Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:174.60.194.10 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Gabapentin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.60.194.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
IP is adding spinning gifs to drug article. WikiProject Pharmacology has said "no" to these, see this discussion. IP isn't talking, just edit warring. I left the spinning gif to avoid edit warring myself. Please block and consider semi-protecting the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Page protected for one week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The exact same reversion has started following the protection by Skullballoons (talk · contribs), [[1]]. This is the first edit by this account since 2012. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the edit war has continued, an SPI case has been raised. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skullballoons). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:HappyWaldo reported by User:Gts-tg (Result: Protected)

Page

George Miller (director) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

HappyWaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662524295&oldid=662498583 this isn't done for aus-born and raised directors of west/north European ancestry. go further south and suddenly it's notable?
2. George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662552722&oldid=662552147 'MOS:BLPLEAD "Ethnicity ... should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.'
3. George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662553899&oldid=662553077 nothing to discuss. you are violating wiki guidelines

Diffs of edit warring

1. George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662554848&oldid=662553899 unsourced
2. George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662627657&oldid=662624479 Greek-Australian" isn't a nationality. you are confused about the distinction between nationality and ethnicity.the former belongs in the lead, the latter in miller's case doesn't
3. George_Miller_(director)&diff=662629571&oldid=662628066 you have made contentious edits. i reverted them and explained why per WP:BRD. you haven't backed your edits with any policy or guideline, just a belief that greek parentage is special. an admin needs to resolve this

3RR warning

User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=662632757&oldid=661711395 Warning on edit warring

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662552942&oldid=661621765
2. Talk:George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662554319&oldid=662554096
3. Talk:George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662627582&oldid=662626645

Comments:

User:HappyWaldo insists on reverting and edit warring without discussing first, in one of his reverts he even mentioned that there is nothing to discuss. Furthermore, he removed some extra content(that was not part of previous edit warring) citing it as being unsourced, I added sources and a few more info backed by extra sources as well, and he removed this too saying that it is not allowed by policy(the same part of content that he previously removed as being unsourced). I have asked him repeatedly to discuss in good faith in the talk page, but apparently he prefers to be discussing via edits and reverts, his latest edit/removal of contents is simply mimicking what I told him which was that I will have no option but to report him if he continues to remove content and sources Gts-tg (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, the article is essentially locked as if I try to add info such as birth name and ethnicity which are backed by sources, he is going to remove them again. The rationale for my edits is fully explained in the talk page of the article and does not correspond to what the user claims in the summary of his last edit warring edit. Gts-tg (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally, the user's talk page shows that he has a long history of similar behavior(e.g. this one and this one and this one among others Gts-tg (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I was agreeing, not "simply mimicking", that an admin needs to intervene. In most cases I've come across, if contentious content is added to an article, it is reverted and then discussed; it doesn't stay up while the discussion is ongoing. My case for reverting is based entirely on Wikipedia guidelines. There's nowhere else to go. Perhaps I was too dismissive, but I thought it was poor form to keep adding back the material when no consensus had been reached. As for the "long history" of similar incidents: the first example involves an inexperienced user (evidenced by not signing name) who overcrowded the Ned Kelly article with images; second example is a case where all other users were in agreement with me; third example was an entirely friendly exchange, read the user's talk page. - HappyWaldo (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There were at least 3 warnings from me that you have to stop reverting before discussing otherwise this will need to be moderated, I don't see any 'agreeing' in your last edit summary but just making it look as if you are the one requesting an admin. As for 'most cases you've come across' and 'contentious content', sorry you don't get to remove something and then sit on top of it for ever, the content was already there. You mention reaching consensus but how is consensus going to be reached when you keep removing and reverting? As for your long history, the links are there for anybody to read whether there were issues created by enforcing your viewpoint through removing of content and sources, against 'friendly' or not, 'inexperienced' or experienced users, same as the article in question here Gts-tg (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. The alternative was to block both parties for edit warring. See WP:DR for how to get more opinions on this. At first sight, HappyWaldo's comments about mentioning ethnicity in the lead appear more in accord with the usual Wikipedia practice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Chab-khaled reported by User:Stéphanie Renaud (Result: Stale)

Page: Khaled (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chab-khaled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

