Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: Blocked)

Page

Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593570058 by Faizan (talk) it was not supported by consensus Do not edit war, take it to talk page"
2. 11:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593542650 by Brewcrewer (talk) no consensus"
3. 00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "undo trivial edit by Mikrobølgeovn"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Yom Kippur War. (TW)"
2. 11:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Yom Kippur War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clear violation of 1RR rule within 24 hours. Spotted this violation earlier too, warned the user several times, but still another case of edit-warring. The diffs have been provided, the user is edit-warring with several experienced editors, as evident from the article's history. He did three reverts in 24 hours. Faizan 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not supported by consensus

We've had this discussion it was not supported by consensus--Ersroitasent (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And that's an exception to edit-warring? In addition, 3 separate people seem to be "against" your edit - that looks like better consensus that you think DP 12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ersroitasent Blocked – for a period of 1 day. Faizan take care, you were only 3 hours outside 24 hours yourself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure Callanecc, thanks. Faizan 12:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Faizan, being 3 hrs outside of 24 is usually considered gaming the system, and should also have led to a block DP 13:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda Whatsoever, it was not a 1RR violation. I don't have an active editing history in that article and I am not an edit-warrior. I admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time, then how does it mean that I was gaming? Faizan 13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Capricornmanager1 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Warned)

Page

World number 1 male tennis player rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Capricornmanager1 (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 11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
   2. 11:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   3. 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
   2. 18:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
   3. 18:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
   4. 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   3. 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   4. 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   2. 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   2. 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
   3. 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Refrain from reverting */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is not the first time this editor has been told not to keep reverting by multiple editors, though it is mostly in the subject lines. His 3RR is going on. Not sure why he won't listen. Warning given and yet he did it again. I certainly have no qualms about an administrative warning being given instead of any kind of block... but I thought it should come from someone semi-official instead of just other tennis editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. All editors are expected to abide by consensus. If this behavior continues, Capricornmanager1 can be blocked with no further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Batiste Igienice reported by User:TheSickBehemoth (Result: )

Page: Vader (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batiste Igienice (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

User:50.67.92.94 reported by User:Underbar dk (Result: 1 week)

Page: Seaquam Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.67.92.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seaquam_Secondary_School&diff=prev&oldid=592276842

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:
IP has been reverting content to his preferred version without responding to the concerns raised on the edit summaries and his user page. He has also took to WP:STALKING my edits to revert them, such as here and here on my userpage

_dk (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for disruptive editing. Two different IPs are revert warring to add WP:PEACOCK language to Seaquam Secondary School so I've applied semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:113.52.17.67 reported by User:Sekicho (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Kazuma Ieiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 113.52.17.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Comments: Anonymous user keeps butchering this article about a current Japanese political candidate (Tokyo gubernatorial election, 2014). Did the same edit for a fourth time after being warned of 3RR. Not sure why they are so obsessed with this guy in particular...

Sekicho (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Removing sourced content with no explanation. It doesn't make much sense to add a notability tag after you've removed the sources that show notability, while giving no reason for your change. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 13:16, 2 February 2014 (removed identification of the Jazali group)
2. Revision as of 07:27, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
3. Revision as of 07:47, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
4. Revision as of 08:17, 3 February 2014 (ditto)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments: User violated 3RR over content dispute on Yemen. He has been revert-warring on the page over BLP material with a number of different editors, including administrator User:Materialscientist. The user has in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he is simultaneously revert-warring on the Najahids page with several editors over the same issue ([21], [22], [23]). Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This user has admitted formerly being User:Kendite. Back on December 15 this editor was also reported at this noticeboard for warring at Queen of Sheba, and it seemed to be a 3RR violation. That particular report was closed as stale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• May I add there is a problem with this editor please see the comment and its racial overtones. no plan of discussion with "Africans"--Inayity (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The user has been reverting the Yemen article a lot but does not participate on Talk. As with the edit mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss. His theory about his opponents was also stated in his edit summary here: 'some Afrocentrists here are working together'. Any admin may lift this block if the user agrees to engage in discussions and wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity is quite right about the racial overtones. Accusing opponents of "Afrocentrism" and a priori of being "African" seems to be a routine part of Kendite/يوسف حسين's modus operandi (c.f. the related Sheba debacle here with the non-African User:Til Eulenspiegel). Kendite/يوسف حسين also uses antiquated, derogatory epithets like "Negroes" with no compunction [24]. Elsewhere, he also claimed to be reluctant to engage in discussion because he was "tired" [25]. Apparently not tired enough to revert war with several editors on two pages simultaneously, though. Additionally, the user has serious WP:OWNership issues and threatened an editor ("just stay away from any Yemen related article" [26]). Middayexpress (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Precision123 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Warned)

