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 184.101.234.2 (talk) at 20:51, 16 August 2017 (→User:Mark Miller reported by User:184.101.234.2 (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:DHSULP reported by User:Umair Aj (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)

    Page: Rani of Jhansi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DHSULP


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


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]/[6]


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

    Comments:
    This user is also being investigated for sockpuppetry and use of multiple abusive accounts here [7]. Can't be reasoned with as he has violated 3RR. Other editors also warned him here [8]-Umair Aj (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Since 11th August, User:Umair Aj is vandalizing the pages that I have been editing, he is basically stalking by edits, undoing anything I write or edit, just blindly, even if it is just correcting a calendar event. Just notice his contribution history since 11th August, it just follows me. He is not using talk page, no constructive editing, just plain, blind reverts of my edits. DHSULP (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here the user was warned by an other user, about how illogical his reverts were and he even conceded his mistake, still he is stalking and vandalizing my edits. DHSULP (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I'm a bit concerned over this matter. It seems that both users have been reverting each other's edits; the reported is correct in that the reportee appears to be hounding them on their edits and making blind reverts, yet the reportee is correct in stating that the reported has a sockpuppet investigation against them. I would recommend an admin deals with both users here over what they have been doing. GUtt01 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GUtt01:He is the same user who has been blocked for sock puppetry here[9] and emerged with a new name and identity. I must be given some credit for dealing with him and there is no violation on my part as this sock is reverting and violating 3RR most of the times.-Umair Aj (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Umair Aj: I can't be certain about that, to be honest. But I will say this. If you keep reverting his edits on the basis that he is a sockpuppet, before an admin can check to determine that is the case or not, it won't help your cause. I would suggest leaving him alone, and letting Admins handle this matter. They can determine what to do about him; if you keep reverting his edits, after reporting him, they may take a dim view to your claims of sockpupptery by this user. GUtt01 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GUtt01: Well if you are not sure yet then you are trying to be a little tactful here and I see no trouble in that. I will follow your advice and leaving him alone till the time sockpuppetry is not proven but some one has to do something about this user as he has obvious violations of 3RR.-Umair Aj (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GUtt01: It must be noted that this sockpuppet investigation was started by the reportee himself, since the day he has started stalking my edits. I do not know what is his(User:Umair Aj) issue, but all he does his stalk my edits and my talk page history. His reverts and edits are illogical, pure blind reverts, removing sourced items, just to disrupt. DHSULP (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours Neither of you were acting logically here and the only fair result is to block both of you for edit warring. The sockpuppet investigations are a different matter entirely, and will be dealt with subjectively eventually. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.189.89.221 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Angry Grandpa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    173.189.89.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "It's NOT a pipe wrench!"
    2. 21:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "It's NOT a Pipe Wrench! Go look at the video, It's obviously NOT a Pipe Wrench! You can challenge it all you want! You're obviously WRONG!"
    3. 21:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795226437 by Jd22292 (talk)"
    4. 20:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "It's not a pipe wrench!"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Angry Grandpa. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 21:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Pipe wrench */ new section"
    Comments:

    IP continues to disrupt the article by trying to say that the subject did not use a specific tool when destroying a valuable object on camera. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: From seeing their evidence in the talk page and looking at the video in question, I'd have to agree that it's not a pipe wrench; there's no way it looks like one in the YouTube video. I would say that it is a hand tool, and possibly the utility bar that their evidence is linked to. Their aggressive behaviour though, is a concern, but other than that, I don't think they did anything wrong here; they were merely removing incorrect information from the article. GUtt01 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made the changes according to this comment, but this IP's violation still stands. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And now this IP is trying to tell me in the article's Talk page that his actions aren't in violation of 3rr? Not something I can believe here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale. I think the IP was given some slack here given the fact that the page is PC protected, as well as the fact that they were obviously attempting to make verifiable edits in good faith. They seemed to be desperately pleading for sanity on the talk page, to which you responded with by focusing on their 3RR vio and suggesting that they would be punished. No. There's two sides to dispute resolution, and in this instance I quite honestly don't think your role was any better. Swarm ♠ 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crumpled Fire reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: )

