. 73.16.37.124 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Clear 3RR violation. The reason doesn't really matter. Read WP:3RR for the bright line rule. Four reverts in less than 24 hours. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Josephlalrinhlua786, User:4TheWynne reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: )

    Page: Furious 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 4TheWynne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [30]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

    Comments:
    Edit warring. Not even sure who's right as far as content at this point. But both users have very much exceeded 3RR. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hypnotica26 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result:Blocked for 24h)

    Page
    Shakespears Sister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Hypnotica26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651652071 by Joseph2302 (talk)Check the facts yourself, the page was outdated, I know the SS admin personally."
    2. 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651651340 by Joseph2302 (talk)Hi there is no SS website now, the label was never WB and the info is incorrect, you are stating incorrect info"
    3. 16:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651650675 by Ericorbit (talk)I know the SS admin personally, the info on the page you revert to is wrong."
    4. 16:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651623477 by Ericorbit (talk)FAO Ericorbit I have updated the page to accuracy, the page you rudely reverted it back to is outdated."


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shakespears Sister. (TW)"
    2. 16:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shakespears Sister. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The user is replacing sourced content with unsourced content. It has been explained to them multiple times that their information needs to have reliable sources, but they continue to ignore, claiming that they know best as an alleged friend. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has reverted again here, along with a personal attack (calling me an idiot). I cannot reverse this last change, else I go over 3RR, and risk trouble, even though my reversions have been inline with Wikipedia policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mehmeett21 reported by User:Gligan (Result: )

    Page: First Bulgarian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mehmeett21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [35]
    2. [36]
    3. [37]
    4. [38]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Mehmeett21 was warned to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, which he repeatedly refused

    Comments:

    Since 10 March 2015 User:Mehmeett21 has made 10 disruptive edits on the article for the First Bulgarian Empire and has repeatedly refused to discuss his changes of the established text of the article. That user has been previously warned for disruptive edits on 12 March but has since cleared his talk page. In order not to break the 3RR rule myself, I still haven't reverted his last disruptive edit. Hopefully, the admins would do so. Regards, Gligan (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    first bulgarian empire hade tengrism which is turkic and called khanate and first ruler a khan and i have one refernce but he dont acept,Check out the reference and tell us what you think it thanksMehmeett21 https://books.google.se/books?id=-h5Z8CEA5bkC&pg=PA308&lpg=PA308&dq=old+great+bulgaria+turkic&source=bl&ots=XsbYbELPTZ&sig=3f_9bbDyx3qaXrIhRZFV2Y9YQeE&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=8zkHVdS-Do2UaqPsgvAM&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBzgo#v=onepage&q=old%20great%20bulgaria%20turkic&f=false Mehmeett21 20:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

    User:88.159.237.227 reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page
    Nick Jonas discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    88.159.237.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651654981 by Chasewc91 (talk) look at source idiot it said EP"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 06:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Extended plays */ digital or not its an extended play, its released through itunes so official"
      2. 06:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Promotional singles */ jealous remixes is an official ep and released through itunes so legit"
    3. 20:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651529353 by Ross Lynch Lovers (talk)look on teacher page for release"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Combined with personal attacks. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GeorgeLouis reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: )

    Pages: Template:LosAngelesCityAttorneys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) & Los Angeles City Attorney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GeorgeLouis (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:

    Template
    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff
    Article
    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff (occurred since the 3RR report was filed