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

Comments:
User:Chab-khaled continues edit warring (7 RR and counting) despite multiple warnings. Stéphanie Renaud (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Most of these reverts were yesterday, but there's no question that this user has been problematic (this many reverts is rarely acceptable, and certainly not adding in this kind of commentary). They're also a SPA. For fairness, I should note that Stéphanie Renaud is also a brand new account with a surprisingly strong grasp of Wikipedia policy, but I see no issue with any of their three edits on this page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Stale CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:72.182.109.178 reported by User:Haminoon (Result: Block, Semi)

Page

Flipora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

72.182.109.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Reversing vandalism of page. This user is promoting his own page where he is trying to distribute his own virus exe file which does damage to a computer, and is promoting it as a computer cleaner tool. Please block him or lock this page from edits."
2. 23:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662672022 by Winner 42 (talk)"
3. 23:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Repeated vandalism - promoting his own dangerous software that claims to be a computer cleaner. Would any of the edits dare to install the exe he is promoting on his page?"
4. 23:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "This revision has two problems (1) it references a low quality source (2) it references a page in position #1, whose main purpose is to get the user to install and exe. Both these make the reference bad for wikipedia. Sorry for unclear reason earlier."
5. 23:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662674485 by Winner 42 (talk)"
6. 23:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662676273 by Wtmitchell (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Flipora. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Protection request (May 16, 2015) */"

Comments:

Haminoon: I am merely reversing their edits they are adding without explanation. You were part of the talk and delete page discussion and were pushing for a high bar for noteworthiness of references.

Haminoon: What about the other guys making edits to the page and clearly not passing the bar for references established in the talk and delete pages.

Please look at the other two users also who seem related and seem hell bent on distributing this reference link.

The link contains the following text at the bottom and pushes you to install an exe. http://www.virusresearch.org/spyhunter-installation-instructions/ Why was this above link removed? That was precisely the link promoted from the reference page. If this is too unsafe for this page, it safe to say it's unsafe to promote it from a wikipedia page as well?

If this link is too unsafe to keep here, please block the other two users from making disruptive edits or protect the page. If this link is safe, click on it by all means.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.109.178 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Flipora article semiprotected one year by User:Huon. The IP who filed this report was blocked 72 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:72.185.164.97 reported by User:TheTMOBGaming2 (Result: Semi)

Page: Monstercat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.185.164.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11], User is providing a link to a tweet, claiming a new artist has joined the roster, but the account is not verified by Twitter as an official account.
2. [12], same
3. [13], User fails to comply with WP:USERGENERATED, which explicitly states that tweets are not acceptable.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Unable to do so

Comments:
Clear violation of WP:USERGENERATED; adding an unsourced artist not listed on the main website or verified through a verified Twitter account. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. IPs have been warring to add unsourced content. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Deadwords reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

Page: Faith No More (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deadwords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

0 [15] 22:04, May 15, 2015. Added primary source interview saying the band considers their new album "post-punk". Not a revert.

1. [16] 22:43, May 15, 2015. Added "post-punk" and "rock" genres. Removed "funk metal" genre, saying the band "opposes this label."
2. [17] 23:11, May 15, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
3. [18] 07:03, May 16, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
4. [19] 23:14, May 16, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
5. [20] 02:31, May 17, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
6. [21] 03:10, May 17, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
7. [22] 03:15, May 17, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23] 03:05, May 17, 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
Deadwords is effectively a single-purpose account focused almost exclusively on the band Faith No More. Deadwords has very often taken a battleground attitude at the article, reverting other editors such as Mlpearc[25] in 2013 and I call the big one bitey [26] in 2014. Arguing with Mad Hatter in 2013, Deadwords warred to insert primary-sourced text.[27] The current argument stems from an overreliance on primary sources, and too much consideration given to the band's own statements rather than WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Response by Deadwords:

I am truly dumbfounded. All of my contributions have been properly cited. I have complained about vandalism to the Faith No More page multiple times since many of my recent edits were deleted. I have provided sources to support all contributions. More recently, I attempted to clarify the band's genre. My claim is that Faith No More is absolutely a rock band. It is in their printed bio, & they are also referred to a rock band by the Billboard Magazine link I provided. I submitted TWO separate sources supporting the perspective that FNM is also considered post-punk: 1 from the actual artist (primary), the other from a well published music critic/author (WP:SECONDARY). Why would this information be consistently deleted by anonymous users &, more recently, Binksternet? Binksternet ignored the recent secondary source supporting the post-punk clarification. Battleground approach is nonsense. I've always attempted to provided clarifying, & meaningful, content with solid sources. This is a case of sour apples. Furthermore, I have warned others recently that they are engaging in an edit war/vandalism. There is no reason for the information I've added recently to be consistently deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadwords (talk • contribs) 06:32, May 17, 2015

Other editors who have a good faith interest in improving the article are not "vandals" even when they disagree with you and remove your work. I'm sure you will agree that the band is difficult to categorize. You should give other editors some slack as they attempt to summarize published opinion about the band.

Of course FNM is a rock band, because the very large rock genre is an umbrella for many subgenres; heavy metal is rock, alt metal is rock, hard rock is rock, funk metal is rock, experimental rock is rock, etc. The problem was that your Rolling Stone source did not say that the band's genre is rock, instead, it says they are "rock's most contrarian band" which doesn't distinguish them by musical genre. The headline continues by describing them as "alt-metal superheroes".[28]

Another problem comes from when the band's songs or albums are described as this or that genre. A band's own genre may be independent of the genres of the songs and albums. For instance, a widely popular singer who has recently contributed to a children's album is not suddenly a children's artist. In that vein, your second source (which appears to be a copyright violation of some magazine page) quotes a band member saying that the latest album is post-punk. If a band's 7th album is post-punk that does not mean the band is suddenly post-punk. Wikipedia requires its facts to be verifiable, so a band's genre must come from descriptions of the band, not descriptions of the songs or albums. Furthermore, a band member is never the definitive arbiter of the band's genre; we need WP:SECONDARY sources describing the band's genre. If your second source could be cited (if it's not a copyright violation) then the reporter describes the band as having an "innovative mix of heavy rock with rap, electronica, jazz and more... alt-rock scene." So this source would support a genre of "alternative rock".

A final problem comes from using one or two outlier sources to misrepresent the wide array of published opinion. We should instead select published sources that are representative, such that the genres which are used most often by reviewers are represented most strongly in the article. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Response by Deadwords:

>>"Other editors who have a good faith interest in improving the article are not "vandals" even when they disagree with you and remove your work... You should give other editors some slack as they attempt to summarize published opinion about the band."

- This philosophy could also be applied to my attempts to add to the page.

>> "Of course FNM is a rock band, because the very large rock genre is an umbrella for many subgenres;"

This is the exact same language I used to support my original edit, which was cited. They were refered to as a rock band in the Rolling Stones article. You want to argue semantics. Very petty. There are several lists published which rank FNM music along with other rock songs. Here are a few examples: 1. http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/02/faith-no-more-announce-sol-invictus-the-seminal-rock-bands-first-album-in-18-years/ 2. http://ultimateclassicrock.com/faith-no-more-songs/ 3. http://www.itunescharts.net/us/charts/albums/rock/ (FNM on "Top 40 US Rock Albums" iTunes chart)

>> A band's own genre may be independent of the genres of the songs and albums

Independent, fine. But it should be recognized and validated.

>>"we need WP:SECONDARY sources describing the band's genre."

I provided a proper secondary source, & mentioned this above. "BEST SELLING AUTHOR JOEL MCIVER TALKS FAITH NO MORE... 'Bill Gould was an instant hero because of the effortless way he inserted funk riffs into bass-lines which I thought owed much more to post-punk...' " Here is the link once again: http://www.faithnomoreblog.com/2014/10/best-selling-author-joel-mciver-talks.html

Regarding the Funk/Funk Metal label: If the label is to remain in the sidebar, it should be noted that it is controversial. The band refutes and avoids this label. This should be properly documented in the band's wiki. http://www.faithnomoreblog.com/2012/08/its-itwhat-is-it-focus-on-song.html Quote from articke: Roddy (1992): “This whole funk metal thing is really disgusting! The last thing I want to be in is a funk metal band – we’re gonna try and be anything but that!”

