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:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Han Taiwanese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lysimachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC) "Please bring it to talk, Montanabw, stop nonsense edit war. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:REDUNDANCY, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:SYN"
  2. [1]
  3. [2]
  4. [3]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [4]
  2. [5]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 06:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Taiwan Han Chinese */ add"
  2. 15:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Taiwan Han Chinese */ reply"
  3. 12:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC) "/* "Han Taiwanese" and "Taiwanese Hans" */ reply"
  4. [6]
  5. [7]

Although not a 3RR violation, I am asking for an indefinite block for this editor who has already been blocked twice previously for edit warring on this article. The editor has no intention of understanding that discussions are important and will continue to edit war and WP:OWN their version of the article. They have been blocked twice already and I see this as a severe case of WP:IDHT. More importantly, I also see language issues and often they never reply properly to queries. This is wasting an enormous of time and I think the way forward is an indefinite block. If not an indefinite block at least the editor should be restricted to suggest changes on the talk page and not edit the article directly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am asking for an indefinite block... Why not an indef or temporary pageban? If the editwarring is on one article than it seems far less punitive to PBAN them than to indef block them. Or if preferred, a combination of both a short escalated block (say 1 week) and a PBAN (say 3 months or whatever). An indef at this point, with only a 24 hour and 48 block is an extreme punitive measure. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Based on my previous interactions with the editor, I am highly sceptical that they would adhere to a PBAN. They have done this edit warring on another page as well and considering that this has been going on for a month or more, my patience has run out. Part of the problem also seems to be English comprehension. I have tried discussing this at DR (moderated by UY Scuti, but the editor stopped responding) and also at ANI but nothing came of it --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I am highly sceptical that they would adhere to a PBAN - I like to think of it another way, if they adhere to the PBAN and their other contributions are of a good caliber, then, carry on. If they fail to adhere to the PBAN, WP:ROPE at work. I'll take a look at the DR and ANI threads, my thinking may change, you never know. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This open case was archived by the bots without a resolution, I have undone the bot's actions which resulted in several closed discussions being re-instated. I have re-archived those discussions + 1 extra finished one. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week — several editors indicate a growing consensus against Lysimachi's repeated changes. Given several blocks already, this needs to stop. --slakrtalk / 00:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lemongirl942 reported by User:Lysimachi (Result: declined)[edit]

Han Taiwanese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:09, 23 September 2016‎
  2. [8]
  3. [9]
  4. [10]
  5. [11]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [12]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16]

The user Lemongirl942 has been editing the first sentence of the lead for one month to push the idea that Han Taiwanese are Chinese and to add the term "Taiwan Han Chinese" to the sentence. Although the user is unable to provide relevant evidence on the talk page ([17]), he repeatedly reverts the article to his version. Lysimachi (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh great! A retaliatory report now? That too with a bunch of old reverts. Do your realise that you are the one who was edit warring against multiple users now? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

What also concerns me is the user's behavior of removing large amounts of text ([18]) without first discussing it or tagging the problems. It seems that he was only trying to prove his point. He even removed the same text again after additional references explicitly mentioning Han Taiwanese were added ([19]). His additional edits include removing sourced text, without first discussion ([20], [21]), based on peer-reviewed studies that explicitly mention Han Taiwanese. It seems all his edits on Han Taiwanese are adding "Chinese" to the lead, demonstrating he has a point, or removing texts he doesn't like, instead of really trying to improve the article. Lysimachi (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

[[22]] is getting close to breaching civility rules. Either way, it all seems very silly. (like most nationalistic disputes on Wikipedia) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this was uncivil. Redacted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Good work. It takes far more class to accept a mistake than to make an excuse. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The reporter needs a WP:BOOMERANG for tendentious editing and edit-warring. This is another POV-pushing editor who is inappropriately pushing a nationalistic agenda. He has been WP:BAITing Lemongirl942 for days. He has been told repeatedly to stop edit-warring, but continues to argue minutae and push the issue. What I am seeing is a bad case of WP:OWNership and a bad case of using mockery and imitation—anything a user does to caution this person, he will promptly to do them. Not good Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined — if anything, the axe is going to drop on the reporter. --slakrtalk / 00:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Therealjuice215 reported by User:RunnyAmiga (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Major Key (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therealjuice215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [24]
  2. [25]
  3. [26]
  4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]


