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 23.114.214.45 (talk) at 03:00, 17 August 2017 (→User:Mark Miller reported by User:184.101.234.2 (Result: Page protected)). 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:173.189.89.221 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Angry Grandpa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    173.189.89.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "It's NOT a pipe wrench!"
    2. 21:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "It's NOT a Pipe Wrench! Go look at the video, It's obviously NOT a Pipe Wrench! You can challenge it all you want! You're obviously WRONG!"
    3. 21:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795226437 by Jd22292 (talk)"
    4. 20:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "It's not a pipe wrench!"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Angry Grandpa. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 21:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Pipe wrench */ new section"
    Comments:

    IP continues to disrupt the article by trying to say that the subject did not use a specific tool when destroying a valuable object on camera. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: From seeing their evidence in the talk page and looking at the video in question, I'd have to agree that it's not a pipe wrench; there's no way it looks like one in the YouTube video. I would say that it is a hand tool, and possibly the utility bar that their evidence is linked to. Their aggressive behaviour though, is a concern, but other than that, I don't think they did anything wrong here; they were merely removing incorrect information from the article. GUtt01 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made the changes according to this comment, but this IP's violation still stands. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And now this IP is trying to tell me in the article's Talk page that his actions aren't in violation of 3rr? Not something I can believe here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale. I think the IP was given some slack here given the fact that the page is PC protected, as well as the fact that they were obviously attempting to make verifiable edits in good faith. They seemed to be desperately pleading for sanity on the talk page, to which you responded with by focusing on their 3RR vio and suggesting that they would be punished. No. There's two sides to dispute resolution, and in this instance I quite honestly don't think your role was any better. Swarm ♠ 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crumpled Fire reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Warned)

    Page: Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Crumpled Fire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 'restore unbiased summary'
    2. 'Undid revision 795228309 by Volunteer Marek (talk) - stop pushing your POV'
    3. 'rv POV'
    4. 'rv - dishonest edit summary, plus the reaction was far from unanimously "praise" from far-right, see David Duke's reaction'


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

    Comments:

    Comment: They do appear to have done 4 reversions, which would certainly put them in line for a block, despite the fact that the article in question regards a current event, which (as the template at the top states) may "may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable". But I do have to wonder if they are conducting edits in their POV... Regardless, I think an admin may want to check the reported's contributions to see if their behaviour adheres to Wikipedia's policies. GUtt01 (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Crumpled Fire made one more revert, making it 5 reverts in under 24 hours: 5. [3] Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I admit, I've done a number of reverts as well, and some of them were my own fault. I do share GUtt01's worries about conducting edits in their own POV, but I don't quite think it rises to the point where action needs to be taken: the information was, after all, rapidly changing, and the article reflects such a state, even now. Javert2113 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading this, I have to agree. There is definite concern about the reported's conduct with their edits being possibly POV, but the article is constantly changing as it contends with a current event that occurred and which will be changing for a while after until it's considered resolved. I stick by my recommendation that an admin checks the reported's behaviour in their edits to see if it adheres to Wikipedia's policies or if there is an issue. GUtt01 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for violating the rule, but I invite any admin to review my edits and hopefully you'll see no POV-pushing on my part. The reverts I made were primarily to remove objectively biased additions, not to add my own biases. I would argue that each of the revert edits I made restored a more objective description of events. Since this was a new article with information rapidly piling in, I hope this violation can be overlooked. Cheers. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't about whether or not the edits were promoting a POV- even entirely neutral edit warring that is otherwise complicit with wiki policy is not okay. Violating 3RR is a hard and fast rule, and there were more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.178.250.78 reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: Page Protected; Both blocked for 24 hours)

    Page: Terrell Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 24.178.250.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [4]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [5]
    2. [6]
    3. [7]
    4. [8]
    5. [9]
    6. [10]


