Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fierman (talk | contribs) at 07:19, 15 October 2014 (→User:75.162.179.246 reported by User:fierman (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:181.140.233.215 reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: Semi)

    Pages: Dan Vs. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and List of Dan Vs. episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 181.140.233.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user keeps reverting both the Dan Vs. page and the List of Dan Vs. episodes page by adding some nonsense about a 4th season coming to the Cartoon Network when there isn't a reliable source about it found anywhere on the Internet. Please help us have a discussion about it so we can reach some kind of consensus. I already added that on the talk pages of both Dan Vs. and List of Dan Vs. episodes. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AsceticRose and User:Fauzan reported by User:Calcula2 (Result: All editors warned)

    AsceticRose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Fauzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    These guys are acting in bad faith and are accusing people of sock puppetry even though they have been proven innocent.

    There is an extensive talk at Talk:Battle of Badr about some dispute with data. THere was a general agreement that some data has been added back. The main concern of these 2 users is the following data:

    According to the Muslim scholar Safiur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri the purpose and reason for this battle was to raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further the Muslim political, economic and military position.[13]

    According to the Muslim scholar Dr. Mosab Hawarey the goal was to take the Quraysh caravan and its camels, he wrote the target was "initially Quraysh camels, then fight erupted"[6]

    The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir also said the purpose of this Battle was to capture Quraysh war booty/spoils by raiding the Quraysh Caravan, he claimed Muhammad encouraged the Muslims by saying: “This is the caravan of Quraysh carrying their property, so march forth to intercept it, Allah might make it as war spoils for you”, and like Mubarakpuri he also stated that the purpose was to make Islam dominant, he also claimed Muhammad said “so that He makes you prevail above them and gain victory over them, making His religion apparent and Islam victorious and dominant above all religions”.[14].

    They want to suppress this data and even one of then has claimed this is a Fringe view or a minor viewpoint here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#New_evidence.2C_deleting_data_though_5_people_disagree_with_him._REMOVE_HIS_ROLLBACK_rights

    Some of their comments of the edits are also in my opinion very unhelpful: [1]
    [2]
    [3] (The concerns raised have not been solved. Also, it has not been explained how this version is better than the previous. So, I'm resorting to the previous)

    It has been explained in talk page why the version which was added is better. Mainly because its well references and has data the first article was missing.

    [4] (Reverted to revision 625903026 by A. Parrot (talk): Please discuss on the talk page why this should be included.)

    This is a useless comment meant to annoy people in my opinion as it has been discussed extensively in talk page why this data should be added, even Fauzan participated in that discussion.

    To summarize i think these people are apologists who are trying to present this article from the viewpoint that is was defensive military expeditions even though Muslim sources like this clearly say otherwise: [5] See #9--Calcula2 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You should keep a watch on this as it looks like its going to turn into an edit war. These users keep removing vital data about the reasons for this military campaigns. 5 people on talk page disagree with them--Calcula2 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of this board is to deal with violations that are occurring. Otherwise, all editors need to follow WP:DR the panda ₯’ 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rob984 reported by User:GhostlyLegend (Result: Voluntary restriction)

    Page: List of military special forces units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rob984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [6]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [7]
    2. [8]
    3. [9]
    4. [10]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

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

    Comments:

    It's pretty clear that Rob984 has no interest in engaging with a discussion over sourcing, and now appears to be randomly deleting content in response to being challenged of this. GhostlyLegend (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that's not me. Given that the other user had already warned Rob984, who then removed the warning, then I figured it wasn't required to do it again. He already knew. GhostlyLegend (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't notify me that you reported me. The IP placed a edit warring template on my talk. They did not notify me of that you reported me. I'm curious how you are aware that the IP templated me considering I removed it one minute later? Rob984 (talk)18:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit history. Given the abrasive nature of your edit summaries I was checking to see if you had form.
    GhostlyLegend (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Policy is clear. You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. I attempted to remove the disputed content pending a discussion. I was fully engaged in discussing the content and the sources provided. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also note, the discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing. Rob984 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob984, you're wrong about policy. There is no exemption to WP:3RR for WP:NOR (as you stated in one of your edit summaries). See WP:3RRNO. You've clearly breached 3RR, and the only reason I haven't blocked you is because your views seem to be misguided but possibly held in good faith. That said, you can avoid a block if you promise not to edit the article for seven days. You would still be able to edit the talk page. GhostlyLegend, if you're going strictly by the book, you first give a warning of edit-warring. Then, if the editor persists, you file a report here and use the notice template at the top of this page to inform them of this discussion. I didn't bother doing it for you because I saw that Murry1975 had effectively done so, although without the template.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All noted, the first time I've had to do this and the process is a bit laborious.
    GhostlyLegend (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I realised it isn't an exception, I was just giving an explanation for surpassing 3 reverts. I reverted because as far as I am aware, the material on that article is unsourced and included on the basis of editors conclusions drawn from the sources provided. You don't seem to fully understand the situation. Nonetheless, I won't argue. Rob984 (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob984, you must respond to the 7-day condition. BTW, this is a quote from your edit summary: "Removing original research per WP:NOR. WP:NOR is an exception to the WP:3RR."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I was wrong, but I realised that before I commented here. It's also irrelevant to the fact that WP:NOR is a policy that should be enforced. I don't have a choice, so yes, I will abide by the 7-day condition. Rob984 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really not unreasonable to want unsourced material removed, pending a discussion. I'm not sure how I'm 'misguided' and only 'possibly' acting in good faith. I've contributed all of the sources to the article section in question. Clearly I'm edit warring to be disruptive... Rob984 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand me and the intersection of policies. In this instance, the edit warring policy trumps the content policies. You have no idea how many times users edit-war and say it's justified because they were "right" and the other party was "wrong". I'm not commenting on the content or the relative positions of the different editors here, just on the conduct policy itself. When I said you were "misguided", it had nothing to do with your content dispute, but with your understanding of policy. Anyway, with your acceptance of the condition, I consider the matter closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.227.245.147 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result:Blocked )

    Page: Luke Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 99.227.245.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [13]
    2. [14]
    3. [15]
    4. [16]
    5. [17]
    6. [18]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] (user talk page); [21] (another editor on the article talk page)

    Comments: There are WP:BLP issues involved, and as far as I can tell, putting this problem aside, the user has not constructively edited in other areas of the project and been warned about it. Although the article could be semi-protected, the user should be sanctioned because of the problematic edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:107.204.173.9 reported by User:Stickee (Result: Semi)

    Page
    Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    107.204.173.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    1. 05:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 04:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 17:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
    5. 23:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 06:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (TW)"
    Comments:

    172.56.17.100 (talk) is the same person. Warring with no less than 3 others (not including myself; I haven't participated). Stickee (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi'd by HJ Mitchell. Stickee (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Goblinshark17 reported by User:Juno (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: United States pro-life movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Goblinshark17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [22]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [23]
    2. [24]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

    User has been warned a few times, has been warned specifically about this page and has warned others against edit warring on this article. User was given a chance to self-revert [26].

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

    Comments:

    Article is subject to 1RR Community Sanctions per WP:ARBAB. User has been warned about this on this page specifically and has warned other people against edit warring on this page. User chose to make 2 reverts in 20 minutes and chose to not self-revert. Juno (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm not edit-warring against them; they're edit warring aginst me! I inserted the word "occasionally"; it was taken out several times by user Juno. I inserted the related word "occasional"; this was taken out as well. There is no question that the word is appropriate in the article. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Juno reported by User:GoblinShark17 (Result: )

    User:Juno has edit warred against me, removing my edit several times despite my repeated warnings that doing so would be EDIT WARRING.

