Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:HappyWaldo reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2], straight revert of [3]
  2. [4], straight revert of [5]
  3. [6], partial revert of [7]
  4. [8], straight revert of [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: on article talk page, on editors' talk page

Comments:

This is not the only time the editor has breached 3RR on the page ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15] all within 24 hours), although it is the only time they have been reported for breaching 3RR on the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors (those who have been reverted by this editor): Epa101, Willseer, Jujutsuan, Grayfell. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree that he has violated the 3RR. juju (hajime! | waza) 01:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

HappyWaldo has continued reverting after being notified of this report. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Jujutsuan thanked me for original correction, assuming he reverted by accident when he restored other edits. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If true, the correction was good, but in either case (correct or incorrect), there are two problems. First, you had already crossed the 3RR line (which I had not noticed), and secondly, the claim to specifically being critical of only 3rd-wave feminism while supporting 2nd-wave would need RS. juju (hajime! | waza) 03:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you to alerting me to this. I'm aware that this is a difficult subject to get a balanced point of view on, and I would also agree that the edit war that's currently going on is not the best way to achieve this. I would agree with upholding the 3RR rule in this case.

As regards my edit, I feel that the article currently doesn't have any criticism of Yiannopoulos's free-speech argument, and I would argue for the inclusion of Hadley Freeman's comparison of reporting Twitter abuse to a complaint against an abusive passenger on a bus. HappyWaldo felt that this was an "opinion piece given undue weight". Perhaps what I wrote could be shortened so that the weight is not undue. As to being an opinion piece, I feel that it's legitimate to include at least opinion piece on his free-speech argument, which many people find unconvincing. Epa101 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that the page is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. These would be both our BLP sanctions and American politics sanctions. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
As well as Gamergate sanctions. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

HappyWaldo continues to edit war: [16], [17]

Relisting, as this was archived without being closed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ebonelm reported by User:Number 57 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Saint Lucian general election, 1957 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ebonelm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Ebonelm is edit warring across the whole set of St Lucian election articles (and also some Jamaican and Pakistani ones). He has been asked repeatedly to respect WP:BRD and not make blind reverts, yet continues unabashed. I have reached 3RR so unfortunately am unable to stop him now, so I'm asking for other admins to step in. He hasn't broken 3RR but is clearly behaving problematically:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1 – not a revert Starts with a misleading edit summary (grammar) – there is nothing wrong with the grammar – in some cases he actually inserted incorrect grammar into the articles and then edit warred it back in. This was discussed on his talk page, the response to which was "Also there is nothing wrong with my grammar in the example you have given."
  2. 2 Blind revert as he also removes the cat sort key I'd added
  3. 3 another blind revert
  4. 4 another blind revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First request to stop on talk page and discussion of why edits were not helpful, second request with warning. Requests also made in my edit summaries, e.g. rv to standard again. Please respect WP:BRD and do not make blind reverts

Comments:


User:MisterAnthony reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: One week)[edit]

Page
Garry Marshall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MisterAnthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) to 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 23:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 23:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 23:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    5. 23:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    6. 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    7. 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    8. 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    9. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    10. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    11. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    12. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    13. 23:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    14. 23:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    15. 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    16. 23:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    17. 23:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    18. 23:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    19. 23:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    20. 23:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    21. 00:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    22. 00:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    23. 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    24. 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    25. 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Illness and death */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 11:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC) to 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. 11:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Trying to improve"
    2. 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 12:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [18] 03:41, July 24, 2016‎ Jim1138; (Message re. Garry Marshall (HG) (3.1.21)
Comments:

Right after 48 hour block for edit warring and other shenanigans, user returned to the same behavior: edit warring through outright reversion and incremental edits as well as placing templates/tags he was told not to place (in the same article). The edits and changes to the article are the exact same edits and changes he made previously while edit warring and was asked not to make. User never communicates via talk pages, but only removes warnings and discussion attempted with him. Behavior did not change at all following lift of block.

Diff to block by Ian.thomson [19]; diff to comments by Ian Thomson at user's talk page [20] following block; and another from Ian Thomson [21]. -- WV 00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking into it, the three edits you needed to link to were 1, 2, 3. The big list seriously makes it hard to figure out what's going on, please link to the specific points where he reverts something in future reports. The big list of sequential edits counts as a single revert, not the dozens it looks like.
This was filed a touch early and he's only at three reverts, buuut he did just get of a block for edit warring over pretty much the same content and is definitely currently edit warring under the spirit of the law (if not the letter). I've been out of the house for about 11 hours and walking for about half that in 104 °F (40 °C) weather, so I'm not handling this now. If someone else does, just bear in mind that I'm leaning heavily toward blocking MisterAnthony a week with a note saying "I'll reduce this to 48 hours just for engaging in any sort of meaningful communication, 24 hours if that communication shows you understand why you've been blocked." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
"buuut he did just get of a block for edit warring over pretty much the same content and is definitely currently edit warring under the spirit of the law (if not the letter)." Ian.thomson, that's precisely why I came here. It's edit warring behavior, not 3RR - but, because he's just off a block for the same behavior, the same edits, reverting the same stuff he did when edit warring previously, it seemed to me that the writing is on the wall and the WP:NOTHERE applies. -- WV 03:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week: After their latest revert and continued failure to communicate, I've blocked them for a week, noting that I'm quite open to unblocking if they meaningfully communicate (within the boundaries of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, of course). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:72bikers reported by User:67.14.236.50 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Honda CBR600F (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72bikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  1. [22] and
  2. [23] reverted from [24] (note: link corrected 08:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC))
  3. [25] reverted from [26]
  4. [27] reverted from [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29] (response: [30])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] after previously stating my intentions with no response (and after earlier discussion on both User Talk pages)

Comments:
My own reverts consist of [32], and a self-revert to an edit made to highlight the problem content with a diff [33]. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2016‎ (UTC)

I have now made my second non-self revert to this page: [34]. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: This user seems to have stopped reverting, if that matters now. Still isn’t discussing, though. If an admin could get him to simply discuss the reverted edits rather than blocking him, I would thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The reporter has been repeatedly blanking large sections of the article (such as this example, which 72bikers reasonably regarded as vandalism and restored. The reporter has been repeatedly leaving annoying messages on 72biker's talk page and restoring them after removal (generally signifying that the editor has read the message and no longer wants it. There might be an element of goading here. --Pete (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This is patently false. I have never restored anything to his Talk. The only “annoying” message I left was out of frustration with [35] being repeatedly called “vandalism” and “blanking,” as he apparently had not so much as glanced at my edit before jumping to that conclusion. (We have each apologized since.) There has been no communication from him regarding any actual removal of any content—not even edit summaries. @Skyring: If you’re associating the comments on my Talk page with my removals of unsourced content, please take care to look at the timestamps: the last comment from him was at 3:39, and I didn’t blank anything until 4:55. They’re not related. WP:ONUS WP:BURDEN is also relevant here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC) edited 16:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Skyring: Oh, also, the example given here was not restored (he stopped at four reversions). You can of course restore that content if you like, if you include citations per WP:BURDEN. Might also want to review WP:AGF. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The IPs messages look totally reasonable to me. I would be willing to chalk the initial interactions here as 72bikers misinterpreting a formatting error by his own browser, but he has been supremely uncooperative in this dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The messages may be reasonable, but the two or three edits that blanked a lot of article content were not--unverified content can be removed, of course, but there was no indication that the content as such was problematic one way or another. I also don't quite understand what we're doing here since 72bikers has stopped reverting. Having said that, I wish 72bikers had been more responsive from the beginning--I miss edit summaries and talk page discussion, but I don't see much reason for a block. Drmies (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed, which is why I asked if an admin could instead do something about his responsiveness, maybe leave him a message encouraging him to talk out the dispute or something. I don’t want him blocked for violating 3RR; I just wish he’d do something other than revert. As for the removal, I found it problematic because (a) it was unsourced and (b) it unbalanced the whole article by giving one model WP:undue weight. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: Semiprotected. The IP reverted yet again (on 26 July) while his own edit warring report was open. But alll parties should be aware that if material remains unsourced for a long time there is a risk it may be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Jeremiah reported by User:IndianBio (Result: No action taken)[edit]

Page
Ray of Light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jeremiah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731419112 by IndianBio (talk)"
  2. 10:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731419112 by IndianBio (talk) Reverted. Unsourced."
  3. 10:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731419112 by IndianBio (talk) AGAIN IT IS NOT REFERENCED"
  4. 20:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Lacks references."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ray of Light. (TW)"
  2. 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ray of Light. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC) This one I had explained that WP:LEAD doe snot require sources, where in I was bombarded for trying to add false conetnt in the article here and here.


Comments:

Continuously removing valid content from the article lead section even after explaining that lead content sourced already in legacy section does not need references. —IB [ Poke ] 10:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Content IS NOT valid. Content is unsourced and fails basic Wikipedia protocols. User:IndianBio has been asked EACH TIME to add references to edits. Each time, User:IndianBio has reverted content. User:IndianBio is not using proper resolution dispute mechanisms to fix issue. User:IndianBio is abusing system by coming here first. User:IndianBio should follow article resolution protocol. User:IndianBio has deleted my requests for resolution from his/her talk page and is not interested in arbitration.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 10:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
WTF are you even talking about? Clearly mentioned here that content sourced in the article body in this case the legacy section of the article, does not need to be sourced. You clearly did not read any of it, nor even WP:LEAD and continued edit warring while accusing me of adding a content which I did not. —IB [ Poke ] 10:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment You are both intentionally edit-warring. IndianBio at least has been here long enough to know that WP:LEDE is not a 3RR exemption. And although you are correct in that the lede does not need direct sourcing, at least some of that which was being repeatedly re-inserted was WP:FANCRUFT- "one of the greatest albums of all time" indeed. That is an embarassment to the lede. You've both had great fun templating each other- but not a word on the article talk page. That includes you too, Jeremiah. You know the rules, gentlemen. Muffled Pocketed 10:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi the user accused me of adding the content when I did not even do so. How is that contributing? And each and every one of those content are sourced in the article legacy, so I especially find your generalization "That is an embarassment to the lede" as not checking the article. So if all that is added again in the lead, just to satisfy one user choosing to ignore WP:EAD, just why? I can compromise and add those sources though, I just feel its damn unnecessary. —IB [ Poke ] 11:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Lets resolve this in the article Talk, alright?  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 11:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
        • First read WP:LEAD and then comment in the article talk page. I don't want any nonsense of adding fancruft from you. —IB [ Poke ] 11:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
          • dont be a jerk and just work to resolve the issue. There's no need to be negative. I'll not read anything else here so say whatever else is on your mind and be done with it. .  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Since you now chose to be incivil, there's no point in discussing or asking you to read wP:LEAD and I believe the same WP:IDHT will crop up in the talk page. So go ahead and comment there. —IB [ Poke ] 11:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: No action taken. It looks like a deal has been reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Asilah1981 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [37]
  2. [38]
  3. [39]
  4. [40]
  5. [41]
  6. [42] - although by an IP

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:

This is depressingly similar to a conversation I had with this editor on History of Gibraltar and a linked topic on Gibraltar. This editor will just keep on revert warring their changes into the article, stating that the current article is "wrong" and suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is "ignorant", "can't know anything because they don't speak Spanish", accompanied by [45] accusations of editing out of nationalist reasons. Anyone who puts a warning on his talk page is a "thug" [46]. They have forced changes into History of Gibraltar so far by edit warring and they absolutely refuse to follow WP:BRD. WCMemail 12:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Not anyone, Wee Curry Monster, just you. You have barged into a long and productive discussion with another editor by first threatening me on my user page ("x person won't report you but I will") and then systematically blanking an entire section and deleted half a dozen sources, attempting to close down the entire editing process and discussion. Not cool. Please engage in talk page and edit wikipedia constructively. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

How difficult is it for you to understand something so simple? You get consensus for a change in talk before you add it to the article (emphasis added), you don't revert war to impose it. And FYI for any admin, I have replied on the talk page on this matter and noted that the sources added don't substantiate the claims made. [47] Note in the rush to revert, the revert added back vandalism into the article. WCMemail 12:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
[48] reverted again, this gentlemen turns the whole onus of WP:BRD back on itself, that editors have to discuss with him, the removal of his changes. WCMemail 12:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster: A consensus was being built around the wording of the section until you decided to blank the entire section and delete academic sources. There is no dispute on the presence of academic articles relevant to the topic at hand. There is only discussion on the exact wording and how it is cited. Your sudden attack on the article is not vandalism, but comes very close. You cannot delete every single academic source on the matter because you dislike a particular editor (I assume myself) involved in a discussion in the talk page. Furthermore, so far you have not even engaged in the discussion, you have simply continued to engage in mass deletions. I invite you to participate in the conversation and explain why you (and you alone) wish to delete all of these sources. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Asilah says "a consensus was being built around the wording of the section". This is not how I see it. If that were true, he wouldn't have waited until being reverted again before getting back on to talk

There are some editors who insist (by edit warring) that their version has to be in the article and refuse to engage on talk while it's in the article. This pretty much describes Asilah's behaviour here. That's not an excuse for edit warring on anyone else's part, of course - and both of us have tried to find other ways to deal with this - but he was going to get reverted at some point because he didn't have consensus for his edit and that was the only way to get him to discuss the point. As I noted at the time (second-to-last paragraph), he did break 3RR on Saturday - after warning - and continued to edit war his text in today. The fact that others have chosen to try to find ways to avoid edit warring with him does not make his behaviour not a problem. Kahastok talk 20:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – It appears that User:Asilah1981 did a self-revert at 23:13 on 26 July. I hope that all the editors will see the advantages of a better quality of discussion on the talk page. Note that User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Kahastok used to be under sanctions per the Gibraltar arbitration case. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Mathsci reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Edit warring over the same material:

  1. [50] Revision as of 09:22, 24 July 2016
  2. [51] Revision as of 16:16, 24 July 2016
  3. [52] Revision as of 19:35, 24 July 2016
  4. [53] Revision as of 10:17, 25 July 2016

Other reverts in the 24-hour period (making the Revision as of 10:17, 25 July 2016 a violation of the three-revert rule (3RR)):

  1. [54] Revision as of 00:21, 25 July 2016


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2016_Nice_attack#Timeline_of_attack_-_WP:SYNTH_adding_arbitrary_details_revealed_by_investigation and User_talk:Mathsci#Repeted_removal_of_source_content.

Comments:
Removal of sourced content without consensus. Note that the fourth revert is just outside the 24-hour period. The user have also reverted "the actions of other editors" within the 24 hour period. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: User continues his edit war by collapsing the timeline, saying he "chose collapsed state but can also take expanded option", then EW to avoid the expanded option:

  1. [56] Revision as of 15:43, 25 July 2016
  2. [57] Revision as of 15:53, 25 July 2016
  3. [58] Revision as of 23:21, 25 July 2016
  4. [59] Revision as of 07:50, 26 July 2016

Erlbaeko (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Note from involved: Both editors have been fairly warlike to whether this content should remain in the article. Mathcsci was previously informally warned by myself about a week ago for approaching 3RR on an unrelated issue on the same article. Erlbaeko was previously informally warned by myself on Mathsci's talk for improper templating, and formally warned on his talk by Doug Weller for the same. I have opened an RfC on the article talk and restored the content in question pending the results of the RfC. TimothyJosephWood 12:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that an RfC was created after this report was filled. Ref. diff. And yes, you and Doug Weller correctly warned me not to use that CENSORED template in this case. I guess the "removal of content, blanking"-template had been more appropriate. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I initiated the RfC exactly one minute after you posted this. So no, the RfC is not a response to this report if that's what's being implied. I'm a fast typist, but not quite that fast. But yes, it definitely is a response to the two of you warring all weekend over the content.
Also incidentally, the revert of other editors mentioned above, was an uncontroversial revert of an IP adding an ISIS affiliation that hasn't been confirmed, and would have been reverted by whomever got to it first regardless. On these types of articles, this is a standard form of POV vandalism that must be reverted about once a day. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Relax. That's not being implied. Just to let the admin know that I was not aware of the RfC when I filled the report. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Short summary for tl;dr: I have added substantial new content to this article, paying meticulous attention to sourcing in both French and English. After completely rewriting 2016 Nice attack#Attack using the fr.wikipedia.org article, I had carefully documented on the article talk page that the timeline used outdated sources, had been superseded by events, was synthesised, had no relevance to the "Attack" section, contradicted content in the main body of the article and thus was likely to confuse or mislead the reader. In this edit Erlbaeko asked me to improve the sourcing of his timeline.[62] I responded on the talk page that a map was more appropriate and helpful for readers,[63] produced the map above File:2016_Nice_attack_annotated.jpeg (this is the second version of the annotation) and put it in the article instead of the timeline. I was then was reported here by Erlbaeko. Mathsci (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • An RfC on the text in question is here (started 12:30, 25 July 2016). Five editors are currently supporting removal of the timeline, while one supports keep "As long as the facts aren't dodgy", and Erlbaeko supports keep and expand. A quick look at the attack section shows the timeline is redundant. Regardless of that, the facts are not sufficiently clear or detailed to support a timeline at the moment, and it is Erlbaeko who needs to work within the consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, the RfC was created after this report was filled, and after (most of) the edit warring took place. This report is about the behavior of a user, not the content of the timeline. There was no consensus for removing the timeline at the time the edit warring took place. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you did not engage with the underlying issues at the article talk page either. You seem to be saying that the rules say that Mathsci must be punished for undoing your timeline, despite the current clear consensus that it does not belong in the article. If Mathsci removed it, who restored the timeline? How many times? Johnuniq (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Did you notice this and this? After that discussion the timeline was improved by several users through normal editing, before it reached a stable state. Hence it reached consensus through normal editing. I restored the timeline to its previous consensus tree times here, here, and here. That is according to the consensus policy and within the limits of our edit warring policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. This is probably not the appropriate venue for this, and content discussions should be taken to the article talk.
  2. There is currently is no "clear consensus" on either option and the RfC is ongoing.
  3. Both Mathsci and Erlbaeko immediately began warring over whether the timeline should be collapsed, and it was apparently moved to an irrelevant section so it could be expanded due to length. I have restored the collapsed default and moved it back to the appropriate section. If I'm not mistaken, a reversion of my single edit will put you clearly over 3RR. So do with that what you will. I would point you to WP:BOOMERANG and encourage a good careful read through. TimothyJosephWood 12:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Mathsci began warring to collapse the timeline. I reverted to it's pervious consensus state. And you moved it to the background section yourself, ref diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the location seems to be a mistake on my part. IIRC, I had to manually revert due to intermediate edits. Also, please review WP:3RR and note that consensus is decidedly not an exception to the edit warring policy, and certainly not a claimed consensus on your part which has thus far been undiscussed. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I said "it reached consensus through normal editing". It's decribed under WP:CONACHIEVE. I encourage a good careful read through. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, it's a very good read, especially this bit: "[Administrators] may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process such as edit-warring." TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not recall an exception to 3RR being "adding new material" where the core action is a clear revert. Mathsci should here have trusted that other editors would have picked up the slack instead of doing what I, alas, had done in the past - feel that the first person to see a problem in an article falling under WP:BLP should address the issues. Here Mathsci did not invoke that exception, as he knows he ought to have done. The "red lines" affect admins as well as any editor who is making an actual edit to an article. In the case at hand, Mathsci was not wearing an "uninvolved admin" hat, alas. I suspect the edit war was mutual, but admins should be especially wary when wearing an editorial hat. Collect (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: Mathsci is not an administrator. TimothyJosephWood 14:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I stand corrected. It does not, then, obviate the edit war, alas. Collect (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Mathsci and User:Erlbaeko are both warned against further reverts related to the timeline, until such time as clear consensus is reached on the talk page. Admins may use blocks or protection if this continues. The fact that Mathsci has worked to improve the article does not immunize him against 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

User:God Scanderbeg reported by User:Xarioti (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Albania–Turkey relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: God Scanderbeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (and apparantly his IP: 84.22.58.26 [64])


Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [66]
  2. [67]
  3. [68]
  4. [69]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Comment

Comments: I changed this POV text, referring to another wiki article: [71]. The IP 84.22.58.26 changed this without any comments, following a User named God Scanderbeg who apparently created his account to continue the edit war on this article. [72] ClueBot NG also reverted the vandalism: [73]

UPDATE: Same revert from "God Scanderbeg" today [74], which is again changed by ClueBot NG [75]. Also, ClueBot NG warned the user to continue with vandalism on his discussion site: [76]--♦ Xarioti (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected. If this user reverts again let me know; a block may be appropriate. It's reasonable for us to assume this user was 84.22.58.26 (talk · contribs) who then decided to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94 and User:JG66 reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: Warned & Protected)[edit]

Page: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:


Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Synthwave

  1. [78]
  2. [79]
  3. [80]

JG66

  1. [81]
  2. [82]
  3. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion about changing infobox genres

Comments:

Quick summary

  1. Since 2014, article has a note in the infobox that states "Please do not add, remove, or reorder genres without prior discussion."
  2. On May 7, 2016, Synthwave adds "baroque pop" without discussing on talk page.
  3. I revert one week later.
  4. Edit war begins on July 24 without him ever bothering with talk page.
  5. Assisted by JG66, who doesn't want to take it to talk page either.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion here. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that you don't hesitate adding unsourced categories to articles without even adding sources to support your changes (to support WP:CATDEF). Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for starting a discussion. As I've already stated elsewhere, the genres were always sourced, albeit not in the article of the category. I've since tried, unsuccessfully, to add back the genres with source, but my edits were quickly reverted by someone who wasn't paying attention.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, Mlpearc made an error, but I restored the genre you changed and its corresponding category. However please be careful. Don't forget adding sources to support your changes and please add a more detailed edit summary to help other. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Relevant, I think: SundayClose, who made the change cited above as Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning, has since posted on my talk page acknowledging that he was mistaken in appearing to support this editor's revert of Synthwave.94. JG66 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You're forming discrepancies here. You're making it seem like I was removing material, when I was actually reverting a wrongful addition.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm doing no such thing – I'm reporting what has taken place. JG66 (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned // Cut it out, guys, and please stop edit warring on the page. I've protected the article for three days as well. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Timmath reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Timmath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
IP being reported: 86.140.98.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: this? I'm not even sure given all the back and forth. Currently the page is sans a chunk that the editor didn't find personally appealing.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [85]
  2. [86]
  3. [87]
  4. [88]

IP diffs:

  1. [89]
  2. [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by NeilN in addition to a warning by myself and Dr.K., but ours were for blanking.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No...not really tried to resolve. User/IP have never been to the article talk. I treated it as vandalism and reported it to AIV, but was advised to bring it here by NeilN.

Comments: Fellow doesn't particularly like this article, and is attempting to rectify that by removing substantial portions of it. I rollbacked the IP edits since they seemed to be apparent drive-by vandalism. Then the user registered an account and continued warring to remove content. TimothyJosephWood 20:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:91.148.94.14 and User:93.142.119.127 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: Both IPs blocked)[edit]

Page: Pyrrhic victory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.142.119.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 91.148.94.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Out:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&type=revision&diff=731149464&oldid=731058864
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&type=revision&diff=731329443&oldid=731184202
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731460830
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731489422
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731548660
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731601726
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731607539
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731642927
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731656773

In:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731329443
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731483583
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731528562 (yes, that's me)
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731598957
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731607210
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731642656
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_victory&diff=next&oldid=731654518

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92] (no diff since I created the talk page).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am neither warring editor. I reverted once with a meaningful edit summary in the hope that might resolve the situation, warned the more egregious editor, and came back to find both parties had already passed 3RR.