Lastly, Binksternet recently made additional edits to a separate section of the band's wiki, removing a valid quote from the band which was properly cited: "In a 2010 interview with Bizarre Magazine, Mike Patton spoke about the conflict, stating: 'It’s not worth talking about. I’ve no idea what it was about then and I don’t know now. But I bet we’d have a warm embrace if we saw each other now.' " Source: http://www.laweekly.com/music/do-faith-no-more-and-the-red-hot-chili-peppers-still-hate-each-other-5508133 - Why attempt to reach so far by deleting meaningful quotes, which I recently added, during this time? Is this a case of bullying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadwords (talk • contribs)

Joel McIver's opinion about post-punk "bass-lines" does not define the band. First, he's talking about some songs from the album The Real Thing, not the band as a whole. Second, Joel McIver says in that same interview that he understood the funk metal label "to an extent, perhaps because I’m a bass player and the funk in FNM came largely from Bill’s bass." Lastly, you've selected an outlier which does not represent the mass of published opinion.

Again, you are giving the band's opinion too much credence. We can tell the reader about the band's own assessment, putting such information in the article body, but their opinion is not definitive. Wikipedia prefers third party opinions over the artist's own opinions. The band's opinion does not belong in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Serendipodous reported by User:JasonAQuest (Result: Full protection)

Page: Planets beyond Neptune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Serendipodous (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]

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

Comments:

I do not understand. We have moved the discussion to the talk page, as I repeatedly asked. Why are you doing this now? As long as neither of us make any edits until consensus is reached, there is no edit war. Is your POV so important to you that you would prefer to get your opponents blocked then to deal with them civilly? Serendi^podous 13:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved party, I likewise do not understand. This is a content dispute, and IMHO this dispute was provoked by this edit on a Featured Article with no edit summary by User:JasonAQuest. Jason has a bad habit of occasionally not using edit summaries, and this case, it caught up with him. User:Serendipodous, the major contributor to the FA, quite naturally reverted per BRD, edit summary pointing out no reason was given for the change. Instead of creating a talk page discussion, JasonAQuest started an edit summary discussion, IMHO a poor place to discuss complex subject matter. What followed was a revert war in live pagespace (a very poor choice for both users) and the discussion in edit summary. Talk page discussion was not begun until both users were well into 3RR territory, and after Serendipodous had implored JasonAQuest (in edit summary) to commence such discussion. In Jason's first edit to the talk page discussion itself, he uses dismissive language ("I realize that the IAU ruling looms large in astronomy geeks' minds") to defend his position and in personal talk page discussion accused Serendipodous of page ownership. Both users are at fault for not immediately commencing a discussion on talk, but Jason, by making a substantial edit to the lede of a FA with zero edit summary, certainly provoked the dispute and then made poor choices in not assuming good faith. I'm not an admin, but if I were I'd dismiss this report and admonish both editors for poor choices. If anyone deserves a negative consequence, it's the reporter here (for repeatedly failing to use edit summaries), but seeing as how both sides (generally very worthy contributors) are discussing this on talk, I don't think there's any reason for administrative action. Perhaps JasonAQuest would consider withdrawing this complaint. BusterD (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Page protected. You both appear to be edit warring so I either block both or protect the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Scytsari reported by User:CompliantDrone (Result: Semi)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff #1
2. Diff #2
3. Diff #3
4. Diff #4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning Removed within two minutes and resulting in a Drive-by comment on my talk page: Nobody is edit warring, I'm fixing what needs be fixed, why do you care so much?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Failed attempts at consensus on the Talk page

Comments: This entry has been plagued recently by nationalist editors who unilaterally edit and will not discuss the subject (primarily concerning sexuality in the Pashtun belt of Afghanistan and India) or contribute other than deleting material they subjectively disagree with and leaving snide commentary in the edit summary. The page has received temporary semi-protection a few times as a result, and myself and other editors are beginning to suspect sock puppetry based on patterns of behavior.

