(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.129.197.146 (talk) at 19:39, 10 February 2016 (→‎User:Darek555 reported by User:75.129.197.146 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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:100.15.134.190 reported by User:Debresser (Result: No action)

    Page: Halakha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 100.15.134.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]
    5. [6]
    6. [7]
    7. [8]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9], [10], [11]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Halakha#Halaqa

    Comments:At first I simply reverted this editor once or twice. When I saw he is not going to discuss, I opened the talkpage discussion linked above. Then Dweller protected the article, in what in my point of view was overkill, and in addition expressed his opinion in favor of the change the IP editor is proposing on the talkpage.[12] No additional comments have been made regarding this issue on the talkpage.
    Apart from the IP being annoyingly condescending in his edit summaries (see especially the before last one), and posting awfully long posts that are equally annoyingly condescending, the real problem is that he just doesn't stop adding that hatnote, even though there is no consensus for it, and he has not replied to the content of my objection on the talkpage. Please notice that in his last edit summary, he has stated that he is not going to desist from edit warring: "I'm not capitulating. I think you should know that. Not until you propose a solution will I relent."[13]


    Debresser, I'm sorry if calling you my brother and a fellow son of Adam was condescending to you. Second, I was pointing out the fact that you really don't have any direct ability to block me yet sent a threatening notice on my talk page as if you did have any real admin powers. Third, I tried my best to address your arguments, upon which you still refuse to provide any substance. It's not my fault that Dweller didn't agree with you, or as you like to put it, "address your arguments." So how do we settle this? We can't compromise on an either/or situation. So propose something for me. On the Halakha talk page in my comments on January 21, I laid out my proposal. So give me something so we can finally call this quits. 100.15.134.190 (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't come here to reach a compromise. that we can do on the talkpage. I came here because of the behavioral issue: you are edit warring. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, both User:Debresser and User:100.15.134.190 should be blocked. They are both warring on the {{Distinguish|Halaqa}} template on the Halakha article since December. There are at least eight reverts by each person. The article was fully protected for two weeks by User:Dweller on 20 January, but the war continued as soon as protection expired. Either party can avoid a block if they will promise to make no more reverts on this article until consensus is found on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I love how you edited your first comments to make it seems like I demanded a solution from you before I notified you of my 2.5-week-old proposal, when in reality I waited 5 hours for you to reply to my concerns posted here before I resorted to adding the hatnote back again. Anyhow, I would like the administrator to know that, out of a lack of a proposal of his own, Debresser did his research and proved to me that Halakha and Halaqa do not have the same Semitic root, which was the term of my proposal. Although it were the similarities in spelling and, especially, the English pronunciation of Halaqa and Halakha that prompted me to add the hatnote on both pages, I will abide by my own promise and concede to Debresser's point of view. 100.15.134.190 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even one of these edits are even on the same date - with some of them being several days apart. SQLQuery me! 00:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a stupid edit war just for a redirect, but I don't think anybody will make the spellings incorrectly, now that the IP user conceded that the root of both words are different and both spellings are not bound to be confused, I don't think a block for either is warranted since a block is not to be punitive, but rather a stop gap for future disruption. You may issue a large trout if you will and nominate this for stupid edit war of the year though. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason I should be blocked for reverting the non-consensus edits of an IP edit warrior. Rather, in my opinion, the IP editor should be blocked for a few days, to bring across the point that his behavior is disruptive. I have said that much to Dweller on his talkpage.[14] Debresser (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I revert edits from disruptive IPs who don't understand they shouldn't insist on their edits all day, see e.g. today's edits at Religion in Israel. If you would block me for this kind of activity, you would be directly undermining the integrity of this project, by punishing editors for protecting against disruptive editors. Unfortunately, this is not the first time, that I have seen myself under threat of a block because of this. I would kindly like to ask you to do me the courtesy of reading my post of 31 August 2015 on this issue. It is only 3 paragraphs. By the way, EdJohnston, you were involved then as well. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, it is my understanding that the argument has been decided in my favor, as per the IPs admission on the talkpage,[15] and as mention by Sir Joseph above, so the edit war has come to an end already. Debresser (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "blanket permission", and not "that he disapproves of". But some reasonable (not involving 3RR violations, for example) leeway in stopping IPs who fail to understand the Wikipedia pillar of WP:CONSENSUS and disrupt the project by starting their careers here with edit warring, that seems something the project can only benefit from. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:73.152.154.221 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Selected Ambient Works Volume II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 73.152.154.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: 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:
    User continiously adds trivial list section without sources, claims they don't need sources, ignores talk page, and deletes talk page warnings here.

    Note: IP also reverted this post. Seen here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WillsonSS3 reported by User:ParkH.Davis (Result: reporting editor blocked)

    Page: Peyton Manning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: WillsonSS3 (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. [21]
    6. [22]
    7. [23]
    8. [24]
    9. [25]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

    Comments:.

    User:WillsonSS3 has vandalized Peyton Manning several times in the last few minutes ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WillsonSS3 edits were clearly vandalism. I did not know if this was the correct forum to report him or not. I apologize if I reported him in the wrong area. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: C.Fred beat me to comment. WillsonSS3 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per the diff, there has been no attempt to discuss this at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been rectified. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    well...congratulations. maybe you should have started with that, instead of accusing me of vandalism. WillsonSS3 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    check again. It's not a revert. It's an edit. WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy in question states: "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. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." WP:3RR. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    does this include removing of an opinion piece masquerading as a reliable source? and removing a piece of a title that hasn't been proven(the anti women comments) <- this last part is just your personal input. and you are reporting me of vandalism? WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can this situation please be resolved by an administrator so it doesn't escalate out of control? ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WillsonSS3 is continuing to unilaterally alter the article in question. Can this please be resolved by an admin? ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    CommentParkH.Davis now takes issue with the fact i stay true to the sources he provided. examples

    • Manning has been accused of sexual harassment not sexual assault
    • Manning has never been described as a misogynist in any of the sources, that's just ParkH.Davis personal assumption.
    • failed to provide proof of the alleged bullying. hiring investigators in itself is no bullying. nor have the investigator committed any act that would require police involvement ex threatening Sly and his family. at least not in sources given.

    ParkH.Davis has shown malicious intent on the Peyton Manning page. He seems more preoccupied in getting his way than improving the page. WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can this please be resolved by an admin? I do not want to argue with User:WillsonSS3. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    it's called debating and reaching consensus. WillsonSS3 (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are unilaterally deleting large sections of content, without any previous attempt to achieve a consensus. You have also violated the three revert rule. This is not a debate forum for discussing your personal opinions on the subjects of articles. Can this please be resolved by an admin immediately? ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    that is just not true. I deleted an opinion piece insert, by a blogger, that didn't qualify as a reliable source. WillsonSS3 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this situation please be resolved by an admin? User:WillsonSS3 has clearly violated the three revert rule. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't think so. they were corrective edits, not reverts. also, you might have violated the 3RR about 5 times. WillsonSS3 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this please be resolved by an admin ASAP? ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible for this to be resolved by an admin ASAP? ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am now being threatened by User:WillsonSS3, [28], who has now made his 5th revert within the last 24 hours. He is also now blanking large sections of content without seeking consensus for his edits. Can an admin please resolve this? ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    1st off i wasn't threatening you. that would violate the personal conduct policy
    2nd i'm removing content that doesn't belong in the controversy section - the (alleged) fact that the media has bias for certain players is not Manning's controversy, it's a corporate media problem -
    3rd i'm adding new information and unlike you i source it.
    4th you were the one who reverted(again) WillsonSS3 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an admin please resolve this? It has clearly gotten out of control and User:WillsonSS3 appears to have taken ownership of the article and is blocking me from making any edit which he personally disagrees with and unilaterally blanking anything he disagrees with. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC) User:WillsonSS3 has reverted for the 6th time within the last 24 hours. Can an admin please resolve this? ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. this is getting annoying. i don't revert(click undo). I add and remove and I always give reasons and sources. My purpose is to make the page better not to take ownership of it as you put it. besides, you violated the 3RR about 15 times by now. WillsonSS3 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an admin please resolve this? ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours Looking at the history of the page, it's ParkH.Davis who had broken 3RR. So, to "resolve this", I've blocked his account. This is his second block for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Editornovo reported by User:Magidin (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Fermat's Last Theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: EditornovoUser-multi error: no username detected (help).


    Previous version reverted to: [29]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [30]
    2. [31]
    3. [32]
    4. [33]
    5. [34]

    Also removed speedy deletion notices from Pablo Hernan Pereyra

    1. [35]
    2. [36]
    3. [37]

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

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

    Comments:
    The additions to Fermat's Last Theorem are not credible, and the sources provided not reliable. The Pablo Hernan Pereyra also contains claims that are not credible and with no reliable sources. This is very likely the editor himself, giving conflict of interest. The editor has three times removed the speedy deletion template from Pablo Hernan Pereyra, despite being advised in the talk page that as the creator he should not remove it. And has three times reverted the deletion of his added content to Fermat's Last Theorem, despite being warned in his talk page.

    User:Tilde.drakan reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )

    Page: Ttongsul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tilde.drakan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    03:38, 7 February 2016‎ 219.110.121.11 (talk)‎ . . (5,622 bytes) (-2,582)‎ . . (Deleted some statements b/c their citations are irrelevant (as I mentioned before) or the translation of the citation is wrong. Please find appropriate citations first if an editor wants to restore them.)[38]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 09:07, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,645 bytes) (+1,023)‎ . . (drug medicinc, cuisine delete category. Undid revision 703706605 by 219.110.121.11 (talk))[39]
    2. 10:58, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (+991)‎ . . (Revert vandalism.)[40]
    3. 11:07, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Undid revision 703909103 by 125.184.187.139 (talk))[41]
    4. 06:14, 9 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (+600)‎ . . (With respect to Sengoku period, Source exists. refrain from malicious editing.)[42]
    5. 06:51, 9 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,115 bytes) (+429)‎ . . (restored to a stable version.)[43]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    04:09, 9 February 2016‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,884 bytes) (+1,803)‎ . . (→‎February 2016: new section)[44]

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

    Comments:

    It was distorted documents from the beginning of Phoenix7777. For example. "The fecal wine local history of the Korean peninsula has been many centuries, except for the era when the Japanese Empire prohibited the practice due to health concerns." [45]This is, Non-existent information. Malignant edit, cause confusion in the false information.―― Tilde.drakan (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The sentence you mentioned, "The fecal wine local history [...]," is not included in the article at least from the beginning of 2016, so it is irrelevant to your present reverts. -- 219.110.121.11 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation of 219.110.121.11 [46] This was distorted edited continuously. No original research. Phoenix7777,219.110.121.11, Estimated to be the same person. ―― Tilde.drakan (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:112.201.56.181 reported by User:Jeraphine Gryphon (Result: )

    Page
    Michael Page (fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    112.201.56.181 (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 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 00:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      1. 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922531 by Morohbj (talk)"
      2. 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922455 by Morohbj (talk)"
      3. 00:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922381 by Morohbj (talk)"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) to 11:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
      1. 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703905039 by Morohbj (talk)"
      2. 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703905021 by Morohbj (talk)"
      3. 11:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703904852 by Morohbj (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The other party in the edit war made a thread on the talk page, IP did not react to it or to my warning and continued reverting instead. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neutralhomer reported by User:Me and (Result: Warning)

    Page
    WLVA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Neutralhomer (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 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) to 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
      1. 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, that page shows no articles, just a full page ad."
      2. 23:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, that page shows "International Show News", nothing regarding WLVA."
      3. 23:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
      4. 23:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, once again, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
      5. 23:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA or Glenn Jackson"
      6. 23:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, once again, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
      7. 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing information that was linked to sources that did not show the information on the page. Other sources are correct and that information remains."
    2. 16:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "unsourced, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V violations."
    3. 16:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "all unsourced, do not readd without sources. thank you."
    4. 23:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 24.3.21.159 (talk): Information is unsourced, please add third-party reliable sources per WP:RS. (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "/* WLVA */ WP:3RR"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User's reverts are just outside the 24-hour 3RR boundary, seemingly as a deliberate attempt to avoid the bright-line 3RR rule. They are insisting on removing information with good sources added by an IP editor and which I went through and meticulously verified myself before re-adding. Attempted to discuss with the editor on their talk page (including an explicit 3RR warning) and on Drmies' talk page, but Neutralhomer continues to insist the sources are invalid. —me_and 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Minor wording clarification —me_and 12:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just added some more discussion on the WLVA talk page in the hope that explaining precisely how Neutralhomer could verify the sources himself might help. —me_and 12:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits that begin with "removing" in the edit summary are actual edits, not reverts and thus not covered under 3RR. The last three are reverts and I stand at 3RR and have not made any reverts since the manual warning given at 17:55 on 2/8.
    My continued issue with these edits is that the references on the WLVA page do not correspond to articles within the linked reference. As such, the information can not be confirmed and under OR and RS can be removed.
    Also, for further reference for Me_and, I'm a guy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to look into this, but something's come up and I ran out of time. To save the next admin some time, just a note that the series of edits that start with "removing" do count as a revert, because taken as a whole - which we do with consecutive edits - they remove a large majority of the IP editor's text that NH previously just reverted (plus some other stuff). WP:3RR clearly includes the phrase "in whole or in part". No comment on blocks or warnings, haven't had time to look at other people's behavior or the content of edits. But there were definitely 4 reverts in a period of 24 hours + 20 minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Floquenbeam: We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Regardless, though, I am going on an extended WikiBreak while I re-examine my participation in this project. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • (oops, forgot about this) "Agree to disagree" is not an option. You are wrong, about a very clearly worded policy, and it may get you blocked. "Agree to disagree" is an unwise reaction to finding out you're wrong about something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Floquenbeam: So I should just ignore references that don't match the articles linked? I went through each one of these "Variety" references that Me_and is so desperate to add. This one is an ad, this one shows nothing regarding WLVA or Glenn Jackson, this one shows nothing regarding WLVA or WLW. The others are the same. The references given on the WLVA page can not be found on the "Variety" magazine links given. So, should I have left them there or should I have removed them because the references were not correct? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, this is not about content, it's about WP:3RR, and your apparent gaming of it (in two ways). Second, I see you've commented on the article talk page, where your confusion about page numbers has been answered, but you don't appear to have read their message. And third, this attitude that User:me_and is "desperate" to add these references, like they're trying to pull something, shows that you do not have the correct attitude to deal with other good faith editors right now. That wikibreak seems like a pretty good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • As of this post, no one has replied to my message on the WLVA talk page. I don't really expect one to be honest. I also don't expect this to just be a wikibreak. I'm calling it that to leave the door open, but this is the last straw for me. I'm done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been on this project long enough that you ought to know better than to pull this crap. Many users have come and go. If you need a wikibreak, please take one. If you decide to come back and contribute in a positive fashion, you'd be welcomed and have what I assume to be a good history behind you to go with it. But editors who act in a mature fashion don't announce their intentions to leave. There's nothing to be gained by doing it, except if you want to hear the following: You know where the door is; don't let it hit you on the way out. J♯m (talk | contribs) 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the one hand, I hate to turn a blind eye to gaming the system (breaking a revert into pieces and claiming it isn't a revert, 4th revert a few minutes after the 24 hr clock had "reset"). On the other hand, when NH's 4th revert was undone, he did not attempt to revert again, and claims to be starting a wikibreak; if I were to block NH for 48 hours (because last edit warring block was a while ago), it might interfere with his ability to let go of the place for a while, which would be a good idea. So, no blocking, but a warning that this was absolutely a 3RR violation, and could easily have led to a block if I weren't such a pushover. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my comment on the article talkpage, the sources do check out fine; I think this is an AGF mistake, and Neutralhomer doesn't understand how to use archive.org (which is, to be fair, ridiculously counterintuitive since the "page numbers" in their scans don't match the page numbers of the original print source). I'd say no harm, no foul, provided NH doesn't revert again. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yesantiago reported by User:KungAvSand (Result: )

    Page
    Ponce Health Sciences University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Yesantiago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "authorized by chief operation office ann coss"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 19:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      1. 19:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC) ""
      2. 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operations office"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 20:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      1. 20:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operation officer"
      2. 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operation officer"
    4. 20:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Ponce Health Sciences University ‎. (TW)"
    2. 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ponce Health Sciences University. (TW)"
    3. 20:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ponce Health Sciences University ‎. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Editor has an obvious conflict of interest and keeps on removing the previous (mostly properly sourced) content and replaces it with content obviously taken from some sort of promotional material issued by the university (text mentions "our students" etc.); also destroying the previous format in the process. All attempts at letting Yesantiago know about the problems with these edits seem to have been in vain, and the page currently includes the problematic material again. KungAvSand (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darek555 reported by User:75.129.197.146 (Result: )

    Page: Permanent death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Darek555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: the problematic section's been continuously re-added for like 2 years now... I guess maybe [47]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [48]
    2. [49]
    3. [50]
    4. [51]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: didn't have to, someone else already warned him [52]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not really my attempt but consensus is clear enough against restoring the section [53]

    Comments:

    that about sums it up 75.129.197.146 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is untrue, that user periodically remove my entry, generally in this thread is some small group of people who usurp the right to correct definition, They do not want to provide concrete proof I clear requested
      [54]

    I'm author of this thred.--Darek555 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Only to comment and not as an assessment towards if this is edit warring: I've seen Darek555's participating in a few article talk pages that I watch and it should be evident that I don't think English is their first language. This may be hampering efforts to work constructively between themself and others. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:140:8200:de:9c92:58a1:e43e:3b98 reported by User:‪107.107.61.211‬ (Result: )

    Page: List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2601:140:8200:de:9c92:58a1:e43e:3b98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters&oldid=704054317

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [55]
    2. [56]
    3. [57]
    4. [58]
    5. [59]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98&oldid=704222758

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see version comments

    Comments:
    User apparently does not to care about consensus or edit warring. 107.107.61.211 (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no consensus for the edit that this guy has restored. He is just saying that because I caught him using 5 different logins to keep restoring the silly piece of unsourced trivia.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Three users support the edits - this ONE editor does not and has edit warred to revert them. I don't know what "5 logins" means butI know 3RR and he passed it. 107.107.61.211 (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a lie. One person added the edit, I undid it (and did other fixes), and then YOU kept undoing my fixes and restoring the edit. I know you're also 107.107.61.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 107.107.56.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.171.186.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 166.171.186.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You're lying that there is a consensus. You keep reverting all the good changes I've tried to make to do what? Get me in trouble? Have a silly sentence that one actor is the oldest actor on the show? What's the point?--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And now he's done it again as 166.172.62.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This has to be vandalism. He's ruining the page just because he can and because he wants me to be in trouble for it.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to the reviewer: I am the 107* IPs. I'm not the other ones or the registered user. I don't want t "get you in trouble" I want you to respect the rules and stop edit warring! 107.107.62.149 (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the 107 IPs and the 116 IPs. Stop lying. I wouldn't be edit warring if you hadn't started edit warring by undoing every change I made to the page. Now it's locked because you kept lying about a consensus existing for your version.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sir Joseph reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: blocked)

    Page: Western Wall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [60]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:14, 09 February 2016: Reverted Chesdovi.[61]
    2. 18:23, 09 February 2016: Reverted Nishidani.[62]
    3. 19:54, 09 February 2016: Reverted Chesdovi.[63]
    4. 20:02, 09 February 2016: Reverted Chesdovi.[64]
    5. 23:28, 09 February 2016: Reverted Sepsis II.[65]
    6. 00:15, 10 February 2016: Reverted Nableezy.[66]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67][68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this dispute and have not edited the page in question; I am just reporting the edit warring. Past experience at Template talk:Infobox ‎has convinced me that any comments by me would not be helpful.

    Comments:

    Could someone please post a notice to User talk:Sir Joseph? I cannot post to this user's talk page.[69]

    Also, this may be under Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions. I will leave it up to the discretion of the admin who deal with this report to decide whether DS applies. (Is there a 1RR restriction on the page?[70])--Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    this is just a petty filling by a user who has it in for me and has a history with me. I'd ask him to stop stalking me. There's also no edit warring, I'd ask you to look at the talk page and my talk page. Most of those are not reverts. If he's not involved, he should stay that way. I could boomerang him for his behavior. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it difficult to reconcile the above claim ("most of those are not reverts") with the fact that all six diffs I posted have edit summaries that start with "Reverted 1 edit by..." or "Reverted to revision X by...". IMO, this sort of WP:IDHT behavior is part of the pattern of disruptive behavior I am seeing in Sir Joseph. As for the stalking claim, WP:WIKIHOUNDING says "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I have not nor do I intend to edit any articles or talk pages just because Sir Joseph edited them, but I do intend to monitor his behavior at least for a while and to deal with any unambiguous violations of Wikipedia's behavioral policies I see, just as I would with any other editor who I noticed being disruptive. All Sir Joseph has to do is refrain from things like edit warring and he will never hear form me. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, for the record, there is an exception for required notices when banned from a user talk page by that user. As he's obviously seen this thread, I suppose the question is moot. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear 3RR violation. I have blocked for 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=704298870"