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 15:28, 22 October 2015 (→‎User:Arkon and User:Scjessey reported by User:UW Dawgs (Result: Alerts, warning): 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:Gothicfilm reported by User:Lapadite77 (Result: no violation)

    Page: Truth (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gothicfilm (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] (diff w/o hidden intermediate revisions)
    4. [5])
    5. [6]

    Discussion link: [7]

    Comments:
    User has reinstated controversial info (of which its adherence to WP:NPOV AND WP:UNDUE is disputed) in the article of a just-released film soon after his edits were reverted and when discussion (which he has participated in) has only begun. User has recently done the same thing at another article, except remove content under discussion that he's disagreed with while discussion is still open and set to continue. This is at odds with WP:BRD etiquette and disruptive. The aforementioned controversial/disputed content remains in the article because he has reinstated it and I won't restore the previous version to not violate 3RR and because discussion is open. Lapadite (talk)

    No, not that I'm aware of. Reported Edit warring, not a 3RR violation, which would only happen if I'd reverted again his restoring of currently disputed content. Like I said, not doing that to avoid a 3RR issue, even though the disputed version remains as he'd restored it without waiting for recently-opened discussion to go beyond two posts (his & mine). My concern also is he's done it back to back during two article discussions - restoring or removing content that is still under discussion, disrupting the process and disregarding WP:BRD etiquette. Lapadite (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Heimstern Läufer, added two more diffs ([8], [9]) - more edit warring from Gothicfilm, restoring quote farm, close paraphrasing, redundant quotes, and undue weight favoring lengthy negative commentary, disregarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV discussed on talk page at length). Lapadite (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added another - restoring redundant and WP:UNDUE quoting, close paraphrased & a plagiarized statement. ([10]). Another editor in the talk page agreed, with "You're right, there are some unnecessary long quotes and redundant phrasing...So it could use some tightening." Lapadite (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is misleading. The quote was already trimmed before Lapadite put in these latest additions (well over 24 hours later), so the other editor Light show's concern was already addressed. The rest of the quotes belong, as explained on the Talk page. Lapadite put in other material less important, yet complains about UNDUE. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, your excessive and redundant quoting was trimmed by Light Show, part of which you reverted. I further trimmed a redundant quote plus close paraphrasing and bit of plagiarism brought up on the talk page. And again, you reverted. Lapadite (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More misleading statements. As anyone clicking on it can see, the second dif just above did not put in any more of a quote. It was a clarifying copy edit. The third dif features an edit summary by Lapadite that claimed per talk 2-1 agreement when the Talk page had no such agreement on the edits he was making - as I point out in the fourth dif. Apparently Lapadite doesn't think anyone will take the time to look into this beyond what he claims. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gothicfilm did recently break the 3RR on Battle for the Planet of the Apes and currently appears to be using an IP to edit war on Honey I Shrunk the Kids.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This from the long term genre warrior Taeyebaar. Believe it or not, there are other people who disagree with you and revert you. Many others have reverted your genre changes, including in this case. What that IP did on October 16, 2015 was something I agree with, but it was not me. The new IP today may or may not be the same person, but again, it was not me. However Taeyebaar himself admitted socking in precisely this manner in the past. I have never done it. Taeyebaar has a record of accusing editors of socking when more than one disagrees with him, and he has been warned about that in the past. Also note that Taeyebaar just put in the same disputed genre change three times in a row, despite having no consensus and having been repeatedly warned against changing longstanding primary genres to his preferred subgenres. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation on Truth (2015 film). Gothicfilm is reminded to act with decorum. Closing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another rv, ignoring talk points, restoring close paraphrase, extraneous quote, and previously removed overlink, [11]. Lapadite (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:184.14.61.182 reported by User:Epicgenius (Result: both blocked)