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


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

    Comments:
    This is the same anon IP, continuing to edit war after he reverted 18+ different edits of mine, many of them including sourced material; the reversions removed the sources as well. See the previous reverts by this IP and the warning issued here. Rockypedia (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel that this addition by the IP in the discussion below deserves attention: "I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted." This is in reference to the 18+ edits where he removed sources and the sourced info that I had added to the article over hours of work. Rockypedia (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hours of work? What, do you type half a word per minute? Also, after I removed your edits, you were supposed to discuss the changes on the talk page, which you didn't do, because you think you're above WP:Cycle rules. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Even more recently, this edit further illustrates this IP's mission to make disruptive edits. The edit labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali "an anti-Muslim extremist" in the lead paragraph. It was immediately reverted by another editor. Rockypedia (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, so using the same source you insisted was a WP:RS for labeling Jared Taylor a white supremacist is "disruptive" when it involves labeling Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Do tell. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I implore you, take a look at who has been doing the "edit-warring" as of late, not to mention falsely accusing me of being a "sockpuppet" account simply because he doesn't like me. I have been using the talk page and providing perfectly relevant, sourced material, yet Rockypedia apparently thinks he is not only above the rules of wikipedia, but has the authority to decide what can and can not go on a page simply because he registered an account. When I reverted his stuff in the past, he was making several successive edits (not in good faith) simply to make it impossible for me to revert his deletion of my edits without reverting his as well...and then he claimed "edit warring." I guess such trickery is to be expected from someone who knows his way around wikipedia. Recently, I have only reverted things where he blindly reverted me and refused to discuss on the talk page/claimed consensus where there wasn't, or when he restored something that I had removed because it was unsourced (and gave the reason for). I also encourage you to take into consideration the fact that he first appeared on the Terrell Owens article on July 30th, 2017, following me over from the Jared Taylor talk page (I never made a single edit on the Jared Taylor page because it doesn't allow IPs to make edits), and all he did at the time was revert all of my edits, NOBODY ELSE'S, and he didn't return until August 4th. The evidence clearly shows he had no interest in improving the article, he only checked my contributions history to delete what I wrote out of spite. He would never have returned to the article had I not restored the stuff he removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As before, there's a lot of lies in the above paragraph. First off, I did look at the IP's edits, as I often do when I see any user pushing POV like he was doing at the Jared Taylor talk page (namely, arguing that Taylor is not a white supremacist). When I saw that the additions to the Owens page were not sourced, I researched them, edited some (and added sources), and removed others that I could not find sources for. Meanwhile, the page had a lot of unsourced material, and I started to work through that and add sources, deleting some material again that wasn't supported anywhere. So it's a lie that I only focused on this IP's edits. I added a lot of work to that page. Rockypedia (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I ask that you check the Terrell Owens article history. Rockypedia popped in on July 30, 2017, to remove only my edits, nobody else's. He was nowhere to be found on the article in the next 5 days. It was only when I restored what he had reverted on August 4th, 2017, that he appeared again, and then he made a bunch of successive edits so that I could not undo his revert without undoing the successive edits. You should also look at how he persisted in telling me reliable sources - in which there was consensus for - were not reliable sources. And while it's off-topic, he is also misrepresenting what occurred on the Jared Taylor talk page. I argued Taylor can not be proven to be a white supremacist because there is nothing to show he has ever espoused views fitting the dictionary (nor wikipedia) definition of the term, and I think common sense dictates the sources calling him this are unreliable for making this kind of claim when looked at in context. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    18 reversions here, many of them removing reliable sources, and 6 more reported here. I let that evidence stand for itself. Rockypedia (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So because of that, I'm banned from ever again removing content, even when it is justified? I already explained why I was doing the reverts in the past. I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted; I was only trying to get to the edits which I had made, which you removed, in order to restore them. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted" - well, does that sound like someone we want editing Wikipedia? Rockypedia (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It was obvious to me you weren't adding edits on "good faith," but rather to make it more difficult for me to restore my edits, since you wanted nothing to do with the article until I restored the content you had spitefully removed. 2. I wasn't aware of the 3RR rule at the time. "We don't want people who aren't part of our clique editing a website designed to be publicly edited." 24.178.250.78 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Action by Admin: An admin has looked into this matter, and has done the following:
    1. The page has been given temporary protection for a few days.
    2. Both users were blocked for 24 hours, due to ignoring previous warnings about edit-warring; the admin had protected the page before, in the hopes that both the reportee and reported could debate on the matter.
    The reportee has recently admitted to handling their behaviour with the reported poorly, and has taken in this moment as a learning experience. I hope the reported chooses to behave better, and not act in this way as well. GUtt01 (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GoldenRing reported by User:Twitbookspacetube (Result: No violation)