Page: Sodastream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Precision123 (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. [27]
2. [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sodastream#CS_Monitor

Comments:This is a 1RR article as stated on the talk page which this user has edited. I've edited other parts of the article, but not any part related to this 1RR infraction. I have however interacted with this "new" editor on other articles and believe they are not here to help the encyclopedia but to further a POV by edit warring - [29] - 5 reverts on a 1RR article in January. Sepsis II (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Wester reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned)

Page

French fries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wester (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 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "back to original version"
   2. 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 11:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 12:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "again: back to original version before someone screwed up"
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) to 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Belgium */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* French Fries */ please stop"
2. 16:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* French Fries */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* France/Belgium origins */ new section"

Comments:

I restored it back to the original version of a few months ago. It's EvergreenFir that keeps pushing his version. If anyone should be reported it's him. A bit lame that he tries to resolve it this way. I gave sources that the French claim is more recent than the Belgian claim. Then it's clear that in the template only Belgium should be mentioned and not France. --Wester (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And note that's it's NOT a edit war. The last two edits were not simple reverts but a rework of the page. EvergreenFir is even reverting things like this which are outside the mentioned conflict. It seems that he is not looking what he is doing.

In the last edit I even tried to resolve the matter by simply removing the 'invented' section in the template. Since all this talk about who invented the fries is getting kind of silly, the reality is that nobody knows for sure.--Wester (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You were asked repeatedly to take it to the talk page and refused. Your edits were still removing the content related to the reverts. You are being disruptive to prove a point. As I've said multiple times, we are here to report on the state other sources. There sources saying there's a debate. We must report on that. It would be biased to take sides and to choose one is original research. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep mentioning that holy source of you. A source that no one can verify since it's a book. Most sources, like this are clear: Belgian claim: 17th century and French claim: 1789. So France should not be mentioned in the template. It's as simple as that. And that was also the original version. France is only added on January 9, 2014 by an anonymous user: see this. It's that dubious edit that I reverted. --Wester (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to note this is not the user's first time edit warring according to their user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That is character assassination. I am active on Wikipedia since 2005 made nearly 3.000 edits and nearly 100.000 edits on the Dutch wikipedia and have never been blocked. That's a clear indication. I do not know what EvergreenFir's intentions are with this action. A block solves nothing here. --Wester (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wester (then known as Westermarck) has been blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia at least once, so that's a lie and they know it: [30][31][32][33] Naturally, the links are in Dutch, but it was for sockpuppet use.

Wester has never been blocked on the English Wikipedia, but has come close more times than I can count. Their talk page history shows that it's repeatedly sterilized of the accumulation of warnings for their long history of edit warring, unilateral page moves and other edits that defy consensus. At any rate, the idea that Wester has a history of good behaviour is patently absurd.

As for the actual article, choosing an arbitrary edit from over a year ago isn't good justification for the deletion of content. And Wester's argument doesn't even make sense. With the actual origin unclear, the fact that one dubious origin story uses an earlier date than another dubious origin story doesn't make it the right one. It's not clear where fries were invented, so it doesn't make sense that Wester (or ES&L) dismiss it as obvious. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, if you knew Dutch you would see that that block was a mistake and not sock puppet use. So that doesn't count. Second: that edit you mentioning is made in January 2014. So not 'over a year ago'. Barely two weeks ago. It was an anonymous edit that I reverted. And no: there is no actual debate between France and Belgium who invented fries. I find that only in American sources. Probably since it's named 'French' fries. --Wester (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Can we put this on WP:LAME? The world (including the French) know that Frenched, Fried Potatoes were invented in Belgium. Citations are everywhere ES&L 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That isn't the issue. It's the removal of the fact that the French and Belgians both claim it from the article. Repeatedly. Also, it doesn't matter if Wester is right or not (as the EW warning template says). (S)he was edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not looking to other sources and keep focussing on the words 'ongoing battle'. Most sources are clear that the Belgian claim is older then the French one. BTW: lot's of sources also mention Spain. --Wester (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Wester is warned. If they continue to revert at French fries without getting a talk page consensus first they may be blocked without further notice. If you intend to participate in controversial articles, clearing all the messages from your own talk page does not suggest a willingness to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that suggest that I do not feel my talk page should be used against me like EvergreenFir did. A talk page is a private thing.--Wester (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:92.11.xxx.xxx reported by User:Scolaire (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Easter Rising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.11.192.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 92.11.202.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 28 March 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:16, 2 February 2014
2. 16:03, 2 February 2014
3. 20:24, 2 February 2014
4. 14:56, 3 February 2014
5. 18:35, 3 February 2014

No four reverts within 24 hours, i.e. gaming the system.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 92.11.202.180, 92.11.192.215

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: initial post by Denisarona, entire discussion to date

Comments: The user is a dynamic IP. I am requesting page semi-protection. Scolaire (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected - semi for 4 days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:94.27.233.95 reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

Page

Karl Marx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593772711 by DMacks (talk) Being born of a line of rabbies is pretty much being of Jewish origin."
3. 20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "That doesn't make the Jewish ancestors disappear."
4. 20:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593777695 by Jim1138 (talk)"
5. 20:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593779411 by Jim1138 (talk)"
6. 06:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (No summary, but same reversion)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Karl Marx. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 day. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell reported by User:Underlying lk (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Lord of Rivendell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "After a massive removal spree of factual and visual content, you arrived back to 172K. Bravo..."
2. 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Adding back all the citation tags (they didn't save a significant amount of space, anyway)"
3. 23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Sorry, I missed two citation tags: One in the intro, one in the Etymology section. Now they are all complete."
4. 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "All the citation tags are now restored. Your deletions saved less than 1K."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Turkey. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparing Turkey with its equivalents */"

Comments:

Note that my changes were the result of a five-day discussion on Talk:Turkey#Recent_expansion_of_the_article where the article's issues were extensively discussed and there was wide agreement on the need for changes, but that didn't stop Rivendell from restoring his own revision. Several other uninvolved users also complained of Rivendell's tendency to violate WP:OWN. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit: after another editor restored the previous version, Rivendell went on to revert a fifth time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

He always violates WP:OWN and makes changes against the decisions that we made on the talk page, all the time. I give my support for it. And he recently filed a complaint about me to Administrators' noticeboard, but it didint approved, it got rejected.KazekageTR (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week and User:Underlying lk warned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:117.201.217.221 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Stale)

Page

Kamma (caste) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[34]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. addition
2. 13:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593882352 by Sitush (talk) See Talk page"
3. 13:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593883747 by Sitush (talk)"
4. 13:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593884810 by Sitush (talk) See Talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kamma (caste). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Kamma_(caste)#Reliablity

Comments:

• Stale Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:41.96.7.179 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 17:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 19:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Moors. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There's an ongoing discussion on talk page, editor is ignoring it and has reverted 5 times in two hours despite invitations to talk and 3rr warning. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: Indef)

Page: Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ersroitasent (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. [35]
2. [36]

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

Comments:
Again he has violated 1RR. Earlier he was reported too and was blocked for a day. But his disruptive edits and edit warring continue even after the block. I request a strict action to be taken. He is edit-warring with four users on the article, and moving without consensus. Instead of discussing it on the article's talk, he keeps on reverting others' edits. After this severe violation of 1RR just one day after the block ended, it seems that now a more strict action is needed. Thanks. Ping DangerousPanda, am I gaming the system now? Faizan 03:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

nonsense claim! There's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk [37] nonsense claim by User:Faizan What disruptive edits...... What.....

the edits i reverted was not supported by consensus stop your disruptive edits Do not edit war, Instead take it to talk page--Ersroitasent (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion, but is not seeing your active participation. You have no material or reliable sources in support of your your claims. This diff explains your disruptive behavior, is this discussion? Besides you have clearly violated 1RR. Faizan 07:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

i DID Not have any claims to support i reverted No consensus edits stop cite misleading information--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This diff There's an active participation What......... an argument!!!!--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument was discussed and proved wrong in an earlier discussion. I'd be more than willing to discuss if you provide a serious argument on why we should remove sourced content from the article, but so far you have only unspecifically denied the validity of the information. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

i reverted No consensus edits the countries that sent troops are in the Aid to Egypt and Syria section and Not in the infobox--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite. The return to the identical edit after a block for that edit, and full-bore lack of willingness to discuss shows longer-term protection of the project is unfortunately required DP 09:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:72.214.164.94 reported by Corkythehornetfan (Talk) (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: KCKC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 72.214.164.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]
6. [43]
7. [44]
8. [45]
9. [46]

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of user informed of report: here
• Diff of attempts to resolve at user's talk page 1, 2, 3. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

KCKC Alice 102.1 is switching its format on 5 Feb. 2014 at 3 p.m. This I.P. user is changing it as if it had already happened. Plus, its website is still branding as Alice 102.1 I also think the I.P. user is using 24.166.187.131 this IP address too, who is also reverting and changing the article. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 03:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi by Mark Arsten). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Cityinfonorns reported by User:IIIraute (Result: 24 hours)

Page: 2014 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cityinfonorns (talk · talk history · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · (permalink) · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51] & [52]
5. [53]
6. [54]
7. [55] (this revert was done after edit warring warning by admin)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, removed as "nonsense" → [58]

--IIIraute (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Warning: Ownership of articles noticeboard discussion, removed as remove nonsense!!!!!!→ [59]--Cityinfonorns (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Toccata quarta reported by User:Zabadu (Result: )

Page: Music for Millions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toccata quarta (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]

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

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but this person keeps reverting my plot of this moving because I've added "too many links to Wiki (for the character actors) and because I signed the page. He apparently wants an outside link for the plot and a similar one is on TCM. I wrote the plot while watching the movie. Do we seriously have to find a written sources for movie plots??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toccata_quarta Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

I've asked for clarification, but all I get is reverts.  Okay, so I signed the wrong page, but how do you cite a movie plot?  I was trying to give more plot - am I restricted to just a blurb because that's what's published?  If I am in the wrong here, I will be the first to apologize, but this persons history makes me wary. Zabadu (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User: Precision123 reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: Warned again)

Page: Haaretz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Precision123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

Content is clearly related to the IP conflict (and under WP:ARBPIA 1rr restrictions) as it regards a research paper looking at the bias in reporting in the Israel Palestine conflict. Editor has been repeatedly ignoring the 1rr restrictions on IP related topics, and has been previously warned about this behaviour. For previous recent example see e.g. [66][67]. Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring was not present here.

(1) To respond briefly to what should have been an uncontroversial edit: Because citable references are made to the text of an article, and not the abstract, I merely edited the sentence to reflect what is stated in the article's text (p. 117) and not the abstract. Last, the sentence had problems with WP:Editorializing. That was all this one-sentence edit involved.

(2) User:Dlv999 has cited three edits above. In chronological order, the first (#3) was a bold edit (removed for WP:OPED and WP:V), and #2 was the compromise sought after a user reverted me. I only reverted once.

I further submit that User:Dlv999 did not attempt to resolve the dispute in the article talk page--the editor just added a section in talk moments before deciding to report this. In fact, no constructive explanation for edits was made in the edit summary nor any citation to a Wikipedia rule. --Precision123 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this editor was warned about edit-warring just yesterday. See #User:Precision123 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Warned). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Warned again, only because he has been told that 1RR didn't apply to this article. Precision123 you need to discuss these issues on the article's talk page, when you make the first revert. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ghassanid Page, User Lazyfoxx

Hello. I believe that User Lazyfoxx keeps obsessively reverting my edits on the Ghassanids page, removing my sources at will, which I believe is Wikipedia vandalism, and replacing them with incredibly unreliable sham internet sources found via original research to back his pre-existing biased opinion. He undoes all my hard efforts to improve the page within a day or so of the edit, and is obsessed to have the page based on the version he wnats. The page has been an edit-war between myself and him for some time now. I have tried conflict resolution and unilaterally offered compromises to him to no avail. Can I pleaserequest further editor help and mediation n the article, and perhaps article protection based on the most reliable sources judged by third parties. Many thanks for your help. SaSH172 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Startropic1 (Result: )

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

"(cur | prev) 17:28, 5 February 2014‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,382 bytes) (-992)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 71.168.245.210 (talk): Primary source lies. (TW)) (undo | thank)" Edit added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&diff=594071982&oldid=594063528 Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&diff=594077979&oldid=594071982

Diffs of the user's reverts: For history see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&action=history The user is trying different methods of editing my material out to dodge infractions.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Norman I posted at the bottom of the talk page, and on the user's talk page as well. Seems to be just ignoring my posts.

Comments:
Apologies if this is formatted poorly. This is my first attempt at this. Any tidying would be greatly appreciated.

Startropic1 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this came up. I was just about to go to RSN, because even after a compromise edit I feel very uneasy about the page, but this forum should do. Let's look at the "source" being added. Here's one of the adds and here's the source: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/news/recantations. Some background: the website that this "source" is hosted on is an attack site levelled against a documentary film that brings-up some damning evidence against the subject of the article.

1. First, the author of this "story" is Alan Coughlin. There's no other story on the site by this author and there's no indication that the author has any credibility. No other writing credits by the author. However there is someone who goes by that name who writes a blog: http://www.alancoughlin.com/Blog/TheSubjectiveAspectOfTheGospel.jsp
2. Second, there's no statement of editorial oversight or anything that would help this site to meet the standards set at WP:RS.
3. Third, there's no support for this statements made by Newman. It would be good to know the circumstances of the interview. Some of the statements were made on the interviewee's Facebook page, but there isn't a link to it to confirm that this is the case.
4. "David Di Sabatino told my friend that he planned to destroy Larry Norman with this movie." We have an unnamed "friend" who made a claim. This already sounds unreliable. Could you imagine going to your editor and saying that? The truth is that this "claim" has been made by various fans of Norman's and have been refuted by the director. The back-and-forth happens in Larry Norman fan sites and discussion boards.
5. The title of the page and the addition to the article claim that Newman "recanted". I don't see a recantation anywhere in the story. To recant, is "to announce in public that your past beliefs or statements were wrong and that you no longer agree with them" I see "I ... decided to remove myself and all the pictures I let him use of Larry and I." I don't see her saying that her past statements on Norman were wrong. She does say that she is "sorry [she] even shared anything with [Di Sabatino]. He just twisted my words and left out the most important part". I'm not sure how Newmans words were twisted, and Newman does not go on to clarify how that was the case. There was clearly editing out of material.

The whole thing fails WP:NPOV and WP:RS and should be removed. If the material passes RS then keep it in. If the prose pass an third-party review, I'll agree, but the addition to the article is poorly written, biased, sourced by material that does not pass RS and is certainly below standards for Wikipedia.

As for ignoring posts Startropic1, the discussion made on the article's talk page wasn't made by Startropic1 but by the anon. I didn't see the discussion because they were added during my commute. (I must stop having a real life). The warning on my talk page fails WP:NPA as it clearly uses legal wording (‎Cease & Desist Larry Norman Edit Removal Please), but that can be forgiven by a new editor. So, let's get some eyes on those recent additions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: )

Page

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See also User talk:Garbage turk (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (6RR at present)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "remove socks comment"
2. 19:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Andy Dingley (talk) to last revision by Werieth."
3. 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Please stop proxing for a sock, you where warned"
4. 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "remove socks comment"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User had been warned by myself and another user and alerted he was deleting legitimate comments by another user and persisted in removing the comments. He states this is because it partially is a copy and paste from a banned sock, however it has been pointed out that the entire comment being removed is not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I only removed the socks post. I left Andy's comment alone. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:3RRNO removing posts by socks/banned users is exempt from 3RR. Werieth (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you also removed my post. You have since been told that too, which you then excused as you only did it once! Please do not lie to us quite so obviously, it fools no-one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As I stated before, the first time I missed that you added an additional comment. which is why it was reverted. Werieth (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)