    Page
    Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    184.14.61.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686575121 by Epicgenius (talk); pot meet kettle"
    2. 23:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686574631 by Epicgenius (talk); revert vandalism, again"
    3. 23:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686574454 by Epicgenius (talk); to add this info you must provide a source, not the other way around"
    4. 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686560782 by Epicgenius (talk); still wrong"
    5. 21:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "minor formatting"
    6. 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "speculation"
    7. 14:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686380986 by Epicgenius (talk); unverifiable speculation"
    8. 19:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "All tracks are in service"
    9. 18:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686366714 by Epicgenius (talk); still wrong"
    10. 18:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686366197 by Epicgenius (talk); prove it; that the center tracks are not in-service"
    11. 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686365876 by Epicgenius (talk); revert vandalism"
    12. 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686043487 by Epicgenius (talk); all tracks are used by trains in service; trains on the soutbound express track don't open doors to the other express track"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "cmt"
    2. 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line). (TW)"
    3. 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    See above (protracted discussion on user talk page).
    Comments:

    I have tried to engage with the user on their talk page, but they keep reverting and asking me to provide a source for their own unsourced content. According to the New York City Subway map, various subway track maps around the web, and official signage, there is no service on the express tracks, but the user keeps insisting otherwise. They claim to be "reverting vandalism" when in actuality they are adding unsourced content. I admit to breaking 3RR as well, so I am amenable to any penalty that I may get as well. epic genius (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked for 24 hours. That was about 8 reverts each within 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mandruss reported by User:2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (Result: both blocked)

    Page: Shooting of Samuel DuBose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mandruss (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]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

    Comments: The editor believes he's allowed to edit war to return to a previous version, or to disrupt a discussion he refuses to engage in. User_talk:Mandruss#Ownership. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    The OP has been disruptive at this article since they arrived there about an hour ago. Their lack of Wikipedia knowledge is quite apparent in threads on their talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page, but their competence is greatly surpassed by their aggressiveness. This complaint was filed after I reverted their second attempt at this POINTy edit, which stems from the dispute about gun model. They had no interest in this content except to make a point in that dispute, and I have referred them to WP:POINT several times on talk pages and in edit summaries. I was close to going to ANI with a DE complaint. As this editor is apparently low-experience, I'm not inclined to urge a WP:BOOMERANG sanction, but this complaint is completely without merit. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly dispute that there is any disruption created by asking for sources. But even if that were the case, there's no WP:EW exemption for the reverts that Mandruss has made. FWIW, the editor invited me to resolve this problem by going to a noticeboard.[18] So here we are, per his request. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the editor Mandruss has made false accusations of edit warring by others. [19] He does not seem to have read the actual policies in question, while making aggressive threats based on his mistaken interpretations. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mandruss: you have violated WP:3RR. Why do you say "this complaint is completely without merit"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If one looks no farther than 3RR, I'm as guilty as sin; will an admin please do your duty and block me. But I have been told by experienced users in public talk venues that we look deeper, into context. In my limited exposure to this page and ANI, it seems we do just that.
    So here is the context as I see it. The OP will no doubt have a response, but I avoid unproductive pissing matches and will not have any further comment here unless requested by someone else.

