Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:24, 24 November 2016

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:SuperJew reported by User:J man708 (Result: Both editors blocked for 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: Stable edit as of a few days back.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: SuperJew and I left comments with each edit discussing our thoughts on the issue. Talk Page 1 edit summary - Talk Page 2 edit summary - Talk Page 3 edit summary - Talk Page 4 edit summary

Comments:
Simply put, I'm at wits' end when it comes to dealing with this user's over-use of the "Undo" link. SuperJew wishes to see the status quo with an article, however I wish for the article to be edited to match the other pre-existing articles. SuperJew reverted the edits asking for me to discuss this on the relevant talk page, but I feel as though an edit small enough (which brings the article in question in line with other articles) can just go ahead without needing to enter into a large and time consuming discussion. I've been involved in discussions of length with SuperJew before which I feel often leads to him filibustering the point that I cannot justify continuing on the discussion.

I feel as though the predicament I'm stuck in is that any conflicts that SuperJew and I have, be it myself or him making changes to the pre-existing articles, any issues must be reverted to his way of seeing things before any discussion can occur, as though his way of seeing things is the default status quo. I've had enough and I know that it's not just me who has. I'm sick of logging in to Wikipedia and see this. It has to stop. - J man708 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main contributors to these pages are Matilda Maniac, Macosal and myself. Today was the first time J man708 made a contribution to most of these pages.

As per WP:BRD:

Jman (user editing these pages for the first time) made a Bold edit,
I (one of the 3 main ongoing contributors to the pages) Reverted it with an explanation.
Next step should be Jman starting a Discussion about the edit. However, Jman decided to engage in an edit war instead, despite requests to start a discussion per WP:BRD.

If anyone here should be blocked for edit-warring it should be Jman, though as he is at most times a helpful contributor to the A-League project, I would not advocate for it. --SuperJew (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like you're trying to turn this around on me. WP:BRD is an essay. WP:3RR is a policy.

I am so sick of getting nowhere being filibustered on the required talk pages and being reverted solely by you. Your above post didn't do anything to address the issues I brang up previously, only attempted to shift it onto me. The idea that if anyone here should be blocked for edit-warring it's me is ridiculous. I'm taking appropriate action and not requiring the article to sit how I like it, to avoid an edit-war, something you weren't Bold enough to do. - J man708 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to frame this whole discussion as if there are a million editors on the A-League project and I'm the only one reverting you ever. Let's put the truth on the table: There are a handful of editors on the project, and you and I are easily the most active. --SuperJew (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why aren't you seemingly ever able to make a compromise with me? Why must everything revert to how you see it or like it? It's ridiculous why something like this not go my way (which by the way, it's not really my way as much as it's matching the Germany and England articles) for a change? - J man708 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that WP:BRD does state that BRD will fail if - amongst other criteria - A single editor is reverting changes because they believe they own the article. Simply put, the degree of defensiveness with respect to minor changes on articles edited by SuperJew is huge, and it seems to me that multiple edit reverts are the norm. I usually give up at WP:2RR. The article becomes a subset of SuperJewipedia wherein every format has to be consistent with the rules that apply to that, whatever the opinions of others (whether they regularly edit those articles or types of articles or not). It is not a winnable war. I am sick of it. I will not fight this war, and have gone on two small wikibreaks this year to chill out, pretty much to get away from his edit reverts. Give up Mr J man708, and concentrate your positive efforts on articles where they are appreciated. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew broke 3RR on four articles, and Jman has been gaming the system. Both of you are blocked for 24 hours, and please either disengage or follow dispute resolution when this block expires. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have a second admin's opinion upon this? I feel as though @Someguy1221: used the ban-hammer with little intent of it actually making amends to the situation. The block didn't serve to assist with mediating anything, only seemingly adding fuel to the fire. I'm sure that SuperJew logged out of his blocked account and spent the day avoiding the block by IP editing, to go along with his snide edit here. Obviously nothing was learnt from this ban and the rules clearly don't apply to him. This is ridiculous and is exactly what my original request for assistance brang up. What other avenues can I go to have this issue mediated and further issues avoided? - J man708 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I see that you're frequently admining this page. Could you please help shed some light on this issue? - J man708 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to question the closure by User:Someguy1221. Blocks are to stop edit wars; they are not intended to 'assist with mediating anything' or 'make amends to the situation.' If you think that SuperJew has been abusing multiple accounts, please open a report at WP:SPI and provide evidence. I don't see your name on the talk page of any of the four articles reported here. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you if you consider this issue important. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. - J man708 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha for what? I was technically wrong on the 3RR and was duly punished for it. You were also punished for gaming the system (and also technically broke 3RR). Why don't you just let it rest instead of fanning sparks into flames? --SuperJew (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you clearly ban-evaded your "punishment". The rules just don't apply to you, do they? Everyone has to justify every edit to you. I've had enough of it. - J man708 (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Balance213 reported by User:Dyrnych (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9] (since deleted by Balance213)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Asked the editor on the editor's talk page to start a discussion after my first revert, which the editor has not done.

Comments:

Bright-line violation of WP:3RR. The editor isn't engaging on the article's talk page and is adamant that his content must remain. Dyrnych (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has since reverted again.

...and again. I'm just adding them to the diffs above at this point. Note that these last two occurred after this report. Dyrnych (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to file a report. Note that the text the editor is trying to add is based on a Neo-Nazi website which publishes crap with titles like "Jewish Supremacist SPLC, ADL, Exposed as Anti-White Hatemongers as Texas DA Murders Solved" (sic). WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an indef block as user is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia and continues to add "citations" to neo-Nazi content. Neutrality^talk 00:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Namiba reported by User:WilliamJE (Result: Both warned)

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

At the article Pat LaMarche he reverted edits here[10], here[11], here[12], here[13], and here[14] when first one editor and then myself changed the categories for the article. Namiba is now claiming it is a BLP issue. It is common categorizing practice to catgorize a person (actor, politicians, sportspeople) as from Foo even if they did not practice their profession in Foo....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the header of this report and notified the user. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Namiba and User:WilliamJE are both warned they are risking a block if they revert the article again without a prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:14.139.183.220 reported by User:Essex-1799 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: Last best known revision

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (Immediately removed)

Other earlier warning: diff, diff (Immediately removed)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, diff (User did not participated)

Attempt to resolve in his talk page: diff, diff, diff (Immediately removed without participating)

Comments:

This IP is not the original account, this is one of the several IPs of the IP hopper TRUEV140. Among them, 14.139.183.220 is the most frequently used. When the page is protected he comes back with his original auto-confirmed account. There are specific evidences to prove they are the same user, but for now, see this. There is a common link in all these film articles he edit - all are starring Mammootty. In this case in Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film), he is re-adding a long-disputed source from TOI, along with other changes he want with adjustments and manipulations made here and there misrepresenting the source to make look the box office section more favorable to his star. According to him, if there is a source, he can add anything, and if its URL is still live on web no user has the right to remove it.

The user is not participating in the initiated discussion in his talk page (in both TRUEV140 & IP) or in the already existing one in the article talk. In fact, the IP removed the discussion immediately from his talk. The user is kind of deliberate edit warring, as he is aware that he is adding false problematic claims, hence he has nothing to discuss (other than bluffing in edit summary), so his only option to establish the content is through edit war. Each time he reverts, I restore it to the last best revision. Thus unfortunately I am also involved in this edit war, and already crossed 3RR. Essex-1799 (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours by User:Oshwah. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frownsy reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Indef)

Page: Glory Days (Little Mix album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frownsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

12:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750715239 by Kellymoat (talk) Please read the source"
12:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750714670 by Kellymoat (talk) Eveything that's been added has been sourced and verified in the sources"
12:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750713901 by Kellymoat (talk) reverted vandalism of removing sourced content"
07:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750645329 by Livelikemusic (talk) We're not using the sidebar, we're using the review made by Matt Collar"
21:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC) "Date to be in full IE 2015-2016 and not 2015-16 and added a reliable source for genres"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

12:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
12:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Can someone please explain to me where if you add a reliable source that is mentioned in its review and you input it onto the article itself how that is deemed to be unconstructive? Keep removing the sourced information is unconstructive itself and that is what Kellymoat is doing to Glory Days 2A02:C7F:DE2E:EB00:5D24:21FE:89DD:B518 (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly what is your problem both me and Richi have added a correct source, you're just vandalising the page and to be honest I've gone through your contributions and if you've got a bee in your bonnet with some else you get all petty and revert all their contributions, I personally don't think that's the correct way, you remove sourced information and revert it back to the unsourced mess that it was before hand. Frownsy (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need to open up a sock puppet investigation as well?Kellymoat (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - User name has been blocked as a confirmed sock puppet. Will we also be investigating IP users starting with 2A02:C7F:DE2E:EB00: ? Kellymoat (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – Indef as a sock by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jazbar reported by User:Yerpo (Result: Indef)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Later today, against a different editor:

[19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Comments:
The user tries again to hide unpleasant (but well sourced) facts about a political party, accusing me (again) of being a government tool. This is a continuation of the edit war he engaged in two years ago after failing to provide sources for his opinion, so probably a much longer block would be warranted. I also recommend semi-protecting the page, because he had tried to achieve the same using various IP addresses after being blocked the first time. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This a continuation of the same edit war for which the user was blocked two weeks in 2014. I've warned the user they are risking an indefinite block if they don't agree to wait for consensus. The same person has been indef blocked since 2011 on the Slovenian Wikipedia for reasons of nationalist editing, per this link. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, I tried hard to reach consensus with him, but it proved impossible (see Talk:Party of Slovenian People); instead of providing reliable sources for his statements, he quickly regressed to conspiracy theories and trying to discredit my sources. Now me and all the editors who have reverted his vandalism are "paid by the government to suppress opposition". Don't want to assume too much, but I'd wager he is at least an active member of this party, so I can see only one direction this situation can go. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: he continues with edit warring, personal attacks and baseless removal of sourced data, with no indication that he intends to heed any advice, argument, or warning. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely – Per the above, which continued after my warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.162.12.224 reported by User:Wesley Mouse (Result: Protected)

Page: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.162.12.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

15:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Added content"
Consecutive edits made from 15:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC) to 15:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
1. 15:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Added some content"
2. 15:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Added content"
3. 15:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Fixed Small error."
13:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Added some content"
12:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "I improved The page by adding Content."
Consecutive edits made from 12:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC) to 12:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
1. 12:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Fixed Content."
2. 12:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Fixed error"
Consecutive edits made from 11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC) to 11:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
1. 11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Added Content"
2. 11:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
3. 11:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Fixed an error"
4. 11:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Fixed Small error"
11:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Added Content"
Consecutive edits made from 08:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) to 08:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
1. 08:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 08:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Fixed an error"
3. 08:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
4. 08:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 08:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Fixed a error That I Made."
6. 08:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Fixed an Small error"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

14:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
14:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2017. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repetitive addition of unsourced content and original research. Article has been requested for semi-protection. Wes Mouse ^Talk 15:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that attempts have since been made to resolve the issue, and yet the IP continues to add original research and duplicating material. Wes Mouse ^Talk 15:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:92.29.125.201 reported by User:IdreamofJeanie (Result: Blocked)

Page: Feta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.29.125.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[21] slight variations between the various versions, but all have the same goal of replacing Greek origin with Turkish.

