Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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:5.45.192.102 reported by User:92.228.99.255 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.45.192.102 (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. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness&diff=prev&oldid=618423050
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness&diff=617841923&oldid=617770136
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness&diff=prev&oldid=617434932
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness&diff=617359664&oldid=616847129

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Yet_another_solution_proposed.3FDiff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments: The editor in question is reverting edits that remove mention of an article he himself wrote. As well as edit warring, there is also a clear conflict of interest.

• Page protected (semi) for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Doris Day (Result: Malformed)

There has been some dispute regarding the year of Day's birth (1922 v 1924), but a talk page consensus had been reached to use 1922 based on a preponderance of evidence including census records and her official biographer (David Kaufman), who unequivocally states she was born in 1922 and used that year exclusively in his bio of Day.

Recently, Mussobrennon changed the year back to 1924, overriding consensus and a note to editors at the beginning of the article stating not to change the year without attaining a consensus. After a few tit for tat edits (see [1]) it seems that it would be best to nip this edit warring in the bud.

I politely left notes on his talk page, the first of which he blanked without replying (see [2]), and I left another (see [3]) after the second tit for tat (see [4]).

Thanks, Quis separabit? 02:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Farrahferguson reported by User:Manway (Result: Blocked)

Page

Ego Ferguson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Farrahferguson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC) "/* References */"
2. 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC) "Adding public information. Farrah Ferguson is Ego Ferguson's Biological daughter. Requesting this page be protected to include Ego Ferguson's daughter Farrah. Asking the user removing this public information to be banned. www.officialfarrahferguson.com"
3. 02:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC) "Ego Ferguson's daughter is worth mentioning. She is a public figure in her own right because of her own social standings. This is public information. Farrah Ferguson is Ego Ferguson's biological daughter."
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC) to 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "Adding public information"
   2. 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "Adding public information. Farrah Ferguson is Ego Ferguson's biological blood daughter. This information is public and well known. Adding Great info."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ego Ferguson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Username indicates it is a person adding herself to the page. Manway 03:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• So what should we do about BigKtheboss being involved? He's been reverting the additions more than three times, but I'm assuming in good faith, since he did say the additions are uncited. Zappa24Mati 03:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (e.e.):The additions are continuing.. I think the one I undid has gone in 5 times now. And note that the username indicates an imposter, not a person adding herself to the page, since the additions state that the daughter Farrah Ferguson is all of 9 months old. Meters (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I see my undo actually didn't happen due to a conflict. Oh well, my comment stands. Meters (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Callanecc.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mussobrennon reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: prot)

Page: Doris Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mussobrennon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (edit warring, not 3RR)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [6] [7] [8]

Diff of edit warring [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] (blanked) and [11]

Comments:
There has been some dispute regarding the year of Day's birth (1922 v 1924), but a talk page consensus had been reached to use 1922 based on a preponderance of evidence including census records and her official biographer (David Kaufman), who unequivocally states she was born in 1922 and used that year exclusively in his bio of Day.

Recently, Mussobrennon changed the year back to 1924, overriding consensus and a note to editors at the beginning of the article stating not to change the year without attaining a consensus. After a few tit for tat edits (see [12]) it seems that it would be best to nip this edit warring in the bud.

I politely left notes on his talk page, the first of which he blanked without replying (see [13]), and I left another (see [14]) after the second tit for tat (see [15]). Quis separabit? 12:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. I am seeing only three reverts and enough discussion that I am not comfortable blocking. This looks like a contentious and well-discussed issue, so hopefully a few days of lock will resolve the issue. A bit more politeness is in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Theyuusuf143 reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: retracted; subsequently blocked)

Page

Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Military of Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Theyuusuf143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to (by me and others)

• [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts

One Somaliland:

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]

On Military of Somaliland:

• [21]
• [22]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

One Talk Page (By me):

• [23]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[24] [25]

Comments:

