Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Homunq (talk | contribs) at 12:17, 22 August 2018. 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:Rusf10 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Bruce Ohr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ - as per WP:CLAIM"
    2. 16:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "not sure what is being called "claims from tweets", information is reliably sourced and properly attributed"
    3. 03:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "restoring long-standing reliably sourced sourced content"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 00:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "/* 1RR */ new section"
    2. 00:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "/* 1RR */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Clear violations of 1RR; 16:31 edit restores wholesale his partisan-tinged negative depiction of a living person, then his 23:31 edit reverts my mild attempt to note that the Nunes memo claims are just that - claims. User wants to use partisan sources to disparage a living person who has become targeted by the President of the United States and a "right-wing conspiracy theory" (per NYT) and reverts any attempt to tone down the material or make clear that it is questionable. The article needs protection, a bunch more eyes and people who aren't partisan warriors with axes to grind. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retaliatory filing, see above.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have clean hands. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This certainly looks retaliatory, and claiming that this two-character diff (changing "claimed" to "stated") is a revert seems preposterous. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Then as "stated" to "claimed" is the only thing Rusf10 claims I reverted, his report must be equally preposterous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)"Claimed" and "stated" have two very different connotations, and a revert is a revert, even if it's a 0-character revert. That being said, this does seem retaliatory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    True. After having jumped farther down the rabbit hole than I'd like, I think encouraging both editors to not edit the article for 24 hours is the best option. I'm not sure enforcing 1RR on that article is helpful, and both editors have violated the letter (though not necessarily the spirit) of the rule. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to refrain from editing the article for 24 hours, beginning with my last edit earlier tonight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ithad reported by User:Saqib (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ithad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855432689 by Saqib (talk) dont use wrong edits to mislead wikipedia users"
    2. 07:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855431876 by Saqib (talk)[1] as sworn 22nd PM of Pakistan"
    3. 07:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Edit warring on Imran Khan and several other BLPs. Ignoring the Talk:Imran_Khan#22nd? Saqib (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Administartor

    the user Saqib mislead the users. Imran Khan sworn as 22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan. Wikipedia may verify this.talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • He isn't discussing to build consensus and is persistent with it. He requires some sort of restriction. Störm (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale Swarm ♠ 21:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ithad reported by User:Störm (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ithad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855434321 by Störm (talk) pl check ur talk page"
    2. 08:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855434141 by Störm (talk) what to discuss in talk page?"
    3. 07:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855432689 by Saqib (talk) dont use wrong edits to mislead wikipedia users"
    4. 07:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855431876 by Saqib (talk)[2] as sworn 22nd PM of Pakistan"
    5. 07:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan"

    References

    1. ^ https://www.dawn.com/news/1427560
    2. ^ https://www.dawn.com/news/1427560
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Imran Khan. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 16:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "/* 22nd? */"
    Comments:

    Broke WP:3RR rule. Störm (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    here are the link of the wikipedia List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan (Ithad)(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Javiero Fernandez reported by User:Ss112 (Result: Indef)

    Page: Wannabe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Javiero Fernandez (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]
    5. fifth revert, this time of an IP
    6. this might count as a sixth revert, as they changed the release date again

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The IP they reverted warned the user about adding unsourced genres

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Did not occur, it appears.

    Comments:
    Stumbled across this because it's on my watchlist; Javiero Fernandez has been edit warring with @SnapSnap: to restore an additional release date (against Template:Infobox song). Both users should know better, but I'm reporting Javiero Fernandez here because they've blatantly broken 3RR by making at least five reverts on the page in different areas (four over the release date, once over the genre) in what looks to be less than 24 hours to me. Just a note: A simple glance at Javiero's contributions reveal they've recently gotten into edit wars on Aladdin, List of highest-grossing animated films, Proud of Your Boy, etc. Also, minutes before I undid Javiero's for changing the release date again (as it should be stay the earliest release), the IP they reverted looks to have come back and reverted them for the unsourced genre addition: [6]. Ss112 06:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked Bbb23 to run a CheckUser on this user before I filed this report because I found their editing pattern suspicious, and it looks like they were blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Tarook97, who edit-warred extensively and also used other accounts to back their reverts up. It looks like they couldn't stay away from Wikipedia for six months without socking, as Drmies suggested on their talk page. Ss112 04:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Javiero Fernandez has been blocked indef by Bbb23 as a sock of Tarook97. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2001:BB6:3B0C:C658:A4A2:D8D7:9156:C2C3 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page
    LazyTown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2001:BB6:3B0C:C658:A4A2:D8D7:9156:C2C3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    4. 08:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. Talk:LazyTown#English_language
    Comments:

    IP is removing " English-language" from the LazyTown article without any sort of explanation as to why, They've been warned and told go to the talkpage but have instead reverted SummerPHD and myself, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 19:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP has a new IP (2001:BB6:3B0C:C658:29B3:44:711A:B842) and has immediately continued the edit war, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:47.184.178.75 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Protected)

    Page
    Mansplaining (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    47.184.178.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 03:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC) to 03:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      1. 03:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC) ""
      2. 03:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 03:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    4. 02:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "Update"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 02:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) to 02:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      1. 02:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Update"
      2. 02:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Updates"
    6. 02:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "Updates"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 06:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC) to 06:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
      1. 06:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "Corrected content"
      2. 06:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Updated content"
      3. 06:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Added content"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Four edits now after 3rr warning. Has been asked to provide sources and warned for vandalism. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Pending changes protected by Swarm. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.163.227.19 reported by User:NewEnglandYankee (Result: Blocked / warned)

    Page: Rashida Tlaib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 71.163.227.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [7]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8]
    2. [9]
    3. [10]
    4. [11]
    5. [12]
    6. [13]
    7. [14]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

    Comments:
    The user wants to insert language into the lede stating that Tlaib supports "elimination of the state of Israel", which is a curiously strong way to refer to the One-state solution. Their sources tend to Breitbart. Obviously a neutrally-worded section in the article body describing the sources' actual, non-interpreted reporting, with a summation in the ledge, would be fine and dandy. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Filer reminded not to edit-war themselves. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LivinRealGüd reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Warned)

    Page: Bank of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: LivinRealGüd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [17]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [18] [19] - part of a continuous series of edits removing huge amounts of sourced content - I reverted the part that I saw here [20]
    2. [21] [22] further large removals several hours later. I made another revert when I noticed some tag bombing [23]
    3. [24] large removals continue. I restore the huge amount of sourced content removed several hours prior that I hadn't noticed earlier [25]
    4. [26] this is reverted and marked as minor

