Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Djmex9205 (talk | contribs)
40 edits
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 597: Line 597:
*{{AN3|c}} This does not appear to be a bright-line issue of a [[WP:3RR]] violation. The IP—two IPs, technically—has only made three reverts within the last 24 hours and has not violated 3RR. That said, I strongly suggest that the IP not attempt to re-add the contentious material to the article but instead engage in a ''civil'' discussion at the article's talk page. The IP is also reminded to focus on content, not the other editors, and that any attempt to reveal personal information about an editor could result in an immediate block. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 19:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|c}} This does not appear to be a bright-line issue of a [[WP:3RR]] violation. The IP—two IPs, technically—has only made three reverts within the last 24 hours and has not violated 3RR. That said, I strongly suggest that the IP not attempt to re-add the contentious material to the article but instead engage in a ''civil'' discussion at the article's talk page. The IP is also reminded to focus on content, not the other editors, and that any attempt to reveal personal information about an editor could result in an immediate block. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 19:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


== [[User:Djmex9205]] reported by [[User:Betty Logan]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Betty Logan]] reported by [[User:Djmex9205]] (Result: ) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Motion picture rating system}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Motion picture rating system}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Djmex9205}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Logan Betty}}


<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Revision as of 21:45, 14 July 2014

    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:Unscintillating reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)

    Page: Cornwall Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Unscintillating (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 of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [5]
    2. [6]
    3. [7] referring to this
    4. [8]

    I sought to address this on the talk page of the editor, as reflected above, and on the article talkpage.

    Comments:
    In addition to the activity being edit warring, the editor plainly disregarded the fact (pointed out to him numerous times) that his additions violated wp:burden.

    Which states:

    "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.... Attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

    Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."

    He was restoring information, some of it blp info, that had been deleted in accord with wp:v and wp:TENANTS (which states: "Wikipedia is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists ... in shopping center articles (except in the circumstances described below).") That the material was deleted on those bases is reflected in the edit summaries and in the various posts made to his talk page.

    Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) I began to work on this article tonight as I had found 11 sources, and the article in its current condition fails WP:V.  There was also a problem that Epeefleche has been removing material from articles at AfD without looking for sources and without posting CN tags before removing the material, and in a recent related case I've documented a removal of sourced material.  So I began by restoring a stable version of the article, but I made two adjustments to re-remove lists of tenants that add nothing to the article (as per WP:TENANTS).  But 4 minutes into my beginning to work, Epeefleche started editing the article before I had even posted any of the 11 sources.  I cleaned up the edit conflict and got the sources posted and some other routine edits, only to find two templates on my talk page.  This is one of Epeefleche's MO's, templating the regulars.  I'm already in a dispute with him in an RfC at WT:V, so I decided that I didn't care at that point about losing the work, and anyway it was in the edit history.  So I restored his last edit.  Then I posted at the AfD.  Then I reviewed my watchlist.  I discovered I had created a 2nd edit conflict when I restored what I thought was Epeefleche's last edit.  This was way too complicated, this needed discussion.  So this time when I restored the stable version of the article, it was a straight restoration...and my edit comment said, "talk page is next".  Please see the talk page of the article, as I continued to post there without being aware of this 3RR.  I have made two proposals on the talk page of the article.  I am not aware of any edit warring by either party.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unscintillating was repeatedly told in each of a number of edit summaries that uncited material was being removed per wp:v (and some per wp:TENANTS as well). He was also told in a number of warnings and posts to his talk page, reflected above, that his restorations of the uncited material without provision of appropriate refs was a direct violation of wp:BURDEN. Yet he kept on restoring the uncited material. All in under 2 hours. He completely ignored all communications regarding the fact that his additions were a violation of wp:v. Since his last restoration of such material, I appreciate that a sysop has deleted the part of his additions that violate wp:TENANTS. Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation No edit warring here; the editor reverted his own additions after being requested to do so. Hope you too work this out on the talk page instead of in edit summaries. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lord -- I believe the confused record has misled you. The editor (Unscintillating) did at one point revert his own additions after being requested repeatedly to do so on his talk page ... but he then reverted his revert, and added back the material in direct violation of wp:burden.
    After all the above-indicated talk page messages to him. A sysop (wearing his "just an editor" hat) -- not Unscintillating -- had to then revert most of Unscintillating's inappropriate additions, which he did here.
    And the rest of Unscintillating's additions were then wiped out in a redirect by yet another editor.
    But your understanding that Un reverted his own additions is, as to his ultimate edits, not the case. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note -- As noted above, the close above by Lord Roem is based on a mistake by the Lord. While it is true that the editor had reverted his own additions, as Lord said in giving his rationale -- the editor then restored the very additions that the editor had deleted. Lord clearly missed that.
    His close can't be a legitimate close -- as the rationale is based on an incorrect understanding by Lord.
    I would appreciate another sysop closing this. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the repeated comments above regarding WP:V, Epeefleche quotes from WP:V, but omits the following conditional, "Whether...this should happen depends...".  I have documented a recent case of an article that Epeefleche took to AfD in which he removed sourced material during the AfD while claiming a WP:V entitlement.
    Over the weekend I spent a man day working up the details and sequence of events of this incident and posted them at [9] (@RoySmith:).  What I have found out is that after I said "talk page is next", nine minutes later Epeefleche was working to avoid discussion.  He did finally post, but ignored my questions.  Since the closing admin hoped that Epeefleche would, "work this out on the talk page", Epeefleche is in violation of the spirit of the closing of this 3RR report.  Please also review Epeefleche's definition of "at length" discussion, as seen at [10].  It is appropriate that Epeefleche be warned for refusal to discuss.  @Lord Roem:.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started to dig into Epeefleche's contributions around the time of July 2 tonight, and soon found [11].  @Lord Roem: You state, "I've looked at it again. I don't believe they were edit warring; they also appear to have moved their thoughts to the talk page. That is a productive step and I encourage you both to pursue it towards consensus."  You've now told him twice and I've told him once that there was no edit warring.  But subsequent to your 2nd ruling, he/she has found an excuse to not discuss, says words to the effect that he/she doesn't understand your ruling, re-asserts that there was edit warring, and above wants another admin to re-close.  Please support WP:BRD and issue a warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not issuing a warning for a user being displeased at one of my decisions. I think it would be far more productive for both of you to work out your disagreements on the article's talk page instead of prolonging the debate on this noticeboard. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lord -- As to your suggestion that the article's talkpage be used to discuss this -- first, that's not the appropriate forum for the gravamen of this report. Second, as indicated above, all the challenged text that Un had been restoring in violation of wp:v and wp:TENANTS has now been addressed, as it has been deleted (again), by other editors. So there is no longer any dispute as to text residing in the article (which itself no longer exists, it has been redirected). Only a dispute as to the reported edit warring. Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • After what has been now almost a week, I do not believe a block is necessary to prevent further disruption. At this point, both of you should be clear on what you should and shouldn't do during a disagreement. You seem to be asking that the other editor be blocked as punishment, which is something I won't do. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lord -- I agree blocks should not be used as punishment. The reason that this has lingered is that your rationale in your initial close was based on a clear mistake. See above. The goal here is to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior -- it is not clear that the conduct issues have been resolved, as you have not warned the editor vis-a-vis the above-indicated violations of wp:burden, nor has he indicated - as you suggest -- he is clear on the fact that he is bound by wp:burden (just the opposite). In short, it appears you made a clear error in your close, and are now simply not re-visiting the matter to do as much as tender a warning that wp:burden is a guideline that must be followed. Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing to discuss there -- inasmuch as the article itself no longer exists, and all the material you added in violation of wp:burden has been deleted by other editors. The only remaining item is a behavioral one. Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Epeefleche, (1) There are many issues to discuss.  (2) The AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin (Pinging @Purplebackpack89:, FYI.).  The article exists and is subject to editorial control.  In regard to your use of the word "delete", only administrators have the tools to perform deletions.  (3) I challenge you to exactly specify what it is that you claim is "all the material [I] added" improperly, and what criteria you used to satisfy the WP:BURDEN clause, "Whether...this should happen depends..."  Also please explain why you did not use {{cn}} tags.  (4) In spite of your attempts at argument from repetition, WP:Burden is not a central issue here.  To repeat what I said in this diff,
    Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unscintillating, it's perfectly acceptable for non-admins to redirect articles if consensus exists. Right now, the only issue is that you are displeased with the consensus to delete those articles. pbp 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:190.161.186.94 reported by User:AlanS (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Wind wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    190.161.186.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 10:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616346746 by AlanS (talk) rv retard"
    2. 16:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615283165 by AlanS (talk) rv dickhead"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Wind wave. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Please note edit summaries directed at me. This user appears to be same person who was recently blocked for a week for edit warring on Paul Keating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:190.44.133.67 AlanS (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note the flagrantly false accusation of vandalism. 190.161.186.94 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You consider the insertion of offensive language into wikipedia to not be vandalism how exactly? AlanS (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did no such thing. You are a liar, and from your talk page it's clear that you struggle to understand a lot of Wikipedia policy. 190.161.186.94 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there has been some incivility here, but no edit warring. I would encorage both parties to discuss the edits in question, and try and get on with more civil behavior towards one another. With no warning for edit warring, I would advise that this is not yet at AN3 level yet, and furthur discussion is needed. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the reason given for my edits, and the reason given by "AlanS" for reverting them. What exactly do you think needs to be discussed? And you yourself then joined the attack, reverting my carefully made edits which removed false and irrelevant information saying "I feel this is better before". If you like putting factually incorrect information into articles, you're a vandal. 190.161.186.94 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of two days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no support in the blocking policy for what you did. 190.161.186.94 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reblocked by Bbb23 for a week for resuming edit warring and attacking other editors. Actually Bbb23 beat me to it. De728631 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will make one technical comment. I think that the characterization of the IPs editing as "vandalism" was incorrect. The use of highly offensive edit summaries is not vandalism, but personal attacks are a valid block reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Washuotaku reported by User:NE2 (Result: Both blocked)

