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:Miki Filigranski reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Warning)[edit]

Page
2017 Shayrat missile strike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
[1]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC) "revert per talk due to failed and disruptive challenges and WP:GAMETYPE; use talk page to propose substantiated content change"
Comments:

Promptly repeated the same revert that led to the previous block. Page is under 1RR. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

False: passed more than 24h (previous revert from 18 April), previous two blocks were about edits at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack not 2017 Shayrat missile strike, of which from first was soon unblocked, not edit warring as the reverted information was challenged without any substantiation or valid substantiations based on sources or editing policy, constructive continuation of discussion, implying WP:GAMETYPE behavior. Prior to this report the user VQuakr did not leave a single comment at Talk:2017 Shayrat missile strike. The intention and substantiation for the report are unclear.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. To expand:
  • Bold edit
  • Revert with an edit summary in which you refer to the material you added 2 days earlier as the "stable version"
  • Revert
  • Revert just after your EW block expired.
Edit warring is not permitted regardless of whether you broke a bright-line revert rule. You obviously are aware of the policy since you just came off of a block, and you are simultaneously accusing others of gaming the system while skirting 1RR as you edit war. VQuakr (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Priority is the improvement of the article - it is a stable version, those few editors who reverted or so-called "challenged" it did not properly substantiate or engage in the discussion, and their gaming behavior on both articles can be traced at least since 10 April. Basically, you're intentionally trying to report other editor for edit warring because reverted to stable and far better revision, which would not have happened for weeks, months or ever if was followed others invalid substantiation and discussion activity or behavior. Obviously you're not familiar with the talk page discussions as well with the situation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring isn't valid because you perceive your edits to be "far better" than others. Stickee (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
These is not edit warring, stop ignoring that the revision was a clear improvement of the article, was reliably sourced and cited, it follows editing policy, and was intentionally challenged by the same one-three disruptive editors whose challenges were not based on any valid reason, source or editing policy, or were major reverts for one single sentence in one paragraph in the lead (simply unreasonable reverts), or failed to engage in the discussion, or failed to continue it, or failed to appropriately substantiate both the major revert or to propose minor content change, or failed to recognize violation of editing policy, or their gaming behavior. This is anything but intentional WP:GAMETYPE. I had enough of this gaming in the article, Stickee already made two major reverts ([2], [3]) in the last four days with simply ridiclious and unrelated edit summaries (WP:SANCTIONGAME) and without any substantiation, and of course he ignored to constructively engage in the discussion about the content. I am simply stunned to what a degree some editors justify theirs or others clearly disruptive behavior, with a total ignorance about editing policy or content. Literally, a bunch of editors who are disruptively gaming the system to provocate fellow editor, with zero consideration about the content, who are actually edit warring, and then hypocritically accusing other editor for edit warring. There is no moral or lawful justification for such editing and behavior. I had enough of this gaming, if will be done one more such a revert on the article I am going to report all those editors who made these gaming reverts. A total disgrace. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned I'm cautioning Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs) that continuously adding back in content just after the 24-hour window is unhelpful at best. I'd advise you to stick to a self-imposed 0RR rule; if you can't handle your discussions on the talk page and resort to reverting, you will be topic-banned. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lord Roem: I morally and lawfully can not accept your warning because it is contradicting my activity and intention, the report and recent revert are intentionally misrepresenting the actual situation - proof these revert are done by gaming editors who intentionally do not discuss at the talk page and do not have good faith with their editing. Their revert is major and not minor edit, and only one minor part was previously specifically discussed or part of recent interest in the talk page, and in that discussion was intentionally ignored violation of editing policies, hence even the minor is removed by invalid substantiation. I was the one who firstly warned them about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, yet they are once again being ignorant, even worse - doing major disruptive reversion. Their revert is not constructive or an improvement of the article, with it are intentionally removed well sourced information (violation of WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:CENSORSHIP), it is intentional provocation by which they're trying to report and impose sanctions on me because I will revert their major revert which was not based on any valid substantiation or previous/current discussion. Then they play the card that I am the one whose edit warring, because of their false and ignorant narrative which is simply ridiculous. With their edits they do not care about the content change. It is simply WP:DISRUPTIVE. That's it, I am going to report those three editors.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • And again. VQuakr (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm handling this via general sanctions. Indefinite 0RR, appealable every 6 months at AN or to myself (after an initial appeal at AN, if they wish). ~ Rob13Talk 17:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Somajeeste reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Page already protected)[edit]

Page
Hargeisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Somajeeste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776843807 by Kzl55 (talk) As mentioned before Hargeisa on CIA factbook is northwestern Somalia and it's worth to mention, other side violating NPOV"
  2. 15:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776829706 by Kzl55 (talk) your edit removed a helpful external link. Wikipedia is built upon WP:REFERENCES and WP:NPOV Do not remove links that potentially add information"
  3. 14:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776826635 by Kzl55 (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) to 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "citation os CIA facebook mentions somalia not Horn of africa"
    2. 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hargeisa. (TW)"
  2. 15:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"
  3. 15:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"
  2. 15:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit war */"
  3. 15:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit war */"
Comments:

Editor also editwarring on Adal_Sultanate. Same arguments as previous vandals and sockmaster. Attempts were made to engage on the talkpage and they were offered multiple chances to self-revert yet they continue to ignore the rules. Kzl55 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

El_C, many thanks for the protection. Could we reinstate the pages to pre edit-war states? At [4] and [5]?Kzl55 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. El_C 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Kzl55 reported by User:Somajeeste (Result: No violation/Page already protected)[edit]

Page
Hargeisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page
Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 17:03, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision by Kzl55: As stated in the talkpage, previous source does not take into account de facto status of Somaliland, there is no need to edit war. Please refrain from further disruption."
  2. 15:09, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision 776826635 by Kzl55 (talk): Please cease the disruptive edits. This is the reason the page has been placed under protection."
  3. 17:00, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision 776836880 by Kzl55 (talk): Please do not remove templates. Only add Somalia with sources confirming historic Adal extended beyond Somaliland into Somalia. (TW)) "
  4. 16:06, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "(Reverted to revision 776699156 by Kzl55: Please do not remove templates. Inclusion of Ethiopia template is appropriate due to impact of the war on both parties. Adal territory included Somaliland and did not extend to Somalia, please do not add Somalia.."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:19, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hargeisa. (TW)"
  2. 14:54, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"
  3. 15:21, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC) "Hargeisa"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 01:13, 24 April 2017‎ (UTC) "/* new section */ Somalia"
  2. 16:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


Comments:

Due to the information the user is trying to remove, it can be assumed that this is the same user that is currently serving a block. Somajeeste (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protectedPictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts in the same article, Somajeeste. El_C 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:5.68.214.162 reported by User:Jon C. (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Kula Shaker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.68.214.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [6]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [7]
  2. [8]
  3. [9]


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

IP hasn't yet violated 3RR but is edit warring on Kula Shaker and refusing to state their case on talk. Can someone have a word, please? Jon C. 15:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I trust that the above report from this three-time blocked user will be ignored. I have added material supported by a reliable broadsheet cite (The Observer) from a reliable critic (Simon Price), and User:Jon C has tried every WP:OWN angle to keep it out, including blatant rigging[12] (countered by myself [13]). He has also vandalised the article by restoring superfluous spacing that I painstakingly removed.[14] Please: review the article, and you will see that my edit is entirely constructive and in good faith. Do not fall into the anti-IP editor trap. 5.68.214.162 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Please do not edit war and discuss the contested edits on the talk page, instead, IP. El_C 16:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no need to "discuss the contested edits on the talk page". Per WP:OWN, "No one... has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." The Observer is a top source and Simon Price is a thoroughly renowned critic, so what's the problem? Jon C.'s "argument" consists of pushing a WP:JDLI agenda, lying about the Price article's content and saying it doesn't support my edit, which is blatantly 100% false. Then again, I'm an IP, so I must be wrong. 5.68.214.162 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD, IP. If you want to make a change and it's been contested, the onus is on you to make a case for that change. It's nothing to do with ownership, more the fact you're trying to pass off synthesis and original research backed up by a single source. I'm more than happy to engage with you in the thread you create on talk:Kula Shaker.
Also, arguing with an admin who's just given you a warning is a pretty good way to get blocked. Jon C. 17:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the IP user ignored the admin warning from User:El_C and continued to revert, I've blocked them for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That revert is actually listed here as the third diff—but I am letting the block stand due to the user's combative attitude and their (surprising) decision to not engage the article talk page. El_C 22:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:N0n3up reported by User:JJBers Public (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Turkish War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: N0n3up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [15]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]
  5. [20]
  6. [21]
  7. [22]
  8. [23]
  9. [24]
  10. [25]
  11. [26]
  12. [27]


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

Comments:

User seems to revert multiple users, twice violating WP:3RR. Also seems to been blocked before for edit warring. —JJBers 16:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Before this, I posted an ANI complaint here. User KazekageTR has made radical changes on Turkish War of Independence without sources or gaining any support from the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his/her edits, yet he/she was constant without even providing any edit summaries. This user even dropped F-bomb on my talk page. I'm not reverting people at random, I'm only reverting certain unsourced edits unbacked by argument nor consensus on talk page. User KazekageTR has made edit wars in the page. I mistakenly followed this game, which was a mistake of mine, sometimes becomes a bad habit, as User:Dr.K. (mentor) can tell you. I only tried to do the right thing. (N0n3up (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
@N0n3up: You still violated WP:3RR. —JJBers 17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 1 month. Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached on the talk page. User:N0n3up has been blocked many times in the past, and User:KazekageTR has repeatedly tried to add a large amount of new material to the article whose sourcing should be looked at carefully. Both parties should use their diplomatic skills to avoid future trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
What about User:JJBers who is starting to follow User:KazekageTR's trend? (N0n3up (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

User:THJNTYUHJNED reported by User:Exemplo347 (Result: Indefinitely blocked (sock))[edit]

Page
Vestron Video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
THJNTYUHJNED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "THAT DOES IT, I HATE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE FOR REVERTING AGAIN)"
  2. 21:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "REVERT *ONE MORE DAMN TIME* AND I SWEAR I'LL KICK YOUR ASS!!!!! *GOT IT??!!!!!!!* >:("
  3. 21:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "*I SAID STOP YOU BUTTLICKER!!!!!! D:<*"
  4. 21:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "I SAID *STOP*, YOU JACKASS! DO YOU HEAR ME?!! >:("
  5. 21:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "Seriously, STOP with the duplicate images, you damn idiot!"
  6. 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  7. 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "Seriously, the 1982-1986 logo became CURRENT since the brand was revived."
  8. 20:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  9. 07:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring across various articles. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Seriously, THIS IP ADDRESS 86.173.237.96 is the one who JUST WON'T STOP reverting MY edits, which are LEGIT! HE needs to be reported in the FIRST place, NOT me! THJNTYUHJNED (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Were you blocked for this behavior before? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Everybody was edit warring, but THJNTYUHJNED is blocked for persistent incivility, insults, threats and shouting. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: You were lucky there was an edit conflict, THJNTYUHJNED, I was just about to block you for a week. El_C 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:73.219.65.60 reported by User:Moosedontgomoo (Result: Warned 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Confederate Memorial Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.219.65.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 776998397


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=776998397&oldid=776987446
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777019024&oldid=777016417
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777023206&oldid=777021626
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777024882&oldid=777024681
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777027040&oldid=777026383
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777031753&oldid=777031622
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777033432&oldid=777033059
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777036613&oldid=777035242
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_Memorial_Day&diff=777041499&oldid=777038933

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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [777043925]

Comments:

Why am I being reported? The Confederate soldiers were engaging in an act of treason. Whoever keeps reverting my change is only doing so in order to cast the South as a hero. This is not historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.219.65.60 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit is not disruptive. It is providing accurate historical context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.219.65.60 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's editorializing, which is not how Wikipedia works. And then there's the edit warring and the Three revert rule violation. El_C 22:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't editorializing. It is a historical fact. Soldiers who fought for the south were committing treason. Writing "died in the line of duty" is editorializing and incorrectly invoking current expressions associated with blue lives matter, etc. I was correctly an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.219.65.60 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Historical fact according to you. You need to demonstrate it represents due weight in the scholarship as well as gain consensus for it on Wikipedia—basically, prove it. You are free to try to accomplish this: on the article talk page. El_C 11:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Since you failed to use the talk page and continued edit warring, instead. El_C 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Page: White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SaintAviator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [29]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [30]
  2. [31] and [32]
  3. [33] (note the false edit summary, "the Washington Standard" is nowhere close to being reliable)
  4. [34]
  5. [35]

The article is under a 1RR restriction. This is obvious since a big ol' notice pops up when you try to edit it. The above constitute at least two 1RR violations in two days.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:


There's more than one violation of 1RR here. For one of them I notified SA about it [38]. He admitted it was a 1RR violation but refused to self revert, with an excuse that "time has rolled on". He then immediately jumped in and resumed the edit war, violating 1RR again, only a few hours later - which shows that his "time has rolled on" excuse was a blatant way to WP:GAME the rules.

Note that he is edit warring against several editors; User:Nick Cooper, User:Stikkyy and myself.

Additionally SA is inserting very POV material based on fringe sources (like this kind of junk). He's been doing this for awhile and his comments on various talk pages (for example here, about "Deep State MSM" conspiracies) indicate that they are simply WP:NOTHERE. Since there are discretionary sanctions on these articles (formal notification here), a topic ban from anything to do with Syria is warranted (and it would be preventive since they appear to be quite intent on inserting various conspiracy theories and crazy websites into Wikipedia articles). Here is their previous block for personal attacks and harassment by User:Drmies [39].Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It would also be prudent to check all the throw-away red-linked brand-new accounts (ones that quote obscure Wikipedia essays no less!) that popped up on this article solely to revert on SA's behalf such as this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: Recuse. El_C 11:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant; attempt at blackballing. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Please note, VM's hands are far from clean, having violated 1RR himself just yesterday [40] [41], and he is the subject of a general sanctions report here [42]. Khirurg (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. I didn't violate 1RR but I reverted my one revert when asked, so please stop lying. The "subject of a general sanction report" just means you filed a BS report on me which looks like it's going to WP:BOOMERANG on you the way it's going.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours as a general sanctions enforcement action for violating the 1RR in addition to the slower speed edit-warring. Edit-warring at any speed is unacceptable, but the 1RR violation makes it obviously so. ~ Rob13Talk 16:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 reported by User:140.32.16.52 for Michael Del Zotto Article (No violation)[edit]

User:Jim1138 is removing information on the article I added, with two reputable sources per WP standards, and citing WP:NOTGOSSIP.

I did the right thing. I brought it up on the talk page with WP:ROC and pointed out that the citation of WP:NOTGOSSIP is incredibly mindless, for it doesn't go past the "Not Gossip." Per the very standard of WP:NOTGOSSIP, the information I am posting in the article does not warrant exclusion. It is not propaganda/soap box, it's not an opinion piece, it's not scandal mongering, it's not self promotion, and it's not advertising.

Instead of engaging me in actual discussion on the talk page that I tried to start on the talk page of the article , he auto-reverts and auto-posts warnings on my talk page via the likes of Huggle. It's clear to me that he's struggling with WP:IPHUMAN. --140.32.16.52 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My attempt to begin talk page discussion falls on deaf ears for Jim [43].
He continues the edit war, again auto-using Huggle honestly insofar as it can be called disruptive and non-constructive editing. [44]
He posts two auto-Huggle warnings on my talk page, but ignores my pleas with him to read the very information he's citing for engaging in this revert war with me. [45]
Again, this is a clear case of an editor, whom I'll assume good intent in, failing to understand WP:IPHUMAN. Even if he were correct in his citation of WP:NOTGOSSIP, his absolute refusal to engage in talk page discussion beyond using Huggle to post impertinent warnings on my page accusing me of vandalism is not acceptable behavior. --140.32.16.52 (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Please use the assigned format (evidence in the form of diffs). El_C 11:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Nosx1 reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: Stale 36 hours)[edit]

Page: Susan Mayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nosx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [46]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [47]
  2. [48]
  3. [49]
  4. [50]
  5. [51]
  6. [52]
  7. [53]
  8. [54]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here and here.


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments:

AnemoneProjectors and I have tried to get Nosx1 to discuss the lead and infobox changes he or she keeps making and to stop edit warring. We've noted our objections in the edit history and on the article page. We've reached out on the Nosx1 talk page as well. But Nosx1 has continued to edit war, and has laughed at our concerns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. That said, I'll have a word with the user to engage the article talk page. El_C 14:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

El_C, I missed it before, but the editor has also engaged in vandalism. See this revert by CLCStudent. And the editor reverted again after that revert. It's clear to me that this editor will not stop reverting and will not discuss a thing. There is nothing productive about this editor. I reported the matter here because even slow edit wars should be considered. It shouldn't simply be a matter of WP:3RR, or a very recent edit. Still, this and this latest revert are very recent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking a topic ban or block may be imminent. El_C 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I plead the fifth.
- Nosx1 —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I just blocked Nosx1 for edit warring and disruptive editing (and what looks to be vandalism) on Susan Mayer. The blatant disruption has continued on the article and far beyond 3RR. After examining the user's communication and behavior, it seems clear to me that the disruption would have continued to no end had action not be taken. Feel free to extend the block or modify it without consulting me first; I think further sanctions and/or a longer block length is very much justified. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Oshwah. Yeah, it felt like being trolled. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. By Oshwah. Beat me to it. El_C 08:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Dapi89 reported by User:K.e.coffman (Result: Blocked 72h)[edit]

