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:Saturnpilot reported by User:Markvs88 (Result: Warned)

Page: Bradley International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saturnpilot (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Saturnpilot#Bradley_International_Airport and here User_talk:Markvs88#Bradley_International_Airport, where Saturnpilot admits he's re-adding it "because he knows people so it's true." The editor did try to provide a blog as a source, which was irrelevant as it's non-authoritative.

Comments:
In good faith I let this go on for way more than 3RR, but now the user is no longer responds to discussion on these edits. Markvs88 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding a note here to delay archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Saturnpilot is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Bradley International Airport without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Trapios reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: blocked)

Page: Metropolitan areas in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and three other: [10][11][12]
User being reported: Urabura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:36, 27 January 2018‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:37, 20 February 2019
2. 20:18, 20 February 2019
3. 20:33, 20 February 2019
4. 21:00, 20 February 2019

This is new user (account from December 2018) with total edits: 48, of which about 20% is edit-warrings in few articles.

User:Theoneandonlyjjj reported by User:Redalert2fan (Result: Indef)

Page

Janet Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Rather have a 2010s picture than a 2000s picture, so no"
2. 16:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Dont change the 2011 picture."
3. 16:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "merge sections + comment/question"
2. 16:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Photo edit war */ response"

Comments:

Warnings given in edit summary's and on talk page. User not contributing relevantly to discussion at the time of this request. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – By User:Floquenbeam for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:The Dvornjaga reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Stale)

Page

Remove Kebab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The Dvornjaga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Islam is not mentioned in the lyrics"
2. 18:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "they is nothing anti-muslim in lyrics"
4. 12:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 11:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 23:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC) "deleting tautology, clarification of information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned for edit warring [13] after three reverts. They performed three additional reverts after the warning. POV pushing.

The other party in this dispute has also performed many contentious reverts, but they told me on talk that they would stop (after a warning). wumbolo ^^^ 18:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Stale User has asserted they will stop edit warring, and has done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Natureium reported by User:NewsYouCanUse2018 (Result: No violation)

Page

Fight the New Drug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Warning was provided.

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 1. 19:58, March 2019 -716‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ non-RS
   2. 19:55, March 2019 -121‎ Talk:Fight the New Drug ‎ rmv wikiprojects that are a stretch
   3. 19:52, March 2019 -957‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ →‎Support: How is someone wearing a T-shirt important for an encyclopedic article?
   4. 19:50, March 2019 -179‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ again, instagram isn't a source
   5. 19:49, March 2019 -4,411‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ →‎Criticism: this whole section focuses on one set of opinion editorials
   6. 19:47, March 2019 -936‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ →‎Support: Not related to the organization, and instagram isn't a source
   7. 19:45, March 2019 -1,599‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ not relevant for the lead.
   8. 19:45, {{diff2|17 March 2019) -392‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ →‎Support: that's not related to the organization and the source doesn't mention it at all

• NewsYouCanUse2018, FYI, you have to tell someone when you report them here, not leave a warning that you will report them to AIV. Natureium (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• I warned on your talk, then you did it again anyway. You don't get two warnings on vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't made any changes since you left a message on my talk page... Natureium (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Natureium made a serious of edits correcting gross deficiencies in the sourcing of the article, these are not 3RR relevant reverts. Your behaviour, NewsYouCanUse2018 is disruptive. If you don't stop, I'm blocking you. Nick (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

again, this board is for discussing edit warring. What the content being warred over is is basically irrelevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Natureium removed scientific sources, including peer-reviewed in edits. Fight the New Drug is widely known fraud by scientists (they have no scientists and describe excluding any study inconsistent with their view in the sources that were provided). Wiki now misrepresents Fight the New Drug as a scientific resource with no evidence. Natureium removed >50% of the article content without justification.NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Can we keep this discussion to fewer pages? I've already responded to you on my talk page and the article talk page. Natureium (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:BobNesh reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: No action)

Page

Remove Kebab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888250373 by FloridaArmy (talk)"
2. 22:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Here on English Wikipedia, so-called Radio Liberty is not considered reliable source. Sorry and thank you for understanding."
3. 17:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888207753 by Ktrimi991 (talk) Source doesn't say that phrase originate in Serbia. Provide source or accept revision."
4. 16:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 10:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Phrase didn't originate from Serbia!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[14]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

BobNesh has removed the word "Serbia" as the place of origin of the song several times. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Song originated in Bosnia & Herzegovina, not Serbia. Plain and simple. Period. Phrase "Remove Kebab" also didn't originate in Serbia. It is Internet meme and English language phrase quite unknown in Serbia. BobNesh (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. There appear to be issues with quality of sourcing for this article. But if reverts continue without prior agremeent on the talk page some admin action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:BobNesh reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: No action)

Page

Remove Kebab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888250373 by FloridaArmy (talk)"
2. 22:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Here on English Wikipedia, so-called Radio Liberty is not considered reliable source. Sorry and thank you for understanding."
3. 17:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888207753 by Ktrimi991 (talk) Source doesn't say that phrase originate in Serbia. Provide source or accept revision."
4. 16:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warning ignored. Has been blocked before. I'm filing a report mere hours after my last report on another user on the same article, but it's necessary because a WP:RPP request was denied. wumbolo ^^^ 23:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You may hate the fact that song and phrase don't have origin in Serbia, but that still remains a fact. Song is from Bosnia & Herzegovina and the phrase is from English language Internet community. You and your friends should stop with obvious anti-Serb bias and with disruptive editing. Thanks. BobNesh (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Note the page does not say that the song originated in Serbia, but with Serb forces, specifically those in Bosnia -- which is indisputably true.--Calthinus (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now, per a prior report above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:86.191.95.230 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: No violation)

Page

User talk:86.191.95.230 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
2. 23:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
3. 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
4. 18:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
5. 15:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
6. 15:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on User talk:86.191.95.230. (TW)"
2. 02:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "per WP:UP#CMT and providing another warning about edit-warring"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "per WP:UP#CMT and providing another warning about edit-warring"

Comments:

Temporary semi-protect ought to fix the problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No violation Per WP:3RRNO, removing comments in your own user space does not count as edit warring. Filer has been warned. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Jesse Coffey reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: Indeffed)

Page

Hi-Tops Video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jesse Coffey (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 02:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC) to 02:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 02:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888276300 by IanDBeacon (talk)"
   2. 02:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC) to 02:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 02:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "The available evidence suggests that HT0001 was Babar and Father Christmas, first issued in 1986."
   2. 02:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 02:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 02:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888272368 by IanDBeacon (talk) There is no evidence Hi-Tops released anything before 1986."
4. 01:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hi-Tops Video. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User's editing habits are also similar to WP:LTA/NS, minus the edit summary. He is claiming Hi-Tops Video didn't release anything prior to 1986, yet they actually did. IanDBeacon (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. I'm hesitant to call this Nate Speed without the characteristic edit summaries, but there's simply too much other behavioral evidence here to discount it. He can explain the situation in an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Meow reported by User:Supportstorm (Result: No action)

Page: 2018–19 Australian region cyclone season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Meow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 07:07, March 17, 2019‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:53, March 17, 2019
2. 18:03, March 17, 2019
3. 02:24, March 18, 2019

This user replaced a photo I originally put on the article three hours later with a duplicate. Such files are subject to speedy deletion on the commons. Also claims I was "lying" and that my reasoning for removing the duplicate was "nonsense" and in "bad faith". This is not the only instance of this behavior occurring between this user and others who contribute images to article of the same interest, and I can provide evidence if requested. Supportstorm (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

How can a much larger image with much more details be considered as a duplicate? I should have reported you earlier for your insults. 🐱💬 03:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Update, this user overrode my file after the duplicate was deleted here. I'm really just annoyed by this whole thing. Meow you need to stop this elitism. I've never insulted you once. There was literally no issue with quality of the image since I ran it through specialized software that uses the same algorithm that NASA uses to create a lossless image, fixed shape as recommend by you here, and saved to the highest quality allowed using jpg compression. Admins, this is a common frustration I encounter with this user when uploading current tropical cyclone images. Supportstorm (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This is incredibly silly. First, technical matter, you provided links to revisions. Provide links to diffs next time. Second, Meow's image is obviously not a duplicate, so stop saying it is. It's not scaled down either. If you can't even get right what you're edit warring over, I am definitely not inclined to take any administrative action. And I'm certainly not inclined to give you any credit simply because you uploaded first. If there is some regular pattern of bad behavior going on, you'll need to gather diffs to demonstrate that and present it at WP:ANI. But if you want to continue arguing over this bike shed, go try some dispute resolution. And @Meow:: just as an FYI, you can always use {{Keep local}} if you need to, if commons admins are deleting images for reasons that don't actually apply. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I believe I fixed the diff misunderstanding, sorry about not having that in order this time around. The focus of the edits was around trivial differences in the image and I agree it was, however I politely disagree with your diagnoses. The images were similar enough to be duplicates and to say upload order doesn't matter in this instance is unfair. I still respect your decision regardless. I'll take your advice and move this to ANI, once I gather diffs, since attempts at dispute resolution in the past didn't come across effectively with Meow, hence why bringing the issue here was considered insulting to her. Supportstorm (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:IndianBio, User:Begoon, User:Itsbydesign reported by User:2601:280:C300:7A0:D0EB:CD77:6488:8A3 (Result: No action)

Page: Blond Ambition World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Drowned World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Confessions Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The MDNA Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rebel Heart Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IndianBio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Begoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Itsbydesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Link 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]
7. [21]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is already a discussion raised in Talk:Sticky_&_Sweet_Tour#Image_uploads_by_Itsbydesign. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is truly a candidate for WP:LAME. For the past week, a consistent edit war has taken place between IndianBio and Itsbydesign (with Begoon recently joining in) The is literally over an image and it doesn't make any sense from the outside looking in. On 3/7/2019, Itsbydesign uploaded a poster image that aligns with the tour title. 5 hours later, it was reverted by IndianBio for no reason beyond no liking the image (although I believe its more geared to WP:OWN. IndianBio then follows this with reverted every single edit made by Itsbydesign. Of course, Itsbydesign comes in few days later and reverts those edits. While he/she cites reasons for changing the image(s), IndianBio still reverts the edits. Begoon comes in and add fuel to the flames by blindly reverting edits with zero explanation. This is obviously something that is going to continue regardless of who says what. This is 3 toddlers throwing a hissy fit for control. An admin needs to step in, make a decision and make sure all 3 adhere.2601:280:C300:7A0:D0EB:CD77:6488:8A3 (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As of writing this report, IndianBio has gone through some again to revert edits made to the page and all edits made by Itsbydesign in the past 24 hours.2601:280:C300:7A0:D0EB:CD77:6488:8A3 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Don't try to act like you are a different person altogether 2601:280:C300:7A0:D0EB:CD77:6488:8A3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

How many bets that the IP is actually Itsbydesign? The user has been reverted number of times by me, Chrishm21, Begoon for continuously edit warring across articles by uploading images, moving article page without WP:RM. Please see the Itsbydesign (talk · contribs)'s talk page which is littered by numerous warnings over image related vandalism. Funny thing, lets consider the article Drowned World Tour. uploaded, got reverted by Chrishm21, then reverted again. Not only that, keeps on moving pages without first going through WP:RM or gaining consensus. That's where the reversion comes. The user was already warned and asked to discuss the image uploads and moves, but failed to do so and resorted to EW. Oh and I am willing to bait that the IP is a WP:DUCK. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To tbe reviewing admin, please note that not only 2601:280:C300:7A0:D0EB:CD77:6488:8A3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) but I can also see that another IP was used to disrupt further, 2601:280:C300:7A0:5CB:838F:9AEB:A7B5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This looks to be a case of WP:BOOMERANG. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Every edit I made, to several articles was explained in the edit summary: 'picture does not exist', which at the time they did not. The images were subsequently uploaded and my edits were reverted. -- Begoon 12:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• (talk page stalker) I am tending to agree with IndianBio on the WP:DUCK theory. Given the recent edit history, and continued edit-warring by Itsbydesign is glaring. There seems to be an underlying issue of WP:OWN on that users behalf. Their repeated page moves, despite WP:BRD, seem to be their own attempt of owning the edits. Also, a quick online search proves that both anonymous editors (as pointed out by Indianbio) belong to the same location and provider. livelikemusic talk! 13:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• I believe in following policy to the letter. All of my edits are justified and explained either with a source I included or referencing a source already within the text of the article. This "debate" is over poster art, which fails the guidelines for non-copyrighted event images. Cropping out any aspect of a non-free image is not allowed. Same goes with article titles. I always reference the policy and provided a source when I edit the article. If I feel my edits are being blindly reverted for negative reasons (which is how I feel in this situation), I will defend my edits until other sources or sound reasoning is brought to my attention. Saying things like: "It's always been this way", "This is what 'we' agreed upon", is not hepful to the conversation and shows more guise of ownership than any edit I've made. This all over images...non-free images. I didn't know a roundtable discussion was needed over which non-free image was better than others. Again, I stand by all my edits and I am than happy to engage in a conversation but I will not engage in a one sided talk with a "stan". I am very open to others editing articles but the edit has be be justified, verifiable and within policy.Itsbydesign (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You kept on edit warring across multiple articles. If a change is needed its your onus to discuss when you are being reverted by multiple users across the encyclopedia. Calling other users as "stan" and all is personal attack. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • And you did the same. Do not act all high and mighty now that you're being scolded. As discussed on the talk page, you have already shown that you do not want to have a conversation on this matter. I will not waste my time on a one-sided conversation. If you want to have a civil conversation down the line, I will be happy to engage. But, I do not feel you want to, in this matter. So, I chose to turn the other cheek and move on.Itsbydesign (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Result: No admin action, but general concern. Unclear how convinced we should be by a list of seven reverts by four different people. And by the submission of an edit warring report by a dynamic IP who joins in the reverting but doesn't appear to use any talk pages for discussion. There is an underlying problem here, with the page moves and the image changes, and if it continues without waiting for consensus some admin action appears likely. The next person who changes any of these images (without prior consensus) will be in the hot seat. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Npsaltos62 reported by User:Bradv (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Npsaltos62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
2. 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
3. 14:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
4. 14:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
5. 12:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Patrick Moore (consultant). (TW)"
2. 15:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Greenpeace. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also edit warring at Patrick Moore (consultant). No posts to either talk page. Bradv🍁 15:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Npsaltos62 has committed to seek sources and consensus for their edits here. It would have been nice if that commitment had been made before the 3RR report, but this can likely be closed without further action. Bradv🍁 16:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The comments at Patrick Moore's article were utterly inappropriate and I want a complete assurance this will never happen again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Diligens reported by User:Contaldo80 (Result: No violation)

Page: The Singing Nun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Diligens (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]
3. [25]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:The editor has taken an aggressive style against me and other editors. They have previously been warned about this by an administrator ([[27]]). They have failed to engage in talk on the latest point which is to insist on the inclusion of the word "false" - even though this is not supported by the wider evidence (which has been repeatedly removed, and is bad grammar - violating the 3RR to do so. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. If I had to pick which one of you had been the least civil in the dispute, it would be you, Contaldo. Play nice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DanielMNavarro reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Woodensuperman reported by User:Nowak Kowalski (Result: )

Page

Template:Talk Talk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Woodensuperman (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 08:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC) to 08:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 08:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Please see WP:BRD, and also discuss on talk page."
   2. 08:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 09:08, 5 March 2019 "Undid revision 886174812 by 86.186.70.231 (talk)"
3. 16:25, 4 March 2019 "Please see WP:BRD, and also discuss on talk page."
4. 13:33, 4 March 2019 "He is not a member of the band, and does not work exclusively for them, so he does not belong here any more than he would at Template:Ross Macdonald. See WP:BRD and discuss on talk page."
5. 08:59, 4 March 2019 "Undid revision 885685464 by 86.186.70.231 (talk)"
6. 08:59, 4 March 2019 "Reverted edits by 86.186.70.231 (talk) to last version by Woodensuperman"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "/* James Marsh */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Long-term persistent edit warring — removal of links against consensus. User removed warning from their talk page. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nowak Kowalski: Where and when was this consensus reached?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Entry was added by IP with this diff, and I had a general cleanup with this diff clearing out all sorts of inappropriate content, including the link in question. IP then got incredibly hostile with this diff and this diff, and refused to enter into WP:BRD discussions, with this entry on the talk page when it was suggested it was taken there. The template was then protected, with the above user adding it back in the minute it was unprotected, and slapping me with a edit war template without any attempt to discuss first at the template talk page. Per WP:BRD disputed additions should be discussed. --woodensuperman 09:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

IP 152.250.98.166 (Result: Malformed)

User keeps making non NPOV encyclopedic edits after being reverted and warned. Keeps edit warring and seems to ignore messages/warnings from other users. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:BLDM reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Tarah Wheeler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888589988 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) There is a sourced court filing. The article states this fact. No assertions are made."
2. 03:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888589451 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) The ref is not used "to support assertions""
3. 03:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888588940 by TisiphoneFury (talk) A document anonymously uploaded to scribd is not a reliable source. Where did you even find that? (Further evidence of direct COI?)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC) to 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 00:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888526948 by 172.58.40.60 (talk)"
   2. 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888526475 by 172.58.40.60 (talk)"
5. 12:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888440413 by 172.58.41.167 (talk) Please move this discussion to the talk page - stop edit warring. You clearly have a COI, please declare it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Tarah Wheeler */ new section"
2. 03:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Tarah Wheeler */"
3. 03:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Tarah Wheeler. (TW)"
4. 03:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* BLP Discretionary Sanctions alert */ new section"
5. 03:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Please reveal your conflict of interest regarding Tarah Wheeler */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is reverting poorly-sourced negative information into the biography of a living person, has blanked warnings and refuses to comply with clear policy mandates relating to claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What's the proper way to source the official court documents when they can't be directly linked? BLDM (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, unless there's a reliable secondary source reporting on this lawsuit, it cannot be included, period, end of sentence. Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY, as I posted on your talk page (which you just blanked), Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. That's it. End of story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, the edit is a reference to a purported lawsuit against the article subject, supported only by a press release by the law firm which filed the lawsuit and a link to the lawsuit itself. This is clearly insufficient sourcing per WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY; absent any reliable secondary source discussing the issue, it does not belong in Wheeler's biography. BLDM has not responded to queries, but appears to reject this basic foundational policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Someguy1221 (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:183.90.36.169 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: )

Page

Edzard Ernst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Early career */Wordy. Short and simple."
2. 08:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Fact"
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) to 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Controversy */Common subheading name of Wikipedia"
   2. 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Editorializing"
   3. 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Notable Committee member posts */More precise and specific"
4. 08:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888614410 by KH-1 (talk) Which wiki policy? Your own? Revert to good in good faith."
5. 08:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888614018 by KH-1 (talk) what reasons?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (cam) (TW)"
2. 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Edzard Ernst. (TW)"
3. 08:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* March 2019 */ note about talk page"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */ new section"

Comments:

The IP is refusing to engage in discussion, appears to be making POV (and largely ungrammatical) edits, and is way beyond 3RR. I've reverted three times on this page already, so will not go further, but this disruption should be stopped. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Nochorus reported by User:Pebblefire (Result: )

Page

Columbia University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nochorus (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. 22:04, 19 March 2019‎. (Undid revision 888466240 by Pebblefire (talk) Per consensus, the drop-down box is for Columbia schools only on Columbia's article. However, all schools incl. affiliates are still present in the article and also have their own wiki pages.)
2. 19:54, 18 March 2019‎. (Undid revision 887874819 by Pebblefire (talk) Restoring edit to revision 883475882)
3. 23:13, 14 February 2019‎. (Undid revision 883285373 by ABCDE22 (talk) years of discussions on this topic already exist on the talk page and its archives, and the consensus is to use Columbia's official statement which can also be found here (columbia.edu/content/academics) ["three undergraduate schools"]. All schools and affiliates [20 total] are already described in the paragraphs.)

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

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

Comments: Consistent edit reverts, multiple unsigned comments on Talk page, not reaching an appropriate consensus (in fact, lied about reaching consensus when in fact, another Talk section had already addressed this, which he commented on in the past so he was well aware of its existence, then commenting on a new Talk section to attempt to reach consensus a year later with new users), arguments with administrators, failure to provide reasonable and reliable primary evidence (e.g. documents, websites, etc.) when in fact other users and administrators have already done so.