Fort Towson

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

    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.

    User:103.52.220.45 reported by User:2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D10:ED34:8A2B:CE7E (Result: User blocked for 72 hours for behavior)

    Page: Talk:Arvind Kejriwal (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 103.52.220.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

    Comments:

    Has also edited as 2409:40E1:29:4983:6485:60FF:FEA4:F17B and 2409:40E1:1073:8531:2CB1:AFF:FE4B:B3FA

    Declined Complaining about potential bias in the article is not "expressing [their] feelings", it's well within the scope of the quoted talk page guidelines. They should have been engaged on this or left alone; either option would have avoided an edit war. As it is, reverting constantly on dubious grounds gives him the basis for at least a superficial claim to be right when he says he's being censored. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Daniel Case is WP:3RR not a bright line? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D10:ED34:8A2B:CE7E (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it's arguable to me that, even though you may not have consciously been trying, you provoked him into it and so I will not reward you for doing this. Not when they were well within their rights ... in fact, he'd be on better ground reporting you for repeatedly reverting a legitimate edit.
    And there are exceptions to 3RR. Just so you know. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Daniel Case I'm well aware of WP:3RRNO, no exception was cited and none applied, and if you believe otherwise please state which one and why. Saying that I provoked someone without a diff link is an WP:ASPERSION, I never once even edited Talk:Arvind Kejriwal to revert or otherwise, please strike or substantiate with a diff. Finally I think User:EvergreenFir would be quite surprised to hear that called a legitimate edit, but the thing is it doesn't matter. Being right does not excuse violating WP:3RR as you well know and that is rock-bottom policy. If you want to cite WP:IAR, then cite IAR but don't cloak it in something else, and don't accuse people of baiting without evidence. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D10:ED34:8A2B:CE7E (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're the one casting aspersions. I gave you the out that you might not have been aware that could happen. Sometimes no direct action is necessary to provoke someone ... if it were, we'd probably live in a generally better world. Accept that you're not perfect and that you, like everyone else, can upset people without meaning to or being aware that you did.
    But, no, you have reacted as if I unambiguously accused you of willfully provoking him, and the vehemence of your reaction now makes me wonder if you indeed were trying to get them to edit war ... I mean, maybe, just maybe, you or someone else could have responded to their responses on their talk page asking for specifics about what policy they had fallen afoul of (besides WP:TALK#POSITIVE, which is stated as a "should", not a must, and seems to me to have been a stretch here). Or, more to the point, what specific instances of bias they could point to. You'd be surprised, I would imagine, how often that works to cool things down. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Daniel Case I never once linked WP:TALK#POSITIVE in any of my responses, and I was very specific in linking to WP:3RR [9] note I should not be the one providing diffs here, you should be the one providing diff when making accusations. You previously wrote in this very thread without linking a single diff that you provoked him into it and so I will not reward you for doing this, which is a false WP:ASPERSION and unacceptable WP:PA, I asked you to provide a diff or strike it which you still have not done. You also accused me of repeatedly reverting a legitimate edit. which is not true, and again without diffs. That is absolutely unacceptable and I renew my request for you to strike. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the situation has led to a block on different grounds, and as I said below that makes most of our discussion moot, I certainly will (It would be nice if you did too, though). Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly didn't intend to provide false information, but which words specifically are you requesting me to strike? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, how about you insert a note clarifying that other editors, not you, made the reverts?

    I apologize for the confusion whereby I thought you had been the one making the reverts, as very often that's how things work out in reports here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have mentioned that on multiple occaisons, first one diff linked below already, what is so hard about striking "he'd be on better ground reporting you for repeatedly reverting a legitimate edit." and "You provoked him into it and so I will not reward you for doing this" both of which are false. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not attempting to be difficult, condescending or snarky here, but as true genuine well-intentioned advice, please slow down. If you are going so fast on these you are losing track of who is who in a discussion, you really need to recalibrate, there is rarely a level of urgency that requires action without sortinhg things out in your head at least a little. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum. It seems the user is Already blocked  for a period of 72 hours, without talk page access, by EvergreenFir for the incivility and battleground mentality they displayed when, in fact, engaged on the issues I touched on above. Fine; I have no quarrel with this block. Had I known about it, had it been mentioned in the report above, I would have blocked and we would not have needed to have this discussion.

    Nonetheless, my point still stands: Just because someone doesn't come to a talk page with a positive attitude to the article does not give you the right to revert away. An unspecific accusation of bias is still a legitimate subject for talk page discussion, although I admit that for them to demand you apologize before they give you answers is a bit presumptuous. And their attitude to EvergreenFir post-block entirely justifies revoking talk page access. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They had not yet been blocked when I filed this report, something easily verifiable with log entries and time stamps, and I never once reverted them. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but to be fair you made the report and didn't clarify that until now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My presumption is that when these reports are filed it is the duty of the responding admin to investigate the situation, check all the linked diffs and respond accordingly. As for clarifying that I was not involved in editing that page, I did that already. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the linked diffs and found them, by themselves, an insufficient basis for a block (and if that had been all there was to it, I still would). You took exception in what I considered to be an unduly confrontational tone, suggesting to me that you had been the one to make the reverts and then come here, as often happens; it's not unusual for reporters to not take it well when the report gets declined (and I grant that here I did make a onetime exception to 3RR, so yes, some explanation was needed). Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then maybe we are starting to get on the same page now. I don't mind declined reports. But if someone violates a brightline, as WP:3RR is, then there should be an accompanying explanation, even if only "per WP:IAR", I do not see this as even remotely confrontational, that tone shift only happened later, it was IMO a very gentle request for you to clarify your decision making under WP:ADMINACCT, and I would hope that if this occurs in the future that you will respond with more deliberation than happened this time. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we hadn't been going back and forth here, maybe someone (not necessarily you) could have added information about the block. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, might have been better done at one of our user talk pages on reflection. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed . Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    With a day's reflection and review, I have considered that I took umbrage at what I considered to be (and still would) the wrong reason to revert someone's talk page comments, and did not review them when you challenged me on why I declined the report so that I would have realized you were not taking responsibility for the actions of others. I acted rashly, negligently made some accusations against you that were properly directed at others, and caused needless drama, which did not become any less needless when the reported IP was blocked for his incivility and tendentiousness.

    I therefore invite you, 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E, to trout me here (as you would not be able to do it at my talk page since I semi-protected it a long time ago). I will also be suspending myself from reviewing reports here for a few days and requiring myself to do something boring and tedious yet utterly necessary and requiring the administrative bit in its stead (Probably MITC ... haven't done that for a long time, and there's a backlog). Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Daniel Case consider yourself trouted. As far as slip-ups go it was one with relatively minor consequence. I have a pretty thick skin and this is not by a long-shot the most outlandish set of accusations thrown my way. I don't think you necessarily need to take a break here, just make a little mental note to slow down the next time, and I have made mistakes from going to fast myself.
    The irony is that I deliberately chose to report here as opposed to AIV or ANI because the rest of the situation was a bit muddy, while violations of 3RR are unambiguous. I was hoping to get them to do some reading so they would self-revert or refactor as the case for outright removal was not entirely clear, and once a 4th revert was made, requesting a short-duration page block expressly made for that sole reason seemed like the best way to end disruption without dissecting whether the edit was legitimate or not. Obviously that did not go as planned, but that's Wikipedia for ya.
    I appreciate the apology though, and I welcome future collaboration where our interests happen to coincide. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D2B:A3F8:49AF:6545 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EpicAdventurer reported by User:KoA (Result: Warned user(s))

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

    Previous version reverted to: [10]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

    Comments:
    This almost could be more of an ANI question, but bringing this here since it deals mostly with edit warring. The above last incident isn't a brightline crossing of 3RR inserting new content in three times instead of four, but there's a underlying combative edit warring issue becoming more apparent in this most recent topic I'm hoping can be addressed here.

    I first came across this relatively new account when they violated 1RR over at [17][18]Chlormequat. I alerted them to that on their talk, but it was promptly deleted with no response.[19] About a month later, they were warned for behavior at a BLP, which they reverted saying it was nonsense.[20]

    Come to their editing today at Nicola Sturgeon. After the reverts, Czello warned them about 3RR, which as again promptly deleted.[21] The escalation here though is EpicAdventurer then went to Czello's page saying Don't post nonsense on my talk page again. You were the one who started reverting and you should have opened a discussion the first time.[22] when the WP:ONUS was instead on EpicAdventurer and they kept inserting content that appears to have WP:BLP issues about the subject being a "secret lesbian" based on the talk page. If it were just the Sturgeon edits in isolation, I probably would have left it be seeing as they stopped, but the previous history and the comments at Czello's page show an editor not wanting to hear about behavior issues related to edit warring that are quickly dismissed. There's a combativeness in their responses to almost any editor dealing with this and pushing reverts as far as they can it seems even though 3RR doesn't mean you have permission to revert up to that many times. I opened this hoping admins might get a little more traction getting across to EpicAdventurer now rather than it escalating in future articles considering how addressing the issues at their talk page seems to be an exhausted option when it always results in a response of addressing their behavior as nonsense. Thanks. KoA (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AusLondonder reported by User:Burt Harris (Result: Declined – malformed report)

    Page: Suzette Kent
    User being reported: User:AusLondonder

    Comments:
    Investigating a proposed deletion of an article, I checked this users talk page, it seems to be have a number of warnings about disruptive editing. I've responded both on their talk page, and in the article's talk page.