    Page: U.S. Route 117 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Washuotaku (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: [17]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

    Comments:

    I'm pretty sure removing my comment constitutes vandalism, but even if not, he's done it four times. We've also edit warred at U.S. Route 321 in North Carolina, U.S. Route 321 in Tennessee, and U.S. Route 321 in Virginia. --NE2 03:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irondome reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Closed)

    Page: Operation Protective Edge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Irondome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [19] Revert 1, adds non-RS
    2. [20] Revert 2, adds non-RS
    3. [21] Revert 3, removes pertinent fact
    4. [22] Revert 4, pushes falsehood

    Comments:So not only 4 reverts in 24 hours on a 1RR article but the reverts are also part of a clear pov push made even more obvious by remarks made on the talk page. Sepsis II (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified a few editors of the discretionary sanctions and added an editnotice. Let's leave it as is for now and see what happens, especially since it's a developing and current event. Anything other than edit warring, 3RR or 1RR violations should go to WP:AE not here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. (edit conflict) Sepsis II, the fourth revert occurred outside the 24-hour window, although not by a lot. No one warned the user they were about to breach 3RR. You failed to notify them of this discussion as you're required to do; I did so for you. Although not a new user, they have never been blocked before, so it's not clear, particularly with the immense amount of activity on that page that they knew they were might breach 3RR, although the sanctions blurb is prominently displayed on the talk page. They were just alerted to the sanctions, so I wouldn't block them for violating 1RR. Finally, if you're going to accuse the editor of POV edits on the talk page, you should provide evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Outcome as expected. Thanks for verifying. Sepsis II (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Knight of BAAWA reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked and locked)

    Page: Anarcho-capitalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Knight of BAAWA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [23]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [24] 12:50, July 8, 2014
    2. [25] 22:38, July 8, 2014
    3. [26] 01:41, July 9, 2014
    4. [27] 21:32, July 9, 2014
    5. [28] 01:57, July 12, 2014

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29] 23:59, July 9, 2014

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30] 07:53, July 9, 2014

    Comments:

    Knight of BAAWA has recently been edit warring over the following sentence: "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist." The sentence is a true-but-not-very-flattering summary of well-cited article body text, positioned in the lead section. Knight of BAAWA does not like this derogation of anarcho-capitalism, and would rather tell the reader that anarcho-capitalists consider themselves to be "pure 'anarchist' in the strict sense", which is not supported by article body text. A flurry of edit-warring has ensued, with many users involved. Because of the edit warring to keep out the unflattering text, Goethean tagged the article as having problems with neutrality. Despite his full awareness that the issue was indeed in dispute, and his having been warned about edit warring, Knight of BAAWA removed the NPOV tag. His edit summary was "Disputed by whom? Just because you aren't getting your own way, statists, doesn't mean NPOV. Do NOT misuse tags as a form of disruptive editing." All by itself, the removal of the tag is clearly an expression of battleground behavior, and constitutes an entrenched attitude of edit warring which goes beyond 3RR. The insulting edit summary, calling other editors "statists" just underlines the battleground stance. Despite the last diff being 50 hours after the previous one, it shows how intractable Knight of BAAWA has become, how little he thinks of a collegial atmosphere, and how his disruption extends to calling others names. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 36 hours and Page protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This really should have gone to ANI as there is very clearly no 3RR violation and there is a lot of edit warring not just from Knight of BAAWA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WhyHellWhy reported by User:Taivo (Result: Blocked 10 days)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [[31]]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [32]
    2. [33]
    3. [34]
    4. [35]

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

    Comments:
    User:WhyHellWhy appears to be a WP:SPA focused on pushing a pro-Russian POV on a small number of articles. --Taivo (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 10 days and notified of discretionary sanctions due to edits related to Crimea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:B3nz2die4 reported by User:AlanS (Result: already blocked)

    Page
    Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    B3nz2die4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. Consecutive edits made from 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC) to 17:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      1. 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
      2. 17:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
      3. 17:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Account appears to be single purpose account, created just prior to start of vandalism/edit warring. Vandalism/Edit Warring continuing to occur in spite of warnings. AlanS (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:2:5780:1CB:1C50:9DAE:D1AA:92E8 reported by User:AlanS (Result: 31 h)

    Page
    Jetix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2601:2:5780:1CB:1C50:9DAE:D1AA:92E8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 18:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jetix. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    [[User:]] reported by User:Lukejordan02 (Result: Malformed)

    Page: {{List of UFC events}}

    There is currently an edit war going on over at the page mentioned, I am not naming names because I don't want to get involved, but am getting sick to death of it and think the 2 users warring should be temporally blocked. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gregorygoyle reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Dave & Buster's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Gregorygoyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 00:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616722044 by Ian.thomson (talk)are you blind? Read the title of wikia CAREFULLY!"
    2. 00:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616721427 by GB fan (talk)I'm discussing while reverting edits. See exception in #12, this site seems to be stable."
    3. 00:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616721042 by GB fan (talk)"
    4. 00:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616720820 by Ian.thomson (talk)"
    5. 00:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616720275 by GB fan (talk) doesn't seem to violate a rule..."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 00:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "/* edit war */ reply"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 00:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "/* YouTube videos */ comment"
    Comments:

    User is either a sock of Daveandbusters1345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or needs a WP:CIR block for lacking the sort of understanding of time necessary to make toast. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.159.140.177 reported by User:MrX (Result: 24 hours)

    Page
    Atlantis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    86.159.140.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC) "The person who put 'fictional' surely knew that he was audacious in doing so"
    2. 22:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC) "It is clearly not 'only' fictional, and there is more sides to it. Brittanica says it's legndary and not only fictional (it is an encyclopedia, so it's not bad to use it as a source)Added the word 'supposedly to make it neutral"
    3. 13:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "My previous edit comment stands, please read it carefully. Restoring source and a more neutral statement. Wikipedia should be neutral, not only favouring one side."
    4. 13:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "You are incorrect; it is an improvement since it makes it neautral, the way it is now only leans on one side - that is clearly evident, what is there to argue. Restoration of a SOURCED word."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Atlantis. (TW)"
    Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    Ongoing discussion: Talk:Atlantis#fiction