Comments:
In fact, just now, I find they are also playing silly wossnames on Croatian Air Force and Air Defence. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Both IPs blocked three days. Looks to be a joke edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Joezeff reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Tajiks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Joezeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 15:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC) to 16:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. 15:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 15:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 15:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  5. 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  6. 13:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  7. 12:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Warned by LouisAragon (talk · contribs)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user appears to be edit warring in contravention of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. They have not made any comments on the talk page regarding this. Additionally, they're edit warring on other articles (such as Ferdowsi and Avicenna) and apparently pushing a Tajik POV (adding Tajik language names, asserting people are Tajik instead of Persian, etc.). clpo13(talk) 16:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours MusikAnimal talk 16:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Stephenmgunther reported by User:Tedder (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


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

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: Talk:Biketown

Comments:
The user has been around forever but is basically a single-purpose account. Edits remove citations to "remove bias" and add non-notable names, one of which is similar to the user's Wikipedia username. SounderBruce (talk · contribs) and I have attempted to engage the user on their talk page and on the article talk page (to be clear, the user started the talk page discussion, which was nice). Still, there are far more edits/reverts than discussion. tedder (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Omosejk12 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Jokpeme Viral World News And Politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Omosejk12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 16:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 16:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 16:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit-warring to remove the AFD tag from the article they created. Warnings: [93][94][95][96]. GABgab 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Formation1234 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )[edit]

Page: Folklore (Nelly Furtado album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Formation1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [98] – 18:43, July 26, 2016
  2. [99] – 16:14, July 27, 2016
  3. [100] – 16:33, July 27, 2016
  4. [101] – 16:57, July 27, 2016
  5. [102] – 17:30, July 27, 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

Comments:

Formation1234 has been edit warring over several articles related to Nelly Furtado's musical genre. Formation1234 has been using no references, poor references, and misrepresenting references to get preferred genres back into the articles. Discussion was initiated in a central location, the biography of Furtado. Formation1234 has not participated, even though pinged.[105] Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, I think Formation1234 is Finnish, shown by URLs from book searches [106]. So there could be a bit of language difficulty. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:SteveStrummer reported by User:184.101.247.49 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [108]
  2. [109]
  3. [110]
  4. [111]


User is well aware of 3RR, editing since 2008

Comments:

User:FF-UK reported by User:CplDHicks (Result: )[edit]

Page: Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FF-UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 17:09, 23 July 2016 Undid revision 731186848 by CplDHicks (talk) This is the appropriate place for the information.
  2. 17:45, 23 July 2016 Undid revision 731192863 by CplDHicks (talk) Please seek consensus on article talk page before changing.
  3. 16:29, 27 July 2016 ‎NEMA connectors: Replacing descriptions which had been removed with no valid justification.
  4. 21:29, 27 July 2016 Undid revision 731839743 by CplDHicks (talk) This editor has not achieved any consensus in support of his deletions, but persists in edit warring despite all the proofs that he is mistaken.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:33, 25 July 2016, 20:30, 25 July 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets#NEMA 10 & 14 connectors (notice on the user's talk page)

Comments:

Strictly speaking the user has not breached the 3RR as this was over the course of some four days rather than one 24 h period however, at this point it is clearly edit warring.

The background of this dispute is that I removed two subsections from the page in question and copied that content, verbatim, to AC power plugs and sockets (see here). I did so on a prima facie basis, given that the subsections I removed were about plugs and sockets that were neither industrial nor multiphase. The user reverted my edits at both "Industrial and multiphase plugs and sockets" and "AC power plugs and sockets", on the basis that the status quo was "the appropriate place for the information".

The user and I engaged in a long, ultimately fruitless discussion in which sources I presented were ignored or misconstrued. The user provided no sources or rationale for his own edits, beyond a belief that the common North American nomenclature with respect to single-phase, three-wire systems is "mistaken". Quote: "The problem here is the mistaken belief in the North American convention ... The fact that the convention is so widely accepted is simply an indication that you can fool most of the people for most of the time, but it remains, as I have already said, completely illogical."

Conversation on the user's part has since devolved to personal insults; the user believes I am "... pathetic, disingenuous, and completely dishonest!"

The subject of power plugs and sockets is obviously near and dear to the user; he describes himself as "An Electrical Engineer with a particular interest in electrical safety issues and electrical mains connectors" However, the user has also exhibited a pervasive and persistent history of ownership over related pages, including: the aforementioned, Mains electricity, Mains electricity by country, AC power plugs and sockets: British and related types, NEMA connectors and IEC 60320, to one degree or another. CplDHicks (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: An IP editor, that has heretofore never made a contribution on Wikipedia, has appeared on Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets#NEMA 10 & 14 connectors to come to User:FF-UK's defense. See Special:Contributions/2601:703:1:2990:E9CD:43A1:E96F:7774. They purport to be an American, speak of "our national arrogance" in supporting FF-UK's view that North American nomenclature is wrong, NEMA is wrong, I'm wrong, we're all wrong except FF-UK. Coincidentally this anonymous editor uses British English spelling ("NEMA is basically a trade organisation which is notorious for ignoring International standards."); what are the odds this is FF-UK engaging in sockpuppetry using a proxy IP? CplDHicks (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Mathsci reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: )[edit]