    Page: 2017 Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Crumpled Fire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [10]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 'restore unbiased summary'
    2. 'Undid revision 795228309 by Volunteer Marek (talk) - stop pushing your POV'
    3. 'rv POV'
    4. 'rv - dishonest edit summary, plus the reaction was far from unanimously "praise" from far-right, see David Duke's reaction'


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

    Comments:

    Comment: They do appear to have done 4 reversions, which would certainly put them in line for a block, despite the fact that the article in question regards a current event, which (as the template at the top states) may "may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable". But I do have to wonder if they are conducting edits in their POV... Regardless, I think an admin may want to check the reported's contributions to see if their behaviour adheres to Wikipedia's policies. GUtt01 (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Crumpled Fire made one more revert, making it 5 reverts in under 24 hours: 5. [12] Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I admit, I've done a number of reverts as well, and some of them were my own fault. I do share GUtt01's worries about conducting edits in their own POV, but I don't quite think it rises to the point where action needs to be taken: the information was, after all, rapidly changing, and the article reflects such a state, even now. Javert2113 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading this, I have to agree. There is definite concern about the reported's conduct with their edits being possibly POV, but the article is constantly changing as it contends with a current event that occurred and which will be changing for a while after until it's considered resolved. I stick by my recommendation that an admin checks the reported's behaviour in their edits to see if it adheres to Wikipedia's policies or if there is an issue. GUtt01 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for violating the rule, but I invite any admin to review my edits and hopefully you'll see no POV-pushing on my part. The reverts I made were primarily to remove objectively biased additions, not to add my own biases. I would argue that each of the revert edits I made restored a more objective description of events. Since this was a new article with information rapidly piling in, I hope this violation can be overlooked. Cheers. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't about whether or not the edits were promoting a POV- even entirely neutral edit warring that is otherwise complicit with wiki policy is not okay. Violating 3RR is a hard and fast rule, and there were more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thismightbezach reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 3 months)

    Page
    Sebastian Gorka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Thismightbezach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795358345 by Dammitkevin (talk) opinion pieces are reliable sources for opinions according to editor User:Volunteer Marek"
    2. 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795357115 by Dammitkevin (talk) the transcript itself is a reliable source"
    3. 18:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795356781 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) added clarity"
    4. 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795349829 by MarkBernstein (talk) posting the actual transcript is not POV pushing"
    5. 14:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)‎ "Undid revision 795359130 by Neutrality (talk) made it more neural"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sebastian Gorka‎. (TW)"


    Comments:

    I added a short transcript of Gorka's actual words in context to the discussion about the Hungarian Guard . The fact that you want to hide that tells a lot about your agenda. Thismightbezach (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Was User:Volunteer Marek wrong in saying this on the Gorka page?

    (cur | prev) 09:18, 12 August 2017‎ User:Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,830 bytes) (-395)‎ . . (opinion pieces are reliable sources for opinions.) (undo | thank)

    Thismightbezach (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User to Admin Suggestion: I've taken a look, and I wonder if the information being added in is conforming to Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. I would suggest that an admin checks over the information they added in, that is clearly being disputed between the reported and the reportee and a number of users (as can be seen in the article's history log). GUtt01 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 3 months. Clear reverts, well past 3RR and no exception offered. This seems to be a long term pattern with no hint of understanding that minor editorial disputes should be discussed. I don't see the BLP issue, it all looks like partisan talking points to me. Kuru (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ferret reported by User:86.187.160.51 (Result: No violation)

    Has accused me of edit warring on the World in Conflict article accusing me of doing this numerous time. It was the first time I had edited that page. I actually waited till three revert rule had been broken and really only mention it he because of the needles threat. He seems (based on his edit history) to just revert and criticise anyone he disagrees with, particularly IPs. Seems as a auto confirm user may be abusing that fact.86.187.160.51 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to take this case to WP:ANI. AN3 has a specific thread format that needs to be followed, and unfortunately, this post does not follow that format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no violation of 3RR here. User is re-adding a large plot addition (Over 700 words), that that was originally added over a year ago. Admittedly, I made an assumption that the IP was the original editor responsible, who edit warred back then, which I apologize for. However, the main reason I left a stern warning was because the IP left an edit note that they would continue to revert and add back the large plot summary, which is an open declaration that they plan to edit war. -- ferret (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to state three things here -
    1. This report should have been constructed in the same style as those above. The reportee may want to consider knowing this in future; I don't have anything against you doing so, but you need to give clear evidence of the reported's edits to prove they are in violation of 3RR. Therefore, this whole matter could have been sent to WP:ANI to be handled.
    2. I do wonder if perhaps, that Wikipedia should have a Manual of Style for articles pertaining to Video Games, but then there's the case of whether it'd be adhered to, and if anyone who the patience, time, and so forth to create it.
    3. If the user does intend to Edit War, you may what to show that to an admin. If someone is certainly voicing intentions to Edit War in that manner, it surely shows a sign that their edits will be POV issues. GUtt01 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GUtt01: VG guidelines for plot are at WP:VG/CONTENT and are essentially in line with WP:FILMPLOT. I am an admin, but I first gave a warning (admittedly stern) to the IP once they declared their intent to continue reverting. At the time there had been no 3RR violation (And as of this writing, still has not been) so I had not taken any action. At this point, I'll consider myself WP:Involved and allow another to take action, if warranted. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation. Ferret has two reverts in the last six months. I see one edit war between several users over a year ago, so nothing burning. There's really no reason you can't hash it out on the talk page. Kuru (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.187.160.51 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: 48 hours)

    Page
    World in Conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    86.187.160.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795380402 by Jd22292 (talk) I have gone to talk and as before removing a better version is vandalism. The so called guidelines are just guidelines not rules"
    2. 21:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795379922 by Jd22292 (talk) this one is better, reverting is vandalism so now, the 'guidelines' are just guide lines not ruled. This being better will remain."
    3. 21:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795371773 by Jd22292 (talk) it by far a better plot so reverting it vandalism"
    4. 19:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795366652 by Ferret (talk) nor he's edit warring will report this."
    5. 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Revert, not overly long and all relevent details, will revert back to this in future."
    6. 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 711968078 by Supergodzilla2090 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on World in Conflict. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot structure */ new section"
    Comments:

    IP had reverted this plotline a year ago, according to Ferret. Back then, no violation of 3RR was present. It has now become obvious that the IP did not break their intent from last year. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It was a bad assumption on my part that this user is the same one who first made this edit a year ago. However, they've made a clear statement that they will continue to edit war until they get their way, regardless of guidelines, and have violated 3RR now. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: IP is still warring. I have added new evidence. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Garret seems unable to accept any responsibly o his part and this has decended into blame an IP. if you won't let people improve and change things nothing will get done. Farret seems to think just blame the IP' s and as a named user I will be OK.86.187.160.51 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts, was warned and continued to edit war. Jd22292, please be careful not to break 3RR yourself with another revert. Kuru (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fyddlestix and User:Rockypedia reported by User:Atsme (Result: Declined.)

    Two editors are involved: User:Fyddlestix User:Rockypedia

    I'm including both editors in this one complaint because they appear to be working in unison in a very disruptive and aggressive manner. Their behavior is rather disturbing.

    The article that connects everyone is Jared Taylor - the edit summaries will substantiate the connection. It is a very controversial BLP because the man's ideology is vehemently opposed by scores of people, but we still have to follow PAGs, so my focus was on trying to get it compliant with WP:BLP WP:LABEL, and WP:REDFLAG. A very minor edit would have resolved the issue but they chose instead to attack me.

    I proposed that the contentious labels not be stated in Wiki voice, and that high quality RS be used with inline text attribution in the lede according to policy. I did not engage in edit warring when the two editors reverted my removal of the contentious material. But those edits are only part of the reason I'm here.

    I warned both editors on their respective TP about the BLP violations, and did not engage them in an edit war.

    I called for an RfC, and added a list of sources in my comment section to support my proposal.

    Fyddlestick reverted the sources from my comment section in the RfC:

    • 1st one here, which I replaced.
    • Again here edit summary states: ("wrongful removal" my ass, I merely moved this response to someone else's comment to Threaded Discussion, where it belongs (and has since been replied to). We don't need to read the same wall of text twice.)

    I reverted because it is part of my comment in the RfC and removal of it is unacceptable as it is an attempt to wrongfully influence the RfC. I did strike some duplicates in the discussion section at the bottom of the page which is what he termed as repetitive.

    Rockypedia reverted it again - removed it from my comment section in the RfC in an attempt to influence the !vote: Tag team revert. They're working together and may even be one in the same for all I know.

    If that wasn't enough, Rockypedia, started trolling me in unison with Fyddlestick's disruption at Taylor. He went over to Clinton-Lynch_tarmac_meeting, an article I recently created and was still working on, and reverted large blocks of text in retaliation as evidenced by his edit summary.

    • First revert here stating in the edit summary (removed the POV crap only supported by an editor currently engaged in campaign to whitewash the white supremacists's Jared Taylor article. He's not neutral.) I reverted his edit and he sent me a thank you notice as if to dare me into an edit war. I reverted his vandalism.
    • He reverted me again.

    He also retaliated on my TP, claiming that my warning about his BLP violations were "veiled threats"...

    Something has to be done about these two editors and their highly disruptive editing because they will keep reverting and disrupting unless they are stopped. It's borderline scary. Atsme📞📧 02:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Add another note in response to Fyddlestix ludicrous claim about me altering a date stamp. To begin, I wouldn't know how - just the other day, I had to get help from another editor to show me how to fix the time in my sig, so I don't know what he's talking about or if it even matters. Diversion. Atsme📞📧 04:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck that claim with my apologies. It was a misunderstanding: the timestamps did change but it looks like it was because Atsme's browser displays UTC - 5, and they copy pasted that over the original (UTC) stamp. Rest assured I feel really stupid for not having realized this before. Again, my apologies. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's about a dozen veiled threats that you've made against multiple editors on the Jared Taylor talk page. Meanwhile, your completely off-the-wall assertions are being rejected in a non-neutral RfC that you started, and you don't like it, so you're seeking some revenge here. I don't think that will work, as anyone that looks at the Jared Taylor talk page for even a few minutes will see who's actually being disruptive. Rockypedia (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sigh. OK, I moved a comment from the "Survey" to the "Threaded Discussion" section of an RFC. Perhaps this was over-bold, but it is a common practice and it was done in good faith, in attempt to keep everyone's !votes and their replies to others' comments separate (and sequential). Atsme later copy-pasted their original comment back, but left a duplicate of the same material below, while also separating their comment from (and placing it far above) replies that people had since written in response to it. Even if my original move had been a bad idea (which I don't concede), this struck me as vastly more disruptive so removed the duplicate material, re-pairing the post with the replies.
    That's it - one move of a comment and one revert. I will happily apologize for the grumpy edit summary, and for any offense caused. But this is hardly edit warring. Both edits were made in good faith, and in an attempt to keep the RFC intelligible and minimize disruption.
    For a fuller explanation please read this and note that Atsme has been altering datestamps on their own posts as part of this kerfuffle. (Struck this both here and there, the stamps changed but it was unintentional & I should not have assumed that bad faith. My sincere apologies to Atsme, I'll see myself out... ) Fyddlestix (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Atsme. It is traditional for people reporting editwarring to supply diffs of the alleged violations so that drive by editors can easily see what is going on, just like Rockypedia has in the report below this. What do you say? -Roxy the dog. bark 10:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined I'm surprised to see Atsme suggesting that two experienced editors "may even be one in the same for all I know". Usually we only get that kind of silliness from new users, and it does you no favours, User:Atsme. And did you really refer to calling Jared Taylor a white supremacist (which is ridiculously well-sourced) as "a blatant BLP violation"[14]? BLP violations are always serious, but claiming BLP vios isn't magic pixie dust. Frivolous report, which is only tenuously connected with edit warring of any kind and not in the required format. Please don't misuse our boards. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    User:24.178.250.78 reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: Page Protected; Both blocked for 24 hours)

    Page: Terrell Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 24.178.250.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [16]
    2. [17]
    3. [18]
    4. [19]
    5. [20]
    6. [21]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

    Comments:
    This is the same anon IP, continuing to edit war after he reverted 18+ different edits of mine, many of them including sourced material; the reversions removed the sources as well. See the previous reverts by this IP and the warning issued here. Rockypedia (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel that this addition by the IP in the discussion below deserves attention: "I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted." This is in reference to the 18+ edits where he removed sources and the sourced info that I had added to the article over hours of work. Rockypedia (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hours of work? What, do you type half a word per minute? Also, after I removed your edits, you were supposed to discuss the changes on the talk page, which you didn't do, because you think you're above WP:Cycle rules. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Even more recently, this edit further illustrates this IP's mission to make disruptive edits. The edit labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali "an anti-Muslim extremist" in the lead paragraph. It was immediately reverted by another editor. Rockypedia (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, so using the same source you insisted was a WP:RS for labeling Jared Taylor a white supremacist is "disruptive" when it involves labeling Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Do tell. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I implore you, take a look at who has been doing the "edit-warring" as of late, not to mention falsely accusing me of being a "sockpuppet" account simply because he doesn't like me. I have been using the talk page and providing perfectly relevant, sourced material, yet Rockypedia apparently thinks he is not only above the rules of wikipedia, but has the authority to decide what can and can not go on a page simply because he registered an account. When I reverted his stuff in the past, he was making several successive edits (not in good faith) simply to make it impossible for me to revert his deletion of my edits without reverting his as well...and then he claimed "edit warring." I guess such trickery is to be expected from someone who knows his way around wikipedia. Recently, I have only reverted things where he blindly reverted me and refused to discuss on the talk page/claimed consensus where there wasn't, or when he restored something that I had removed because it was unsourced (and gave the reason for). I also encourage you to take into consideration the fact that he first appeared on the Terrell Owens article on July 30th, 2017, following me over from the Jared Taylor talk page (I never made a single edit on the Jared Taylor page because it doesn't allow IPs to make edits), and all he did at the time was revert all of my edits, NOBODY ELSE'S, and he didn't return until August 4th. The evidence clearly shows he had no interest in improving the article, he only checked my contributions history to delete what I wrote out of spite. He would never have returned to the article had I not restored the stuff he removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As before, there's a lot of lies in the above paragraph. First off, I did look at the IP's edits, as I often do when I see any user pushing POV like he was doing at the Jared Taylor talk page (namely, arguing that Taylor is not a white supremacist). When I saw that the additions to the Owens page were not sourced, I researched them, edited some (and added sources), and removed others that I could not find sources for. Meanwhile, the page had a lot of unsourced material, and I started to work through that and add sources, deleting some material again that wasn't supported anywhere. So it's a lie that I only focused on this IP's edits. I added a lot of work to that page. Rockypedia (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I ask that you check the Terrell Owens article history. Rockypedia popped in on July 30, 2017, to remove only my edits, nobody else's. He was nowhere to be found on the article in the next 5 days. It was only when I restored what he had reverted on August 4th, 2017, that he appeared again, and then he made a bunch of successive edits so that I could not undo his revert without undoing the successive edits. You should also look at how he persisted in telling me reliable sources - in which there was consensus for - were not reliable sources. And while it's off-topic, he is also misrepresenting what occurred on the Jared Taylor talk page. I argued Taylor can not be proven to be a white supremacist because there is nothing to show he has ever espoused views fitting the dictionary (nor wikipedia) definition of the term, and I think common sense dictates the sources calling him this are unreliable for making this kind of claim when looked at in context. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    18 reversions here, many of them removing reliable sources, and 6 more reported here. I let that evidence stand for itself. Rockypedia (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So because of that, I'm banned from ever again removing content, even when it is justified? I already explained why I was doing the reverts in the past. I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted; I was only trying to get to the edits which I had made, which you removed, in order to restore them. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted" - well, does that sound like someone we want editing Wikipedia? Rockypedia (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It was obvious to me you weren't adding edits on "good faith," but rather to make it more difficult for me to restore my edits, since you wanted nothing to do with the article until I restored the content you had spitefully removed. 2. I wasn't aware of the 3RR rule at the time. "We don't want people who aren't part of our clique editing a website designed to be publicly edited." 24.178.250.78 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Action by Admin: An admin has looked into this matter, and has done the following:
    1. The page has been given temporary protection for a few days.
    2. Both users were blocked for 24 hours, due to ignoring previous warnings about edit-warring; the admin had protected the page before, in the hopes that both the reportee and reported could debate on the matter.
    The reportee has recently admitted to handling their behaviour with the reported poorly, and has taken in this moment as a learning experience. I hope the reported chooses to behave better, and not act in this way as well. GUtt01 (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    2601:192:8600:1c80:d9a1:711d:f5d1:722f reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: )

    Page: Christiaan Barnard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2601:192:8600:1c80:d9a1:711d:f5d1:722f (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
    5. diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

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

    Comments:
    this dynamic IP has repeatedly undone POV removal by both myself and User:Samsara. A google search for the source material only brings up the Wikipedia article. In addition, requested page protection unsuccessfully Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't know why this blanked my comments-I don't do this a lot.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GoldenRing reported by User:Twitbookspacetube (Result: No violation)

    Page
    2017 Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    GoldenRing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 12:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795468237 by Twitbookspacetube (talk) Four editors in half an hour does not make consensus and the violation is clear - do we really need to take this to AE?"
    2. 11:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795462686 by WWGB (talk) As this has been challenged per BLPCRIME it requires consensus to re-add"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC) to 11:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
      1. 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Vehicular attack on counterprotesters */ Remove details per WP:BLPCRIME"
      2. 11:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Vehicular attack on counterprotesters */ more details per BLPCRIME"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The reason I am bringing this here so quickly is because an admin is willfully misinterpreting policies and attempting to use intimidation tactics to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and get their way. Twitbookspacetube 12:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't see why this shouldn't be discussed at the article talk before coming here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edits I have made are removing the name of someone who has recently been charged with crimes and is not known to the public for anything else. This seems to me a clear violation of BLPCRIME. As the material had been challenged on BLP grounds, the editor who reverted my removal ought not to have done so but ought to have started a discussion on the talk page - which I did for him. Twitbookspacetube decided that thirty-seven minutes was enough discussion to declare that consensus is on his side and revert again - and now he has reverted yet again despite having started this report here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @El C: would you consider a boomerang here? Twitbookspacetube was already at 4RR ([25] [26] [27] [28]) before this kicked off - they're now at 9 ([29] [30] [31] [32] [33]). GoldenRing (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm looking at this--but GoldenRing, here and here and here they are obviously reverting vandalism, for which we should thank them. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, I looked at all the ones you listed; one of the users reverted by Twitbook is already indef-blocked as a vandal, and this is one from your first list. There is no way in which I'm going to add this to any list of bad edits, so that leaves only five. Nor am I convinced that this should count: there is no way that there will ever be agreement for that edit, which by way of a fairly typical false equivalency lumps everything together--needless to say this is also not verified by the sources, though I admit I've read only one single Breitbart article today. I can fault Twitbook for a silly username and for not appropriately summarizing their edit, but for those edits from your list that I singled out, no. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. As far as I can tell Twitbook has added that content three times. You have removed it five times--but you have invoked the BLP, an argument that doesn't give you carte blance but, as I like to say, we should always stay on the conservative side of the BLP. A fourth revert you listed that I haven't yet discussed is this, which I wish they had explained--but it's minor and one can argue that the unexplained removal of valid sourced content is vandalism (I also wish you hadn't listed those obvious vandalism reverts here--they do not make your case look good). So I certainly don't see a need for any block right now. The validity of this content is, of course, dependent on consensus at BLPN and the talk page; and I am assuming for both of you that there was no consensus while this back and forth was going on. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: Fair call. That really leaves their three reversions of BLP-challenged material; clearly disruptive (IMO) but not a 3RR violation. GoldenRing (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure--thanks. I will say that a lack of edit summaries doesn't help, nor does bringing this case. Well, I just commented at the ARE thread; let's see how that goes. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, as I mentioned here, Twitbookspacetube is subject to a 1RR restriction. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's not good then--they deserve a block, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:EdJohnston, it is clear that the Twitbook editor violated a 1R restriction, but by now this is really yesterday's news. I'm asking you as an experienced denizen of this board--do we block for an edit warring violation if it happened one or two days ago and required this much discussion? I'll note also that the editor reported here in some bad faith; they knew they were themselves under a restriction. Separately there's a request at WP:ARE, but I'm wondering if you'd block for edit warring on the basis of this report, regardless of what sanction may come out of the other report. And if your answer is "yes", please go ahead and do it, and close this affair. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mr Brand reported by User:BlackCab (Result: Protected)

    Page: Spring Hill Fair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mr Brand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [35]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [36]
    2. [37]
    3. [38]
    4. [39]
    5. [40]
    6. [41]
    7. [42]
    8. [43]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44][[45]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Spring Hill Fair#Lindy Morrison / Jon Brand claims and user page talk at User talk:Mr Brand#Spring Hill Fair and User talk:Mr Brand#Conflict of Interest

    Comments:
    Editor says he is the son of a record producer referred to in the article and is repeatedly removing a claim about the producer contained in a solidly researched biog first published in 1997 and updated and republished in 2003 with the same claim. Discussion has been started on both the article talk page and user talk page; editor persists in removing the claim, saying it is false and defamatory and says he "will continue to delete this every time you put it back up". [46]

    Page protected for a period of 24 hours. Go and slog it out on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Three editors believe the article is fine as is. One editor keeps reverting and has declared his intention to keep doing so. I'm not sure another 24 hours will make much of a difference here. BlackCab (TALK) 10:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Four. Roxy the dog. bark 10:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The get out clause I'm offering to Mr Brand here is a potential Wikipedia:3RRBLP, plus he has used the talk page. Plus I'm keeping an eye on the conversation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring, Personal attacks in summaries

    User:Mogomaniac reported by User:WarMachineWildThing (Result: 1 week)

    Page: The Shield (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mogomaniac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [47]


    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: [diff]

    Comments: User moved page with no discussion,which had to be moved back, then edit warred, then made personal attacks in summary. User was warned by another user for violating 3rr yet they still edited the article again anyway. Pretty sure I violated 3rr myself, which I stopped editting the article once I realized I may have so if the hammer needs to be swung my way then so be it. Judging by users other contributions in the last week or so edit warring without discussing on talks and personal attacks towards users are frequent. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 05:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 1 week. As Mogomaniac has been blocked several times previously, escalating. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Philotam reported by User:Bastun (Result: 24 hours )

    Page: Anthony Bailey (PR advisor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Philotam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [53]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14 August, 11:16
    2. 14 August, 12:30
    3. 15 August, 10:39
    4. 15 August, 10:51
    5. 15 August, 11:07


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15 August, 11:08


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14 August, 12:13

    Comments:

    User is insistant on adding the title "Princess" to someone who is a citizen of a republic, against consensus. User has been reverted by Edwardx, Roxy the dog, and me, thus far. As MOS:HONORIFIC notes, "the inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles is controversial", and consensus should be reached to introduce a courtesy title for someone who isn't even the subject of the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:199.224.16.12 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    199.224.16.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */ the quote in this is from a far-left group. Put non-bias crap in here"
    2. 16:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
    3. 15:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC) ""A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite" not a bigot. Stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism"
    4. 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
    5. 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
    6. 15:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    More diffs since report: [54], [55] EvergreenFir (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User: (IP hopper) reported by User:Laszlo Panaflex (Result: Page protected)

    Page: History of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: IP hopper - please see page revision history


    Previous version reverted to: [56]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [57]
    2. [58]
    3. [59]
    4. [60]
    5. [61]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Impossible, different addresses used for each


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History_of_India#Reversion_of_Maestro2016

    Comments:

    This page has a large number of edits by one or more IP hoppers. They frequently display edit warring and ownership tendencies. In this instance, the user advised an editor to discuss the changes at the talk page. After the discussion above was opened, the IP continues to revert (#4-5) and has still not addressed the question of their objection in the talk page discussion. Page protection or logged only status should be considered. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently the same user has been edit warring at Maratha Empire (rev hist). Both these pages have now been protected by Oshwah. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been active at this account for a while now. They have responded to the talk page discussion, but only to make accusations against other editors, while offering no substantive reason for their reversions. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kjelltyrid reported by User:Ukpong1 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

    Page
    Henrik Steffens Professor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Kjelltyrid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "rv vandalism/false template with fictitious claim about "duplicate article""
    2. 23:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795702610 by Ukpong1 (talk)"
    3. 23:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795693417 by Ukpong1 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Speedy deletion nomination of Henrik Steffens Professor */ new section"
    2. 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Henrik Steffens Professor. (TW)"
    3. 23:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Henrik Steffens Professor. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has repeatedly removed speedy deletion template upon being warned. Zazzysa (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There's A LOT more to this than just that... Kjelltyrid isn't the only one edit warring here. Several users have been edit warring at WP:AIV while filing and erasing reports made for each other. First, Adam9007 filed an WP:AIV report for User:Kjellyrid, then Kjellyrid followed up with an AIV report for Adam9007. Adam reverted Kjellyrid's AIV report, which was then followed by Coldandspicy deleting Kjellyrid's report for Adam9007, which was reverted again, and again, and again. I don't know if edit warring (filing and deleting reports made for each other) constitutes as edit warring/3RR or not, but this was clearly not the correct way to handle the situation. Although the user filing this report, Zazzysa was not directly involved in the whole WP:AIV edit war, this is probably something that should be looked into further. Thanks. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, both me and Coldandspicy thought it was vandalism, which is usually dealt with by reverting. Adam9007 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Kjelltyrid was just blocked for 36 hours by Oshwah. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NetWitz reported by User:Toohool (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Vegas Golden Knights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: NetWitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [62]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [63]
    2. [64]
    3. [65]
    4. [66]
    5. [67]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68] [69] [70]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

    Comments:
    User is persistently trying to re-add content about City National Arena to the page rather than engaging in discussion about it. Toohool (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC) That is a complete lie, I've been trying to discuss about it and nobody responds, Toohool should be deleted for cyber bullying NetWitz (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz[reply]

    @There'sNoTime: I disagree with this, the page should be semi-protected at the most, and the user should be blocked. The edit warring is all caused by this one user who refuses to accept the outcome of discussions, and whose temper tantrums haven't been confined to this one page. And there is lots of legitimate editing that needs to happen on this page, considering this is a major sports team that plays its first game in about a month. Toohool (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toohool: How I see it, the above isn't the only content dispute which recently occurred on the article (such as your against-consensus addition here). That being said, I am but a janitor in the service of the community, and if you and others (comments from the ANI thread noted) believe it was the wrong call, I will semi-protect and block -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Toohool. If we have to get an admin just to do the menial tasks associated with a team about to launch its first season (adding captains, who gets the first point, etc.), then I would assume some admins could annoyed with requests for edits. Toohool may have made an edit that appears against consensus, but it came from a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City National Arena. They were not acting uncooperatively (the opposite actually). Yosemiter (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mark Miller reported by User:184.101.234.2 (Result: )

    Page: Alt-left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mark Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)



    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [72]
    2. [73]
    3. [74]
    4. [75] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.234.2 (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    5. [76]
    6. [77]
    7. [78]
    8. [79]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]


    section on talk exists

    Comments:
    claims BLP; only two persons mentioned in section, claims well-sourced. 184.101.234.2 (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=795844751"