User is clearly not here to contribute this project. After informing them that he was edit warring, they instead choose to continue and on other pages as well. He has continued to add unsourced content on both pages and add his own personal opinion as well. AcidSnow (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note. AcidSnow, you failed to notify the user; I've done so for you. There are only three reverts at Somaliland (you listed two that are part of one revert). The user hasn't reverted at Somaliland since your warning although they did revert at the other article. Your notion of discussion with the new user is odd. "Can you please come to the talk page?" How is the user even supposed to know that you've posted that message (at both talk pages)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, my bad and thanks! I am not sure what happen with forget their username though. AcidSnow (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have gone and fixed the talk page. Should I retract this report? I had planned to send this in when he broke 4 on one of those articles or if he continued to revert 3 times then move on to another page. AcidSnow (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• AcidSnow, please not that Theyuusuf143 is very new and is unlikely to be familiar with the collaborative norms of editing here. @Theyuusuf143: please take your concerns to the respective talk pages (click the "Talk" tab at the top of the article). Edit warring your preferred text will lead to your account being blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well it looks like he does not care at all about the rules. He has been edit warring on Hargeisa and has made 5 reverts.[26][27][28][29][30] He also plans to "desyroy all somalia especially punrland" . As we can clearly see he is not here to contribute to this project. AcidSnow (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Aleko rubin reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

Page

Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Aleko rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618551930 by Dougweller (talk)Vandalism"
2. 15:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618547881 by Alessandro57 (talk) This was the stable version over years, your actions are biased..."
3. 14:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616160802 by Yerevantsi (talk), reverted to stable revision content"
4. 14:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Sanctions alert */ new section"
2. 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Your edits */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not sure if I should have reported here or elsewhere as I gave the editor a sanctions alert yesterday. Please also see my comments on his talk page. 15:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, meant to say that an AE enforcement could obviously include a 1R restriction, etc., not just or even a block. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all I reverted to previous revision, that was removed by Yerevantsi. Instead of removing content, try to find reference sources, or at least mark it as needed citation. Just removing content, which some of the user deliberately do, doesn't contribute to article at all. Added reference, just now... Aleko rubin (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Aleko rubin, what you're saying, even if it were true, doesn't justify edit warring. Yerevantsi made several edits, so it's impossible to even know which version you're referring to. As for adding a ref, you added one, yet you made many changes. The proper course of action is to go to the talk page and discuss rather than reverting, and against so many other editors. And calling one of the reverts "vandalism" is over the top and undermines any credibility you have. Unless you can show some insight into your behavior, I see no reason not to block you (you also ignored the alert about WP:ARBAA2).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've looked a little deeper, even though it's not really relevant to the edit warring issue. Your second revert reverted Yerevantsi's edit of July 9 at 00:30. However, your first revert did a fair number of other things. In any event, you don't get to decide unilaterally that Yerevantsi's edit or edits were wrong. If challenged, as you were, you have to justify it on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree on the last note. But in the same spirit Yerevantsi's desition to remove content was unilateral indeed, as no discussion about the mater apears on talk page. Consequently my latest action to undo it is justified. I refer to the edit done by Yerevantsi on 00:30, 9 July 2014. I meant to undo aforemention users action, so initially I added the removed content manually, sinced I didn't know how to revert it. Subsequently my new edit was undone, while the original edit of Yerevantsi has been reverted. This was my intention. Aleko rubin (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If I recall, your manual edit was much more extensive than the simple revert of one of Yerevantsi's edits as you did later. However, let's assume you started with the plain revert. Nothing wrong with that per se. The problem is you were challenged, and you continued. As I said, just because you think Yerevantsi was wrong does not give you the right to battle in the article over it. It then has to be discussed. Yes, the others could have discussed it, but each of three editors reverted you once and then stopped. Doesn't that tell you something? I now understand your stated intention. I still see no understanding on your part as to where you went wrong. You're lucky I'm even continuing this discussion rather than just blocking you, but I'd prefer to see you make a step forward on policy rather than just sanction you. If you want to show some good faith, revert back to before you started and go to the article talk page and establish a consensus. Your conduct would be disruptive on any article, but it's even more disruptive on an article subject to discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss content as justification is not a reason for edit-warring. The argument about Yerevantsi is not material here either. I won't take part in the discussion about content unless I find a pressing reason to do so, but as Bbb23 has said, the other editors stuck to 1RR - I was very surprised that you reverted again Aleko - you definitely need to change your behavior and show that you can work with others, even when you are certain you are right. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't see a general WP:1RR restriction per WP:ARBAA2 or a 1RR restriction placed on Armenia; am I missing something? That said, disruptive editing is subject to DS, and that would be the basis of a block unless I see some concrete insight on the part of Aleko rubin.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I do acknowledge that it wasn't correct to push back and on, on the mater without consensus. I've added now some references to the content that was previously removed by justification that it wasn't atested (mythical). If you're not biased, you shouldn't allow some users remove core content, then blame me for preventing it. In same sence co-editors that initiated this cause should be urged to discuss the matter before removing important content without any justification whatsoever. I'm sorry, and deeply regret that I funded wikipedia to supprt its biased, amature work. Never again... Please remove my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleko rubin (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours for edit warring per WP:ARBAA2. I've commented on Aleko's request to remove his account on his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Alcatrazzrapper reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: Malformed)