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

informal warning:[31]
formal 3RR template:[32]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[33]

Comments:

Filled in missing warnings, diffs, talk page etc. Meters (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been

Blocked by Widr for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Quick question, are non admins allowed to close if a reported user has been blocked for a different purpose such as this, or are non admins not allowed to close any AN3 report in any circumstance? Class455 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Widr. It is best if these reports are only closed by admins. One reason is that a block could have been issued elsewhere by an admin who didn't see the report here. The actual 3RR report has more complete information that might lead to further action, for example, protection or a block of the other party. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.190.153.14 reported by User:DPH1110 (Result: Blocked)

Pages:

User being reported: 68.190.153.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

This IP user thinks that he/she owns all of aforementioned The Challenge season articles, and is always making edits to suit his/her liking. This user is just making unexplained changes and removal of content and not discussing on the talk pages of the season articles of which his/her edits are taking place. When this user does make an edit summary, he/she goes off like this: "For the last time, stop changing these tables. I gave you my reason a lot so I'm done explaining why I'm changing it." This user has been previously warned for edit warring on other articles. DPH1110 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)DPH1110[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. At The Challenge: Rivals the IP is conducting a long-term edit war on one of the layout parameters. When questioned on their talk, and given a chance to defend this behavior they express a lack of interest in collaboration. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:1C0:8200:4830:48EA:B2C2:61D7:E54 reported by User:Justeditingtoday (Result: Block, Semi)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:
The editor has been edit warring all day at one point simply blanking the section entirely. Justeditingtoday (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justeditingtoday is not participating in the talk page. Funny, he's also only responding to my reverts, and not the blatant reversions of himself and other editors without regard to content. I had several edits of my own which made the article factually correct reverted several times by these hawks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Konni_Burton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8200:4830:48EA:B2C2:61D7:E54 (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP for 36 hours for edit warring and blatant POV editing. Sample: [41] And on their talk page they replaced the 3RR warning with this rant: [42]. Previously edited under the ID ‪2601:1c0:8200:4830:81e3:a5b7:fe24:f3f; sample: [43] I don't expect this block to slow them down for very long so I have also protected the page. --MelanieN (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:007nkr reported by User:Cotton2 (Result: Indef)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[44]
[45]
[46] as sock
[47] blanked page
[48]
[49]
[50]
[]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]. (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
User blocked as sock puppet. Cotton2 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – Indef for socking by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malerooster reported by User:JFG (Result: sanctioned)

Page: Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malerooster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "undo clueless rv"
14:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "not appropriate, its like saying "Hillary is being a cunt". not nice nor needed"
12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "not a forum"
01:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Clinton Foundation */ rm ,not a forum"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "/* 3RR notice */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

06:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750882105 by Malerooster (talk) Do not censor another editor's statement per WP:TPO, no matter how strongly you disagree with them"

Comments:

Malerooster repeatedly removed parts of a Talk page comment by Scjessey which he deemed offensive to Bernie Sanders. His edit was reverted once by me and five times by other editors. A quick discussion took place on my talk page, debating his assertion that he was justified to censor that comment per WP:BLP. Several reverting editors quoted WP:TPO to educate Malerooster but he persisted, even calling the latest revert "clueless". Lastly, he removed from his own talk page Scjessey's warning and PeterTheFourth's my 3RR notice. — JFG ^talk 15:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary for the second diff is wildly inappropriate, especially because it's in an edit summary. This is true even if Malerooster is using Scjessey's talk page comment as an excuse to engage in some BLP vios of his own.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster's reversion edit summaries are sub-par, however, every single revert falls under WP:3RRNO point 7. Those were BLP violation removals. They are supported by our policies. Point being, recommend warning without official sanction. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor claimed they were BLPVIO removals, but that is only an opinion. Other editors have agreed with me that "being a dick" is not a BLPVIO. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster restricted to 1RR in WP:ARBAP2 area for 1 month. This is clearly not the first time the editor has been involved in an edit war within the topic area. While I'll err on the side of good faith as far as the 3RR goes (though it seem a stretch), the repeated reverts stop now. --slakr^\ talk / 22:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, you might want to see this, which clearly shows consensus that the removal was legit as a BLP vio. Arkon (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate input on the matter as well as pointing me to that thread, I feel that calling someone a dick in the provided context is either a personal opinion or a personal attack, unless, of course, we're talking about truly alleging someone is literally an actual dick—a walking penis. An unsourced claim, in an article, that someone defies biology and walks around as Homo penisis would be more what the spirit of the biographies of living persons policy seeks to redress—not an opinionated (if not impassioned) comment on a talk page... at least, in my interpretation. It would no more be appropriate to censor someone's opinion that soandso is a "jerk" or "meanie" or "stupid." However, I understand your and the other editor's interpretation as encompassing any incidentally unkind remark, which is why I felt no block should be issued, despite my belief that BLP doesn't clearly and obviously apply here. That's the risk you run when repeatedly reverting something, so when taking it upon oneself to flame-on an edit war in an WP:ACDS area single-handedly, one should be absolutely certain that you're undeniably in the right. --slakr^\ talk / 00:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well consensus at AN/I is that the user -was- right, so even with your sanction, the mentioned reverts would have been ok under the BLP policy. Not sure what you believe this accomplishes. Arkon (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snowgolf reported by User:Velella (Result: indef)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751035020 by Velella (talk)"
23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751034330 by NOTNOTABLE (talk)"
23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Snow golf (ice golf) */Fixed grammar"
23:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Snow golf (ice golf) */Fixed update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "edit warring"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor unable to grasp that (self?) promotion is not acceptable here. A pause for reflection might be useful Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is factual information that needed to be updated. You are wrong in deleting it. It is not promotional at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowgolf (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anon3579 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Protected)