    1. The OP, who I will call 2602 for short, added content about the gun model wth the meaningless edit summary "add".[20]
    2. I reverted per BRD with the meaningful edit summary "relevance?".[21]
    3. At this point, it was established that 2602 wished to add content, and that the edit was a disputed edit. 2602 could have and should have opened a discussion in article talk. Instead, they re-reverted with "relevance is obvious - it's the alleged murder weapon". This relevance is not at all "obvious" as their edit summary claimed. At this point I began to suspect that 2602 does not know what "relevance" means.
    4. A brief edit war ensued.
    5. 2602 belatedly opened a discussion in article talk. In their opening post, they asserted that NPOV requires inclusion of this content.
    6. I failed to see what NPOV has to do wiith inclusion of the model of this gun, so I asked 2602 to elaborate. I also tried to explain relevance as "bearing on the case".[22]
    7. At this point, a good faith response would be to (1) explain exactly what NPOV has to do with it, or (2) drop the NPOV argument. Instead, 2602 simply doubled down on NPOV without explaining it. They demanded that I explain how NPOV justifies omission, after I had stated that I don't see how NPOV has anything to do with it. They also referred to other items of information in the article, implying that I cannot oppose the gun model on relevance grounds unless I also oppose those other items.[23]
    8. They linked to the article Factoid since I previously used that word to describe the disputed content. They asked me whether my use of the word meant that I was calling the gun model "false or spurious information", since they saw those words in the first sentence of the article. Had they read on for two more sentences, they would have seen this: "...the term...has assumed other meanings, particularly being used to describe a brief or trivial item of news or information. (emphasis mine) Or, they might have just used their knowledge of English vocabulary to deduce what I probably meant by that word. At this point, I was suspecting that 2602 was just being argumentative for the sake of argument, throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. This is not good faith debating in my book, and I was beginning to become frustrated.
    9. Time after time, I asked 2602 to explain the applicability of NPOV, and they just kept repeating that without explanation.
    10. I gave specific examples of what would be relevant.[24]
    11. 2602 re-asked the questions I had previously answered, indicating that they were not listening to what I was saying.[25] This was clear evidence they were simply being argumentative, which is disruption of article talk.
    12. Meanwhile, more argumentativeness and obtuseness was occurring on our respective talk pages. I won't detail that, but it's there for anyone to see and evaluate. Note especially 2602's logic (illogic) around staying off user talk pages.
    13. 2602 demanded that I cite policy for the omission, ignoring the fact that they had not shown any policy basis for the inclusion (beyond simply throwing the letters NPOV at the wall). They asserted that my argument was WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ignoring the fact that I had previously stated that my objection was on relevance grounds, which is clearly more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
    14. 2602 opened a separate discussion challenging two other pieces of information which they consider irrelevant. This was WP:POINTy behavior, as they had no interest in that content until they needed to make a point in the gun model discussion. We don't do this.[26]
    15. And so it went like that. After being referred to WP:POINT several times, 2602 ignored that and twice attempted to make POINTy edits related to that other content. I reverted both because they were POINTy.
    16. Throughout, 2602 showed no desire to collaborate in good faith, preferring instead to act dodgily and manipulatively, repeatedly missing or ignoring points, making ridiculous assertions in response, and responding to references to WP:POINT by doubling down on their POINTy behavior. To top it off, they then file an edit warring complaint when their POINTy edits are reverted. If one set out to be as aggravating as humanly possible (read disruptive), I think it would look a lot like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a content dispute, pure and simply. I'm not seeing anything particularly manipulative beyond that, although it may have appeared that way to you because you have a stake in the article. Please remember that WP:3RR is a bright line rule. I'm closing this with a 24 hour block for both of you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't edit war. The description of events above is highly inaccurate. I only made a single revert. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1105:7CE0:662D:37EC (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you did not actually violate 3RR, you were edit-warring and contributed towards this situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And blocked this new IP too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The block of Mandruss needs to be reviewed. This is an excellent editor with an impeccable record being blocked for doing his job as a conscious editor. This block is not deserved at all. I request a formal review of this block which was not warranted given the circumstances. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ... and for an editor with exactly 13 edits they are quite familiar with AN/3RR... Can anyone see what I am seeing? This was a clear case of a disruptive editor and it needs to be taken into consideration when editors like that post requests for blocks for long term and dedicated editors such as Mandruss. Admins have to think of the project, and not just follow rules blindly - Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding sourced, relevant, neutral information is not disruptive. Deleting it repeatedly with no policy reason is disruptive. That's why there's a rule against it. User:Mandruss has made it clear that he does not understand Wikipedia policy. He believes, for example, that he can make unlimited reverts in order to preserve the status quo of an article. I'm sure he's a good editor in some ways, but he has exhibited ownership of articles. Also, I do have more than 13 edits - this IP scheme rolls over every day. I have no control over that. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143—I'm just curious—why haven't you registered an account? Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the 'Captcha' test gets old fast. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 does not have any reputation to lose and Mandruss does have a reputation to lose. Edit warring does not take place on a level playing field, not between 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 and Mandruss. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:36.81.14.29 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked)

