Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:NorthernFactoid (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Examples of Walter's cautioned January 8 edit warring
  2. [1]
  3. [2]
  4. [3]
  1. Examples of Walter's cautioned February 15 edit warring
  2. [4]
  3. [5]
  4. [6]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. January attempt one: [7]
  2. January attempt two: [8]
  3. February attempt: [9]

Comments:

It seems as though Walter Görlitz needs a briefing on what constitutes edit warring. He seems to struggle with the guideline that states the three-revert rule is merely a convenient limit but is no means a definition of edit warring. WP:EW Other editors have cautioned Mr Görlitz's beliefs and assertions in the past, and I have warned him about his disruptive edit warring repeatedly (I've included examples in this complaint). On February 15, I made one revision to a good faith edit made by ThunderingTyphoons! and undid Walter Görlitz's revision to my edit. Within minutes, Görlitz undid both of my edits and hence, I believe, violated a number of guidelines. I have mentioned of all this in the article's edit history and on Mr Görlitz's talk page, but he'd rather play games and continue editing disruptively. Numerous editors have had a very long (and fruitful) discussion about the issue at hand, but I feel Walter Görlitz isn't at all committed to finding a solution that works for everyone. I'm requesting Walter Görlitz be issued a formal warning at the very least, possibly a temporary ban. NorthernFactoid (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So what's your excuse for edit warring? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: This appears to have been going on some time; since before 9 January at least when Walter Görlitz requested mediation in the matter. NorthernFactoid described this as WG 'trolling' ('A troll has requested mediation'), with further edit summaries such as this ('trolls clearly don't know what mediation is'), and to his removal of a discussion thread ('Removal of trolling'). That's not counting [10] ('Trolling cannot be permitted here. The nonsense supplied by Walter Gorlitz is not proof of my starting anything'), [11] ('Your disruptive trolling behaviour') (that one, twice), and here on Peter K Burian's talk. Now; it's easy to see how 'troll' can be a subjective term to which, as individuals we each bring a different nuance; but it is less easy to see how it demonstrates the collegiality the community desires. FYI. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not reached 3RR. NorthernFactoid is as culpable of edit warring as I am. There is still no consensus for the wording that NorthernFactoid prefers at the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Both sides are involved in a slow-motion edit war. If talk page discussion isn't helping, try a RFC or WP:DRN. NorthernFactoid cautioned against making personal attacks. Further instances may result in editing sanctions. NeilN talk to me 14:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Reverting to original form because there was no consensus (January), and making a bold edit yesterday is absolutely NOT indicative of my being involved in a 'slow-motion edit war'. That is a truly ridiculous assertion. I'll tell you this much, I won't stand for Görlitz constantly reverting my edits within minutes of my having made them. That is called edit warring. It's telling that Görlitz essentially admits to edit warring and justifies it with a false claim that I am just as culpable. Wikipedia is demonstrably primitive at times. I also find it rather interesting that Someguy1221 and O Fortuna! randomly appear to defend Walter Görlitz. NorthernFactoid (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You're making multiple edits in conflict with another edit - that's an edit war. You'll notice our policy, Wikipedia:Edit warring, lists several exemptions. "reverting to original" and "making a bold edit" is not an exemption. And this page is watched by over 3000 editors, so no, it's really not that interesting that people randomly appear to make comments. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Show me where reverting to original because there's no consensus is edit warring. Also, show me where disruptively reverting multiple edits within minutes isn't edit warring. NorthernFactoid (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@NorthernFactoid: From WP:EW, 'An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.' Again, as Someguy1221 notes, there is no exemption for "reverting to original because there's no consensus". --NeilN talk to me 12:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: I made two edits and immediately stopped when it became clear, within minutes, that Walter Görlitz was edit warring. It's rather telling that you have nothing to say about the guideline that clearly says "three-revert rule is merely a convenient limit but is no means a definition of edit warring." WP:EW Like I said, Wikipedia is demonstrably primitive at times. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Realitytvshow reported by User:DPH1110 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Pages:
The Challenge: Rivals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Rivals II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Rivals III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Battle of the Exes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Realitytvshow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

This user CONTINUES to ignorantly make disruptive edits to Challenge season articles that suit his/her liking, particularly the five aforementioned articles. Apparently, this user is a sock puppet of 68.190.153.14, who was previously warned and blocked for his/her disruptive editing.
DPH1110 (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)DPH1110

For recent edits by the IP see:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 2 weeks for edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. User continues to play with the layout of these pages without waiting for support from others. The block might be lifted if they will agree to wait for consensus in the future. I'm treating Realitytvshow as the master and the IP 68.190.153.14 as the undeclared alternate account, so I'm blocking the IP for longer. The IP was previously reported in November 2016 at this AN3 link. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Martinkopperudandersen reported by User:General Ization (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Martinkopperudandersen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) to 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
    2. 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
    3. 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Extremes */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) to 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* U.S. Presidents by height order */"
    2. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC) to 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* U.S. Presidents by height order */"
    2. 16:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 16:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
    4. 16:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* U.S. Presidents by height order */"
    5. 16:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
    6. 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
    7. 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
  2. 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
  3. 17:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */ re"
  4. 20:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
  5. 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
  6. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. (TW)"
  7. 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Trump's height redux */ cmt"
Comments:

Editor has been persistently changing the height of Donald Trump at this article based on their impressions from observing photographs of the subject and a claim at http://celebheights.com, which the editor has been advised repeatedly is unreliable. Reliable sources establish the subject's height of record and a reliable source (New York Times) is cited in the article; the editor repeatedly replaces those reliable sources with an unreliable source. Attempts to explain policies concerning reliable sources, verifiability and OR on the editor's Talk page have been meet with WP:IDHT and a new round of reversions to the editor's improperly sourced version. Further, the editor was invited to participate in the Talk page discussion that established a consensus against the change they repeatedly make and has thus far failed to do so. General Ization Talk 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, FWIW: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#Celebheights.com. General Ization Talk 22:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. For edit warring, as there is no 3RR breach. But there is a lack article talk page particiaption. El_C 07:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:DC22201 reported by User:Keri (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Timothy Giardina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
DC22201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765968626 by Keri (talk)"
  2. 13:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765968924 by DC22201 (talk)"
  3. 13:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765708389 by Keri (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Timothy Giardina. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 13:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Disruptive editing */ new section"
Comments:

DC22201 persists in changing the rank in the infobox from "Rear Admiral" to "Vice Admiral" - based on the (2011) photograph of Giardina in a VA uniform. As noted in the article, Giardina was reduced from Vice to Rear Admiral by non-judicial punishment in 2014. His USN biog dated 2015 (which DC22201 has read because it was they who added the link) also records Giardina's rank as Rear Admiral. There is no ambiguity here - his rank, at retirement, was Rear Admiral. Persistently changing the infobox is now purely disruptive editing. Note that these exact changes were previously disruptively made by 72.107.160.125, who is almost certainly the same editor. The edit also breaks the format of the page, and removes content and references. To avoid further edit warring I am unable to again revert to fix the page. DC22201 is at the bright line but his behavior indicates that he clearly intends to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (t · c) 13:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. User is continuing an edit war that they began with the IP User:72.107.160.125. Also, some of their changes broke the page format. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Fabrickator reported by User:Jujujujuj56 (Result: Filer sock blocked)[edit]

Page
Ages of consent in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Fabrickator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


[diff preferred, link permitted]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [diff]


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


Comments:
in the texas section of the age of consent article the user keeps incorporating the text to engage in sexual conduct or causing for texas penal code 43.25 despite the fact that most sources on the page http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm#43.25 http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/05/31/tutor-student-sex-deemed-legal-photos-not.htm quotes from lawyers https://saputo.law/indecency-with-a-child/http://houstonsexcrimeslawyer.com/sexual-performance-by-a-child/ https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/state-crimes/felonies/sexual-performance-by-a-child/ states that it is or performance the user reasoning is that two cases John Perry DORNBUSCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas and Summers v. State, 11-92-057-CR, 845 S.W.2d 440 (1992) says that it also applies to that but the article itself already says that those two cases offered a different view on the applicability of the law also from what I understand too on the talk page it was stated that secondary sources take priority

