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:180.191.111.63 reported by User:Toasted Meter (Result: Block, Semi)

Page: Isuzu D-Max (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.191.111.63 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Comments:

Adding unsourced content that is obviously a hoax. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 48 hours. Page semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Ulikss77 reported by User:mm.srb (Result: No violation)

Page: Valtazar Bogišić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ulikss77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Protecting the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Valtazar_Bogišić:

Mm.srb (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• No violation There have only been three reverts. However, @Uliks77:, you are advised that your edits are not acceptable and you need to take this to the talk page. If you change this again without gaining consensus, then I will be blocking you. In the meantime I have reverted to the stable version and protected the article for a week. Number 57 20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Harmony944 reported by User:Barkeep49 (Result: page protected; indefinitely blocked)

Page

Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Harmony944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851351017 by Barkeep49 (talk)"
2. 17:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Again, this sets incredibly poor precedent. Why does The Passage TV series article get to live with the little information it has while a Cartoon with a released title card is forced to be a redirect?"
3. 20:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851060330 by Barkeep49 (talk)Look at the discussion. No substantial reasoning was put forward. You don't wait 6 and a half weeks and counting to perform a poorly-decided merger. Why out of all the pages made for this show was this one chosen to have its info removed from view?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) to 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) "Misleading edit summary. No such merger occurred"
   2. 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "Trying to answer something"

Comments:

Ongoing edit warring against consensus closing from May AfD Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion cannot go further. This user cursed me out in private message for questioning the legitimacy of the Articles for Deletion discussion on the article’s talk page, and refuses to be reasonable—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Other 2019 TV debuts with similar content include Messiah, Jinn, and the Tales from the City revival. There is no reason a Yabba Dabba Dinosaurs article can’t exist with the information it currently has, and it’s not fair that when I ask for things to be considered, I’m told I’m “wrong” in a vulgar manner without a second thought and I’m punished for it—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• This definitely appears to be edit-warring against a valid WP:AfD result (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!). Unfortunately, Harmony944 has been blocked for edit-warring before, and should know better. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

THAT DISCUSSION WAS NOT VALID. Whats disruptive about restoring a legitimate article? Why am I constantly being ignored and talked down to? Why do i have to seek consensus for every little thing while you let my harasser make baseless edit warring accusations against me? The fact is that you force me to get consensus on a talkpage that is currently a redirect, meaning it will be passed by EVERY TIME someone clicks on a link to it. Thats a clear case of stacking the deck. I was given no other options but to restore the article until IJ told me about DelRev. You want to punish me not for edit-warring, but not knowing every policy by heart—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Harmony944: This tact is going to get you nowhere. Following this line now is just going to confirm to any Admin watching this that a block is probably in order to prevent further disruption. I would drop this now, while you're behind, and follow my advice at Talk:Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You cant call me disruptive because i wasnt being disruptive. This "tact" you speak of is speaking out against unfair and biased treatment. If only people werent ignoring the abuse and making things easy for themselves while making it harder for the person theyre on the verge of hurting again. I'm off to make the split proposal. I'd prefer it if I received the decency to be an active part of the discussion instead of being blocked for an extended period that ends up taking up the entire period of the split discussion—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• This editor has quite an extensive history of warring on Wikipedia, and I think any admin reviewing this discussion should take that into account. They displayed the same behavior as they did recently on the Agents of Shield page and would rather war with others to get their own way. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Harmony has learned from their mistakes. Esuka323 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC).

Statement struck due to blatant character assassination. What i have is an extensive history of good to fantastic edits with occasion edit warring accusations. I follow every rule here and it is not my fault no one told me the process of restoring a deleted article. Theres also the fact that the article in question got full-on deleted during this discussion without consensus to do so. It very much seems that consensus nor consistency matter—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 19:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The evidence is there on the Agents of Shield page history, you had multiple editors including myself reverting you and telling you to continue with the discussion. You became impatient because that discussion wasn't going your way and continued trying to push your agenda on the page. Clearly you have been doing this yet again with other editors, just how many chances do you deserve if you continue to break the rules here? If you continue to make the same mistakes, you haven't learned from them. Esuka323 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I haven’t broken any rule. BEING IMPATIENT ISNT A DAMN CRIME. One incident shouldn’t taint me forever. I’m not a felon, and yet you’re treating me like one. You don’t care what I have to say, you just want me out.—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)

Your talk page is full of edit war warnings and block notices. Frankly the fact you have the ability to edit here still after so many rule infractions is astounding. Esuka323 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That doesnt make them legitimate. Youre not bothering with context, youre just judging me by what others put on my page, regardless of legitimacy. You have no evidence that i havent proven to be a good user, and are only trying to drag my name through the mud. I therefore am asking you to leave—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 20:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Esuka323. Enough is enough. You've been blocked twice for edit warring and have had your talk page access revoked for using it inappropriately during your first block, and yet you're still insisting you're this perfect little angel who doesn't break rules? Your WP:IDHT is quite strong. Honestly, you're at the disruptive level now as you are more of a net negative than a net positive to the Wikipedia project. Editors who persistently and consciously can't or won't admit when they're wrong have no place on Wikipedia. I should know. An indefinite blocked would be more than justified now. Wikipedia has no irreplaceable editors, and you've been given plenty of rope. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected However, the edits here are disruptive. @Harmony944: The article code is still in the history of the redirect. If this continues then there will also be a block. The only options available to you are to take it to DRV or drop the subject. Number 57 20:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

“The code is still in the history of the redirect” Which you deleted twice. Without consensus. Which means the code was gone to anyone Twice. You defied the AfD twice. And yet my recreation to actually abide by the AfD consensus is called “disruptive”? And “rule-breaking”? Ever since I started editing here regularly I have been a fantastic editor, only to be confronted over common-sense actions I took because they needed consensus despite every source I gave. And then, again without consensus, you delete the draft talk page where it was confirmed that the draft was suggested by another user. What are you trying to hide? Why am I being targeted for trying to be a good editor—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The redirect has not (nor ever) been deleted by anyone – it is still here. I was not aware you had been advised to create the draft article, so I have amended that part of my rationale above. However, I would advise reigning in your other accusations (e.g. of having something to hide). Number 57 21:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You are lying. I have the emails. Both of them, with the edit summaries that you deleted the article. It's also in the deletion log. When I clicked to see the article or what changed, the article wasn’t there.Yes, the redirect is there now, but that’s because it had to be put back upthree times to counter your deletions. And you still deleted the draft AND it’s talk page. Despite what @IJBall: told you. You are overstepping boundaries. You had no consensus, and the only reasoning you ever gave was libelous. By doing this, you are proving yourself far more disruptive than you ever claimed me to be—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

As you can see in the page log for the redirect, it has never been deleted or restored. Nor has the talk page of the draft. I would appreciate you withdrawing your accusation of lying. Number 57 21:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I now support a block – between Harmony944's accusing an Admin of lying, to their failure to Drop the stick, I fear that continued disruption is inevitable here. I'm going to ping the previous blocking Admins, NeilN and Bbb23, here as well, because I would like them to appraise this situation for themselves. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• @IJBall: Just having looked at Harmony's comments here, I believe an indefinite block is warranted. However, Number 57 has been handling this, and I would not block at all unless he at least doesn't oppose it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't oppose a block here. Number 57 23:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Your comment is vile, baseless, and unwarranted. I would not be making such accusations if I didnt have the proof.—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 23:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Proof of which you haven't really provided. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Because you do not provide the means. I do not have a desktop. I have tried finding how to upload files to the app or mobile versions, and there is no way—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 23:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Your behavior towards the admins here is disturbing. They have no reason to lie or deceive anyone yet you continue to make baseless attacks against them. Esuka323 (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Then don't throw around baseless accusations like that if you can't back up your claims as doing so pretty much borders on them being personal attacks. Also agree with Esuka. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I’m not lying. The deletion logs exist. I wish I could upload my screenshots, but I’m not on desktop and cannot attach said screenshots.

EDIT: Clicking the link on the email left off the exclamation point, so I withdraw the Draft talk page from the deleted pages in question. My apologies--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have blocked Harmony944 indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:6FA0:1930:94AF:6635:49FC:69CD reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: blocked 36 hours )

Page

Doppler effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1700:6FA0:1930:94AF:6635:49FC:69CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 23:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 23:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 23:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 23:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 23:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 23:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "General note: Adding inappropriate external links on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"
2. 23:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Adding spam links on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"
3. 23:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked for 36 hours, but I note that the page has been targeted before by another IP, potentially related so it might need to be semi protected if this continues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Article has been semi protected now for three days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Minimumbias reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Both warned)

Page: Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Minimumbias Minimumbias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:
Edits were made to move around other people's talk page comments which was contested and reverted, editor has persisted. Very grateful for this to be resolved by neutral administration. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to invite any administrator who is responsible for this case to see what is really going on in this Talk Page [[18]] and possibly some older discussions in detail. This editor (OnetwothreeIP) had repeated made personal remarks and even personal attacks towards me. Now, the initial undones were due to OnetwothreeIP on my edits without providing any explanations. I have tried to avoid edit war even before OnetwothreeIP threatened to report here, as one can see clearly in history [[19]]. Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of personal attacks on my part are complete nonsense, User:Minimumbias has literally accused me of libel which is very concerning per WP:No legal threats and other personal remarks and suggestions about me personally. I believe I asked them to not be so hostile, and that was considered by them as a personal attack. Those issues are completely separate to this issue.

My undo-ing of their edits was explained both in edit summary and in the talk page. As the procedure dictates, I said to User:Minimumbias that I wanted to discuss the issue before reporting them here, but they said I should report them here anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

__________________

I suggest people directly look at the evidence in [[20]]. Also, I have another editor User:StanLeeP who testified in that talk page and whose words objectively supported my actions and behavior. To be objective, I had displayed the complete editing timeline in [[21]], as one can easily verify from the editing history of the Talkpage.

What I did was combining some sections with similar topics without altering at all the content or order of discussions - in fact, I am one of few main participants in each of this section. However, editor Onetwothreeip's central point is that I had "no permission sought to change others' talk page entries, changing/deleting headlines (undoing)"/"You do not have the permission of the editor who made the heading". I had referred this editor repeatedly to the relevant Wikipedia policies that there is no such thing called "permission" when it comes to merging similar topics and modifying headings (especially when there are duplicated discussions), but was ignored. On the other hand, Onetwothreeip had offended editor StanLeeP by leaving out or misplacing StanLeeP's discussion with me. The Wikipedia policies I'd consulted in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines include:

Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.

Avoid posting the same thread in multiple talk pages: This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link. If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and link to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why.

The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Minimumbias (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not my "central point" to this edit warring notice at all. I thought you would use that very new user who agrees with you on everything. The moving around talk page entries by Minimumbias was very odd and unnecessary so I restored them to the best of my ability. The problem is that they could not accept their moving around talk entries was disputed and engaged in an edit war to try and keep them, not about what the guidelines say on moving talk page entries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No, nobody "uses" me. Please do not use provocative language. And I don't know how you drew the conclusion that I agreed with Minimumbias on everything. I first expressed my concern on the Talk Page regarding summer policy which Minimumbias did not completely agree. I then offered my argument and discussed with Minimumbias further. Changes were then made to the article. Some time later Minimumbias invited back to the Talk Page on some other issues and we had some discussions. I only reported what I saw yesterday without favoring either party.StanLeeP (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

__________________

If it is possible, I'd like to countercharge editor Onetwothreeip for starting and engaging in edit war by violating the 3R Rule. This is why much earlier I stated in that Talk page ([[22]]) that I'd report this editor here before he/she did. But it turns out he/she was faster in his/her action. I have listed every details in the timeline in that Talk Page. But here is the complete reverting timeline:

1) First revert by Onetwothreeip at 22:41 and 22:47 on 21 July 2018‎: [[23]]. No explanation given in edit summary. During this process, Onetwothreeip left out or misplaced my conversation with editor StanLeeP.

2) At 01:15 21 July 2018‎, I started to manually clean the chaos (this is not a revert, because editors StanLeeP and Onetwothreeip had made numerous edits before I did), explaining reasons and Wikipedia policies in all edit summaries. Second revert by Onetwothreeip at 01:22 and 01:23 on 22 July 2018: [[24]]. No explanation given in edit summary.

3) At 01:27, 22 July 2018‎, I reverted for the first time Onetwothreeip's unexplained reverts in 2). At 01:29, 22 July 2018, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit for the third time: [[25]]. No explanation given in edit summary.

4) At 01:32, 22 July 2018, I reverted for the second time Onetwothreeip's unexplained revert in 3), stating "Unexplained edit" in my edit summary. However, at 01:32, 22 July 2018‎, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit for the fourth time, violating the 3R rule: [[26]].

5) At 01:33, 22 July 2018, I reverted for the third time Onetwothreeip's revert and made efforts to avoid edit war (e.g, in my further edit summaries I stated clearly "I'd like to make changes to avoid further edit war"). Minimumbias (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not compulsory, they are optional. "Unexplained edit" has never been a good reason to make an edit on its own. Even still I explained my edits in the talk page. I'm not sure why you're claiming you wanted to avoid an edit war, when I asked that we discuss the matter you said I should just report you anyway, so I did. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Minimumbias and User:Onetwothreeip are both warned. Either of them may be blocked if they touch or relocate any other editors' comments on the talk page without first getting a general consensus for a rearrangement. The edit warring policy applies in full force to article talk pages. As it states in WP:REFACTOR, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree with this. It was my understanding that contentious talk page move-arounds were reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Dilpa kaur (Result: Warning, Semi)

Page: Human rights abuses in Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]

This page is subject to 1RR: I also see no attempt to resolve the issue on Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir. This user has already been warned for edit warring here recently.[29]
Dilpa kaur (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Reverting obvious vandalism [30][31] (by a clear sock) is WP:NOT3RR
• Plus there is more to See User_talk:DBigXray#Happy_with_revert,_still_take_it_to_the_talk_page --DBigXray 08:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• IP hopping socks luring experienced editors to violate 1RR violation? Try again. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What DBigXray is falsely calling vandalism were quite reasonable and policy-grounded edits by the IP[32][33][34]. There is also no evidence that the IP editor is a sock.[35] Even if it was, there is no justification for DBigXray's revert of meaningful edits. I see that DBigXray has come to the talk page (but with a loaded question) after I filed this report. This may be WP:GAMING to avoid sanctions. I would also recommend a block for DBigXray's friend Accesscrawl (an account registered 7 months ago but quite familiar with an old sockmaster from before his time/with language resembling a topic-banned user) for this incivility.[36] Dilpa kaur (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Firstly User:Mfarazbaig had used Karachi, Sindh IPs. thats where these IPs above geolocate to as well. CUs dont publicly connect IPs to IDs.
• Secondly; Yes, of course. lets believe (instead of blocking) all the the Socks from the SockFarm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital and start blocking all editors on their hit list. Way to go.
• Thirdly, Based on your own contribution history, I have this opinion that your only purpose here is to participate in meat puppetry by supporting Pakistani POV in controversial articles and filing reports. --DBigXray 10:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Result: DBigXray warned for 1RR violation. That editor's claim to be reverting vandalism makes no sense. Also, I have semiprotected the page for three months. When IPs write edit sophisticated summaries it makes me think that some kind of campaign might be going on. I notice that User:Dilpa kaur, the filer of this report, was reported at ANI back in February for concerns related to their Kashmir editing. No action was taken at that time. But if it seems that some editors are not able to edit neutrally on the topic of Kashmir, sanctions are possible under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Usualzukor reported by User:CommanderOzEvolved (Result: Warned)

Page

Wonder Woman (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851424472 by CommanderOzEvolved (talk) I added a comment there on the talk page. Size of the material is never justification for keeping it. In fact, here the very *vastness* of this WP:OR, off topic, fanboy digression screams that much louder for it's immediate purging -- then it's discussion. You need to provide good *secondary* sources that actually makes such analysis to replace this material."
2. 05:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851423949 by 2Memphis (talk) undid unexplained revert."
3. 05:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't work that way. There's simply more explanation of the deficiencies there on the talk page. Removed unduly large segment which is wholly off topic. Vast tracts of text devoted to decades of arcane pre-production details of OTHER movies is not standard for articles about movies, and is completely unnotable. This WP:OR makes it's own analysis from primary sources. Notability (and includability) can only be demonstrated via secondary sources that provide the connection and conclusions."
4. 03:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Background */ Removed unduly large segment which is wholly off topic, unnotable. See talk page about this too."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Wonder Woman (2017 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "/* "Background" section */"
2. 06:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "/* "Background" section */"

Comments:

User is removing an entire section and 3 different editors have reverted it. That user kept removing the entire section regardless. CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 06:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Accuser made no attempt to resolve the matter on the talk page before accusations and this (rapid!) escalation. Accuser seems to think that size of material is justification for inclusion (needs some remedial training?). The size of the material here is the main problem. Large tracts of off topic WP:OR needs attention and discussion, not summary replacement followed by threats and power games. This is run of the mill bold-revert-discuss stuff. Usualzukor (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, oops. But I would now like to add further points.

• Firstly, many of the sources I checked in the affected section are NOT original research, which complies with WP:OR, in fact some of them are published in notable sites such as The Huffington Post and The Hollywood Reporter.
• Secondly, I noticed that many of the source sites are archived for preservation reasons. That got me thinking whether you might have misread "archived from original" as original research when hovering over the links with the mouse. Maybe not but that's a possibility.
• Thirdly, deleting over 23000 bytes of data without prior consensus will cause issues, especially when re-doing it after it got reverted by 3 different editors.

Other users mistook what you did for vandalism and so did I (and the Special:AbuseLog that tagged your edits as such), but I'm now thinking that you may just be going too overboard when removing content. Thus, don't blank whole sections abruptly but take other approaches to remove offending sources wherever found, and preferably in a way that doesn't draw controversy. CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 07:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, "3 different editors" was an undue and too-early characterization. One of them (2Memphis) was "suspiciously-new" and who's revert had no explanation (such a revert makes it look like someone could be trying to fake a consensus). The last "two" took place within just a few minutes. The only editor (of the "three") to actually care that I reverted them (w/ detailed justifications) was you. That ain't no consensus.  :-)

It takes time to see the formation of either 1) a balanced congenial discussion, or 2) an actual vituperous edit war. A few ordinary bold-revert cycles is too early to justify your escalations IMHO.

You say you're concerned mostly about vandalism. Sounds good to me. Let me suggest that an occupational hazard of that specialty is that everything looks like a nail. In the future, please examine the fuller picture more carefully before going forward with that confirmation bias. Usualzukor (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Warned The reverting has stopped and discussion transferred over to the talk page, so I'm going to close this now with a reminder that you should always do this instead of getting into revert wars. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jawadmdr reported by User:Jibran1998 (Result: Protected)

Page

Pakistani general election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 08:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "We have already decided after duniya News survey that only survey will be added after Talk page disscussion. This survey is not reliable and I have already challenged this on talk page. Wait for concensus"
3. 19:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Read the link that states sampling method. Only 56 districts out of 350 and random interviews. Not a professional survey"
4. 19:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Dont include a media based survey. It clearly states that random people were asked. Opinion survey conducted by a authentic survey organisation with a strata based sample be included only"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

persistent edit warring since last night, even though administrator allowed the survey in question to be added to [Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018

A game is being played by three politically motivated users Jibran, Masterpha and wikiohlic they edit back to back to add pro PTI blog / controversial surveys. Let Talk page discussion to decide the merits of survey for inclusion. I have started a talk page new section since yesterday. Jawadmdr (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Jawadmdr is wrong. Despite already having been blocked 1 day for similar editing warring he continues to do the same. Here is another diff where he reverts our edits:

1. 11:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) he says ‘see talk page’ despite there being no consensus for the poll being removed on the talk page. He has clearly violated the 3RR against edit warring. And if you are wondering how I got to this edit war report, I was checking his user contributions to see whether he had once again disrupted the page. That is how serious this disruption is. маsтегрнатаLк 12:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

As for the three editors being politically motivated, I would like to remind him that I was the one who added the previous surveys which were in PMLN’s favour, showing double digit leads. The only political motivation is coming from you, who insisted on adding a biased lead which would put the article in favour of PMLN, as well as changing the graph to show an old, outdated revision from march which would still show the pmln far ahead. маsтегрнатаLк 12:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Masterpha See talk page initiative by me to resolve the issue [37] and [38] and discuss instead of trapping in 3R using 3 accounts. I can file SPI like you did and failed. Jawadmdr (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This user is solely on Wikipedia (by seeing his edits history) to edit these two articles relating to Pakistani General Elections and even after an administrator allowed for a survey to be added to a article (btw the survey was published by SDPI whose previous surveys were added to the article), but because he did not like the survey he does not want it to be added, even though according to his own argument (about number of constituencies surveyed) almost every survey then should not be added. - Jibran1998 (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jawadmdr: go ahead. File the SPI. I did not use three accounts, it is just that you are insistent on a POV push, which is why your edits are being reverted. I do not feel threatened by that because I know that I am not sockpuppeteering and am certain that a check user on all three accounts will produce different results. Unlike you I do not use open proxies to duck my way out of SPI’s. Anyway that investigation is over now. The talk page discussion you initiated is great: but wait for support until you delete a poll which is backed by most editors and admins on the article. маsтегрнатаLк 14:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Page protected Until 01:00 UTC 25 July 2018. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Miss HollyJ reported by User:TheDoctorWho (Result: )

Page: Big Brother 20 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miss HollyJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:54, 22 July 2018‎
2. 00:39, 23 July 2018‎
3. 00:48, 23 July 2018‎
4. 00:53, 23 July 2018‎
5. The following revert was a partial revert completed in three parts:
   1. 03:27, 23 July 2018‎
   2. 03:31, 23 July 2018‎
   3. 03:32, 23 July 2018‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:55, 23 July 2018‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No official discussion took place on the article talk page however, a discussion took place in edit summaries and in this section on a user talk page regarding the material in question.

Comments:

Alucard 16 also left a notice regarding the same material on the user's talk page (seen in this diff) which was reverted by the user prior to the fifth revert. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm following Wikipedia's guidelines on proper sourcing. Recaps are not considered reliable sources when it comes to talking about a controversy with the public, which I have informed you multiple times. I asked you to provide the "media coverage" you speak of and still haven't done so. I added an actual reliable source, The Washington Post. Miss HollyJ (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Miss HollyJ, even if you disapprove of the sources that User:TheDoctorWho wants to use, this is not a big enough concern to allow you to revert without penalty per WP:3RRNO. Normally, agreement on quality of sources is reached through discussion among editors. There may still be time for you to back away from the situation. Otherwise, you could be blocked for WP:3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

My edits were reverted 4 times by that user as well. I let them know that they can't use recaps as a source because all that they include are summaries of the episode which are already listed in the article under the episodes section. I read it and there is no mention whatsoever of controversy or criticism. I don't think that warrants a discussion on an opinion amongst editors when the facts show there is no proof in that source to back up their claims. I asked for the "press coverage" they talked about and still haven't been able to provide it. Miss HollyJ (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Miss HollyJ, unless you think you were undoing a BLP violation there is no exemption here for your reverts. Are you sure you won't take the deal, and agree to wait for consensus? EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I will agree to wait for a consensus before reverting any further, however, I stand by what I said. Miss HollyJ (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support block This user clearly had some kind of personal grudge against the paragraph that they kept on reverting. The user broke the 3RR rule by reverting the same edit 6 times. The user had no intentions of going to the talk page to discuss their edits, instead using the edit summary as way to express their anger. The user claimed that the paragraph wasn't controversial, however; it was featured in multiple articles online and in the show itself (which many users pointed out). After that didn't work, the user claimed that the sources weren't reliable. The sources were from Global Television Network and The Hollywood Reporter which are both reliable sources. On top of that, in another edit the user took out info that they said was a "personal opinion". The line was added to provide a neutral point of view, plus it has a reliable source in TMZ. Disruptive editing and 3RR. I do support a block. Computer40 «»(talk) 22:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"This user clearly had some kind of personal grudge" No I did not. 1) That is your opinion and 2) I was never angry. And not once did I say Global wasn't a reliable source. I said a recap isn't a reliable source no matter where it's from because all it is is a summary of the episode. Also, I never undid the sources that listed The Hollywood Reporter. I left that there. And finally, the article talking about Devin was used as a source on a line that said "Many came to the defense of the two" which is not accurate at all. That TMZ article only listed the personal opinion of one former houseguest, Devin. Miss HollyJ (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User:24.172.13.66 reported by User:Billhpike (Result: )

Page

Forsyth Country Day School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "WP:IRRELEVANT WP:IRI"
2. 16:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "Removing unnecessary information about the school from the history section"
3. 16:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ removing unnecessary content from the history section of the school page"
4. 15:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "editing history"
5. 15:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "Editing history"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Forsyth Country Day School . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

School IP — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If the IP user won't respond, it may be best to restore the school block. The IP was blocked for as much as two years in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User:99.230.105.217 reported by User:Strikerforce (Result: )

Page

Lexus India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 15:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "no need to merge"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lexus India. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

While the 3RR has not yet been violated with regard to the merge tag, this same IP user removed a (properly placed, in my opinion) redirect tag on the article less than five days ago. Strikerforce^Talk 19:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Davidmholland reported by User:DVdm (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41], as ip 99.237.238.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44] switched to new version
5. [45]
6. [46]
7. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48] and [49], and for the later version: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion about is ongoing at Talk:Coriolis_force#Improving the "Intuitive explanation" subection, without input from this user.

Comments:

Not only edit warring, but also adding obvious original research to the article. - DVdm (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)