CompliantDrone (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet, I'm a newcomer to wikipedia hence the 'driveby' but you sir are very uneducated and misinformed. Get a life and leave such matters to people who know a thing or two, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to see how often edit-warriors accuse those who revert them of having a POV agenda. Is it a Freudian slip? HandsomeFella (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotected for one year by Callanecc. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: No violation)

Page: Gotham (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]; the user being reported removed the notice one minute later: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42], [43]

Comments:

When I noticed the user making the change, I reverted the change, noting that, as per BRD, the user should use the talk page to seek consensus for the drastic alteration to the article. ([44]). The user simply reverted. I put the article back again, noting that the user has misapprehended the policy they were using as defense and stressing the need to use the discussion page and not an edit summary to seek consensus. At that point, i initiated a talk page section about the matter. While I was doing so, the user reverted yet again; their 3rd revert. I took the time to send them a comment to their talk page, advising them to use discussion and stop reverting. The user removed the post less than a minute later. I undid the revert for the third (and my last) time, noting that if they continued to edit-war and avoid discussion, I wasn't going to have any choice but to file an edit-war report.
They reverted less than three minutes later. The user is convinced he is correct and discussion isn't worth his time.
I've done everything I can. I'd ask for one of two resolutions:

1. that the article be reverted back to the previous version and be protected for a week, until AlexTheWhovian understands that edit summaries aren't going to magically create consensus where dissent clearly exists.
2. In the alternative, perhaps a block of AlexTheWhovian is required, to protect the article. The user was warned more than once; they know the potential penalty for continuing to edit-war. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Diff of user notification: [45] - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment #4 (listed above as #4, actually first one chronologically) wasn't actually a revert. There's no overlap in the text that Alex and the IP edited. ― Padenton|✉   04:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it would appear that there were only three reverts, the fourth one being a revert of a much earlier edit. Look, I'm not on a witch hunt here. I brought the matter here because 3RR doesn't necessarily require four reverts, but instead a pattern of disruptive editing. AlexTheWhovian makes a bold edit. When reverted, his next course of action is to head to article discussion, as per BRD. This did not happen. Instead, the user escalates the matter by reverting three times after that. That sort of behavior destabilizes articles. That is the problem that should be addressed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No violation – EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Splendid. I'm sure Alex will be back, since you've decided that his behavior is just peachy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:ALSHEIKHULSHEIKH reported by User:Apparition11 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Sargodha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ALSHEIKHULSHEIKH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

• Revision as of 11:20, 2015 May 16

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662820439 by Huon (talk)"
2. 10:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662914591 by Noq (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC) to 11:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 11:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "sourced material"
   2. 11:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC) to 13:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Sourced material"
   2. 13:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 13:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Apparation11 is removing sourced material"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sargodha. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Population */ new section"
2. 13:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Population */ again"

Comments:

ALSHEIKHULSHEIKH is continually changing population figures without providing sources that actually backs up the content. While this is taking place on numerous articles, Sargodha is the one that they have warred the most on. They apparently have no desire to engage in discussion. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 13:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. User:ALSHEIKHULSHEIKH is constantly restoring his preferred version to the article, complete with red warning messages in the reference section due to missing information. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a relevant RFCU request open regarding this matter as well, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zalingeishahpur. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:75.156.202.134 reported by User:Resolute (Result: Semi)

Page: Calgary Comic and Entertainment Expo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.156.202.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:
An IP editwarring to add undue coverage of a minor incident using unreliable sources. Of note, this is a GamerGate-related incident, so remedies from the applicable ArbCom case could also apply. Page protection might also be warranted since I'm sure other gamergaters will come by to try and back this one up, but since I've been discussing and reverting his additions this morning, best that I don't take administrative actions myself. Resolute 14:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I've observed, the IP has been ignoring WP:BRD. IP should be getting consensus on talkpage, before implimenting its edit. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This can be handled with a regular block for edit warring, for instance one week. Though this is a Gamergate issue, the IP has no edits prior to 17 May and seems unlikely to stay around as a regular contributor, at least under this identity. Handing out the usual Gamergate notice might not make much difference. I'd be inclined to semiprotect the article as well for whatever time it is likely that the article might be targeted by editors without a track record who may be interested in Gamergate. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me the initial edit to include the 2015 incident was made in good faith an an attempt to report what happened. Reading the talk page, it seems as if the IP did, in fact, attempt to build consensus, however got somewhat incensed when the material was outright removed, in apparent violation of WP:BRD. The policy implies that material should be discussed prior to being removed if there is a way to improve it.