  • Filer sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I appreciate that the sock puppet was identified and blocked, but it seems peculiar that you would infer what Wikipedia policy is based on some random user's assertion about what policy is ("secondary sources take priority"). But FWIW, it might be considered that the statute itself is the "primary source" of what the law is, and a judge's opinion is a secondary source. The value of secondary sources is precisely that some independent and knowledgeable third party has provided an interpretation of the facts, which is exactly what a judge's opinion provides. Aside from that, the notice on Template:Age_of_consent_pages_discussion_header specifically calls for primary sources such as statutes, while judicial opinions from appellate courts of appropriate jurisdiction are determinative as to the actual meanings of the law. The websites of 100 lawyers, none of whom has any duty to ensure that the information they have posted is actually comprehensive, cannot overcome a single sentence from the published ruling of an appellate court. Fabrickator (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:UnicovW reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Pieter Bruegel the Elder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
UnicovW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766011293 by Freshacconci (talk) I'm back putting the right information in the article, numbskull."
  2. 18:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766008339 by Modernist (talk) You've got to be one of the biggest idiots out here."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC) to 18:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Lets skip this POV shall we, Johnbod?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pieter Bruegel the Elder. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Deleting information */ but aren't you...?"
  2. 18:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by UnicovW (talk): Revert sock's personal attack. (TW)"
Comments:

This is the sock of a previous editor who edit warred over the exact same topic. An SPI is already in the works but he has now passed 3RR on this article freshacconci talk to me 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm completely innocent! UnicovW (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked the user for being WP:NOTHERE, per their edits on the current SPI and various user talkpages. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/C.Gesualdo. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein reported by User:Steelpillow (Result: No violationreporter blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [15]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [16]
  2. [17]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

I already took Eppstein to ANI several days ago for unacceptable edit comments, where he had to apologise. Eppstein's subsequent refusal to accept my apology (for inadvertently upsetting him) and his dismissive view of his censure is given here. So this has gone way beyond ordinary dispute resolution. Eppstein is a very experienced editor and he knows the score, there is no way that this behaviour can be excused by ignorance. In this protracted sequence of events, I trust that the double-revert without discussion response is sufficient to demonstrate warring. There is also some evidence for WP:TAGTEAM coordination between Eppstein and Joel B. Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (but not enough to bring Lewis here) which may help to explain some of the comments in the diffs. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted approximately once in the last three days, fewer reverts than Steelpillow in the same time period (even though Steelpillow is also far from 3RR). And as I wrote on my user talk page, "tag-team edit war" is another phrase for a consensus that runs against you. Do we have a forum-shopping noticeboard? Because maybe this needs to be taken there too. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation We're not blocking your opponent in an edit war for you. If there are other behavioral issues post to ANI but I strongly recommend trying WP:DRN instead. NeilN talk to me 22:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours (e/c) @Steelpillow: Three people have opposed your edits, you've pushed 3RR twice already, and by reporting here you're clearly asserting you're aware of our edit warring policy. --slakrtalk / 22:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:CplDHicks reported by User:FF-UK (Result: No violation) 12 hours[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NEMA_connector&oldid=764214829


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1 07:22, 17 February 2017‎ [20]
  1. 2 16:06, 17 February 2017‎ [21] (revised)
  1. 3 17:24, 17 February 2017 [22]
  1. 4 17:39, 17 February 2017 [23]

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


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

Comments:
Earlier today CplDHicks removed a significant amount of properly sourced information that I had added to the article 10 days ago. The removal was subsequently reverted by another editor, since then CplDHicks has again removed the information three further times today, and ignored requests to discuss on the talk page from me and another editor. Other than an edit comment that the information was "redundant" CplDHicks has offered no explanation of his actions. FF-UK (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)}}

Earlier today I moved some information had added by FF-UK to the article, and deleted the rest of an otherwise extraneous glossary. The edit was relatively minor and the pertinent information in FF-UK's original edit is retained, complete with the sources he cited. Neither FF-UK nor JimmiCheddar made any attempt to resolve their dispute on the article talk page despite clear insistence on my part to do so, as evinced by FF-UK's completely absent diff of any attempt on his part to start a discussion. FF-UK has a persistent history of this sort of combative behaviour and clearly assumes no one else's edits are made in good faith. CplDHicks (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@CplDHicks: Please be aware of our three-revert rule. Continuing to revert (what you're doing) will result in your being blocked from editing. Please use the article's talk page and seek dispute resolution. --slakrtalk / 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine with me, after all I'm the one who consistently reminded FF-UK and JimmiCheddar to start a discussion on the talk page. Lest those two editors continue to game the system by tag-teaming, can I ask that the page be protected for some time pending a resolution on the article's talk page? Thanks. CplDHicks (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Why was the 2nd diff listed? No breach of 3RR. The other participants are directed to the article's talk page. El_C 06:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@El_C In answer to the question above, the second diff was correct as entered, but has become corrupted by the addition of extraneous characters at the end of the link! Several attempts to correct this have resulted in the same problem being repeated! I have now added the correct link below the second diff. The four reverts took place in less than 11 hours. FF-UK (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 12 hours. El_C 19:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Guccisamsclub reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: 2016 United States election interference by Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guccisamsclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26],
  2. [27]

Comments:

This is 1RR violation. I brought it here per instruction on the top of the page. I talked with user, but he affirmed his intention to continue violating 1 RR rule on the page [28]. There was a discussion about this on article talk page [29]. My very best wishes (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Looks like a clear breach of the 1RR discretionary sanctions. El_C 06:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Tobysennet reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: Blocked 31 hours; subsequently indeffed as a sock puppet)[edit]

Page: Powered by the Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Apocalypse World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tobysennet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [30], [31]


Diffs of the user's reverts: Powered by the Apocalypse:

  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
  4. [35]
  5. [36]
  6. [37]

Apocalypse World:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here is the diff of the user removing the warning


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: again, not on the talk, but on the user's talk page

Comments:

Slow motion edit wars by a WP:SPA user at the RPG system Powered by the Apocalypse and at Apocalypse World, the game from which the system was derived. Every single one of the user's edits has been to reinsert these paragraphs that are based purely on blog complaints (where none of he comments even support it, by the way). Also makes clearly ludicrous accusations of bad faith, like at my user page (note that's not my user talk page). Obvious axe-grinding going on here without merit, and edit warring to try to force it into the articles to boot. Being the user has no other edits and is clearly WP:NOTHERE, I think an indefinite block is in order. oknazevad (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the User Oknazevad is only interested to delete the section Criticism of 2 pages related to RPG games. There is not reason to delete the section. I do not think honestly that the user Oknazevad is in good faith and manage only an account. In his page the user Oknazevad has deleted the talk of other editors unsatisfied of his changes as well. Anyway without entering in the details which I let to check to wikipedia I feel that deleting systematically a criticism section as he does is just a censorship and could hide commercial interests. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

And here is the ludicrous aspersions talked about above. Of course, I've only been in Wikipedia for 13 years, have over 51,000 edits and a completely clean block log, so clearly I'm a single purpose promotional account. oknazevad (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Tobysennet, you need to shut down that line of attack right now. --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Oknazevad, you really should warn a new editor about WP:3RR and see if they stop before reporting them here. Tobysennet, have you actually read Oknazevad's concerns about sourcing? --NeilN talk to me 16:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I did warn them about edit warring. This was them removing the warning from their talk page (which means they saw the warning). The last two diffs listed above were from after that warning (which means they didn't stop). This report was filed after that. oknazevad (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: I see no reference in that to our edit warring policy. --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I meant to warn them about both NPOV and EW, but neglected the latter. Still doesn't excuse the clear WP:NOTHERE behavior of POV-pushing. oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

yes I read it and I tried to talk on his page. but the user Oknazevad deleted that. I do not think that user Oknazevad is in good faith. Just he is much more expert than me to edit pages and in wikipedia procedures, giving the idea that is a professional marketing expert. In this moment for example his continuous editings do not allow me to answer easily. Please note that in the last 2 months the criticism section of the 2 pages was systematically deleted by anonymous users as well, as you can see from the history of the pages. Unfortunately the PBTA games are moving a market of various millions of dollars. Tobysennet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit to my user page, Simone else did because it was on the wrong page, not my user talk page. I am not marketing anything. I'm a stage hand by trade. Accusing someone of paid editing because they disagree with your edits without any evidence is itself a blockable offense. And just maybe your edits have been repeatedly removed by multiple editors because they are utterly unacceptable. Did you think of that? No, you jumped to bad faith accusations and persecution complexes. oknazevad (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For disruptive editing. I have indicated next block will probably be indefinite if same behavior continues. NeilN talk to me 16:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And now CU indeffed as a sock. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:173.68.78.3 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Peter T. King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
173.68.78.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 07:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 06:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  5. 05:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765926146 by Barek (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"
  2. [42]
Comments:

Notified: [43]. VQuakr (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Harambewasagod123 reported by User:Meters (Result: No violation—Wrong year )[edit]

Page: James Logan High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harambewasagod123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [44]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  3. [47]
  4. [48]
  5. [49]
  6. [50]
  7. [51]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52] plus clarification by User:Gestrid that restoring the material would be edit warring even if outside a 3RR violation time frame [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

Slow motion edit war by an SPA to add a non-notable to a school alumni list (no wikiarticle, no sources, no evidence of attendance, dubious notability claims). It has been several months since the previous edits but I don't see any point in trying to engage this editor yet again since there was no response to previous attempts and warnings. This was very clearly explained in edit summaries, on the editor's talk page, and on the article's talk page. Twice before the editor has made the edit three times, and then disappeared. There are zero edits besides the attempts to add this alumnus. Meters (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I first caught this when I was patrolling for vandalism. Gestrid (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
No surprise... the early versions of the edit were "Popular Twitter memer, known most for his memes of the principal Abhi Brar", by someone with the Harambe meme as part of his username, would have set off most patrollers' detectors. Meters (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
header 1 header 2 header 3
row 1, cell 1 row 1, cell 2 row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1 row 2, cell 2 row 2, cell 3
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Almost all the reverts are from 2016 (very stale). El_C 08:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:647:4081:49D0:99CD:E0DC:6437:9091 reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Near-sightedness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:647:4081:49D0:99CD:E0DC:6437:9091 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE MOS IMPORTANT CAUSE. I added a secondary source so there is no reason for you to delete. You are not to decide what papers are important. Anyway you will be able to find dozens of papers supporting this accepted cause for myopia."
  2. 02:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766242787 by EricEnfermero (talk)"
  3. 02:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */ Review paper added about effect of lenses. This is an important improvement and actualization of this article"
  4. 23:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Near-sightedness. (TW)"
  2. 02:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Near-sightedness. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "/* WP:MEDRS issues and negative lenses */ new section"
Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 08:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach reported by User:DrFleischman (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Breitbart News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (1RR restriction)
User being reported: Thismightbezach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [55]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [56]
  2. [57]


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


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

Comments:

  • I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you need my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I support action being taken against Thismightbezach. Note that the user has been warned repeatedly and is edit-warring against consensus, and the user's basis for reverting is incredibly flimsy (he doesn't accept the New York Times as a reliable source). There's no justification for that sort of conduct. Neutralitytalk 07:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I accept the NYT as a reliable source when they give examples. Breitbart has never pushed the birther conspiracy. End of story. What consensus? You and another left-winger? Thismightbezach (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear breach of 1RR. El_C 08:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:HHH Pedrigree (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: List of WWE personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]
  4. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
I tried to talk with this user. His edition was reverted by 3 users (DantODB, Oknazevad and me). In this article, he changed Shane McMahon to the wrestlers section. However, Mr. McMahon isn't a wrestler, he is a Authority igure (in pro wrestling, an actor who appears in TV but doesn't wrestle) ([66] PWInsider, a realiable source, calls him non-wrestler). However, he moves him to the wrong section because "he is a big attraction" and he heared the rumour he will have a match (a rumour). I tried to talk with him and explained a big attraction doesn't make you a wrestler, but he doesn't listen. Also, he was blocked previously [67] twice. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As a mentioned party, I figure I should chime in. Vjmlhds is for the most part a good editor, but he has a bad habit of descending into edit warring when he thinks he's right and does such without addressing the issues raised in reverts. I don't think he needs a block at this time, but should be put on a 1RR restriction, in order to force discussion on the talk page and to prevent future recurrences of this pattern. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll make life easy for everybody...I'm dropping it - not worth the hassle. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I noticed the report was rescinded (was struckout: otherwise I would have dealt with it 1st), now I see it has been un-rescinded. I, for one, would have blocked for 24 hours (yes, even though the listing editor is seeking a 1RR restriction over an actual block), so consider yourself fortunate EdJohnston is more lenient than me, even. El_C 16:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE reported by User:331dot (Result: 6 weeks)[edit]

Page
Survivor Series (1992) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Rv vandalism. Where is TBBC's source approved at WP:PW/RS? All of the ones I'm restoring are. You are RESTORING VANDALISM, because I'm an IP and you are biased against non-registered users."
  2. 12:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Knew it would happen, previous editor is reverting TO vandalism, because all IPs must be wrong."
  3. 12:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  4. 12:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  5. 12:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  6. 12:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  7. 12:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  8. 12:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  9. 12:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  10. 12:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  11. 12:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  12. 12:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  13. 12:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - admins, please?"
  14. 12:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll. admins, please?"
  15. 12:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll - the citation you added is not from a reliable source, and there are multiple reliable sources supporting the opposing view. admins, please?"
  16. 12:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll"
  17. 12:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll"
  18. 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll"
  19. 11:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "rv troll"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Survivor Series (1991). (TW)"
  2. 12:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "re"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP user that is reverting changes another editor is making; has not expressed a willingness to discuss the issue anywhere, calling the other user a "troll" 331dot (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • This user has also used "attack" edit summaries when I removed a false comment that (s)he made on my talk page. DASL51984 (talk | contribs) 12:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • So, I'm sticking to policy (WP:PW/RS). Other user guts multiple WP:PW/RS sources and vandalises the article, yet, um, I'm the vandal. Seems sensible. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The other user stopped edit warring (AFAIK) when I posted a warning to their page. There is a difference between being a vandal and being an edit warrior. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
So gutting policy-approved citations (which he claims are no good), against the wishes of multiple users, isn't vandalism? How about you admit you've made a massive mistake and correct the Survivor Series (1992) article back to way I left it? 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Making a change in good faith, even if it is against consensus, is not necessarily vandalism(a deliberate effort to deface an article). The point is that the proper response is not to edit war, but to discuss the issue. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
No, that's a hollow comment. If this is genuinely seen as an edit war, and not an "all-IPs-are-terrible!" agenda, then the article should be reverted back to the condition it was in before TBBC touched it today. Again: everything I restored (not added, RESTORED) is policy per WP:PW/RS. TBBC gutted not only the policy-approved cites but modified the preceding text to suit his vandalistic agenda, and is being celebrated for it. Wikipedia is bigger than both you and I: will you swallow your pride, admit you've made a colossal error, and revert TBBC's vandalism? Cheers. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't care if you're an IP user or if you are Jimmy Wales himself, you can't edit war, even if you are correct. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
You're sorry I feel the need to abide to Wikipedia policy? What an absurd statement. Isn't that what we should all be doing? Again: why aren't you reverting to the extant version per WP:BRD? That's what supposed to happen in the case of an edit war, so? 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I should note that there is already an emerging consensus in support of my version.[68] In future you could be a little less hasty in ostracising, reverting and reporting IP editors who are in fact sticking to policy. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Never said you were incorrect, that was never the issue. You cannot edit war. The other user stopped when I warned them, you did not. And enough with the "anti-IP user" statements; which, again, was never the issue and is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
And enough with the "anti-IP user" statements; which, again, was never the issue and is irrelevant
Okay, so you will restore the article to before TBBC touched it today, as WP:BRD says should happen in the case of an edit war? As it stands, you've given your allegiance to TBBC. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Only administrators can edit the page so I cannot do so, I suggest you appeal to the protecting admin. It also seems that, as you state, other users might do so anyway. And please don't tell me who my "allegiance" is with(which is actually no one) 331dot (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 6 weeks. The editor is admonished for nearly 20 reverts in 24 hours. (That's almost unbelievable.) I was going to block for 3 months, but seeing as it's the editor 1st offense & 1st block, I am being highly lenient. Doesn't matter what type of account (ip or otherwise) you are, there is no excuse to edit war. El_C 16:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:TBBC reported by User:Nickag989 (Result: two weeks)[edit]

Page
Survivor Series (1990) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TBBC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766323500 by Nickag989 (talk) Really, really"
  2. 15:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "As trivial as the whole grand finale concept"
  3. 12:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "I've already stated it, stop harrassing me!"
  4. 12:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "I've explained why it's important the Grand FInale match is notable and you keep wanting to know why, that's harrasment"
  5. 12:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Admin take note I'm being harrassed by an anon"
  6. 12:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "THE...ONLY...TIME...IT'S....EVER....HAPPENED... need I explain more. I think you're trolling me here, demanding I explain why the stuff I added is importance, but not demanding any explaination as to why the others notes are important"
  7. 12:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "I've explained to you why! You're not listening!"
  8. 12:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766301230 by 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk)"
  9. 12:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "The fact it's the ONLY time they had a grand finale match"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I keep saying why listing the grand finale match is notable, nobody seems to be listening to me. I wouldn't be in violation of the three revert rule if that anon actually LISTENED TO ME, same with this user who reported me.--TBBC (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@TBBC: I'll tell you what I told the user above; you cannot edit war, even if you are correct. I was disappointed to see that you continued to do so after I had thought you stopped. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Editor is admonished for almost ten reverts in 24 hours. I was going to block for one month, but seeing as it's, again, the 1st offense & 1st block, I am erring on the side of leniency. El_C 16:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)