    Page
    2017 Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    GoldenRing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 12:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795468237 by Twitbookspacetube (talk) Four editors in half an hour does not make consensus and the violation is clear - do we really need to take this to AE?"
    2. 11:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795462686 by WWGB (talk) As this has been challenged per BLPCRIME it requires consensus to re-add"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC) to 11:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
      1. 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Vehicular attack on counterprotesters */ Remove details per WP:BLPCRIME"
      2. 11:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Vehicular attack on counterprotesters */ more details per BLPCRIME"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The reason I am bringing this here so quickly is because an admin is willfully misinterpreting policies and attempting to use intimidation tactics to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and get their way. Twitbookspacetube 12:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't see why this shouldn't be discussed at the article talk before coming here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edits I have made are removing the name of someone who has recently been charged with crimes and is not known to the public for anything else. This seems to me a clear violation of BLPCRIME. As the material had been challenged on BLP grounds, the editor who reverted my removal ought not to have done so but ought to have started a discussion on the talk page - which I did for him. Twitbookspacetube decided that thirty-seven minutes was enough discussion to declare that consensus is on his side and revert again - and now he has reverted yet again despite having started this report here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @El C: would you consider a boomerang here? Twitbookspacetube was already at 4RR ([13] [14] [15] [16]) before this kicked off - they're now at 9 ([17] [18] [19] [20] [21]). GoldenRing (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm looking at this--but GoldenRing, here and here and here they are obviously reverting vandalism, for which we should thank them. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, I looked at all the ones you listed; one of the users reverted by Twitbook is already indef-blocked as a vandal, and this is one from your first list. There is no way in which I'm going to add this to any list of bad edits, so that leaves only five. Nor am I convinced that this should count: there is no way that there will ever be agreement for that edit, which by way of a fairly typical false equivalency lumps everything together--needless to say this is also not verified by the sources, though I admit I've read only one single Breitbart article today. I can fault Twitbook for a silly username and for not appropriately summarizing their edit, but for those edits from your list that I singled out, no. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. As far as I can tell Twitbook has added that content three times. You have removed it five times--but you have invoked the BLP, an argument that doesn't give you carte blance but, as I like to say, we should always stay on the conservative side of the BLP. A fourth revert you listed that I haven't yet discussed is this, which I wish they had explained--but it's minor and one can argue that the unexplained removal of valid sourced content is vandalism (I also wish you hadn't listed those obvious vandalism reverts here--they do not make your case look good). So I certainly don't see a need for any block right now. The validity of this content is, of course, dependent on consensus at BLPN and the talk page; and I am assuming for both of you that there was no consensus while this back and forth was going on. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: Fair call. That really leaves their three reversions of BLP-challenged material; clearly disruptive (IMO) but not a 3RR violation. GoldenRing (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure--thanks. I will say that a lack of edit summaries doesn't help, nor does bringing this case. Well, I just commented at the ARE thread; let's see how that goes. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, as I mentioned here, Twitbookspacetube is subject to a 1RR restriction. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's not good then--they deserve a block, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:EdJohnston, it is clear that the Twitbook editor violated a 1R restriction, but by now this is really yesterday's news. I'm asking you as an experienced denizen of this board--do we block for an edit warring violation if it happened one or two days ago and required this much discussion? I'll note also that the editor reported here in some bad faith; they knew they were themselves under a restriction. Separately there's a request at WP:ARE, but I'm wondering if you'd block for edit warring on the basis of this report, regardless of what sanction may come out of the other report. And if your answer is "yes", please go ahead and do it, and close this affair. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:199.224.16.12 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    199.224.16.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */ the quote in this is from a far-left group. Put non-bias crap in here"
    2. 16:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
    3. 15:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC) ""A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite" not a bigot. Stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism"
    4. 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
    5. 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
    6. 15:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Protesters */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    More diffs since report: [23], [24] EvergreenFir (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User: (IP hopper) reported by User:Laszlo Panaflex (Result: Page protected)

    Page: History of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: IP hopper - please see page revision history


    Previous version reverted to: [25]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [26]
    2. [27]
    3. [28]
    4. [29]
    5. [30]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Impossible, different addresses used for each


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History_of_India#Reversion_of_Maestro2016

    Comments:

    This page has a large number of edits by one or more IP hoppers. They frequently display edit warring and ownership tendencies. In this instance, the user advised an editor to discuss the changes at the talk page. After the discussion above was opened, the IP continues to revert (#4-5) and has still not addressed the question of their objection in the talk page discussion. Page protection or logged only status should be considered. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently the same user has been edit warring at Maratha Empire (rev hist). Both these pages have now been protected by Oshwah. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been active at this account for a while now. They have responded to the talk page discussion, but only to make accusations against other editors, while offering no substantive reason for their reversions. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kjelltyrid reported by User:Ukpong1 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