Page: Sebastian Gorka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anon3579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

02:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Added arrest on a weapons charge of a public figure and self-professed expert on national security"
21:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751016879 by Ccherzog (talk)"
20:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751013365 by Ccherzog (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 20:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC) to 20:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
1. 20:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Conviction of weapons charge relevant. Case is still pending. Provide source. Public VA record shows guilty plea Aug. 8 and sentencing Feb. 3, 2017) Undid revision 751011291 by Ccherzog (talk)"
2. 20:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "information about Gorka's father irrelevant. Separate page should be created if necessary."
20:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751010090 by Ccherzog (talk) Conviction of weapons charge relevant. Case is still pending. Provide source. Public VA record shows guilty plea Aug. 8 and sentencing Feb. 3, 2017"
17:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750984802 by Ccherzog (talk)"
17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750983157 Gorka pled guilty 8 August 2016 re: public records from the Arlington County Circuit Court website. On 3 February 2017, the Court will adjudicate him guilty and impose sentence."
17:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750982608 by Ccherzog (talk)"
17:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750980838 by Ccherzog (talk)"
16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750977218 by Ccherzog (talk)"
04:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "reinserted relevant information pertaining to criminal weapons conviction"
Consecutive edits made from 19:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) to 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
1. 19:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750724078 by Sk-gorka (talk)"
2. 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Removed - intent not an element of the crime, see VA Criminal Code §18.2-287.01. Also, commission of same crime by others irrelevant."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

02:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Gun charges */ new section"

Comments:

New user is adding repeatedly contentious BLP issue involving brief news blurb of criminal arrest. Source is valid, but it's a relatively minor thing. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – One month. There is edit warring, possible COI and sockpuppetry and BLP issues. Any talk page discussion would be welcome. If agreement is reached, it might allow lifting the protection early. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.190.136.195 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Lee family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.190.136.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

05:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Disinformation does not belong here."
05:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Unhistorical content removed."
05:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Disinformation does not belong here."
05:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Mistakes corrected."
05:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Unhistorical content removed."
05:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Disinformation does not belong here."
05:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Mistakes corrected."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

05:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Lee family. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freewillforever reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2016 South Korean political scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Freewillforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

11:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Lemongirl942 do not revert my changes again. This is unbiased writing."
11:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Lemongirl942 is vandalising the edits made by Freewillforever"
11:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751085951 by Lemongirl942 (talk)"
21:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Detailed information describing the Choi sun-sil's wrongdoings added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

11:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2016 South Korean political scandal. (TW)"
11:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2016 South Korean political scandal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

11:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* NPOV? */ reply"

Comments:

Freewillforever is adding back material which is a gross BLP violation. They originally added a lot of information which consists of unproven accusations - and I reverted their edits. My revert was in turn reverted and it led to this edit war. I am trying to explain but they are still reverting. I have done 3 reverts and I don't want to do any more (despite the BLP issues).
Note that Freewillforever is a new user and I would like to be patient. But the BLP issues are important here and I don't want to let them stay in the article. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942 erasing the contents based on false claims. And Freewillforever did not violate the BLP rules. Note that Lemongirl942 has been simply reverting the changes made by other users without contributing to contents. Lemongirl942 has been involved in several edit wars with others before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewillforever (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freewillforever, Please sign your posts. What you were doing on the article is considered edit warring. See WP:BRD - you made a bold change (which was controversial) and I reverted it. The next step is not to revert again but to discuss. You have already changed the contents of the article more than 3 times (including your bold edit) and this can get you blocked. I strongly suggest you revert your own edit (the last edit). This is important to make sure that you understand that WP:Edit warring is disruptive and also to demonstrate your understanding of policies and your good faith. The reason I reverted is because you changed a lot of the article which was previously NPOV and is now heavily POV with a lot of accusations in it. This is also a violation of our WP:BLP policy. I strongly suggest you to self revert. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please have a look at this exchange on the talk page. I see a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude with no indication that they understand why BLP is an issue here. I suggest a short block is in order. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now trying to blank this report. GAB^gab 14:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎Avaya1 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: roughly this version; with no section on Israel. (Other edits have happened in the meantime that are not the focus of any edit warring or dispute.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[53] (initial addition of section)
[54] 20:01, 21 November 2016
[55] 00:15, 22 November 2016
[56] 09:32, 22 November 2016
[57] 20:19, 22 November 2016
[58] 08:36, 23 November 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I attempted to discuss with the user on their talk page here and received no response.

Comments:
Avaya1 is involved in an edit-war to include a particular quote on the page Tulsi Gabbard supported only by a primary source. At least three editors have objected to the inclusion. The editor communicates via edit summaries in a clear but non-constructive way, and did not respond to my attempt to initiate discussion on their talk page. Usual wiki-jargon bs is evident, including edits to include a quote with primary source citing WP:primary (numbers 2, 3 above) followed by edits to remove a quote with primary source citing the same policy (number 5).

Possibly, I have violated 3RR in the course of this edit war (I have not counted carefully, but have certainly made a bunch of reverts). I contend that my contributions are less disruptive and supported by consensus, but am willing to sit out a block if it is deemed appropriate. A quick look at Avaya1's talk page suggests that this is not the only article in which the user is currently engaged in contentious behavior. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:FPP reported by User:2A1ZA (Result: 24 hours)

The User is persistently reverting the well sourced mainstream version of the Chaldean Christians article, which I had reconstructed from the article history over the past days, into the narrative of a "Chaldean nationalist" fringe theory with no sources whatsoever for its claims. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of the reported editor's reverts to the fringe theory version on 27 October, edit-warring with other editors: [60], [61], [62]

Diffs of the reported editor's reverts to the fringe theory version on 30 October, edit-warring with other editors: [63], [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts within the last hour today (edit: against me and User:NOTNOTABLE):

His edit summaries and one brief comment on the talk page consist only of parroting the always same sentence, does not engage in discussion. I would deem a revert of the article into the sourced mainstream version necessary, and preventing the reported editor from continuing edit-warring. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Cirflow and User:Arjayay who had fought against these fringe theory disruptions of the article by User:FPP last month. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you revert the article? I cannot legally do so now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be inappropriate of me as the blocking administrator. I'd recommend calling eyes to the article from a relevant noticeboard or WikiProject. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Successfully done, thanks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:2A1ZA reported by User:FPP (Result: No violation)

This user has a racist view on Chaldeans, and all he wants is to associate them to Assyrians, while the constitutions of countries, including the Iraqi Constitution (125 article) and also the Constitution of the Kurdistan region, as well as documents of the United Nations and the European Union recognize the Chaldean ethnic, He claims that my edits do not have a reliable sources, and his words are a lie, because all existing sources, including the authoritative historian John Joseph and James Claudius and Ryan gengris and Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as the sources of the Chaldean Church and the old Nestorian Church (assyrain church) itself confirms what exists in the article.

