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:Nakita Blanco291 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No violation)

Page: Antacid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nakita Blanco291 (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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Very similar to the case above about Ryleedellabosca. This user too is including links in refs to University of Notre Dame in Australia, is working on a health article, is adding badly sourced or unsourced content, and is not talking. have posted a notice to the Education program incident board here Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• No violation. Sorry, as much as I'd like to help, I'm only seeing two reverts, since this doesn't seem to have been bringing back older article material. I'll add it to my watchlist, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes not over 3RR but definitely edit warring. Not protesting, just noting that. I appreciate you putting this on your watchlist. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:SupaEdita (Result: )

Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10]
10. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

The user has initially deleted a large section of the article about the US-Iran negotiations in 2003. This section has numerous credible links. The user has repeatedly reverted attempts to reinsert the section. The user has made various false claims in support of the reverts, from claiming that the section is a "hoax" (several major sources say it happened, so the notion that it's a "hoax is at best, extremely controversial, and not an established fact), to claiming my edit contained the term "neocons" (it contained the term "neoconservative", a formal term in political science to describe a member of the neoconservative political movement), to claiming to another user that there is a "consensus" for the section being removed, which the user's repeated reverts show is not the case.

SupaEdita (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverting blocked editors does not count toward WP:3RR. I'm not seeing more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. If you want a broader definition of edit warring, you've edit warred at least as much, and if an administrator takes any action, you're going to get blocked, too. Actually, looking over the article history, I see that you've been reverted by multiple users and that the talk page is against your edits. I could actually block just you for edit warring and call it a day. @SupaEdita: are you really sure you want admin action here? Ian.thomson (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I already received a 60 hour ban. The user in question has engaged in a lot more reverting than I. Moreover, all of this started when they deleted a highly sourced 2,000 word section, calling it a "hoax", and thereafter using various contrived justifications, like claiming there was "consensus" for the removal, to continue reverting attempts to reinsert the section. SupaEdita (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification for total blankings as performed by TheTimesAreAChanging here, so at least a warning is in order here. Dorpater (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Of the two editors at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Dispute who are not here, one says that if the information "is to be included the current phrasing seems incorrect," while the other, upon hearing TTAC's explanation, said "I think you are welcome to modify or remove this text, especially since there was no any reasonable objections on this page from another "side" of the dispute. No objections from me."

TTAC is not the only person reverting SupaEdita. The 60 hour block SupaEdita received last month for this same behavior rather indicates that this is a retaliatory report by a WP:SPA @SupaEdita: blocks aren't a one-time deal. Counting the reverts, we have:

• TTAC's reverts in the article this year include: 0 (reverting a banned user doesn't count), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (reverting an IP hopper who was behaving like someone evading their block), 7 (as with 6), 8 (as with 6 and 7), 9, 10. Ignoring the ones where TTAC reverts the IP hopper who really does look like someone evading their block and was only active while you were blocked, TTAC has 7 reverts, and all against you.
• SupaEdita's reverts in the same time span include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (reverting someone else to restore the disputed section), 7 (as with 6), 8 (as with 6 and 7), 9, 10, 11 That's 11 reverts, against multiple editors with a talk page consensus. I'm not even including edits by an IP hopper who acted like someone evading their block and who was only active while SupaEdita was blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

1. You're supposed to assume good faith. The edits by the various IPs were not by me, "evading [my] ban". 2. I've already received a 60 hour ban for my reverts. Claiming my past behaviour was worse does not get TTAC off the hook. It only suggests that >= 60 hour ban would be excessive, or disproportionate to what I received. 3. "against multiple editors with a talk page consensus. " There is no "talk page consensus" that the section should be removed. A handful of users have participated, and I'm one of those users, and I strongly oppose the removal. By all means, look at the arguments and evidence presented, and provide some input. If more users review the dispute, and agree that the section warrants removal, despite the numerous credible sources validating its account, then I would have no objection to its removal, but so far that hasn't happened SupaEdita (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is not a blinding suicide pact. If an IP address behaves like another editor and only while that editor is blocked, it's not unreasonable to suspect something. "Your past behavior" overlaps with his. If I ignore the behavior from before your block, I need to ignore his as well (in which case, 2 reverts by TTAC and 3 by you). Three users on the talk page agree that the material you are restoring is not appropriate. You are the only one disagreeing, which does not invalidate a consensus -- it only means you are ignoring the consensus. Feeling strongly about it doesn't mean anything. I'm here to handle whether or not there's been any edit warring, not a content dispute. So far, you're the closest out of anyone to edit warring. Quit giving me reasons to think that's all you're here for. I strongly recommend that you go edit other articles for a bit. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The other IP addresses acted after my ban was lifted too. If we're going to assume bad faith based on reasonable cause, then look at the two users eliminating the section about Iran - US negotiations. One of them, TTAC, has reverted one of my edits based on the contrived justification that I used the term "neocons". Not only did I not use the term - I used the term "neoconservatives" which is a formal term for a member of a political movement - the very fact that they are trying to censor mention of neoconservatism suggests a political motive behind the edits. The very first deletion, which started the dispute, was by TTAC, and they justified it with the claim of an Iranian offer was a "hoax" - despite several highly credible source attesting to it happening, and with no explanation provided in the Talk section to substantiate the "hoax" charge. Despite being pressed by me and another editor (who admittedly later changed their mind) in the Talk section, TTAC continued reverting attempts to reinsert the section. TTAC has been acting in bad faith.

"Three users on the talk page agree that the material you are restoring is not appropriate. You are the only one disagreeing, which does not invalidate a consensus -- it only means you are ignoring the consensus. " When three users agree, and one disagrees, calling it "consensus" is odd. There is consensus among the three that agree, which by definition, will always be true, but that in no way suggests an overall consensus. I am therefore not "ignoring" any discussion-wide consensus. Moreover, a recent revert to restore the deleted section by another established user means now there is more than one registered user opposing the deletion. There is no consensus for the deletion SupaEdita (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That editor has not posted on the talk page, and does not even appear to have looked at it. It's still three against one on the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

By all means, look at the arguments and evidence presented, and provide some input. If more users review the dispute, and agree that the section warrants removal, despite the numerous credible sources validating its account, then I would have no objection to its removal, but three vs one in the Talk page is not, in my mind, a clear consensus for one position. Moroever, I've made significant edits to the original content to address the concerns that TTAC has expressed about the veracity of the claim. I've incorporated the skeptics' point of view, including by, among other things, adding the qualifier "alleged" in front of "negotiations between Tehran and Washington" in the title of the section. It's unreasonable to simply delete my contributions without discussion in the Talk section, and with contrived justifications like me using the word "neoconservative". SupaEdita (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:71.184.228.118 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

Page

Fine-tuned Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720830731 by Roxy the dog (talk) Okay, I will stop here. I'll be explicit in the talk pages. It would be nice if you guys would bother to read before reverting."
2. 06:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720830334 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) The edits are not crap. They are verified with the original source."
3. 05:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720828437 by Lipsquid (talk) Bullshit. Each edit is justified."
4. 05:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Religious arguments */ Wikilink John Polkinghorne."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Gaming us by reverting and stopping- but only by having the last word. Should've stopped when advised by three other editors. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 06:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The three editors are collaborating by teaming up. That is truly gaming the system. They do not bother to actually read the content, to research the history of the article, or to check the source. And they are quite nasty, originally calling the edits "Nonsense" and it gets worse. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Saying Meatpuppets are collaborating against you is a pretty serious charge. What evidence do you have for this collusion? I know neither of the other two editors. Lipsquid (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, as is calling people bullies and clueless [14], [15] is unnecessary. WP:BATTLEGROUND, much? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 06:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. He was just at the edge of a block for either edit warring and incivility, and I've decided that that adds up. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, calling another editor's researched, verified, and referenced edits (which were only rolling back deletion of long-standing material in the article), calling those edits "Nonsense" with no other explanation for the revert, that's quite civil, ain't it? Don't pretend to be impartial Ian. I did not harass anyone. Stopped before 3RR. Explained my edits in the talk page of the article. Did all the correct things. You were the violator of Wikipedia standards in that action. And your response to this will tell whether or not you want to reinforce that violation or not. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Calling edits nonsense is commenting on content, not on contributors. Calling people "bullies" is commenting on contributors, not on content. This is harassment and if you can't understand that you should not be editing here. As I said, you were at the edge of a 3rr block (and the fact that you knew where the leash line is indicates that you are gaming the system) and you were undeniably attacking other users. Whatever you want to pretend other people did does not justify your actions. If you don't believe me, go ahead and link to this thread at WP:ANI and watch that discussion get closed pretty quickly. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:172.164.6.254 reported by User:Anarchyte (Result: Range blocked)

Page

Discovery Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Programming */ User:Electricburst1996, User:AdamDeanHall, I need you to leave "Beast Wars: Transformers" and "Beast Machines: Transformers" ALONE so I can watch it on TV, YOU UNDERSTAND ME?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has had their edits reverted multiple times on different accounts/IPs. 172.164.28.99, 172.164.0.109 & 172.164.28.99 Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This appears to be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The UPN Vandal. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, since the mentioned IPs are obviously used by one person, I've blocked the small range 172.164.0.0/19 for 1 month week, too. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC).

User:Ronz reported by User:Kvng (Result: No violation)

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

[16]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]

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

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

Comments:

Although this does not cross the bright line, I come here because I am at a loss as to how to proceed with this. Ronz has deleted material three times in one week. I and Scottywong have protested and restored. We used RfC to try to resolve a previous incident but, despite the similarly here, the editor is unwilling generalize the results there to this current case. The same editors are involved in this as with the previous case so I don't expect a different outcome. I would like to see the disputed material restored until Ronz is able to establish a consensus that it should be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Two reverts over a week ago with not even a simple statement on why the material as sourced belongs in an encyclopedia article. The editors have already been pointed to WP:FOC. This borders on harassment at this point. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Robert.Harker has graciously added the list of manufacturers back into the article, along with copious new sources. Hopefully that should put this issue to bed and convince Ronz to leave the article alone. Any further reverts by Ronz in this case should result in an immediate block, in my opinion. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 23:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ronz does not have a good track record of respecting consensus (or lack thereof) so I'm not confident we've seen the end of this. ~Kvng (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for yet more evidence this is harassment. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• No violation. This dispute does not belong in this forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:OuendanL reported by User:James J. Lambden (Result: protected)

Page: List of Kamen Rider Blade characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:42, 18 May 2016‎
2. 21:24, 18 May 2016
3. 22:32, 18 May 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: first, second

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted to resolve on user's page (see "first"), also on the article page.

Comments:
User repeated the same behavior on several articles, simultaneously:

1. List of Kamen Rider Kiva characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. List of Kamen Rider W characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4. List of Kamen Rider Blade characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user also has a habit of reverting with Twinkle without an edit summary or talk page discussion. Most recently an administrator protected one of these articles. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is two-sided. Both editors have run right up to the limit of 3RR on several articles, as is obvious from the page histories. I locked one of the articles here: Talk:List_of_Kamen_Rider_Blade_characters#Protection_due_to_edit_warring and asked the participants to use the talk pages instead. OuendanL has done so across several pages, James has come here instead. I suggest there's still room to talk it out - OuendanL has started the talk page discussion citing content policy, James should ideally join in. Time to get out the acronym soup and get to the meat of the issues :-) - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Only one editor is reverting without consensus and without edit-summaries. I assumed the guidelines discouraging those were meaningful. I'm attempting to restore the articles to the state they were in before the edit-warring began. Could you remove protection (or restore the article yourself) until consensus is established? The discussion (which I participated in) has begun on an article talk page (here) - but edit-warring your preferred changes then starting talk page discussion only when forced (as the editor here did) should be discouraged. As it is, your actions give the editor no disincentive to repeat the bad behavior. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Both of you were editing less than ideally, as is immediately obvious from the article edit histories. If having the article quiet for the rest of the day gets you talking about content, that will be a good result for everyone - David Gerard (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Gkable reported by User:Orthogonal1 (Result: )

Page: Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gkable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24] (IP editor, but obviously Gkable)
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]
6. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:

User is party to court case which is subject of article. His user page and user talk page contain rants about me, not to mention his rants on my talk page. Every time I try to have a constructive conversation about the page, he says that I am a vandal and that I think that he is biased. He has done this to other users too. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be having a productive conversation now, so I'm going to ask for this request to be put on hold. Thanks for understanding. Orthogonal1 (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Poofdragon reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: )

Page

Jim Morrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

05:01, December 28, 2015 (UTC) "Add mention of Mary Werbelow, with reference. The interviewer and Doors drummer Densmore refer to Werbelow as a major inspiration in the early Doors lyrics"

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721128561 by CorbieVreccan (talk) I put all my sources there. Be specific to remove ONLY what is not sourced not all the information."
2. 22:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721122019 by CorbieVreccan (talk) I sourced the added information."
3. 22:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721122019 by CorbieVreccan (talk) I did put sources. Be specific of what isn't sourced before removing anything,"
4. 17:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721066407 by CorbieVreccan (talk) Mary Werbelow is well documented as as early girlfriend of Jim Morrison in books, articles, and documentaries."
5. 14:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697163101 by CorbieVreccan (talk) Mary Werbelow was Jim Morrison's girlfriend in college. https://madameask.com/2014/10/06/interview-with-paul-ferrara-doors-photographer/"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jim Morrison. (TW)"
2. 22:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jim Morrison . (TW)"
3. 22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jim Morrison. (TW)"
4. 22:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "ANI"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Mary Werebelow or whoever she is */ new section"
2. 22:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Mary Werebelow or whoever she is */ BLP concerns from this SPA"

Comments:

User has refused to engage on their talk page, on article talk page, or at ANI. User inserts bare URLs to google results, blogs and fanzines and deletes stable content sourced to major publishing houses. User is a SPA who has only edited this article. User hits "undo" and calls it "sourcing" in edit summary. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: User finally responded at ANI, wanting to argue about the girlfriends of Morrison's youth. The issue at hand isn't what love affairs of a notable person should or shouldn't be footnotes in their bios, the issue is with this SPA's edit-warring, the unusable, WP:BLP-vio text, the non-WP:RS sourcing and refusal to engage with other editors. The SPA continues to just hit "undo" and is now removing stable text to put in complete crap. I know fan-driven disruptions like this drive good editors away and it's happening now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have responded many times and did not get a response. User:KoshVorlon responded and acknowledged that I had properly paraphrased and sourced my information. [[Ping}} [[User:KoshVorlon] ] [[User::CorbieVreccan]] removes information without explanation and in this case a simple search would prove Mary Werbelow was a documented influential relationship for Jim Morrison. Here is what CorbieVreccan removed: CorbieVreccan said: "Reverted to revision 697010607 by Ptb1997: Take it to the talk page. This was here in past then deleted. It needs more sourcing than just one statement/interview by someone no one else seems to have heard of. ." Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV by removing "allegedly": Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV by removing "allegedly": Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV altho a simple search would show that the couple obtained the marriage license on a visit while the band was on tour: CorbieVreccan repeatedly has wiped out fact-checked relationship information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Morrison&diff=583017737&oldid=583017404 Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV with and removing good information with: "Jim liked to read about Natives. I care about Jim, but he didn't know anything about the Ghost Dance ceremony." Can CorbieVreccan verify what Jim knew?: Poofdragon (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: This issue was resolved so I put the sourced and paraphrased information back. Here was the resolution:  Poofdragon (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-Warrior_at_Jim_Morrison

References

The proof is here that I sourced and paraphrased correctly: "Heck no, what he's posting , for example | this link you pointed to in your post above is referenced to a reliable newspaper, and he's accurately paraphrasing what's in that article, as he did in the Jim MOrrison article. I think a boomerang is due. KoshVorlon 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)"

User:Games Junn reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Games Junn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:20, May 19, 2016 diff
2. 12:27, May 19, 2016 diff
3. 13:53, May 19, 2016 diff
4. 15:42, May 19, 2016‎ diff

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. diff1
2. diff2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Revisiting the lead (I linked to the entire discussion to show the order of events as opposed to a single diff)

Comments:

As a disclaimer, an SPI report involving this editor has been initiated. A previous SPI resulted in a block, and I'm mentioning it here as the behavior between the accounts are similar (though the outcome has not yet been determined in the latest report). Here, the main concern is the 3RR violation in the midst of an active discussion on the article talk page that the editor was clearly aware of. I've tried to explain in several ways that when there is an active dispute, it is best to sort it out on the article's talk page or seek an alternative form of dispute resolution. However, despite the pleas by myself and another editor (Bignole), the user continued to ram their preferred version into the article. The previous version before the reverting took place was discussed and agreed upon earlier (article talk page discussion linked above). --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I decided to go along with the emerging consensus on the relatively minor edit I was pursuing. Follow my edit history for guidance. Gone60 is having a knee jerk reaction over what amounts to little more than the splitting of hairs over a few words. I corrected those edits to reflect the evolving consensus on the talk page. Much ado about nothing in my opinion.Could've been resolved with a friendly conversation.Games Junn (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a two-way street. Constant reversion can be taken offensively, even if that wasn't your intention. Instead of taking the chance, this should have resorted to discussion only, especially since it involved more than two editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked as a  Confirmed sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:43.242.104.43 reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: protected)

Page: G. Gordon Liddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 43.242.104.43 (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. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've asked this editor to take it to the talk page, but they refuse to do so. Page has a history of folks attempting to add this to the lead, and being reverted, and never discussing.

Comments:

• Page protected by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 05:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

User:184.0.134.37 reported by User:104.156.120.246 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: Haliwa-Saponi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.0.134.37 (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. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
Person appears to be from the Haliwa group and using wikipedia to remove any negative media coverage, attemtping to demand their group is 100% recognized when the group has never been recognized by the federal government, "haliwa" is not the name of any "historical" tribe name, This person is removing references to actual apporved media sites coverage, the person has started to spam the same Haliwa sentence on other wikipedia pages as well. This person has even attempted to remove items from the talk page where this subject has already been discussed.

• Note Only two of the diffs you give are reverts of Haliwa-Saponi, and those two are consecutive, which means they count as one revert only, see WP:3RR. So this is not a complaint for this board. But I see 184.0.134.37 has ignored your attempts to discuss on article talk. On the other hand, they haven't edited since 17 May. If they return and continue to make disruptive edits, you're welcome to tell me on my page and I'll see what I can do. (Mind you, you'll be in a better position if you create an account. If I have to semiprotect the article, your IP won't be able to edit it either.) Bishonen | talk 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC).

User:Yscambridge reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: )

Page

Rosena Allin-Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "The most reliable source is her application to be a councillor. Undid revision 721358670 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
2. 08:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Allin-Khan's Postcode SW12 9QR: The notice of polls issued by the Electoral Commission in 2014 when Allin-Khan applied to run for councillor shows shows she did not live in Tooting but Battersea."
3. 08:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Allin-Khan's Postcode SW12 9QR: The notice of polls issued by the Electoral Commission in 2014 when Allin-Khan applied to run for councillor shows shows she did not live in Tooting but Battersea."
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC) to 08:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 08:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "The notice of polls issued by the Electoral Commission in 2014 when Allin-Khan applied to run for councillor shows"
   2. 08:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Allin-Khan's Postcode SW12 9QR: The notice of polls issued by the Electoral Commission in 2014 when Allin-Khan applied to run for councillor shows shows she did not live in Tooting but Battersea."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 08:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Rosena Allin-Khan */ new section"
3. 08:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rosena Allin-Khan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user seems determined to set Rosena Allin-Khan's location to Battersea rather than Tooting. I've tried to explain reliable sources to them, but they aren't listening, and are claiming an unreferenced postcode as "the best reliable source" for her living in Battersea. Unreferenced controversial information is a BLP violation, therefore I am exempt from 3RR. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Ferakp reported by User:176.127.213.144 (Result: )

Page: Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other pages, see below
User being reported: Ferakp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ferakp (talk · contribs) has repeatedely violated the 1RR restriction on WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR articles. This seems to be a long-term issue as he violates the rule repeatedly. Dozens of other users have been blocked for the same or lesser offence here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Rojava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 3 reverts in less than 24 hours

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]

• Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 4 reverts in less than 24 hours

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]

• Tell Abyad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp violated the 1RR rule several times, for example 14/15 May

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]

and 7/8 May

1. [53]
2. [54]

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ferakp#Edit_warring
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ferakp&action=history (check talkpage history, in which warnings are regularly deleted.)

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

Comments: