Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148
1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473
474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Tigerboy1966 reported by User:Dr John Peterson (Result: Filer indeffed as sock)

Tigerboy1966 has gone way beyond the 3RR (about 6 or 7 times) and ignores the Talk page.--Dr John Peterson (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please view the edit history of the page. It's pretty obvious what's happening. Tigerboy1966 15:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a relevant SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr John Peterson. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Dr John Peterson indefinitely as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This IP User talk:2.123.6.113 has also be antagonistic [1] and is probably also a sock. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:2.120.186.252 today - showing a similar pattern --Bcp67 (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2.120 IP is now blocked as well. The most recent SPI is now under the name WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Snackbag. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dentren reported by User:Keysanger (Result: Both warned)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2] Dentren deletes the tag "fringe"
[3] Dentren deletes the tag "fringe" again.
[diff]
[diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Context

On 27 May EdJohnston blocked me and Dentren because a edit war: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:Dentren_reported_by_User:Keysanger_.28Result:_Both_blocked.29

We tried in the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_116#Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile.23Causes_of_the_War_of_the_Pacific but no agreement could be reached.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile#Dispute_Resolution, and also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_116#Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile.23Causes_of_the_War_of_the_Pacific

The three tags must stay there until an agreement is reached.

Comments:
Please, reinsert the tag "fringe" and warn user Dentren not to make (relevant) changes without consens.

--Keysanger (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute was handled at WP:DRN, but it was closed with no resolution. The comment by the closer User:Kharkiv07 was:

Lack of adequate participation, as well as a conversation that did not progress much when it was (semi)active. A lot of that conversation was also reduced to attacks, and comments out of line of the moderator's requests.

I interpret this as saying that the negotiation failed due to poor behavior by the parties. After this failure, the edit war began again on 20 June when User:Dentren removed a FRINGE tag from one section. The reverting went on from there, with Keysanger choosing to restore the tag, and Dentren removing it again.

It's fine if the two of you refuse to come to agreement, but if so then neither of you should touch the article before agreement is reached. You both need to wait patiently until you can get a talk page consensus in favor of your change. If not, you are edit warring.

My plan for closing this is to notify both editors that whoever reverts the article next, prior to getting a talk page agreement, will be blocked one month. Assuming this causes them to stop reverting, this will have the same benefit to the article as an indefinite page ban on both parties. The 'ban' expires whenever agreement is found on Talk. Before closing this AN3 I'll wait to see if anyone wants to comment on the plan. An alternative to this plan would be a long period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those unaware of Keysangers track record must take not how Keysanger accuses me of doing changes without consensus when he begun unilateral changes in February 2015 that evolved into disruptive editing. –Dentren | ^Talk 21:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support Eds proposal to bury the hatchet and to return to the talk page. Tomorrow, 23, I will offer in the article talk page a new wording for the disputed paragraph and hope the best. In my opinion the problem is that Dentren says "it is a Chile article, we have to write solely about facts concerning Chile". I consider it a wrong approach that leads to biased descriptions: "Some X were involved in business crimes. Several X were pimps. Many X didn't pay taxes. In this circumstances occurred the X-genocide" --Keysanger (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Both Dentren and Keysanger are warned, with the terms given in my comment above. Whoever reverts the article next, prior to getting a talk page agreement, may be blocked for a long time. Both parties are encouraged to use the talk page, and should consider an RfC. This dispute about the economies and reasons for war is opaque to outsiders. Both parties are encouraged to explain their concerns better in terms that everyone can understand. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aaabbb11 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

ANI warning by original filer
AN3 notification to user being reported: [13]
AN3 notification to original filing party: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page section link

Comments:
This was originally filed at WP:ANI by STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I moved it here as this is the proper venue for the complaint and there does indeed appear to be edit warring occurring. (Link to closure of that ANI). Below is a copy-paste of the original complaint:

Click to see original complaint

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Aaabbb11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently removed the Wikilink to "cult" in the article Falun Gong.

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

My warning to him/her [22] was to no avail. An intervention is needed. STSC (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. Long-term edit warring about the phrase 'evil cult'. The revert war on the wikilinking of 'cult' has been going on for 4 months. Aaabbb11 seems to be declaring himself the winner of a talk page discussion that he began in February where he only ever left one posting. It would make sense for him to wait for a clear consensus. Aaabbb11 has already been notified under the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBFLG and it wouldn't take much more poor behavior to justify a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solhjoo reported by User:Samak (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Seeing her contributions Had the wrong editions especially move the article in Iran cities to Kurdish nationalism name.

Samək^Talk 09:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) -->[reply]

Warned about disruptive page moves. Their behavior is not quite edit warring, although it is disruptive. —Darkwind (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fsfolks reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Blocked)

Page: see below
User being reported: Fsfolks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On GNU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
On Portal:Free software/Terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
- for initial change and first eight reverts, see previous report
- revert at 22:07, 20 June 2015
- revert at 00:57, 21 June 2015
- revert at 13:24, 21 June 2015

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has resumed edit warring on the same page, and another associated article, immediately after the expiry of his last block for edit warring. Technically 3RR has not been breached, though the edit warring across multiple pages is clear cut, and particularly disruptive because the material he's introducing breaks the template markup. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting user has clearly shown his bad faith in many comments: he did a personal attack describing me as "rude" [23] for my comment on his edit [24] in which I described it as "vandalism" as been explained in the talk page of the GNU article : he didn't stop at that, and now he is reporting me under 3RR reason while what I did is only reverting his unconstructive edits. Fsfolks (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fsfolks has a free software agenda, a battleground mentality, and has clearly resumed edit warring. Does not appear to be here to improve Wikipedia. 22:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs)

Blocked indefinitely – It appears that User:Fsfolks is here on Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. He wants to remedy the neglect of the term 'Gnu/Linux' which he believes people should employ, instead of 'Linux'. He uses the term 'vandalism' to describe reverts of his own changes, even when his changes have questionable grammar. A block appears necessary until such time as he expresses willingness to follow our policies. Until now most people were unaware that Linux was severely misnamed. We do have an article called GNU/Linux naming controversy which goes into the matter. A sample of their attitude may be seen at User talk:Fsfolks#Accusations and personal attacks.EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:165.112.98.48 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Jaws (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 165.112.98.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "Please stop edit-warring. Discuss at Talk page."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP edit-warring after warning, previously edit-warred on a different film article despite multiple warnings DonIago (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:107.178.46.170 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Rangeblock)

Page: Justinian I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.178.46.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "You are not sure if I am sock let the investigation show it, please explain with valid edit summaries. Please avoid tendentious edits, this is a Greek source claiming he didnt speak Greek check it"
18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "That is a sourced information by Greek author claiming that he didn't even spoke Greek!"
15:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "this is as unofficial form for administration and emperors at that time and hence for the person as he didnt speek greek, orthodox is multinational how about including russian?"
14:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Leo I the Thracian. (TW ★TW)"
17:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW ★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Longterm edit-warring across many Byzantine Empire-related articles. Sockpuppet of Miss Paris Slue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss Paris Slue. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Blocked the whole /20 range (used by cloudmosa.com) per {{webhostblock}} for two months per explanation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss Paris Slue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Febin ABD reported by User:Davykamanzi (Result: Stale)

Previous version reverted to: This version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit warring / 3RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26] (First edit to his/her talk page)

Comments:

Tried reasoning with the user but my message and the warning I posted afterwards were simply disregarded and reverting continued. Technically he/she hasn't been reverting the edits, but has been constantly reintroducing unreferenced and unconfirmed information related to the article after being asked not to do so. I think a short ban (24–72 hours) would be appropriate here. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 19:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stale: user has not edited in over 24 hours. Also, this behavior wasn't really what I would consider edit warring; because each of the edits was to a different place on the page, they may not have even realized you were reverting them. If this user returns and edits disruptively again, perhaps try posting at WP:ANI. —Darkwind (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:RHB100 reported by User:Siafu (Result: Voluntary restriction)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34],[35],[36]

Comments:

This is a repeated dispute between RHB100 and all other interested editors at Global Positioning System. Every 6-12 months, RHB100 returns and attempts again to force an inaccurate and unsupported interpretation of the GPS problem solution onto the article. For the most recent iteration (before this one), see here. RHB100 has been informed multiple times about the requirements for sourcing, no original research, consensus, and 3RR, and continues to ignore all of them. Currently he/she is in violation of 3RR, but a more extensive solution may be called for. siafu (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the user at User talk:RHB100 that the most practical response to sporadic but tenacious POV-pushing at wide intervals is an indefinite block. So far there has been no response that would justify a different outcome. A promise from him to wait for consensus would be enough to avoid this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

siafu is stating outright lies. The edits I have made are sourced and are quite accurate. siafu does not know what he is talking about. RHB100 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to stop edit warring even though I believe I have done nothing wrong. I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer. I know that I am right but I guess if these people are going to force their incorrect views, I guess I cannot stop them. So I will not do any edit warring. RHB100 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you that I have concluded that it appears useless to try to educate these people on how GPS works. What more do you want me to do. I did nothing but try to make the GPS article correct. I didn't know that normal editing was counted as reverts. Other people were far more guilty of edit warring than me. Is there anyway to change an incorrectly written article. I will keep in mind that what I thought were normal edits is sometimes considered a revert. I will refrain from making changes until I understand the difference between normal editing and reverts better. RHB100 (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deal, if you accept it, requires that you wait for a clear consensus on the talk page before making any change to the article. This means you won't do any change unless others support it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will accept it. Will you please place the same restrictions on others so as to avoid further degradation of the article. siafu is more guilty of edit warring than me. RHB100 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In diff 2 [85] at [37] and diff 5 [88] at [38] I have not in any way changed, modified, or reverted anybody's edits. I have only added new material. I have therefore made at most 3 reverts and I am not guilty of violating 3RR. RHB100 (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No block of User:RHB100. He is accepting a voluntary restriction, to make no further change at Global Positioning System unless it is first discussed on the talk page and it gets consensus there. RHB100, please follow this restriction carefully because, if not, an indefinite block is just around the corner. In a long-term war like this one we are not counting up to three reverts, we are just observing that you constantly make article edits that nobody else supports. You might be more satisfied with Wikipedia if you simply give up on this article and choose to work on something else. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:YHWH's Right Hand reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Indef by Kww)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:God_in_Islam#Regarding_recent_edits_by_User:YHWH.27s_Right_Hand. I've also explained relevant policies and guidelines on their user page.

Comments:
Edits are closer to 26 hours than 24, but it is obvious that YHWH's_Right_Hand is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia, they are here to advocate for a WP:FRINGE position (see this draft of theirs). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, they've made a fifth revert, unambiguously putting them past 3rr. The fifth edit repeats their anti-Arabic/Anglo-centric WP:FRINGE claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an indef due to WP:NOTHERE. Take a look at the wording of Draft:Allah is not God, an exercise in personal POV that the user wants to add to the encyclopedia as an article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've got yet another, which only confirms the WP:NOTHERE. They've been asked to take their rants to the talk page, but that clearly wasn't what they wrote them for. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had already indefed the user on the basis of WP:NOTHERE before noticing this discussion.—Kww(talk) 04:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:siafu reported by User:RHB100 (Result: Closed per another report above)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Positioning_System

Comments:
User:siafu made these 3 reverts in less than an hour. This shows how irresponsible he was. He could not have read the references and talk page with comprehension in that short a period of time. He appears to be unable to comprehend fundamental principles of GPS. He promotes an incorrect interpretation of GPS geometry. RHB100 (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saifu has only reverted three times. WP:3rr requires making more than three reverts, as you did ([47], [48], [49], [50]). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to comments to reply to them instead of just editing old comments. Wikipedia really doesn't care about expertise, we only care about summarizing published professional sources -- no original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson, I have only made one revert and that was after siafu had reverted me 3 times. I made responsible editing changes which involved adding new material and changing old material, but it was in no sense a revert. RHB100 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manually repeating the contested edit, even if varied in its presentation, is counted as a revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is another report of the same dispute above. User:RHB100 could avoid a block if they will promise to wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Now closed per another report above. User:RHB100 is accepting a voluntary restriction in lieu of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.82.196.11 reported by User:Tefkasp (Result: Semi)

Page: Cheesesteak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.82.196.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[51]

Diffs of the user's reverts

[52], [53], [54], [55]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[56]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[57]

Comments:

Result: Article semiprotected one month. The definition of a cheesesteak is up to editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mattnad reported by User:BoboMeowCat (Result: No action at this time)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned on article talk page twice (see links below)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64],[65]

Comments:
(Non-admin comment) I'd like to ask the administrators to be lenient in this case and not give more than a 24 hour block. It has to be understood that this is a highly sensitive topic which is fraught with severe NPOV and BLP problems, and certain editors, including BoboMeowCat have utterly stonewalled any attempts at making even the most trivial changes, perceiving bias in the most innocuous places. Meanwhile this is an article about a serious criminal allegation against a non-notable person. This BLPN discussion resulted in a decision that the name could be included if the defense was discussed in the article - and there is substantial evidence, though not definitive proof, that the accused person may be innocent. The video whose description Mattnad was trying to cut down is an apparent re-enactment of the alleged attack, and was used as a reason to ignore this ruling and not discuss the defense; meanwhile though, the accused's name still appears in our references. In light of this Mattnad's actions seem less unreasonable. I was not involved in this particular dispute. Also, nothing I said should be understood as an accusation of bad faith on anyone's part: I think people just have fundamentally different views on the subject and are trying to be reasonable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the filer of this report, In general, I tend to agree with requests to be lenient, but if admins look over the edit history, they will see there also might be another editor over 3RR, who I didn't even bother reporting, because unlike Mattnad, they did not revert again immediately after being warned [66],[67]. Doing so seems disruptive to the point of warranting some sort of action (although I tend to agree with Sammy that 24 hours is probably reasonable) Also, I disagree with characterization of stonewalling. Currently, there is clearly no talk page consensus to make such substantial changes to that article section, there may be consensus at some point, but clearly not now. Acting unilaterally, to make major article changes seems disruptive, especially on an article as sensitive as this one. It's spent a lot of time at WP:BLPN. I was the actually the filer of the BLPN discussion Sammy linked above. I'm sensitive to the BLP concerns regarding the accused student, but edit warring against consensus, historically has only increased BLP violations and reduced article stability. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no warning offered and I'll add there was significant dialog that preceded the change [[68]] where I proposed several alternatives. I took Bobomeowcat's feedback, and developed alternatives that directly addressed the editor's concerns (except for his/her view that it's fine as is). In the end, that particular editor made several reverts after mine without ANY effort at compromise after I had addressed the requirements stipulated by that editor on the talk page. If I am edit warring, so then is he or she is in principle. I've made my points on the talk page at this point. If other editors feel like they want to take up pursuit of improving the article, they can go for it.Mattnad (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that "Stonewalling" is an appropriate description of Bobomeowcat's approach, not to mention ignoring the dialog that he/she engaged in after the fact. As for the socalled 3RR, a close examination will indicate that they were not all reverts, but moving back to earlier versions, and then editing as well of the revised text. Bobomeowcat is using this process instead of good faith engagement. Mattnad (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, here are the warnings offered.[69],[70] Here is the talk page discussion that shows no consensus for your changes.[71] You say I've made "several reverts" without providing any diffs, but in contrast to your five clear reverts on that page (as an experienced editor you should know that removing article content as well as hitting the undo button counts as a revert), I have made two,[72],[73] which were restoring stable version of article and encouraging consensus prior to drastic changes. I'm also not the only editor who has reverted you.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, one other reverted me, but you are the one editor who stated what was required for that section, made additional requests based on my good faith proposed edits, then started stonewalling. You immediately reverted me twice without substantively addressing any of the concerns or comments I made once I had addressed your feedback. The other editor came in long after all of that the next day. At any rate, I've already said I'm not planning to make anymore changes. You got want you want, which is your way.Mattnad (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, you opened a talk page discussion saying that section should be drastically trimmed. No one agreed with you. You unilaterally drastically trimmed that section anyway, edit warring with me and also veering off into another mini-dispute, with an editor who apparently took exception to some of the wording you used for your drastic trimming/rewrite of that section. Then another editor stepped in and restored previous version. As an experienced editor, you should know that simply saying you plan to do something on talk page, does not provide you license to unilaterally make drastic changes to the article like that, when no one agrees with you, and opposition is raised. It's also really disruptive to make five reverts in 24 hours. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BoboMeowCat: You need to learn to use the Talk page. You are implying that I too am disruptively editing the article. I try to engage you in conversation. You do not respond. This leads to disruptive editing in article space. You engage in what I will term "hit and run" conversation. This needs to be contrasted with "sustained" conversation. Of course a person resorts to making changes in article space when you inexplicably drop out of the conversation. It is very frustrating to expend effort in trying to present reasoning, including sources, only to find that the person with whom you are speaking has decided to abandon that conversation. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bus stop, please be aware that pings do not work, if you add them after the signature. I didn't get your previous ping. I see you added it after the signature. [74] I was only alerted to it via ping in this thread, when I tried to figure out what you were talking about here. I will respond in that thread more fully when I have time.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No action taken at this time, as the disruption seems to have ended. If anyone continues to edit disruptively at this article, it should be protected; either ping me and I will do so, or request protection at WP:RFPP. @Mattnad: You clearly broke 3RR in this case, and it is not at all clear that the BLP exception to 3RR would apply in this case. However, given that blocks are not punitive and you have stated that you will not continue to edit this article, I don't see that it would be productive or helpful to block you from editing. —Darkwind (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:ABEditWiki reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Caste system in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ABEditWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Reverting POV push"
15:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "undoing contested edits by JJ"
07:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668252980 by Ogress (talk) Do see talk page, This was not part of article before the disoute began. It was inserted byuser JJ despite a consensus."
06:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668245027 by VictoriaGrayson (talk) Please refer to talk page"
05:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "POV pushing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

07:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Caste system in India. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

07:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Caste system discussion */ new section on the User's talk page"
diff

Comments:

The user has previously violated 3RR, and was let off with a warning by EdJohnston. In retrospective, a block at that time would have been valuable service to the user. Their tendentious behaviour only got worse with time. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind my convenience Kautilya. :) Any admin take view after checking out ANI here. Please refer to article talk page as well. Cheers AB^Talk 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 1 week. ABEditWiki is back revert-warring again at Caste system in India, after he was let off without a block last time around. In my opinion the assurances he made had last time around suggested he wouldn't be back here so quickly, for warring on the same article. If this behavior continues, the next logical step is a ban from the topic under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:HughD reported by User:Comatmebro (Result: Blocked 4 days)

Page: Fred C. Koch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Page: Americans for Prosperity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

This user intentionally spread these edits apart far enough to avoid detection. His behavior has been discussed on talk pages, is disruptive, and has been noticed as an attempt to circumvent guidelines. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 18:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long-term issue. Hugh appears to be edit-warring as a symptom of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've not edited on Fred Koch, but on Americans for Prosperity, Hugh has consistently been editing against WP:CONSENSUS. After receiving multiple warning on this noticeboard and elsewhere, Hugh's edit warring behavior does not appear to have been reduced. More serious or longer term solutions may need to be found for this user's problematic editing behavior.

See:

March 2015 warned for edit warring [84]

April 2015 blocked for edit warring [85]

May 2015 blocked for edit warring [86]

Clearly the past warnings haven't yielded an improved understanding of constructive editing behaviors. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 4 days —Darkwind (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:31.19.115.12 reported by User:Atlesn (Result: Semi)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Edit warring: User continues with the same unexplained edit to the article despite being reverted and explained why so in summaries
Edits are violating WP:ADV and possibly WP:COI
User is not communicating or providing edit summaries. User has been encouraged to discuss on the talk page.
June 10th to Jun 22nd the user has been vandalizing the article
After this, there are three consecutive equal unexplained edits
Article has been whitelocked, and two pending changes from the user been reverted today by reviewers

User has been warned on his talk page prior to the most recent edit.

Atlesn (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected three months. Another admin had tried PP-PC1 but during the time it was active it had not stopped the constant reverting by User:31.19.115.12. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:76.175.73.87 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result:Semi)

Page: Stephen Yagman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.175.73.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already reported for rampant vandalism on Stephen Yagman page. Now has violated WP:3RR (see [88], [89]). Quis separabit? 01:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reported[reply]

Result: Article semiprotected six months by User:SlimVirgin. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Borntodeal reported by User:NeilN (Result:Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

01:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC) "Notice of discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboard (TW)"
02:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kathy Ireland. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Will add diffs NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend formal resolution request under Wikipedia policy please stop removing the content and take this to a productive discussion or formal resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Your colleagues are now all collaborating in harassment under Wikipedia's policy and I'm asking you all to stop. Thank you. Borntodeal (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First you are free to start a DR anytime you wish. even if you did start one that would not excuse your obvious edit warring. It should be noted that you have make no attempt to justify your changes on the talk page for the article since early June. MarnetteD|Talk 02:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this doesn't really qualify for DR, since Born has made no effort to discuss on talk page, which is pretty much a prerequisite for DR. This editor left 3RR behind in the dust a long time ago. In addition, their constant attempts to enter PR material should bring into question whether this editor should be allowed to continue editing on this article. Brings up serious POV, COI and NOTHERE issues. Onel5969 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Born used the talk page, I don't think this would qualify for DR as I have serious concerns about Born's behavior and undisclosed conflict of interest editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.53.186.64 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: )

Page: A Song of Ice and Fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 64.53.186.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

21:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "/* June 2015 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Tkuvho (Result: Warned both users)

Page: The Assayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Four consecutive reverts at the page The Assayer by User:William M. Connolley within a period of less than 33 hours are first, second, third, and fourth. Recently there had been an apparent improvement and I engaged the user in discussion at the talkpage of the article here, but my overture went unanswered and there is now an additional revert here by User:William M. Connolley. It is disappointing to have an experienced editor behave in a nonconstructive fashion, particularly when this is accompanied by foul language as in this edit. I request a block of a suitable duration so as to prevent future behavior of this sort on the part of User:William M. Connolley. Tkuvho (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD applies. The 4th revert listed above is on the 19th, which is rather a long time ago. Since I'm reverting T, he has exactly as many reverts as me, though he neglects to mention this. Actually, he has more, because he's also been reverting an anon William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should emphasize that User:William M. Connolley's deletion of material comes dangerously close to the category of vandalism, because the material being deleted is properly sourced. I recently added yet another source, and pointed this out at the talk page of the article. My comment went unanswered and the wholesale deletions continued. User:William M. Connolley gives no other reasons for his deletions than the cryptic comment "as before" which is not very informative. This accompanied by the foul language as in the comment left on my talkpage does not make for an effective wiki editor, William. Tkuvho (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tkuvho's edits in many articles in WP come close to lunacy. He says that there is a Jesuit plot against infinitesimals, calculus, democracy, your cell phone and the like. He claims that the Egyptians of 1850 B.C. were early democrats and helped produce your cell phone. Tkuvho also says that George Berkeley was a Jesuit. The alleged "sources" used by Tkuvho are Mordechai, Amir Alexander and the like. Another alleged "source" is Redondi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.153.229 (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment sadly illustrates what kind of allies User:William M. Connolley has in his fight against sourced materials at Galileo-related pages. Tkuvho (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in WP about Tkuvho's "sources" are started or partly written by Tkuvho. See Raymond Rosenthal and Redondi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.125.220.140 (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Amir Alexander. This was started and mostly written by Tkuvho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.125.220.140 (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:William M. Connolley's reference to WP:BRD, I would like to emphasize that the "discussion" part of "BRD" has not been followed through by User:William M. Connolley, despite my attempts at dialog at the talkpage of the article. Tkuvho (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tkuvho seems to be at Bar Ilan University in Israel and cannot speak or read or write in English. His effort "This accompanied.. " above is an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.92.201.73 (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T is once again flinging around accusations of vandalism, though last time I challenged him on this he backed off User_talk:Tkuvho#Vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly deleting carefully sourced material without any explanation is an act of vandalism. There is nothing personal here; a very ethical and decent editor can sometimes perform actions that are questionable. It is the action I protest against rather than the person, William. Tkuvho (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicably, Tkuvho has not written a biography of his fake source, Mordechai Feingold. At least, he has not done this in WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.154.10.14 (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possible COI here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.56.255 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have semi-protected the article The Assayer. The history of that article shows a pattern of strikingly similar removal of content by William M. Connolley and half a dozen IPs. That pattern, and the appearance of multiple IPs at this discussion, suggests that maybe this should become a sockpuppet investigation rather than an edit-warring complaint. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the IPs are sockpuppets for User:William M. Connolley. They are probably sockpuppets for User:Azul411. I don't think User:William M. Connolley would stoop to that, though I have yet to understand the motive for his multiple unhelpful deletions and failure to engage in dialog at Galileo-related pages. Tkuvho (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that might explain it! It did seem out of character for a long-established user like William M. Connolley. However the IPs do seem to be following him around and echoing his edits. By my count, eight IPs at the article, all brand-new and quacking loudly. Then one of them plus four other brand-new IPs at this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warned Page semi-protected, both registered editors warned. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎MELB1110 reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: )