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

    Comments:
    User has been engaged in an edit war with me, User:Purplebackpack89 over a Los Angeles City Attorney article and corresponding template. At issue is primarily formatting: GeorgeLouis is wedded to the article and template being alphabetical, while Purplebackpack89 favors the chronological organization employed by countless articles and templates pertaining to elected officials. We recently solicited a third opinion on the matter; this brought User:AHeneen into the fray. AHeneen has also dissented from GeorgeLouis' point-of-view; generally agreeing with Purplebackpack89 that both template and article should be arranged chronologically. I had thought this had been put to bed after a lengthy discussion at Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney where four editors favored the chronological organization and only GeorgeLouis favored alphabetical, but GeorgeLouis began reverting (both Purplebackpack89 and AHeneen) on the template yesterday, and continued today. GeorgeLouis keeps clamoring for "consensus", even though such consensus exists, and it's not in his favor. pbp 22:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The above user may be correct in his count; I haven't really checked. If so, I shan't do any more reverting but will continue to seek WP:Consensus. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Despite three editors supporting the inclusion of a sortable table (only the problem editor and one other, who simply made a brief comment, were also involved), GeorgeLouis made the table unsortable alphabetically (diff) less than 20 minutes after making the above remark about trying "to seek WP:Consensus." AHeneen (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    GeorgeLouis seems to have a funny way of interpreting consensus...no matter how many people disagree with him, it's still not consensus unless he gets some or all of what he wants. pbp 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.111.174.103 reported by User:IPadPerson (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page
    Ellie Goulding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    80.111.174.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651655340 by Carlos Rojas77 (talk) Undid unexplained edit."
    3. 22:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651657234 by Carlos Rojas77 (talk) Her nationality is British."
    4. 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. Consecutive edits made from 22:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC) to 22:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 22:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "England isn't a country. It's part of the UK."
      2. 22:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    6. 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651696441 by IPadPerson (talk) No I won't stop. She's British."
    7. 22:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651696441 by IPadPerson (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ellie Goulding. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user is continuously edit warring on the article by adding that she is an actress when it is not sourced and tampering with the nationality in the lead when repeatedly asked to knock it off. A 3RR warning was then given, but the user did not bother to discontinue. IPadPerson (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Infoantg1 reported by User:Beatpoet (Result: )

    Page: Antoine Gounet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Infoantg1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [40]
    2. [41]
    3. [42]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Infoantg1

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Infoantg1

    Comments:

    Has made pointless unsourced edits to the page and when I revert them, he puts his edits back. Beatpoet (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Niroshaka reported by User:Noren (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Thesara Jayawardane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Niroshaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [43] was the version upon which semiprotection was applied, which included no claims to a date of birth or age of the subject.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [44] 02:35, 17 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
    2. [45] 01:41, 17 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
    3. [46] 08:12, 16 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
    4. [47] 11:10, 13 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
    5. [48] 10:48, 13 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
    6. [49] 10:36, 13 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
    7. [50] 10:23, 13 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
    8. [51] 17:01, 1 March 2015 Add alleged date of birth sourced to a blog post along with a page blanking
    9. [52] 16:59, 1 March 2015 Add alleged date of birth sourced to a blog post along with a page blanking

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning Niroshaka was warned by Arjayay

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Talk:Thesara_Jayawardane#Date_of_birth

    Comments:

    There were also a number of other problematic edits made to this article by this user early in March not directly involving the birth date issue, but I thought a more focused report would be clearer. User:Niroshaka brought this up on Jimbo's talk page[53] with an incorrect spelling of the name of the subject, which is where I saw the issue. --Noren (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KombuchaBoy reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: )

    Page
    Kombucha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    KombuchaBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
    2. 14:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 14:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC) to 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 14:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Better information."
      2. 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Improved information."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC) to 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Better information."
      2. 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Better information."
    5. 10:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC) "Added new information."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kombucha. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:Pjstar35 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Withdrawn)

    Page: Constantine (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pjstar35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [54]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [55]
    2. [56]
    3. [57]
    4. [58] - 23 hours and 37 minutes after the first. Would've ignored it if it weren't for other behavior.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Constantine_(TV_series)#Gorman.27s_prediction.

