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 the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Shortcuts:
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.
  • 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:KnightWarrior25 reported by User:TripWire (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Kargil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KnightWarrior25 (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. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]TripWire talk 17:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Comments:


It is necessary to note that User:TripWire was stick to one point an is involve in an edit war. Even I've mentioned him on the talk page but instead he keep on editing the article Kargil War I've just reverted him twice because his edit was unconstructive WP:FAKE he neither replied in the Talk:Kargil War nor did he paid attention to the dispute which is already solved and instead he keep on editing the article and was stick to one point which is already solved long ago by administrators and patrollers KnightWarrior25 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) -->

I have commented on the page to quite an extent, even gave my comments on the RfC. The discussion is still open, there's an RfC which is still open. No consesus has been reached. You were warned twice to wait for the RfC to conclude and then edit, but you paid no heed. You participated at the talk page twice and thought other editors have accepted what you say? Sorry, sir, it does not happen like this on Wiki. You were even given ample comments to explain you to stop reverting and editing a topic/info which is still under discussion and have been there sine weeks, but to no avail, I had no other choice ut to report you for your undue reverts.—TripWire talk 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 5th revert [8] now within ~ 24 hrs... obviously way beyond 3RR. The two net edits he is making are 1) change of out come to "Indian Victory" on which RFC is under way and the out come is supposed to stay as it was before the editwar / dispute per WP:BRD and 2) removal of information about peak 5353 which was compromised to have atleast a mention in the article per Talk:Kargil War#Peak 5353. Infact the user is citing me to have agreed to removal of this information while I never did. Infact the settled version was a compromise where this information was to be mentioned as per this which KW just removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Can some one see to this, he's made about 7 reverts just within a day to about 4 editors and to more if we count his previous reverts. This is just disrupting the on going RFC (which has already taken toll by now blocked socks) and is quite irking as it instills WP:BATTLE mentality instead of working towards a compromise among those already participating heated discussion (although not reverting like this guy). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursDarkwind (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Continuation of editwar after expiring block: user has continued to revert the same edit right away after coming out of his block [9]. He's definitely not here to help the project. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Vimal varun reported by User:Diannaa (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: Previous revision of Mayawati

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previous revision of User talk:Vimal varun

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of User talk:Vimal varun (on user talk, because his edit appears to be a misunderstanding of what a redirect is). -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Diannaa (talk) You are an administrator. Why are you reporting a user to other administrator when you can block yourself.Count Chimera 17:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably because this admin is taking WP:INVOLVED into consideration. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the last edit, warned the user and will block them if they continue edit warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Diannaa is nice admin, she won't block people when acting as editor. But I want to say something(which I should say on talk page but still..). Kumari should be used before name of unmarried girl, not after her name. It should be "Kumari Mayawati". Kumari is not surname of Mayawati. Kumari simply means "Miss". We don't write "Mary Miss", we write "Miss Mary". See translation of word Kumari, also on official website of her party name written is "Kumari Mayawati". BBC also used it. Moreover "Kumari should not be written in infobox as we don't use "Miss", "Mrs", "Dr" etc in name on Wikipedia, its not her official name, she is still unmarried thats why word "Kumari" usually used before her name.--Human3015 knock knock • 21:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Human3015. I will start a discussion on this point on the talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Use:Vimal varun is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert about Kumari, unless they get consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Which indeed happened soon after they received the warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cscawley reported by User:2600:1006:B14D:6435:B945:D20A:9451:85D (Result: blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Indian Removal Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cscawley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]
  5. [15]
  6. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk:Indian Removal Act#Native American name controversy

Comments:

User:Redfoxjump reported by User:BlackRanger88 (Result: 3RR violated)[edit]

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


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [18] or [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21] or [22]
  4. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Japan#"Japanese Invasions of Korea" dispute in the Feudal Era section

- Discussions regarding this same content have already taken place on the Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) page as well.

Comments:

Redfoxjump has reverted the same content four times between the time period: (06:42, 1 July 2015‎‎) - (04:57, 2 July 2015‎‎), which explicitly violates Wikipedia's "Three-Revert-Rule". I've had many encounters with this user, most notably on the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) page, over content similar to what is in question here. Redfoxjump has displayed similar patterns of behavior on that page as he/she has on this page, resulting in a hour block that was issued on 04:58, 25 May 2015. One of the reasons I filed that report was because Redfoxjump continued to add content that was not from a neutral point of view - for example claiming that the "Chinese were more important than the Koreans" in the conflict by citing one particular battle. What's particularly frustrating is that, even though it seemed as though we had reached a consensus regarding this issue on the talk page for that article, Redfoxjump seems to be trying to add the same POV information to articles such as Japan, in contrast with what was agreed upon before. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your sentence is partial to Korea.

The siege of Pyongyang was the most important. The Japanese army largely withdrew for the first time. The Korean army was in the minority at the siege of Pyongyang

"Siege of Pyongyang".

The main force was the chinese forces.

Chinese 30000 Korean 10000,

Other main battles

Siege of Ulsan, Chinese 44,000, Korean 11,500,

Battle of Sacheon, 34,000 Chinese, 2,200 Koreans,

Siege of Suncheon, 21,900 Chinese Army, 5,928 Korean Army, 19,400 chinese Navy, 7,328 Korean Navy,

The main force was the chinese forces.

source """Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War, Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134, "(Korean) war minister Yi Hang-bok pointed out that assistance from China was the only way Korea could survive."""" Redfoxjump (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Redfoxjump, please refer to the Talk:Japan#"Japanese Invasions of Korea" dispute in the Feudal Era section where I have addressed your concerns. There are just as many important battles in which the Koreans acted alone or were numerically superior. You claim that I'm partial to Korea, yet the only one asserting that one party was "more important" than the other is you. Regardless, edit warring is unacceptable. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation.(See below) I counted only three actual reverts ([25] [26] [27]) in a 24-hour period. That being said, Redfoxjump (t c), you cannot use "your edit is partial to [a particular point of view]" as an excuse to edit war. The only valid exceptions to the three-revert rule are listed here. Both of you are indeed on the verge of edit warring, so please exercise caution. —Darkwind (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this [28] count as a revert? The action performed here reverted part of the edit I made here [29] where I deleted the full name of the conflict since I felt that it was appropriately alluded to by the phrase "Hideyoshi would invade Korea twice in 1592 and 1596". Redfoxjump undid my edit by re-adding the full name of the conflict.
The 3RR rule says that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." In this case, I believe this qualifies as "different material" that was undone "in part". Once again, please correct me if I'm mistaken. BlackRanger88 (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@BlackRanger88: Yes, this edit is a revert by Redfoxjump (t c). It looks like I was looking at the timestamps incorrectly, as I counted that as outside the 24 hour period from his last edit, when it's actually just within it. Thank you for pointing that out. However, blocking him would not serve a useful purpose at this point. Blocks are not punitive and the disruption seems to have stopped.
@Redfoxjump: Please be aware that you did indeed violate WP:3RR on this article, and any further behavior that appears to be edit warring or any other disruptive editing is likely to result in an immediate block. —Darkwind (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Darkwind: Thanks for your feedback. Hopefully we'll be able to work out a compromise through discussion. BlackRanger88 (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jørgen88 reported by User:Keri (Result: Page protected )[edit]

Page
Adam Kotsko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jørgen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669608676 by 199.48.245.215 (talk)Stop removing sourced content. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it should be removed."
  2. 09:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669608461 by 199.48.245.215 (talk)"
  3. 09:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669600361 by Wikimandia (talk) It doesn't matter what he said afterwards. His statements were real and can't be excused."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
  2. 12:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adam Kotsko. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 12:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "/* If someone has any problem relating to sourced and verified content, yet controversial, discuss it here instead of engaging in an edit war */ stop"
Comments:

Edit warring at Adam Kotsko; discussion ongoing at talk page. SPI also opened as suspicious IP 176.11.33.252 edits being made to continue edit war while evading 4RR Keri (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My content is sourced. And the IP is not me, but I don't know how to prove that. Jørgen88 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, what a remarkable coincidence that another editor in Norway suddenly finds that dispute at the same time and wants to make identical reverts... Keri (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I've checked the IP. It's from the other side of the country... Jørgen88 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I have semi-protected for a week, which will stop the IPs. I am letting Jørgen88 off, because they have now stopped warring and are using the talk page. Jørgen88, if you touch the article again before a consensus forms, you may well be blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I get it, point taken. I just forgot about the third revert rule thingy. Jørgen88 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR reported by User:Averysoda (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MehrdadFR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [31]
  2. [32]
  3. [33]
  4. [34]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User/IP didn't use the talk page.

Comments: New user (probably the same IP 109.60.45.52 who has been edit-warring before, when the article wasn't semi-protected) keeps trying to add mostly unsourced POV content, without bothering to gain consensus on the talk page.--Averysoda (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Edit warring throughout the day by multiple editors without a single talk page post. Page fully protected. NeilN talk to me 01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok Neil, but let's not forget MehrdadFR broke 3RR (that's a fact!), and he was blocked in March for the same reason. He deserves a longer blockade to understand the importance of obeying Wikipedia's rules. This is regardless of the article we are discussing.--Averysoda (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Both of you were continuing the edit war instead of using the talk page. As WP:3RR states, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." --NeilN talk to me 01:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Averysoda reported by User:MehrdadFR (Result: Page protected)[edit]

User:Averysoda, as can be seen from his contributions, is just going from article to article and pushing his rigid pro-Israeli agenda. There are two problematic examples:

  1. United Against Nuclear Iran, three reverts [36][37][38]. Not only 3RR is an issue here, he simply deleted scholarly source with explanation: what's the encyclopedic value or relevance of an unknown Iranian "scholar" named 'Sasan Fayazmanesh'?. It's an academic source by American professor, and he don't accept it because of his Iranian origin. Disgusting, and also a racist.
  2. Anti-Iranian sentiment, the same story: three reverts [39][40][41]. This article was lacking sources and it had dead links issues, which were improved by inserting fresh links and two academic sources (Stanford University Press + Peter Lang). Again he removed everything and he insist that there's "no consensus". Consensus for inserting reliable sources, not their removal? Simply ridiculous.

There's not any POV issue here, just vandalism by user who WP:DONTLIKE WP:RS. --MehrdadFR (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside your add-hominem attacks, I didn't break 3RR in any of those two articles. You did in anti-Iranian sentiment. That's unacceptable and deserves a long blockade. You knew the 3RR policy since you suffered a blockade in March for that same reason.
3RR doesn't include WP:vandalism (point #4) like in your case, because your edits clearly fell under such definition. An obvious vandalism. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to restore the long-standing version that you want to replace for POV (mostly unsourced) content, without discussing on the talk page.--Averysoda (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Edit warring throughout the day by multiple editors without a single talk page post. Page fully protected. NeilN talk to me 01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Zekenyan reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Articles protected)[edit]

Page: Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Walashma dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zekenyan (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:

On Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad:

  1. Revision as of 01:10, 3 July 2015
  2. Revision as of 01:12, 3 July 2015
  3. Revision as of 01:20, 3 July 2015
  4. Latest revision as of 01:21, 3 July 2015

On Walashma dynasty:

  1. Revision as of 01:14, 3 July 2015
  2. Revision as of 01:18, 3 July 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on Users Talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page discussion

Comments:
After some time away, Zekenyan has come back to edit war for the third time on two separate articles. AcidSnow (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This user is not providing any sources for his edit which constitutes to Original research. For this reason I should have clemency. Zekenyan (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Nah, please check the article and the extensive talk page discussion as well. AcidSnow (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry it doesnt work like that. You cant simply refer to a discussion from another article. Regarding the dynasty page im the last one to respond to him and he has ignored it here [42]. This user has removed my well sourced additions and replaced them with original research [43] Zekenyan (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
That discussion ended months ago. I left due to you making a personal attack against me which was accusing me of "trolling". I have never broken 3RR, but I can't say the same about you (in response to something you just deleted in your reply). Nor were you my statements "original research". Yours, on the other hand, were proven to be fringe months ago. BTW, stop bringing this discussions to this noticeboard. Your post to explain why you broke 3RR and not try to continue to bring up something that had already ended. AcidSnow (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems you are use to breaking 3rr and getting away with it [44] Zekenyan (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you can continue to revert vandalism. I recommend you check out WP:EDITWAR. You can report me for that if you don't believe me but you won't get far. AcidSnow (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Two articles protected. Zekenyan, who filed this report, broke 3RR at Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad and AcidSnow was close behind. I suggest the two of you either take this to WP:DRN or open a formal WP:RfC. The talk discussion is reasonable but each side is quick to declare victory for their own position. The data is ultra-confusing and you should get some outsider opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DisuseKid reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: )[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 2015-07-03T03:32:56 (these first three are reverting the cast order)
  2. 2015-07-03T03:28:13
  3. 2015-07-03T03:24:32
  4. 2015-07-02T22:20:09 (which was a revert of [45], a plot detail revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46] (which was promptly reverted, and the editor has not used the talk page as advised)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: first attempt, second attempt, another uninvolved editor ultimately agreed with me on the talk page, and that's the only feedback I've received so far.