Of note: The user removing the material also resides in Calgary, which is the location of the Calgary Expo, and it is not inconceivable that they have some form of connection to the Calgary Expo themselves. Scbritton (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. It may be too early to decide if this article should be placed under Gamergate restrictions per WP:ARBGG#Remedies. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate restrictions might be a little excessive - because the facts of what happened include a GamerGate banner at booth, so a reference to GamerGate is inevitable should something be included. One should note that the accusation that the editing IP is somehow affiliated with GamerGate is unprovable and dubious at best. As mentioned, it does appear to have been a good faith attempt, as carried by the language used in the text of the edits that were made. It is also interesting to note that Resolute made no attempt to actually improve the text that was written, and went straight to deleting it. As above, I refer you to WP:BRD. Scbritton (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

BRD is Bold (the action of adding the material), Revert (remove it if challenged), Discuss. Not "Discuss and re-revert". A supposedly new editor would not quite be aware of that, which is why I tried to direct them to the talk page and leave article space alone until a discussion concluded. I tried to explain to them how Wikipedia works and what it views as reliable sources, but as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. The semi-protection in this case is warranted, regardless of how much or how little mention you think this deserves. Resolute 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Pahlavan Qahremani (Result: Full Protection)

Constant edit warrior 3R on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

refuses to discuss on talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pahlavan_Qahremani

• Page protected Full protected for 24 hours. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Neda Safarzadeh reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Indef)

Page

List of companies headquartered in San Diego (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Neda Safarzadeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 22:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "added"
3. 22:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Added content."
4. 22:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Adding inappropriate entries to lists on List of companies headquartered in San Diego. (TW)"
2. 22:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Adding inappropriate entries to lists on List of companies headquartered in San Diego. (TW)"
3. 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on List of companies headquartered in San Diego. (TW)"
4. 22:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on List of companies headquartered in San Diego. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

On my talkpage, they referred to the company they were adding as "us"- clearly only here to promote their company Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:97.90.29.29 reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Semi)

Page: Robert Sears (physician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.90.29.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

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

Comments:

• Ongoing removal of content, despite warnings. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months. Edit warring by mutiple IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:StAnselm (Result: No action)

Page: Daniel (biblical figure) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62] (IP edit which he has acknowledged as his own [63])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

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

Comments:
The user had previously added a controversial claim; these reverts include reverting another editor's tags regarding the claim, and then reverting my removal of it. So far we have not been able to come to an agreement on the talk page. StAnselm (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I did not add a claim to the article, it was already there and StAnselm removed it and I reverted his removal. He should then have gone to discussion on Talk and let the original version stand. Let me say that I've had a fair amount of interaction with StAnselm and have a great deal of respect for him - I think he's made an honest mistake about what was original. I also think it's time we took this to some form of dispute resolution - perhaps RfC as a first step. I'll leave that to him. PiCo (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes you did - you added it here. That was one of the first things I checked when I saw the claim had been tagged. StAnselm (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I only added it to the lead, it was already in the body of the article. Anyway, I've now accepted your latest edit-out of the word "fictional" and added a clause more or less quoting Collins' wording (scholarly consensus is that Daniel never existed). Perhaps you can accept that.PiCo (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can't find the word in this revision, for example. When was it removed from the body? But thanks for removing it - the current wording is what I have been arguing for. StAnselm (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. This seems to be resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: Warned)

Page

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Medeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC) "no discussion or reference to policy"
2. 04:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC) "1872?"
3. 04:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC) "Non-anti American rationales is by far support"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC) on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates "/* [Ready] Waco biker gang shooting */"

Comments:

It shocks me that a well established editor like this is engaging in petty edit warring over an ITN nomination, but that what is happening. No attempt by M to engage in discussion with Kudzu1 even when K posted twice, once with a flaw in the blurb and once about M edit warring. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• That does look like bad edit-warring. It's extraordinary how much heat is generated at ITN. It's not a pleasant place at all. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• I found this behavior somewhat upsetting and certainly inappropriate for ITN/C, but I don't know that there needs to be any sort of disciplinary action beyond maybe a warning. I would have preferred that Medeis recognize that marking the item as "ready" was not a consensus action nor an action that should generally be taken by the nominator. That being said, there was no 3RR violation, which is generally the standard for a temp block. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Kudzu1, I am only seeing this warning this morning, and didn't realize I had made two reverts. Basically, my opinion is to let consensus prevail, and I'll be happy to see what happens without further action on my part. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Three reverts on top of the original change actually. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll stipulate that (I was going by your diffs), three reverts before any warnings, none since, and no more intended. This isn't a content dispute or ongoing, and an admin will either post or close. I see how you could want to warn me for 3rr, but I am not sure what problem you are trying to stave off at this point. Looking at your edit history I see you "warned" me, filed this complaint and "notified me" all between 201 am and 209 am, almost an hour after I had gone to sleep. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Result: Warned User:Medeis. The war is not continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:148.197.152.197 and User:Unframboise reported by User:Drmargi (Result: )