    User:Juno reported by User:Goblinshark17 (Result: no violation)

    Page: United States pro-life movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Juno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    <Talk:United States pro-life movement> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the TALK page, the header: "RTLs are subject to violence and criminal intimidation, but only occasionally"

    Comments:

    User Juno is editwarring aginst me, taking out my edits repeatedly. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Amended: filer of this complaint said that they were having a hard time figuring out how to use the templates and I believe them. A note has now been left on my talk page notifying me of this report. Juno (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User Juno was warned on the TALK page that I would report edit warring if she/he removed the word "occasionally" from the article, which has been removed several times. Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    1. To be fair, other users may be involved with the repeated reversions of my edits. In particular, USER:Cloonmore may be involved. Can two users engage in coordinated "edit-warring"???

    1. Not really, no. Juno (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    2. What does "Diff" mean??? Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    2. Its the "difference" between revisions. You can seem more at WP:Diff. Juno (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation. I don't see the necessary two reverts, and no other information has been provided. No, multiple users reverting you does not count as a "group revert". This appears to also be a retalitatory report that is likely to lead to a topic ban if you continue to edit this way on articles with discretionary sanctions activated. Kuru (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Herzen reported by User:Stickee (Result: No action)

    Page
    Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Herzen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    1. [28]
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:20, 12 October 2014‎
    2. 20:39, 12 October 2014
    3. 21:36, 12 October 2014‎
    4. 03:20, 13 October 2014
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. [29], [30], [31]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. [32] (and the ~140 comments in the talk in the last 24hrs)
    Comments:

    4 reverts in 7 hours. Stickee (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am confused. 20:20, 12 October 2014‎ is claimed to be a revert. But placing a POV tag on the article was a new edit I made in response to the discussion in Talk. Just because someone had placed a POV tag on this article before, does that mean that anytime someone places a POV tag on the article again, that counts as a revert? If so, that is a very strange policy. And one can see that I had no idea that such a policy exists from this comment, in which I say that "I only made two reverts", in response to the accusation that I had made three. – Herzen (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that we can assume good faith and believe that Herzen did not know that this would be counted as a revert. Still, this seems like a bit of gaming, and revert counting, trying to tip-toe right up to the bright line. The sensible suggestion here is for Herzen to self revert. Volunteer Marek  04:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Still, I would like clarification from administrators on whether putting a POV tag on an article counts as a revert just because someone had placed a POV tag on the article earlier, no matter how long before. If it does, I think that policy should be changed. Someone can put a POV tag on an article when the article is completely different from the previous time a POV tag was placed on it, so it makes little sense to count the new placement of a POV tag as a revert, since the context would be completely different. – Herzen (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd guess that some of this would depend on how recent the previous edit war was, whether the POV tag is placed for the same or different reason (nb, you didn't actually justify the tag on talk as required) and whether or not the person can be reasonably believed to be aware of previous issues. Volunteer Marek  05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. Closed with no action. Herzen, I think most admins would look at the context of the tag addition and whether it's a continuation of something or brand new. They would also look at your explanation. I'm taking into account the fact that you self-reverted, but you should be aware that even if one doesn't count the first edit as a revert, you reverted three times, meaning you edit-warred over the tag. You can be blocked for edit warring even without a breach of 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Janagewen reported by User:Janagewen (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Template:.NET Framework version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User talk:Codename Lisa (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), User talk:FleetCommand (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Janagewen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user changed the date format of Template:.NET Framework version history, said lots of improper or dirty words on other users' talk page.


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [33]
    2. [34]
    3. [35]

    Comments:

    For Jeh's "Huh? What?" in [36]

    For FleetCommand's "Reverted 2 edits by Janagewen: WP:DATESNO says don't touch this. Let me remind you: You once got blocked here. Continuing to refuse to get the point on your part is not to anyone's benefit" in [37]

    I report this user, Janagewen, I, myself. Because I feel myself a shit after knowing them on earth.

    User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked; warned)

    Page: M. S. Golwalkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [38]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 01:34, 10 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,917 bytes) (-846)‎ . . (There is no discussion that says SG, or "The Hindu" is not reliable. Making consensus on the article talk page BeforE such significant edits will be highly appreciated. New section already made.) ]
    2. diff 05:36, 10 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,463 bytes) (-2,266)‎ . . ("also known as 'Shri Guruji remains as per talk page consensus. Jaff is indeed informative, thanks Kautilya! "Forgotten" was an opinion piece which was shown as inaccurate subsequently in the same newspaper.) ]
    3. diff 05:55, 10 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,513 bytes) (+1,049)‎ . . (There are two reference here. It provides a view differeing from Jaff. It was there in the article from long and there is no express reason to purge these two reference without discussion. SG is neither follower of Glowalkar nor RSS member.)]
    4. diff 13:16, 12 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,964 bytes) (-410)‎ . . (Remove opinion piece. Put back TOI -- it is WP:RS.) (undo | thank)]
    5. diff 10:27, 13 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,000 bytes) (-374)‎ . . (Undid revision 629420475 WP:BRD and WP:3RR says when contentious addition is reverted reverted, a consensus on article talk page has to be obtained "before" reinserting it. Not the other way round.)]
    6. diff 10:38, 13 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,000 bytes) (-374)‎ . . (Undid revision 629421165 by Kautilya3 (talk) Kindly restrain from edit war, there is discussion on talk page. I was improving the reference by adding date while you nuked it yet again. Please.)]
    7. diff 11:14, 13 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,186 bytes) (+812)‎ . . (→‎Leadership of RSS: S. Gurumurthy is reliable. This reference was in the article at least since June 2014 and is discussed in the talk page also. There are four other independent publsiher mentioned on talk page.)]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Kautilya's talk page
    2. Article talk page section
    3. AmritasyaPutra's talk page section

    Comments:
    The subject seems to believe that the version before the edit [1] was "stable" and any changes to it must be somehow approved by him!

    There was also a related discussion on my talk page [40], which was opened by the subject after he did his first revert. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not 'reverted' Kautilya3's content after his warning and have not breached WP:3RR, I stepped back. Kautilya3 has reverted me thrice just now after explicitly stating he will be reverting me every time on the article talk page and on my talk page. He reverted thrice just now without leaving any response on article talk page discussion or edit summary. (1, 2, 3). Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 12:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit 7 above is a breach of 3RR because it is reverting the replacement originally done in my edit. Given the pattern of your edits, it seems quite likely that you would wait for 24 hours and come back to do more reverts, thereby gaming the rules. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit 1, was first edit where I undid the contentious deletion of long standing referenced content with exactly opposite meaning content from a dubious reference and posted on editor talk page and article talk page about my concerns in a neutral manner immediately.
    • Edit 2, it can be clearly checked that I was editing as per talk page consensus and it was repeated after me by another admin too, this is noted in the edit summary too. I even thanked kautilya3 for it in the edit summary as well his talk page.
    • Edit 7, is after a gap of 4 days and explicitly discussed on talk page and three other references also provided. It is by a reputed journalist S. Gurumurthy in a reliable source (The Hindu) which was in the article from several months. If that counts as a revert I am okay to self-revert it. --AmritasyaPutraT 12:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing changed in the career of S. Gurumurthy between 10 October and 13 October to make him suddenly reliable. The same reasons given for his unreliability on the 10th October still stand. Your 7th edit reinserts his material, completely ignoring all the points that have been given to you on the talk page. You knew that it was problematic revert and you did it anyway. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by JJ: stop arguing now, and leave it to an admin. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Joshua Jonathan, I suggest you have a heart-to-heart with your mentee. The basis for the duration of the block is a fairly recent block for edit warring. The block itself is based on a breach of 3RR (yes, the fourth edit restoring material counts), for previous battling behavior on the article, and for a lack of insight into their conduct. Not that it matters, but what admin is the user referring to?
    • Warned. Kautilya3, you are not blameless in this battle. Although you did not breach 3RR, you reverted three times, and I came within a hair's breadth of blocking you for it. Also, my block of AmritasyaPutra does not give you license to revert their latest edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: Thank you for your decision. I know that I have pushed the user to the 3RR point (and breaching it was his own choice), but I felt that, as long as his version was sitting on the article talk page, AmritasyaPutra was not going to engage in a meaningful discussion on the talk page. He was merely rehashing the same arguments heard for the last 3 days. If you can tell me what I can do differently, I will be glad to adopt it. (As you know this particular user has this behaviour. He has been here twice already, and the first time he actually got saved because I helped him.) Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stoney1976 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Hydraulic fracturing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Stoney1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    The three articles without the tag. Simple.