    Page
    Henrik Steffens Professor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Kjelltyrid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "rv vandalism/false template with fictitious claim about "duplicate article""
    2. 23:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795702610 by Ukpong1 (talk)"
    3. 23:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795693417 by Ukpong1 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Speedy deletion nomination of Henrik Steffens Professor */ new section"
    2. 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Henrik Steffens Professor. (TW)"
    3. 23:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Henrik Steffens Professor. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has repeatedly removed speedy deletion template upon being warned. Zazzysa (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There's A LOT more to this than just that... Kjelltyrid isn't the only one edit warring here. Several users have been edit warring at WP:AIV while filing and erasing reports made for each other. First, Adam9007 filed an WP:AIV report for User:Kjellyrid, then Kjellyrid followed up with an AIV report for Adam9007. Adam reverted Kjellyrid's AIV report, which was then followed by Coldandspicy deleting Kjellyrid's report for Adam9007, which was reverted again, and again, and again. I don't know if edit warring (filing and deleting reports made for each other) constitutes as edit warring/3RR or not, but this was clearly not the correct way to handle the situation. Although the user filing this report, Zazzysa was not directly involved in the whole WP:AIV edit war, this is probably something that should be looked into further. Thanks. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, both me and Coldandspicy thought it was vandalism, which is usually dealt with by reverting. Adam9007 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Kjelltyrid was just blocked for 36 hours by Oshwah. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NetWitz reported by User:Toohool (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Vegas Golden Knights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: NetWitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [31]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [32]
    2. [33]
    3. [34]
    4. [35]
    5. [36]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] [38] [39]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

    Comments:
    User is persistently trying to re-add content about City National Arena to the page rather than engaging in discussion about it. Toohool (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC) That is a complete lie, I've been trying to discuss about it and nobody responds, Toohool should be deleted for cyber bullying NetWitz (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz[reply]

    @There'sNoTime: I disagree with this, the page should be semi-protected at the most, and the user should be blocked. The edit warring is all caused by this one user who refuses to accept the outcome of discussions, and whose temper tantrums haven't been confined to this one page. And there is lots of legitimate editing that needs to happen on this page, considering this is a major sports team that plays its first game in about a month. Toohool (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toohool: How I see it, the above isn't the only content dispute which recently occurred on the article (such as your against-consensus addition here). That being said, I am but a janitor in the service of the community, and if you and others (comments from the ANI thread noted) believe it was the wrong call, I will semi-protect and block -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Toohool. If we have to get an admin just to do the menial tasks associated with a team about to launch its first season (adding captains, who gets the first point, etc.), then I would assume some admins could annoyed with requests for edits. Toohool may have made an edit that appears against consensus, but it came from a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City National Arena. They were not acting uncooperatively (the opposite actually). Yosemiter (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mark Miller reported by User:184.101.234.2 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Alt-left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mark Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)



    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [41] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.234.2 (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2. [42]
    3. [43]
    4. [44]
    5. [45]
    6. [46]
    7. [47]
    8. [48]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]


    section on talk exists

    Comments:
    claims BLP; only two persons mentioned in section, claims well-sourced. 184.101.234.2 (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @EdJohnston: Just curious as to why page-protection was enabled. user:Mark Miller was the person edit-warring. Everyone else was contributing like adults. Is there a reason why Mark Miller isn't blocked and the page unlocked? Not complaining - asking the question in good faith.

    User:Jnavas2 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

    Page
    MoviePass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Jnavas2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Criticism */ add back inappropriately removed content"
    2. 00:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Criticism */ add"
    3. 23:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "restore deleted content"
    4. 21:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795851539 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Re: */ new section"
    2. 22:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "/* MoviePass */"
    3. 23:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ""
    4. 23:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC) "/* MoviePass */"
    5. 23:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ""
    6. 01:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* MoviePass */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 01:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Content dispute */ new section"
    2. 01:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Content dispute */"
    Comments:

    Editor constantly objects to any removal or refactoring of their contributions, even those which removed unsourced information and commentary and replaced it with versions that are neutral and sourced to reliable secondary sources, or incorporated the information into different areas of the article. Editor is highly confrontational and using WP:OWNership behaviour, not assuming good faith ("unwarranted", "neither helpful nor appropriate", repeated assertions that deleting user talk page messages is not allowed, claims of falsified information). ViperSnake151  Talk  01:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Response: Completely false. User:ViperSnake151 has been:
    • Summarily deleting appropriate and valid content without discussion.
    • Ignoring repeated messages on User Talk page, instead just deleting them.
    • Not using the article Talk page to discuss changes.
    -John Navas (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=795884111"