Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 16:35, 21 November 2015 (→User:Alexbrn reported by User:Icarus of old (Result: Both warned): Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Deb reported by User:Dman41689 (Result: warned; reporter and sock blocked)

    Page
    November 12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Deb (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


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    obsessive edit waring and vandalizing the page Dman41689 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that User:Deb seems to be the only involved party who said anything on the talk page. Why did you not attempt to resolve the dispute, Dman41689? You didn't provide a full report here, either. LjL (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redsky89, Deb, and Dman41689: Can you guys clarify what's going on here? It's not vandalism, for starters, but Deb has also not been very clear on what guidelines are involved and what criteria she's using; from what I can tell, these are bluelinked and the dates seemingly correct. I'm also not familiar with date pages. --slakr\ talk / 23:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The best I can explain it is to ask you to look at the long discussions at Wikipedia_talk:DOY. It's inconclusive, as you can see, but the topic has been raised repeatedly over the years and there are archived discussions in more than one place. It doesn't trouble me if people change what I've done, because I go back every few weeks/months and re-prune (and obviously some entries that seem inappropriate one day can become appropriate a little while later). However, it does trouble me to be called a "vandal" when I have made an effort to discuss potential improvements. Deb (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deb: While that link is helpful—it was difficult to discern from the actual article's talk page—I'm still concerned that repeatedly re-pruning the same article with the same changes over only a couple of days might be construed as edit warring, hence the reason why we're even here. :P Furthermore, the guideline doesn't seem to actually reflect a minimum-inclusion standard of 'n' number of interwiki links, which makes this much more along the lines of a simple content dispute, and while being labelled a vandal is poor judgement on the part of another editor, I'm concerned that using rollback on the corresponding revert might be considered equally, if not moreso, problematic. I'd strongly recommend that you avoid continuing to revert on that page (which it seems you have) and simply gain consensus to change the underlying guideline if that's what's appropriate. That way people will understand why you're making the changes you are and will be less likely to revert (or make the mistake of calling you a vandal). For what it's worth, I just filed an RFC to deal with a bot matter, and I promise it's not that painful. :P --slakr\ talk / 05:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see, I have already made huge efforts to "gain consensus to change the underlying guideline". Others have suggested criteria, which I am still trying out. Earlier this year, Redsky89 appeared to be in agreement. I always try not to revert and it's very rare for me to make the same changes I did previously, for reasons I explained above. When I remove entries, I re-check to see if they have five corresponding other-language articles to show that the person is internationally known and also whether they are listed on an appropriate "Year in topic" article - if not, I go to the additional trouble of adding them there. I believe that even the complainant would agree that there are good reasons to prune these articles. There's a history of certain individuals adding entries relating to their own nationality or interests that affect the balance of the lists. For example, adding all Estonians or all porn "stars" or all cyclists, and this has to be dealt with somehow. Deb (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand your concerns; there is a problem with excessive entries being added to these pages. I understand that, and it's evident from the referenced talk page. However, the problem is that the consensus needs to find its way into the guideline, and barring that, you need to build consensus on the individual talk pages of the date articles. Even then, that only gives you benefit of the doubt when it comes to edit wars and the three-revert rule. The normal dispute resolution channels still apply, much like they would when it comes to editing disagreements over undue weight, for example. It's not a good idea to revert war when you feel that part of the article fails UNDUE or is slightly NPOV, because those are judgement calls. That said, I'm fairly confident socks were involved here. :P --slakr\ talk / 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:My very best wishes reported by User:Kingsindian (Result: No action)

    Page: Denial of the Holodomor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]

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

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

    Comments:

    The user has been repeatedly changing the text in the middle of the rfc and continues even after repeated pleas to stop by two people including myself. It has not reached the level of 3RR but the diffs above show repeated edit-warring. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • There was no 3RR violation because two last diffs are dated November 16 and November 14, i.e. two and four days ago. However, I self-reverted, no problem. I am not sure why user Kingsindian makes such a big issue of this. All concerns have been properly responded on article talk page, and the text that was included in the original RfC, remained exactly as it was. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is for reporting edit warring as well as 3RR violations. I am happy that they self reverted but a glance at the talk page shows that they think they did no wrong. If I had not reported them they would have kept it up indefinitely. At the very least I want an assurance that this behaviour will not continue. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance, User:My very best wishes seems to have more article reverts than anyone else over the last few days. There is also some confused editing on the talk page where people seem to disagree about the RfC question. It is unclear whether admins ought to do anything about the conduct regarding the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is main part of the RfC. I agree that the first part of the text in the RfC ("Tottle's book inspired a number of articles") was indeed unsupported by sources and fixed it [8]. That change was supported by another contributor [9]. However, someone else started revering my edit [10] with a claim that it was my mistake (edit summary). Well, even if it was, I fixed it. Why keep it on the page? Right now this unsourced claim was restored by others without providing any sources. That's fine. Who cares? Since it came to reporting on 3RRNB, I am going not to edit this page at all until this RfC is closed or expired. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: Not sure what you are talking about. There is of course discussion about the proper wording but nobody is changing thw text in the middle of the RfC except one. All I want is for the text to remain stable so that people can respond consistently. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsindian. I said I will not edit this this page until this RfC is closed or expired. What else do you possibly want? Blocking my account when I made only one revert (total) on this page during last 24 hours, but you made two? And no, I did not change a single word in the text under discussion for the RfC, exactly as noted in my edit summary here [11].My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action. It is understandable that the topic of the Holodomor will be contentious. Please make a sincere effort to finish the RfC. If more reverts happen before the RfC finishes, full protection is an option. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CounterTime reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: no action)

    Page
    Jizya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    CounterTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Quran */ RLoutfy stop edit warring, see the relevant place in the talk page dedicated to that, here!"
    2. 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691245516 by RLoutfy (talk), it's not non-english sources, most of it comes from the M.A.S. Abdel Halem peer-reviewed article on Q.9:29, only Kitabul Umm and Tafsir Maraghi are nonengl"

    And the other article


    1. 21:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691128645 by RLoutfy, reason: the tags will be added until you actually show how I 'mistranslated' the sources, here."
    2. 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691125899 by RLoutfy (talk), PLEASE SEE THE TALK PAGE."
    3. 17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690934588 by RLoutfy (talk), see talk page"


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"


    1. 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
    2. 20:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    See also Apostasy in Islam, both users have tried debating on the talk pages but they just go back to edit warring Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither editor seems to have gone beyond two reverts in 24 hours on either article, and I see plenty of discussion on the talk page. They seem to have agreed to revert to an earlier version of the article while discussion continues. I'm not convinced this needs any action at this stage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thewolfchild reported by User:Cassianto (Result: all blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [12]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [13]
    2. [14]
    3. [15]
    4. [16]
    5. [17]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    First attempt Second attempt Third attempt


    Comments:
    Fifth diff added, as the reverting continues. - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • (ec) - The first diffs show me restoring comments that Cassianto deleted. These obviously follow the 3 diffs of him deleting them. I won't waste time and space creating another report on this board, but both of hit 3RR. Diffs 4 and 4 and my dealing with the attempted hatting of my comments by another editor. Let's be clear about this. - theWOLFchild 14:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking as an objective witness...
    It is important to note that both editors, Thewolfchild and Cassianto were engaged in edit warring behavior, although Cassianto did not technically violate WP:3RR. It's also worth noting that the cause of the dispute was the blatant removal of another editor's comments; in this case that was Cassianto removing comments made by Thewolfchild in clear violation of WP:TPO. The stated reason was that the comment was a personal attack, but that is highly questionable, and as such, should have been collapsed instead of removed. Complete removal would have been best performed by a third party that agrees with the accusation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agreed with its removal, but capped it instead of removing it - that would have furthered the edit warring. Since the capping, WC reverted the capping, then moved it, then reverted when it was replaced. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cassianto had no business summarily deleting my comments. But, if you find them so troublesome that they must be hidden, then you need to include the comment from Cassianto that I was responding to. It contains the same language and tone that you consider an "NPA attack". Your bias here, SchroCat, is so glaringly obvious, that you have requested a non-involved 3rd party to make these edits instead of doing them yourself. - theWOLFchild 14:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cassianto referred to an option of numbering on the term "Option 2 looks ridiculous". That's not a PA at all. I've been asking you for some time not to engage in ad hominem comments, but you have ignored that and continued on exactly the same vein as before. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I called the discussion "bullshit"; how is that a PA towards you? CassiantoTalk 14:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI:
    Cassianto diffs: [19], [20], [21]
    SchroCat diffs: [22], [23], [24], [25]
    Just sayin' - theWOLFchild 14:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had every business as I found the comments to be inflammatory, pointy, and designed to derail the consensus building excersise that was going on. You also failed to engage with me on your talk page, as linked above. CassiantoTalk 14:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure on the etiquette here, but the wider issue including the conduct of the plaintiff has been raised on ANI at Multiple warriors at Talk:Skyfall. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Trivial and pathetic edit war. The comments by Thewolfchild were not helpful to the discussion, but neither were they clear personal attacks and did not merit edit warring to remove them. None of the parties has shown any indication that they understand the disruptive nature of their actions. I have blocked all of them for 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can block editors without calling their actions "pathetic", you know. LjL (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    MSGJ called the edit war itself, fighting over such innocuous content, was pathetic. Personally, I would have called it senseless. Liz Read! Talk! 16:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment @MSGJ: @HighInBC: am a little late to the party but I have made some discoveries which cast a different complexion on the edit-warring at the article and SchroCat has asked me to realy them here. After doing some digging I have discovered that Thewolfchild may have been canvassing support off Wikipedia. This is fully detailed at User_talk:Samsara#ANI_and_EW. Basically the course of events runs like this:

    • After a discussion at the Skyfall talk page failed to end with the outcome Thewolfchild desired (opinion was evenly split in a 4:5 ratio), he started a fresh discussion at the Film project at 7.39 UTC on November 13: [26]
    • Steelpillow posted a "you've got mail" message on Thewolfchild's talk page at 12.16 on November 13: [27]
    • Thewolfchild quickly deleted the message at 13.04 on November 13: [28]
    • Steelpillow posted support for Thewolfchild's stance at the discussion at 21.20 on November 13: [29] (a board he had never posted on previously: [30])
    • In a report at ANI today Steelpillow commented that he had received a "request to help out in the dispute": [31].

    It is pretty obvious there was off-Wiki canvassing. Around the same time there was a huge surge in anonymous IP activity at the page, all seemingly unconnected IP addresses but all making the exact same edit. Samsara has already dealt with the disruptive IP activity and I am more than happy to let this admin deal with the canvassing issue. I would not have brought the issue up here except for the fact that two editors (SchroCat and Cassianto) are serving 48-hour blocks for edit-warring. Those blocks are twice as long as the blocks that are regularly handed out and the situation here is a bit unusual, with several underhand tactics being used by one side of the debate to undermine the position of the other. I am not excusing the edit-warring by either side, but considering what has gone down perhaps the length of the blocks could be renegotiated? I think they have probably both cooled off now and perhaps the blocks could be commuted, maybe with the condition they do not revert other editor's comments for the remainder of the discussion. Either way, I think it would be harsh to make them serve the full 48 hours considering what has transpired. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just one question: How is communicating with one other editor (and we have no idea what was in the email message and whether it was received) any different than a group of Wikipedia friends who frequently show up on the same articles, noticeboards and user pages whenever one editor needs support but who were previously uninvolved in the discussion? I mean, you said SchroCat asked you to post these "findings" on his behalf, does that request qualify as canvassing? No, I think it would be considered friendship and it happens among lots of editors. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One key difference is that SchroCat made the request on his talk page, so you have a full record of how he approached me. You can look at what he wrote yourself, and judge whether it was a reasonable request or not. You have the choice of reducing or extending his block on the basis of being able to review his action. Part of what makes Wikipedia fair is that we can review each other's actions. Unfortuantely I am not able to see how editors are approached when it it is done off wiki: as explained at WP:STEALTH, editors who request neutral input at a discussion don't tend to use off-wiki means, nor do they attempt to cover their tracks. Secondly, SchroCat has simply asked me to make you aware of what I discovered about the case. That is a bit different to canvassing support to influence a particular editorial outcome. He shouldn't have edit-warred, I'm not making excuses for that, but I am just trying to explain the context a bit. These two editors made a mistake, but they did so under particularly vexatious cicumstances in the face of a sequence of underhand tactics. A decision has been made to revoke their editing privileges, but it is only a fair decision if all the facts of the case are considered. If other facts come to light then the community has a duty to review those decisions. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a couple of points. Nobody "covered any tracks" or did anything "underhand": Thewolfchild routinely blanks their talk page quickly, take a good look at its history. Next, follow that link to Samsara's talk page and you will see paranoid conspiracy theories going way OTT. Now take a look at how the poll on the issue in focus is going - the camp represented by Betty Logan, SchroCat and Cassianto is being trashed, while Thewolfchild and myself align with the vast majority of votes. Yawn. I should be asking for an apology over these unfounded allegations from a sore loser, but hey, it's not worth it. game over. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to explain what form this "request for help" came in, who made it and where can we see a copy of it? Betty Logan (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexmiros reported by User:Hermionedidallthework (Result: blocked)

    Page
    Freeland, Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Alexmiros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691442607 by Atwig16 (talk)"
    2. 21:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691441599 by Atwig16 (talk)"
    3. 21:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691441272 by Atwig16 (talk)"
    4. 21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691440373 by Atwig16 (talk)"
    5. 21:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691439923 by Atwig16 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Freeland, Michigan. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The user doesn't appear to be editing constructively either. Hermionedidallthework (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • There were 2 attempts to restore the factually correct content by the commenter above, and two by myself. After he reverted me one more time, he reverted himself. Surmizing he finally read his talk page and the non template note I left him explaining the problem with his edit. Altho the reported user did get to 10RR, I don't see a block here as anything but punitive. He finally stopped when someone finally explained what the problem was. No one gets gold stars here, and perhaps An admin might want to converse with the dude. Explaining what the problem is seems to be more effective than templating. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Just blocked him for 24 hours and then read your message again. Didn't actually spot that the last revert was a self-revert though. If you want to reach out to him and get some assurances that he understands WP:3RR I'm happy to unblock. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Debresser reported by User:Yossimgim (Result: Declined)

    Page
    Religion in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691142824 by Yossimgim (talk)"
    2. 00:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691156598 by Yossimgim (talk)"
    3. 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691217678 by Yossimgim (talk)"
    4. 21:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691417767 by 109.66.23.243"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Religion in Israel. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The user is a trigger-happy 'undo' reverter with a grudge. I added a new graph. Did all the research by myself. He reverted it first for a lousy explanation which was wrong according to my source, and I had to fix it. Then he got mad and reverted other things 4 more times with biased reasons just to spite me. Yossimgim (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A note: the first two edit summaries you posted do not correspond to the actual edit summaries in the respective diffs, which do not indicate reverting. You also reverted 3 times in the span of the 24 hours, with more reverts outside of that span, and I don't see an attempt to solve the dispute on the talk page. LjL (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A note: Revert summaries that don't start with the word "Undid" still count as reverts. Yossimgim (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean you should incorrectly state what the edit summary was like you did above. It could be construed as an attempt to lie. It's also hard to see whether they were in fact reverts, when you did not provide a version being reverted to. How about filing a proper report? LjL (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LjL nobody asked for your opinion on how to report. Admins are smarter than you and can comprehend the summaries either way. Please leave. Yossimgim (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    • A report about this incident has been filed at ANI. Parties notified. LjL (talk)"
    And nothing happened because your flawless report has nothing in it worthy of banning. Good for you LjL spending your precious time on those 12 lines. Yossimgim (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly recommend you both drop it now samtar {t} 23:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:216.82.220.211 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: blocked)

    Page
    Bowdon, Georgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    216.82.220.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691444566 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Your bias is glaring. Look up the word "reveal.""
    2. 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "accuracy"
    3. 18:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691406056 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Disagree that that was the conclusion of the discussion. You have let your emotions overtake sense here."
    4. 16:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "This has been discussed on the "Talk" page."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Bowdon, Georgia. (TW)"
    2. 18:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Bowdon, Georgia. (TW)"
    3. 22:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bowdon, Georgia. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 18:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "/* History */ misrepresentation"
    2. 18:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "/* History */ ce"
    3. 19:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "/* History */ reply"
    4. 22:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "/* History */ reply"
    Comments:

    IP editor trying to blank out sourced information. Discussion has proven futile over weeks of discussion, and began to edit war in earnest today. Edits under multiple IP's, changes content on talk page[32] to try to make discussion seem more minor than it is. Scr★pIronIV 22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP User here on mobile device. I'm not sure why I wasn't given an opportunity to respond...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B00D:69F7:D464:DD8A:C1C9:9AE9 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2606:6000:ca80:1600:3c1d:a752:dc00:50ce reported by User:LjL (Result: blocked)

    Page: Asus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2606:6000:ca80:1600:3c1d:a752:dc00:50ce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34] (Accidentally removed templates/wrong pronounciations)
    2. [35] (asus is a taiwanese company so taiwanese mandarin is in this case correct)
    3. [36] ((asus is a taiwanese company so taiwanese mandarin is in this case correct) and traditional chinese should come first cuz its not mainland chinese)
    4. [37] (it is taiwanese mandarin is not chinese mandarin their pronunciations are extremely different so stop using chinese mandarin its a taiwanese company)
    5. [38]

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

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

    Comments:
    Edits pushed by this user involved breaking article formatting and removing standard templates. Could not seem to convince them this was not a particularly good thing. Also requested page protection due to possible previous use of a slightly different IPv6.

    LjL (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I second LjL. The IP user's behaviour is disruptive and contravenes WP:NC-ZH. -Zanhe (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexbrn reported by User:Icarus of old (Result: Both warned)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [41]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [42]
    2. [43]
    3. [44]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

    Comments:

    Icarus of old (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, yes I have made 3 effective edits to the page within the last 24hrs (one edit and two reverts, I'd say), so cannot possibly have exceeded 3RR. On the other hand by my count you are at 5RR:
    1. 16:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Sizeofint (talk) to last version by 50.233.123.210"
    2. 19:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691574515 by Sizeofint (talk) just because you personally feel these links aren't helpful doesn't mean other editors might not disagree; WP:Consensus needed for large changes"
    3. 19:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691575523 by Alexbrn (talk) The Guardian newspaper and The New Yorker are certainly reliable sources"
    4. 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691575820 by Alexbrn (talk) they are listed as news sources, which are allowed; see talk page to avoid WP:3RR and Admin notification"
    5. 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691576955 by Alexbrn (talk) Just becasue YOU believe that are not reliable does not make them reliable; consensus is needed; will report to Admin page shortly"
    and so this report looks pretty rum. Suggest WP:BOOMERANG. Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While you continue to swoop in and make edits before reaching consensus, as I tried to do many times. Icarus of old (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You invoke WP:Consensus, but from the above, it looks like you're the single one edit warring past the bright line against changes championed by multiple editors. LjL (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I confirm that Icarus of old is on five reverts, and he/she is complaining about an editor who has reverted two/three times. A block would be appropriate here. Icarus of old: anything to add, any contrition? I am not especially keen to defile a nine-year clean block log. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    MSGJ:I admit that I shouldn't have reverted. I do feel bad; certainly I acted in haste and should've let my temper cool. But I just felt ganged up on by both editors. I do apologize though. I hope this helps. All best to everyone concerned. Icarus of old (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Though you evidently didn't feel quite bad enough to self-revert when it was pointed out to you that you've overstepped the mark[46], or to apologise when you falsely said I hadn't been to the Talk page. Coupled with your aggressive use of edit summaries to try and preserve "your" edits by threatening administrator action[47] this all looks pretty poor to me. Alexbrn (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've apologized already. The admins will decide what they will. Bear in mind the chronology of the whole thing though; the timestamps matter. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that User:Icarus of old 's evidence shows three identical reverts by Alexbrn within 24 hrs. Which I see as one legitimate revert and two instances of edit warring. Not a 3RR violation (though I recall an admin getting away with insisting, against all reason, that 3 reverts do make a 3RR violation... but that's OT...) I see multiple edit warring warnings in the listing here which suggest Alexbrn believes the policy against edit warring does not / should not apply to him. (The response to the last notification of a listing on this noticeboard was "You're wasting people's time, not least your own.") So some kind of block seems very much in order, so the user doesn't continue to violate a policy against edit warring that he believes does not apply to him. Total intransigence sits in in marked contrast to Icarus of old 's attitude. Oh, and today, right after I urged Alexbrn to "Respect WP:DONTREVERT", he DISrespected it, with a revert that even removed information sourced to the New York Times, and the Times reference. --Elvey(t•c) 07:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which is of course why you're here grinding your axe. Insisting that your edits be treated as sacrosanct is BTW a kind of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR which is not a good look. Likewise, your edit introduced (alongside poorly-sourced spam) a single hanging paragraph "The New York Times [45]", which is not something that benefits the project. Alexbrn (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Both Alexbrn and Icarus of old are warned. The five reverts by Icarus do break the 3RR. Icarus has never been blocked; please try to keep it that way. You must be an optimist if you file at this board after already breaking the rule yourself. As to the underlying dispute, both sides appear to have arguments. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User: ‎FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Code16 (Result: )

    Pages: Hadith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Criticism of Hadith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


    User being reported: FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to (This ask is confusing, apologies. Following are the versions before the user deleted the material): [[48]] and [[49]]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    -- For the Hadith page:

    1. 22:38, November 20, 2015
    2. 23:00, November 20, 2015
    3. 00:05, November 21, 2015

    -- Also on the other Criticism of Hadith page, the same content being deleted by this user:

    1. 23:01, November 20, 2015
    2. 00:06, November 21, 2015


    -- The Actual words that are being removed are to be found in the "Authenticity" sub category, within each page. The text being removed is the same in both of the pages.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[50]]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks

    Comments:

    User has deleted content 3 times on the Hadith article, and combined with the Criticism of Hadith article, he has reverted a total of 5 times in a very short timespan. He is deleting the "Authenticity" sub category from both pages, and is no longer countering the argument on the TP entry he himself created, and resorted to simply reverting well sourced material from an established expert in the field, using a JSTOR article primarily, which a content dispute case (which I started) is still on going.


    Additional Comment: Edit Warring behavior.

    cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 06:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply

    I have reverted only twice on each page. The nom has been quite sneaky in putting my first edit in the "revert" category. My first edit was a cleanup, I started a TP discussion, Code16 reverted me without discussion, I reverted him and told him to discuss two times. That is it, two reverts, not three. As Code 16 is one revert ahead of me, he has come here instead of reverting, because he knows that he will get blocked if he reverts, hence he tried to game the system and sneakily report me. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, you're the one "gaming" the system. Taking the initiative to revert first, you know you had the advantage, but you forget that 3RR does not have to be violated for behavior to be classified as edit warring. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb!
    Only in your mind is a cleanup a "revert". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And only in your mind is vandalism called "clean up". cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 06:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Logos reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Talk:The Law of One (The Ra Material) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Logos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691653111 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) stop edit warring, or you will be blocked"
    2. 08:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691652202 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) so?"
    3. 08:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691651591 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) are you one of the recruits? go and master policies and guidelines first"
    4. 07:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691649425 by Alexbrn (talk) yes, I can; why don't you wait until some uninvolved admin handles your complaint in ANI"
    5. 07:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691648760 by Alexbrn (talk) no it doesn't"
    6. 07:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691610430 by Johnuniq (talk) master WP:TPO well; see sectioning and section headers, this isn't heavy refactoring, owner of comment salimfedley AGF, so don't revert"
    7. 18:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691417007 by Location (talk) stop edit warring on this and read WP:TPO; also don't wikilawyer"
    8. 18:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691409627 by Location (talk) take your complaint elsewhere; WP:RTP is not "violated""
    9. Consecutive edits made from 17:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC) to 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      1. 17:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691402524 by Location (talk) WP:RTP is just an essay, not policy; and the "refactoring" here is minor, not "heavy""
      2. 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "besides, even my "refactoring" does not seem to violate WP:RTP; have you ever read it?"
    10. 09:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "moved the discussion under a new heading, relocated salim's comment to fringe tag"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Talk:The Law of One (The Ra Material). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Seems like he owns the article and the Talkpage lol FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 24 hours by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for talk page edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.42.122.69 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: )

    Page: Abu Qatada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 80.42.122.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: 80.42.119.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These are the same person.


    Previous version reverted to: edit by 80.42.122.69 at 18:23, 20 November 2015 deleting paragraph (→‎Views: PoV source. Extremist salafi scholar condemning another extremist salafi.)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. revert by 80.42.122.69, 18:27, 20 November 2015‎ (how is salafiminhaj.com a reliable source?)
    2. revert by 80.42.122.69, 18:29, 20 November 2015 (how is salafiminhaj.com a reliable source? Don't just revert)
    3. revert by 80.42.119.75, 12:54, 21 November 2015 (no it's not. Read reliable source examples)
    4. revert by 80.42.119.75, 13:36, 21 November 2015] (not an acceptable source. Stop edit warring and adding non encyclopaedic info in a bio of a living person)

    IP 80.42.119.75 has admitted being the same person as IP 80.42.122.69 by reverting edits on the talk page of the latter, [51] and [52].

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: at 1824-18:34, 20 November 2015 by @CatcherStorm:
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:38, 21 November 2015 by Toddy1

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Abu_Qatada#Shaykh 'Abdul-Malik ar-Ramadani al-Jaza'iri -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    Couldn't answer me in the talk page so decided to make a complaint here. He also accused me of being another editor. The guy is a PoV pushing retard who doesn't like it when people disagree with him. Toddy1 also reverted twice and is gaming the system. He refused to continue discussing on the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.16 (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:107.10.236.42 reported by User:When Other Legends Are Forgotten (Result: )

    Page: Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 107.10.236.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [53]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [54]
    2. [55]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

    Comments:
    Page is subject ti a 1RR restriction. This IP has been edit warring on multiple articles, using several IPs to avoid scrutiny.

    I didn't realize the article was subject to 1RR. I've self-reverted. I invite my stalker to join the discussion on the article's Talk page. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=691694545"