    Comments:
    User got out of a block for nearly identical behavior almost a week ago. I say "nearly identical" because there's an increased hostile assumption of bad-faith by Pjstar35 (leading to personal attacks). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    [60] is a brand new edit. Issues with a previous edit, being discussed on the talk page, was that it was one professionals speculation so I adjusted the brand new edit to cite multiple sources. [61] and [62] are good-faith reverts as I had thought my new edits would be acceptable and discussion on the talk page had ceased which I erroneously took as a good sign. [63] is an unrelated edit that does not contain any speculations and only uses direct quotes from NBC staff. I felt this was a much better addition to the article in that it provides useful information and does not include any speculation as to not incite another debate about the interpretation of WP:BALL. I'm trying to cooperate here to make my edits acceptable. I feel that I may have portrayed having "hostile assumption of bad-faith" once false accusations of Sock Puppetry were made but I'm really trying to let that go. Let's be honest, no one likes to be falsely accused of anything. As a fairly new editor to Wikipedia I understand that there are things I will learn as I go but it is situations like this that make Wikipedia uninviting for new editors. As it says in WP:ROWN "Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion." I feel like if the guidelines of essays such as WP:ROWN were adopted by more editors, editing Wikipedia would be a much more pleasant experience for everyone.Pjstar35 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that it was a different edit. I had just woken up, saw that there was material about the show's future again, and based on past behavior jumped the gun. My apologies. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your admission of mistake and I accept your apology. I truly hope we can work past all of these prior issues and continue to contribute productively to the content here on Wikipedia.Pjstar35 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nishidani reported by User:Bkalafut (Result: )

    Page: Islam and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [64]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [65]
    2. [66]


    This is not yet a 3RR case, unless users Nishidani and Zero0000 are sock puppets of each other. User RebSmith has been adding sourced content to Islam and antisemitism, which while somewhat problematic in style could immediately be fixed by refinement, and Nishidani has blanked the entirety of it twice. On the talk page he is arguing pure POV while claiming the edits are a violation of NPOV. I came on this while looking at just-ins and delivered an informal warning on the talk page.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]


    Comments: I don't have a dog in this fight, so some of the template doesn't really apply.

    This is not a 3RR complaint but an edit warring complaint. User Nishidani and a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet are wildly blanking one user's constructive and sourced edits in an apparent attempt to keep mention of mainstream scholarship (with citations) off of a certain article, for reasons of undue weight or fringe POV. In particular, it appears to be material relying on sources which argue that Islam is antisemitic that is setting Nishidani off. Bkalafut (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have been working on improving the article Islam and antisemitism, particularly the section on The Quran. Previously in this section, the only sources were academics trained in the Western tradition with no mention of modern-day Muslim scholars. I decided to begin including content from modern-day clerics. To begin, I focused on the antisemitic stances of some Muslim scholars. I also put in a list of verses considered "antisemitic" by both scholars and commentators and used by some of these modern-day clerics in their antisemitic remarks. The clerics I have included are not fringe. Many of them are trained at Al-Ahzar University. One was a member of their fatwa committee. A couple were clerics in the Hamas leadership, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and represents a large contingent of the Palestinian population and is respected by other Muslim governments.[68] Before I had time to put in Muslim sources that contest the antisemitic stances, such as Hamza Yusuf and Ahmadi Muslim scholars, much of the content I contributed began to be deleted. The reasons included that my sources weren't scholarly enough, that I included a source that some consider "right-wing", that I was "cherry picking" out fringe opinions, that I was only included one point-of-view. I made every attempt to explain the reasons for my edits, to collaborate with them in an effort to bring balance to the article, but I just get rebuked and my content deleted. RebSmith (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nishidani, Zero0000 (not socks of each other lol) have both argued that the material in question is a straightforward violation of multiple policies, the users returning the material, ignoring WP:BURDEN, have yet to address the pertinent points raised regarding compliance with these policies, and instead have simply stood up and said no. Admin review of the talk page and its participants would certainly be a good thing. nableezy - 19:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it "funny" that Bkalafut canvassed RebSmith to comment here.[69] It's also "funny" that Bkalafut thought it was appropriate to insinuate (twice) that Nishidani and Zero0000 are sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Perhaps Bkalafut ought to reflect on his/her own role in the edit-warring at Islam and antisemitism, which is not insignificant. I recommend that the recently added trash be removed from the article and that the article be fully protected for a reasonable period, during which RebSmith and Bkalafut can familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain to me how adding the views of Muslim clerics to an article on Islam is adding "trash". RebSmith (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=651826491"