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.

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 Prcc27: [1]

(Note: There is a constant noise-level of drive-bys adding their favorite candidates to the infobox, but Prcc27 is a persistent case.)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2] Prcc27 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 Prcc27 edit, so I reverted it on 9/22. Then...

  1. [3] candidate added
  2. [4] another candidate added
  3. [5] revert again

other reverts by by Prcc27 during the September discussion:

  1. [6]
  2. [7]

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

  1. [8] (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. [9]
  3. [10]

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

  1. [11]
  2. [12]

16:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Waited a couple of days for things to cool off, but...

  1. [13] Prcc27 reverted again within 15 minutes of edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

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. Prcc27 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 ([15]), 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)
I just fixed typos in user names above (Pcrr7 -> Pcrr27) Sparkie82 (tc) 18:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sparkie82's actions[edit]

It appears that today's edit is the 2nd time @Sparkie82: has made a revert on this page that goes against consensus. The first time was on 14:30 24 August when they removed Castle right after there was unanimous consensus to include him. At the current discussion it is split between including candidates with sufficient ballot access/write-in access i.e. including Castle and McMullin or only including candidates with sufficient ballot access and not write-in access i.e. excluding Castle and McMullin. Today Sparkie82 only removed Castle (even though he has more ballot access than McMullin) but didn't remove McMullin and this went against both of the arguments at the talk page. Therefore if I did not revert Sparkie82 the page would have been inconsistent and would have went against both proposed critera for inbox inclusion. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

User being reported: WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Serial rapist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Category:Sex trafficking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Castration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [27] [28] [29] [30]

Angel Makers of Nagyrév (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [31] [32] [33] [34]

Category:Forced prostitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [35] [36] [37] [38]

Category talk:Violence against men (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs): [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: DV talk, Category talk, NPOVN, Talk: Serial Rapist, RfC,ANI

User is on a month or so long war to remove a category from a dozen or so pages. These are the worst of the lot. After failing to get consensus in the first three discussions, they started an RfC to change the wording of the category, and then proceeded to continue to edit war. TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Filing party is a tendentious editor who has obstinately refused to discuss or attempt to resolve the dispute. See Talk:Serial rapist#Taking it to talk for more. Contributor lied about reading sources and then proceeded to repeat himself with clear violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:ONUS. jps (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. User is too oblivious to realize I posted the references from the article. And yes, it is a content dispute, between them and about half a dozen other people over about a dozen articles. TimothyJosephWood 19:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Timothy, you might wish to state the user you are referring to - just in case threads get separated. DrChrissy (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm one of the many editors reverted by jps. His response above is indicative of a pattern I believe intended to frustrate. Of all the above his argument that Castration is not necessarily gendered is the most incredible. Forced Prostitution, which lists "comfort gays" as one of only two subcategories, is also baffling. I find it difficult to compose rational responses to irrational claims, which may be the point. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that "he didn't do his book reports" is a novel mark of tendentiousness. Dumuzid (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
TIL "refusing to discuss" means discussing in six different threads in five different forums. The book report is a particular case of WP:IDHT that goes something like: I refuse to accept that Paris is the capital of France until I've been given a page number. The repetition goes something like: Paris is the capital of France. The strategy goes something like When I've refused to listen or offer new argument to the point where you give up, I'll do what I want. TimothyJosephWood 21:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The description at Category:Violence against men is such that it can be interpreted multiple ways. Neither TJW nor jps is wholly correct or incorrect. There's an obvious need for more discussion, but the edit warring is, I think, making them both too frustrated for that to be productive. This is clearly disruptive editing, but I don't think anyone has broken 3RR (I could be wrong).
Across the relevant pages (and category pages), my count for number of times adding this category: jps - 24, Volunteer Marek - 6, Rockypedia - 2; and number of times removing this category: James J. Lambden - 15, TJW - 9, Zaostao - 6, Arkon - 1. (linking to usernames of editors who have not yet participated in this discussion -- not that they need to)
Jps has the most (5 of them weren't technically reverts, since jps initiated the changes, but that's still 19). 24 (or 19) is a lot, but 15, 9, and even 6 are also awfully high numbers for reverts of the exact same non-vandalism edit. This doesn't even include edits at Category:Violence against men itself, which were over a different change (but indeed involved more edit warring, primarily between jps and JJL).
Suggestion for next steps:
  • A trout or shake of the head or "c'mon you should know better" or warning or whatnot for the involved edit warriors.
  • 2-week moratorium on adding/removing Category:Violence against men to any article, unless a clear consensus emerges from talk page discussions. WP:WRONGVERSIONs frozen (although I don't know that protection is necessary) whenever this thread is closed.
  • 2-week moratorium on edits to the category page text (i.e. full protect), unless a clear consensus emerges from talk page discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Several editors behaved badly, myself included. For any editor in your list ask yourself: if this editor hadn't participated at all would the problem still exist - the answer is yes in every case except jps. That indicates an editor problem not a mutual problem. I think your mutual solution is likely to solve the editor problem temporarily but a mutual solution is unnecessarily broad, and once protection expires we'll be right where we are now having the same conversation. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, obviously if the person who suggests/makes the change in the first place never did so, then there would be no possibility for edit warring. The problem for the purpose of this venue isn't the initial edit or its content (regardless of how someone might see it, or whether consensus supports it in the end, it was made in good faith and certainly wasn't vandalism). This venue is more about the disruption caused by edit warring -- and, specifically, stopping or avoiding that kind of disruption. And based on those numbers, if you did not participate (there are other mechanisms aside from edit warring to deal with a tendentious editor) it likewise would not have gone on to be so disruptive. I'm not trying to excuse Jps, I'm not saying it's your fault, that you're equally to blame, etc. I'm saying this wasn't a case of a vandal, and wasn't a case of a single person opposed by everyone else. It's a content dispute with people on both sides, and it took both sides to make it an edit war rather than go another route. Sometimes ending disruption calls for a block, and sometimes blocks can be avoided. What I suggested stops the disruption. Blocking Jps also stops disruption with a stronger admonishment, but also removes him from the active discussion, which is not the source of the disruption. For good measure, a caveat: I'm not an admin. I'm just giving my suggestion having seen the edit warring and having a pretty good sense of the content dispute, without being closely aligned with either side of the edit war.Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
First, I've been plenty productive in the interim, which seems to be true of most of those involved. Second, since the editor in question has, as far as I can tell, done nothing in the past few weeks besides work for this particular purpose, I see no reason to think they will stop. Third, since after eight reverts, they finally stopped warring on the cat itself, there is no reason to protect it. TimothyJosephWood 23:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly interested in commenting other than to say that it's quite clear that we have one user on a crusade. What is done about it, shrug. Arkon (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin comments
  • Creating a section just because of the attention this has received; don't want the admin discussion getting lost in the woodwork. The situation is complex, so I would like a second or third opinion. No 3RR violation has taken place recently. However, the editor being reported is a veteran, with a monstrous block log; they should be well aware of what disruptive editing is, and that they should not participate in it; therefore, I doubt very much that a warning will work. There are not, AFAIK, discretionary sanctions available. Disruption is clearly still ongoing. I am inclined to close with a longish block to WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94, and formal warnings to the several other editors whose behavior here has been sub-optimal. Other admins, please weigh in. Vanamonde (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned I was kept off-wiki by real life, and no other admin seems to have weighed in. The disruption seems to have ceased since my statement here, and a block would therefore be punitive. Therefore, I am going to close this with a warning to jps to obtain consensus for any removals, and that further disruption may result in a block without warning. The other parties are also warned that disruption on the part of one editor does not excuse edit-warring: there are several dispute resolution mechanisms available prior to ANEW. Vanamonde (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:PollyNYC reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [49]
  2. [50] (logged out and followed logged in 10 minutes later with a non-RS ref [51])
  3. [52]
  4. [53]
  5. [54]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]


Slightly slo-mo edit war by an SPA whose sole activity on Wikipedia has been to post this misinformation on the Nisha Ganatra article. Ganatra directed only three out of the ten episodes of S1 of Transparent, and she was one of three consulting producers on S1 of Transparent.. Not sure why the SPA wants to post misinformation on Wikipedia, but they won't discuss, heed warnings, or take no for an answer. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Don't know what prompted me to look at this when it came up in my watchlist, but I am so glad I did. The editing pattern and style from both users are the extremely similar to those from RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who also socked under Red Plastic 12000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), RebeccaTheMegaAwesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and June The Mega Wonderful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The mannerisms are way too coincidental. Wes Mouse  T@lk 02:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with PollyNYC or PollyPrissyPants being related to any of those users. I don't see anything that links them at all and they don't even seem to be American, as the Ganatra SPAs obviously are. The two Pollys are obvious socks, as they are both exclusively Nisha Ganatra SPAs and have the same username and so this is a super-obvious no-brainer. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC); edited 10:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: Article semiprotected. PollyPrissyPants (talk · contribs) and Rufus Clyde (talk · contribs) have not edited since 2007 so are not an imminent threat. You seem to have accepted PollyNYC's insistence that Ganatra was not a co-director. It is unclear where either of you are getting your information because the sources for her work in Season 1 of Transparent (TV series) are not obvious. There remains a possibility that PollyPrissyPants and PollyNYC are the same person, though both seem inexperienced. Report again if the abuse becomes more obvious. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged reported by User: (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: County Dublin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Laurel Lodged (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]

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

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

  1. [64]
  2. [65]
  3. [66]

The user = Laurel Lodged = cites County Dublin as a "former county", on the basis that its administrative county council was abolished and divided into several smaller units in 1994. However County Dublin still exists in several guises outside of the administrative function - being cultural, sporting, postal etc. I deem this sufficient to require more nuanced language when discussing the county in a general article. County Dublin is universally understood as one of the 32 traditional counties of Ireland, and to say County Dublin is a "former county" is overly simplistic. There are several discrepancies between Ireland's traditional counties and their administrative counterparts (for example, the six counties of Northern Ireland are no longer administrative units as NI is divided into council areas with completely different borders, but there is no suggestion of calling County Down or County Antrim "former" counties. Yet Dublin has been singled out here for reasons I would regard as nothing more than overbearing editing. The user keeps reverting to his/her previous edit without regard despite my efforts to improve the articles clarity.

  • Reply This IP just won't take "no" as an answer. I'm not sure what part of "was abolished" he fails to comprehend. My comments have been terse but accurate. A casual perusal of the page's archives shows how much painstaking effort over many years has gone into the creation of the current status quo. It represents what most editors can live with. It's a compromise between literal purists (like me) and ardent irridentists (as the IP appears to be). Let him answer two questions: (1) What is an Irish County? (2) What is the function of an Irish County? Let him then say if it is more accurate to describe Dublin as a current or as a former county. By the way, none of the above diffs purporting to link to the talk page actually links to the talk page. That's because he refused to take it to the talk page. Must we realy go through this for every newbie ediror that can't be bothered to read their way into a topic? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – See instructions for creating a 3RR report. Please use the talk page to agree on how to refer to these counties. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man reported by User:XavierItzm (Result: )[edit]

Page: 2015 San Bernardino attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parsley Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [68]
  2. [69]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

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

Page that shows the 1RR warning for this article: [72]

The contributor twice blanked out new direct quotes from the Los Angeles Times in less than 18 hours. Unfortunately, this contributor (who sometimes makes very valuable contributions) has been blocked three times already this year, most recently 10 days ago, so he is probably quite aware of the 1RR and the fact it is a bright line policy.. XavierItzm (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The OP here is adding content to the article which is already present [about prior islamic radicalisation]. His content is not new information, although the way he places it in the article suggests that the OP believes that to be the case. The OP has not responded to Parsley Man's comments on the article talk page about the pre-existing content on radicalisation, but instead has made this report. Mathsci (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The comments have been responded to. Please note the 1RR violation precedes the report. Thank you. XavierItzm (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The words jihad and martyrdom were quoted in the article in the section entitled Self-radicalization of the shooters. The OP has not acknowledged in his latest response that in this particular context these terms are used exclusively in connection with Islamic terrorism. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:18D:8600:327F:BD87:61F9:2E08:6D1D reported by User:Eteethan (Result: )[edit]