    Diffs of the user's reverts: User has gone on a massive campaign tagging fracking articles, after I made a bunch of edits yesterday to deal with tagged issues in the articles and bring them into alignment.

    This is all without any discussion of the issues on Talk. After repeated warnings user introduced nonspecific and WP:NPA discussion under header "Concerns about massive POV edits" that said "Believe fresh eyes could do this article some good, hence POV tag."

    User is new but this behavior is bad. This is not an authentic effort to discuss concrete concerns.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    This kind of campaigning is just ugly behavior. User has not articulated any clear complaint. Clearly doesn't trust me! But that is dealing with contributor, not content. Suggest a block to teach Stoney that we talk about concrete concerns with content based on what WP:PAG actually say (and their spirit of course)

    This discussion reported to user here

    Comments:
    Just wanted to note that despite repeated requests from myself and 3 other editors, Stoney is just writing personally-attacking and nonspecific things like this: "Large amounts of well-sourced information has been removed or deleted from a POV angle by the same group of editors, especially from the economic and environmental sections. No observable attempted to be neutral" Stoney needs to learn how to engage with other editors constructively and civilly. Hence the block request for the swath of edit warring above (which has finally subsisted, for now) Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Monart reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Aécio Neves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Monart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629392236 by 50.12.118.188 (talk) removing vandalism"
    2. 12:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629423889 by 212.243.10.250 (talk) vandalism removed"
    3. 14:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629431894 by 212.243.10.250 (talk)"
    4. 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    5. 14:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629444556 by NeilN (talk) this is undoubtful reference"
    6. 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629444995 by NeilN (talk) this is mainstream news reference"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Aécio Neves. (TW)"
    2. 14:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Aécio Neves. (TW)"
    3. 14:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Read WP:BLP */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Edit warring to introduce highly controversial BLP info with poor sourcing. Note I will be reverting per BLP. NeilN talk to me 15:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ywreuv reported by User:LionMans Account (Result:Blocked )

    Page: Christianity and homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ywreuv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [41]
    2. [42]
    3. [43]
    4. [44]
    5. [45]
    6. [46]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47] [48]

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

    Comments:Appears to be a vandalism-only account, judging by recent history.

    User:bridies reported by User:Hahnchen (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Red Dead Redemption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: bridies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: my original revert of the disputed content

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Red_Dead_Redemption&diff=629522450&oldid=629458812
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Red_Dead_Redemption&diff=629522764&oldid=629522657
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Red_Dead_Redemption&diff=629523783&oldid=629523126
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Red_Dead_Redemption&diff=629528839&oldid=629524165

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABridies&diff=629524276&oldid=629314607

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: started after the user made 4 reverts

    Comments:
    Related discussion at CFD, feel free to join in. - hahnchen 03:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amt000 reported by User:Origamite (Result: Indef)

    Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Amt000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [49]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [50]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: View the page history

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

    Comments:
    Oh for fork's sake. After 2 investigations, he returns immediately after the end of a week long block. Origamiteⓣⓒ 14:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's hard to tell why he keeps on doing this, from his poor grammar and spelling, but he appears to think that, per the latest round, that having the entry there will somehow lead others to think that Pitbull and Shakira were directly responsible. He's added WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE to his previous reason of WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. While this might be valid for an unsourced article, this is a section and a sourced one at that. --Auric talk 15:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.162.179.246 reported by User:fierman (Result: )

    Page: Commodore 64 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 75.162.179.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [52]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [53]
    2. [54]
    3. [55]
    4. [56]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

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

    Comments:

    User has been warned for similar actions on other articles only a few days ago too [57]. User does seem to take _any_ edit personally, making editing of the article quite hard for other users. Disruptive. (not only on this specific lemma, but on some others too)

    Fierman (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=629680952"