    Comments:

    User:24.151.10.165 reported by User:Shrike (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Israel and the apartheid analogy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    24.151.10.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "/* By Israelis */ introducing new material (not edit warring) in which Schocken uses and defines term "apartheid""
    2. 18:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "/* By Israelis */ longer Schocken excerpt explicitly comparing to white South African disenfranchisement of blacks"
    3. 23:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC) "/* By Israelis */ +Amos Schocken, publisher of Haaretz"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    [37] "My edits have both introduced new material I thought was responsive to the edit summaries of others and do not constitute edit warring or reversions."

    Comments:

    All I/P articles are under 1RR per WP:ARBPIA Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I read your comment on my talk page. I have nothing more to say. You should heed the alert and explicit warning on your talk page, and all will be well.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jax9988 reported by User:Decodet (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Miley Cyrus discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jax9988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. May 22, 2014
    2. May 26, 2014
    3. June 3, 2014
    4. July 4, 2014
    5. July 4, 2014 (2)
    6. July 13, 2014

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

    Comments:
    This user has been adding unsourced stuff and doing massive changes on the featured list Miley Cyrus discography without discussing. He has been removing singles off the singles table, adding false certifications and restoring stuff that were decided to be removed in prior discussions.

    I've been reverting his edits for so long and and asking him to discuss before doing massive changes. The users User:Status and User:Shane Cyrus have also been reverting his vandalism. He keeps ignoring us all. Then I messaged him on his talk page; I told him it was his last warning, but again he ignored me. Therefore I would like to request this user to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot be accepted in here and he already had too many chances to change his behaviour. decodet. (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) -->[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of one week. The edit warring against consensus is sporadic. However, the user logs in sporadically. In addition, except for once in January 2014, when the user shouted on the talk page, the user has never discussed their edits. Instead, they roll in, blast the article, and roll back out. There may be other disruptive editing at other discographies, but I didn't review them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Torrian2014 reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    WWE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Torrian2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 21:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 21:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    5. 20:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    6. 13:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on WWE. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user has crossed WP:3rr by far, with the last one listed coming after a warning about violating 3rr. On top of that they left a pretty vile personal attack on my talk page after the last revert. They are also continuing to edit war in the section after this report. STATic message me! 03:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OKNoah reported by User:Labattblueboy (Result: Declined)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [39]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [40]
    2. [41]
    3. [42]
    4. [43]
    5. [44]
    6. [45]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46][47][48]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49][50][51]

    Comments: OKNoah is very clearly not a fan of the subject software and has a desire to have it classified as malware, contrary to reliable sources. I've made every effort to return the article to its previous baseline and help address concerns but OKNoah is not interested in working by consensus on the matter. The behaviour has consisted of both blanking sections and classifying the subject software as malware and any attempts to revert and subsequently discuss are unsuccessful. Staglit has also undone one blanking edit by OKNoah, which he/she prompt reverted.[52] I have no interest is getting into a further revert war and request the article be reverted to its baseline, potentially [53] (improved level of citation) and further edits be agreed to by consensus (page protect?). Warnings have been on the basis of disruptive editing not 3RR but we'd crossed the 3RR line days ago. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Revihist reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Account blocked, page semi-protected)

    Page
    Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Revihist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to

    01:26, 14 July 2014

    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 00:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "m"
    2. 02:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 01:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 05:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    5. 05:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC) ""


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Iraq War. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 17:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Results Section */ re"
    2. 17:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Results Section */ re"
    3. 20:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Results Section */"
    4. 05:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Results Section */ cmt"
    Comments:

    Although not in excess of three in 24 hours this is repeated insertion of the same content against consensus after lengthy prior discussion here and several reminders on talk. MrBill3 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's fair to note that since this report being filed, said editor has escalated their edit warring through likely sock puppetry. Immediately after being informed of 3rr rules and that a consensus against the text he is trying to introduce exists, anonymous accounts [54] [55] began edit warring in his stead. Furthermore, another possible sock account recently vowed to disrupt the article so I find it doubtful that Revihist will ever stop edit warring or using socks and instead discuss the content through the talk page. Freepsbane (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kaishia55 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Fifth Harmony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Kaishia55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Diffs of the user's reverts

    All of the below diffs will show the addition of Cuban-.