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:18D:8600:327F:BD87:61F9:2E08:6D1D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741848299 by Echoedmyron (talk)"
  2. 01:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741846088 by Eteethan (talk)"
  3. 01:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741844710 by Muboshgu (talk)"
  4. 00:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741778446 by Echoedmyron (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


User: reported by User:Closeapple (Result: )[edit]

Melissa Villaseñor (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. 02:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 17:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 03:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 17:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion of this page, because it is unessential and unimportant information."
  5. 17:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  6. 17:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  7. 17:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "The "racist tweets" portion of this page is unessential and unimportant and therefore, I am removing it."
  8. 17:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion from this page, because it is unessential information."
  9. 07:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion from this page, because it is unessential."
  10. 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC) "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion of this page, because this is not an essential part of said page."

(I changed the numbering here — one of these wasn't of the blanking; I must have checked the wrong diff instead of the one with the blanking. I think there are 11 after the block. --Closeapple (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC))

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None by me, but I haven't edited the article either. Another user did post a first-level warning to the IP's talk page after the block expired. It's not clear whether the block (for "vandalism") was partially based on the user's blanking or not. --Closeapple (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Once before being blocked on 2016-09-26 (for "vandalism" according to the log), and repeatedly after coming off block, (talk · contribs) has been blanking exactly the same paragraph of Melissa Villaseñor. This IP has made substantially the same removal 11 times in the last 36 hours, saying it is "unessential"; other users, both IPs and logged-in users, have put it back, sometimes using edit summaries mentioning that the paragraph has sources. It has HuffPost and some (well-known) tabloids as sources. I'm reporting to AN3 because (1) the user was already blocked, and it's unclear whether the block was based partially on the first blanking; (2) there's the bit in WP:3RR rules about BLP issues being borderline; (3) another user has already warned the user about the article now. No indication that the user has engaged with any previous warnings. It appears that the user wants to make sure that this information is not in the article when Melissa Villaseñor debuts on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live, which happens at 2016-10-01 22:30 U.S. Eastern time (so 2016-10-02 03:30 UTC) and runs for two hours. --Closeapple (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Karst (Result: Semi)[edit]

The Zutons (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. 11:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "The Zutons didn't reform for it - stop edit warring."
  2. 11:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741903436 by Karst (talk) Let's stick to the facts, not your wrong take on events"
  3. 11:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741903294 by Karst (talk) No they didn't."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Zutons. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 11:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Viola Beach tribute. */ new section"

Tried to resolve this issue. Instead I was told "Get on with it fella - keep pushing incorrect info from tabloids. You obviously like edit warring, and not actually contributing anything to articles." On my Talk page. Karst (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: Semprotected one month. One user with two different IPs trying to insert the same change, with no indication they will wait for consensus. The dispute is about whether the band actually re-formed in 2016 for one or two performances or if only some of the members did. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Feinoha (Result: )[edit]

Puella Magi Madoka Magica (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. 18:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "The fuck stop undoing my edits."
  2. 17:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "I'm surprised nobody has added this yet."
  3. 14:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 06:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741871427 by Artichoker (talk)"
  5. 04:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC) "This anime is drama so stop undoing it already jeez"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Has been warned on their talk page about this more than once. Feinoha Talk 18:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gothicfilm reported by User:Depauldem (Result: )[edit]

Page: Sully
User being reported: User:Gothicfilm

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [74]
  2. [75]
  3. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]


After making a valid edit to add Clint Eastwood's name under the music section of the infobox, GothicFilm reverted based on an unsupported claim that only names listed in the film's "billing block" could be used. There is no such rule and ample sources were provided showing Eatwood's name is, in fact, included in the actual credits of the film, not to mention the soundtrack. All links to reliable sources were discarded by GothicFilm, as were repeated calls for her to offer any rule or policy that supported her edit reverts. Depauldem (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)