This user has repeatedly insisted on capitalizing second words in section headers (that's wrong here; see MOS:HEADERS) while replacing the accurate word "favorable" in the "generally favorable reviews" text from Metacritic with the false word "mixed." It's beyond my comprehension why boilerplate edit summaries are permitted for mobile edits, but because this truly awful idea is our reality, pretty much every edit has been summarized with the lying text "Fixed typo." This user has never responded to several attempts to engage in discussion over this, instead reverting User:Xboxmanwar and myself with the predictable, dishonest explanation. RunnyAmigatalk 18:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Signal boost[edit]

Trying to keep the archiving bot at bay. RunnyAmigatalk 18:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 week for long-term warring. During September they reverted about twenty times at Major Key (album). User has a bee in their bonnet about capitalization of the second word in section headers. Since there is no reply to warnings and no negotiation, it's hard to tell if this will ever stop. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

For Goodness Sake[edit]

What a shame that a User was blocked for simply capitalising heading letters! Wikipedia has really gone too far to allow such blocking. If capitalisation was really that important, somebody would have written a bot to automatically standardise capitalisation of all headers.

I advocate apologising to the blocked User for inappropriately limiting their activities for such minor indiscretion as use of Upper Case. It really does seem trivial. One wonders whose bonnet really has the bee in it.

Style notes: some typists only use Upper Case for the first letter of a heading because that is more time efficient for them than pressing the shift key for the first letter of every word. Longer headings also tend to read more naturally written in sentence style. However these typographic purists, which include many of us, needn't think themselves better than anyone else less sensible.

Whatever the idiosyncrasies of deviant capitalists, we must ask ourselves if they ought be treated so harshly by a community once focussed on creating shared content. Using upper case in such reported instance would seem hardly worth a blockage, if that is all they did.

Good grief, I've seen people who write with Caps Lock on all the time and it doesn't bother me a bit! Contrary to popular myth some such folk aren't necessarily "shouting" or even trying to be disruptive, in some situations they're either blind or comics or manually inept and keep pressing Caps Lock by mistake. I know one elderly typist who used Caps because he was too short-sighted to read lower case easily. Such sillyness ought make us smile, instead of becoming miserably punitive to weaker typographists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly impressed that you took the time to type all this out, and I'm glad you managed to save your edit before you got blocked for edit warring. Your effort here won't change anybody's mind because you're a barking lunatic but hey, thanks anyways. RunnyAmigatalk 20:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
RunnyAmiga - You should probably strike that out per NPA, I was dragged to ANI last year for simply telling someone to go to their nearest optician so it's probably not a good idea to give someone a reason to drag you there too :). –Davey2010Talk 22:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I seriously did think twice about posting it; of course, the hesitation came right after I saved changes. And I don't know. I still kind of like it. Because flippant tone aside, I was sincerely annoyed that I'd spent any time of my life at all reading that. Had this person not gotten blocked for edit warring, they might have gotten it for socking or vandalism, if all those walls of text count as vandalism. So I'll make you a deal: I'll keep it, and if the worst-case scenario comes to pass and I end up eating a wheelbarrow full of shit, I'll remind you to tell me that you told me so. Because you're right: it's a very real possibility that I'll be sorry I did any of this. RunnyAmigatalk 23:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
RunnyAmiga - Your choice, I just didn't want you giving them a reason that was all but hey it seems you're well prepared anyway lol, Anyways happy editing :) –Davey2010Talk 00:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Prcc27 reported by User:Sparkie82 (Result: )[edit]

Page: United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prcc27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) with other editors

-- Edits add candidates to the infobox which do not meet agreed-to criteria --

NOTE TO ADMIN's: There is an IP ( who is vandalizing the talk page. He made changes on 9/17 and again on 9/26. Please be aware that if you read the discussion today (9/26) after he make his edits, the thread was corrupted. Sparkie82 (tc) 03:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User Ramires451 is also vandalizing the talk page. Sparkie82 (tc) 04:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Before candidates began to be added by Prcc7: [30]

(Note: There is a constant noise-level of drive-bys adding their favorite candidates to the infobox, but Prcc7 is a persistent case.)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [31] Prcc7 adds a candidate

(Note: I reverted that 9/5 edit and it was put back in. Then we went to the talk page, discussed it for a couple of weeks with no consensus for Prcc7 edit, so I reverted it on 9/22. Then...