Comments:

As linked to above, I left a note on the users talk page, also warning them of 3RR when I saw they had reverted me while I was leaving them a message. I submitted my talk page message, then went back and corrected the page one last time. The editor reverted my message on their talk page and reverted my change again, in defiance of the message I'd left them. If you filter the editors contributions to the Talk namespace, they've only ever made two edits to that namespace in their time here. :/ —Locke Coletc 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: I recommend a 42 hour block for DisuseKid because of a previous 2RR violation on June 30 in the article's history: [47] & [48] and a 1 week full protection lock to prevent continuous reverts after the block has proceeded. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

2RR isn't a "rule" though. It is a prior example of edit warring behavior, which is problematic, but this user is also new. I'd tend to err on the side of not biting the newbies, go for a 16-24 hour block to get their attention hopefully and bring them to the talk page (which I note this user posted a question to, and then sadly deleted it a short time later). I'd even be fine with an uninvolved admin just leaving the user a note, letting them know they violated the rule, and getting them to agree to discuss edits in the future instead of blindly reverting. I disagree with the full protection: it's not necessary when it's limited to this small number of editors, and the page was only recently semi-protected (which has cut back on the anon edits). —Locke Coletc 05:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

SPACKlick reported by QuackGuru (Result: Editor sanctioned)[edit]

Page: Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: SPACKlick (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:

On Electronic cigarette:

  1. Revision as of 12:04, 9 June 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
  2. Revision as of 09:53, 30 June 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
  3. Revision as of 11:36, 1 July 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
  4. Revision as of 10:34, 2 July 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
  5. Revision as of 00:49, 3 July 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on Users Talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page discussion

Comments:

  • SPACKlick (talk · contribs) has been notified of the community imposed sanctions here by Bishonen. This is a slow edit war going back to last month. Although technically not a 3RR violation the image is being deleted from the society and culture section 5 times by the same editor without consensus. A total of 3 different editors have restored the image. There was a previous 3RR violation on same article back in April. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#User:SPACKlick_reported_by_User:QuackGuru_.28Result:_.29. QuackGuru (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: This is definitely disruptive editing. Per the general sanctions authorized by the community, SPACKlick (t c) is hereby prohibited from adding or removing images from articles relating to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, until July 31, 2015 23:59 UTC. I will log the sanction and notify the editor in question momentarily. —Darkwind (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Newhavenfire97 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
New Haven Fire Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Newhavenfire97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "continued quest to maintain factual information till 25 year old internet troll zackmann08 undoes this edit to his inaccurate info"
  2. 04:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "undid revision by zackmann08 who continuously posts outdated, false, unverified information."
  3. 22:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "undid changed by zackmann to reflect most current information. zackmann repeatedly vandalized page with outdated info"
  4. 18:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667119360 by Zackmann08 (talk) zackmann08 keeps posting outdated false information"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

C.Fred (talk · contribs) previously warned the user. I requested that the user discuss on the article's talk page here. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 04:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours The primary justification for the block was the bright-line violation of the three-revert rule; however, there are other issues with this editor's conduct that may require some guidance and mentoring after the block expires—C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:104.156.240.134 (Result: Filer blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]
  5. [54]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: mine as well as two other warnings for this same incident.

Comments:
The user is also topic banned from this subject according to the arbitration committee's ruling in the above Clarification Request link. The request concerned this incident specifically over which he is now edit-warring. 104.156.240.134 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The scrutiny-avoiding IPs in question are reverting questionably-sourced and unduly-weighted highly-negative material into the article (claims that the article subject was a victim of sexual abuse) while removing the subject's own responses to these claims (rejecting them.) Note the series of different anonymous IPs with zero editorial history making similar reverts - this is clearly some sort of off-wiki-coordinated attack. I have requested page protection and reported a responsible IP on the appropriate noticeboards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I note that the page has been semi-protected due to BLP violations by anonymous IPs by FreeRangeFrog. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know that blocking the IP would be productive at this point given the protection, perhaps they will decide to engage in some discussion. Their removal of the subject's responses to the controversial material was very inappropriate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this meets the "obvious" standard of WP:BANEX, but that's why we have WP:IAR. IP's edits are terrible, and I find it hard to believe someone would be pushing this at Grace Dunham without having encountered the history of similar attempts at Lena Dunham. Rhoark (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I apologize, I never noticed that the IP was reporting you instead of the other way around (thus my comment). I guess that boomerang-ed quickly, heh. For the record I have no problems whatsoever with your actions here, ban or no ban. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) Filer IP blocked for 48 hours. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jbmorgan4 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )[edit]

