Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

---

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

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Click here to create a new report

User:Adamgerber80 reported by User:AbdulQahaar (Result: being discussed at AN)

Page

Asfandyar Bukhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User continuosly is editing the article and refusing compromise. User is an Indian national who seems to be against Pakistan army and edits the article repeatedly. despiite offering compromise statements which dont violate any wikipedia policy the user seems adamant on editing the article without any reason. I request arbitration to resolve this dispute. I have mentioned the causes of my actions on the talk page of said user and my own talk page. Please restrain him from making offensive edits to muslim faith. i have tried my best to reason with him and my own version of edits is neither in violation of any policy nor offensive to anyone including the said user himself. We all want to share authentic info on wikipedia without offending anyone. please restrain said user from editing the article in an offensive way. Also i hereby declare to have no COI in regard to this article otherwise i would have declared it in accordance of wikipedia policy. Thanking you in anticipation.

User:DHeyward reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: )

Page: Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DHeyward (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Already removed with edit summary of 'No')

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Comments:
Article is under 1RR. Editor was summoned to page by MONGO after MONGO was reverted, and proceeded to revert two times in under 24 hours to attempt to restore MONGO's preferred version. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Just more harassment by PtF. He's been warned before. He's not even participating in the discussion. As for this report, it's stale and resolved [5]. The above diffs show my edit and one revert as well as me initiating the talk page dialog. There is no edit warring and after multiple talk page edits with no article edits, it's certainly not disruptive. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Rather than criticising others, admitting your own mistake and undertaking not to repeat it would be a more effective way to avoid a block here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward wasn't summoned as I merely asked him a question about the issues on that article and if he had any background info about why the event was categorized as it was. Considering the number of times PeterTheFourth has filed almost exclusively petty complaints about DHeyward, I'd say an interaction ban is now needed to stop this ongoing harassment.--MONGO 03:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
As someone that has been watching this page from it's start, it appears to me that DHeyward has been pushing a POV, more than most peoples latent bias, this has been disruptive. I have no opinion beyond this observation. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You need glasses. I believe the edit above are the sum total of my entire contribution to that page so please retract your aspersions. Here's all (both) my edits to that page.[6]. However, your edit history is, shall we say, "interesting" in a quacking duck sort of way. 2000 edits in 3 months after sleeping for 6 years - about 100 edits (mostly revdelled) from 2011 until August 2017). Quack. --DHeyward (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Historicalchild reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff by IP 2406:3003:2049:0:7281:EBFF:FEBB:390A, see case above on same article, here. Note that article was protected in these diffs at 01:59, 4 November 2017. So this named account (inactive since March 2016 when there was a big sock investigation) showed up and...

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 07:38, 4 November 2017, continued the whitewashing and PROMO
2. diff 07:47, 4 November 2017 same
3. diff 18:32, 5 November 2017 same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see whole talk page but Talk:Calvin_Cheng#Discussion with this named account

Comments:

• see case above. Article has been under severe promotional pressure since 2007 and there is confirmed sockpuppeting in the history. The behavior here is obviously continuing the edit warring by the IP editor. I suggest a very long if not indefinite block. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing with an obvious agenda. I'm morally convinced they've done some socking, since they only turned up with this autoconfirmed account after the article was semi'd for a month, but I suppose it's theoretically possible that not all the IPs are theirs. Therefore, I'm blocking for disruptive editing rather than 3RR. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Warned)

Page

Sutherland Springs church shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "re-added. He died during the "event". People who die later in hospital would also be included here."
2. 23:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ added to infobox"
3. 23:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by ChocolateRabbit (talk) to last revision by Gaia Octavia Agrippa. (TW)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC) to 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
5. 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ he's dead. So its noted in the infobox. This is getting stupid"
6. 23:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ STOP removing this."
7. 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ STOP removing this."
8. 23:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ added to infobox"
9. 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ added details"
10. 23:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ added cmmt"
11. 23:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ perp included in death count"
12. 23:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ 27 is referenced. Including perp because he died during the incident (not necessary to have been in the church)."
13. 23:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ corrected"
14. 23:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Casualties */ corrected with ref"
15. 22:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ don't know where 28 came from"
16. 22:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Victims */ change to neutral heading"
17. 20:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Muboshgu (talk): Follows layout of similer articles. (TW)"
18. 20:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ corrected"
19. 20:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ added to infobox"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Sutherland Springs church shooting. (TW)"
2. 23:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* November 2017 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* User:ChocolateRabbit reverts at Sutherland Springs church shooting */"
2. 23:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* (including the perpetrator) */ edit warring"
3. 23:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* User:ChocolateRabbit reverts at Sutherland Springs church shooting */"
4. 23:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* User:ChocolateRabbit reverts at Sutherland Springs church shooting */"
5. 23:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* (including the perpetrator) */"
6. 00:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* (including the perpetrator) */"

Comments:

By the users own admission a lot of people have changed their wording to include the perpetrator and they still continue to revert. I’m not sure all the edits noted are on the same issue (hard to do this on my phone) but 3RR seems to have been breached amd the editor refuses to relent. They got User:ChocolateRabbit blocked for opposing their position already. Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Do I comment here? User:ChocolateRabbit was blocked because they refused on multiple occasion to enter any dialogue or to explain why they were reverting my edit. I am still discussing this with you on Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting. Its late where I am (gone midnight) so I'm a bit slow/tired. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Time for discussion was before blowing through 3RR and then some. This is one of the more serious cases I’ve seen in a while. (Recognizing not all the diffs I posted with Twinkle are applicable). I’m happy to discuss after I changed one time what appeared to be a mistake and got reverted. You might want to look at the number of users you reverted before getting so sure you are following a standard. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Other than pointing out "Restore my wording now or I’ll file a 3RR against you" and "My wording was better" (your words not mine), I shall now be disappearing as I need to sleep. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I warned you and offered an opportunity to reverse the edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(I'm back briefly) Having received your talk page notice and replied to it, I didn't make any more edits to infobox. I instead made a comment on the talk page of the article. You replied, ending with "Restore my wording now or I’ll file a 3RR against you". That is a threat rather than dialogue on your part. I then pointed you towards a page that showed "(including the perpetrator)" as standard to which you replied "My wording was better". I asked for your reasoning and you pointed me towards the Boston Marathon bombing article. I replied that that article was a special case and provided 5 commented on examples of articles using "(including the perpetrator)". You then decided you'd had enough "I’ve filed a report at 3RR because you refuse to work with various editors who disagree with an amalgamated number." I was attempting to work with you (and any other editors that may have been reading the talk page) but you decided to stop working with me. I made one more attempt at explaining my reasoning but you did not reply. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note I confiorm that User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa breached 3RR on this article, and it was a fairly petty issue as well. A better response from him/her would be "My bad I'll self-revert immediately." Instead we got prevarication. A mitigating factor is that Gaia Octavia Agrippa stopped edit warring as soon as they were warned. They have also never been sanctioned for edit warring before. I'm inclined to close this with a warning that any further breaches of 3RR will result in a block, but will await comments from others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Gaia Octavia Agrippa is warned that any further breaches of 3RR will result in a block, per the above comment by User:MSGJ. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that User:MSGJ blocked me for 48 hours when I was not edit warring, was not in a content dispute, did not breach 3RR and had no warnings, just recently. I bring an editor that was edit warring, who got one of his opponants blocked via the vandal board, and continued arguing without accepting they were edit warring yet only a warning is issued. That is pretty inconsistent. Perhaps we need to discuss User:MSGJ’s hate on for me? Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for overstepping the 3RR. I was caught up in the moment on a fast moving article and had been trying to keep at bay what I saw as disruptive editing. It won't happen again. Thank you for limiting this to a warning. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Oldstone James reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: blocked)

Page

Creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Oldstone James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC) to 23:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 23:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Added reference. Please start a discussion on the talk page if you disagree with my edit and provide references that contradict it."
   2. 23:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Now, you just can't revert this edit because I literally just swapped two words around. If THIS gets reverted, I give up my trust in fairness and reason."
2. 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808875691 by Jim1138 (talk) So Young Earth creationists believe in flat earth, psychic powers, phrenology, etc? +Removed superfluous comma."
3. 18:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Compromise"
4. 13:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808739404 by PaleoNeonate (talk) The phrase "believe in pseudoscience" does not make sense in English - at least not the one intended."
5. 20:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "They don't 'believe in pseudoscience' in general - they believe in a particular form of it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* An article you have been editing is under discretionary sanctions */ ew notice"
2. 00:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Header for ew notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Creationism & pseudoscience - moved conversation from my talk page. Retitled"
2. 00:25, 6 November 2017 {UTC) "‎Flat earthism: new section"

Comments:

Creationism is under pseudoscience and fringe discretionary sanctions. Jim1138 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm involved because I reverted one of the edits, but this is deliberate pointy editing as well as 3RR violation, and should receive a short block. Black Kite (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• A partial revert: diff "Revert by mistake, as admitted by the reverter on the talk page" Per Oldstone James's talk:Creationism comment here Jim1138 (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours, as he clearly breached 3RR. To be fair to Oldstone James, he did seem to be attempting to compromise and reach a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Olsen24 reported by User:Train2104 (Result: blocked)

Page: MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olsen24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Olsen24#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2 (past instance)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet#Numerous issues with this article
Comments:

Long term pattern of article ownership and edit warring on this article, including repeatedly inserting their own images. I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, one party responded, but the reported party ignores it. Have been blocked for edit warring in the past, a longer block is probably necessary. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the long-term disruption on this article I am convinced that a block is needed. As it is the second such block I have blocked for 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Fdrlwi reported by User:Dark-World25 (Result: blocked)

Page

Golden Key International Honour Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808802428 by Dark-World25 (talk)"
2. 04:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808785512 by Duffbeerforme (talk) outdated material"
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC) to 17:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 14:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "Out dated information and has no bearing on the current Golden Key Society's operations."
   2. 15:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "removing non relevant information and questionable credentials. Adding information that relates to the current Golden Key activities."
   3. 15:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Membership and activities */"
   4. 16:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "correction to text"
   5. 16:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC) ""
   6. 16:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC) ""
   7. 16:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC) ""
   8. 16:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "correct typo and grammatical errors and links"
   9. 16:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC) ""
   10. 16:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "added BBB source"
   11. 17:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "removed typo errors"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Newest warning by Chubbles
2. Previous warning by Chubbles
3. Previous warning by Julietalphalima

Dark-World25 (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Recent edits */"
2. 05:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC) on User talk:Fdrlwi "/* Golden Key */ new section"

Comments:

Attempted whitewashing and adding promotional material, 2 warnings from User:Chubbles, 1 warning from User:Naraht, 1 warning from User:Julietdeltalima given with no attempt at resolution, only ad hominem attacks on the discussion page as well as constant reverts without explanation against the general consensus on the article talk page. Dark-World25 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Ritu Yadav Ka reported by User:HindWIKI (Result: decline )

Page

Tenali Rama (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ritu Yadav Ka (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

you can see on her talk page.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user made her edits in the same way after the many warnings are on her talk page. HindWiki (Love My India) • Talk to Hindustani ! 12:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No evidence of edit warring has been presented. If there is a pattern of disruptive editing from this user I suggest you report to WP:AN where a more general discussion can take place. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:212.200.205.42 reported by User:El cid, el campeador (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)

Page

List of wars involving Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
2. 15:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
3. 14:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
4. 13:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
5. 02:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC) to 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 16:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
   2. 17:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
   3. 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
   4. 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
7. Consecutive edits made from 13:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC) to 13:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 13:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Late modern period */"
   2. 13:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
8. 18:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Late modern period */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also see user Nikola910. Both were warned after several reverts - both continued afterward and show no attempts at cooperating with each other. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2405:204:D28A:8581:ACBA:37F6:86F8:E101 reported by User:Let There Be Sunshine (Result: Semi)

Page

Villain (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2405:204:D28A:8581:ACBA:37F6:86F8:E101 (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:

Content dispute. Dynamic IP editor repeatedly altering content without consensus. Frequently reverting to his changes without participating in talk discussion for resolution. Editor comes in both IP and IPv6, both geolocate to the same place, Kochi, Kerala.

• [12], [13]
• [14], [15]

Note: Since he returned for making the same edit, I started a discussion in his talk page [User talk:49.15.204.90 here].

• [16], [17]

Note: Maybe the user may have not seen the discussion since he's using dynamic IP. So I notified it.

• [18], [19]

Note: And this time he reverted with full knowledge that a discussion is there, indicating that he is not willing to participate.

From his edit summaries, it can be understood that the editor very well knows that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines and sometimes consensus are made to reach at conclusions, but still the editor doesn't want to join in discussion. The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two weeks by User:AlexiusHoratius. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:XJJRosebrook reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

Lilly Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 809050249 by Davey2010 (talk) Let's discuss this current edit in the talk page then. Stop reverting it. People can't see it if it keeps getting reverted."
2. 20:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 809049780 by Davey2010 (talk) That talk page hasn't been used in a year. The changes that I made on this article satisfies Wikipedia guidelines relating to living persons."
3. 20:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 809049333 by Davey2010 (talk) The last "clean version" you reverted to was in clear violation of Wikipedia's guidelines relating to biographical living persons."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Lilly Singh. (TW)"
2. 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lilly Singh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has drastically changed the article, I objected and so as per BRD I asked them to go to the talkpage to discuss their edits but so far they've refused and have continued to revert, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I was in compliance to the biographical living persons guidelines, in full compliance. The article in question was filled with poorly sourced material all the way to the names of her parents, among other things to the shameless promotion of her book in nearly every section of the article. Goodness gracious. Also, the talk page hasn't been used in a year, and a lot of the disputes haven't been dealt with. ~ Joshua (xJJRosebrook) 21:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XJJRosebrook (talk • contribs)

You'd pretty much removed a good chunk of the article without any sort of discussion beforehand - Changes as the ones you've made need discussing first,

"Also, the talk page hasn't been used in a year, and a lot of the disputes haven't been dealt with" is no excuse not to go yourself, As per WP:BRD you're meant to go to the talkpage the moment you're reverted.... which you failed to do. –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You're a troll, man. Did you read the article that I edited? Joshua (xJJRosebrook) 21:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XJJRosebrook (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:NPA. –Davey2010^Talk 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Emir of Wikipedia had reverted and Joshua has since gone to the talkpage so I'll withdraw this, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 reported by User:Biografer (Result: )

• User being reported: Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Several pages in dispute, including: 1950 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No need to show every diff, but this will be more then enough for a lengthy block: diff--Biografer (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User has completely misunderstood the situation and is unnecessarily assuming bad faith. Discussion is going on here. I also do not understand why they single out me, when Cherkash has made an equal number of reverts on the same articles.Tvx1 00:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You are bending the truth again, Tvx1. I have made reverts only after having initiated the discussion about your content removal, and even then only after giving you a chance to explain why those edits were made and giving you sufficient time to reconsider those edits in a vein of a more productive activity (i.e. improving the content, rather than removing it). After having received no explanation except a very superficial one based purely on your personal preferences, I've told you I was going to revert the articles to their status quo state, which is what I did. After that you initiated a sequence of reverts to the state you personally preferred – and using justifications which were based on your fabricated lies about the maps causing technical problems (they don't! – as was explained in the discussion). So any reverts after that were based purely on stabilizing the articles to their historical state, pending the outcome of the discussion. cherkash (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit-warring between us happened today, thus after the discussion was started. The status quo state would be the one before the IP unilaterally added those maps. It's high time you'd stop assuming bad faith on my part. Now let's focus on resolving this content dispute where the discussion is taking place.Note that no-one has weighed in that discussion in favour of the content, while some have done so against the content. Thus you're clearly acting on your own. Tvx1 00:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't assume bad faith, but the edits are problematic. Check those edits out and seer for yourselves who is right and who is not: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. In all those cases you removed content 3 times.--Biografer (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Check your diffs more clearly. I haven't reverted Cherkash more than two times anywhere within the last 24 hours. The preceding removals strem from 21 days ago. They were uncontested for weeks before Cherkash suddenly took offense to it and started making a stink about it. And they have made the exact same number of reverts on the same articles (e.g. this and this). So I ask once again why consider my edits utterly problematic while you consider their edits apparently perfectly fine? I still maintain that this report is unnecessary and that we can find a resolution at WT:F1. I'm not a problematic, disruptive editor. I have never been blocked and I have barely been reported for anything. This whole thing is just an overreaction.Tvx1 01:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Saying you are not a problematic editor doesn't make it so, Tvx1. I've pointed out to you how your content removal is not an uncontroversial one. And I've reverted the articles to the status quo till the outcome of the discussion is clear. But you continued to revert based on your personal preferences for content removal. cherkash (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Save for the fact that you are wrong as to what the status quo is. My initial removals were uncontested for 23 days before you barged in and started repeatedly reverting my actions today.Tvx1 01:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Well first of all, the tables existed since August 6, 2016. You were fine with it, until an anonym introduced a different table. Although, he didn't introduce it, but rather improved it. As soon as @Cherkash: changed some numbers on August 12, 2017 (which is fine because editors do update rounds or caps (football)), you decide to intervene on October 14 of the same year and remove the table. Following that, on November 6, Cherkash realized that you removed a portion of an article with Removed unwieldily, unexplained and poorly placed map (the logical solution in my opinion, would have to improve the table), and just like me he was calling for improvement. However, you decided not to listen and continued to edit war. Cherkash then reverted your edit explaining that he did this per restored the status quo pending the outcome of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#World_maps_with_GP_loc. You then reverted again and demanded Stop reinstating maps which create problems for many users, which in turn doesn't address the issue and creates another one called edit war simply because you don't like the table which existed since August 6, 2016 and was updated by an anonym on June 29, 2017.--Biografer (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have never discussed any table, let alone edit one. The only thing I did was remove some maps and I have stated my reasons very clearly in my edit summaries. I don't even understand how you can claim I did something on 14 October as soon as something happened on 12 August. There is full two months between those events. There's noting soon between them. I did not edit the 1975 F1 season article as a reaction to previous edits, but in a continuous string of removing similar maps from a number of season article. And that is also the first time I became aware of them, when I was doing some maintenance on the WCC results' tables of 70's F1 articles. The timeline of events is clear visible in my contributions of 14 October. My removals were uncontested for 23 days (Johnuniq's removal even stood for 2,5 months) until cherkash barged in, took offense and started repeatedly reinstating them today in complete defiance of a WT:F1 discussion which feature multiple editors stating their opposition to those maps. I'll repeat again, I'm not a bad faith user. I have no intention whatsoever to deliberately disrupt Wikipedia. The fact that I have never been blocked for anything clearly demonstrates that.Tvx1 02:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: OK, sorry, yes you did removed a map. Still though, it something that suppose to be discussed first and not self-arbitrary removed. The reason why you never was blocked is because of good luck, I guess. Cherkash is also a long standing editor and was here for quite some time. Nobody accuses you of bad faith. My report here was merely to prevent further reverts (by either side).--Biografer (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I just posted (here) with an example of the issue. It concerns the two maps at this permalink. I don't know what edit warring has occurred but apparently it concerns those maps, and similar in other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This looks to be a dispute about personal preferences. There might also be an issue about usage of space in the article, because there is a lot of data in each Formula One season article and editors might rather see the small map of racing locations in 2017 Formula One season. This one is much more compact than the two large maps that are being fought over in this version of 1950 Formula One season. It would be logical to get the map question resolved by an RfC at WT:WikiProject Formula One. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Bojackh reported by User:MrX (Result: )

Page

Sutherland Springs church shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC) "A consensus was reached it just wasn't added to the talk page"
2. 01:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC) "This is not like his interest in dogs. The man was constantly "trying to preach his atheism" it is materially evident why this was added by someone."
3. 03:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Deletions require reasons"
4. 03:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "yes"
5. 02:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Unless wikipedia specifically forbids this source there's no reason not to include it"
6. 02:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Perpetrator */"
7. 02:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Perpetrator */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [20]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting#Atheism

Comments:

Bojackh is repeatedly inserting the came content about the shooter's interest in atheism, and each time it has been removed by other editors, including once by myself. After at least five reverts yesterday and a warning, the edit warring over this material continues. Also, the talk page discussion seems weighted against inclusion.- MrX 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought I was working with other editors to keep what other editors had today included for reasons we agreed on. If I was in error I do apologize for this Bojackh (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You claimed in your edit summary that there is a consensus, which is not true. I will be happy to cancel this edit warring report if you will self-revert and promise not to insert this material until there is WP:CONSENSUS.- MrX 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bojackh: I see that someone has already reverted the material. I am still willing to drop this if you will promise not to restore the material. If consensus is reached on the talk page, someone else can restore it.- MrX 04:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the majority of editors contributions I believed a consensus had been reached. Why was this part of the article removed? Bojackh (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

the material looks relevent and well sourced. I don’t see concensus for not including it amd I’m going to restore it. We already established above that 3RR does not fully apply to this article, so no blocks. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that's not how consensus works. If not, have a read at WP:ONUS and please wait until there is consensus before restoring the disputed material.- MrX 04:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

discussion continues but the info is good or better than many of the life details added. MrX has no more right to remove than others have to restore. It is being widely reported in major media outlets. Exclusion because “I don’t like it” is not going to cut it. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jionakeli reported by User:Raymond3023 (Result: )

Page: AltNews.in (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jionakeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

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

Comments:
4 reverts in 30 minutes: went to this article by WP:WIKIHOUNDING my contribution history and his motive his nothing other than to cause disruption, per WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the talk page.[28] Raymond3023 (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not WP:WIKIHOUNDING Raymond3023's contributions. I reverted you because you removed large chunk of well sourced information[29], then you go on
• diff
• diff
• diff

And I should mention, it is me who started the talk page discussion[30]. The user using WP:POLSHOP to avoid the discussion. The article's talk page can be checked. Jionakeli (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

So you have agreed that you are edit warring? I am not sure why you want to get back to your usual disruptive edit warring once again. Capitals00 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, I was being WP:BRD and I am not being disruptive. I guess you know the differences between disruption and content dispute. You falsely reported me here in the past and we know the outcome. Your false accusations because of different opinions did not work so better we drop the stick here now. Goodbye! Jionakeli (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)