  1. [32] candidate added
  2. [33] another candidate added
  3. [34] revert again

other reverts by by Prcc7 during the September discussion:

  1. [35]
  2. [36]

06:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC) - And the war continues...

  1. [37] (this editor may not have known about the edit war/discussion - this is her first recent edit there and she started a new, duplicate discussion thread)
  2. [38]
  3. [39]

10:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)...

  1. [40]
  2. [41]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Infobox_inclusion.2C_again

There is a long standing criterion for inclusion of candidates in the infobox of presidential election articles. Prcc27 has been trying to add a candidate that does not meet that criteria. We have discussed it at length. Prcc7 believes that write-in candidates should be included, but that is not the agreed-to criterion. I have asked Prcc27 to open a RfC if s/he would like to change the established criterion, but s/he continues to rv and argue for inclusion of write-ins without any consensus for that (although s/he contines to claim that there is a consensus for her edits). (Note: I don't get into many disputes so I'm not familiar with this form. Please excuse any mistakes in this submission.) Sparkie82 (tc) 12:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • An RfC isn't necessary for every dispute on a talk page, especially when many users were discussing it already and it has been discussed in the past. In the 2012 article candidates with sufficient write-in access were included. A month ago there was consensus to continue doing what we did in 2012 which was to include write-in access. Then this month that consensus was challenged but so far Sparkie82's viewpoint hasn't gained consensus. Please note that many of the links that they provided were not my reverts but rather edits by other people. Furthermore, my reverts were done several days apart from each other. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
This is not the venue for discussing this, but for the record, the 38-hour-long, late August thread you cited above (consensus) did not gain the consensus you claim and on the same day of that discusion an edit was made to add your candidate to the infobox and was immediately reverted here and discussion of the issue continued (and continues) in the more extended discussion I cited above ([42]), which shows there is not consensus for changing the criterion to add the candidate you want. Sparkie82 (tc) 02:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sparkie82: None of us violated WP:1RR. A dispute resolution is probably more appropriate than trying to get us blocked. And it will more likely result in us resolving the issue at hand. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, my edit at 08:49, 25 September 2016 has nothing to do with the dispute over the template. Someone boldly added this photo (which has been requested for deletion) and I reverted it per WP:BRD. I don't know why that edit is included in this report. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)‎ For whatever reason, one of the links basically just shows whatever the most recent edit at the article is. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
That link was mistakenly added as a diff to current, rather than an incremental diff. I fixed it. Sparkie82 (tc) 11:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dbdb reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [44]
  2. [45]
  3. [46]
  4. [47]
  5. [48] 5th revert in same time frame added at 02:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Talk:Barrel_bomb#Barrel_bomb_as_propaganda


