Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Mark Marathon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Warnings, protection)

Page: Napoleon Chagnon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

08:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "The issue is not Sahlins. the issue is that the reference is just a rehash of the same work covered elsewhere."
08:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "And this is nothing less than a book a review of "Darkness at El Dorado", already covered in detail below. Failed reference checks. Material removed."
06:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverting. Referrnce check failed. See talk."
22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Not a reliable source. See talk."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

08:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* 3rr */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
08:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"

Comments:

Since I only reverted each those references once at the time of reporting, this should be fairly easily resolved. The fact that one editor keeps posting the exact same material in a BLP with different, but still unreliable, references, does not violate 3RR, nor constitute edit warring. Each removal of a different reference is a different edit, not in any sense a revert. Each edit had achieved consensus on the talk page, at least to the extent that the editor didn't challenge that the reference check had failed. Instead the editor added the same sentence with a different, still unreliable, reference.

At no stage was the edit reverted for any reason other than it failed a reference check, and hence had to be removed immediately as per WP:BLP. So clearly no edit warring on my part. It will be interesting if the mods find otherwise since the first 3 edits to reject the references had achieved consensus, and leaving the material in the article unreferenced would itself violate WP.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material as supported by a reference to something by Marshall Sahlins in the Washington Post is by no means a BLP violation; not sure what it means to say it "failed a reference check". And no-one was proposing to leave the material without a reference. I think it's obvious there's a problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material with the reference to Sahlins has only been reverted twice by me, and twice by you. I will point out that even you don't dispute that one of your references was not RS, and was just a Blog repeating a reference that had already been judged not RS. Some of us are now engaging in good-faith discussions about your second reference on the talk page. Meanwhile you are here making accusations of edit warring after just two reversions. There clearly is a problem here.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope others can see through the inaccuracies here. This edit adds information to the reference a different editor provided and so is not a revert; that means I've reverted once [1]. Moreover they're not "my" references (though I'm happy to stand behind the Sahlins one). The edit-warring by Mark Marathon here is obvious; it's just a case of seeing through the red herrings. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this one doesn't get left as "stale" & archived. At a minimum, Mark-Marathon's posts here show a misunderstanding of the 3RR policy that needs correction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing? Not a violation of 3RR? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Three editors are warned and the article is protected two weeks. It looks to me that User:Nomoskedasticity (4 reverts since January 1), User:Mark Marathon (5 reverts) and User:Jimjilin (6 reverts) are engaged in an edit war. They are reverting some criticisms of Napoleon Chagnon (a living person) in and out of his article with no indication that consensus was obtained. I recommend that all the parties stop reverting these items until agreement is reached. Open a WP:Request for comment, use WP:RSN or follow other recommended steps of dispute resolution. It's possible that some reverts are excused by BLP but there is no reason for this to go on so long without proper closure. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:174.112.42.106 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: 31 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11] and [12]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:H2ppyme reported by User:Djsasso (Result: 72 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Callanecc warned that any editor that changed the birth location when the protection expired without a new absolute consensus would be blocked.

Comments: The protection expired the day before yesterday and immediately the page was changed by H2ppyme and another edit war resumed. H2ppyme has since done 4 reverts in slightly over 24 hours when he was warned not to do any by another admin. Previous consensus had been reached in this discussion and others that for hockey bios we use the compromise version of "City, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union" instead of either extreme of just Soviet Union or just Estonia. If other editors want to change that a discussion is needed and more than welcome but until then there should be no edit warring. I am involved so I have brought the request to block here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is long-term edit warring behaviour, as this editor has attempted to enforce their personal preference against consensus (or, at the very least, non-consensus to change) on several occasions. Reverting runs are evident in their edit history from December 18 and December 4 related to hockey players, and they have been warring on the Estonia vs. Estonia SSR debate since at least 2011, if not earlier. Reso lute 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Laser brain (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arildnordby reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:24 hours )

Page: Death by burning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arildnordby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591936531 by Darkness Shines (talk) YOu are vandalizing, removing content with no argument. Discuss at talk page"
22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591934819 by Darkness Shines (talk) Vandalism REMOVED"
19:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591911524 by Lihaas (talk) Malevolent vandalism REMOVED"
13:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591816020 by Bladesmulti (talk) Vandalism removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

22:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Death by burning. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Got there from ANI, I reverted due to the inappropriate allegations of vandalism Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one vandalizing here, removing amounts of fully referenced content totally without argument. You should take up such changes at the requisite Talk Page, rather than engaging in your private pet projects of bullying others.Arildnordby (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANd all the others were vandalizing in the same manner.Arildnordby (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article should be full-protected, so that the other parties will be encouraged to join Arildnordby on the article talk page to seek consensus? At present, they are notable by their absence there, and he by his presence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines has recently made a mendacious claim I misrepresent sources. I have provided source after source, showing my originally included figure has been cited as relevant by SEVERAL professional historians. Furthermore, all that has come up against this is that certain historians regard the figures as under-estimates (but Yang, for example, calls it "usable" data, but as with most data, "fraught with problems"), rather than British fanasies about overestimation. At nop point have I removed material underlining the due caution one should have to those numbers. Nor do they in any way represent a warping of the prior content of Sati (practice) , but instead, provides valuable primary source material on some of those numbers the British Administration itself used (however much they may have underestimated it). At NO point have those removing my edits been able to come up with a single, cogent argument for why they should delete 6700++ of fully referenced material at Death by burning, for example.Arildnordby (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, Darkness Shines engage in bullying, by threatening to throw me out.Arildnordby (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Whatever other issues exist here, Aril violated the 3rr rule after receiving a warning about it. Aril: the edits you labelled as vandalism were not vandalism. I would encourage you to read WP:VANDALISM upon your return, and to productively engage on the talk page once you return. I'll take a bit of a look at the rest of the article involved as well. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000, and Kevin Gorman, for hours, the issue was discussed on his talk page instead, you can read it here[14], and the issue can be viewed it ANI. The user is basically spinning the same wheel, while stopping anyone else to edit the article. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further reading. I'm tempted to up the block from 24 hours given some of Aril's other behavior, but am going to leave it in place for now. I'll keep an eye on the article and will step in if, after the 24 hour block, the issues return. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amatulic reported by Yobol (talk) (Result: 24 hours )

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

Time reported: 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

15:52, 22 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid and copyedited revision 590405774 by Yobol (talk) - this is a secondary source according to WP:MEDRS")
22:57, 22 January 2014 (edit summary: "Restored removal by Jytdog, including proper citation. This article has had rather wide coverage in independent reliable sources. Per talk.")
23:06, 22 January 2014 (edit summary: "No consensus or justification for this - per talk page")
23:15, 22 January 2014 (edit summary: "Final revert. Appropriate sourcing has been found. Notable coverage by science organizations isn't enough? Please read tlk page comments, and WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.")

—Yobol (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do count four reversions in well less than 24 hours from User:Amatulic, which would be a violation of the 3rr. However, I'm curious to hear from Amatulic before taking action here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry Kevin. Missed that. Happy to hear their response. This one was fairly cut and dry however. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume it would end with a 24 hour block, I was just curious why a long standing admin and editor like Amatulic with an otherwise clean blocklog would have made a little booboo, and was hoping that there was a reasonable explanation I was missing. No worries. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It happens sometimes. It is a short block. Hopefully it will not happen again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluerasberry reported by User:Ceekay215 (Result: Submitter warned)

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

Time reported: 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

00:57, 23 January 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 591410396 by Bluerasberry (talk): Go to talk page... (TW)")
02:25, 23 January 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 591955026 by Bluerasberry (talk): See me on talk page or get other opinions, as you like... (TW)")

Comments: I have attempted to engage the user several times in discussion about NPOV, and he simply ignores me and reverts my edits. He also appears to have invited another editor to make an additional reversion User:Josh3580 to avoid an explicit violation of 3RR himself and leave me unable to make additional corrections to his unwillingness to discuss the article.

—Ceekay215 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegation of collusion is quite wrong, my friend. I have never even communicated with Bluerasberry (talk). I am a recent changes patroller, and came across your edit in WP:HG. I very clearly invited you here to discuss your contribution on the talk page, but you responded by giving me a WP:3RR warning (diff), after a single revert on my part. Yes, I gave you the warning first, because you were refusing to discuss the issue, and resorted to re-reverting. Understand that I have only reverted ONCE. Your inappropriate use of the user warning as well as this noticeboard may come back to bite you. I invite the investigating Administrator to thoroughly investigate my edit history, if they are not already familiar with my contributions. I am prepared for the WP:BOOMERANG. —Josh3580_talk/hist 03:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My only allegation is that you reverted a proper edit not on the merits, and for reasons I do not speculate upon. As you fail to mention, I have attempted to engage BlueRasberry in constructive dialogue, and he issues five word proclamations and simply reverts all changes without discussion. Why would you ignore all of the content on the article's talk page? You participated in an edit war, witting or not, by blindly reverting an edit without understanding what you were reverting or why. I would invite you into a conversation on the article's content, on the merits. Until then, you did indeed deserve the warning. Note that I did not follow it up here, since you only did it once. Ceekay215 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did allege collusion actually, very clearly just a couple of paragraphs up from here. That is not the issue. The user that you reported here reverted you TWICE, which is not a violation of the 3-revert-rule. It takes 4 reverts to reach that point. There are now three different editors who have reverted your edits, now that Flat Out let's discuss it has joined the discussion. You obviously do not have WP:CONSENSUS for your change, and throwing around warnings and reports is not the way to gain it. —Josh3580_talk/hist 03:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- editors have engaged with Ceekay215 despite claims to the contrary. The only edit-warring has been by the reporter who might like to read WP:BOOMERANG. I have provided links to appropriate forums for Ceekay215 to raise any concerns regarding the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the article talk page again. I'll patiently wait for Bluerasberry, who is the subject of this notice, to do more than issue proclamations. The only edit war here is his failure to engage with my polite requests to discuss the issue on the merits, and simply revert this article back to the way he insists it remain. It's unclear to me why you continue to avoid the merits in order to fan the flames of the dispute instead of making a case for the proper content and order for the article. If you would do so, there would be no other issue of contention. Ceekay215 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceekay215 has reverted the article four times in four hours on 23 January. The simplest way to stop the war would be to issue a block of Ceekay215. He might be able to avoid a block if he will promise to avoid the article and its talk page for seven days. If he does so this might be taken into account by the closing admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved controversial content from the lead and into the article body which should appease Ceekay215's concerns. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fair look at this by Flat Out and Josh3580 Ceekay215 (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remove this request based on successful resolution. Thank you. Ceekay215 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Ceekay215 is warned for breaking 3RR. Since a discussion is taking place it seems unnecessary to issue a block at this time. 3RR complaints are not generally removed from the board once they are submitted. EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Toccata quarta reported by User:Mishae (Result:No action)

Hi, according to WP:Musicians the above article is meant to have an infobox while user @Toccata quarta: is deleting infobox saying that its against WikiProject Classical Music. My argument though is that our readers do need to know the basics sometimes and they wont care to read the whole article. Furthermore, when user @Walter Görlitz: put it back in, he came back and removed it. I think that user Toccata quarta is vandalizing and is disruptive toward this and other articles such as Vadim Repin, and I need someone to take care of this, before it will go over and I will get blocked! Like honestly, why do we have an infobox on say Charles Dutoit but we can't have infoboxes on the rest.--Mishae (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside observation. Mishae, Toccata quarta has only reverted twice. You then went and added the infobox a third time, and as far as I can see, you have made no effort to discuss this on the article's talk page. I've now converted that box to {{Infobox person}}. I suggest you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Infobox:

"{{Infobox musical artist}} is the standard template to be used on a non-classical musician's or musical ensemble's page." (my bolding)

Infobox musical artist is designed for pop musicians and is not suitable for classical musicians, both in terms of terminology and fields. If an infobox is to be used, {{Infobox person}} is much more suitable and flexible. Please also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes:

"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

Voceditenore (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voceditenore, for your pertinent and concise comment, to which I fully subscribe. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's not enough disruptive activity here for action, at least not yet. Maybe we could keep it that way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If its not prohibited, then user @Toccata quarta: should have just changer it to person and our dispute would have been over, instead he removes the infoboxes not substituting them. Keep in mind, that removing and substituting is two different ways of handling an infobox issue. In for one, believe that any article which is above a stub needs an infobox solely because some information that people need is that way on the very bottom. Why do I need to the bottom for associated acts and labels, if I can read it all from the infobox? Come to think of it, I got an idea (see if you will agree with me), instead of using background in the infobox, why not remove it from classical musicians, that way, all of the acts and labels will be in place?--Mishae (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim/Zionist category tag warring reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: )

Users involved:

139.164.160.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
85.166.53.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
94.203.97.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above users are engaged in edit warring related to articles on persecution of or terrorism by Muslims or Zionists. The activity involves repeated addition or removal of category tags from a large number of articles. Some users are leaving highly charged or disparaging comments towards the others in edit summaries. Please refer to contributions.

