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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR Update this page 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. Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329
330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: The New Celebrity Apprentice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Apprentice (U.S. season 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Apprentice (U.S. season 14) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BrandonT0421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1st article

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

2nd article

1. [7]

3rd article

1. [8]
2. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

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

Comments:

The user is also vandalizing other pages. CCamp2013 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Both warned. Articles which contain lists of contestants ought to follow the usual community standards, whatever they may be. User:CCamp2013 has been reverting changes by User:BrandonT0421 who was not answering or discussing. This needs a better quality of discussions. If there really is a standard for how much information to provide about each contestant, CCamp2013 should be able to link to it. If you can't find where this was decided, use WP:Dispute resolution to decide what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Correction */"
2. 07:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724594431 by XLinkBot (talk)"
3. 07:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724592671 by Cameron11598 (talk)"
4. 06:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724579192 by Cameron11598 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and others */ new section"
2. 07:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and others */ Edit war warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not providing direct sources for the content added. Has been warned and asked to correct the issues noted. Continued to re-add content despite being given instructions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

The Fall (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 10:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC) to 10:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 10:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Members */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 11:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC) to 23:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Members */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on The Fall (band). (TW)"
2. 11:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Fall (band). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated removal of material, due to rumours of a divorce... off the internet. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected Semi-protected for 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

List of The Fall members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

82.102.93.196 (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 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"
   2. 12:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Former Members */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"
   3. 12:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Former Members */"
3. 11:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 11:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC) to 23:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"
   2. 23:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"
6. 23:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
2. 11:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of The Fall members. (TW)"
3. 11:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on List of The Fall members. (TW)"
4. 12:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of The Fall members. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected Semi-protected for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: I Predict 1990 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 208.81.212.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:02, 6 June 2016 Preferred version of the article: 15:51, 9 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:33, 7 June 2016 - first edit after protection removed
2. 01:16, 8 June 2016
3. 13:11, 9 June 2016
4. 19:29, 9 June 2016 - reverted edit where disputed source had been removed and {{cn}} tag put in its place

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 12:22, 2 June 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Talk:I Predict 1990

Comments:
This is not the first go 'round for this disagreement. This is really a tempest in a teapot, but more than the content difference, I don't appreciate the bullying behavior exhibited by Walter Görlitz and his IP 208.81.212.224.

• User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Evrik (Result:Full Protection)

Let me state the facts as I see them.

• Prior to 11:22, 31 May 2016, the article and been static for about 3 1/2 years.
• My in initial edit was reverted.
• My second attempt to insert content then became an edit war on the reliability of the source, which resulted in a one week protection.
• After the protection ended the whole thing started up again.

I admit, the few other editors involved don't think it's a great source, but even after I removed the disputed source in an attempt to meet half-way, I'm being reverted. I will admit to using Pinocchio to comment on the truthfulness of a statement, but I don't deserve the insults:

• Being told to shut up.
• Having my competency questioned.
• Being called a dick.

Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So he did not list his own reverts, against WP:CONSENSUS. One editor here indicated that he believe the source was not reliable. Two at RSN have stated it as well, and of course, since the start, I have claimed the source is not reliable.

After the first RSN editor commented and I replied and there was a lull, I removed the content at the article.

evrik said that it should be taken to RSN on the article's talk page, I indicated that it had been and part of his response was "Really though, I would say that the commentary in the blog is good enough to substantiate one line of text" essentially saying "I don't care, I'm going to use it because I think it's a good source for its purpose". At that point, he restored the content with the unreliable source to the article.

I continued to remove it explaining why each time and discussing on the article's talk page as I did. All this was over the course of two days.

Now I am really digging into the issue and have discussed the other salient point on the discussion at article's talk page: why does this one song need to be mentioned at all when there are nine others that are on the album. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the record, I use this IP while at work and the registered account from home. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this feud before, can't remember where from, but I think it was a thread on WP:ANI last week. Anyway, I would recommend that everyone on the talk page calms down a bit, and the current state of the article as I look at it now does not look obviously problematic. I can't see any immediate need for protection or blocks, as there's not enough activity on the article to justify it. The only real thing I can suggest is the dispute resolution noticeboard. In any case, since I have had a finger in this debate, I am going to declare myself WP:INVOLVED (particularly since I think I expressed an opinion that the blog wasn't good enough to be used as a source) and let another admin take the decision on what to do with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn has been reported, multiple times, for edit warring in the past and is at it again in the article Newark, New Jersey. S/he is inordinately wed to protecting the article's status quo, and thus is actively obstructing improvements to it, e.g., reverting corrections to grammar/mechanics/syntax, improvement of references/citations to conform to Wikipedia's reference formatting template, and reorganization or copyediting of contents to conform to chronology (e.g., crime/corruption sections) or alphabetical order (e.g., presentation of embassies). Please take appropriate action to rein in this counterproductive, uncollegial, iconoclastic, decidedly unprofessional behavior. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.Froid (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. SQL^{Query me!} 03:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Randolph Stone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724742292 by Alexbrn (talk) Per discussion, the article is not to be about Stone's ideas. Please reach consensus on talk."
2. 05:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724741538 by Alexbrn (talk) Revert whule talk page discussion ongoing"
3. 05:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724739250 by Jytdog (talk) Revert per discussion on talk. It discusses Stone's ideas. Stop edit warring or you may be blocked from editing."
4. 05:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724738979 by Jytdog (talk) Please stop edit warring"
5. 04:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "This is not what was discussed on talk. Also fails WP:MEDRS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[12]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This grew out of this talk page discussion, in which The Master expressed dissatisfaction with prior removal of extended content about Stone's ideas, which had been removed per COATRACK. They got support to have ~some~ more discussion of Stone's ideas; The Master took that as license to restore the entirety of the rejected content. I reverted that edit since it was not what they had support for (and was still under discussion), and obviously in retaliation (and like the 3RR report below) The Master POINTY-ly removed well sourced info required by PSCI. This is disruptive edit warring and is blockable in my view. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Randolph Stone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 724742292 by Alexbrn (talk): Also see WP:OWN. (TW)"
2. 05:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 724741538 by Alexbrn (talk): Npov, whatever discussion is ongoing. (TW)"
3. 05:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 724739250 by Jytdog (talk): Npov. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Breathwork */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User appears to be tag-team reverting with Jytdog and refuses to discuss on talk. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation. This appears to be a content dispute. Please note that unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil; read WP:TAGTEAM. AFAICS, Alexbrn does discuss on talk. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Page

Jun Hong Lu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 15:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 15:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 15:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 14:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Jun Hong Lu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 15:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 14:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jun Hong Lu. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Prous Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 16:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) to 15:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 13:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Prous Science. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Does not talk. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Already blocked SQL^{Query me!} 03:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

List of Masters of the Universe characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724794408 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
2. 14:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724789684 by TheDwellerCamp (talk)undoing this revision will result in report to ANI"
3. 14:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724324643 by TheDwellerCamp (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of Masters of the Universe characters. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Although the editor has "only" made three edits today, ths is really a slow burning edit-war which goes back to at least 3 June; it involves mass removal of masses of removal, accompanied by increasingly aggressive edit-summaries (threats of ANI, etc) _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:FAMASFREENODE is warned. If they make further attempts to refactor pages related to Masters of the Universe without first getting consensus on a talk page, they may be blocked. This account was created on May 26. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#size issue, reverts at List of Masters of the Universe Characters the commenters in the thread have speculated the user may be a returning editor. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Far Cry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724810046 by Clpo13 (talk)"
2. 17:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724809917 by Clpo13 (talk) you first"
3. 17:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724809697 by Clpo13 (talk) That's your opinion"
4. 17:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724530483 by Ferret (talk) Thats no excuse."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Far Cry. (TW)"
2. 17:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Far Cry. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP making disruptive edits despite talk page consensus to the contrary. clpo13_(talk) 17:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: DePaul University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: TJD2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
2. 10:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
3. 06:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

This user has been engaging in edit wars on the DePaul page for many days now. At first, he added his subjective entry to an event that occurred on campus. When his wording and his provided sources were put into question by other users, he simply ignored them. After finally agreeing on reverting his subjective wording, he kept his op-eds and his unnetrual, unreliable sources like Breitbart. This matter ended when we reached consensus on adding a single neutral and reliable source. Few days later, I suggested in DePaul University's talk page to merge the controversy subsection into the history section, like many of the colleges' Wikipedia pages. Few hours after my suggestion, I find that he converted the controversy subsection into a whole section instead. He claimed that there was consensus to do so, but there was none, and established userUser:Elkevbo confronted him on this too.

For the sake of full disclosure, I told everyone on the talk page that I am a DePaul student. He now attempts to use this against me, perhaps veiling his own bias agendas. I could have stooped to his level and called his own integrity into question, using the same method that he does. But, even though DePaul is the only university that he has edited, and even though he has edited quite a few anti-feminists pages ( this is relevant to entry that he added), I choose not to question his intentions like he is doing to me.Khalidmilan (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoever decides the rulings, this case should be open and shut. User: Khalidmilan is acting as if he is the sole owner of DePaul University, trying to censor out any and all negative criticism of the university. At one point I had a well sourced paragraph with reliable mainstream news sources. This took me about 15 minutes or so to cite everything properly in the correct format, and he just reverted it on a dime. I kindly asked him to take it up on the talk page, and he would not listen until it became apparent that he was outnumbered when it came to favorable opinion. None of my sources were breitbart; I chose Huffington and Washington Post articles, as well as those from DePaulia; the school's own news website! All of my sourcing was accurate and reliable, and my wording objective.

Not to mention we all came to an agreement about a week ago on how to include the Milo Yianoupolos entry, and then suddenly Khalid comes in and says it's not going to work for him. He reverted and changed everything and wanted to omit the entire section altogether. This is the a reason (among many others) that I question his motives for editing this particular article. He has not edited anything since 2014 other than the University's article, and has been very hostile and subjective when editing (i.e "toxic figure like Milo"). It is also not an issue what I edit because in addition to social pages such as antifeminist ones, I also edit music and video game related content not even relating to this, so I fail to see why this is even relevant to the current discussion. This to me seems like an angry DePaul student who wants to erase the controversy DePaul faced and sweep it under the rug as though it never happened. I'm eager to hear your thoughts. TJD2 (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I urge the Wikipedia administration to look at Talk:DePaul University, then look at the edits of User:TJD2 and see for themselves. Khalidmilan (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• They will see that you have done nothing but strongarm and censor reliable, sourced material and throw a fit every time someone wants to do things differently. You claim consensus when it is just you and maybe sometimes one other editor. That is not a consensus. We had an agreement a week ago, but now you just want to take the entire controversy section out. You are a student at DePaul that edits nothing but DePaul's Wikipedia article. This is not okay, and falls under WP:Ownership. I will quote "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." That is exactly what you are doing and you need to stop. TJD2 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Climate of Miami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: B137 (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 between two numbered versions of a page, 12th June
2. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 12th June
3. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 12th June

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of my last warning, 12th June

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page as well as user talk page: [14] [15]

Comments:

I found this page to be under constant violation of this user (and some others) for several years, presenting personal beliefs, citing irrelevant sources, synthesising and fabricating facts. Tried to reason with the user, but the user prefers to avoid communication and reverts despite numerous warnings. The article is a complete mess, its only purpose is to debunk the facts with factoids and fabrications. The reverts are so fast that even caused me to make an edit conflict error while I was in the middle of my revision. The page is under constant supervision by the user and any changes by any user are reverted within minutes. I could date activity back to 2011.

I have responded to all your messages and discussions. The lead of the article relies clearly on the koppen classification. But there is well publicized evidence of falling short of a tropical climate, including the plant hardiness rating, documented cold spells, and occasional freezing weather. Not only did you effectively section blank, you removed relevant images. B137 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While my earlier edits were of more questionable quality and I used to confront deletion and editors, I would say approximately my most recent 20,000 or so edits have been of objective quality. I create and add a lot of content to articles, including a few good articles. I have not been mired in any kind of significant controversy for several years. I recognize the lack of credence that may be asserted by my redlinked user page. It's been long deleted, I have little interaction with editors, and have enjoyed the stability of my contributions since raising the quality bar for myself. B137 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Gun show loophole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

71.251.45.52 (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 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC) to 03:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724876356 by Godsy (talk)"
   2. 03:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 02:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724872092 by Gaijin42 (talk)"
3. 01:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724869270 by Gaijin42 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 01:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) to 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 01:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Response:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Godsy&diff=prev&oldid=724887862
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaijin42&diff=prev&oldid=724870390

Comments:

Edit warring in ridiculously pov content Gaijin42 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Because You Left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.84.132.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. And so forth.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:
As I briefly told recently, an IP (by its very definition a floating number, but the most recent one is consistent) keeps on adding WP:CRUFT irrelevant to the plot summary, in one of the Lamest Edit Wars, that ranges back to 2011, keeps on going. Banning him or as suggested by the previous noticeboard entry permanently semi-protecting the page (it was already temporarily protected before, and as soon as the page was free to edit the guy returned) in case he returns with another number seem to be the only ways to solve this.

igordebraga ≠ 15:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected Pending changes protection applied for one year. I have watchlisted this. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

Redzemp (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 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC) to 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "keep it up and you'll get reported...warned you on your talk. won't go beyond 3RR, but every time you do this, you get reverted unless and UNTIL we get REAL consensus that Mark's parenthetical statement should not be there..."
   2. 20:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "COMMENT EDIT: It IS "commonly called" that despite your wilfull ignorance, arrogance, and ownership behavior, and disrespect, and not recognizing that this is a WIKI...look that up. Also I gave SAMPLE references on Talk that it is stated that way...."
   3. 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "put "sometimes" called, instead...which you could have done, instead of your usual rude total removal and suppression for "I DON'T LIKE" reasons in violation of WP policy and drift, which says to MODIFY INSTEAD OF DELETE...etc etc.."
   4. 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "ref..."
2. 19:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "good point, the but the not all of that statement was "repetitive"...the ending part, which you and Strebe keep leaving out. Most of the sentence was the same, but not the parenthetical part, from Mark. So the mod part only...restored..."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC) to 19:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "look up NO OWN.... This is a wiki, and your arrogant ownership and bullying behavior I won't tolerate, and I will report. This was MARK'S own wording... You have no business deleting stuff you don't like.... Non-valid removal restored. see Talk..."
   2. 19:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "better placement...instead of wholesale removal"
   3. 19:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "COMMENT EDIT: if the statement was not in the best paragraph, that's a valid point, but deleting it completely instead of relocating it better, with the excuse of "repetition" is not valid cuz YOU JUST DON'T LIKE "PERFECT SPHERE" anywhere in the article"
4. 15:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "per Mark's words in Talk...added his sentence. See Mark's comments in discussion......"
5. 02:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "no explanation given, against WP policy. Ignoring the facts and points in my long comment and complaining about the length and words does not make an argument, it's just an evasion...and NO CONSENSUS WAS REACHED. Also Mark kind of agrees. Reverted."
6. 02:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724722687 by Strebe (talk) stop edit-warring and stop meat-puppeting, and see the points I put in Talk......thanks....."
7. 00:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "not redundant...discussed already in user's talk page and special talk page.... I'll paste all my points on article talk page now.....NOT REDUNDANT... "perfect sphere" is stated, and is NOT like "spherical sphere" or "wet water"...etc...."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [23]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [24]

Comments:

I put Mark's correct suggested parenthetical statement. But I even modified it better to "sometimes called". And have been placing RS refs. Strebe is the one who should be reported for violating "NO OWN" and removal of valid modifications for "I don't like" reasons. With his constant rude unwarranted reverts. (The other day all of his reverts were without any explanation or rationale or edit comments given, also in violation of Wikipedia policy.) Todd is putting the onus totally on me, which is false on its face, as even another Admin Neiln the other day did NOT put it all on me, but a lot on Strebe too. Why didn't Todd put ANY of Strebe's reverts from days ago till today? He left those out. Giving a very slanted picture here. What's up, Todd?? Also, there was a bit of a tag-team situation with David Eppstein. Anyway, if you actually look at the latest edit and mod of 'sometimes called perfect sphere' with valid refs, there should be no grounds for complaint or "notice boards" (if anything STREBE is the one who should have been reported, and I warned him that I was going to soon.) This is so backwards, it's ridiculous, frankly. But anyway, I put it correctly but instead of "commonly" called, then you could modify to "sometimes" called, but of course Strebe didn't do that. WP policy is to MODIFY instead of totally "delete". Regards. Redzemp (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

below was my very last edit, putting a Reliable Source ref for the minor parenthetical (valid and sourced) statement...

20:10, 12 June 2016‎ Redzemp (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,435 bytes) (+177)‎ . . (another ref...phys.org...) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:09, 12 June 2016‎ Redzemp (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,258 bytes) (+207)‎ . . (ref...) (undo)

LIST OF STREBE'S REVERTS AND MANY WITH ZERO RATIONALES GIVEN.:

But below are all of Strebe's reverts...which Todd left out for some reason, the whole context and it takes two to tango situations here...not even putting David Eppstein's reverts and tag-teaming....but just Strebe's...right below..

(cur | prev) 19:29, 12 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,024 bytes) (-25)‎ . . (Deleted parenthetical aside for dubious assertion. No reference I could find claims that a “sphere” is commonly called a “perfect sphere”.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:15, 12 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-99)‎ . . (Earth has no “generating ellipsoid”; it is a natural body. This material is a repitition of what's is previous paragraph. Undid revision 724941421 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 04:36, 11 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724725293 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

(cur | prev) 02:24, 11 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724724803 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

(cur | prev) 02:02, 11 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724711290 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

(cur | prev) 02:28, 9 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,962 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724252259 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

this gives a better picture (and fairer picture) of what is going on here. Edit-warring was started by Strebe, not me. Redzemp (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Zionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monochrome Monitor (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. [25]
2. [26]

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

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

Comments:

Not the first time the same user violated 1RR on Arab-Israeli conflict topics. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who's edit warring? He reverted my edit yesterday [27] calling it "POV pushing". I reverted his edit saying [28] "nope. that sentence is supposed to describe that pov" Because it is. The sentence says "advocates of zionism believe that...." and I added what advocates of zionism believe. He reverted it again saying [29] "better now", a rather obnoxious edit summary which didn't respond to my point at all. [30] Someone else reverted him saying "no it isnt", but they were reverted since they don't have 500 edits yet. So THEN, and only then, did I revert back saying [31] "ahem, he may not be allowed to edit under the 500 edits thing. but I can, yay! see prior explanation." But in makeintoss's view, [32] "If you could refrain from stating Zionist arguments in the voice of Wikipedia, that would be really great", so basically wikipedia can't give zionist arguments where it literally says "zionists say XXXX" (he also rather ridiculously claims that only SOME zionists don't think zionism is racist, which is totally a misrepresentation, zionists wouldn't be zionists if they thought the ideology was racist. So anyway then I made my reversion saying "ahem, the sentence says "advocates of zionism view". just like "anti-zionists view". read WP:STATUSQUO, you should not be reverting" Anyway, while I technically made the same edit in a 24 hour period, the context is important. He had been reverting my edit and was reverted back by two people previously. Most importantly, his reversion of me in the first place was illegitimate, per WP:STATUSQUO. His edit summaries also gave no real justification. Lastly, he never tried to compromise on the talk with me, which is a prerequisite for reporting.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "revert", I modified what I reverted, aka compromising. [33] [34] Makeandtoss (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well you didn't mention it on the talk page.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Whatever, i'll self-revert.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I self-reverted but my self-reverted was reverted.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [diff 1] 01:39, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 00:59, 12 June 2016 this
2. [diff 2] 00:33, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 18:45, 11 June 2016 this
3. [diff 3] 03:34, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 03:09, 12 June 2016 this
4. [diff 4] 18:23, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 08:15, 12 June 2016 this

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [diff] Virtually the whole talk page at Talk:Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry I set out a list of the problems with this page as edited recently. There was no response from those who typically reverted.
• I asked MM specifically MM to explain what she was doing, in a later section. No response; except for an NPA warning (fair enough – I was riled that no issue raised on the talk page was being addressed;
• I asked her for a second time to address a list of issues, explained in detail – a few desultory answers as she kept editing the page, none corresponding to the problems raised; My impression at this point that she was just allowing me to work the talk page (I did few article edits, desiring some talk page consensus) while she persisted quietly in ‘fixing’ the article, so
• I opened a third section- One response from another editor, zero response from her.
• I alerted her the other day that if she were persist in this behaviour, esp. in reverting back material whose conformity with policy was noted as dubious on the talk page, that I would be forced to report her.
• The 4 diffs above followed that warning.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notified hereNishidani (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Well, she also just called the reporters and myself assholes. Really should be looking for a topic ban as well. Sepsis II (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant to call you an asshole. I was saying the people who are overly nitpicky. I was trying to somewhat affectionately discourage your fear of being reported by saying people who would report you if it's not clear-cut are being jerks.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Oh, you too, huh? Fun. Anyway, those are four reverts, but I didn't make the same edit. That's what 3RR is about. Making the same edit multiple times. I didn't. Anyway, you haven't replied to me on that page either. It's not like I haven't replied to you, I have, I've pointed out significant flaws in your position (ie, your belief that information that doesn't mention khazars explicitly is OR except the quote you insisted on having.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also remind you that you deleted a significant amount of references on the article because they "weren't up for debate", yet you insist on providing a false balance that they ARE up for debate.[35] Basically, your arguments contradict themselves. Just like you did with Galassi, you are reporting me because you're trying to silence debate.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats not what 3RR is about. Making 4 reverts of different edits is a violation of that rule. And calling people assholes because they follow the rules and expect others to do so isnt exactly expected behavior around here either. nableezy - 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was when I thought nish and I were friends and he was above reporting me.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it wasn't just four reverts of different edits- it was four different edits. I did not make the same edits in every "reversion"--Monochrome_Monitor 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so that makes it okay to call people assholes? Kinda think a reading of WP:NPA might disabuse you of that notion. As far as the idea that because they werent the same edit it doesnt count, please read WP:EW, specifically the part in a big red box at WP:3RR where it says An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. (emphasis added) nableezy - 21:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani attacked me viciously, even leading another user to warn him on npa. Sigh. Whatever. Ignore every good edit I've ever made on the subject then, and let everyone who disagrees with me pile on. No nuance whatsoever.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This has been going on forever, and MM does not seem to learn or WP:HEAR no matter what. At this stage, after having read both this report and the one above, I no longer see any point in handing out short blocks for edit warring. It's already been discussed that Monochrome Monitor should be topic banned from anything connect to Israel, Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history and I think it's obvious the time for that is already overdue. Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is much more complex than you let on. Makeandtoss himself has been edit warring in that article, and my own reversions were repeated by multiple people.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't wikipedia about making a good encylopedia? I wish someone would talk about the actual content of my edits and not the way I made them.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Handing out an indefinite topic ban would be a bit too harsh, we can all learn from our mistakes. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Praise God. I'd never think in a million years that Nishidani would be the one accusing me and makeandtoss would defend me! It brings a tear to my eye. Anyway... my point is, reverts are supposed to be rarely used. Not just by me. But by the people I reverted. One of those was jonney reverting me because I was going "too fast", which doesn't make any sense to me.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules doesn't take context into consideration, just avoid violating 1RR/3RR (generally speaking).. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At speed. Do you have the slightest notion that some of us spend hours, days, weeks, a lifetime closely reading up on topics, hours carefully looking at several sources we mightn't even use, to check that the one we edit in is, content-wise, reliable, only to see someone like you ignore long notes on the talk page, and barge in like a bull in a china shop to revert, and then rush to other pages, blissfully convinced that you haven't done anything thoughtless, indeed, you've set the world straight about the truth, whatever conflicting sources might say?Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated what you said about yanover being unreliable and I also took out entine. Now it is using different sources. What more do you want from me?--Monochrome_Monitor 22:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have been trying to assist MM for over a year now. There was a period of quiet, and now things appear to have rapidly deterorated, leading to a complaint frrom and editor who's intellectual capacity, wisdom and patience I repect beyond measure. I can only assist those want to be assisted. User Bolter21 was in a little trouble when he first began editing, we made a mentoring agreement, and now he is fine. B21 told me the topics he was working on and would ask my advice before making "difficult" edits. It worked fine. I see a fine addition to the hobby with great potential. MM is impossible to mentor at this time. I am given no indication by her on what topics she is editing, and never asks advice before causing..well..we are here in an example of clusterfuck proportions. MM this is not a game. N above said it well. An editor can work weeks on a couple of highly complex edits only to see them destroyed in as many minutes. Do you get how painful and frustrating that is? You have aa huge amount to learn, in all senses. Here is my last propsal MM, obviously contingent on community consent.
• You take an immediate 2 week wikibreak.
• When returning, you submit all areas you are working on to me, on an ongoing basis
• all edits apart from grammar, etc, are to be submitted to me before making them for approval. It may take a couple of days, but if you edit without my consent I will recommend an indef topic ban. It may take a few days for me to gert back to you. Tough. You are going to learn patience.
• Certain behavioural issues will be discussed off wiki.

That's all I have to say. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]