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)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158
1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168
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)
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Pages: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• Breaking 1RR on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 13:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Breaking 1RR on Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 12:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#SDF Military Bases

Comments:
The articles on which the edit warring occurred are subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place 2 days before he engaged in 1RR violations. This user has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Before being notified of the sanctions, he had engaged in edit warring. However, his being notified of the sanctions, did not change his attitude. Also, you can see that in the last 4 days, he has received messages from 2 other users complaining about his attitude ([1][2]). In addition, there is a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his bad edits over the last few days. Tradedia^talk 04:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – One week for edit warring on Module:Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map on 23 February. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:
The user does not appear to contest the claim he is removing (that Kobyakov served as Deputy PM from 2003 to 2010). Instead he is removing content because he thinks this is funny. Given the impression that he is not editing in good faith and is instead just engaged in petty vandalism, I'm asking for a longer than usual block here. Curro2 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly adhering to WP:CIVIL. [10] Curro2 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the user erased my warning from their talk page, may be some other administrator would repeat that they should drastically improve their communications skills. Stopping to revert good edits and finally reading the fucking manual would also help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to provide a diff of the above comment or does it speak for itself? Curro2 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're an administrator? How did I miss that? You're an administrator and you're cursing at me? Curro2 (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:ADMINACCT - "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected. By my count, Ymblanter has made 3 reverts (your diff n:o 3 isn't a revert) and so have you, Curro2. I don't see a single contribution from either of you on the talkpage. I've protected the article for two days to encourage discussion. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You're correct about #3, so he's only reverted three times but I have the right not to be cursed at. I'm also not sure what is in dispute. He has effectively conceded he was wrong on the substance. Curro2 (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps it's your turn to concede you communicated badly? And nobody has cursed "at" you. As far as cursing in your presence, you might as well get used to that if you want to edit the English Wikipedia. It's not an attack. If you seriously want to make something of that (personally I think you'd regret it), ANI is the place, not AN3. It's altogether a rather poor idea to file complaints at this board when you're just as guilty of edit warring as the other party. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

this is not strictly a WP:3RR, but this single editor refuses to enter a dialog with 5 other editors that are of the same mind. i don't know what else to do but attempt to get an admin to intervene.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]

we've tried to resolve via talk page, but warring editor refuses to discuss the dispute in the talk page, and is at odds with 5 other editors and counting..not sure what else to do:

Talk:Utah#pornography_in_utah

Comments:

please help!  :-)

Prefetch (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No violation of 3RR, and frankly, the controversial edit is properly sourced, and no editors have given a policy based reason to remove it. That's not to say that we should report that Utahians are the largest consumers of paid internet porn in the USA. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely frivolous claim; only two of those reverts (restoring sourced content) were within a 24 hour period. Even if all three were within a 24 hour period, it would not breach WP:3RR. OP was unilaterally removing long standing, sourced content, without either starting a requested RfC or 3O request. A consensus is being formed against its inclusion, and I will abide by that - as I abide by all consensus decisions. OP should be warned what constitutes edit warring. I gave no additional input, because the user kept making the same WP:OR claims and asking the same questions, over and again, after I had already responded. Scr★pIron^IV 20:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a 3RR issue, it's an edit war issue: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle." scrapiron won't discuss the issue, and clearly is in the minority against a consensus of editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefetch (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit I made was policy based, as opposed to a bunch of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT excuses. Unilaterally removing sourced content could easily be construed as vandalism. It's not about "winning" to me, it's about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia and its processes. And, please, learn how to sign your comments, as you have been told by others. Scr★pIron^IV 20:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry - i'm obviously new to wikipedia and don't know all the rules. this page had an obvious mistake in my mind (and it's now obvious to 5 other editors) and so i made a change, and i additionally posted in the talk page to see if everyone was okay with the change. we had an extremely unsatisfying brief discussion that simply made no sense to me, and so i sued for further discussion. you ignored my posts and so i hoped a 3rd opinion would appear, and it did. i mistakenly thought this was the same as the 3O rule, but i was wrong. i then did a formal 3O, and then several more editors chimed in all supporting the edit. at that stage you still wouldn't engage in the talk page, and i just wasn't sure what else to do except appeal to this board. again, i apologize for my clumsy navigation of the processes, but i'm trying to learn and contribute. Prefetch (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will only interject to note that it's very hard to construct this as "unilateral removal of sourced content" and consequently vandalism: there is a debate in progress with several opinions (now including mine) bringing forth a somewhat compelling WP:UNDUEness objection to the material. Just because something has a "ref" tag on it doesn't make it immune from scrutiny and possible redaction. LjL (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "debate" didn't start until today, those opinions are after my communication and restoration of the content. When this started, it was just the OP, and me, and I suggested that they start an RfC or a 3O request - rather than the OP and I just disagreeing back and forth. I also told them at that time that it stays at the status quo until a new consensus is reached. It's as simple as that. Clearly they are an inexperienced editor. I don't mind getting rid of the content, I don't care what Utah does with its spare time. What it needed was scrutiny and consensus - not just a new editor coming in and deleting it. 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrapIronIV (talk • contribs)

Well, it's getting scrutiny now, so it worked. It's just that vandalism accusations about removing something that smelled so strongly of WP:UNDUE seemed a tad far-fetched, and I thought it worthwhile to point it out. LjL (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) While both users could have handled this a bit better (more talking, and less reverting), I think that nothing is really going to happen here (on this noticeboard anyway). A discussion with no real (serious) edit warring makes this report moot. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 02:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21], [22]. Reverts 5 and 6 were after 3RR warning. User began edit-warring again after 24 hours.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] et sequelae. Three of the four editors whom the reported user has reverted are participating. The reported user has not participated despite requests to do so. See also Conflict of interest/Noticeboard here.

Comments:
There may also be socking involved. The previous edit-warring was by Bojdufa, a paid editor, who had changed their name from the very similar Ytprograms. Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• They have been blocked for 31 hours by Drmies following a report to AIV after blanking the article. SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Programsyt is now just blanking the article:

dif

dif

and was blocked by Drmies for 31 hours for Disruptive editing. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Drmies. If this behavior continues a longer block is possible. The new editor User:Programsyt doesn't seem to be taking any advice. A similar account, User:Ytprograms, has been renamed to User:Bojdufa, who is not currently blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More accounts related to Youth Time are now blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhitelew. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29] - note, done via a sock account
6. [30]
7. [31]
8. [32]

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

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

Comments:

User was approaching 3RR the other day and, having been warned, created a sock for the next attempt, and was blocked for socking. Returned to edit warring for same material less than half a day after sock block had run out. At least four users have undone his reversions, and his most recent edit comment, "(i am not going to leave it for sure .... will fight for this information because this is genuine and explained in a better way)" makes it clear that he intends to continue in this manner. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Page fully protected, and user blocked 72 hrs by Courcelles. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – 2 weeks by User:Courcelles. Two accounts blocked as described in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Websoftnew. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Devin Durrant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 2605:a601:56e:df01:ac93:933d:f57d:690c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:c107:aeb3:42cb:181b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:55af:15aa:b48a:6641 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:6c44:fc49:c515:5ba7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:44e6:67c5:ba9a:b9f5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:adbf:3cb7:3fe:627f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:11d9:eaa0:8381:a78e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:8851:4a7c:bd5c:44f5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:d521:7236:53bc:ca4b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:507a:e957:ec2:d7a6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All the above IPs are registered to the same address and edit summaries support this being the same person.

• Edits/reverts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - mainly linked to reverts of the IP's additions in order to show user's reasons for reverting as well as IP's comments
• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 & 2 3
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1
• See also: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Devin_Durrant

Comments:
I've reported this here instead of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in attempt to maintain the assumption of good faith.

This anon repeatedly adds content that has multiple issues to the same page - but the issue isn't so much the edit as the complete refusal to engage in any kind of communication about the changes. Their edit summaries show that they understand what an edit summary is for, and their comment on the BLP noticeboard shows that they've read other users' edit summaries (which include requests to discuss on the talk page), but their continued refusal to communicate indicates that they either don't understand the messages or are just ignoring them.

In short, this anon may be trying to edit the article in good faith, but instead is just causing endless disruption. They made the same edit again while I was creating this report, which I haven't reverted because that would take me over 3RR, and I'm trying really hard to keep assuming good faith even though part of me thinks this has stepped over the line into straight-out vandalism.

At present, there's no way to resolve the edit war because this anon won't communicate. I'm going to notify them of this discussion on every single IP talk page in another attempt to get their attention, but given past precedent, I highly doubt they'll respond. Marianna251TALK 21:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Set a rangeblock for two weeks on 2605:a601:510:fc01::/64. This should cover all IPs except the first one listed. A person should not use a fluctuating IP to conduct edit wars. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: My House (Flo Rida song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
My House (EP) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.250.37.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [36] [37] [38] [39]

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

• Edit warring is shown in reverts.

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

• I've told him several times to stop edit warring and that JayFrance co-produced the song. It's just some random ip address who does nothing but vandalize that song's page and it's accompanying EP page. Update: He's likely using an alternate IP to do the exact same thing. Undoing my edit is this IP's first edit...107.72.96.84 Update 2 Both IP addresses are from Los Angeles California according to iptracker.com. Obvious sockpuppetry BlaccCrab (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Cleaned up report -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

David Ortiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC) to 02:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 706748761 by A guy saved by Jesus (talk)"
   2. 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 706749986 by Jkaradell (talk)"
   3. 02:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "I don't care what the metadata is it's a lousy picture of him. I've been maintaining this page every day for 10 years. I've practically written the entire page. Go through the history to see. Then you drop in one day and decide you're in charge."
2. 01:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "It's s a "fact" that it's better quality. I don't see any better quality in that picture. The picture sucks and I'm not the only one that thinks so. I wasnt the one that changed it back months ago you really sound like you've been saved. Go fuck yourself"
3. 16:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC) "Bro, Sorry but that 2014 picture sucks. The picture of him pointing to his mother in heaven after a HR is better. That's Papi's signature. The picture doesn't have to be recent. A lot of player pages have pictures of their younger days in their infobox."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC) "/* David Ortiz */ new section"
2. 02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on David Ortiz. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Infobox image */ new section"

Comments:

This user has made a total of five reverts regarding the infobox image on David Ortiz's page, and also made a personal attack against me by telling me to "go fuck" myself. I explained my rationale to them about why I would prefer to use the image I have reverted to, and I stopped reverting after the third time. On the other hand, this user's only rationale behind the image they keep reverting to is their personal opinion that the other image "sucks." They need to understand that Wikipedia is built on consensus, not edit warring, but they have also been unwilling to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Also, their most recent revert is assuming ownership of the article. A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Issues of civility and such should probably go to WP:ANI. That said, Jkaradell, I strongly recommend, at the very least, engaging with @A guy saved by Jesus: on the article's talk page and/or seeking a third opinion or other forms of dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 06:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: User-multi error: "AndrewGulch" is not a valid project or language code (help).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]

1. [41]

1. [42]

1. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45] [46]

Comments:
Lots of discussion in links below. User has a strong bent on this theme, not getting results in Talk, now involved in edit war. Received warning here [47] after 3rd revert. Then did another revert. Is also spamming on talk page on same issue [48] [49] and [50] same theme [51]. Im also concerned about a possible Sock with same ideas, wording. [52] and [53] Another user deleted four other threads by IP with same geolocation as IP above, mentioned here, last comment [54]. SaintAviator lets talk 04:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As a newcomer I have found the editing atmosphere at Vladimir Putin to be utterly toxic. There are insults, blind reverts, and the like being hurled from both sides of the debate (including, I must say, the complainant here). It is worth pointing out that this is the edit warring noticeboard and not merely the 3RR noticeboard. In that regard I ask (beg, plead) for the admin who acts on this complaint to look in on the situation as a whole and apply sanctions liberally. Another possibility would be to full-protect the article for a long enough period that the combatants get bored and drift away. Maybe one of those measures will change the editing atmosphere sufficiently that some of the rest of us can edit. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Recently there have been three reverts of the lede at Vladimir Putin by User:Solntsa90, who has previously been blocked for edit warring. It may be time for a ban of that editor from the Vladimir Putin page. Back in January he was banned by User:Drmies from RT (TV network) as shown at this link. Lately there have been complaints to admins about editor behavior on the Putin article (as echoed by VM above) and it may be time to start using the ARBEE sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ed, I don't have it in me to do any more paperwork today: I agree with a topic ban for Putin. In the meantime, I have blocked him for two weeks (which I think is mild) for hounding Marek around the place; MastCell, I saw you were considering looking into that as well. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:Solntsa90 is banned from the topic of Vladimir Putin on both article and talk pages, under the discretionary sanctions provided by WP:ARBEE. User:AndrewGulch is warned and is being alerted to ARBEE. If anyone believes that User:SaintAviator should be sanctioned then a specific complaint is required. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Mr. Robot (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]
5. [60]
6. [61]
7. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:

While the editor may not have violated 3RR, they most certainly have violated any edit-warring protocols. They also believe themselves to be above needing warnings via templates such as {{uw-editwar}}, per their posts on my talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex tells part of the story. I'll skip the content discussion that he refuses to take part in and focus just on this matter. Yes, Alex did put a template on my page, at 23:41, 3 minutes after I had already self-reverted [65]. Alex was even aware of my self revert at 23:47 [66] but continued pretending that it didn't happen. 2 responses later, he was still ignoring it [67]. Claiming that he's tried to resolve it is kind of amusing. Alex hasn't tried to resolve anything at all, despite attempts to get him to discuss the issue. To summarize, I self-reverted before the warning was placed. I informed Alex that I had self-reverted. No edits to the page have taken place since then. I'm disappointed that an experienced user like Alex has refused to engage in any discussion, instead choosing to communicate via passive-aggressive edit summaries. BTW, I didn't say I was above warnings (there's that penchant for fabrication), I told him not to template something that could have been done with, you know, words....and probably not after the edit had been self-revertedNiteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that in no way was the edit warring template in regards to the editor's most recent edit; rather, it was for their actions as a whole, though they see keen to reject this. I do not need to participate in a discussion to note that an editor has a serious warring-personality issue. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, when a discussion is already underway over the material you are reverting, you should be participating in the discussion, not making reverts based on faulty applications of essays. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift has managed to stay juuuuuust this side of 3RR, but has taken the stance that he has no obligation to gain consensus, despite having made the bold edit, which has been reverted by three editors. I do agree with Alex that he still is engaging in slow edit warring, trying to justify his attempts to force his edit by claiming editors supporting the long-standing status quo have not provided a justification to retain the edit, and thus continues to revert. He refuses to abide by WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, as will as misapplying policies related to character articles and film cast. His edit is arbitrary, and seems to be an effort to do nothing more than remove three actors who do not have articles. --Drmargi (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The magic "3 editors" again. One who made a revert and stopped discussing, you and Alex, who has refused to participate in the discussion. What you and Alex fail to mention is that there is an other editor supporting the removal. Both of you keep waving around essays (BRD and Statusquo) as if they are policies. Saying that I refuse to abide by an essay shows that you don't realize that an essay isn't a requirement. You at least participated for a while, then you stopped when you didn't get your way from us. To this day, you still haven't cited a policy, MOS or even an essay that supported including the material. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stopped when the discussion turned into an insult match and I was called a liar by an editor who didn't check his facts. And your other editor acknowledged he'd only seen a couple episodes of the show. He's there for an agenda all his own, that has nothing to do with improving the article. Regardless, do you have consensus for your edit? No. --Drmargi (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have consensus to leave the material? No. It doesn't matter if that editor had seen all the episodes. The principal applies to any movie or show, not just this one. I don't know about his alleged agenda, but I do know he supported removal. 2 editors in the discussion supported it, 2 did not. But you left, the other editor left and then claim that the material stays by default. None of this, however, is what this noticeboard is for. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sippenhaft (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: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
I might want to add that Monochrome Monitor at first argued that the sources are not understandable since in German while later on even translating from German to English and adding German literature to the article. Argumentation seems constantly changing. Keeps removing the entire section while only criticizing one aspect of two relevant. --Rabenkind (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean we shouldn't use German sources for readability. I said we generally shouldn't use german sources without a good justification. It's appropriate to use german sources in cases of German literature about traditional Germanic law. It's much less appropriate in cases of Middle Eastern politics. Also, I gave up on convincing you. Right now I'm trying to better the article by talking about Germanic/Celtic and Chinese traditional law. I'm trying to find a chinese character in unicode but it's really difficult.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, those weren't all in the same day I don't think. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, you kept on removing the section after I added articles from the New York Times and ABC News. The last four reverts were during the last 20h. --Rabenkind (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing no evidence by the OP to resolve the dispute on T/P apart from one very WP:SOAPBOX posting which does not appear to attempt to discuss compromise. Both parties are equally at fault at this stage. Suggest withdrawal of complaint and further discussion at article T/P before this escalates further. Irondome (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not going to remove that section again without a firm discussion. I was impulsive and I barely read your edits. But I still want to edit the page, the stuff about china needs more coverage. Anyway, next time warning me would be sufficient, I thought we were going to discuss it until it was reinstated. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for discussion as long as people can wait with the article until an agreement. Edit where ever you want if you can leave out the subjects disputed. But what happened was a classic edit war. --Rabenkind (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to admins I am MM's mentor, as some of you already know.

@Rabenkind Then I suggest this is withdrawn and conversation taken up. As an observer, there appears to be a large amount to be discussed on this. I've been watching but missed the escalation. The bottom line is, as always, is that it takes two to edit war. Irondome (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Irondome: It does feel a little awkward that you take part in this as a mentor of Monochrome Monitor and while your WP activities cover the same field as the discussed article. --Rabenkind (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is what mentoring is about. A mentor keeps an eye on their mentoree. My interests on wikipedia are vast and diverse, and I actually very rarely edit the same articles as MM. Your point such as it is seems somewhat opaque. Irondome (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NONENG, use of non-English language sources are allowed. There is no mention of a need for a "justification" to use a foreign language source, only that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones. Foreign language sources are therefore not only suitable for usage in occasions where they are relevant to the article (like you mentioned with German literature about Germanic law), but outside of them as well regardless of relevance to the article topic, as long as they are supported/replaced by equal quality and relevance English-language sources when they become available. Not that this is relevant to this case any more, since English-language sources have since been cited. Alcherin (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irondome very rarely edits I/P. Thanks simon! --Monochrome_Monitor 02:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best thanks you could give me, MM is to stop being so impulsive and to communicate me weekly updates as to what articles you are editing. Mentoring you is like trying to herd cats sometimes. That being said, this is purely a content dispute aggravated by a lack of prior discussion. Looking at the material I am seeing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and would better off being in Collective punishment. To use a Germanic terminology based on an ancient Northern European law article to drag in Israel seems perverse at best. But as I have said, this is a content dispute. There seems plenty to discuss. The refusal of the OR to return to discussion and to continue this here is concerning. I am sure you are prepared to continue discussion MM, but the question is, is Rabenkind? There has been no substantive attempts by the OP to engage in dialogue, but rather an unseemly rush to the boards. The closing admin should take account of this I believe, and Monochrome_Monitor useful work here. Irondome (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten better, no? I haven't been involved in an I/P dispute in nearly a year. Well, over six months at least. I agree about the term sippenhaft... in Germanic law it is something very different than nazi law, even. In Germanic law it's a payment given to the family of the injured party in severe crimes such as murder by the offender's kin in place or in addition to the offender's blood money, the wyregild. This was one kind of punishment in germanic law, the other being blood revenge. Sippenhaft is just the principle that the kin of an offender can be made to pay the wergild instead of the offender. This was found all over pre-christian europe.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for sustained discussion on content MM, which adds to my point that none of this has been discussed at the appropriate place in any length. There is much interesting material to be hashed out. This should end and dialogue resumed. It takes two to edit war, as I have said. Irondome (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your wisdom is truly boundless. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – 2 weeks. The inclusion of Israeli examples of 'Sippenhaft' in the article is not clearly supported by the New York Times article. That article states that the relatives were expelled, not as relatives, but because they were participants in the militants' activities even if they didn't actually set off a bomb. Whether Israeli house demolitions may be contrary to the Geneva convention is already discussed in House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. That article is well-sourced but never uses the term 'Sippenhaft.' Even if editors conclude that 'collective punishment' is occurring, associating this with the term Sippenhaft may be original research. I'm alerting User:Rabenkind of the discretionary sanctions under ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Black British (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698087519 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
2. 20:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698087519 by Cordless Larry (talk) picture"
3. 19:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698087519 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
4. 19:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

diff

Comments:

Keri (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & DantODB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
These two are going back and forth on the page and there's too many to list.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]