Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marjdabi (talk | contribs) at 19:32, 23 September 2018 (→User:Marjdabi reported by User:Fitzcarmalan (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • 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 from 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 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.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Bangabandhu reported by User:164.82.32.13 (Result: Semi)

    Page: United States Park Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bangabandhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Sorry I am new to wiki. I didn't know anybody can make edits to pages. I would like a non biased objective moderator to please to a look at the United States Park Police page. I tried the "talk option" and doesn't appear to work with editor Bangabandhu. There has been a lot of edit wars and I think a biased additions to the Park Police page. The page was in my opinion factual and in good order until Bangabandu made several changes to it. Can someone please help? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.32.13 (talk • contribs)

    On 20 September the page was semiprotected by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What was happening with the page before I protected it (I reacted on a WP:RFPP request) was not really acceptable. I would not mind elevating protection to full, but a full protection can only be applied for a few days. I see that there is some discussion at the talk page concerning the edits, and I believe this is how it should proceed. If proposed changes are reasonable they will correspond to consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All my changes were explained in talk, and involved removing unsourced material. This IP, who has been previously blocked and appears to have a connection to the government agency in question, can somehow claim that I'm responsible for the edit warring? I thought that the lock on the page would have resolved this - but it looks like I should have put the charge in here, first. IP's first engagement on the talk page was yesterday - I've been there for weeks and would have welcomed the engagement.Bangabandhu (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsing the comments added by the IP editor after closure of the complaint. Please make these observations on the article talk page, and avoid assuming bad faith ("...purposely add negative posts to the page out of personal bias"). You are risking sanctions if you talk that way. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Hello I a new to wiki. Like I said on the talk page I was not aware anyone can make changes on wiki pages. The Park Police page was in good standing last year. There was useful information onthe page that casual readers could read to learn about the Dept. User Bangabandu has made many edits and additions to the page. I already explained in talk that I was looking for neutral views points. The edits by Bangabandu have been very biased and one sided. I asked that the 2017 shooting be mentioned once under its own heading. Two sections including one in the lede are unnecessary.
    I asked that under "Authority" where Bangabandu had made additions, the last paragraph needs to be removed. Bangabandu uses a bad source to say the Park Police cannot "follow" a vehicle from outside their jursidiction. This is simply untrue. "Following" a vehicle is not a police action. I would like to see Bangabandu cite policy or state/federal code to back their claim. If not, that entry should be removed.
    The day to day operations of the Park Police consists of more than just policy forbidding body cams and possible legislation to introduct them. Operations should consist of normal day to day activity, patrol functions etc. If Banganadu cannot provide such, then the entire Operations section should be removed.
    The Washington Navy Yard shooting reponse should have it's own heading. Currently Bangandu tries to downplay the Park Police response to the Navy Yard shooting and has it under " Other Operations" while highlighting trival news articles under "Operations" Also under " Other Operations" Bangabandu has an arrest for unlawful assembly at the Jefferson memorial and a crackdown on illegal food vendors listed. For an agency that has been around since 1791 I find it ironic that Bangandu would cherry pick these two events. I ask that these two entries be removed as the editor feels the need to purposely add negative posts to the page out of personal bias. Thank you for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.32.13 (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Semiprotected one week by User:Ymblanter. An IP editor made this report but included no diffs. A fluctuating IP who must be the filer seems to have broken 3RR on September 19 and 20. Use the talk page to work out the matters in dispute. If agreement can't be reached follow the steps of WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drassow reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    MG 42 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Drassow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860583625 by VQuakr (talk) Per talk page"
    2. 15:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860568351 by Le Petit Chat (talk) It's valid, as per WP:YOUTUBE until you can provide reasoning as to why it is not valid, based on the case-by-case clause. Please stop your vandalism."
    3. 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860558483 by Le Petit Chat (talk) The video is first hand and provides objective evidence, as we have covered in the talk page. The source is valid, unless you can provide valid reasoning as to why it isn't.."
    4. 13:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860465866 by AnomieBOT (talk) The video was shown in the talk section to be certain that the gun is an MG42, the source is valid."
    5. 23:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on MG 42. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 17:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Used during Syrian Civil War */ please clarify"
    2. 19:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Used during Syrian Civil War */ re"
    Comments:
    Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GenoV84 reported by User:Batreeq (Result: )