Page: Hans-Ulrich Rudel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dapi89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff1
  2. diff2
  3. diff3
  4. diff4
  5. diff5


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link


Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are multiple discussion threads in the Talk page of the article, such as:

Comments:
The editor being reported has removed maintenance tags and attempted improvements to the article despite discussions on the Talk page and policy-based / consensus-driven edits. Three of the above reverts are mine, and I admit to getting a bit carried away. However, I've stopped after my third revert and invited editor Dapi89 to self-revert: diff1, content & diff2, tags.

The editor responded with "Coffman has no authority" diff, while calling the warnings on 3RR / removal of maintenance templates a "threat".

K.e.coffman (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct, you have no authority.
I have tried to introduce new sources, and repeatedly question the removal of sources they say are unreliable but have not received an adequate answer, other than opinion. I have said, repeatedly, if they can, I will support the removal of certain sources and a re-writing/structuring of the article. But to no avail.
Currently, we have a tag placed on the article that says some sources are not reliable. This purely the opinion of editors. Dapi89 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On reflection, this is a case of Wikipedia:Tag team. Dapi89 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANI to file this report. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I can also provide evidence of Coffman of violating the 3RR rule on many occasions. Dapi89 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the right place to file such a report. However, I don't believe this will happen as these allegations are unfounded. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

KG 2. Dapi89 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please use this link to file a new report. BTW, I don't see a 3RR violation there, but sure, by all means :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
This has beEn sent to ANI. Dapi89 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Dapi89 broke 3RR on April 25 by making four reverts starting with this edit. In my opinion, Dapi89 can avoid a block for 3RR violation if they will agree to make no more edits at Hans-Ulrich Rudel for the next thirty days. They may still participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that I should allow these two to delete as much information as they like, and label the sources as unreliable without showing just cause? Are you willing and able to apply context to this situation? The fact this is 2v1 smacks of WP: Tag team, to avoid 3RR, and doesn't make them right. They are are also edit warring, and it appears as if you have taken sides. Dapi89 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ed gave them an opportunity to avoid one, but their response confirms they're unwilling to accept the offer + would likely do it again. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The three editors have been edit-warring on the article for the better part of a month now; one wonders why Dapi is the only one being sanctioned (or even warned) here. Parsecboy (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Lneal001 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours, both)[edit]

Page
Developed country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lneal001 (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 19:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC) to 19:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 19:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777193985 by Dr.K. (talk)"
    2. 19:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC) "Added most recent income data from 2015 with updated language"
  2. Revert while logged out as IP 64.29.40.87 19:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC) (Please allow for the data to be updated instead of deleting it)
  3. Consecutive edits made from 12:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC) to 19:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 12:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "The talk page is rarely seen and the notion that I need consensus over obviously irrelevant info is ridiculous"
    2. 13:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776963139 by Lneal001 (talk)"
    3. 13:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "There are many indicators which can be argued are probabtive to Developed status, including income, consumption, life expectancy, etc. We can't include every list here, AND the income list did DID use is actually inferior."
    4. 19:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "I decided to agree to in some form to other editors request, so I added the most comprehensive and comparable income metric available, which comes from the National Accounts and is not survey based."
  4. 04:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "Yes, but the HDI list tells us specifically which countries are classified as DEVELOPED, which is the premise of this page. The data deleted doesn't say anything about developed and opens the door to many other lists."
Please note also
  • Two more reverts by the reported user just outside the 24 hour period: 1, 2.
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Developed country. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Offered up to date data from 2015— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talkcontribs)

Comments:

Edit-warring for days. Appears not have concept of 3RR despite warnings. Co-edit-warrior is Pizzamall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Dr. K. 20:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours (Lneal001 & Pizzamall). El_C 23:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:42.109.31.143 reported by User:Adamgerber80 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
HAL AMCA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
42.109.31.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC) "/* ETMD phase */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 17:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC) to 17:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 17:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Modular approach */"
    2. 17:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Modular approach */"
    3. 17:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Modular approach */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on HAL AMCA. (TW)"
  2. 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on HAL AMCA. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP editor continues to edit war on page and add unreliable references from IDRW, bharatshakti and other blogs. Refuses to discuss on talk page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That the IP hopper again? L3X1 (distant write) 21:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
L3X1 I don't think so. It seems to be someone who wants to construct the article but does not understand the concept of reliable sources. The editor has added some content based Indian media sources like Indian Express, Deccan chronicle(which is fine) but also some content which is based on IDRW and so on(which is not). But refuses to understand the concept of Talk page and reverts edits. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Will drop the user a note and direct them to the article talk page. Let me know if problems persist. El_C 03:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Duke83 reported by User:David J Johnson (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Basil L. Plumley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Duke83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777122587 by David J Johnson (talk)"
  2. 10:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 777120986 by David J Johnson (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 10:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC) to 10:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 10:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 10:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Military career */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Basil L Plumley. (TW)"
  2. 12:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC) "/* April 2017 */ Add period."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Please see comments below.
Comments:

User Duke83 has been continually asked for reasons, references or sources for their edits. They have made reversions over three times in less than 24 hours. Nor have they given any reasonable answers. Their edits have been reverted twice by myself and once by another editor as "unsourced" David J Johnson (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: You only list 3 reverts, where is the 4th? El_C 04:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: Duke83 started unexplained reverts at 10.18 on the same day making 4 unexplained reverts on the same subject. In any case the three mentioned reverts in far less than 24hrs should be enough. Regards & thanks. David J Johnson (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It actually does not. I can give the user a warning, but blocking would be problematic, since the user is trying to communicate, even if not on the article talk page. Anyway, you do know that you need four reverts to violate 3RR, right? As for this—what was it a revert of? Are you sure it isn't merely the 1st edit? El_C 08:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It was. as with the others, an unexplained reversion. I would be happy with a further warning, although I suspect that they will try and revert the last correction by another editor. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. El_C 12:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Sarower001 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Portal:Contents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sarower001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 11:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 11:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 11:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC) to 11:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 11:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 11:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  5. 10:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  6. Consecutive edits made from 10:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC) to 10:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 10:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 10:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 10:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  7. 10:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC) "Notice: Consider drafting your article in userspace. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. El_C 11:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C4:6393:E500:F9FA:5532:C673:EBE7 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: )[edit]

Page: Peter Lawford
Page: Richard Boone
User being reported: 2A00:23C4:6393:E500:F9FA:5532:C673:EBE7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version to be reverted to: [56] (Lawford) and [57] (Boone)

Diffs of the user's reverts: LAWFORD

  1. [58]
  2. [59]
  3. [60]
  4. [61]

BOONE (SOME PREDATE MY INVOLVEMENT)

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]
  4. [65]
  5. [66]
  6. [67]
  7. [68]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
RE: PETER LAWFORD/RICHARD BOONE -- RUMORS OF BISEXUALITY BASED SOLELY ON LATE ACTRESS' MEMOIR
Communicated via edit summary. IP editor (sole edits are allegations of bisexual relationship between Boone and Lawford and edits to that effect on actors' respective articles) was advised that it is not necessary to revert an edit merely to leave me a message and that I have a talk page. He/she ignored this. Editor advised by me "to include the exact quotes from the Lawford biography/ies -- book authors, titles. publishers, ISSN/ISBN #s, page(s), etc. O'Hara memoir is gossip and hearsay".; editor has not done this. Why? Quis separabit? 15:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comments:
Lawford was openly bisexual. The information has been on his page and Boone's for years. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:F9FA:5532:C673:EBE7 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
This is what IP believes qualifies as valid sourcing. Quis separabit? 15:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The arrest records in Australia show O'Hara was telling the truth. Boone admitted to friends that guilt over his homosexuality caused him to drink excessively and take illegal drugs including heroin and crack cocaine. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:F9FA:5532:C673:EBE7 (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
"The arrest records in Australia show O'Hara was telling the truth. Boone admitted to friends that guilt over his homosexuality caused him to drink excessively and take illegal drugs including heroin and crack cocaine." -- then produce them and shows them as references if they are legitimate/valid. Quis separabit? 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"The information has been on his page and Boone's for years." -- Don't know about Boone but Lawford's page has been watchlisted by me and triggered by IP editor's recent edits. Hardly a case of edits left untouched for years and accepted by consensus. Quis separabit? 15:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)