Dbdb has now engaged on the talk page, but continues to revert to desired version. Meters (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the page's edit history, Dbdb was concerned about the removal of an entire section. It seems the section just disappeared without any attempt from the removalist to re-write or refine the section. Why not leave the section up for now, when it covers a matter relevant to the topic?
To resolve the situation, have a think about what worries you in the section you wished to remove. Then try re-writing a draft in a style you can cope with, before suggesting your version to the creator on a talk page. Facilitate quality publication covering the theme or meme discussed in the removed section. It is contemporary and appropriate for internet editors to discuss memes associated with Wikipedia topics.
Take the pressure off yourselves by letting the section be. It is a valid contribution, if hastily drafted. Think about ways to strengthen the content instead of just removing it.
Be brave: nobly make peace and help the other editor find more citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
If the IP who suddenly showed up today had actually looked at the history he or she would have seen that I was not involved in the edit war. I made one minor removal of a direct quote that was not cited. Other editors have been removing the bulk of the material. I simply raised a 3RR report on a clear violation of 3RR. In fact, Dbdb has now added the material 6 times and is at at 5RR [50] in 14 hours. This addition is contested and is under discussion on the talk page. It's up to the editor attempting to add it to get consensus from other editors that it is appropriate for the article and properly sourced. It should remain out until that happens. I will restore the original state of the article pending talk page consensus and this 3RR investigation. Meters (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
If the User who claims he was "not involved" was really not involved, then such user would never have involved themselves in removing content or reporting the incident. In any case, User Meters who claims he was "not involved" has clearly removed content under the guise of "undoing" and ought be admonished for misrepresenting such involvement.
User Meters (of socks, as their user page would suggest) might improve relations if he considered how to work diplomatically and supportively with conscientious restorers, whoever such persons may be, before reporting them or instead of engaging in sock puppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I clearly and correctly stated the extent of my involvement in that section of the article up to the time I made the above post, and I clearly stated why I was going to restore the article to its pre-edit war state. Accusing me of socking with no evidence is a personal attack. Please remove it. Meters (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 3 days. Is it possible that User:Dbdb and the IP who posted above could be the same person? The encouragement to 'nobly make peace' doesn't fit well with a pattern of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston, the IP is all over this page in multiple discussions, plus being investigated for a separate edit warring incident. And calling everyone a sock (quack quack). -- GreenC 13:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I got Oshwah's attention on IRC, and he's semi-protected the page for a week. Dbdb seems to have attempted block evasion using two similar (but different) IPs: (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Neither are currently blocked. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dbdb Meters (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:TimothyHorrigan reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TimothyHorrigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 23:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Discretionary sanctions - 1RR violation */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Some or Many */ new section"

The article is under 1RR restrictions, which TimothyHorrigan apparently considers bogus. Since September 14, this editor has repeatedly added the same content to the lead against repeated objections from other editors (also a violation of the discretionary sanctions restriction prominently advertised in an edit notice), while bypassing discussion on the talk page. In this diff (his third revert in 24 hours), he changes content contrary to the outcome of a recent RfC.- MrX 00:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well this is really unsurprising. It is a good idea to expect such page will be controversial at the moment. Suggestion: don't bother edit warring it, who in current circumstances would believe anything published on the page either way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The user does not appear to have been warned before they made their 2nd and 3rd revert: that said, there is a whopping notice about 1RR on the article itself, that this user could hardly have failed to notice. Since this is a slow-moving edit-war, I believe it will resume soon enough, and so I'm inclined to block here. If no other admin weighs in in the next few hours, I will go ahead and block. Vanamonde (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Vanamonde (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Semi, Block)[edit]

Dillard's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC) "It is clearly a secondary source. On top of it the original sources are more than sufficiant. Either actually read the article or take to the talk page why this fact should not be included."
  2. 22:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "You can deny the truth all you want Steve but I have never been wrong. College research institutions are one of the most reliable sources you can have. Please get the help you need Steve."
  3. 22:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "Sources are hard evidence and clear as day."
  4. 18:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "Sorry but here's more hard evidence. You clearly did not read the article. Undid revision 741132220 by Stevietheman (talk)"
  5. 15:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "You have no idea what you're talking about. There was clearly already a source and I directed you to it. Have several seats."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jenimcphersoncow Bahooka (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Also, the IP has been blocked two months per the WP:SPI complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User: User:MarnetteD (Result: declined, no vio)[edit]

Leninism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Apologies for everyone on this page if I am doing things incorrectly I am very new to wikipedia and overwhelmed with the process of trying to engage in a dispute resolution. And I think I need administrator intervention to help. I have just created an account yesterday. I did this for the purpose of improving the standards of several marxist related topics. However, I'm faced with a lot of trouble with one user in particular. I may be in the wrong on the process so I apologize. User:MarnetteD is engaged in edit warring with myself.

I have posted my concerns on his talk page but he continued to delete them, not respond. I have posted a notification on his talk page about reporting him here, he has deleted it. I have created a talk page on the Leninism topic to help mediate a discussion, he has ignored it and continues to revert any changes I have made without any mention of the merits of the edits. I'm relatively new to wikipedia and I spent a lot of time last night trying to improve the Leninism articles according to Wikipedia standards. Can someone please direct me where things are going wrong or is this user engaged in a malicious reversion? He has reverted the edits numerous times and the page is categorized as a start article. Requesting for bold edits, but I cannot do anything because this user continues to twart every edit.

I hope someone can help direct me on mistakes in the process.CrisisSandwich (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note: a) This report is malformed. b) I have only made two edits in relation to this persons removal of content from the article c) I have taken part in the discussion on the article talk page and d) the new account was created because the IP 2607:FEA8:DE0:A93:31B3:3911:934B:CF95 (talk · contribs) that they had been editing from was blocked. MarnetteD|Talk 22:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. + Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakrtalk / 00:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Zaostao reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [52]
  2. [53]
  3. [54]
  4. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

3 of the links are the same and the first and last are well over 24 hours apart? Zaostao (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Blatant lie. User Zaostao knows full well that he made 3 reverts in his edit war, waited for 24 hours to pass, and resumed warring again. He also knows he's already been blocked once for edit warring on this page and multiple editors continued to warn him about his behavior for weeks before this report. He has removed at least one such warning from his talk page yesteday, see this diff. His edit warring on this page is a months-long attempt to whitewash the Jared Taylor page by distancing the subject of the article from the terms "white supremacism" and "white nationalism", despite all of it being extremely well-sourced and more experienced editors explaining to him, for months now, why his attempted POV edits run contrary to Wikipedia policy. He has not shown any sign of understanding this or slowing down his edit warring and this latest attempt is one of many. Rockypedia (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't edit the diffs like you did here without stating that you did as it makes comments made before you changed the diffs seem out of place. And again, there was no consensus on the BLP noticeboard to keep the contentious white supremacist label in the lede as it was, so a NPOV editor respecting BLP would have tried to reach consensus and not just reverted to reinsert the LABEL without in-text attribution. Also, this is more of the same of what Ryk72 stated at the bottom of the previous filing, a group of the same few editors collectively reverting in an attempt to WP:OWN an article—which is why I have said below that I think this BLP issue would benefit from mediation of some form. Zaostao (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR violation. However, Zaostao has constantly been edit warring on this page. He has been previously sanctioned for violating 3RR on this page, as well as violated 3RR on subsequent occasions ([58]). This user shows no signs of ceasing edit warring, despite multiple editors talking to them about this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I can't comment on the 3RR issue, but I will point out there was a discussion that I raised at WP:BLP/N with unclear consensus results regarding the lede wording, and the discussion continued with again unclear results on Talk:Jared Taylor. I will point out that this is not a clear case of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE (as where we'd normally allow 3RR to be ignored) as the material in question, it seems all parties agree should be in the article, it's just a matter of where it is located, that still is a BLP issue but one that shouldn't be edit warred over. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Zaostao was blocked for edit warring on the lead of this article per 3RR back in July per this report. A report about similar warring early this September was declined, per the rationale "BLP issues are at play, multiple people are warring, and discussion is ongoing. The BLP noticeboard might be a more appropriate venue to help hash out the dispute." A follow-up did occur at BLPN, and can be seen here. It is not easy to tell if a consensus was reached about how to describe Jared Taylor in the lead. I personally don't think that Zaostao's edits are exempted from 3RR enforcement due to BLP, because that clause of 3RRNO is intended for removal of unsourced defamation, which this is not. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was going to report this myself because, as EdJohnston correctly summarized, this is a continuation of an edit war from before as well as the BLPN and ongoing talk page discussions. I agree with Ed vis-a-vis 3RRNO. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The first and last diffs are well over 24 hours apart. This is the continuation of a BLP issue which went to the BPL/N but was archived with unclear consensus about keeping the contentious labels in the lede without in-text attribution. Again, as I say below, I think the BLP issue needs mediation of some kind, but I'd be fine with imposing a 1RR restriction on myself on this article in the future to avoid needless side disputes like this. Zaostao (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You are edit warring even if not doing >3 reverts in 24 hours. You're continuing the same disruptive behavior that resulted in your last block. This issue is not about defamatory content or some other BLP issue that is exempt from edit warring restrictions. This is widely sourced content that you happen to disagree with. Don't cry blp to justify this. I say this as some generally very accommodating to and hard line on blp concerns even for people I think are deplorable (e.g., on Roosh V). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This whole discussion has been about BLP, and there was a >100,000 byte discussion on the BLP noticeboard about this very same issue so it's hardly a CRYBLP example. Also, you were the editor who reported D.Creish for supposedly CRYBLP'ng on this very same article, which was not an example of CRYBLP. Zaostao (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
As PeterTheFourth states, this isn't a 3RR violation. I agree with Masem that this is a BLP issue that should be discussed and not edit warred over, which is why I respected 3RR despite the possible 3RRBLP exception and was actively discussing the issue on the talk page, but also why I objected to this edit which made "white supremacist" (the issue of discussion) into the foremost description of the subject, despite no consensus to make such a change and when there was a clearly ongoing discussion about the contentious label on the article's talk page. I believe this BLP issue would benefit from some form of mediation as the BLP/N discussion ended with one side not responding and, as Masem states, unclear consensus. Zaostao (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:SheriffIsInTown (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: 2016 Uri attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:08, 26 September 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 00:29, 26 September 2016
  2. 20:38, 26 September 2016

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: Editor was aware of these 1RR restrictions and was at the forefront of getting them imposed on all Kashmir conflict related pages but not abiding by them himself Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, those two edits are different than the ones reported here. Secondly, I disagree with RP's description about 1RR there, it should take the same definition as 3RR. Your two reverts are not consecutive edits and WP:3RR does not say that it is fine to revert more than three times in 24 hours provided the content being reverted is different. To me, this looks like an attempt to game the system. RP and you would both do well by reading WP:3RR, The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. so if we put this same definition in the spectrum of 1RR, it should read like this, The 1RR says an editor must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules specifically describes 1RR as such that there is no ambiguity, The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". I am not sure what to call it if its not facilitating just one editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kautilya3: You violated 1RR with the two reverts. The only reason I'm not blocking you is because you relied on the advice of RegentsPark. However, that advice was incorrect. Therefore, you are warned that if you violate 1RR or 3RR in the future, you cannot claim you didn't know that the reverts do not have to be of the same material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    Apologies. I was careless in my reply to Kautilya. Regardless, I think Sherriff has a point about 1RR not working and that needs some rethinking. I'm busy the rest of today (and most of tomorrow) but will definitely revisit the sanction later this week. --regentspark (comment) 16:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Crnibombarder reported by User:Galatz (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]
  4. [63]
  5. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I didnt since I am late to the game here, but very actively discussed on his talk page [66]


There are a ton of other edit warring for unsourced content on FIBA Basketball World Cup and Basketball at the Summer Olympics. It is very clear that this new user is here solely to express his opinion without consideration for WP rules. He mostly has been edit warring with Anaxagoras13. - GalatzTalk 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: even after posting this and posting the warning on his talk page he is continuing to edit war on the page. - GalatzTalk 01:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to
  1. [67]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [68] "Undid revision 741292557 by Frietjes (talk) did not use IBID, no fix needed - STOP LOOK FOR UNNEEDED FIXES"
  2. [69] "Undid revision 741328729 by Frietjes (talk) again not IBID type to the point that they can be broken"
  3. [70] "Undid revision 741434720 by Frietjes (talk)"
  4. [71] "Undid revision 741435493 by Frietjes (talk) again per BRD you were reversed do not change until discussion is done"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page



Counter report: CITEVAR, Canvassing, etc. =[edit]

Both Kintetsubuffalo and Frietjes were notified per WP:CITEVAR that they must discuss Cite changes before they are made not after. So Frietjes should be in violation at 1 edit

