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)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149
1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:GGT reported by User:Courtier1978 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus&diff=674266884&oldid=657734986>

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

Comments:
The user GGT is engaging in edit warring (3RR rule) and ignores my efforts to come to a mutual agreement as it shows, both in the comments between reverts and in the talk page. Ron1978 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There are two reverts, and the third one is not a revert a different edit and an improvement as an attempt at compromise - an attempt to address the user's concerns that the article was biased by supplementing it with RS and removing all unsourced material, not only that added by the user. The rule is that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." - so even if there were three reverts, there would be no problem. --GGT (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were three reverts in the same day with the two between minutes, and there were no improvements on what so ever but the exact opposite. The user GGT was reverting the same article in the past as it shows from history. In addition what the user GGT says in his comments on the reverts, were of no truth as wellRon1978 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

Even if this was correct there would be no violation of the policy... --GGT (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a violation of the policy if your behavior is edit warring plus the fact that you have reverted the same article again in the past. Ron1978 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Swarm ♠ 18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:VanEman reported by User:Caseeart (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previously warned by multiple users and blocked [11][12][13][14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15] Note: After receiving a rude comment fom VanEman "Bad move, QWERTY!" - the other user responded and explained the changes and edits, but VanEman did not discuss anything on talk page. Just deleted.

Comments:

This user was previously warned and blocked for edit warring [16].

User was warned multiple times by multiple users to stop disruptive editing.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] User went ahead and repeatedly deleted all the warnings from talk page [24][25][26] making even more difficult to discover the behavior.

-This deletion from talk page was not a cleanup job - it was a cover-up, since user DID retain 'praise' on talk page (including a banaster). User had hate comments praising him [27].

I have not had the time to review this user's edits, but from the few cases I was involved I have seen BLP violations[28], disruptive hateful edits - multiple reverts - often ignoring any talk page discussion (example in one article user made 3 reverts [29] completely ignoring this [30]talk page discussion. Caseeart (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a few conflicts with this user (VanEman) as well, who is a tendentious and belligerent editor, especially in issues where he seems emotionally involved. I think that this user is here for his personal agenda, and will in the long term not be able to turn into a positively contributing member of this community. Debresser (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Multiple consecutive edits count as one revert, and the user did not repeat the revert, so it is very difficult to call this scenario "edit warring". @Caseeart: Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page if they choose to do so (and even selectively remove only warnings if they wish) per WP:BLANKING, which states, in part:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed.
— Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings

That being said, if you believe this user is editing with an agenda that is not compatible with the aim of building a neutral encyclopedia, then perhaps a post at WP:ANI is warranted. At any rate, this incident is not edit warring. –Darkwind (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I just reviewed the 3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Did not realize that it is one revert.

Please allow this to remain a little longer. I will take me a little more time to look at the user's history and the details of this and the other incidents. Caseeart (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved "new case" to its own section per typical ANEW process. –Darkwind (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:80.44.64.116 reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Previously edit-warred as 89.241.210.99 (as shown by identical geolocations of Fife, Scotland, and similarity of language[37][38] as well as the identical edits)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:
This man, Kiernan, is trying to bully myself in a dispute over a template, edit-warring without discussion (except just before this). He's reverted 3 times in a day and 4 times in the last two days and called in his friends, but has been careful himself, it seems, to lawyer his way around of the precise 3 revert rule. I guess the letter trumps the spirit of rules like these. Block me if you want, that's the Wikipedia way, let him use these rules to prevail in this content dispute. He's an admin, edit warring with benefits is his rightfully earned privilege. One rule for users contributing anonymously, another for entrenched admins. 80.44.64.116 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You don't know that I'm a man. (2) I have reverted 3 times in the last 25 hours not 4. One of which is reverting an obviously uncivil edit summary and one of which is reverting an unexplained revert of an explained edit. (3) I started discussion 24 hours ago,[41] immediately after my first revert in the 25 hour period. (4) I haven't called any friends. The other editors are entirely independent and acting of their own accord. DrKiernan (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC) This response was written before the IP's redaction of their own comment. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you got me on that. I do not know that you are a man. Great point. Well done too on avoiding that fourth revert in 24 hours, I know it must have tested your discipline. 80.44.64.116 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the message? This is only an edit warring notice board for specific users? It's ok to revert three times a day so long as you are not, in Kiernan's words, "a disruptive IP"? Thanks for the fair mindedness, Neil. 80.44.64.116 (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:TripWire reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 674388332 by TripWire (talk): Per talk page. (TW)"
21:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Health issues */ Per tal page. Expanded the already mentioned info by Human3015 that local liquor has health issues"
21:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674587030 by Human3015 (talk) not topi banned to edit this topic,have issues? Take it up with an Admin"
21:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674587306 by Human3015 (talk) Most other liquors also dont kill ppl upon drinking,this one do.Already discussed this on talk page,u agreed.Same info already mentioned by u,expandin"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

22:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

16:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Stop misleading */ reply"
17:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Stop misleading */ NOT NEWS"
17:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Stop misleading */ topic ban"
17:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ assessment"
17:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ added useful note, as this article is related to India-Pakistan, (entire south asia). So there can be conflict of interest"
18:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Note for Editors - Misleading the Subject of Indian Desi Daroo */ reply"
18:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Note for Editors - Misleading the Subject of Indian Desi Daroo */ reply"

Comments:

Topic banned user from India-Pakistan related article keep on violating topic ban, also involved in edit war. Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 22:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First, Human3015, there is no need to include my edit which does not fall within the purview of 3RR. This edit quoted by you at serial 1 to show that I am on 3RR vio, is nothing more than dirty tactics, as the edit was made on 21:45, 3 August 2015 more than 48 hrs ago! It just shows your frustration. If that be the case, then you too already are on 3RR as can be seen here
I have followed the WP:BRD cycle by initiating the discussion at the talk page twice [42], [43].
Second, I am topic banned from Indo-Pak Conflict Pages, which Desi Daru is NOT. I have clarified this issue to Human3015 umpteenth times [44], , and even offered to bring this to an Admin's notice if Desi Daru falls under my Topic ban.
Three, as can be seen from the page of Desi Daru, the article ONLY talks about Indian local liquor, with no mention of Pakistan whatsoever. However, Human3015, just added Pakistan Project tag to the page even though it didnot cover anything of Pakistan, then added the name in Urdu and then made this edit in response to my edit, AFTER he failed at showing that Desi Daru came under my topic-ban, and so just in order to play dirty, he added, the above edits, so as to mislead people as if the topic is related to India and Pakistan (conflict), which it is not - everybody can see that by reading the article.
Fourth, the info I was trying to add is within the scope of the page, as the same has already been mentioned by yourself!
Fifth, you yesterday had agreed to the edit and we had reached a consensus, but I re-added the info as per the talk page and the consensuses reached, you again reverted it? Sir, that's not how gentleman behave.
Lastly, To Admins. Human3015 is just frustrated over the page as it was created by him and have displayed WP:OWNER since the very beginning. I fail to understand, why would he not allow to expand the SAME very info which he himself has already posted to the page? Perhaps a personal vendetta?—TripWire ^talk 22:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Read topic ban note by admin FPAS here User talk:TripWire#Topic-banned on his talk page. He has been declared as "harmful" to Wikipedia and nationalist POV pusher. Since his topic ban, he has been violated topic ban several times even after multiple warnings. One can read relevant short discussion on admin FPAS's talk page User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Topic ban violation. He even called admin FPAS as "Indian agent". (he can't think beyond "India"). Now this user is particularly targeting me because he thinks that I'm the reason behind his topic ban. He has been topic banned for pushing nationalist agenda everywhere, he is primarily banned from writing anything about India because all of his edits related to India were efforts to defame India. As a Wikipedia editor we should be neutral and we should neither defame India nor Pakistan. In this case of Desi daru, he could have added info about Pakistan which was lacking but instead he started his agenda to defame India here also, that was the reason he got topic banned, and daily he is violating his topic ban. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 22:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is precisely the prove that Human3015 has a personal vendetta against me and that he is in the habit of exaggerating the things out of proportion and even lying. Here's why; my topic ban precisely says that I am banned from topics of "Indian/Pakistani conflicts" like Siachen Conflict, Kargil War etc, which Desi daru is not. Second, he is lying again by putting words in my mouth as I did not call FPAS an "Indian Agent" - can be checked. Third, he needs to get over with the misconception that he is the reason of my topic ban, because I dont give two-hoots to who he is an individual and what he do, for me he has the same if not more amount of respect that I have for all my fellow editors. So, I will request him not to flatter himself, as It is me myself who has to be blamed for my topic-ban and nobody else. As for his accusation that "I cant think beyond India",is again false as the following edits by me shows that I have more important things to do:

Maybe you two need to take a break? Remember that WP:WPDNNY... - Cwobeel (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, Sir. I will go by whatever the Admins decide. I made 2 reverts in response to Human3015's reverts, the last one was made AFTER I took the matter for discussion to the talk page for like the 10th time here (latest I asked Human3015 to come talk and resolve the issue), but he did not respond, instead he kept on reverting me.—TripWire ^talk 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel: I think you need to check contribution of editors before making such statement. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 23:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Human3015, Edit count does not necessarily mean that you are sincere to Wikipedia.—TripWire ^talk 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango. Take a break, and come back refreshed. It works. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant WP:ANI discussion regarding topic ban violation can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban violation by User:TripWire. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Important As can be seen that I did not commit 3RR violation and that Human3015 brought in the issue of my topic-ban here to an unrelated board in addition to the false 3RR vio report against me to muddy the waters, I would request Admins to take action against Human3015. My topic-ban issue is being discussed at the link that so kindly has been provided by Human3015, but point to note is that as oppose to Human3015 accusing me of violating my Topic-Ban here as regards to editing Desi daru was in pure bad-faith and a malicious attempt at confusing the issue at hand (3rr vio) and hiding the blunder Human3015 had committed for wrongly reporting me for 3RR vio. He needs to be leashed, please.—TripWire ^talk 17:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Underlying motivations and problems aside, there are no real violations here. I understand Human not wanting what he feels is a problematic editor jumping into an article he just created and is still working on, but that in itself is no real reason to revert and TripWire's edits did not appear to warrant unilateral reversion. This editor's behavior is being discussed at ANI and that's the appropriate place to continue this. Swarm ♠ 17:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ricky81682 reported by User:Doncram (Result:No action as explained below)

Previous version Version of 10:33, 1 August 2015, with a complete section "Key words and expressions". Each of the four following reverts removes the bulk of the section "Key words and expressions".

Diffs of the user's four reverts within 24 hour period:

In addition, before the 24 hour period, the user reverted the same material

deleted the same "words and expressions section"

And also this follows on the user removing the "poetry" section, which was being discussed at Talk and also at wp:ANI:

deletion of the "poetry" section, which they have since accepted as valid, but only after deleting one or two or three times and being questioned at ANI and Talk page (and eventually the user found an acceptable source themself).

What is egregious about this is that this follows upon similar disagreement about the "poetry" section which was removed repeatedly by a different user. The "poetry" section was subject of discussion at Talk page sections Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)#citation needed and then also at wp:ANI: wp:ANI#Multiple personal attacks by user:Harald Forkbeard that derail a RfC. Editor Ricky81682 joined in at some point. And unfortunately, despite consensus at the Talk page and in the ANI proceeding that the repeated removals of the "poetry" section was wrong, Ricky81682 began removing the "words and expressions" section, and was only argumentative at Talk. Including threatening to bring me to ANI in this diff, where they say "Take it out again [meaning "Restore it again"] and I'm reporting you to ANI for being disruptive." The section was in at that point, then Ricky81652 removed it, and I did not actually restore it again; an I.P. editor did, then Ricky81682 removed it in his 4th removal within 24 hours. (In total Ricky81682 removed it 5 times, 4 within the last 24 hour period; Doncram restored it 2 times within the 24 hour period and an I.P. editor restored it once within the 24 hour period.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: one diff of mine discussing. See also edit summaries noting this was Bold deletion followed by Reversion to restore it, and needing Discussion.

Comments:
I'll further comment that Ricky81682 seems to have made some constructive edits, adding some sources, but this is in the overall context of their repeatedly deleting material, counter to objections of other editors specifically (at least myself and an i.p. editor), and counter to the general consensus of many editors that repeated deletions of other material just previously was quite unhelpful. So, I request that this editor be strongly cautioned at least, or subjected to 1RR, or blocked or banned from this article for a period. There needs to be a cooling off at the article and removal of this editor's aggressive participation would be the most important part, at this time. --do ncr am 00:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that the fourth reversion here was not a reversion to a prior version but a reversion following an IP editor's antics to disrupt the additions I've made (an editor who's antics include [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ricky81682|this report]). I'll withdraw from the article now. Anyone else can do whatever they want with it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the I.P. editor's edits as "antics". They legitimately restored material that Ricky81682 had deleted without justification, and they legitimately brought up his behavior at the ANI in progress (though I think it is better discussed here at 3RR NB). Peremptory dismissal of an I.P. by an administrator is classic, demoralizing behavior. --do ncr am 01:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This 3RR report was just mentioned at the ANI board in these edits by Ricky81682 and myself. It was pointed out that Ricky81682 is an Administrator, which I did not know. This behavior is exceedingly poor then; they know better and they have an obligation to behave better. I was suggesting at ANI that they should offer here to withdraw a bit. But, frankly, given they're an administrator, I don't know that they should be allowed to withdraw with no consequence. Seriously this is a blatant violation of 3RR by an administrator, and some action such as a temporary block should be put onto their record, IMO. When administrators do stuff like this and have no consequence, it undermines the whole project. --do ncr am 00:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored all the edits I think. It's not relevant here but [User:166.171.121.18]] is clearly trolling: edits like this and this are not serious parts of the discussion here. It has nothing to do with Doncram or this report but I suspect it's related to my work cleaning Indian cinema articles. There's been an IP editor a day arguing at ANI for about a week against me or on these articles out of spite. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the material. --do ncr am 18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Closing with no action given, among other things, that Ricky81682 is stepping away from the article. (Whether it is in his or the article's best interest for him to step away forever, or just for a day or two, is for him to decide.) I have considered DonCram's argument that Ricky81682 should be blocked anyway because he is an administrator and find it to be without merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is fair to find that my complaint here is "without merit". I didn't say the action to be taken had to be a block; I wasn't calling for the administrator to be "blocked anyway" upon there not being merit. What happened here was a cut-and-dried violation of wp:3RR policy, IMO, however. There should be an action taken, which could be, instead, a clear judgement by the closer whether or not the editor did violate policy. As this is currently closed, there is no record of that; it would be hard for an editor later to refer to this proceeding as having established anything at all. Call this a radical viewpoint, but I believe that 3RR actions are important, and should carry judgment not just a result. The result can be no imposition of block or other consequence, or it could be severe, but that depends upon other factors that can mitigate or make a situation more unacceptable. (In this case a mitigating factor that has been suggested is that an I.P. editor, who may have been involved in running conflict with Ricky81682, was acting improperly...but I must note that was only at the end; the I.P. editor restored the material just once, while Ricky81862 removed it 5 times (4 within 24 hours), and the decision to open an 3RR was not the I.P. editor's and their comments could be disregarded.) My point is that there should be a judgment, so that the 3RR process serves the important role of establishing facts, in case there is arbitration or other review/process later. As 3rr has been performed, it seems to only serve the role of hushing or otherwise settling/calming immediate conflicts. It does not serve the longterm purpose of establishing facts. And, especially when a person who violates 3RR is an administrator, I think the judgment should be made clear. If it is not made clear in wording, or some field that could be created and used as part of closing process, then a negative judgment could be entered by imposing a token block, say for 9 seconds or 9 minutes (to choose a time whose odd length would signal the purpose intended). This could be part of a wider change in how 3RR is run now, that would "have merit" in cases like this one, but expressing a clear judgment about the facts of whether this editor violated 3RR policy can be done without wider change. --do ncr am 18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:210.187.253.67 reported by User:DmitryKo (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

Edit war over an unreleased product, no response to comments in edit summaries or the talk page. The same edits were made by 175.139.117.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 175.138.237.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 14:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Holstebro reported by User:Aca Srbin (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of one week Swarm ♠ 17:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durr-e-shehwar reported by User:AKS.9955 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Armaan Malik (fictional character) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Durr-e-shehwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674707327 by AKS.9955 (talk)please can we discuss more before it gets redirected? it is a request, it is a notable character, lets discuss first please"
16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674706808 by Primefac (talk) please can we discuss more before it gets redirected? it is a request, it is a notable character, just check the stuff is written about it"
16:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "i have removed all the copyrighted information, so why are u placing it back? i don't understand? regards"
16:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "removing the copyright violation"
15:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674700374 by AKS.9955 (talk) please let me finish at least, then u can revert it, i haven't finished, i will leave that part out"
15:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674700020 by AKS.9955 (talk) the description was not finished yet, i will leave that out, it was under the description i read for the character"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been reverting changes despite several warnings. Kindly block user and protect Armaan Malik (fictional character) after redirecting it. Thanks Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AKS.9955 hasn't been doing themselves any favours either by not editing in good faith. When I made the BOLD move to redirect, I left a note on the talk page that said "if the redirect is reverted, we'll discuss further". It was reverted, but now it would seem that AKS is the one refusing to discuss the issue. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected Clear content dispute as far as I can tell, with both users having broken the three-revert rule. Not going to block, but I am going to force discussion. Going back and forth like this is disruptive and gives the wiki a bad name. Please be mindful of this moving forward. Edit-warring won't fix anything — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:187.171.90.93 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Blocked)

Page: Que te perdone Dios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 187.171.90.93 (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

21:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Que te perdone Dios‎. (TW)"
21:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Que te perdone Dios‎. (TW)"
00:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Que te perdone Dios. (TW)"
00:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Que te perdone Dios and Zuria Vega */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Already let you several messages, but user ignores them. My reason to revert their edits is because the character of Zuria Vega in Que te perdone Dios has had so many surnames and names, which is best left his more common name which is "Abigail". The ip insists on adding unknown names in the article on the actress, when in IMDb are the correct names of the characters in his various soap operas. Philip J Fry • (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ebyabe reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: Page protected)

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: [76]

Comments:
The user has allowed themselves to get into an edit war with another user. I believe they have ceased engagement, but wished to report it. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 05:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Page has been protected by NeilN/ Did you really mean to report yourself? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq

No violation What is it with editors involved in this issue referring to themselves in the third person? Two reverts. Rest were reverting the block evader. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AntonioMartin reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: El Señor de los Cielos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AntonioMartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ""
05:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674633475 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
05:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674617414 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
02:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

05:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "/* El Señor de los Cielos */ new section"
06:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "/* El Señor de los Cielos */"
06:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "/* El Señor de los Cielos */"
06:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "/* El Señor de los Cielos */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I think that already explain it to the user in my last message but has not responded more, however he returned to add information that I told him that you deleted. Series "Escobar, el patrón del mal" has nothing to do with "El Señor de los Cielos", there was not even a significant series Crossovers as to mention that article, in the of El Señor de los Cielos. The only explanation that gives me is that both series deal with drug traffickers, thing which I think is irrelevant, since there are many series that deal with drug traffickers, then would have to mention them all. And I think that templates and categories exist for that. In his discussion will explain but because from what I see I ignore my message. Philip J Fry • (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything I could have and should have reported Phillip. He is the one who started reverting and insisting his version should be the accepted one, when == See also == sections are abundant on Wikipedia and no one else seems to care. Should I also mention Andres Parra acts as Escobar in both series. I think Phillip is doing much about nothing in this particular case.Antonio El Pinga Martin (aca) 22:05, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

Don't start pointing fingers here. "He is the one who starting reverting" is not a valid defense for edit warring. You were the one who added disputed content to the article and there would be no edit war if you had adhered to WP:BRD. This user approached you to discuss the issue and you even continued edit warring over it without replying on your own talk page. I literally can't even fathom how you, a former administrator, thought this was an okay thing to do. And can then come here and offer such a flippant response to this report. Unacceptable. The only reason you're escaping a block is the fact that this edit war is over something very minor and nobody violated 3RR. But it's certainly on the table. Consider this to be an only warning for this edit war and I would strongly advise you to adhere to BRD in the future. Thanks.

Warned. Swarm ♠ 22:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no edit war if he hadn't started editing. And kept on. As for unacceptable, I don't even need to address that. You act like your Wikipedia record is perfect. Like nothing you ever did has annoyed someone. Don't talk about acceptability because all I did was revert to something that is done in MILLIONS of Wikipedia articles. And like Jesus said, "he who is free of sin' we need to apply to that to our work as Wikipedians as well instead of being quick at criticizing others-Something I rarely if ever myself did. I sometimes feel there is an agenda by a number of people here to get me and my dad out. Further you are blindly taking his side, seeing only my edits by only giving me the warning. Give it to him as well; he STARTED it and KEPT it going later.Antonio El Chongas Martin (aca) 00:14, August 7, 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to justify your edit. Sometimes people disagree with our ideas and they get reverted. It's a fact of editing here. It is not appropriate to revert these reversions. This is why WP:AN3 and WP:EW is a thing. "He started it" is an invalid and childish defense and you've ignored my point about WP:BRD, which tells us what to do when one of our edits is reverted. Swarm ♠ 23:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Mmyers1976 (Result: 1m)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86], [87]

Comments:

Ring Cinema is a frequent, persistent edit warrior with at least 5 blocks from 24 hour to up to a week for edit warring, as well as 3 warnings that I can see. I added reliably sourced info to the leads of both articles that major film critics like Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin have found similarities between the two Michael Caine films. Ring User's initial revert of this text on the Deathtrap page incorrectly said that the information was uncited, but since then his stated reason for repeated reverting is the original research-based argument that he doesn't see the similarities as very strong, so what prominent critics from Chicago Sun-Times, New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times all saw as important enough to mention in their reviews is "trivial". Basically, he's hanging his hat on "I just don't like it. After reverting this multiple times on the Deathtrap article, Ring Cinema then moved to the Sleuth article and started making the exact same reverting. I have tried to add more citations to meet him halfway, tried discussing with him on the talk page, tried providing citations of guidelines like WP:FILMLEAD to show this info is valid, tried to go to DRN where I was just told I needed to keep talking to him, and I tried altering the text to make the notation of similarities part of the discussion of critics' reactions that WP:FILMLEAD recommends in the lead, instead of it just being a standalone comment, but Ring Cinema's page ownership persists. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no warning about this so I assume it is out of order. Other editors have also reverted this editor's proposal about this. He was advised that changes require consensus, which he lacks. I proposed a compromise that he rejected. He has not proposed a compromise acceptable to other editors on these pages. I believe he might be guilty of edit warring for repeatedly reverting multiple editors on this issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clear warning on your talkpage, and after your long history of edit wars, it shouldn't be a shock to you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering inside the report creation process here, the internal instructions say "Warn the user if you have not already done so," it's pretty obvious that warning a user concurrently with filing a report (which I did[88]) is considered acceptable. Ring is also being very dishonest here. "Other editors" did not revert me, nore did I revert "multiple" editors, only ONE other editor reverted me, his stated reason in his edit summary being my text was uncited, so I added citation to satisfy him, which it seemingly did because he did not come back. There is only one other user who posted only one comment yesterday, and I provided reasons why the full WP:FILMLEAD guideline, not the first sentence of the generic article lead guidance, was the appropriate guidance and indicated my text was appropriate, and that other editor has not since replied. Two people do not make a consensus, Ring seems to be confusing that with WP:POLL, a factual, reliably sourced sentence that all parties agree is appropriate to have in the article as a whole should be able to stand unless true consensus emerges that is is inappropriate in that particular part of the article per extension of WP:NOCON. I also did propose a compromise, making the statement be one of critic reception rather than just standalone notation of similarities, AND I accepted the suggestion that this information be put in the Reception section, but since WP:FILMLEAD says critical reception should also be included in the article's lead, it should also go there. Ring can't have it both ways, he can't condemn me for supposedly rejecting his compromise offer (which I partially accepted), when at the same saying my compromise proposal was not acceptable to him. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still no warning about this so it is out of order. On the substance, Myers refuses to accept that he and he alone holds his views. He did not propose a compromise, since the solution he mentions was mine. He insists on including material in the lead and that is not acceptable to any other editor.

Diffs:

No editor has supported Myers and, after being advised that, lacking a consensus, he should develop one before insisting on his changes, he continued to revert.

His reverts:

I would advise returning the article to the last consensus or one consonant with my compromise proposal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice one of the diffs of my "reverts" that Ring put up above as a counter-accusation, is where I had added this information to the Reception section in compliance with HIS proposal. Will his distortions of the truth never end? Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ring Cinema does, indeed, have a history of edit warring at film articles with the quality of what seems to be article ownership and winning at any cost. My content disputes over the last few years with him have had much of the same tone as what he's saying and using for reasoning in this case. A lot of "we need consensus" and "let's compromise" -- then, when compromise is attempted and consensus isn't exactly overwhelming one way or the other, he changes the "rules" and ends up wanting to have his way, regardless. Personally, I have to agree with Mmyers1976 on the content dispute as well as the edit warring charge. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ring Cinema's conduct here is concerning. The edit warring, coupled with the combative commentary and the flippant disregard for the previous disruption that has resulted in blocks (up to a month in length), the validity of this report, as well as for edit warring policy (which clearly states that a warning isn't required) leaves me unable to find any mitigating factors at all. I just can't understand how an editor who's been warned and blocked so many times for edit warring can come to this noticeboard with his only defense being, "I wasn't warned so the report is invalid". This is not a bureaucracy and the concerns raised are valid, especially considering the fact that this is a long-term problem. Blocked – for a period of 1 month. Swarm ♠ 00:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unknowledge reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indef)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:
User:Unknowledge has been edit warring in the Grey Wolves article since 22 June, from removing referenced information to adding a "Bias" tag. I also have to question the competency of user:Unknowledge, broken English, ranting on the Grey Wolves talk page("Leftist organizations hate grey wolves and they blame grey wolves for all things and this page made by them.Grey wolves is an legal association in Turkey.They are not violent")[107], accusing the editors of the article of being terrorists(" think this page made by leftist terrorist organizations in Turkey such as dhkp-c, pkk and hdp"), not assuming good faith("You are sided. Obey the rules of wikipedia","You are not behaving properly according to wikipedia rules"). After being unable to removing references and referenced information he does not like, Unknowledge then posts a rant on the Grey Wolves talk page, deciding that was all that was needed to place a tag on the article. Such knowledge of Wikipedia tags leads me to believe this is a blocked user. The poor level of English and battleground attitude would possibly indicate EMr_Kng. As of this date, Unknowledge has not responded to my discussion on the Grey Wolves talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another rant:
"It is totally biassed.Although grey wolves is an legal assocation in Turkey it is described as a terrorist organizaton and neo-fascist.Many users struggle to change that but some other users prevent this and behave unproperly according to wikipedia rules.You can look history and talk this page.Grey Wolves (organization).[108]

I do not believe this user, who has also removed referenced information from other articles,[109][110] is here to help build an encyclopedia. Their edits indicate a battleground attitude towards other editors and an unwillingness to discuss any of their edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon my assessment, I agree. Blocked indefinitely Swarm ♠ 00:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:VanEman reported by User:Caseeart (Result: )

Actually Just in the last 24 hours user again became engaged in edit warring. This came right after user deleted my ANI discussion notification from their talk page [111] and then user went ahead and began edit warring again:

Before any reverts: [112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4th revert was slightly after 24 hrs.

User was involved in this edit war since July.

[117]
[118]

User did not mention anything on the article's talk page [119] despite request from other user.

Other user involved specified certain disruptive editing agendas by VanEman - I have also seen that majority (or almost all) of this user's edits are for those agendas. Caseeart (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to repeat what I wrote last time: This user was previously warned and blocked for edit warring [120].

User was warned multiple times by multiple users to stop disruptive editing.[121][122][123][124][125][126][127] User went ahead and repeatedly deleted all the warnings from talk page [128][129][130] making even more difficult to discover the behavior.

from the few cases I was involved I have seen BLP violations[131], disruptive hateful edits - multiple reverts - often ignoring any talk page discussion (example in one article user made 3 reverts [132] completely ignoring this [133]talk page discussion. Caseeart (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SportsEditor518 reported by User:Falcadore (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts (first two reverts were a few days earlier than the others but has reverted consistently since):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:This user has reverted any attempts to alter his version of the article - reverting six times in one day and is refusing to acknowledge previous history of the article shown at talk page and at talk page archive.
--Falcadore (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours –Darkwind (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:110.168.232.98 reported by User:Supdiop (Result: )

Page: Blood Duster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.168.232.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 110.168.231.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 110.168.232.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts: 110.168.232.98

07:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674955303 by Supdiop (talk)"
07:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674954633 by Widr (talk)"
06:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674952802 by 174.91.187.234 (talk)"
06:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674950735 by 121.219.61.6 (talk)"

Diffs of the user's reverts: 110.168.231.216

Diffs of the user's reverts: 110.168.232.201

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_Duster&diff=prev&oldid=674961153

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warning given by Widr. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 07:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly all three are the same user vandalising the page concerned. 121.219.61.6 (talk) 09:28, 7 August 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