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 62.155.205.3 (talk) at 14:14, 11 December 2015 (→User:62.155.205.3 reported by User:Dan Koehl (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:Caballero1967 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No violation)

    (undid vandalism by IP 82.132.225.11) Historiador (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Page: Stirling engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Caballero1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    New GF editor Jcflyer58 (talk · contribs) recently added some new content to the article. For some unfathomable reason, ClueBot took exception to this and reverted it, with warning [5]. I can see no good reason for this. I thus restored it and improved the technical citation of the pre-existing NASA source (presumably ClueBot didn't recognise the prose citation).

    This is a good addition.

    Jcflyer58 continued to work on it. Caballero1967 then reverted it, with a further warning [6]. I struck this warning through as incorrect, restored the content and invited Caballlero to comment further.

    This addition is sourced. It is part of a two line para, with a cite at the end of the para. We have no reason that each sentence must be individually cited, when the cite at the end of a short para covers it.

    Caballero1967 has now reverted this three times, as if it were unsourced. They have issued warnings to all concerned:

    They have not however discussed the substance of this, why they are reverting continually. If it's "because it's unsourced", that's a failure of WP:CIR. If it's because it's unclear, they could discuss it. They have not done this, they have simply dismissed both other editors as if they were idiots adding unsourced content, "Every addition should be explained and sourced. It is simple".

    I don't like this addition. It is too close to "close paraphrasing" of the source and the extent of the claim (as is not unusual for Stirling engine material) is "optimistic" to a point that raises eyebrows (Stirling engines have been "the next big thing" for a long time, yet they still have yet to deliver.). I would like to see this claim toned down and put in NASA's voice, not WP's objective voice. However one thing that is clear about this is that it is sourced content. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They have now added [7] a {{citation needed}}, adjacent to the citation. I think WP:CIR now applies. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Caballero's argument: Three reverts is the maximum for a day. Thus, there is no war edit. Moreover, they were not reverts to the same editor. One was for Jcflyer58 and two for Andy Dingley.

    It seems that Andy Dingley is not assuming good faith in my reverts even when at every instance I mentioned that an explanation or a source was needed for additions to the article. These were my annotations:

    1- In User_talk:Jcflyer58 I left an automated welcoming message that also informed the user about sourcing new additions. It also invited the user to return to the article to include a source in addition to the change (no source was included with the user’s contribution).

    2- “Reverted good faith edits by Andy Dingley: If you bring an argument that's new for the article, explain it in the comments sections, justify it in Talk Page or place a reference. How else would we verify it?”

    3- “Reverted good faith edits by Andy Dingley: One more time. Verify, explain, and source. You know how it works, and you know the time it takes to make sure these rules are followed.”

    The changes inserted were not clear about the source. Perhaps the editors working on the article presumed the evidence and sources, but from a patrolling perspective, these changes were not sourced and worse, they were not explained. These were the comments left for the changes:

    1- [8] None

    2- [9] "That thing in the "< ref >") tags? It's called a reference." (note: as explained below, there was no reference (< ref >) attached to the new contribution or at the end of the new sentence)

    3- [10] "Rv repeated blanking on sourced content."

    To the first attempt for input/change without a comment and from a user that had already been warned by a bot, I performed a good faith revert and only asked for a source. There was no source connected with the new addition and, as you saw above, no comment about how this new addition may have linked to whatever sources had been cited already in the paragraph.

    To the second attempt for input/change with an unclear comment, I reverted it and, as shown above, explained what was necessary with the addition of new information to the article. I also went to the user’s talk page and explained the reasons for this action.

    To the third attempt for input/change with another unclear comment added to an unfair accusation (unfair because blanketing is meant for changes without explanation), I reverted the change and went, for the second time, to the user talk page and re-explained my case. I also went to my user talk page and commented on the issue since the user had tagged me there.

    As soon as I noticed that behind the lack of good communication was a group of dedicated editors working on this article, I went back and undid my reverts and placed the citation tag at the end of the new sentence so the contributors would notice where was the issue that provoked the reverts.

    As I explained in my annotations, a comment, a Talk Page explanation, or a citation linked directly to the sentence being added should have avoided all of these problems. A critical step was when user: Andy Dingley, instead of merely explaining that this was an addition linked to the sources already cited in the paragraph, chose to write “That thing in the "< ref >" tags? It's called a reference.” Not only is this comment vague, but also contains a subtle insult, which cast doubts about the purpose of the reverts.

    "at every instance I mentioned that an explanation or a source was needed for additions to the article"
    At every instance, even now, you are treating other editors as idiots who don't realise this.
    The content is sourced. It always has been. Why are you demanding sources when they're already there? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Contennt needs to be sourced. Why is that so hard for you to comply with? 82.132.225.115 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley:, you appear to say that your gripe with my interventions take you and the other editors working with this article as "idiots." I regret that. That was never my intention. Your comments on my page, which you posted after I have already reverted your changes for the second time and left a message in your own talk page (things were moving rather quickly), were enough to warn me about the way you were feeling. Taking your grievance to this level is not only a waste of time and an unnecessary investment of energy, but it also leaves adverse tracks of its own, like your gratuitous reference to WP:CIR (when the page clearly warns you against its use for issues of this type) and your accusation of bad faith (on which this entire report is based). I took the decision to leave your input on the page with a tag for citation before learning that you have appealed to this noticeboard. It is still puzzling. Historiador (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The section that was tagged was covered directly in the citation at the end of the paragraph. I duplicated it in place of the cn tag. Why is there no discussion on the article's talk page? Did anyone actually read the source that was provided? My only concern about the content is that the sentence is nearly verbatim from the source. One does not need to cite every sentence in a paragraph, when the section is covered by the source at the end of the paragraph. Scr★pIronIV 18:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley:, I should mention that I never received notification of your question in User_talk:Jcflyer58, which you posted at 7am on Dec. 3: "Perhaps Caballero1967 would care to explain further?" My entry on that page was automated (as explained in my edit summary comments and above)-- and you never allowed me time to even get to it. Otherwise, I would have answered it. Historiador (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScrapIronIV:, thanks. My request were an explanation in the summary comments or in Talk page. If none of these, then a source would have hinted to the purpose of the addition. Again, more impotant was a summary/comment/explanation. None of them were provided, but until the end, when all the reverts were already done. Historiador (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Caballero1967: The edit summary that you referenced yourself, while a bit sarcastic, should have been explanation enough. It occurred at the beginning of the edit summaries. You mean, you did not check the reference, and just continued to revert? I would strongly suggest you drop it at this point, and withdraw the complaint. Scr★pIronIV 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScrapIronIV:, I suggest you read this entire thread more carefully. I am not the one making an accusation here. I did read the comments, and as I explained above, did not understand it as an explanation for the change (in retrospection, many things look perfectly clear). Not only because it was unclear, but also because there was no reference linked to that specific change and addition: none!. I took the extra step to read the sources linked to other parts of the paragraph and it was still not obvious to me. And since I was guarding the page against vandalism, and my requested had been unheard, I reverted it back, IN GOOD FAITH, and asked for an explanation, again. That's it. Keep in mind, that at every moment, I explained that I was asking for an explanation, a simple comment that would warn me that this was a collaborative project and that these additions were not random. Following WP about acting bold, I, again asked for explanations (or sources), nothing fancy. I am raising a complaint only as a reaction and linked to the accusation of war editing. The case drops, and as a result, the complaint falls with it too. Otherwise, there is a different place to raise a formal complaint. Historiador (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScrapIronIV:, let me repeat, as to be as clear as possible (even though I have made it a focal point here), Andy Dingley's first comment to my revert, not only was sarcastic (a bit, because the space only allowed for a bit), but hinted to a reference that was none-existant. There was no < r > in the change being added or at the end of the sentence that I could look at. It was a reversion, an undid, a revert done in a hurry, without a proper explanation. And then, the user accused me of war edit, when I only reverted two of the user's edits (both without proper explanations of my own reverts). I searched for explanations, and as soon as I learned what was going on, I fixed the problem. All of this took very little time, but the accuser jumped to this page as soon as possible. In fact, my fixing of the page was done prior or at the same time that the accuser was writing on this page. No assumption fo good faith and lack of good communication. Historiador (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I would suggest you merely apologize for misreading, and be done with it. Read the sources before reverting. I'm done here. No need to ping me any more.Scr★pIronIV 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I did not misread. The message was unclear. You misread something when the message is clear. And yet, I did apologize. let me quote, "you appear to say that your gripe with my interventions take you and the other editors working with this article as "idiots." I regret that. That was never my intention." The thread has grown, I understand, but it still important to read all the information before making any comment or passing any judgement. Historiador (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I mentioned above, there was no source to read! No reference linked to the addition. None! And yet, I read further, and the link was not obvious at first. The context, keep in mind, is a persistence of adding information without explanation, and again and again, I asked for an explanation, a comment, something that would make sense.Historiador (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    *Perhaps it is necessary to restate succinctly what I have explained here already in order for this case to get the attention it needs, namely, a result.