  1. 15:23, 26 September 2016 References § unexplained
  2. 15:49, 26 September 2016 fix WP:IBID (As point out in edit summary, talk page discussion & at WP:IBID talk page, not IBID)
  3. 20:15, 26 September 2016 fix WP:IBID-type citations per WP:ACCESSIBILITY (not in WP:accessibility)
  4. 13:43, 27 September 2016 the discussion is on the talk page, please participate (I was at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources)
  5. [74] again, the discussion is on the talk page (I was there trying to respond, edit conflict, plus she was bold and reverted; you know BRD)
CITEVAR warning

Per WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." per arbitration committee ruling in 2006. So, once informed like at the user Diffs #1, Frietjes should have gone to the talk page per CITEVAR. Kintetsubuffalo even claims she is "expert", so she should even need the warning.

Vote canvassing by Frietjes
Warning about vote cavassing
  • attacks me to attempt to force me to shut up over my block log: "Spshu, you are the last person to talk about edit-warring,..." "Stop being paranoid and get to the issue at hand." Deciding to attack and calling me a liar/paranoid.

I responded to show that I am not a liar. I move on back to the issue at hand in the same post. Then in his response mixes up what members of WP:Scouting did and what Frietjes did at this article. Attacks as if I OWN, which if I am it is an except via CITEVAR as the original author sets the stage for how cites are done (if done in non-error way, if this edit use "ibid", which it did not). Spshu (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This scenario is a hopeless cause. This kind of retaliatory "discussion" and edit warring behavior has unfortunately become the norm for the defending editor, and it appears as if there's no intention of changing on their part. Given how long this behavior has been going on, I suggest that an admin consider an indefinite block. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 22:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Avaya1 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [76]
  2. [77]
  3. [78]
  4. [79]

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

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

Comments: The user has reverted the article four times in a matter of minutes Avaya1 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted 4 times. It was a straight up BLP violation. Avaya1 was putting in allegations about a person into an article basically to smear them. This person was mentioned in the presidential debate last night. So Avaya1 was violating BLP in order to push POV. Per WP:BLPCRIME: ""A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.""

BLP violations are generally exempted from the 3RR rule and I believed, in good faith, that this one was serious enough to have to remove it immediately (especially since there have been attempts to try and humiliate this person before). Of course I still believe that. Also, it's not like this information is of crucial importance. It's about something - an unfounded allegation - that happened... 18 years ago. Eighteen. Somehow, for the ten years of this article's previous existence NO ONE thought this was important enough to include in the article. But today, the day after this person gets mentioned in the presidential debate, Avaya1 (and one other editor) immediately rush to the article and start with the BLP smears. Apparently now this must absolutely be included! I mean, Avaya1 could have waited to get consensus, he could've initiated discussion on talk, he could've started an RfC, he could've taken it to WP:BLPN. Not like the article would suffer if he waited a day or two (it was just fine without it for ten years). But no, somehow the info had to be included immediately! So he edit warred. This is extremely disruptive behavior even if Avaya1 himself only tip-toed to the 3RR line and since apparently, he's been around, he should know better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And ffs, somebody semi-protect the article already, there's already a bunch of IPs showing up to cause trouble.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • It's a BLP matter, so it should qualify for the BLP exemption to 3RR. I'll note that political campaign often result in the use of sharp elbow around here, and anons are now getting into the reversion act (putting it back in). I figure once this is brought up here the BLP violation should be removed (if and until it's decided that it's not a BLP violation) and the article locked. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The article has been fully protected. There is no reason for VM to be blocked. Plus there was a reasonable case to be made that he was acting to protect the BLP. Dr. K. 05:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Smallbones and Dr.K. There is no violation here; VM's reverts fall squarely within the WP:3RRBLP provision (a reasonable, colorable, good-faith BLP concern prompting the removal (pending discussion) of text related to unsubstantiated criminal allegations). This report should be closed without action. Neutralitytalk 06:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Alicia Machado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741537143 by Dr.K. (talk)"
  2. 03:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741536849 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
  3. 03:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741534939 by Dr.K. (talk)"
  4. 03:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741532178 by Cullen328 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alicia Machado . (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


BLP violations. Will not stop. Dr. K. 03:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)