    1. 05:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 04:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    5. 03:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    6. 01:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 05:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Cuban-American? */ new section"
    Comments:

    Expect more diffs forthcoming. User is even edit-warring vandalism on other page. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User keeps inserting Cuban- before American, i.e. "Fifth Harmony is a Cuban-American group..." One member of the group is Cuban-American. This hardly qualifies the whole group as such. In any case, user is reverting without consensus and not going to talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    Comments:

    User put "Hi" on page; was reverted; added it again. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Binksternet reported by User:Le Grand Bleu (Result: decline)

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


    Binksternet posted this on my talk page. Is this statement true? More experienced users are allowed to revert any edits they think are wrong without explanation or discussion any number of times and their opponent will be blocked? Thank you. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Material violating WP:BLP is an exception to the 3RR rule - and Binksternet is correct in pointing this out. The proper course for you well ought to be to phrase a neutral RfC on the material you feel should be added. Frankly, speculation (the Lewinsky bit is certainly a "contentious claim") is rarely a "good thing" in any BLP, but the bit about "carousel voting" might or might not be usable depending on sourcing. Collect (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be useful to keep semiprotection on the page, since there are IPs involved in edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will defer to 2over0 and Collect for recommendations on that. I have already stepped on enough toes in protecting/unprotecting ... I checked everywhere I could think of for discussion, but forgot, in all honesty, that this page existed. If semi-protection is deemed warranted by the aforementioned pair, I will do so (or they can). Go Phightins! 15:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that "Material violating WP:BLP is an exception to the 3RR rule". But why did Binksternet's POV on this prevail and mine become a violation? I just don't see how a simple mention of something completely not personal a political figure said in front of dozens of people on TV consistutes libel. She didn't deny she said that. Could someone explain how my actions became "material violation"? Binksternet's POV on that is (in order of appearance): video can be edited, Russia Today is not reliable and neither is YouTube (merely as a storage space for the said video). Isn't this a bit too wide an interpretation of both BLP and IRS? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no desire to get involved in the article itself BUT in case anyone had not noticed, Le Grand Bleu (talk · contribs) has resorted to using an IP sock 109.1.253.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to continue his contribution to the edit war despite this ANI report. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm quite ready to take it to checkusers to see if the IPs (or even geographic regions) match. You should be more careful with accusations like that in future. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken to WP:SPI. Edit summaries are far too similar.  Looks like a duck to me DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: )

    Page
    Jennifer Rubin (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616936349 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Rv. tendentious edit by editor who can't even justify inclusion, and hasn't tried"
    2. 16:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "[Reverted multiple edits] Again remove source-misrepresenting, OR-containing, POV-pushing material reflecting non-notable opinions"
    3. 02:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "[Undid multiple edits] -- Three editors NONE of whom has ever touched this article, much less responded to the objections to this material. Rev'd this highly inappropriate material yet again."
    4. 19:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616566829 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) AGAIN revert tendentious edit by editor who has not said 1 word at Talk"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Jennifer Rubin */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 02:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Very serious POV problems */"
    2. 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Very serious POV problems */"
    Comments:

    User was warned, has several previous reverts - three editors, myself included, have judged the material acceptable or at least not worthy of wholesale removal. There is no basis for claiming the BLP exemption as the material removed is reliably sourced. The editor has an evident issue with some of the criticism in the article, but instead of attempting to come to consensus about the material or engage in dispute resolution, they are simply revert-warring to enforce their POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand. Instead of not edit warring and resolving this content dispute at the article talk page you celebrate the edit war, continue the edit war, and then bring it here. By celebrate I mean your summary "Yay slo-mo edit war" [56] for this revert. You should, perhaps, not engage in and celebrate edit warring yourself. Certainly you shouldn't edit do it aggressively and then complain here about it as the aggrieved party. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Material in question is manifestly inappropriate for a BLP, for the reasons endlessly stated in edit summaries and at talk. It takes the tone of a political attack ad, misrepresents the cited sources, and pushes non-notable criticism and material with strong defamatory potential.
    I removed several violations weeks ago, with a separately stated justification for each edit, after which User:Sepsis_II showed up to revert all the deletions in a single edit with the comment that it was all "notable sourced criticism". Besides taking issue with that, I note he did absolutely nothing to respond to my objections that the material misrepresented its sources.
    Even after I rewrote the material to closely track cited sources, Sepsis and a number of other users all insisted on restoring the prior (highly objectionable, axe-grinding polemic) version . I encourage all reviewing editors to inspect the two competing versions and ask themselves who is violating policy here.
    Another editor opened a DR case, but it was closed for (IMO) failure by the chief anti-Rubin editor (User:Aua) to show up and participate.
    Since then a number of other editors have showed up to reinsert the inappropriate material, without any attempted discussion whatsoever.
    Unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory material doesn't go in BLPs, and in my opinion that's the end of the story. And I am certainly not the only person noting the inappropriateness; OP merely seems to have forgotten to mention all the editors who didn't take his side.
    (Oh and I should also note that some of these specific POV problems were already raised by another editor over 18 months ago, with Sepsis and Aua engaging in extensive talk-page sophistry to keep the material in the article, against policy.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that none of the material you've removed is unsourced or poorly-sourced. You admitted as much when you declined to invoke the BLP exemption in your edit summaries. You used every single possible word to justify your reverts except "this is removed because of BLP." That can't be by accident - obviously you understand that you can't invoke the BLP exemption to 3RR to remove material that isn't unsourced or poorly-sourced. It's obvious that you disagree with the material that you're removing, but all of it comes from impeccable reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mainly using "poorly sourced" as a gentle euphemism to refer to material that badly misrepresents its sources, or that is sustainable only by a feat of OR because the WP article text does not faithfully track the cited source itself. If material misrepresents its cited sources, it's a bit of a semantic question whether it is "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" or something else entirely.
    But using a Beirut newspaper as a source for claims about alleged "Islamophobia" and "promot[ing] a call for Palestinian genocide" does also seem to raise source-quality issues (though there is much overlap with questions of WP:WEIGHT). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no source-quality issue with Al-Akhbar, any more than there is a source quality issue with Commentary or Accuracy in Media, neither of which you have seen fit to remove. They are reliable sources, at the very least, for opinions published in their pages.
    Are you claiming that you're entitled to remove references from The Jewish Daily Forward under BLP? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that an editorial condemnation appearing only in a newspaper in Beirut is not entitled to any weight at all in the English Wikipedia BLP of the target of the condemnation. Which you would know if you had been participating in Talk instead of just reverting and filing cases against me.
    Besides defamation concerns which are unique to BLPs, WP generally does not republish niche views, except perhaps in articles about the persons or organizations espousing such views. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't discriminate against sources because of their location. Your assertion that it is a "niche" view is interesting, but that is a subject for editorial discussion, not a cause of action to revert under the BLP exemption. Al-Akhbar meets reliable sources criteria and material from it is neither unsourced nor poorly-sourced.
    Is Accuracy in Media similarly a niche view that we should remove? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Source misrepresentation all by itself is enough to render material improper and subject to removal. And then there's the POV editorializing by WP editors which is never supposed to see the light of day in the first place. Maybe you could just restore the material that doesn't do stuff like that, instead of restoring all of the material (including obvious policy violations) without paying attention to its content? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As (apparently) the "chief anti-Rubin editor," I just have to say one thing: dealing with Factchecker_atyourservice is an absolute nightmare. He uses personal attacks ad-lib (check out Jennifer Rubin's talkpage), removes whatever he doesn't like, and posts terse, completely unreasonable posts justifying the removal. It's an absolute nightmare trying to maintain the integrity of the article with someone hounding you every single second because they don't like what the sources say. The general approach he takes:
    1. There are no sources to back you up,
    2. OK, maybe there are sources, but there are not enough of them,
    3. OK, maybe there are enough sources, but they are all crap,
    4. You're stupid.
    Rinse and repeat. It's impossible to make any progress or compromise. I almost give up.
    Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 20:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This from the editor who brought us (and remains committed to fighting for) encyclopedic little BLP gems like the following:

    In a follow-up column,[1] Rubin acknowledged that her decision to blame Muslim extremists for the Norway attacks was premature, but she did not apologize for her remarks nor did she condemn the right-wing anti-Muslim ideology that motivated the attacker, Anders Behring Breivik. Jeffrey Goldberg defended Rubin's initial article that falsely accused Muslims of perpetrating the attack.[2]

    Reader, do you find yourself wondering where we got this wonderful editorial analysis noting that Rubin never apologized for her remarks, noting that she failed to condemn the extremist ideology of a mass murderer, and implying that she was somehow unique or noteworthy in mistakenly assuming that the shooting was carried out by a Muslim? Spoiler alert: you needn't waste your time looking for such views in the cited sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:39.47.29.108 reported by User:Saladin1987 (Result: )

    Page: Saif Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 39.47.105.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: link permitted

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [57]
    2. [58]
    3. [59]
    4. [60]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

    He has used abusive language and called me names like terrorist here [3][4]:

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody please run a CU on Saladin1987 (talk · contribs), you'll likely see that he's a sockmaster who created this account to falsify articles, edit-war, remove sourced content and push his anti-Afghan POVs. He's a Pakistani nationalist editing from the Brisbane, Australia, area. He has been blocked multiple times for various violations but has not learned his lesson yet. Btw, I was already warned by an admin and I realized that what I did was wrong so I'm not going to repeat it. Thanks.--39.47.29.108 (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to speak to you on talk page here [5] but you called me a terrorist and rat here[6] Saladin1987 19:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

    References

    1. ^ Rubin, Jennifer (July 23, 2011). "Right Turn: Evil in Norway". Post Opinions. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
    2. ^ Jeffrey Goldberg, On Suspecting al Qaeda in the Norway Attacks, "The Atlantic", July 23, 2011.
    3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saif_Ali_Khan&diff=616946502&oldid=616945759
    4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saif_Ali_Khan&diff=616945759&oldid=616945536
    5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saif_Ali_Khan&diff=616946502&oldid=616945759
    6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saif_Ali_Khan&diff=616946502&oldid=616945759
    • Comment This does not appear to be a bright-line issue of a WP:3RR violation. The IP—two IPs, technically—has only made three reverts within the last 24 hours and has not violated 3RR. That said, I strongly suggest that the IP not attempt to re-add the contentious material to the article but instead engage in a civil discussion at the article's talk page. The IP is also reminded to focus on content, not the other editors, and that any attempt to reveal personal information about an editor could result in an immediate block. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Betty Logan reported by User:Djmex9205 (Result: )

    Page: Motion picture rating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Logan Betty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [62]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [63]
    2. [64]
    3. [65]
    4. [66]
    5. [67]
    6. [68] (last five reverts constitute a 3RR breach)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69] and [70]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

    Comments:

    It is difficult to quite understand what is going on from the diffs, but a SPA keeps adding an age prescription to the US entry for the PG certificate. As explained in the article (and on the article talk page) and backed up with a source, the PG rating does not carry age guidance. It's clearly wrong, it goes against the sources, but the editor keeps reverting. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BLZebubba reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: )

    Page
    Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    BLZebubba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616938338 by Ahunt (talk) You engage in edit warring and then complain about others' edit warring - what a riot."
    2. 17:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616928105 by Fnlayson (talk)"
    3. 15:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616926634 by Fnlayson (talk) How about discussing content changes on the Talk page first, rather than in edit summaries in here, and how about you fixing the lD and grammar stuff?"
    4. 15:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616918228 by Fnlayson (talk) Fnlayson's edits alter content without justification nor explanation, therefore reverted."
    5. 11:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Restored an over-zealous edit that removed remarks making clear that the recent engine fire occurred at the start of a training flight in a delivered (i.e paid-for) aircraft."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [72]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    See long discussion on Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

    Comments:
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=616968038"