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

    Comments:
    I have never edited this article before beyond adding a short description. I recommended to the editor to start an RfC or split discussion, because I am not involved with the article, but I am very concerned that he chose to make a fourth revert continuing to remove huge amounts of sourced content and that edit warring to delete multiple sourced sections is likely to continue without administrator intervention. I also don't want to go over 3RR myself, so perhaps someone else can take a look and see if the content should be restored/discussed before removal. (Editor is still removing content from the article). Seraphim System (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted you once, thats not edit warring. You don't seem to have a handle on what reverting means. In the future, its customary to alert the editor that you've reported them to the notice board. We were having a discussion but you decided to step out, which is fine. My edits were indeed large and did indeed remove a lot of content. I was being WP:BOLD and decided to WP:FIXIT. Its interesting that you want editors to "come take a look" at the page you were just editing instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing on this notice board. If you have content disputes, take it to the talk page. This is not the place for you to request comments on content disputes, try WP:RFC. LivinRealGüd (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with being BOLD but you continued to remove large amounts of content after your change was reverted and I proposed you start a split/spinout discussion. Since you are still saying WP:FIXIT I don't think you are going to stop and wait for a consensus to form on the talk page regarding the removals without administrator intervention. When you started editing the article it was 108,417 bytes over the course of several hours you have reduced it to 73,931 bytes. A revert is any edit or series of edits that undoes another editors work in whole or part. I would say deleting around 30% of the article counts as undoing other editors work.Seraphim System (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I removed large amounts of the article, thats called editing Wikipedia. All the contested content was left unchanged per WP:TALK. You're still not getting it. The WP:3RR means that I reverted your edits three times in an edit war. Me editing the article three (and more) times doesn't count. You're losing your argument on the talk page and you wanted to use the notice board as a quick way out. I can't say I have't seen this before. LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my. Please clarify why are you editing like this LivinRealGüd? So basically you have removed completely the bonus controversy, the Parmalat controversy and loads of other negative information claiming they are "repeated" elsewhere?! Where? This is whitewashing of the article. It's not just your multiple reverts crossing 3RR, your edits are absolutely suspicious and I question your credentials. My recommendation would be an immediate block, unless you clarify what in heavens are you up to? Lourdes 07:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lourdes, I would love to clarify "why I edit like this". I always have. I don't know what you mean by "questioning my credentials" or what that entails. If I see poorly written articles with poorly sourced content that goes against Wikipedia's core content policies I like to make bold and decisive edits. Thats how I took Jeff Bezos to Good Article status earlier this year. A similar event happened there, a large "controversies" section was taken out and reincorporated back into the main part of the article as it should be. White washing would be when I go to articles and delete negative information and keep positive information. Thats clearly not whats happening. You can see from my edit history, I don't do this and never will (nor would I want to). Telling me I have "suspicious" edits and "questioning my credentials" is a serious case of assuming bad faith. I've dealt with multiple finance related articles and brought them to Good Article status by questioning and challenging WP:RECENTISM and WP:TMI. When I edit articles two things happen, either editors follow my edits and make improvements as I go along and discuss on the talk page. Or they don't actually look at my edits and what I'm removing and adding and decided to make assumptions. Do me a favor. Click on the Bank of America article right now (as you've currently reverted it). Take a look at all that unsourced content, take a look at that tone of voice, that legalistic writing, all that poorly sourced controversies section, all that information that is mentioned twice on the article (for example BofA's involvement during the 2008 financial crisis, which is mentioned three times). I usually don't have to deal with this because editors like Seraphim System know they're in the wrong and work with me to fix it. This user has a history of adding legalistic information into articles with personal analysis sprinkled in. Do I question their involvement with the article? Absolutely. But thats a discussion for their talk page or BofA's talk page. I tried to have a discussion with this user but they left the talk page. Thats on them. I would appreciate you restoring the article as I left it. If you'd like come join me on the talk page and lets discuss why having 60-70% of the article either about lawsuits or controversies is against WP:NPOV. I'm an experienced editor making bold edits to improve an article. I think you know whats happening here is different from what Seraphim System is proposing. LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: User:LivinRealGüd is warned they may be blocked for edit warring if they remove content again from Bank of America without getting prior consensus for their changes on the article talk page. Though LRG has been participating on the talk page they don't appear to be listening. If you can't find support for your intended radical surgery the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned (template for archiving purposes) Swarm ♠ 21:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkusSchulze reported by User:Nardopolo (Result: Both blocked )

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STAR_voting&diff=855712679&oldid=855701753

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STAR_voting&action=history

    This one is pretty simple. Editor MarkusSchulze is defending his note that relies on an unpublished and biased source, that also runs contrary to Wikipedia's definition of the term in question.

    Indeed. The discussion regarding the edits is presented in the talk page. Schulze stopped discussing there when it was clear his section lacked support. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:STAR_voting

    Comments:
    Looking for consistency in interpretation of other terms defined on Wikipedia here. Voting method criteria are binary -- they are not in any way subject to "wider sense of the word" interpretations. Schulze's efforts here are simply to regurgitate unsupportable internet FUD regarding a particular voting method, and should be prevented. Just one guy's opinion. Nardopolo (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    When someone proposes a new election method, it is his burden to show which properties this method has; it is not the burden of the community. STAR voting has never been analyzed in a peer-reviewed journal. What User:Nardopolo does is: He claims that, whenever it hasn't been proven in a peer-reviewed journal that STAR voting doesn't have a certain property, he can claim that it has this property. Markus Schulze 09:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of you are going to get blocked before the end of day. I see more than ten revert wars between the two of you. When you guys get unblocked, go to the talk page and restart the discussions that are going on. Lourdes 09:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Millzipede reported by User:Hotwiki (Result: Page protected)

    Page: The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Millzipede (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [29]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [30]
    2. [31]
    3. [32]
    4. [33]

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

    Comments:
    IP user Special:Contributions/209.20.37.82 have removed a picture of a recurring guest in a reality TV show. All the other pictures posted that weren't removed are for all main cast members. Then Millzipede reverted that edit. While I agreed with the IP user to remove the image, because in my opinion, main cast members should be the only ones to have their photos posted in the section. So me and along with another IP Special:Contributions/47.208.76.60 have reverted Millzipede's revert. Only to warn both of us that if we revert his/her edit that we would be reported. So its basically three are against of keeping the picture in the article, while Millzipede can't compromise with the other editors and claimed that we are the ones edit warring. Hotwiki (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BarbadosKen reported by User:VQuakr (Result: No violation)

    Page
    Keith Ellison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    BarbadosKen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "Removing the section is a WP:BLP violation. More information is coming out. Ellison now says that Monahan contacted him for roadside assistance."
    2. 16:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Domestic violence allegations and denial */ balance out the sentence with what has been acknowledged vs. what has been denied."
    3. 04:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Domestic violence allegations and denial */ There is no need to quote the son verbatim. Paraphrasing him and summarizing should be sufficient (no need to include what profanities Ellison allegedly used)."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Keith Ellison. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Precise wording */ re, request self-rv"
    Comments:

    Page is under a 1RR restriction per [35]. Multiple WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations on talk page as well. Reverting a BLP vio in talk space shortly, too. VQuakr (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I must say that your talk page revert is beyond bizarre and is twilight zone material (normally edit wars are in the article, not the talk page). I have undone your revert. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Vexatious complaint. The first 2 edits are Barbados moderating BLP for NPOV which should be exempt. VQuakr has been gaming 1RR to prevent ANY mention of an event covered by all the major outlets even with consensus on the talk page to include it. And to call this a "BLP vio" is beyond a stretch. BOOMERANG. 31.207.35.118 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs #2 and #3 are not reverts. I don't understand this report. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.. Don't editors have to be warned specifically of 1RR-related Arbcom discretionary sanctions first? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333:- As VQuaker pointed out, the page is under 1RR. And they don't have to be warned if they are clearly aware of it. As BarbadosKen clearly is, since he was just pointing out to me that, quote, "The text You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. appears in big bold letters whenever you hit the edit button for the article". I mean, I can't see how BarbadosKen can write that one moment, then go and break the rule the next.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But as pointed out, only one of his edits really counts as a "revert", so I think 1RR has been adhered to. Plus the issue is now stale, anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ritchie333, There actually was a violation of the 1RR by BarbadosKen. Wukai removed acknowledged having had a relationship with Monahan in this edit. In the next edit of 16:43, 20 August 2018‎ BarbadosKen added Acknowledging that he did indeed have a relationship with Monahan. While not a direct revert it was a revert that added back the info that was just removed. In the next edit Volunteer Marek blanked the section under dispute. Then at 22:00, 20 August 2018 BarbadosKen reinserted a modified version of the content. That is two reverts in a little under 6 hours. I agree the issue is now stale but just wanted to point out there was a violation. ~ GB fan 10:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Binksternet reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: No action)

    Page: Rent control in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [36]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [37]
    2. [38]
    3. [39]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:


    Sorry if this format is not quite ideal, this is the first time I have had the need to report anyone. Thank you for your time.

    Avatar317 (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317[reply]

    With due respect, might I add to Avatar317 that if you revert the article even once more, you'll contravene 3RR and would be liable for a block. So please continue discussions on the talk page and stop reverting. Lourdes 10:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.--regentspark (comment) 00:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ahunt reported by User:173.73.10.191 (Result: No violation)

    Page: 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ahunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [40]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [41]
    2. [42]
    3. [43]
    4. Suspected IP sock reverting: [44]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Included in edit message: [45]

    Comments:

    Please note Ahunt is one of several editors protecting this article against disruptive editing. There have not been three edits in 24 hours. There is zero evidence about socking and you would need to file a WP:SPI if there were. Since the IP came here after the page was protected they may want to read WP:BOOMERANG MarnetteD|Talk 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, disputing a change and asking to start a discussion on the talk page is hardly disruptive. What **was** disruptive is continuously reverting those edits, leaving the article in a disputed state as Ahunt did. Additionally, edit-warring does not seem to be limited to 3RR violations.
    IP suspected of socking due to similar edit summary style, timing of revert, and the edit warring notice it left on my talk page (as Ahunt had done some minutes before) - but I don't know if an SPI is necessary unless further disruption is seen from the IP. Again, just "suspected". 173.73.10.191 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep it at the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite brazen, considering the OP has socked while blocked to continue his edit war, and then removed another user's comments above. Pinging involved admins @EdJohnston, SarekOfVulcan, and Nick-D: to trigger the boomerang. - BilCat (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1 month for disruptive editing sounds about right to me. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - excellent block Nick-D (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for resolving this issue, protecting the article, my talk page and blocking the IP. Just for the record the other IP address that this IP reported as a possible "sock", 128.237.122.120, was obviously not me. As my user page makes clear, I am in Canada and that IP traces to Carnegie Mellon University in the US. I do thank him or her for their edits however. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rameezraja001 reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Already blocked)

    Page
    Sculpture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Rameezraja001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 10:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855868637 by Khirurg (talk) pushing eurocentric ideas."
    2. 10:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855867951 by Khirurg (talk) unexplained reversion"
    3. 10:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855860235 by Johnbod (talk) unexplained reversion"
    4. 06:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC) "editing info"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 10:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC) "/* August 2018 */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 10:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Eurocentrism reeks from this article */"
    Comments:

    Brightline 3RR vio at high-visibility article. Also edit-warring at other articles (e.g. Buddhist art). Edits consist of either WP:JDL removals, or addition of WP:FRINGE viewpoints sourced to either low quality sources (e.g. Hindu nationalist blogs), or no source at all. Talkpage comments indicate clearly WP:NOTHERE ([46] [47] [48]), as does his own user page. Khirurg (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also edit warring at Indus Script Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And Greco-Buddhist art, Greco-Buddhism (47k turned into a redirect), and others. Now blocked 1 mth. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:60.50.200.241 reported by User:DIYeditor (Result: Warned)

    Page: Turing (microarchitecture) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 60.50.200.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [49]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [50]
    2. [51]
    3. [52]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

    Comments:
    Not yet a 3RR and I would not have reported this IP user for edit warring but they were belligerent about it and called me a moron, ignoring the warning and explanation of BRD etc. and reverting again. Perhaps I should not have reverted their initial violation of BRD, I'm not sure how to handle that, but I've stopped there and left it as their version after the last revert. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: The IP is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting consensus on Talk, or if they continue with the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Markus Schulze reported by User:Homunq (Result: )

    Page: STAR voting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Markus Schulze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is not a report of edit-warring behavior, but rather of a user who was blocked for edit warring and then, when the block expired, immediately nominated the page in question to AfD: [[55]]. Initially I merely responded on the AfD itself, but now that the user edited the AfD nomination to directly reference the dispute which was the subject of the edit war (monotonicity), I believe that a report here is in order. Note that the talk page discussion on monotonicity has continued, but that the user has not participated there since before the sanctioned edit-warring, and that the arguments on the AfD are a near-verbatim rehash of arguments that have already been dealt with in talk.

    I do not currently believe that a further block is in order but I think it's worth reporting this behavior.

    Comments:
    Homunq (࿓) 12:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=856033532"