The matter was previous brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Do we give IPs discretionary sanction warnings? though no action was taken.

Comments:

User:82.114.94.15 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page: Mariusz Pudzianowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.114.94.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 08:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC) to 09:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
1. 08:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Accept my edit, cuz the current edit is incorrect why are you not accepting ?"
2. 09:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Mariusz can`t deadlift 430 kg or squat 390 kg sir, accept my changes cuz the current changes are fake."
20:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "The current info is incorrect"
23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Look i really dont know to use wikipedia but if you see this,pls acept my edit cuz i`m a near friend of mariusz and i`m 100% sure the current info is fake ask mariusz on his official fb page if you want,Thnx"
10:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Sir look here Mariusz official web http://www.pudzian.pl/mariusz.php ,this web is even on mariusz personal FB, i don`t know what is so hard to understan ?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Mariusz Pudzianowski */ new section"
20:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mariusz Pudzianowski. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Attempted on user's talk page.

Blocked – for a period of three months. The duration is because the IP is using a network sharing device. I am also concerned abotu 178.132.219.1 (talk · contribs), who is using the same network and made precisely the same edit on the article. However, I have not blocked 178 or semi-protected the article. Please let me know if either or both becomes necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: It's like you have a crystal ball: 1. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would that I didn't. I blocked the other IP for three months as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spshu reported by User:Raamin (Result: Blocked)

Page: Iron Man: Rise of Technovore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "not notable enough for own article"
22:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)‎ "Undid revision 592089789 by Raamin (talk)"
23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "not done in good faith"
23:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)‎ "rd , not in good faith, information was swiped from Marvel Anime & was restored there; article was already deleted in 12/2012"

Comments:
The User has removed the entire content 4 times; and has accused me to edit without good faith. I was trying to find more reliable sources, added {{New page}} to the article (link), suggested to discuss this matter, or if the user wants, another nomination for deletion [in edit comments], with no response. Raamin (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Article was previously deleted. Content was restored where I origin placed it at Marvel Anime #Iron Man: Rise of Technovore as indicated. He can expand it there. He doesn't address notability and attempts to use "new page" tag as a shield. Notability is currently being address at Talk:Marvel_Anime#Proposed split of Iron Man: Rise of Technovore, which Raamin has not (yet) chosen to join as I have. Onus is on those want to restart a delete article not those opposed as I understand it. Just saying that you are acting in good faith when some points out that the article is notable isn't a defense. Spshu (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Raamin, you've reverted three times. I wouldn't do it again, or you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This means, I am not allowed to start this article? When the edit warring started I was adding more info and sources to the artice; I wasn't simply re-reverting. Raamin (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as Spshu is not permitted to violate WP:3RR because of their perspective on how this split or new article should be accomplished, neither are you. You can continue the discussion about the split on the main page. Another editor can restore the new article if they wish, or you can use the talk page of the new article to gain a consensus for restoring it and let someone else implement it. There are many non-disruptive ways to go about what you want to achieve.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sue Rangell reported by User:Lightbreather (Result: No violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments: I think this editor is Wikihounding me. I am not an experienced enough WP editor to know how to show that, but most recently she followed me to the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) BLP and caused me (and the subject) a great deal of grief. See Robert Spitzer (political scientist) on WP:BLP/N, and SPA on Admin Newyorkbrad's talk page. She has been trying to get me banned or blocked for months, and it nearly "boomeranged" on her in November. I just want to be able to edit in good faith.

I've never submitted one of these before; sorry if I didn't fill out the form properly. --Lightbreather (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I thought 3rr was between the parties involved and admin, but since I see another editor has commented I have asked my mentor for help. Also, Sue was never my mentor. I did seek her help once, but that is explained in my comments in the "She has been trying to get me banned or blocked" discussion linked-to above. Especially my posts there from Nov 13-16 (2013).

Absolute nonsense. I have a 1RR rule that I have held to for seven years. If you take a look at the diffs supplied by the complaintant, you will see that they are just regular edits. One is a revert, and that is all I will do for 48 hours. This is a classic SPA account (editing Gun Control articles exclusively) that has narrowly escaped a topic ban on several occassions, for example it was heavily involved with the edit war that resulted in Saltyboatr's block:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#SaltyBoatr.2C_Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Soon after that, this account attempted to get several long standing editors topic banned here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Ownership_issue_on_Federal_assault_weapons_ban_page.3F

This last one is a "Must Read" to get an understanding of this account's activities. The result boomeranged on her, and narrowly resulted in a topic ban for the second time: "There is no consensus for a topic ban. There is, however, clear concern among editors about Lightbreather's contributions, and many who oppose a topic ban do state that Lightbreather's edits are disruptive. Word to the wise: that no topic ban is agreed on does not, of course, mean that individual administrators cannot cite this discussion as a warning of sorts if they feel a block on Lightbreather for disruption is warranted. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)"

Politically, I am on the same side as this SPA (I am Pro Gun Control), but these activities are so disruptive, and along with the ownership issues, I continually find myself siding with the pro-gun editors due to this WP:CRUSH behavior.

There is no edit war going on, the complaintant's own diffs show that. I have simply made some edits however that the complaintant doesn't happen to like, and now we are all wasting our time because of it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely absurd. Lightbreather has been the disruptive editor pushing an agenda and waving a POV flag from Day One. She pretends not to understand what is going on and rehashes the same tired points again and again, hoping that other editors will throw up their hands and give up. I believe Sue Rangell was originally mentoring her or trying to help her, before Sue saw her for the basket case that she is.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting ready to leave my desk for a few hours, but I would like to say, re: Sue's saying she has a 1RR rule that she had held to for seven years. 1. She also says right on her user page that she "click[s] the revert button a lot" (emphasis mine) 2. Recently (17 JAN 2014) another editor warned her about 3RR. To which she replied: "I'm not going to argue about it. I have a 1RR rule, so if you think I've slipped-up and done three reverts in 24 hours feel free to report it, I'll deserve it." And she called it "nonsense," just as she's done here. After she reported me as an "SPA" on the talk page of the admin overseeing that page, he told her "the article looks to me to be in pretty decent shape" (same link as SPA link I cited in my notice).

I will be happy to drop this if she'll just promise to stop following me around from article to article, "fixing" my edits. Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing other editors isn't going to help, especially because this noticeboard isn't a "weight of opinions" thing. Your comment here does nothing to show that there is any edit-warring taking place, which is the entire point of this noticeboard. I think now's a good time to drop the stick. A series of consecutive edits that revert material counts as a single revert as far as what defines "edit warring". - Aoidh (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Are you the admin who is reviewing this? I've never done one before. I read the related pages a few times and proceeded as best I could. I thought it would be me, Sue, and an admin. I only "canvassed" as you say because I saw a comment by another editor. Also, I guessed we're supposed to comment freely, as Sue and Mike have done. I have to leave my desk now, but I will check in later. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. I see one revert at 01:20 and a series of edits, including one explicit revert, from 20:01-20:25. Consecutive edits only count as one, so I get two reverts. I don't see a 3RR, and the "1RR" seems to be self-imposed. Kuru (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irishfrisian reported by User:Apokryltaros (Result: page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

I and other users have tried to warn and discuss Irishfrisian about its edit warring at Largest Organisms, but, the user has rebuffed all attempts, at several times, even lying about how consensus either did not exist or was allegedly in favor of its actions. [24], and at one point, even enlisted a sockpuppet in helping it attack another user, User:Op47 talk, who made edits that Irishfrisian vehemently disapproved of [25] [26] [27]

All attempts at reasoning with Irishfrisian have been fruitless, as the user was either too busy attacking Op47 for making edits Irishfrisian disapproved of, or of it ignoring consensus: [28] [29]

Comments:

I'm requesting help in dealing with Irishfrisian, as the user is exhausting mine and other users' patience in its edit warring and steadfast refusal to do anything beyond revert back to its favorite version of Largest Organisms, and accuse other editors of "destructive edits"--Mr Fink (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected. I've protected the page for a week; please rejoin the discussion on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:B575 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: Removal of longstanding sourced content, no exact prior version
Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see comments below

Comments: B575 is simply hopping between articles wiping out sections they disapprove of, with any related discussion. Not sure if this is simple vandalism or politically motivated W/P:POINTYness (see also Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh as well as edits at Chris Matthews and Bill Maher), but there's no obvious location for a substantive discussion and no indication the editor would engage in one. They're just wiping out parts of some BLPs and sticking labels into others, and will keep going until they're stopped. Note this response just moments ago to a warning from admin User:Malik Shabazz about aspects of this behavior [35]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see both AndytheGrump and Malik Shabazz tried to get B575 to adjust their behaviour, but they have finally engaged at Talk:Glenn Beck with this edit. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:VeritasVeritasOra2 reported by User:Safiel (Result: )

Page: Jan Crull, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VeritasVeritasOra2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591976033 by Bgwhite (talk)"
00:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592101205 by Bgwhite (talk)Actually Marquis Who'sWho is a very reliable source;additionally, why is "Bgwhite" eliminating the "List of" which is a form of enriching an understanding of"
00:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592102520 by Bgwhite (talk) Bgwhite must still be practicing to become an ass.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This occurred earlier this evening. User's only edits are these problematic reverts, plus some edits to the associated talk page, leading me to believe this is either a sock puppet as well or an associate of another editor. User was not warned, but his last vulgar edit summary indicates a decided lack of civility, as well as his posting of an attack page in his user space against user Bgwhite. Safiel (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Bgwhite did attempt to resolve the issue on VeritasVeritasOra2's talk page. Safiel (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After leaving a message on the talk page, the "ass" revert told me nothing good will come to talking to the person. It is a sock puppet. There are a bunch of other SPAs editing the page. Messages on Talk:Jan Crull, Jr., including the now reverted messages, paint the same person. Nothing can be done to the editor as this is a SPA. I did put a month long protection on the page to keep any more SPAs away for a bit. Feel free to shorten or lengthen the protection. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nfomamdoalfrlpsa reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)

Report 1 of 2
Page: Talk:Arms industry (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

06:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
06:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592136369 by Dr.K. (talk) Final warning: stop edit-warring your violate the three-revert rule"
06:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592135908 by Dr.K. (talk) Final warning: Violating the three-revert rule"
06:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592135377 by Optakeover (talk) stop edit-warring your violate the three-revert rule"
06:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal of sourced information */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Arms industry. (TW ★TW)"
23:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Arms industry. (TW ★TW)"
23:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of former sovereign states. (TW ★TW)"
06:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Arms industry. (TW ★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Refactoring my comments. Reported at AIV for many other issues but no action there. Hopefully someone can take some action here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User λόγος release false unreliable sourced and delusive information and are currently engaged in an edit-warring toward me by Rv all m contributions all!! and revert unsourced content!!!!!

λόγος has violate the three-revert rule after Final warning--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with Dr.K. User keeps removing content without proper reasons. Keeps insisting on him being correct. WP:COMPETENCY. Optakeover ^(Talk) 08:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

requested CheckUser sock puppet

Please check[36]

Please check Optakeover ^(Talk) It is a sock puppet suspect sock puppet of User λόγος he concur with him on everything !!!!!--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[37]

You are not going to win any friends here with accusations such as this. gsk 08:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume lack of competency. But either way, I suggest action to be take, as we have repeatedly tried to tell Nfomamdoalfrlpsa that unexplained removal of content is not allowed and its reversion is exempt under WP:NOT3RR; removal of content is disruptive and is considered vandalism, especially when it is repeated. Optakeover ^(Talk) 08:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i not looking for win any friends here!!!!!--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) have repeatedly tried to tell Optakeover ^(Talk)suspect sock puppet of User λόγος that unreliable sourced and delusive information is considered vandalism and unconstructive edits to Wikipedia especially when revert unsourced content!!!!!--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Nfomamdoalfrlpsa, I honestly do not know whether to take you seriously or not. But I'd just say that the burden of truth is on you to prove that what you are deleting as you said, unreliable. However, it has been shown in the edits you have done, the content you have removed have been properly sourced, especially 1, 2 and 3. I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. I don't want to waste my time arguing with you, I am only a witness to what you have been doing in regards to Dr.K. And as far as I can see, you are the blatant breaker of the rule under WP:VANDTYPES. I need not carry on explaining what I have said (and others have as well). Optakeover ^(Talk) 08:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

use your first account User :Dr.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[38] Optakeover ^(Talk) suspect sock puppet of User User :Dr.K. has violate the three-revert rule after Final warning--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe I am a sockpuppet, then go right ahead and report me here. Don't waste my time. Optakeover ^(Talk) 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Report 2 of 2