Page: Aleksander Dugin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jbmorgan4 (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. [56]
  2. [57]
  3. [58]
  4. [59]
  5. [60]
  6. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62] (but this is also sock puppetry, so warning is moot)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63] [64] etc

Comments:

Based on edit summaries, it's obvious that this is the same user as: User:No Source - No Valid Source, User:SandSpietta90, User:Benjamin.Franklin.1706, User:Hierarchist + a few IPs and a couple accounts I likely missed. I'll file an SPI but in the mean time this is the 3RR report part. I'll most likely also ask for semi-protection (again) Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Marvzi reported by User:Attar-Aram syria (Result: blocked 24 hours}}[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [65]

Rojava is under 1 revert rule per 24 hours.

Diff: 1- [66]

2- [67]

Not to mention the removing of a whole sourced section [68] 4 minutes after I asked him to use the talk pages through a message on his talk page [69].

Not to mention that most probably he is a sockpuppet of a user recently indefinitely blocked User:Multi-gesture, who edit with the exact same style and was reported for racism [[70]]. This user "Marvzi" only started to be active again after Multi-Gesture was blocked. And what a surprise He removed the same material Multi-Gesture tried to remove, which are related to a website named Kurdwatch :

1- In here, you will see an IP removing Kurdwatch material [71] AND in here, you will see Multi-gesture admitting that he was the one who removed Kurdwatch [72]

2- After Multi-gesture was blocked, Surprise, Kurdwatch material was deleted by Marvzi [73] Please notice the edit summaries of Marzvi and Multi-Gesture, suspiciously similar.

3- Marvzi again is using the same ethnic spirit of Multi-Gesture by insisting on using the Arab designation for ISIS slave markets, even though its not mention in the source [74]. This "Arab" word inserted in association with ISIS is the style of Multi-gesture for which a case was filled against him in the ANI [[75]] and for which two admins decided to permanently block Multi-gesture--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (t c) 19:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Attar-Aram syria reported by User:Marvzi (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Attar-Aram syria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [77]
  2. [78]

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

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

Comments:


  • Comment : The first so called revert was not a revert but a fix for what the source actually says which I provided in the summary. The second revert which is an real one, was a restoration of a whole sourced section deleted without a discussion which is actual vandalism. Please notice that I did asked him to engage in the talke page but he didnt cooperate [79]--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • On hold pending results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Multi-gesture. The first edit was absolutely a revert, but see WP:3RRNO. Magog the Ogre (t c) 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, Sorry then, I will accept whatever rightful measure that shall be taken against me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Update : this user was confirmed as a sockpuppet [80] hence I was reverting edits by a blocked user (which I knew for sure). So I acted under this WP:3RRNO.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:108.3.162.35 reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )[edit]

Page
Perry Hall High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
108.3.162.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "Local newspaper"
  2. 03:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669723782 by John from Idegon (It's a local newspaper it's credible) (talk)"
  3. 18:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669736021 by John from Idegon (It is real, it is credible, people there care, We don't care about you, get over it) (talk)"
  4. 20:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669814612 by John from Idegon (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Perry Hall High School. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 19:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "/* recent edits 7/3/2015 */ new section"
Comments:

in addition, their talk page was created with a edit war warning template that was not linked to, but was about the article in question. John from Idegon (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Also edit-warring this same content at 2060s, where it is even less appropriate (sorry for not putting a link in my warning to the article where I first noticed the behavior). Editor is blindly reverting to his last edit, destroying others' unrelated intervening changes as well (even worse than simple inclusion/exclusion of his certain item of interest). DMacks (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Just want to point this out. IP tried removing the report twice. [81][82]JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
IP just tried to remove my comment. [83]JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The IP is edit warring on the admins edit war noticeboard? There's a strategy that needs some rethinking. Willondon (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR reported by User:All Rows4 (Result: )[edit]

Page: United Against Nuclear Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MehrdadFR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [85]
  2. [86]
  3. [87]
  4. [88]
  5. [89] - Continues to edit war, this 5th revert (of different material, partially reverting this edit) - even AFTER this report was filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Rows4 (talkcontribs) 14:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90] - was warned about edit warring earlier today, on a different article, and has reported another user for edit warring on THIS article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:
User was just here a few hours ago, edit warring on multiple articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Rows4 (talkcontribs) 21:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There's already been discussion about everything here. Keep in mind that 3RR doesn't include WP:vandalism (point #4), which was obvious in Averysoda's systematically deletion of sourced material. --MehrdadFR (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
None of your reverts were of vandalism. You need to read WP:VANDALISM to see what it means. This is a simple content dispute and you are edit warring.All Rows4 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Calidum reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [92]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [93]
  2. [94]
  3. [95]
  4. [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

4 reverts in 2 hours

Contributor321 (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, imagine having the audacity to suggest someone wanting to add controversial information (which was already in the article almost verbatim) should discuss such a change on the talk page. You made no effort to resolve the situation. And I find it highly suspicious that two IPs, which both made their first edits and geolocate to the same city, decided to join in on the edit war. Finally, the page has already been protected so this appears to be an attempt at revenge. Calidum T|C 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and look who just started a proper discussion on the talk page. Calidum T|C 05:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments: Looks like edit warring to me in addition to a refusal to employ WP:BRD. After being told by the other editor to take concerns regarding disputed content, Calidum snarkily responds, "Or you could". No attempts to discuss that I can see; no real explanation for edit reversion in edit summaries, either. -- WV 04:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised it took you 15 minutes to find this report. And BTW, the user who filed the report also failed to follow BRD since they insisted on making a change to the article without discussing it first. Calidum T|C 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I did discuss it: my change included the explanation "if it's ok to mention the rise in rankings twice, it's ok to mention the criticism twice" [99]Contributor321 (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Handpolk reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger (poker player) (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Handpolk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [101]
  2. [102]
  3. [103]
  4. [104]
  5. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:
Continually removing comment by 2005

Fairly clear violation of WP:TPO in addition to WP:3RR. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Am I reading it right that the warning came after the editor's last edit? 104.200.154.10 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
No, my warning for edit warring on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger (poker player) (2nd nomination) was placed at 5:29AM. At 6:22AM there was another revert from Handpolk. The Banner talk 09:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 2005 is making baseless accusations across numerous venues that I'm a sock of a specific user, without offering a shred of evidence. He needs to take it to SPI and these accusations need to be removed.
  • The SPA who reported this is hounding me with this report, he knows me from an area where I am topic banned and has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 07:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 07:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this talk page comment might be disturbing as well [107]. In any case, we have here an editor who was topic-banned from Gamergate at AE and who is demonstrating that he's not WP:NOTHERE by editing elsewhere, and who has immediately wound up in conflict, drama, and dubious editing. The problem might be malice or might be competence, but it's hard to imagine that they will be an asset to the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I have had to remove several of those baseless warnings, an admin needs to step in before this gets out of hand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) Blocked for 48 hours. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Kzim777 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 31h)[edit]

Page
Darjeeling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kzim777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Darjeeling falls under autonomous body GTA and GTA has official language called Nepali. Mr. Thomas(alias name for some bias person) let me tell you that you are not creator of Wikipedia and you are just one of admin. I am not adding false details."
  2. 13:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669915209 by Thomas.W (talk)"
  3. 13:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Stop the discrimination and dictatorship.Darjeeling district has maximum population that speak Nepali language.I may take necessary steps on this if any wrong details provided."
  4. 12:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Nepali is official language of India and one of language printed in India currency. Darjeeling district has maximum population of Nepali speaking people(Gorkhas,Lepchas,Bhutia etc.) and therefore the official language of Darjeeling District is Nepali."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Darjeeling."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor repeatedly making POV edits removing Bengali as official langiage and changing it to Nepali, which is contrary to what the official government source in the article says. According to the source Bengali is the only official language in the state of West Bengal, with English being an "additional official language", that is secondary language, in all of the state, and Nepali being a secondary language in three hill districts, including Darjeeling. As the version of the article I revert to says, and as I have tried to make Kzim777 understand. To no avail. Thomas.W talk 13:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)