Page: CSI: Cyber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of CSI: Cyber episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 148.197.152.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User being reported: Unframboise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (This is one user, who admittedly edits both with his IP and signed in.)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On CSI: Cyber:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSI%3A_Cyber&type=revision&diff=663095039&oldid=663057457] (IP edits)
2. [66] (now logged in)
3. [67]
4. [68]

On List of CSI: Cyber episodes:

1. [69] (IP edits)
2. [70] (now logged in)
3. [71]
4. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73] Editor claims he has not contravened 3RR because he wasn't logged in the first edit, yet there is a growing pattern of him doing this when he is reverted.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74] There's also a brief discussion on List of CSI: Cyber episodes: [75], but the discussion is largely on the main article's talk page.

Comments:
The issue at hand is whether a gossip/entertainment website reporting they "hear" a cast member is leaving the show is a reliable source that he is, in fact, leaving when neither the actor, the show nor the network has confirmed his departure. This is then being re-reported by other sites, none of whom has confirmation from the three main players noted. The site in question regularly reports rumors and gossip, which might be acceptable on the CSI: Cyber Wiki, but doesn't rise to the level of encyclopedic content. The editor continues to ignore WP:RS, WP:BRD and WP:VERIFY in order to attempt to forced the edit; oddly enough, if the actor is leaving the network or production will confirm it when they return to production in mid-summer, so what's the hurry? Most concerning, this editor has edited using a combination of IP and logged in edits more than once to edit war, and has contravened 3RR. He claims the logged out edits are accidental, which simply reinforces his intent, and his knowledge that he's breached WP:3RR. He is also attempting to unilaterally "declare" consensus, which the the discussion regarding the edits in question has degenerated into name calling and squabbling among three very new editors (although I have suspicions this editor is a block evader editing from his school.) It's a total mess. --Drmargi (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add my two cents, if that's okay with everyone. I'd like to note that the first edit (the IP edit) was not a reversion but in fact an original edit. I also noted on the talk:CSI: Cyber page that I was logged out as I accidentally forgot to login. A consensus was reached before I made this edit enabling me to do so, whilst user:drmargi refused to take place in the discussion, despite my urging her to.

A fuller account of my actions, including notes referencing my urging of user:drmargi to join the discussion instead of edit warring can be found below. I hope this resolves itself as I would like to become an established member of the Wikipedia community. After a year editing, this is the first time I have encountered problems such as this.

see: [76]

-- thanks, unframboise, 19:16, 19.05.15 (GMT).

Please note that the first edits (being the ones with IP) were made based on a discussion, in which it was established by valid arguments that the primary source is not a "gossip site" but a top tier source for entertainment news and that the article was written by a well-respected journalist and fact-checked by numerous other well-respected publishers. user:drmargi, however stopped participating in discussion after those arguments were presented. Maybe intentionally, so she can claim that consensus was not reached, but either so, she could state at any time, instead of reverting edits, that she still does not agree and thinks that there is no consensus, or present reasons why she thinks source is unreliable. And she has also been invited to do so. Maticsg1 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:80.246.133.64 reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

Page

Herut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

80.246.133.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC) to 19:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 20:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC) "his is not wikipedia this is antisemipedia the herut was never a major party you forgot that herut as a party was never the israeli government? and i gave you this fucking reliable source that you so wanted."
3. 20:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC) "how is the herut was the major party if it was never the israeli government make sense? major party mean it was part of the israeli government if you didnt knew antisemipedia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Menachem Begin. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor also appears to be making the same edits using IPs 87.69.198.92 and 85.65.121.88, and new account Morbenmoshe RolandR (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)