    Summary: User:Andy Dingley brought my name to this noticeboard under the false accusation of edit warring. Not only did I stay within the parameters of the 3RR rule, but none of my reverts were done in bad faith. Perhaps the entire case is the result of poor communication and of reacting too fast to each other actions (I am also at blame on this last point). User:Andy Dingley explained that my constant request for sources or for explanations made editors feel like idiots. Even when this could have been solved without coming here, twice I apologized for giving that impression while asserting that this was never my intention. Moreover, I did bring the article back to the position it was before I had reverted it. This I did rather fast, as soon as I realized the nature of the problem. In fact, everything took only a few minutes. However, these were unfavorable actions and failures of good practices that should be considered from the user who brought me here:

    (the links to the actions referred here are already posted above)

    1) It accused me of Edit Warring when there was never more than 3RRs, and not even the spirit of the law was broken: here.

    2) It failed to assume good faith WP:GF.

    3) In both instances, it failed to answer my requests for an explanation: summary/explanation/comments (WP:RFC) (the first user provided no comment).

    4) It failed to establish an effective communication with me before coming to this noticeboard-- a clear pre-requirement stated at the top of this page. (The two links above, which claim to be warnings sent to me, are not warnings at all. One lead to the bot's change and the other to my first change. Not only they say nothing about the user's claims, but they were not placed in my talk page nor on the article's talk page).

    5) It failed to warn me about the 3RR rule by posting this tag on my talk page: { { subst:uw-3RR } }, a step that should have been taken before approaching this forum.

    6) It failed to follow the steps suggested to avoid edit warring as explained here (this is key if the user felt there was an edit warring in the making).

    7) It used the WP:CIR against me in this forum even when at the page's top clearly says: "Be very cautious when referencing this page, as it can be very insulting to other editors." Writers of this page understood how it could be used as a shortcut to gain the upper hand by undermining other editor's standing (even when I was not discussing substance, but procedures).

    User:Andy Dingley should have taken in consideration that Edit Warring "is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle...good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism" (quoted from the top of this same page).

    Cheers, Historiador (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Within a quarter of an hour you had managed to deliver three reversions to this article and three patronising warnings to two different editors on three different pages; all because you couldn't read a reference that had been there all the time, at the end of a two line paragraph.
    You are still [11] making comments "hinted to a reference that was none-existant" – the necessary reference has been there all the time.
    You claim (above [12]) that this is not edit-warring because, "Three reverts is the maximum for a day. Thus, there is no war edit." as if you're entitled to three, and other editors can just suck it up because You Know Your Rights and you're damned well going to have your fair share of your edits. Even more bizarrely, "Moreover, they were not reverts to the same editor. One was for Jcflyer58 and two for Andy Dingley. " as if it's better when you're reverting against multiple editors!
    I see no benefit to prolonging this verbosity, but nor do you seem to have learned anything from it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley:, you only see one thing: my request for sources. But that was only part of what I was asking. It could also have been a short explanation in the edit summary box or a comment on the article's Talk Page. You may want to look above again when I mentioned that we both were acting in a hurry. If I would have given a [better] look to your profile, I would have noticed that you were making constructive contributions to the article, and would not have made the last revert (despite your unhelpful comments).
    If you would have also read my request for explanation/comments/sources in the manner I intended, you would have noticed that my only function was to protect your work and that of your colleagues. As you appeared to have seen, your article came up as possibly vandalized, perhaps because some contributions were made without a summary. So, I came to it with the intention of making sure that whatever change would go in it would have to follow guidelines and to act (as always) in good faith. The first contribution had no summary/explanation and came from a new user that had already been warned by a bot, so I reverted it with a message that asked the user to return to the article. The second one (yours) had a cryptic and sarcastic message, but no explanation. The third was an accusation, again, no description. In all my reverts, I asked for explanations or sources, and in Good Faith. So you should have known I was not meaning to fight. In my last revert, I even issued you a clear plea for help so you would see that I was only guarding your page: "You know how it works, and you know the time it takes to make sure these rules are followed.” And still, I apologized for giving you the wrong impression.
    Perhaps you could give us examples of better ways to approach an editor that is including information in your article without explanation. Unfortunately, the examples of your comments to me are not the best. But most importantly, you did not follow procedure, in the article and neither here.
    In trying to make sense of your actions, I am starting to think that you thought I was challenging you in some sort of way, but I was not. It should be clear by now that my interest is not in creating dissension. I think that this would have been avoided if you would have talked to me in my Talk Page, in the article's Talk Page (ScrapIronIV was also surprised that there was no mention of it in the Talk Page) or personal message. Your actions show an eagerness to work in your article without being bothered, and I can understand that. But the way you reacted to my attempts to protect your work failed to follow good practice. Historiador (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Minor editing. Historiador (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – Nobody broke 3RR, and the dispute appears to be a misunderstanding. User:Caballero1967, it would be easier to follow your edits if your user name matched your signature. If you prefer to be known as Historiador, consider asking for a change of username at WP:CHU/S. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    EdJohnston, thanks for the notification and dedication to fairness. I am taking note of your suggestion. Cheers, Historiador (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:‎Lokato reported by User:Jolly Janner (Result: Warned)

    Page: List of countries by literacy rate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ‎Lokato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [13]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [14]
    2. [15]
    3. [16] (as blocked user 166.48.141.173)
    4. [17] (by IMusikkForeva; pressumed sockpuppet)
    5. diff
    6. diff
    7. diff
    8. diff

    Prior to my involvement in the article (1 November 2015), I noticed the edit still popped up:

    • [18] (166.48.141.173)
    • And sometimes spilling into other articles: [19]

    After doing a major update to the article according to CIA World Factbook, Lakota has, for the past month, been removing all sources of data for Bandladesh which put its literacy rate at about 60% (instead insiting that the the government's own source of 70% is the only valid answer). There is discussion at Talk:List of countries by literacy rate#Disputed data for Bangladesh and User talk:Lokato#List of countries by literacy rate. Essentialy I disputed that the CIA was the best source and he that the CRI was the best source, so I decided to request a third opinion. ONUnicorn suggested adding another column to include both of the data and I agreed, although Lokato failed to engage in discussion. Worldbruce has also commented that UNESCO would be a less POV source and to use a third column. As a result, I converted the entire page to UNESCO data (it was mostly the same at CIA, including for Bangladesh) and put two figures for Bangladesh: one from UNESCO and one from CRI. I thought this would end the dispute, but even after this, Lakota has continued to remove the data from UNESCO and insist that CRI's data is the only correct one. I've been unable to get any discussion with the Lokato lately and the edit warring is still continuing. Hopefully posting this topic will make Lokato take the edits more seriously. Jolly Ω Janner 02:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:213.205.251.91 reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: no vio)

    Page
    Mawlid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    213.205.251.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Reverts a merger and cleanup, both manually and using the undo function. He acknowledges the TP discussion but does not talk about the edits. Exhibited a similar warring behavior at New Hartley but was not reported as he was considered a onetime IP guy pushing POV. Seems to have developed a habit FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WritingFromYourPerspective reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: warned)

    Page
    Gangsta. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    WritingFromYourPerspective (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694505977 by G S Palmer (talk)"
    2. 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694505370 by Allthefoxes (talk)"
    3. 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694504254 by Allthefoxes (talk)"
    4. 18:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Continues to claim that a link to hoodlum is necessary, even though the word is a common word and the page is just a disambiguation. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoodlum is a disambiguation page, but it also contains a one sentence definition of hoodlum and a link to historical records on the origin of the term, the name of a gang of boys in San Francisco in the 1860's, so linking to a stub article on hoodlum would be reasonable. There appears to be the basis for a brief encyclopedic article on "hoodlums" in addition to a disambiguation page. The definition and history could be split from the disambiguation page and made into a referenced stub which was slightly more than a dicdef. I agree that it is a common word and that few native speakers of English would be at a loss as to what it means, so a link to an explanatory article is not essential, but neither is it harmful, like overlinking to more common words would be. Could this be discussed on the talk page of the Gangsta article? Edison (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested this very thing, referring them to the talk page, to both of the disputants. I also posted on User:WritingFromYourPerspective's talk page warnings about WP:Edit warring, WP:3RR, although these were after the edits indicated above. Furthermore, I directed Perspective to WP:BRD. Perspective deleted all of that from his talk page, which would be his privilege. OTOH, deleting them suggests he read them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned below. The user did stop reverting (for now) after being properly warned on their talk page about 3RR. If they continue, feel free to update this or re-report. --slakr\ talk / 00:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:134.201.96.96 reported by User:JCO312 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Dynasty (sports) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 134.201.96.96 (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. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]

    [24]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

    Comments:

    User 134.201.96.96 has removed the San Francisco Giants from the list of sports Dynasties dozens of times (it's the vast majority of what the ip address has done), in fact a revert war about this topic seems to have dominated the page for over a month. Just to be clear, I'm only reporting this, I've never edited the page at all JCO312 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:G_S_Palmer reported by User:WritingFromYourPerspective (Result: declined, reporter warned)

    Page
    Gangsta. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    G_S_Palmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC) (cur | prev) 18:38, 9 December 2015‎ WritingFromYourPerspective (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,137 bytes) (+181)‎ . . (undo)""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Continues to think hoodlum is a common used refered word when it is not. As i see from the wikipedia catergory as to referring to link words to DAB page is allowed. And in the current moment hoodlum is not a common used word.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingFromYourPerspective (talk • contribs)

    User:Miesianiacal reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: protected)

    Page: Monarchy of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Miesianiacal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [26] 04:58, 2 December 2015

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [27] 03:28, 9 December 2015 (not constitutionally / restore 2nd para; more clearly worded / Brit & French concurrently for a period / rm redundant truism / fix refs / rm duplicate ref)
    2. [28] 04:54, 9 December 2015
    3. [29] 06:20, 9 December 2015 (→‎Federal residences and royal household: c/e / not all jurisdictions have gov't house / principal residence is the gov't house in a jurisdiction)
    4. [30] 16:59, 9 December 2015‎ Miesianiacal (punct / countries are kingdoms, not monarchihes), 17:26, 9 December 2015 (→‎Royal family and house: c/e)
    5. [31] 17:36, 9 December 2015 (restore)
    6. [32] 21:14, 9 December 2015 (nothing is repeated)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] 22:39, 24 November 2015 (→‎Monarchy of Canada: new section)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34] 17:15, 9 December 2015 (→‎Canadian Royal Family or Royal Family: new section), [35] 00:35, 7 December 2015 (→‎Queen's Residence: new section)

    Comments:

    The two main issues revolve around whether the Queen has official residences in Canada and using the adjective "Canadian" in one of the mentions of the royal family. They have been extensively discussed on the talk page and Miesianiacal has edit-warred over a considerable time, although I do not think he ever exceeded 3rr before. I notified him about exceeding 3rr two weeks ago, and he removed my message with the edit description "Undid revision 692323505 by The Four Deuces (talk) rm passive-aggressive trolling."[36]

    While I left a note about edit-warring, I did not use the template because this editor is well aware of the policy. While his current account shows no block history, one of the editor's previous accounts, User:G2bambino, does. Based on this editor's reply to my notice, I do not think any further notice was required.

    TFD (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected User's prior history notwithstanding—and it probably should be investigated, seeing as the user appears to at least been blocked once for a 1RR restriction related to Canadian articles—the dispute seems to also coincide with disputes over multiple days (and other editors as well) over the content of the infobox. Please seek dispute resolution. --slakr\ talk / 01:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.109.148.22 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Americans for Legal Immigration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.109.148.22 (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. [37]
    2. [38]
    3. [39]
    4. [40]
    5. [41]

    There's also like a dozen of reverts in the preceding day or two.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42] [43]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Comments:

    This is an article on an organization of borderline notability which has been heavily edited by an account with a self-admitted [[WP:COI|conflict of interest] - diff's here "our group". I've posted a notice to the NPOV noticeboard [45] and another user posted a notice to the COI noticeboard [46]. I've also tried to explain Wikipedia policies on NPOV, reliable sources and conflict of interest to the IP. The IP responded with personal attacks and accusations. User:Volunteer Marek 04:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:213.205.251.168 reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: Protected)

    Page
    Mawlid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    213.205.251.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694603784 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
    2. 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "no you haven't explained your mass deletion. I am undoing your obvious PoV pushing. Discuss on the talk page first"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 08:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) to 08:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
      1. 08:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694581470 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
      2. 08:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Once again you are making mass deletions without getting agreement from others. EXPLAIN FIRST on the talk page before making edits"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 08:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Deletion of POV and other unsourced controversial. */"
    Comments:

    Removes content added during a merger(Merger was from Prophet's day through AFD). Add's content which is unsourced and controversial. Add's content which is sourced to highly unreliable sources and controversial. Changes his IP(not the range) almost daily. Has also shown the same behavior on other articles. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You are the one edit warring. I told you before, discuss your mass edits on the talk page. In one single edit you not only merged content but also sneakily removed lots of existing material without discussing on the talk page and getting agreement from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.168 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Infact you have reverted 4 times in the last day on the mawlid article and should be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.168 (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lauren55 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: protected, warned)

    Page
    Deepak Chopra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lauren55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "I edited words that did not express truth or relevance. I edited negative criticism that belongs on a critics page. This is a page of facts and I am attempting to honour the integrity of Wikipedia."
    2. 22:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "I removed a misleading peicee of information that did not give us any insight to the subject. The page is about a Dr and not a place to write slanderous rubbish. That should be left for a gossip magazine. The information lacked integrity and quite simp..."
    3. 07:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "I improved the page by removing a negative critique about his work. There are no positive critiques and it is not a place to write a critique. I improved the page by removing the argument. This is a well respected Dr and I do not believe denigrating hi..."
    4. 10:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "I have stated previously. Thanks."
    5. 10:36 10 December 2015 (UTC) "See before"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Newbie SPA who needs educating enough to discuss, rather than edit war. She is inserting a non NPOV. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EnglishPassport reported by User:Keri (Result: User already blocked for NLT issue)

    Page: English Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: EnglishPassport (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. [48]
    2. [49]
    3. [50]
    4. [51]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:English Democrats#Errors with this article

    Comments:

    • Ladies and Gentleman, I am not an expert in the world of " Wikipedia", although, I do find it a useful tool. When it comes the the English Democrats Wikipedia, page, there appears to be an element of editors or administrators intent in always doing their best to shop the English Democrats as a Stereotypical English Nationalist party, interms of implying that it is somehow associated with Racism and unpleasant ... this is very disappointing.
      The English Democrats has people who are ex-Conservatives, ex-Labour, ex-Liberal Democrats, ex-Green, ex-Veritas and ex-BNP... yet just like the BBC there appears to be an obcession with implying that the English Democrats is somehow infiltrated or controlled by ex-BNP people - this is simply not the case, mainly because the BNP is a British Party and the English Democrats is a English party. There are far more ex-Conservatives in the English Democrats then there are ex BNP.. Also the English Democrats have and never have had any links with any Far Right eastern European parties. It is sad that there is not someone in wikipedia, willing to stand up for England. EnglishPassport (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already blocked via WP:ANI#Legal threat (and COI disclosure after edits). - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bianbum reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [53]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [54]
    2. [55]
    3. [56]
    4. [57]
    5. [58] (the same edit mentioned below by Dan Eisenberg)

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

    Comments:
    (Yes, I know that the initial edit that added this material and the fourth reversion were done by unregistered or logged out editors but I'm completely confident in labeling them sockpuppets given the complete overlap in the edits of those accounts and the editor in question. ElKevbo (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    I'm also an editor involved in this and note that there is an additional diff since this has been posted: [61]. I also note that this Bianbum has wasted other editors time on similar edits from the same linked in source in the past. I hope you can help us out with this one.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:109.132.86.117 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: blocked, page protected)

    Page
    Mortal Kombat X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    109.132.86.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 109.132.95.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 109.132.73.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "The argument was: unsourced. Which is added now -> Undid revision 694685399 by 85.210.182.11 (talk)"
    2. 21:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "You didn't provide any argument. I have added a legitimate source -> Undid revision 694684841 by 85.210.182.11 (talk)"
    3. 21:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "I have added the source, which was the only requirement -> Undid revision 694684154 by 85.210.182.11 (talk)"
    4. 21:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "No argument given -> Undid revision 694682542 by 85.210.182.11 (talk)"

    Diffs from 109.132.95.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    1. [62]
    2. [63]

    Diffs from 109.132.73.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    1. [64]
    2. [65]
    3. [66]
    4. [67]
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

    1. [68]
    2. [69]

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

    1. [70]
    2. [71]

    109.132.73.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [72]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. [73]
    Comments:

    Editor is IP hopping, and has reverted multiple editors, and crossed 3RR on at least two IP's today. No response to talk page comments or user pages. Scr★pIronIV 21:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also has ignored many different warnings on his talk page Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:85.210.182.11 reported by User:Eteethan (Result: blocked, page protected )

    Page
    Mortal Kombat X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    85.210.182.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694693812 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)Revert Vandalism."
    2. 22:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694692972 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)This is the same one you keep providing, we already told you it is not acceptable. Revert Vandalism."
    3. 22:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694692199 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)Reverted vandalism, no reliable source provided."
    4. 22:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694691489 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)You were already told, blogs cannot be used."
    5. 21:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694685647 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)No, that was clearly not the argument. You're clearly deliberately ignoring what ScrapIron told you."
    6. 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694685097 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)ScrapIron provided a very valid argument. You're just deliberately ignoring it."
    7. 21:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694684643 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)Reverted. We have explained to you why you cannot add it. Don't ignore it."
    8. 21:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694683748 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)An argument has already been provided for you. Ignoring it won't help your cause. Reverted."
    9. 21:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694681108 by 109.132.95.223 (talk)And continues to edit war, congrats. The answer is obvious."
    10. 20:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694676669 by 109.132.73.96 (talk)And removed."
    11. 20:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694676361 by 109.132.73.96 (talk)No source given. You need to add sources."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mortal Kombat X. (TW)"
    2. 22:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 22:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 22:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 22:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user has removed his report twice. Eteethan(talk) 22:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Because you're not even trying to do your job properly. 85.210.182.11 (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins don't look kindly on the practice of removing reports. Please don't do it. GABHello! 22:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - in my opinion, both editors involved should be blocked given the sheer amount of reverts, but I find (repeated) removal of reports against oneself particularly execrable. LjL (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Great idea, let the vandal off scot-free and instead punish the person who's trying to help against him. Is it too much to ask for someone who can actually do their job properly around here? 85.210.182.11 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: blocked)

    Page
    Laff (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694698716 by Electricburst1996 (talk) unexplained reversion"
    2. 23:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694698286 by Electricburst1996 (talk) WP:OSE, "policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged ""
    3. 23:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694694553 by Electricburst1996 (talk) does not matter how many"
    4. 22:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Programming */ unsourced"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Another violation of the 3-revert rule. User has exhibited a long-term pattern of edit warring on articles. User has already been blocked four times for edit warring, and it doesn't seem like he had learned from any of those blocks. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.19.126.221 reported by User:Semitransgenic (Result: )

    Page: National Front (France) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:


    Previous version reverted to: [74]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [75]
    2. [76]
    3. [77]
    4. [78]
    5. [79]
    6. [80]
    7. [81]
    8. [82]
    9. [83]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

    Comments:

    single purpose editor using multiple IPs, this has been going on a while, tendentious effort to downplay use of "far-right" descriptor in reference to Front National. Ignores all sources. Also misattributing and removing citations, while failing to provide WP:RS to demonstrate contrary minority view. Semitransgenic talk. 13:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikitrueplus/User:Mavsfernandez" reported by User:Elockid (Result: )

    Page: Ilocano language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wikitrueplus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Mavsfernandez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [86]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. As Mavsfernandez
    2. As Wikitrueplus
    3. Revert 3
    4. Revert 4
    5. Revert 5
    6. Revert 6

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning

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

    Comments:
    Wikitrueplus appears to have abandoned their old account, Mavsfernandez. Listing them both here since they've both engage in edit warring. Not yet really edit warring, but this user has been engaging some of the same activity on Pangasinan language. This user has been POV pushing to promote the Pangasinan language/people. This can be seen in the diffs supplied for the article Ilocano language in which they keep re-adding "which is unfair" to the article. He/she has been using false edit summaries in a number of articles with Ilocano language being the most to stand out. He/she claims to be reverting vandalism (see diffs above) but the edits are not vandalism.

    When warned by another user, he/she changed the message. ElockidHappy holidays! 13:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    User:62.155.205.3 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: )

    Page
    Yugoslav Partisans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    62.155.205.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:26, 11 december 2015 (UTC) "revert addition of unrelated and unclear statement about a different resistance movement."
    2. 13:16, 11 december 2015 (UTC) "Weird sentence (are all resistance movements mundane, communist or non-autonomic by default?), and does not belong in the lede of an entirely different resistance movement."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:17, 11 december 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Explained the need for consensus before removal of sourced text content Dan Koehl (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, he didn't explain anything. He left a template on my talk page that does not apply (because I did leave an explanation), and does not contain a warning (or indeed mention) about edit warring or 3RR.
    Instead of discussing the merits, we now find ourselves here.-62.155.205.3 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=694779942"