Therefore, users like him are harming the reputation of Wikipedia, first doing edits contrary to what is known and existing national constitutions to be false and undocumented,

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaldean_Christians&type=revision&diff=746964887&oldid=746897751

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This person does not want dialogue, but all he is do is retrieving my edits, so I ask for an immediate cessation of his edits in Chaldean Christians article --FPP (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
Obviously the fourth link is not a revert, but was a regular article edit earlier today. I recommend that User:FPP answer to the section above this. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, not a violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darmok and jalad reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 24h)

Page: Gay Days at Walt Disney World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darmok and jalad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

00:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
00:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
00:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
00:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
00:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
Consecutive edits made from 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC) to 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
1. 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
2. 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
00:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

00:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Gay Days at Walt Disney World. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:: Edits appear to fall under WP:NOTVAND. That said, they were edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Keri (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

00:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751197282 by Keri (talk) the article cites only right wing sources, many of them highly polemical, but as soon as I cite a critical source I get reverted?"
00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "it is a pejorative and is never used in any other manner. more neutral phrasing since I'm sure most young people would reject this characterization"
12:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751107883 by DynaGirl (talk) disagree that it is on topic, the focus of the article is affordable care act, and she is noted as a polemicist like coulter, not a "commentator""
11:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */ no encyclopedic value. affordable care act is only tangentially relevant to "snowflake" term and malkin is clearly a polemicist."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

00:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Generation Snowflake */ new section"
00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Generation Snowflake */ re"
00:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Generation Snowflake */ re"
00:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Generation Snowflake. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

00:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* POV */ re"
00:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* POV */ tp"

Comments:

Behavior indicates that editor intends to continue reverting repeatedly. Response of "fuck off with your templates" demonstrates editor's attitude. Keri (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course not a violation of 3RR. User has dredged up an unrelated content dispute with a different editor as part of their evidence, which obviously is not relevant to the present case. I engaged in discussion at the talk page, the editor replied to it, then went ahead and templated me anyway in what looks like an attempt at intimidation. Language aside, I'm pretty sure any editor would be annoyed by this behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the part that says: "Undoing another editor's work — whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time — counts as a revert", then look at the clock, then re-evaluate your defence. Keri (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MaxBrowne has just almost violated 3RR, but not quite. It's time for everyone to stop this and find a consensus on the talk page. I'm not going to do anything right now, but I'd rather not have to hand out any blocks or protect the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As MaxBrowne clearly does not wish to engage in discussion - merely roll up, push POV, edit war to maintain it, then fuck off into the sunset again - that is not particularly helpful. Keri (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unknowncoolio reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: )

Page: Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unknowncoolio (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

01:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Not using edit summary on Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor claims to be related to the subject of the article and is reverting sourced material. User:C.Fred encouraged him to use consensus/talk page before reverting this via user's talk page, user continued to revert twice after this. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User has been warned for many things so far, but not explicitly for 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 656: / Line 656: @@
 ::Re-read the part that says: "Undoing another editor's work — whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time — counts as a revert", then look at the clock, then re-evaluate your defence. [[User:Keri|Keri]] ([[User talk:Keri|talk]]) 01:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 :::MaxBrowne has just almost violated 3RR, but not quite. It's time for everyone to stop this and find a consensus on the talk page. I'm not going to do anything right now, but I'd rather not have to hand out any blocks or protect the page. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 01:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
+::::As MaxBrowne clearly does not wish to engage in discussion - merely roll up, push POV, edit war to maintain it, then fuck off into the sunset again - that is not particularly helpful. [[User:Keri|Keri]] ([[User talk:Keri|talk]]) 01:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 == [[User:Unknowncoolio]] reported by [[User:Mr. Vernon]] (Result: ) ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards