Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

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:64.71.171.68 reported by User:Adam the silly (Result: Range block)

• Page: Logan's Roadhouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stated user keeps on editing infobox image on Logan's Roadhouse to the wrong one.Adam the silly (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam the silly aside from this report not being formatted properly the person is rotating their IP. The way to deal with this is to file a report at WP:RFPP. I have taken care of this so, hopefully, the page will be protected soon. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Result: 64.71.171.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked one week for vandalism. Another admin has applied one day of semiprotection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Speedy135 reported by User:WNYY98 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Nina Dobrev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Speedy135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765320997 by Finlay McWalter (talk) you're vandalizing this page. Stop putting xxxx-xxxx, 2017. too long keep it short. you fucking get it."
2. 19:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 764996711 by Sro23 (talk)"
3. 20:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 764865102 by ClueBot NG (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

edit summary very attacklike in nature WNYY98 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This user's edits have been relatively problematic lately – it seems to be a combination of language issues (i.e. ESL?) and a quasi-WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I'm not convinced that a block is the right way to go at this time, but if they don't knock off their recent approach to editing, blocking may be the only option, unfortunately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Combative is right. Even when a date range issue is explained to them, they revert with a dismissive edit summary. clpo13_(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And now blocked by Finlay McWalter for WP:Vandalism (though edit warring would have been just as accurate). If Speedy135 doesn't alter their approach to editing, this is unlikely to be the only block they get. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Finlay McWalter for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Barrysmilkman reported by User:1989 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Game Shakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765485459 by Julietdeltalima (talk)"
2. 17:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765485033 by Amaury (talk)"
3. 17:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765484483 by Amaury (talk)"
4. 17:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765466858 by Amaury (talk)"
5. 15:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765466184 by Amaury (talk)"
6. 15:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765466062 by Amaury (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is currently edit warring at Game Shakers. MCMLXXXIX 17:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a long-term socker we've been dealing with since at least October when I got involved, but it's been going on longer than that. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Dipper Pines251 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page

Regular Show (season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dipper Pines251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765498355 by Toddst1 (talk) why undo that?"
2. 20:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765321801 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
3. 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. (TW)"

Comments:

Simultaneously violated 3RR on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 ‎. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Toddst1 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I spotted the edit war at MH370 and blocked for that. Hopefully it should be enough. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:217.114.169.238 reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Climate Hustle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Deleted. This is an extreme opinion, the nature of which is literally untrue, non-objective & biased. It does not deserve to be in print let alone in a Wiki article."
2. 19:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765468535 by Hob Gadling (talk)"
3. 15:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "This is an extreme opinion and is not and cannot be true. Presenting it in the opening introduction of information on the film only serves extreme bias diminishing the integrity of Wiki articles."
4. 13:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Added a respectable review that was not biased against the film and is apolitical, objective and measured in here review."
5. 13:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "So this is how you hi-jack and bias a wiki article, just say the bias is a quote. Nice one. Whoever is editing and keeping the article so biased is a deceiver and probably paid to do this. If your edit/version is a quote, it should identify quoter."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Climate Hustle. (TW)"
2. 13:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "/* February 2017 */"
3. 15:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Climate Hustle. (TW)"
4. 19:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Climate Hustle. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "/* IP user reversions */ new section"

Comments:

I had opened a section on the talk page to invite the user to comment, but they did another reversion while I did so. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User has now posted to article talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayeko reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Chris Eubank Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6] – re-added content
2. [7] – same
3. [8] – same
4. [9] – same

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments: User:Jayeko is repeatedly adding unsourced content (a pay-per-view buyrate figure) to Chris Eubank Jr. Google searches yield no results for the content they're trying to add; no edit summaries; no talk page responses; and they are either working in tandem with or socking as a series of 129.xx IPs which are making the same exact edits: 129.12.209.128, 129.12.211.194, 129.12.102.138. Furthermore, almost all other edits of User:Jayeko across other articles indicate a clear VOA:

• [11] – added hoax content
• [12] – vandalism (changed a dead person to living)
• [13] – vandalism (inserting inflammatory POV)
• [14] – vandalism (removed infobox)
• [15] – flagrant vandalism
• [16] – flagrant vandalism
• [17] – vandalism (deliberate factual error)
• [18] – flagrant vandalism/test edit

Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite, due to vandalism and general disruption. El_C 03:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and User:Richterer11111 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: Page protected)

Page

List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported

1. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Richterer11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's reverts

1. 02:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) (+5,484) "as before"
2. 00:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC) (+5,485) "enough"
3. 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC) (+5,398) "overzealous overdeletion. No individual entries should be removed, and if you're concerned about items implicitly sourced to the magazine feature itself, just add a ref to the magazine rather than deleting the entry"

Diffs of Richterer11111's reverts

1. 01:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC) (-5,485) "BLP demands immediate changes. Before reverting comment on talk page. this is a clear violation of BLP and sources and previous discussions."
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC) to 23:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC) (-4,326) "BLP's require accurate sources, for which Playboy.com would not be, nor would adultfilmdatabase. These are simply not sources that can be used."
   2. 23:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC) (-1,159) "I mean really even a most basic review of BLP would show this isn't authorized on Wikipedia. Please don't revert this without accurate sources, none of which are here."
3. 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC) (-139) "no source for this comment"

Warning of Richterer11111

1. 01:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 (HG) (3.1.22)"

Comments:

I got here because I saw what looked like a bad-faith removal of content on the part of User:Ronz User:Richterer11111. I restored it without knowing the context, which was a mistake on my part. Sorry about that. It seems that there is an ongoing edit war about whether or not to blank a large part of the content and also some sources, I believe. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 02:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I had been using Huggle at the time, which is why I failed to notice any context. User:Ronz messaged me and asked me to undo my own edit, which I did, so I hope that that absolves me of any wrongdoing here. However, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, presumably having seen the edit war, immediately undid my self-revert. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 02:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your general lack of care doesn't "absolve [you] of any wrongdoing here", because you're just making things harder for editors trying to clean up this mess. Two reverts in one day hardly amounts to edit warring -- especially when dealing with a vandalous editor who's been engaging in bad faith blanking, using multiple accounts, for at least two weeks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Selected edits that illustrate the chronology of the edit war:

• 14:18, 9 February 2017‎   Amiryucky (talk | contribs)‎ . . (839 bytes) (-13,626)‎ . . (removal of unreliable sources and content not fitting for wikipedia. Inaccurate info and this isn't worthy of wikipedia.) (undo | thank) (Tag: section blanking)
• 14:36, 9 February 2017‎   JohnInDC (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,465 bytes) (+12,490)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Amiryucky (talk) to last version by Finnusertop) (undo | thank)
• 09:49, 10 February 2017   Richterer11111 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,372 bytes) (-13,627)‎ . . (Sources are not reliable. This is about living people and inaccurately reflecting their lives with one wrong minor source.) (undo | thank) (Tag: section blanking)
• 11:55, 10 February 2017   ‎Materialscientist (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,499 bytes) (+12,127) . . (Reverted 3 edits by Richterer11111 identified as test/vandalism using STiki) (undo | thank)
• 19:54, 12 February 2017  ‎ Richterer11111 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,152 bytes) (-5,198)‎ . . (There are no recognized sources for at least these individuals. Said information needs to be accurate to reflect living people.) (undo | thank)
• 21:21, 12 February 2017  ‎ 1989 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,350 bytes) (+5,185)‎ . . (Reverted 2 good faith edits by Richterer11111 using STiki) (undo | thank)
• 16:42, 13 February 2017  ‎ K.e.coffman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,165 bytes) (-5,185)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 765130257 by Richterer11111 (talk): Adultfilmdatabase.com, wekinglypigs.com, etc. are not suitable sources for BLP material. (TW)) (undo | thank)
• 20:50, 13 February 2017‎  ‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,350 bytes) (+5,398)‎ . . (overzealous overdeletion. No individual entries should be removed, and if you're concerned about items implicitly sourced to the magazine feature itself, just add a ref to the magazine rather than deleting the entry) (undo | thank)
• 22:51, 14 February 2017‎  ‎ Richterer11111 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,431 bytes) (-4,326)‎ . . (BLP's require accurate sources, for which Playboy.com would not be, nor would adultfilmdatabase. These are simply not sources that can be used.) (undo | thank)
• 00:41, 15 February 2017‎  ‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,757 bytes) (+5,485)‎ . . (enough) (undo | thank)
• 01:16, 15 February 2017‎  ‎ Richterer11111 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,272 bytes) (-5,485) . . (BLP demands immediate changes. Before reverting comment on talk page. this is a clear violation of BLP and sources and previous discussions.) (undo | thank)
• 01:16, 15 February 2017‎  ‎ Jsharpminor (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (20,757 bytes) (+5,485)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Richterer11111 (talk): Unexplained removal of content (HG) (3.1.22)) (undo) (Tag: Huggle)
• 02:16, 15 February 2017‎  ‎ Jsharpminor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,273 bytes) (-5,485)‎ . . (Undid revision 765547013 by Jsharpminor (talk)) (undo)
• 02:30, 15 February 2017‎  ‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,757 bytes) (+5,484)‎ . . (as before) (undo | thank)
• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:112.134.101.13 reported by User:ActiveListener95 (Result: )

Page

The Golden Truth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC) to 08:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
   1. 08:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Why are going to delete this page? This team was officially formed as (The) Golden Truth in WWE, consisting Goldust and R-Truth..., I don't know why you guys are doing this..."
   2. 08:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 07:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Unnecessarily sourced have been rejected..."
5. 06:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Unnecessarily sourced ha"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on [[19]]. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Other users have sent 2nd 3rd and final warnings. ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 08:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:162.254.66.23 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Puppy mill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765598368 by McGeddon (talk)"
2. 23:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Please read: "no standardized legal definition for "puppy mill" exists." Naming a court case that was thrown out is irrelevant to this article!"
3. 15:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Removed unfactual irrelevant informaion"
4. 13:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765423917 by McGeddon (talk)"
5. 00:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Puppy mill. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "/* No standardized legal definition */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 14:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:75.75.37.22 reported by User:AndrewOne (Result: Semi)

Page: Barbara Comstock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.75.37.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

75.75.37.22, all of whose edits are on the page for Barbara Comstock, has added an unsourced statement to the lead section several times. The IP has provided neither a detailed edit summary nor a source. All of the IP's edits are recent edits to this page, so all relevant diffs can be seen by clicking on the above link to his/her contributions. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Kandi reported by User:Borsoka (Result: )

Pages: Kaliman I of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Peter II of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Kaliman I of Bulgaria: [20]; Peter II of Bulgaria [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Kaliman I of Bulgaria

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

Peter II of Bulgaria

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Kaliman I of Bulgaria: the relevant Talk page discussion can be found here, references to the discussion can be found in the edit summaries ([29]);
• Peter II of Bulgaria: the relevant Talk page discussion can be found here, , references to the Talk page can be found in the edit summaries ([30]). Borsoka (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

A new revert on Kaliman I of Bulgaria: [31] Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Srinjoysarod reported by User:John Carter (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Amaan Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srinjoysarod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [diff]

I actually started a discussion at the involved editor's user talk page [36] and noticed the third revert of me while preparing it. Considering there are BLP concerns, I was not sure the article talk page would be appropriate.

Comments:
OPTIONAL: It is also probably worth noting that the editor involved blanked the user page of User:Doug Weller here after Doug's first reversion of the material. That was actually what drew my attention to this matter in the first place. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Srinjoy Mukherjee may be an autobiography. I removed unsourced material from that page which he restored. I then noticed the official Facebook page of the subject of the article is https://www.facebook.com/sarodsrinjoy, the editor's name reversed. Literally every edit except a couple of talk page edits requesting help have been promotional. See also Template:Daily Observer which isn't actually a template but a link to a newspaper article about the subject. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Edit warring, COI editing, vandalism, failure to communicate... NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Zouaoui16 reported by User:Xyaena (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Zouaoui16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 16:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki. (TW)"
2. 16:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Mustapha_Ishak-Boushaki. (TW)"
3. 16:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This person has continued to delete CSD's when it violates guidelines for the page being recreated multiple times, even landed him a block. He has also continued to delete templates instead of contesting, and he started the article. I'm not going to participate in a war against him. (4im also issued for the fact of a potential edit war) *Xyaena~* (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional Note He started the article, so deleting CSD templates is against the rules on his own created articles. *Xyaena~* (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Repeat of past behavior. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:78.145.177.65 reported by User:Umair Aj (Result: )

Page: Will Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Deer Tick (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: 78.145.177.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
IP User is currently edit warring at Will Young, Deer Tick (band) etc. Also posting warnings on my talk page. Umair Aj (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Editor known (from their talk page) for edit warring and abusing multiple user accounts is engaging in further edit wars with no explanation. No justification or reason given for reverting my edits, and posting false vandalism warnings on my talk page. I would suggest that Umair Aj is investigated for making non-constructive edits, edit warring and using multiple accounts to evade 3RR. You may note that after he engaged in edit warring, he then stalked my other edits reverting them with no reason - then claims it's ME edit warring. No other editors have any issue with the edits I made, and their attempt to get me banned for vandalism was dismissed.

78.145.177.65 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: I agree with you. The other party is edit warring. However, you are as well. I would advise both of you to knock it off before you both get blocked. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Further, the edit war appears to be over things like whether Will Young is from Wokingham, Berkshire, England, or from Wokingham, England, United Kingdom. Is he styled William Robert "Will" Young or William "Will" Robert Young? Should he be in Category:English male film actors or Category:British male film actors? Only the Truth can decide!!

Honestly, you guys, this is the definition of LAME. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: The war over Deer Tick (band) appears to concern whether Robert Crowell is a current or former member of the band. I suppose there's truth somewhere, but I'd probably have to dip into celebrity gossip rags to find it, and frankly, I'd rather go dip myself in bees. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The last comment on either talk page dates from 2016. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's lame - but what kind of editor just mindlessly reverts edits all day without giving a legit reason - then stalks someones edits for no reason? My Edit/s are constructive - Most people wouldn't know where Wokingham is, so the county should be included as well as the country. Putting United Kingdom at the end is considered superfluous - see majority of article etc. It is standard for people from the UK to be described as English, Scottish etc instead of British - I might add I was merely reverting a previous explained change for the most part. The Deer Tick edit is based on a referenced statement on the article. Come on - this guy is just reverting for no reason and has no knowledge or interest of any of the subjects.

You might want to look up the exceptions to the three revert rule. This doesn't qualify. So stop. Go to the talk page which has lain fallow since 2016 and till some new ground there. Put this page on your watchlist. Look for a third opinion. Anyway, there's many ways to resolve a dispute that don't involve edit warring. Yeah, that may not get it resolved today, but I promise that if you follow those steps you can get it done before deadline. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment This IP user has violated three-revert rule and he is supposed to be blocked from editing.Umair Aj (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:PrincetonNeuroscientist reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: )

Page

Rafael Nadal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Agassi nor McEnroe no longer consider Nadal to be the greatest of all time. Please see source that I have added after the last Agassi reference. I already provided the McEnroe evidence earlier. Reverting my edits constitutes denial of the evidence."
2. 00:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765531514 by Fyunck(click) (talk) You're not addressing the issue. If you are so incapable to do so. I will make a suitable re-edit. In the mean time stop obstructing."
3. 23:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "If you don't think it's appropriate. Edit my revision. Obviously, John McEnroe thinks Federer is the Greatest of All Time (see source). Change your alternative fact edit."
4. 20:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "No more alternative facts please"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Rafael Nadal additions */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of ESPN rankings */"
2. 08:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of ESPN rankings */"

Comments:

1st revert was here. He has also been reverting others including multiple times with this item. It is under discussion at the talk page and he was actually informed before going over 3RR on his talk page not to do it. That was ignored today. We'd like his input on the conversation on Nadals talk page, but not under the barrage of continued blanket removals. 4 reverts of this in 24 hours on this item, but he has also been reverting multiple editors on his addition to the lead here, here, here, and here. That's two different items on the same articles in a short span of days. And they are being discussed on the talk page. This has to stop, especially since he was given a direct pre-warning this time to stop reverting and join us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click):, I notice that you went back and reverted the page after posting about the edit war here. Have you ever heard of the boomerang?

Apparently this dispute revolves around whether some people consider Nadal to be the Greatest-Of-All-Time, or whether Andre Agassi's claim that Roger Federer is the GOAT is more legitimate. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Some talk page discussion has happened, but not enough apparently in relation to the amount of edit warring that is going on. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jsharpminor: Wait a minute. He is reverting multiple editors not just me. And he's doing it in several places. I made 3 reverts total... and I hadn't edited the article since December (and that was to add a reference source). Before that, January of 2016. There is a protocol we tend to follow on wikipedia since you've been editing for quite awhile, I'm guessing you know it. You'll also note that he has made multiple reverts without engaging in the talk conversation since February 8! So Boomerang is the least of my concerns here. My concern is he's not letting the process work and is instead disruptive. I jumped into this fray because other editors were being overwhelmed. Certainly you have your opinion on the situation, but I think it's dead wrong. I expect a warning to be given, I expect him not to continue to revert multiple editors, and I expect him to join in the discussion to make the article better. Note something else. One of his concerns was the name of Agassi and McEnroe in the lead and the fact they often change their views. In my last edit I put back the lead but minus those two names. There hadn't been agreement to that yet on the talk page, but I thought it a good compromise while we discussed things. So if you don't think I'm being fair in this, and that you don't think I'm trying to reach some reasonable conclusions and he's not, and that your silly boomerang warning was warranted, then I guess you'll just have to do what you have to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): This is quite the wall of text. I'd like to respond to a few of your points individually.

I made 3 reverts total... and I hadn't edited the article since December (and that was to add a reference source).

Are you laboring under the impression that it's not edit warring unless you personally make 4 reverts in a day? That's not true. From WP:EW:

The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

I jumped into this fray because other editors were being overwhelmed.

By "jumped into this fray," I assume you're saying that you started to edit war right back with him? Yeah, don't do that.

You'll also note that he has made multiple reverts without engaging in the talk conversation since February 8!

He is reverting multiple editors not just me. And he's doing it in several places.

Translation: "He's misbehaving, so I'm going to fight fire with fire!" Also from WP:EW:

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. (emphasis original)

I expect a warning to be given,

Consider yourself warned.

In my last edit I put back the lead but minus those two names. There hadn't been agreement to that yet on the talk page, but I thought it a good compromise while we discussed things.

Okay, fair enough. I didn't see that. All I saw was the string of reverts and re-reverts, and you had three of them yourself.

The bottom line here, what I hope you might take from this is the following:

Never edit war.

Never, never, never edit war.

Don't even do anything that might possibly look like you're in an edit war.

Try to engage the other side, and only when that has failed completely, and you've given it time to take its course, then come to AN3 or some place like this.

If you follow that advice, you will help keep this board clear of unnecessary reports.

If you don't follow that advice, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a boomerang. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 01:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course I know that 3RR isn't the only thing that constitutes an edit-war. Boy do we have a difference of opinion on this situation. I think he's done what... 8 reverts at least, four in 24 hours? Him reverting multiple editors. That's a big point you seem to be missing. He is being disruptive and hasn't joined in the conversation in a week! Since Feb 8th. Your "Consider yourself warned" post was very snippy and uncalled for as if I'm to blame for this whole thing. That is 100% dead wrong. All you saw was a string of reverts so you didn't even look at the situation? I'm thinking that's our problem, you are taking these things out of context. The "other side" has tried to be engaged by me... for a week. Zip... just reverts. I am flummoxed that this is your response... warn me, nothing for him? I've reported these types of things for over a decade here and I've never been greeted with such uncaring attitude. I'll drop it and let others like @4TheWynne: know he can do what he wants, and I will remember. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

User:2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: )

Page

2016 United States election interference by Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765684726 by EvergreenFir (talk) You reverted it, you own it now. If the tense is wrong, you have to fix it."
2. 20:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765570096 by Neutrality (talk) Electoral college is done and settled. This is an encyclopedia, not a news timeline"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The page is subject to 1RR and sanctions. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

88.156.93.97 reported by User:LM2000 (Result: )

Page: List of WWE Champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.156.93.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Comments:

OK. Can we just agree that Inoki have to be grey on the Combined reigns table? So it makes 49, not 50 champs.

I think that we've come to an agreement.[43] I don't think there is any need for further action to be taken at this point.LM2000 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No trying to vandalize or somethnig like that from me. Just wanted consistent information. Idea of erasing Inoki was wrong, but I'm glad he is grey now in second table. Cheers.88.156.93.97 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)