    Page
    IKON (South Korean band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    36.81.14.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "/* M.net's M! Countdown */"
    2. 03:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) to 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
      1. 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 19:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* List Of TV Appearances */Important to put in this page. Dont delete"
      3. 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* List Of TV Appearances */Just delete unnecessary comment."
    4. 18:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Members */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on IKON (South Korean band). (TW★TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Relentless edit-warring. BLP violations. Adding unsourced positions, height, blood type etc. and other trivial information. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.41.251.96 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: warned)

    Page
    Jack Monroe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    82.41.251.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "rv vandlism"
    2. 23:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Noteable information. No agenda. RVV, 3RR. Arbitration."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC) to 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
      1. 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "rvv x4, 4rr, Birth name mentioned, multiple times IN HER OWN BLOG. Stop vandalising, or go to arbitration if aggrieved"
      2. 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "RVV"
    4. 17:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "please do not remove pertinent, accurate and formerly cited information. Let's take this to arbitration as it seems no consensus can be reached."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jack Monroe. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 14:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Use of former name in article */"
    Comments:
    Hasn't violated 3RR yet, but certainly heading in that direction. I have warned the user. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marmiras reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [27]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [28]
    2. [29]
    3. [30]
    4. [31]
    5. [32]
    6. [33]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] [35]

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

    Comments:

    • User believes he knows better than what's written out there. – More and more WP:SHOUTing in summaries with every next revert. Poeticbent talk 17:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional reverts bring the current count up to four reverts for today; a couple of the links above were from last week. Editor is quite tendentious, and just does not understand policy - and refuses to engage in discussion - just long-winded and impolite edit summaries. Latest addition needs to be changed as it is a combination of original research and sourcing Wikipedia, but I have two reverts under my belt already - and the two times I have been blocked it was for making a third reversion of a tendentious and POV editor. Nope, didn't break WP:3RR - but got blocked anyway. Scr★pIronIV 19:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.29.186.251 reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: blocked)

    Page: Lady Iris Mountbatten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 92.29.186.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [37]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [38]
    2. [39]
    3. [40]
    4. [41]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

    Comments:
    WP:SPA user is repeatedly inserting unsourced contentious material into the article, edit warring, ignoring repeated warnings to stop, and failing to use talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mohsin17 reported by User:Yamaguchi先生 (Result: discussed elsewhere)

    Page: List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mohsin17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [44]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [45]
    2. [46]
    3. [47]
    4. [48]
    5. [49]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] [51] [52]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

    Please review the posting to WP:AN for community feedback regarding this issue at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive_editing_by_Mohsin17 Comments:

    There are a litany of requests at User talk:Mohsin17 going as far back as two years ago, requesting that Mohsin17 respect our WP:V and related policies. This editor has now taken to edit warring rather than collaboratively discuss the issues, those issues being repeatedly adding unsourced and poorly sourced content to Wikipedia. I have disengaged from this article completely on 9 October 2015‎ and Mohsin17 continues to revert any and all changes by other experienced editors to their preferred version. We as a community have been very generous but at this point it does not seem that this person respects our editorial policies or has any interest in working toward achieving any sort of consensus. Please do not hesitate to ping me or contact me on my talk page if clarification is requested. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lets keep the discussion in one place, shall we? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Result: Being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive editing by Mohsin17. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aircorn reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: warned)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [54]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:05, 20 October 2015
    2. 01:56, 21 October 2015
    3. 02:36, 21 October 2015
    4. 02:45, 21 October 2015

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

    Comments:
    In addition to the clear 3RR violation, the user is also engaged is massive edit warring with several other users at the same page. Here are some additional diffs from the last 48 hours of Aircorn reverting what almost any other user adds, showing a serious WP:OWN problem in addition to the edit warring. [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65] Jeppiz (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not quite a clear 3RR violation as those last two diffs count as one revert (no intervening edits). Also the editor has not reverted since the warning on their talk page. A block may be appropriate but I'm inclined to wait for a response from User:Aircorn. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck partly. Partly confused because the times you gave on the diffs were not correct. Still analysing ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unclear to me whether the first diff is a revert. (If it is, which edit does it revert?) Anyway Aircorn is certainly on three and may have exceeded it. Awaiting comments from others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Aircorn has not "had to" revert as other users have chosen not to edit war, that does not diminish the 3RR violation. And yes, the first diff is definitely a revert, reverting this addition [66]. So Aircorn is most certainly on four identical reverts in less than 10 hours. Jeppiz (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just my 2 cents – User:Aircorn reverted edits which significantly threatened the balancing aspects of an article. The page has been subject to WP:VANDALISM recently and is currently semi-protected (just to illustrate that there is currently ill-feeling towards the subject). In my opinion, it's WP:STEWARDSHIP much rather than WP:OWN. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if that were true (and I don't think it is, Aircorn has not even mentioned BALASPS), being right is not an excuse for violation 3RR. Jeppiz (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm about to go to bed so won't be able to participate again in this for a while. That information is clearly a misrepresentation of the source I explained how within this comment on the talk page. It is a BLP and I was under the impression that 3RR did not apply when removing incorrect information from BLPs. As to the sequence I am not sure who introduced it or when it was introduced, the article has been edited heavily recently. I removed it when I noticed it and have since been involved with tit for tat removals with woovee. I suppose 3RR depends on whether the first deletion is counted as a revert. A discussion is on the talk page and a few other editors are there so hopefully we can work through it. BTW I have not reverted since the warning. AIRcorn (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not accurate, I'm afraid. We could argue how good the source is (though I'd say BBC is a good source), but it is inaccurate to call it "incorrect". I'm not sure who introduced it first either, but I am sure you violated 3RR by removing it four times in a few hours. Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No other administrators have chosen to comment, so I am going to close this report now. Aircorn has exceeded 3 reverts so could easily be blocked within policy. In this instance I am declining to do so for the following reasons.

    1. He/she stopped reverting the first time they were warned about it.
    2. There seems to be no pattern of edit warring with this user. (I did search the user talk archives for previous warnings.)
    3. As commented by TheMightyPeanut above, the edits made were not egregious and may actually have improved the article depending on your point of view. (This does not excuse the edit warring in any way.)

    Aircorn is strongly warned not to edit war in future, and advised that such leniency will likely not be applied in a future instance. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stolichanin reported by User:LjL (Result: Blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: today's version without "Crime" data and the previous unsanctioned incident, on 12 October

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    • Current incident
    1. [67] (and again, policy quoted inappropriately in the edit summary since there was no original research involved in reading the source)
    2. [68] (edit summary shows they still haven't read the very policies/guidelines/essays they quote, as asked numerous times)
    3. [69] (partial revert; now the editor tells others to "refer to the talk page", after ignoring it consistently)
    4. [70]
    5. [71]
    6. [72]
    • Previous incident
    1. [73] (note editor neglected including edit summary on 4th revert)
    2. [74]
    3. [75]
    4. [76]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] and [78]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

    Comments: This is about reiterated section blanking of a "Crime" section. There is not yet a breach of WP:3RR within the current incident I believe WP:3RR has now been breached; in any case I reckon there was on the previous unsanctioned incident, and the situation is ongoing with the editor reverting again after RfC started and after discussion that happened (for some reason) on my talk page. I have reported this before 3RR took place also because I believe it's a case where there may be concerns about WP:CENSORED and WP:NOBLANKING among others.

    LjL (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 48 hours. The editor made five more reverts after this report was filed. He must have extreme confidence that he is correct. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ukabia reported by User:Jamie Tubers (Result: Blocks)

    Page
    Yoruba people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ukabia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686812092 by Eruditescholar (talk) The ancestry of the personalities are disputed, plus wikipedia prefers things not to be listed"
    2. 14:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686813198 by Eruditescholar (talk)"
    3. 14:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686814065 by Eruditescholar (talk) Please stop undoing edits. This is not vandalism. If you believe so please report it and we'll discuss it there"
    4. 14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686814651 by Eruditescholar (talk) Vandalism is defined by wikipedia as malicious and unverifiable edits"
    5. 14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686815450 by Eruditescholar (talk) Please report any vandalism"
    Comments:

    I don't know what this user is doing; he's been making some controversial edits; he's changing images in Infobox, changing words written in traditional letters to plain letters, deleting contents etc. All of these without proper explanation or discussion. He's also been engaging in edit wars, he's violated 3RR already, within few minutes, and still heavily reverting and deleting large contents. Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles I have edited are littered with unreliable source, original research, and just unconstructive edits. There are sources from pages such as Joshua Projects which WIkipedia has decided should not be used in ethnic group articles as it is an unreliable source. The 'changing words written in traditional letters to plain letters' is removing the bold lettering that is plaguing the Yoruba people article and is not part of any standard way of editing wikipedia articles. There should be constructive and consistent edits and not edits based on users preferences. Ukabia - talk 14:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know whether to open another section here but there are also problems with User:Eruditescholar and the Nas, Olu Dara, and Donald Faison article where there are unreliable or no sources linking these people to Nigeria. The dispute has been opened on the talk page of Talk:Olu Dara. The issue of ancestry has also come up with these people images being added to the infobox of the Yoruba people article which is what sparked the initial edit war. The resolution could look at the example of the Jahlil Okafor and a similar edit conflict resolution to see how ancestry needs verifiable sources and not blogs or gossip sites which is what is being provided. Ukabia - talk 14:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ukabia Your claim that the sources pertaining to the blp articles in question are unreliable is not justified based on your recent series of persistent edit-warring which basically involves removal of information with citations. Besides these ones, I have also observed that in your edition of other Yoruba-related articles where you totally and partially removed information and citations without justifiable reason or basis in Oyinbo and Ethnic groups in Africa. I do recommend that you stop this distruptive editing and also keep away from Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Eruditescholar, any Wikipedia user can edit whatever article they can with reliable sources. Let's lay out the sources in question: For the ancestry of Nas and Olu Dara, these sites were used:

    Both of these pages are baseless lists on entertainment blogs written as clickbait. There are probably a plethora of ancestries we can 'verify' using gossip sites if these are found to be reliable. And then this LA times article was also cited but, tellingly, nothing in there actually said anything about either Nas or Olu Dara ancestry. For Donald Faison there's absolutely no reference given apart from the fact that his middle name is Yoruba. It would be relavant to note that many African Americans have picked up African names over the years and examples from other languages other than Yoruba include Kojo Nnamdi and Nnenna Freelon, African Americans who were given or adopted African names. Something as big as someones ancestry should surely be able to be easily verifiable outside of shaky entertainment news blogs. Ukabia - talk 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also if we use blogs, then this blog says Nas is not Nigerian. Ukabia - talk 15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I currently only have access to Wikipedia so I might not be able to access the sites you listed However the bottom line is that You are the only editor that has been involved in persistent edit-warring with me and that is only over these Yoruba-related articles. I want to believe that as an igbo wikipedia contributor, You are well aware of the importance of names in the Nigerian culture and that only people belonging to a particular ethnic group use the language of ethnicity for their names. Besides, originating from Nigeria alone gives you approximately 1/4 chance of having a Yoruba, Igbo or Hausa origin or descent. I usually cite either the first, last or middle names for both sexes and the surnames only for males. In cases where there are no name sources, I use other sources to cite their ethnicity. This is coupled with the fact that they originate from the cultural region belonging to the particular ethnic group . I did not even cite Nas and Olu Dara's Yoruba names but instead used alternate sources. Not only Donald Faison but his brother Olamide Faison were given Yoruba names at birth. It is very rare for multiple members of a family to have the same language of ethnicity for their names if they don't belong to the ethnic group in question. Eruditescholar (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have previously added Nnenna Freelon as Igbo a long time ago and accepted an edit that removed that ancestry as well as a host of others. I was challenged about the ancestry of the people in the Igbo people infobox and provided reliable sources. Yes, names are important to Nigerians, but these names were adopted by African Americans speculatively as a way to connect to their African ancestry. I gave you the example of Kojo and Nnenna as examples of people with non-Yoruba Nigerian names who are not of known Nigerian ancestry. There are further more people from other areas of the Americas who are of African ancestry and have adopted African names, if we go by names alone then people with Swahili names should also be classed as having Kenyan ancestry. It's similar to White Americans who had changed and Anglicised their names even though they are not of known or direct English ancestry. The edits I made was because it is a known rumour that Nas and his father is of Nigerian descent as well as Donald which is not backed up by any reliable source apart form gossip sites who may have even used these Wikipedia pages as a source. I changed the Yoruba page because the people we're discussing have not once even said in an interview that they are Nigerian while Seal and John Boyega are confirmed Nigerians/Yoruba people and even arguably more popular. I tried to clean up the Yoruba article so it can match the standard set by the Igbo people article which is currently a Good article. Ukabia - talk 16:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Both User:Eruditescholar and User:Ukabia have broken 3RR at Yoruba people. Normally this calls for a 24-hour block of both editors. Either person might avoid a block if they will promise to wait for consensus before making any further edits at Yoruba people, or any edits about the ethnic origin of anyone from Nigeria. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lemondropzzz and User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Blocked and Warned)