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

11:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (Undid revision 592152727 by Ishdarian (talk) stop Rv have talked about this stop your edit!)
09:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (Undid revision 592147273 by Jim1138 (talk) unreliable source)
08:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592094519 by Dr.K. (talk) Rv false unreliable sourced and delusive infrmation"
Consecutive edits made from 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC) to 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
1. 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591969505 by Dr.K. (talk) Please stop your edit war!"
2. 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591968425 by Dr.K. (talk) deceitful source i have talked about this Please stop your edit war!"
03:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591966234 by Dr.K. (talk) so wrongly"
01:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Removing unsourced content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Arms industry. (TW ★TW)"
23:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of former sovereign states. (TW ★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

06:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) to last version by Dr.K."
06:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Revert to the revision prior to revision 592137030 dated 2014-01-24 06:52:39 by Nfomamdoalfrlpsa using popups"

Comments:

Yet another report. And an additional comment: How is it that a brand new user with less than fifty edits knows so much about sockpuppets and checkusers and is assertive enough to instruct other users to use their "first account"? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's necessary to make another report. You might also be faulted for making double reports. Maybe you should delete this one and just add on to the previous report. Or consider bringing this right to WP:AN/I. Optakeover ^(Talk) 08:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't think so. It shows an undeniably disruptive trend. It may be unusual to have multiple reports but this is an unusual case. But merging may be a good idea. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hilarious funny short jokes""""--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Two clear 3RR reports, and a troubling response. I don't doubt that this will end up as an indefinite block in the future if Nfomamdoalfrlpsa cannot read warning and interpret our policies on this behavior. Kuru (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arkhandar reported by User:Azsayswhat (Result: No violation )

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]/[50]

Comments:
Refuses to allow any other changes than their own, ignoring the agreements made in the discussion.--Azsayswhat (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue It is very unlikely any action will be taken here considering the most recent diff provided is from September 2013. 3RR usually only applies in situations where more than three reverts are made in a 24 hour time period, and this report was created about 2,897 hours after that limit. gsk 07:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:2.26.115.20 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 60 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:
Edit warring to remove references to this celebrity's widely reported police caution for assaults. IP has not discussed this on talk page despite warnings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Materialscientist (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnvr4 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Chemtrail conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnvr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592176706 by Alexbrn (talk)"
14:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Reversions have not been discussed. the page is IN USE, Please quit reverting to unsourced information or that which abuses the sources. These change were discussed ."
14:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "removed contrail statement (again)"
13:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592136319 by Dougweller (talk) chemtrails and the conspiracy surrounding is the subject and the changes were discussed on talk page."
23:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "removed unsourced The term specifically refers to..."
22:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Government response, Expert quotation, Un-sourced comment removed as no source was provided despite request."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am 100% confident that the good faith alterations that I made to the above entry I made are improvements and were previously discussed on the entry's talk page. Any representation made to the contrary is unsupportable. Not one editor doing the reverting my submission participated in the discussion of my proposed changes or has properly or accurately described the reason for their reversion.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 23:34, 13:49, 14:00, 14:20, and 14:30. It's great that you like your edits; others clearly do not. Please resolve the discussion on the article's talk page in lieu of continually reverting other editors. An "in use" tag does not give you ownership of the article. Kuru (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pava reported by FAEP (talk) (Result: )

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

Time reported: 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

06:00, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "please see source")
05:34, 17 January 2014 (edit summary: "not is olympic game question, is a matter of sticking to the sources and officialdom information: This prize should go to a state and have it assigned to Italy. WP:NOR")
21:50, 20 January 2014 (edit summary: "user does not listen, user ignore the source, ignore WP:NOR does not establish collaborative, much less reasonable and mature, I ask the intervention of an administrator. I do not know what to do about it: misunderstands the question")
00:53, 22 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 591756604 by Spacejam2 (talk)")

—FAEP (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Comments:
User tries to enforce the removal of the french flag. Regarding this user's behavior in the past, the most likely reason for his edit-warring is childishness and a nationalistic attitude. User has also been blocked on commons for sockpuppeteering and edit warring.--FAEP (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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