Page

 

User being reported

Alcatrazzrapper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Unfortunately there is not one page that is an issue but since Late last year beginning of this year this editor has recieved multiple warnings on genre changes including 6iX Commandments several times and has continued despite several warnings to stop. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. If you want administrators to review a user's overall conduct, then you should take it to a different board. If you want us to look at edit warring across multiple articles, then you have to list the articles and the diffs for each.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• User:Bbb23 if you take a look at the talkpage it isn't rocket science, it is very minimal effort required to see all the warnings how long and what they are about. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Atlas-maker reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: Blocked)

Page: Synge Street CBS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Atlas-maker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32], 2014-07-26 14:47:01
2. [33], 2014-07-26 15:01:25
3. [34], 2014-07-26 17:45:33
4. [35], 2014-07-26 23:19:26

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here, and here, and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I was a bit reluctant to block the user because, although he clearly violated WP:3RR, he appears to be leaving Wikipedia based on his last contribution to his user page about 12 hours ago. Still, I've seen users say they're leaving but then come back and, meanwhile, they managed to avoid the consequences of their actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Keysanger reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Article protected)

Page: War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keysanger (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. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

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

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

Comments:
Slomo edit warring, sort it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Uninvolved 3rd party here - here is a link to where they sorta tried to work this out. Here is the warning Darkness Shines issued. Frankly, I'm not sure why Darkness Shines wants to bring light to this issue, because it looks like he and Keysanger are equally guilty of edit warring, since they're just reverting each other back and forth. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected two months. This article has been in dispute for seven years. Use {{Edit protect}} to ask for changes that are supported by consensus. The other option would have been to block both parties. User:Darkness Shines must feel he doesn't have enough blocks already. This article has been the subject of many complaints at AN3 and at ANI over the years, but I haven't noticed any sustained admin attention to addressing the problems there. Arbcom has tackled Argentine History but that case has no overlap with this dispute (except for having at least one editor involved in both). Since User:Keysanger is one of the most senior editors working on this article it's disappointing to see how eager he is to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo reported by User:RGloucester (Result: )

Page

2014 insurgency in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Soffredo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618741031 by RGloucester (talk) Why not use short names? For the "War of Transnistria" infobox, we list it as Transnistria despite not controlling all claimed territory."
2. 23:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "But he's not representing Russia, which is also involved."
3. 23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 21:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Flags in the Campaignbox Post-Soviet conflicts */ notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• This user doesn't seem to "hear" what other people are saying. He repeatedly reinserts edits that multiple people revert, without ever trying to engage in a frank discussion. This is not the first time he has done this. I warned him of discretionary sanctions related to Eastern Europe-related articles, and yet he kept on reverting. I don't know that he needs a block, but I do know that someone needs to explain to him that it doesn't accomplish anything to revert without discussion, especially when multiple editors are saying that one's edit isn't appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:‎S20003 reported by User:26oo (Result: Indeffed + master)

Page

Exclusive economic zone of Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

‎S20003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 1

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Keeps removing cited work, vandalising.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Article talk page
2. Summary
3. User talk page

Comments:

• The user keeps blanking sections and replacing it with texts such as This page contains misleading information, and cannot stand. It should be challenged or deleted. I've messaged the user as well as having posted a message on the article talk page. I believe he's using a second account called User:K200003. 26oo (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's clearly him. AcidSnow (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. K is the master and S is the puppet. Both have been indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Tasnuva tahnin reported by User:APerson (Result: Locked)

Page: Surbhi Jyoti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tasnuva tahnin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

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

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

Comments: I'm a completely uninvolved editor who was notified of this on the IRC help channel. Tasnuva tahnin was never warned, and no discussion was carried out on the talk page. I think indefinite semi would be a good idea on the page, too; it's been an IP battleground for a while. APerson (talk!) 02:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. There have been a great many problems with non-autoconfirmed accounts. The reported editor is not autoconfirmed. However, the editor the reported editor has been battling with recently is autoconfirmed, and although that editor hasn't breached 3RR, I'm not inclined to block the reported user given the circumstances. He's also apologized on his talk page. I took an unusual step and reverted the last edits by a new user who made a BLP and formatting mess of the page. What concerns me is whether there's anyone editing this page who is sufficiently responsible to do so in a constructive manner; in other words, what's going to happen at the end of the week? My guess is a repeat of the chaos.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

24.36.80.217 reported by AcidSnow (Result: )

Page: Mashriq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.36.80.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Latest revision as of 06:58, 28 July 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 04:59, 25 January 2014
2. Revision as of 06:55, 28 July 2014
3. Revision as of 20:06, 3 July 2014
4. Revision as of 07:50, 3 July 2014
5. Revision as of 05:10, 7 June 2014
6. Revision as of 04:35, 4 June 2014
7. Revision as of 04:54, 30 May 2014
8. Revision as of 06:28, 16 April 2014
9. Revision as of 07:12, 12 April 2014
10. Revision as of 06:17, 11 April 2014
11. Revision as of 06:40, 5 February 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
All though they have not broken 3Rv, they clearly are being disruptive and refuse to corporate no matter how many times told to. AcidSnow (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Since this is a very slow-burning edit war, and the reverts seem to have been prompt and left in place, what administrative action would change the situation? Short of a multi-week block, all I can think of is an new note requesting that the issues be discussed on the talk page -- SCZenz (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I see, can we protect the page at least? AcidSnow (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for a short time, and Pending Changes implemented indefinitely the panda ₯’ 16:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Lugnuthemvar reported by User:Shrike (Result: Blocked)

Page

2006 Lebanon War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lugnuthemvar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 12:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "Israel retreated. that's a fact and NPOV. the fact that you want it to be indecisive is an attempt to save face for the IDF. making it non NPOV"
3. 15:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "stalemate is an POV view. withdrawal is fact. check your biases before you post"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2006 Lebanon War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user was warned by admin not to edit war and yet he reverted after the warning [47] Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Zaca4 reported by User:Damián80 (Result: )

Page: What Life Stole from Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zaca4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• It is is my issue, where you've left an edit summary
• It is is editing

Comments:
The user Zaca4, appears to be a puppet Sky0000 (I have requested a verification of accounts). You have started an edit war in the article mentioned only to add information without references and irrelevant. A month ago to explain it in a thousand ways and not seem to mind, I think the user Sky0000 has returned with a new puppet.--Damián (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me talk too. I haven't done more than 3 edits there, but he is. I asked from him information , what I do wrong and how I go against rules. He didn't even answer me. Understand, please my edits are necessary, and he hasn't explained me, what I do wrong. I'm very sorry. Zaca4 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I notice that Damián80 was recently reported for edit warring on another telenovella page here, after three reversions. I think both parties need to review WP:BRD here. Neither party is even using edit summaries. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE:, That has to do with this?, Is that case is trying to support the other user?. First I need not explain anything to this person, as it is a puppet of another user who was blocked for a month for this reason. Add death of each character is irrelevant, if wikipedia is to be placed everything that happened in each chapter in a soap opera?. To entertain that come here. For to this you should not come to any consensus. If someone has to know how to die urgency of each character in a soap opera, as you see it, that's why it was created!. Always have placed the characters and the actors. This information that the user attempts to add is irrelevant. So I ask you, if you agree that this information will be added, he believes that wikipedia will become?.--Damián (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The mention of the previous incident shows that you're aware of the policies on edit warring, and have a tendency to ignore WP:BRD. Regarding the content, that's not an issue for this page. Read WP:BRD. You need to at least try to work it out on the talk page before running for administrative action. You aren't explaining it just to Zaca4, you're explaining it to everyone else who is trying to figure out why editorial decisions were made. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I say you , too Damian, what that Sky0000 user thing has to do with this problem. I don't know that person. Also if watcher didn't see a few episodes, and he doesn't have chance to watch episodes again, person comes to Wikipedia. Also Damian has deleted united states broadcast from many articles without no reason. Why it disturbed you now? Before it you took all information from cast and then broadcast disturbed you. Please, understand, that person thinks that Wikipedia's for him, but it's for everyone. I just want to help other people. Also I viewed his talk page archive too, he's been in a lot of edit-wars before also. Also I did also my own article about cast in Corazon Valiente, and he even does not let me refer to it, he says it is poorly written, but maybe for other people it is not. Understand, that person just wants to have fun in wikipedia and wants to look articles like he wants and when someone is trying to hinder him, he comes here and says bad about others. Also I looked to internet, I didn't find such a good programming guides as they were in wikipedia. Please I'm not trying to slander him but I tell how things really look like. Also I'm very sorry for my behavior but with that person is impossible to talk. I hope you understand me. Zaca4 (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to add this type of information, this user a month ago did the same article, and I'm sorry, but I will not be trying all the time to reach a conseso so unnecessary to add information to each art.

A month ago this person did this:

• La impostora June 24, 2014
• June 25, 2014
• Sky0000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,506 bytes) (+1,125)‎ . . (Adding necessary section)

Is it that these edits are correct? and should discuss this in all pages of discussion?.--Damián (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Second Comment: As of this point, Damian is at 5 reverts (1 2 3 4 5) and Zaca4 is now at 3 (1 2 3). Damian is in clear violation of 3RR. Zaca4 is probably guilty of edit warring as well, given the notice. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's like you two want, and leave the article as it was before, and mine are not 5 reversals learn to look good. I'm tired of this and this user, all here everyone does what he wants..--Damián (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Already Placed the article "Corazón valiente" as I was before, as presumably are very important items were.e. I tired to continue wasting time user you do what you want.--Damián (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Tomwikiman reported by User:Theironminer (Result: )

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

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

I'm new to wikipedia, so this is my second report on a user, but I'm not 100% clear on how this works. There was a user who kept repeatedly editing the genre for a movie on a page and never stopped. User has been asked to stop but has not responded and continued to edit the genre.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]
5. [52]
6. [53]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theironminer (talk • contribs)

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

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

Comments:

User:46.7.249.19 reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: )

Page: Burao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.7.249.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 14:08, 28 July 2014
2. Revision as of 15:01, 28 July 2014
3. Revision as of 15:18, 28 July 2014
4. Revision as of 16:28, 28 July 2014
5. Revision as of 17:26, 28 July 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55], [56]

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

Comments:
Apparent block evading ip sock of User:Theyuusuf143. Began disrupting the same pages a few minutes after the main account was blocked for 3RR. Along with the just blocked socks User:S20003 and User:K200003, appears to be a meatpuppet associated with the indefinitely banned User:Reer Woqooyi. Also see here ("its mine (somaliland) not for somalia, somaliland army is watching you online, just like we defeated you on the ground") and here ("And yes I asked people on a blog to come and edit some pages"). Middayexpress (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Bloodofox (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. ([59][60][61][62]—reversion of edits [63] by @Kiyoweap:, which were not "vandalism" as Eric states, but rather tags primarily for poor sourcing issues raised on the talk page })
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67] (here's the mandatory template: [68])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69] (discussion here; note also that edit summaries above repeatedly request user to continue using the talk page rather than simply remove article issue tags)

Comments:
This is part of an ongoing issue involving problematic sourcing on the Kelpie article, which was recently a featured article. However, when the article became featured, it was clear that it didn't receive the scrutiny it needed; references to the pseudoscience of cryptozoology were employed and numerous issues relating to sourcing have been raised since. Eric appears to have been a major contributor to the state of the article at that time, and these reversions seem to be related to that fact. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Your supposed to link to the 3rr warning you issued, and then where they reverted after you issued it. You still haven't issued a 3rr warning, and Eric hasn't edited the article subsequent to your notice of the discussion here. Furthermore, the 3rr rule is not an entitlement to edit war until you hit it, so you are just as guilty of edit warring as Eric is. Monty₈₄₅ 18:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What, beyond text in an edit summary warning about revert amounts, qualifies as a "3RR warning"? As you can see, Eric edited after that. This doesn't count as a 3RR "warning"? I certainly didn't violate 3RR, and my edits repeatedly ask him to discuss it on the talk page—where I was discussing the issue—rather than simply reverting page issue templates. I'm also unclear about what has happened in the policy; in the past it's been pretty cut and dry—over 3 reverts and it's a block—but apparently that has changed? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

...how embarrassing. I suggest you read up on it a bit more before coming here and throwing accusations around. Cassianto^talk 18:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Generally we prefer to see a {{uw-3rr}} (or non-template equivalent message if you subscribe to WP:DTR), or at least a {{uw-ew}} followed by the editor continuing to edit war. The idea is to make sure that there is no question they were aware that continuing was a violation of policy, and that they then proceeded to do so. Intentionally edit warring up to 3rr, is still edit warring, and that you reported it here shows you knew you were participating in an edit war. Monty₈₄₅ 18:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was discussing it on the talk page page with your tag-team colleague Kiyoweap, who had yet to respond, which is why I consider your repeated insertion of these defacing tags to be vandalism. Added to which neither you nor Kiyoweap have even the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Eric Corbett 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Eric, as we apparently don't need to go this route, let's just keep the sand in the sand box (Kelpie talk page) so we can all play together like nice kids. We can discuss your choice of sourcing there. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We were already discussing it there. This isn't a route I chose, it's the one that you've chosen. Eric Corbett 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So let me be clear about this (I've been editing on and off for around for several years, and there certainly have been changes to this situation since I was last pretty active on Wikipedia). So, "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" no longer applies? It's still at the top of the page, and this doesn't seem to fall under the "exceptions". And there is "preferred" means of warning another user before they hit that cap that, without use, invalidates 3RR? And, to be clear, since I'm reporting this in the first place, I'm guilty of edit warring, despite repeatedly asking the other user to take it to the talk page? Given Cassianto (talk · contribs)'s response, I'm guessing we don't have a civility policy anymore either... :bloodofox: (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The point of the policy is not to block as many people as possible, but to stop the edit warring. That said, its also important not to let 3rr be used by one editor to "win" an edit war by getting the other editor blocked. Eric may well end up getting blocked for his violation of 3rr, but its also clear from the page history that you have a history of edit warring with Eric on this topic before today. You come here with unclean hands. Monty₈₄₅ 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Has there been an amount of discussion over changing the wording that I quote above? It seems like this policy doesn't really reflect how it's worded on this page anymore, which does indeed seem as cut and dry as I recall it being in the past. If this was all spelled out above, I wouldn't be wasting anyone's time with it (above it says, for example, "consider warning them by placing [specific template] on their user talk page"—note consider). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Some admins are just more eager to block for 3rr violations than others. Personally, I like to make sure an editor has been given ample chances (such as the warning) to cut it out before resorting to a block. In the past I've warned editors with 7+ reverts, and only blocked them if they continued after the warning. My goal is to not block a good faith editor if there is any way to avoid it. That said, because there are admins who do more aggressively enforce 3rr, its best for editors to know that they are always at risk of being blocked when they violate it. If an admin chooses to block Eric in this instance, it would be within their discretion under the 3rr rule. Monty₈₄₅ 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: - Seriously? Read the rest of the policy:

The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

The bolding is in the original, not mine, but it's exactly what I would have emphasized to explain this to you. Just because you're discussing it and reverting doesn't mean you're not edit warring.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Bloodofox, did I see you say that you consider something you said in an edit summary to have been an appropriate 3RR notification to another editor? No way. Edit summaries are to give a summary of your edit - not to make direct communication with another editor, especially for the purposes of providing a formal warning the panda ₯’ 19:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  I don't want to get off on a technicality. A formal warning would have made no difference to me anyway, as I consider the addition of defacing tags to a recently promoted FA to be vandalism. Eric Corbett 19:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BRD applies here too. After Eric reverted the addition of the tags, the next step is to discuss whether they're appropriate, not to simply replace them. This is especially the case on a featured article. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think they qualify as vandalism as defined by WP:VANDAL, but tagging an FA or any article that has been reviewed by so many people is never a good idea until you have first discussed the concern. We don't give special privilege to FA articles per se, but the very act of passing it means several people think it isn't a problem and that has to be taken into consideration. If you tag and it is reverted, you should have the good sense to discuss adding it back before reverting again. Otherwise, it seems WP:POINTy, as it obvious that more than one person disagrees with you, even before you put the tag up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  Probably not, but it's vandalism as far as I'm concerned nevertheless. Eric Corbett 20:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• As the warring has stopped, the tags have been reverted off and it is being discussed (via WP:BRD) by both parties, I don't see a need to start blocking people just for the sake of blocking people, as there isn't anything to prevent. I think this just needs to go back to the article talk page and be closed, with everyone learning a bit of a lesson what is and isn't warring for the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think we can all assume that Eric has been around long enough to know about 3RR; complaining that he didn't get a formal warning is quite tenuous. Also, this is clearly not even remotely close to vandalism (per WP's definition of the word). Finally, there have been some (brief) talk page discussions about the tagging. Two editors agree that the tags are valid, and Eric disagrees. Seems to me that Eric is edit warring against consensus, even if it is a rather small, local consensus. Not every article has hundreds of contributors watching it, ready to participate in a discussion, so sometimes 2-3 editors is all you get to determine consensus. Since Eric clearly violated 3RR, I believe he should receive a 24-hour block, like any other normal editor would. Of course, we all know that won't happen, because of Eric's privileged status on this site. And therefore, we will perpetuate Eric's belief that he is exempt from most rules (even the ones that are clear-cut and strictly defined). ‑Scottywong| converse _ 20:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)