Page: 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 06:59, 27 July 2016
  2. Revision as of 07:02, 27 July 2016
  3. Revision as of 08:46, 27 July 2016
  4. Revision as of 10:05, 27 July 2016
  5. Revision as of 14:17, 27 July 2016
  6. Revision as of 16:44, 27 July 2016
  7. Revision as of 17:03, 27 July 2016
  8. Revision as of 19:47, 27 July 2016
  9. Revision as of 19:49, 27 July 2016
  10. Revision as of 00:50, 28 July 2016
  11. Revision as of 08:54, 28 July 2016


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned him on 24 July, ref diff. He was also warned by Timothyjosephwood on 19 July, ref diff.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2016_Nice_attack#Map Talk:2016_Nice_attack#Hotel_Negresco

Comments:
It is not possible to work with this editor this way. He keeps reverting almost constantly, making it impossible to undo his edits without breaking the 3RR-rule yourself. Also note that he was formally warned for edit warring on 26 July 2016. Ref. diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This editor is editing tendentiously and has combined his previous report closed by Edjohnson at 15:56 on 26 July (about the timeline section that Erlbaeko created) with this one (I haven't looked in detail). He made this report one hour after I made a substantial improvement in this edit.[114] This new content concerned two heros involved in this disaster in Nice. That information only became available in reliable sources fairly recently. Erbaeko has not responded to the new content on the talk page since I added. I do not know whether he objects violently to this new content for reasons unknown, but since it was added he chose to file this report without warning. The edit has nothing to do with the timeline box which he created and which is currently the topic of an RfC on the article talk page.
As far as I am aware none of these are reverts. They are corrections ir improvements using sourced content. The new content added one hour before this report required me to read six or seven sources. Two of those sources have been used so far in the article and I have not yet finished adding a third. None of the above diffs are reverts as far as I can tell. I received no warning about these new edits, but there was a warning about editing the timeline, which I have not done. (I have reverted an edit by a drive-by IP who changed a timing for the start of the attack, known to be incorrect from the official sources and inconsistent with main body of the article.) My impression is that Erlbaeko, who as far as I am aware cannot or does not read sources in French (where at present the only detailed accounts occur), is angry or upset that the account published two weeks after the attack does not match the text reported the day after the attack, when matters were still confused and information patchy; but as the sources show, more information has become available since then. A video of the incident was referred to in my sources, but what actually happened was far more complicated than first reported. Evidently Erlbaelko disputes Nice-Matin's version of events. I explained in full on the article talk page roughly what I intended to add and what my sources were; I mentioned the three heroism medals handed out by the region in recognition of the bravery of the Nice residents involved. I haven't checked all his diffs, since I'm still adding references for my new content. Perhaps I'll try to do so later. As far as I can tell, Erlbaeko is involved in tendentious editing. As I say, none of these edits were reversions. It is the nature of disaster like this that information reported in the intermediate aftermath is updated and corrected. In this case the three heros from Nice did not come forward immediately to give interviews to the news media. That is one of the difficulties in trying to write a stable article on a disaster like this, where events do not stand still. Perhaps Erlbaeko is upset that I use the Nice method of identifying points on the Promenade des Anglais. But this noticeboard is hardly the place to discuss that. I have copiously on all the sources available on the talk page of the article, even giving summaries of articles in French (the report on the police CCTV footage). Erlbaeko had a long alteraction on Edjohnson's talk page after his first report here. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
None of that makes you immune against 3RR-violations, and a revert is defined in the edit warring policy as "to undo the action of another editor". Erlbaeko (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's go through the diffs:

  1. Corrected timing (originally added by me) using new source, an article from the French weekly Arianne.
  2. Changed overly precise "four" to "five" in content I had just created myself. I had used the word approximately and "approximately five minutes" flows more easily in English, just like dozen in English and dizaine in French.
  3. Named reference to the Guardian to "grauniad" introducing a space in doing so.
  4. Restored map to infobox. This map on Commons is used on fifty or more different wikis, Erlbaeko had not noticed that the annotation had been updated minutes before that: he had a cache problem in his web browser over which wikipedia had no control. He admitted that on the talk page after I opened a discussion.
  5. Removing query to content: this was followed by a long explanation on the talk page, where the material had already been presented in detail hours beforehand, with a lengthy summary of an interview in french from Nice-Matin with Mme Baroi. Erlbaeko had misunderstood the interview or not read it carefully enough..
  6. Correcting "cabin doors" to "passenger door" because of a source in Arte.
  7. Changing a reference to Le Figaro to a reference to Arte, to give the source for the previous change.
  8. Adding back annotated map in attack section, a consecutive edit to:
  9. Restoring Hotel Negresco prior to discussion on talk page. No sources mentioned the new location. A long discussion of recent sources followed, lasting several hours, as described above. Erlbaeko has not responded for a period of many hours.
  10. A correction of "passenger door" (taken from an Arte reference which I realised was outdated) to "cabin door". The Arte reference was removed.

Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Erlbaeko has decided to add an 11th edit several hours after filing this report.[115] I had already discussed this edit before analysing the 10 edits above. The attack was listed as starting at circa 22:34 which does not agree with the sourcing in the article. The whole attack lasted less than five minutes and ended by 22:35; the attack did not last one minute, so although well-meaning, the drive-by IP edit conflicted with police CCTV sources. I have added the approximate correct time stated in the article, not realising that it had nor been corrected to the sourced time, i.e. c 22:30; the infobox time relied on outdated sources and inaccurately gave 22:40. Only now that CCTV records have become available can these times be checked with certainty. The timings are summarised on the talk page. However, the actual time the attack started is not known precisely, because the entry road, rue Lenval, is not covered by CCTV.[116] (note the no-entry signs) These minor corrections are happening constantly. Periodically drive-by IPs add "Islamic terrorism" as a category.Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
When you remove a reference, you are undoing the action of another editor. Except if you added the reference yourself. I haven't checked. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I added that reference myself when creating the content; along with many others. Mathsci (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Apart from tweaking material almost entirely added by me and responding to queries on sources, I count one WP:BRD revert (the consecutive edits 8 and 9). I had become aware, as described in painstaking detail on the talk page, that this content had been superseded by subsequent news media reports. I explained that at great length on the talk page and have subsequently changed the content substantially to take the newly available sources into account. This took several hours of thought and research, punctuated by a commentary on my ongoing success on the article talk page. That content was added one hour before this report. Erlbaeko hasn't mentioned that new content at all. It was not easy preparing it and I have no point of view to push, apart from trying to be accurate. I am wary of using outdated sources in ongoing disaster articles like this. Mathsci (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: My warning referenced above was in reference to a content dispute not related to this or the prior AN3. TimothyJosephWood 10:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Self-reverting does not count towards 3RR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but note that the policy says that "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert.". Erlbaeko (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
...and at least five of them are clearly not "self-reverting". Erlbaeko (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I have always edited incrementally, trying to correct myself when unsure of a bold summary. You filed this report after I added substantial new content—still being fine-tuned with the input of others—and seemingly decided to "write me out of the equation" by filing yet another report here. I have not been edit warring. You want to suggest I've been edit warring with myself because I've been correcting content I created myself. That is an extraordinary claim to make. Mathsci (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For comparison here are Erlbaeko's last edits to the article over a period of less than 24 hours.
  1. [117] blanks longstanding map in info box
  2. [118] makes false and tendentious claim in edit summary that "attacker travelled towards the airport" at start of attack
  3. [119] pedantic edit making sentence unreadable
  4. [120] makes claim not mentioned in any source cited at that time in the article but mentions this phone video [121] of terrorist attack as source
  5. [122] blanks annotated map.

Mathsci (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Note that diff 2 is not a revert. Nor is it a false claim, ref. the BBC article. Also note that diff 4 and 5 cont as one revert, and that this Telegraph article, listed as ref 47 in diff 4, says "It is understood the motorcyclist fell just before the lorry reached Hotel Westminster". That was also explained to him on the talkpage, ref. diff, so I don't understand why he says it is "not mentioned in any source cited at that time in the article". Erlbaeko (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:John reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Gotthard Base Tunnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Politics */ NPOV, UNDUE, NOR, SYNTH"
  2. 17:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC) "WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, see talk"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gotthard Base Tunnel. (TW)"
  2. 11:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Gotthard Base Tunnel. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 13:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC) "/* popular intiatives success */ rejected"
  2. 11:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "/* popular intiatives success */"
  3. 13:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "/* popular intiatives success */"
  4. 15:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "/* popular intiatives success */ figures and for initiatives success"
  5. 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC) "/* popular intiatives success */ answer to listed questions"
Comments:
  • I am sorry, but the general consensus on the talkpage seems to be against you, ZH8000. Editors keep explaining to you that the information you add is synthesised and not neutral. Your continuing forum shopping is not helping your cause either. Please get to consensus on the talkpage first before you again try to insert this obviously controversial material. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No violation, in fact the op appears to be outside our editing guidelines, but probably because they haven't read them yet. Roxy the dog™ woof 11:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • User:John is not disputing his objections (WP:DISPUTE}. He refuses to do so since the beginning of this "edit-war" (see previous changes). I try to find a common solution, but I never got a substantial answer by this user (see talk page). Just refering to policies without pointing to particular aspects does not help at all. I repeatedly made explicit that I am open for discussion and substantial arguements. I contributed several alternative solutions so far. However, "I feel it's wrong" I would not consider as substantial reasoning. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Encoreameya reported by User:Meamemg (Result: )[edit]

Page
Janet Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Encoreameya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC) "Sales update"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

As soon as block ended, made same edits that led to block two days ago. See also, edits to Janet Jackson discography meamemg (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)