Page: Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎MELB1110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[102]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[103] and, in response to another user sharing my same opinion [104]

Comments:

This new user started edit warring after abandoning the discussion on the talk page. He is clearly POV pushing (see also these edits - [105] and [106] - about Cyprus), refusing to get the point, ignoring the lack of present consensus and going against long time consensus previously established (also in other threads in the archives) on the talk page. Alex2006 (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:114.167.178.175 reported by User:Emeraude (Result: )

Also IPs User:153.230.154.119 User:153.202.187.153 and User:153.205.19.189

Page: 3ChordFold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 114.167.178.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Also using IPs User:153.230.154.119 User:153.202.187.153 and User:153.205.19.189

Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3ChordFold&type=revision&diff=667751968&oldid=667744905]
[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3ChordFold&diff=next&oldid=667756011]
[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3ChordFold&diff=next&oldid=667784656]
[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3ChordFold&diff=next&oldid=668255544]

Also pages: Flyer (album), Clock Without Hands, The Dust Bowl Symphony, The Dust Bowl Symphony, Blue Roses from the Moons Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Comments:
This issue has been discussed on my talk page where editor admits use of multiple IPs.

The basic point at issue is whether or not I was correct to tag these articles questioning notability for music. This I did on the basis that no assertion of notabilty was given in the articles and, indeed, some are entirely unreferenced. Anon IP reverted on the basis that the albums were notable, writing "meets WP:NALBUMS criterion #1". These reverts also removed the rest of my edits when simply removing the notability tag would have been sufficient (or, better still, providing some evidence of notability into the article which is the whole point of the tag). A message was left on my talk page stating that, in their opinion, WP:NALBUMS was satisfied because "multiple, non-trivial, published works" were available. I responded that reviews alone did not establish notability.

I reverted with the comment "Reviews alone do no satisfy WP:NALBUMS". IPs then reverted with comment "meets WP:NALBUMS criterion #1", again removing all of my edits, not just the notability tag. And so it continued.

Now, it may be correct that a collection of reviews and nothing more does confer notability (that could be discussed) but that's not the point. This person, using multiple IP addresses, has repeatedly reverted legitimate edits using misleading edit rationales just to make his point, despite me pointing out on my talk page and in edit rationales that unrelated material has been wilfully deleted. I also pointed out to this person at 16:27, 20 June 2015 on my talk page that 2RR had been reached and to be careful. Emeraude (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:KakiTree reported by User:Smurfmeister (Result: )

User has reverted my edit to Olly Alexander three times on 22 June 2015. My edit removed irrelevant trivia and poorly souced information, namely WP:OR - interpreting social media posts to suit their viewpoint that the subject is in a relationship with Neil Milan Amin-Smith; something independent sources only describe as a rumour. KakiTree claims this was "approved by Wiki admin" but has not provided any evidence of this. KakiTree has been warned about disruptive edits to this page before on his/her talk page. S/he also seems to believe any attempts to remove unsourced content is an attempt to remove references to Alexander's sexuality, which is not true - this is something which can easily be independently, reliably sourced. An unconfirmed relationship cannot. Smurfmeister (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

3RR notice issued [108]; notification of discussion [109]. Keri (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added third-party sources for the content in question which should now prevent any potential edit warring by all involved editors. The reported user is new and inexperienced and wasn't correctly warned. Keri (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:92.26.220.49 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result:Blocked )

Previous version reverted to: [110]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:
Just run of the mill POV edit warring. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

101.185.18.37 reported by User:76.107.171.90 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [117]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Comments:
Fringe pushing at the parapsychology article. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:50jmd and User:66.192.172.132 reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: )

Page: Beltway sniper attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50jmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 66.192.172.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

link to stable version: [125]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] diffs showing 1st introduction of non-WP:RS text: [126], [127], [128], link to that version: [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[130], [131], [132]
[133]
[134], [135]
[136], [137], [138], [139]
[140], [141]
[142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147]
[148] (after being warned on both user talk pages and after article talk page section created with comments from two editors)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149], [150] and [151]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [152], [153], [154], Article talk page section: Talk:Beltway_sniper_attacks#The_.22Exculpatory_Evidence_Exonerating_So-Called_.27DC_Snipers.22_text

Comments:

JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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