    Page: Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]
    5. [6]
    6. + More in the previous days.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7], [8], [9]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Requested that the user reverting my contributions begin a discussion as each time, they are removing and keeping different portions of my edits over many edit sessions. Thus, I am unsure of how to approach the issue and have requested the user discuss it on the talk page per WP:REVTALK. User has not cited any policies, yet I have. Instead, they are citing vague reasons such as: "{{who}} and {{by whom}} are unnecessary, as readers can just click on the wikilink "Criticism of Islam" and find them; i agree on the invasion; 6 years old, that's what the source says." First statement is not grounded in any policy and does not make sense. Last statement violates WP:SYNTH because the source does not explicitly state that it was consummated when she was six years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batreeq (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    I have already explained to the User Batreeq that i agree with his latest changes to the lead, in fact i kept them and everyone can check out the latest version of the page to verify it. My point of contention is that Batreeq claims that the phrase "modern religious and secular criticism of Islam" in the lead requires templates "who" and "by whom", but the page's sections themselves provide both religious and secular criticism of Muhammad and Islam, and that's the same case for the page "Criticism of Islam", which i suggested him to read.--GenoV84 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Borsoka reported by User:82.17.74.178 (Result: Filer blocked)

    Page: Timeline of Romanian history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Romanian_history&diff=858599639&oldid=858599611 [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Romanian_history&diff=860634076&oldid=860621506
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Romanian_history&diff=858612647&oldid=858606964
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Romanian_history&diff=858603693&oldid=858599639
    4. + many other times throughout the years

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_Romanian_history#You're_deleting_perfectly_fine_stuff_again [diff]

    Comments:
    The user keeps deleting completely fine sourced material and phrases such as "| 1224 || || The Diploma Andreanum was issued by Andrew II of Hungary granting provisional autonomy to colonial Germans residing in the present-day area of Sibiu." and "| 1438 || || The Unio Trium Nationum pact was signed as a reaction to the Transylvanian peasant revolt at Bobâlna." and "| 1514 || || György Dózsa led a peasant's revolt in Transylvania against Hungarian nobles." for example. The user also reverts massive edits that are actually positive to the article as they contain conversion of mere links to Google Books into proper web citations for example. The user also does not single out things that he has a problem with but rather makes sweeping reverts wasting other user's contributions away. If you have a look at his last disruptive edit, there were multiple mere http links turned into proper web citations that the user then reverted. Why?

    The user even deleted my initial comments here and replaced them with his own as you can see from the history of this page. Can someone please take action against this user???

    I repeat the core of my previous comment that he/she reverted. He/she is unable and unwilling to understand basic WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOOMERANG required for 82.17.74.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Talk:Timeline of Romanian history. WP:LTA and WP:NOTHERE Hello stupid hungarian ... Oh, and also, do any other of you fucking morons want to explain why you didn't point the above out as things the user should not have deleted??? Go fuck yourselves morons! at [10] and Go fuck yourself moron. at [11]. WP:ILLEGIT says Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side. He got warned enough this month for it (and has been blocked once for it this month, so he/she should know better). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DownFame reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )

    Page: List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DownFame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [12]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [13]
    2. [14]
    3. [15]
    4. [16]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

    Comments:

    The use of {{Television ratings graph}} in the Television WikiProject has been a contentious issue recently, where the general consensus has become to allow the editors of each article to decide on its use or lack thereof. DownFame has been continuously adding these templates for over a year now; if one looks at their talk page, you can see their created templates have all been nominated for deletion and all have succeeded in their deletion. As far as I can tell, they have never attempted to discuss on either their talk page or the talk page of any article about the use of these templates, despite a number of editors attempting to do so with DownFame over the past year. They are restoring the graphs blindly on the linked article, reverting Esuka323 as well. 77.100.241.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also made an appearance to restore the graph; I'm not sure if this is DownFame logged out or not. -- AlexTW 14:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm fairly confident that the IP editor is DownFame logged out, and an admin should easily be able to confirm. It seems highly unlikely that a random IP editor would appear within hours of them being reverted just to restore a ratings graph. I've never personally seen a television page that active that someone would do that. Esuka323 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have no relation to the reported user but believe the graphs are useful. The policy cited here is unclear. I know the reported user shouldn't edit war but why are the graphs bad? 77.100.241.132 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to take your word, just the administrator's. The WP:CONSENSUS, the general consensus has become to allow the editors of each article to decide on its use or lack thereof. The policy, WP:3RR. It doesn't matter whether they're good or bad - you edit war, you get reported. -- AlexTW 13:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The reported user hasn't responded to any request for comment yet I am, surely that's enough to verify we're not the same person. We are editors of the multiple articles in question and decided to add it, policy is unclear. It keeps getting reverted so shouldn't the users reverting also get reported? 77.100.241.132 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The reported editor not responding to any discussion is exactly why this report was necessary. And no, they should not. DownFame was the one to initially add the content, but instead of discussing it when s/he was reverted, they edit-warred over their addition. Your/DownFame's WP:BOLD edits were reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. Hopefully you've learnt a bit about Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays through this. It's up to you two to discuss your edits instead of edit-warring. -- AlexTW 13:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, so a discussion has to take place on each article before including a ratings graph? Seems like it would take too much time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.241.132 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no prior history editing any Agents of Shield related pages before you restored the graph, you also seem oddly familiar with graphs considering your user history only dates back 12 days. You also seemed well aware that a graph was removed from the page and within hours of DownFame being reverted you restored it. That seems very convenient to me. Esuka323 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    They're also displaying edit war behavior on the List of Gotham episodes & List of Defiance episodes pages.

    Their usage of the graph is disruptive and they won't discuss the issue with anyone. Esuka323 (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And further [20]. -- AlexTW 07:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And here too.

    Though it looks like we have the identity of the IP editor, per this edit.

    I think it would be fair for an admin to issue a warning to Matt14451 for edit warring while not logged in. He clearly used his IP address to avoid any hassle with his main account which is editing in bad faith. I wonder if DownFame & Matt14451 are linked in any way. His reasoning is suspicious to me. Esuka323 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing as IP address was mistake. I logged out then forgot to log back in. I am not connected with him. Matt14451 (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly wasn't. You were displaying the same warring behavior as DownFame on pages you have no history editing on. If anything you were also abusing the system by doing this as IP and made the mistake of editing while logged in(Which you quickly removed) on this very discussion board. You have edits dating back around 48 hours as an IP on both of these pages and on here. No one will believe you just "forgot" to log in. Esuka323 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter if you believe me, it's the truth. I use a shared home computer so log out between sessions. I have no relation to the user in question. You seem to have a hostile attitude. Matt14451 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence is there to suggest you log out to war on here. If you were the honest upstanding Wikipedian that you claim to be you wouldn't have acted the way you have done as an IP and took to the discussion boards. I do find it interesting that neither you(Also as an IP),or DownFame have a history of editing the Agents of Shield & Gotham pages before this little issue and have acted in the exact same way. Esuka323 (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72bikers reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Withdrawn)

    Page: AR-15 style rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 72bikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [24]
    2. [25]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

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

    Comments:

    He is well aware of 1rr, as he reported me only 3 of days ago (it was only closed today). Moreover this has been had up multiple times on talk [[27]] [[28]] [[29]], that we should not use old sources to imply current facts. Given he had reported me only a few days ago not only is this edit Waring in defiance of DS, it is a pretty egregious example of utter disregard for anything that might be considered cooperative editing or fairness. In fact it is really hard to see this as anything less them a deliberate and calculated act of contempt.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This was his report [[30]] against me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I made a couple of edits yesterday at the AR article. Editor Slatersteven reverted my edit and I simply restored it once.
    collapse material that is related to article content, not the 1RR event - Springee (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    :There are a number of RS's with expert criminologist James Alan Fox that are more recent than the 2013 Mayors Against Illegal Guns that support assault weapons still used only around 25% of the time and that even support that this number is decreasing. While AR-15's are classified as assault weapons not all assault weapons are AR-15's. So they are not specifically used 25% of the time. We have two RS articles in the AR article that state in the last 3 years AR's were specifically used 4 times. So the "are" definitive is factually true. Is this not what NPOV policy dictates?
    • 2015 4 MS with a AR
    • 2016 1 MS with a AR
    • 2017 2 MS with a AR
    • 2018 to date 1 MS with a AR
    • USA Today 2018 "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research" (13 uses) [31]
    • Book by James Alan Fox Jan 29, 2018: Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are actually the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. ...two thirds of mass shootings since 2009 involved one or more handgun, of the 72 public mass shooting since 1982, identified by Mother Jones 70 % relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns. [32].
    • Book 2016 "A very common misconception is that mass shooters prefer these types of weapons-semiautomatic, military-style rifles . Yet a study done by Fox and Delateur (2014) clearly shows that mass shooters weapons of choice overwhelmingly are semiautomatic handguns" [33]
    • "Fox (who provided some assist to the Mother Jones team)","Fox, dubbed the “Dean of Death,” is one of the go-to academics whenever a mass shooting roils the national consciousness", “Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by [Mayors Against Illegal Guns] involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines,”[34], The study [35]
    • Fox study, "notwithstanding the questions surrounding inclusions/exclusions, suggest that assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advo-cates believe." "only one quarter of these mass murderers killed with an assault weapon","Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by this gun-control group involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines", public Mass Shootings,(semiautomatic handgun 47.9% - assault weapons 24.6%)[36]
    • CNN transcript "most mass murderers don't use assault weapons . They use – they use semi-automatic handguns ." [37]
    • YouTube video of the Fox interview on CNN, [38].
    • Fox "The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings." [39].
    • Fox credentials, [40], [41].
    • News article, "found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic AR-15 riflel. Assault weapons were used in 24.6% of mass shootings,handguns in 47.9% [42].
    • News article, "They found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Assault weapons were used in 24.6% of mass shootings, handguns in 47.9%." [43].
    • Fox news article, "Over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting", [44]

    -72bikers (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Slatersteven, this is a poor example of a 1RR. The first edit was a number of minor changes and the removal of redundant sources all quoting the same AP reporter. The problem with the extra citations was discussed on the talk page. The second edit, past vs present tense, were vs are, is a VERY minor thing and hardly a revert. If you felt it was wrong it was an easy thing to discuss. When 72bikers reported you my feeling was it was better to overlook a minor transgression. I feel the same way here. Otherwise it looks like you are out for revenge rather than to improve the article. You are also not listening and the like. Let's drop this. 72biker needs to do a better job of making clear (and short) arguments but this report comes across as more petty than anything else. Springee (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You do understand the difference between "I know I did wrong, sorry" and "I do not care I was right". That is what he (in effect said (and literally now has here) said when he ignored my 1RR warning. Was this minor, the edit it not it implies (no it states) a situation that existed in 2013 is still true today (using a source from 2013), it alters what the tone of the text is. That is not a minor issue. This was not a mistake, as the reply above makes clear it was deliberate, he knew he was breaching 1RR and felt he was justified.
    No this is not revenge, it is frustration that yet again the article and the talk page are being hijacked by a badgering battleground warrior (look at the tone of his response above) who ignores policy when it suits him (and enforces it when it does). That is what this report is about, no not revenge. It is about the fact that rather then acknowledging he was in error, he showed nothing but contempt, this is about attitude, not the actual edits.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with Springee. This is petty nonsense. Enough is enough, recommend boomerang...indefinite block Slatersteven. --RAF910 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Second comment: For what it's worth, 72bikers has reversed the edit. Since there were no intervening edits this is a self reversal of the second edit, the one that brought this warning. Thus, for what it's worth, this is no longer a 1RR violation. Springee (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Springee, you are correct "better job of making clear (and short) arguments".
    What I do here is research thing for content of specifications or statistics and expert analysis, I think I have over 5000 something edits to actual article content. I presented a number of RS's that support the statistic, but for some reason Slaterstaeve only wanted the oldest one for the article (a bit perplexing). The newest is a book by James Alan Fox Jan 29, 2018 with support from his 2014 study and a study in 2015 as well as data from Mother Jones collected since 1982 to 2018.
    But all that aside I was making some contributions to the article and was simply cleaning it up and making some corrections. He has been one of the editors that state only most recent content is relative to the article. But for some reason he removed one of my edits stating "this was in 2013, so we use past tense" being that the statistic is still correct I again fix it and asked "This statistical fact is still true, shall I include the more recent sources." -72bikers (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As he has now reversed the edit I will happily withdraw this report, but I would close by saying it should have not taken a report to get him to do this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sasan Hero reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)

    Page: List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Afsharid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sasan Hero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    • Afsharid Dynasty
    1. [45]
    2. [46]
    3. [47]
    • List of
    1. [48]
    2. [49]
    3. [50]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Sasan Hero has not chosen to present their source(s) on the talk page.

    Comments:

    Sasan Hero has been edit warring over the insertion of Afsharid dynasty on the List of largest empires using, Taagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.". Social Science History, as a source. After checking the source, I found no mention of Afsharid dynasty. I have told this to Sasan Hero, here, here, and here. Judging from Sasan Hero's level of English, I am not sure they clearly understand what is being asked. You will also notice, on the List of largest empires & Afsharid dynasty articles, IPs(5.115.57.2, 5.117.107.193) that had previously attempted to add the Afsharid dynasty(or its size) to both of the articles. More than likely this is Sasan Hero. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – 24 hours. It does appear likely that Sasan Hero is the same person as the two IPs who were inserting the same unsourced number (3250000) for the area of the Afsharid empire in square kilometers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Uricnobel reported by User:Fitindia (Result: )

    Page
    Farah Karimae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Uricnobel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "rv vandalism"
    2. 17:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "clean up and reverting vandalism and pov pushing"
    3. 17:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "It is not a repost of previous article, this is a completely different one, I am not connected with this subject. The actress is notable, and the references are reliable paper publications. I think you have a psychological problem with this actress. Remove your speedy deletion"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Farah Karimae. (TW)"
    2. 18:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Farah Karimae. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has removed the speedy Tag WP:3RR, Looks like a old user by his edit summary probably a WP:SPA. Seems to have knowledge that this was a completely different article as he mentions on my talk page. FitIndia 18:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mediatech492 reported by User:General Ization (Result: )

    Page
    Quakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mediatech492 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860751768 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)talk page please"
    2. 20:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860750557 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)Then you should be easily able to explain it on talk page"
    3. 19:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860749783 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)That's what talk page is for"
    4. 19:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860748343 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)Disputed, needs consensus"
    5. 19:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860746623 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)Disputed, needs consensus"
    6. 19:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860721132 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)You have been told repeatedly to make you case on the talk page. This edit will not be accepted until this is done."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. [52]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 20:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Content dispute */ new section"
    Comments:

    Both this editor and the IP 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been trading reverts at this article most of the afternoon with apparently no effort to engage on any Talk page. General Ization Talk 20:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved from User talk:Mediatech492
    Issue regards a ISP hopper who is aggressively inserting disputed edits, and has refused repeated invitation to discuss the edit on the talk page according to proper procedure. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about your editing behavior, not the IP's. Just because the IP edit wars doesn't mean you need to. Make your case at WP:ANEW, please, not here. General Ization Talk 20:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, yes, I see you repeatedly mentioning the Talk page, but never taking the initiative to start a Talk page discussion yourself. You're just as capable as the IP of doing that, and just as culpable if you continue to revert without engaging in Talk page discussion. General Ization Talk 20:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Onus is on him to initiate discussion. He has been repeatedly invited to do so, but has refused. If it was important he would have followed procedure and done it. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So – you're thinking that the three-revert rule doesn't apply to you? General Ization Talk 20:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently your rules don't apply to anonymous IP Hoppers. Give me another option. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion of the IP's edits is occurring below. We are discussing your edits here in this section. Your other options are discussed at WP:EW and WP:DISPUTE. General Ization Talk 20:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see he continues to persisted in his aggressive edits, wilfully ignoring the rules. I asked you to give me another option. Do you have one or not? Mediatech492 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to both, see my comment just preceding yours. General Ization Talk 20:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you don't have a viable option to offer. Very well. I leave you to it. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 reported by User:INeedSupport (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Quakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860756041 by General Ization Reverting edit made without the due explanation required by Wikipedia"
    2. 20:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860755049 by General Ization Making a legitimate edit is not the start of an edit war. Certain others started and continue to wage an edit war."
    3. 20:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860752183 by Mediatech492 If this edit is put to discussion on the talk page then a small group of like-minded people can overrule it. As has already been made clear, the edit is factual, accurate and well-sourced, and there is no need for discussion within the terms of Wikipedia."
    4. 20:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860750914 by Mediatech492 (talk)Quoting the Oxford English Dictionary entirely within the spirit of Wikipedia."
    5. 20:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860749923 by Mediatech492 (talk)`That's what you say, but you're asserting POV outside Wikipedia basic principles."
    6. 19:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860748652 by Mediatech492 (talk)Whose consensus, and why?"
    7. 19:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860747266 by Mediatech492 (talk)Whose consensus, and why?"
    8. 19:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860745093 by Mediatech492 (talk)Why not? It's a legitimate edit. You do not own this article. You do not own Wilkipedia. You do not own history. You do not own public access to knowledge."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Quakers. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 20:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Content dispute */ new section"
    Comments:

    Not sure if Mediatech492 is supposed to get blocked as well. If you need me to make another report, then I will do it. INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 20:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Update:Apparently Mediatech492 was already reported. Report is above this one. INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 20:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Consolidating duplicate reports) Both this IP and Mediatech492 have been trading reverts at this article most of the afternoon with apparently no effort to engage on any Talk page. General Ization Talk 20:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue regards a anonymous ISP hopper who has been is aggressively inserting disputed edits. Has been repeated requested by myself and others to discuss the material on the talk page. User refuses to use talk page. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the IP's revert reverts at 20:24, 20:49 and 21:07 occurred after being notified of this discussion (and indicate ignorance of this policy). General Ization Talk 21:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marjdabi reported by User:Fitzcarmalan (Result: )

    Page
    State-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Marjdabi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Self-revert (Undid revision 860877975 by Marjdabi (talk))
    2. 17:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC) (Undid revision 860875939 by Sänger (talk) This section is removed for breaking rules of Wikipedia WP:NEUTRAL and WP:BALANCE. Any sources what so ever mentioned are not a reason to break the rules of WIkipedia, any further restorations to rules broken should be considered vandalism)
    3. 16:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860845312 by Fitzcarmalan (talk) Can you give a reason on the revert rather than if it is on me or you? How do you believe reverting the article which breaks the rules of Wikipedia I have given should be reverted as you did, without any discussion neither on edit summary or talk page? Give a reason on how you believe the rules broken are unimportant or a possible solution, and discussfirst before further reverting."
    4. 02:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860785748 by Editor abcdef (talk) Please wait until a common point is reached until restoring controversial content. Discuss on talk before further restorations."
    5. 1:52, 23 September 2018‎ (UTC) Marjdabi (-22,557)‎ . . (→‎Turkey: This section needs to be removed until a WP:NEUTRAL point has been reached. Turkey participated in the war on ISIS, deploying troops to Syria in that cause. The several paragraphs which repeat and only mention the foreign involvement of Syrian Civil War is very unbalanced in the article WP:BALANCE. Several other countries including the United States have equally supplied the listed groups with funds and arms are not listed. Needs to be removed until a common point is reached)
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Notification */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    In this edit, Marjdabi removes massive amounts of sourced content (22,557 bytes, basically the entire 'Turkey' section), then explains in a new talk section that this part should be kept out, pending further expansion (or "balancing", in their words) of other countries' sections. The edit was challenged, as expected, an hour later by Editor abcdef, but was reverted shortly afterwards by Marjdabi, citing the "discussion" they initiated and how it should conclude before restoring the material, clearly disregarding WP:BRD which they were made aware of in an August 28 warning by Kansas Bear, shortly before receiving a 1-week block for similar behavior. I reverted, explaining that the onus is on them to obtain consensus and not the other way around. I also notified this user of the SCW community sanctions, because the article doesn't have a tag for some reason. But I was reverted by Marjdabi yet again, and this sort of behavior is very similar to what this user is still doing on the Egypt article, where material that is being challenged for being contentious and non-debatable original research is being edit-warred back in, citing a similar reason: that I should wait for an RfC to conclude (an RfC that I, admittedly, shouldn't have started to begin with and should've brought the issue here instead).

    Considering the same user recently came out of a block (on September 4), I expect a tougher sanction this time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And now we have a third revert of Sänger, which happened while I was writing this report. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have the right to revert after giving an explanation and edit summary, I have not exceeded the WP:3RR as I have only made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours and not more. This report should be disregarded as I have not broken any rules. Marjdabi (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no such right, and you have broken 3RR. I suggest you self-revert to have an outside chance of not getting blocked. Otherwise, I suggest a block of longer than a week this time. Dr. K. 17:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial edit was the removal rather than a revert, and I have reverted 3 times since then. So it should technically not constitute 3RR. In either case I have reverted the most recent revert since you mentioned this. Marjdabi (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the self-revert. I have noted this both in the revert count, and in a note. I hope everything turns out well for you. Dr. K. 18:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Marjdabi is on a mission also on the page 2018 Ahvaz military parade attack. Adding Twitter source as evidence [53], confirming one perpetrator on his "evidence" [54], removing source [55], wants everybody to disregard all other evidence than his [56], again removing sourced info [57], finally declaring himself victorious [58]. Where does this end? Wakari07 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • ISIS released the footage of attackers heading toward the parade attack site today. So I removed any other claims of attacking groups. Why should this be considered a mission like you've said? Also twitter source mentioned the news before the news story was published, it is a very weak attack that you accuse me of using twitter as source. I kept that for 30 minutes as a source before changing to a news story which was published minutes later. Marjdabi (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mrnobody1997 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: )

    Page
    National Front (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mrnobody1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860881013 by Snowded (talk)"
    2. 13:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860848391 by Emeraude (talk) They wouldn't put Address: The Secretary, BM BOX 4630, London, WC1N 3XX if their headquarters weren't in London. Unless you find something else that is credible something please leave it as London as stated on their website."
    3. 13:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860844681 by Emeraude (talk) That is their official website"
    4. 11:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860741025 by 87.102.4.150 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Editor has been blocked for editwarring before Doug Weller talk 18:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Why am i being reported for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)‎[reply]

    @Mrnobody1997: The notice on your Talk page includes a link to the community's policy on edit warring, and specifically the three-revert rule. Have you read these policies? General Ization Talk 18:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you are edit warring.--RAF910 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    People are undoing my edits though and not getting reported. I haven't done anything wrong though. People are removing what i've done. Read the edits i've done. I am trying to improve the article but people keep undoing what i've done— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)‎[reply]
    No one but you has violated the three-revert rule, which I again encourage you to review. General Ization Talk 18:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read what the edits i've done people are undoing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)‎[reply]
    Yes, three different editors (myself included) have now reverted you (which should be a rather strong clue that you need to rethink your edit, not keep making it), none more than three times. General Ization Talk 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It is their official website though which you keep dismissing Mrnobody1997 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997[reply]

    You must convince your fellow users that your edits are worthy of inclusion. If not, they may be reverted and you may be blocked, again. I recommend that Mrnobody1997 receive a 30 day block. If he still cannot play well with others, we can indefinitely block him later.--RAF910 (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.nationalfront.info/ is The National Front official website which says their headquarters on there so why are you dismissing that and reporting me for including that on National Front wiki Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997 http://www.nationalfront.info/ is the website of the national front uk and it says their headquarters on there. http://www.nationalfront.info/contacts/ is their contact information and has their address so where they are based. I don't understand why i'm being reported for linking http://www.nationalfront.info/contacts/ to national front uk wiki saying their headquarters is London when it says it on their website look. Address: The Secretary, BM BOX 4630, London, WC1N 3XX People keep removing national front headquarters are London even though it says it on their website and i'm getting reported for undoing people removing headquarters London on National Front UK Wikipedia page. You obviously don't know anything about National Front as you are dismissing a fact on their website coming from them. Absolute pisstake i'm being reported for making the national front uk article correct. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997[reply]

    No where on that website does it say "Headquarters London." You are making an assumption. I change my mind, I now recommend that Mrnobody1997 be indefinitely block.--RAF910 (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't say headquarters London but it says address London. It doesn't need to say headquarters as address is another word for it. Phone up the National Front and ask them if you don't believe what it says on their website. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997 Why should i get blocked for doing that? Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997 Until this issue gets resolved i will not edit on the headquarters of National Front again until i can clarify with National Front themselves where their headquarters are and hopefully they can state it clear enough for you to see so we can not have this problem again. If they can put on their website stating Headquarters London instead of just address London then maybe this problem we have can be sorted out. Whatever happens to me i will not edit anymore about the nf headquarters until the evidence is clearer. I understand you need more obvious evidence so i will find out and get back to you. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=860891965"