    Page: LGBT rights in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lemondropzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [80]

    Diffs of Lemondropzzz reverts:

    1. [81]
    2. [82]
    3. [83]
    4. [84]
    5. [85]
    6. [86]
    7. [87]

    Diffs of Contaldo80's reverts:

    1. [88]
    2. [89]
    3. [90]
    4. [91]
    5. [92]
    6. [93]

    None of the two users have discussed their edit war on the talk page (I have no part in it myself and have not edited the article, just happened to see it. )

    Comments:

    Comments: Both User:Lemondropzzz and User:Contaldo80 seem to have broken WP:3RR on this article. Can either of them explain why they should not be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Upon closer inspection of User:Lemondropzzz, I would not be alien to an indef block as per WP:NOTHERE. There are so many 3RR violations just today that it makes me dizzy. I tried to revert and restore another article one (where I count around 10 reverts by Lemondropzzz just today), but of course I just got reverted. Pardon me for just showing the edit history, the number of reverts is insane [94]. Lemondropzzz's actions during October 21 could break the Wiki-record for heavient edit warring (across multiple pages) in one day ever. Jeppiz (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Lemondropzzz blocked 48 hours for continuing to revert without responding. Waiting for User:Contaldo80 to respond here. --NeilN talk to me 23:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for your patience. I have tried to act constructively on this issue - suggesting Lemondropzzz try and explain his/her controversial edits in more detail so we can then better understand the concerns. I was particularly concerned that the wider edit history of this editor showed a number of questionable edits on a range of articles which bordered on the disruptive and in several cases challenged NPOV; or lacked sources for a claim. It did not seem to me that they were prepared to act reasonably. But this approach failed in quite an aggressive way. I have dealt with many articles where the issue of homosexuality is central, and it is the case for whatever reason that they attract a high degree of vandalism and disruptive editing. Eventually, I realised that I myself was in danger of being seen as edit warring and so I stopped, and proposed some revised text that attempted to find some common ground and break the impasse. I should really have just referred Lemondropzzz directly to one of the administrators noticeboards in retrospect. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As the person filing the report, I tend to agree with Contaldo80. I reported both users, as both had edit warred, but I also found there to be a difference in quality, with Lemondropzzz being by far the most disruptive; the decision is of course up to the closing admin but I would not be alien to consider Contaldo80's action as a counter-vandalism effort, even if a bit over-zealous. Jeppiz (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked Warned Lemondropzzz blocked per above. Contaldo80 expected to follow their own advice and seek outside assistance instead of edit warring. NeilN talk to me 13:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arkon and User:Scjessey reported by User:UW Dawgs (Result: Alerts, warning)

    Page: Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Arkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Arkon
    Previous version reverted to: baseline

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. revert one
    2. revert two
    3. revert three

    Scjessey
    Previous version reverted to: baseline

    1. revert one
    2. revert two
    3. revert three

    Comments:

    Today's edit war involves two experienced (Arkon, Scjessey) editors who (likely) know this behavior is prohibited and not productive. Occurred on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy which is labeled with Template:Ds ("This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.").

    Yesterday, Scjessey responded to a (my) edit which explicitly called for WP:BRD in the edit summary to stem another near edit war, with an immediate revert, then responded to the associated BRD Talk section which I initiated with a WP:NPA edit. Understood yesterday's edits are not directly related to today's edit war, but speaks to the ongoing problematic behavior around collaboration and discussion on an article where both Discretionary sanctions and Template:Calm ("...and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.") were implemented presumably to deter exactly this type of behavior.

    Note, all of these edits occurred with 30 minutes. Filing now, which likely deters the 4th R to nominally exceed WP:3RR. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Addendum:
    Another WP:NPA, WP:CIV instance which Scjessey added to User talk:Arkon, discovered while posting notifications to both Talks. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Don't be a dick. You could always EDIT the fucking thing, instead of just reverting it like a douchebag. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)"

      • Uninvolved comment None of the users broker 3RR, even though both edit warred. The proper way to warn users is to post a 3RR warning on their talk pages, not to file premature reports. Is there a reason UW Dawgs did not warn any of the users, but did file this report. I move it be closed unless the edit war continues. Jeppiz (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (While there is no 3RR violation, I would not object to the closing admin blocking Scjessey for this completely inappropriate WP:NPA-violation [95]. Jeppiz (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? So it doesn't matter that the comment I made above was in reply to this edit summary then? I know saying "he started it" sounds childish, but... well... he started it. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much to add here, the intent was to minimize harm from inappropriate canvassing. Scjessey seems to be having a rough day. Not sure it's block worthy at this point. Arkon (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, thank you. I'm so lucky to have you to defend me! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd rather have me say "He's being disruptive and semi-trolling", I can do that too. But I do know-ish you, and you generally aren't this brazenly wrong, so I was trying to be kind. Arkon (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doctorman reported by User:107.10.236.42 (Result: Blocked)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [96]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [97] 12:19, 21 October
    2. [98] 18:07, 21 October
    3. [99] 23:14, 21 October
    4. [100] 00:13, 22 October
    5. [101] 00:45, 22 October
    6. [102] 02:50, 22 October
    7. [103] 03:19, 22 October

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104] 00:47, 22 October

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

    Comments:

    Doctorman is engaging in original research and POV pushing, and clearly has no regard for the 3RR rule. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Playnot reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31h )

    Page
    Muhammad in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Playnot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Generally in Islam, Muslims only seek help in Allah"
    2. 22:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Removed the highlighting edited by 168.1.86.54. Identifying reliable source is a way to improve encyclopedia. Many sources may listed here are not reliable. We need verification first."
    3. 22:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Information can be restored but for the meantime, we need some verifiability."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) to 02:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
      1. 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Really sorry, encyclopedic content must be verifiable"
      2. 02:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC) "Fix nonconstructive information."
    5. 04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC) "Information should be constructive and the source should be reliable. WP:BB"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Muhammad in Islam. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Multiple requests to use talk page ignored NeilN talk to me 04:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AngryMeditations reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: 31 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [105]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [106]
    2. [107]

    The article is under strict Arbitration enforcement of 1RR, two reverts is an automatic block.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning necessary for this article, as per "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense."

    Comments:

    An obvious case of violating the strict 1RR rule (in addition to being a WP:BLP violation. Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 14:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    108.26.174.18 reported by User:Darkknight2149 (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: Joker in other media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 108.26.174.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Talk Page discussion attempts / warnings:

    Comments:

    This user keeps relentlessly attempting to add two unconstructive edits to the article. Despite having been warned numerous times and even after being told that the topics are now on the article's Talk Page, this user refuses to engage in any sort of discussion and will not stop attempting to revert the article to the revision (s)he wants, even after being reverted numerous times by every other editor at the article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours The IP is dynamic, though it doesn't seem very dynamic. Please let me know if related IPs take over, and I'll semiprotect the article. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=686976670"