    I don't participate much in this sort of debate, but I certainly can't see any basis for the proposal to delete the article.

    Burt Harris (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Burt Harris: I've already declined this as malformed, but now that I look more closely at it, what on earth does your complaint have to do with edit-warring?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DemoJoker47 reported by User:Ferret (Result: blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Fallout (American TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: DemoJoker47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "I saw you said that metacritic said generally favorable but if I'm correct, Rotten Tomatos gets the percentage of reviews from crictics all across the world and ratios them to postitive versus negative reviews and the same thing you did to last of us."
    2. 21:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "I don't understand go and look at the last of us. Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by presenting informatio"
    3. 21:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "Ok can you do me a favor because I don't want to manual input every critic source but if you go to rotten tomatos there is a see full review feature so click on that and source render it and put it in Critical response also it is 93% that is not generally positive."
    4. 19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "They are in Reception or more specifically Critical response. Please take a look at other projects as last of us is at a 96% while fallout is at a 93%. Both were met with critical acclaim. As projects like those are impressive to make while being very good."
    5. 19:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "The sources have already be referenced and I read them also look at The last of us and look at this one."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Fallout (American TV series)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 21:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "/* "Critical acclaim" */ Reply"

    Comments:

    I'm INVOLVED, so coming to the notice board. User is at 5-6 reverts currently against multiple editors and a previously diffused edit war (with talk page) from a few weeks ago. User was pinged to that discussion and made another revert against that consensus afterwards. -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ShartyTheMarty reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: Blocked indef)

    Page: Lena Raine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1221436553 by Laura240406 (talk)"
    2. 23:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1221436213 by Laura240406 (talk)"
    3. 22:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "A minor edit, a grammatical error was made."
    4. 22:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "A few grammatical errors were fixed."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lena Raine."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Obviously, WP:SPA, likely user:188.69.3.160 -Lemonaka‎ 23:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked indefinitely. Definitely an SPA. I have zero tolerance for malignant misgendering. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Muboshgu Shall you protect that page as well? Since lots of log-out socks has appeared just after the block. Already requested at RFPP. -Lemonaka‎ 23:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done Didn't notice until you pointed it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have also RevDel'ed all the offending edits, and indefinitely blocked one of the worst IPs from the page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have also restored the PC whose recent expiration led to this and made it indef this time. Will log at that CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:78.1.41.95 reported by User:Altenmann (Result: )

    Page: Cult film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    • 22:00, April 29, 2024 diff hist +117‎ r Cult film ‎ And then you are independent HAHA. Tell that to someone else, what an American tells you is the way it is HaHA current Tag: Undo [rollback] [vandalism]
    • 21:54, April 29, 2024 diff hist +117‎ r Cult film ‎ Film politics Hollywood and others would protest, thinking that what I wrote was against them, so maybe there were lawsuits on wikipedia, so I understand you. You are free to return, I understand, I will not edit you again. Greetings Tags: Undo Reverted
    • 21:35, April 29, 2024 diff hist +117‎ r Cult film ‎ I agree with you that there should be a source, but there is no source in this sentence either. I just wanted to simplify the sentence so that readers can understand it better. Tags: Undo Reverted
    • 21:30, April 29, 2024 diff hist +117‎ r Cult film ‎ What I wrote wrong, look at all those that belong to "cult films" have a low rating on imbd or other and someone who likes the film does not agree with that. I don't think I wrote anything wrong. Tag: Reverted
    • 21:19, April 29, 2024 diff hist +117‎ r Cult film ‎ Better sentence and more precise. That's the definition. Tag: Reverted
    • 21:15, April 29, 2024 diff hist +129‎ r Cult film ‎ More precisely. Tag: Reverted

    Comments:
    I erxplained in tyalk page in edit summaries that must use talk page, but was ignored. - Altenmann >talk 05:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)     [reply]

    A bettere formatted report below. - Altenmann >talk 05:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:78.1.41.95 reported by User:CanonNi (Result: )

    Page: Cult film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 78.1.41.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "You know the funniest and unfortunately saddest thing about this article? What is not said in the entire article about the environment and what is the definition is confusing the readers. In my opinion, it would be better to delete the entire article. When I read everything that is written, I cannot understand what "cult classic" means. Everything is so vague that the reader is confused, because he does not know what it is. Set a guideline so that the reader is not confused."
    2. 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "And then you are independent HAHA. Tell that to someone else, what an American tells you is the way it is HaHA"
    3. 04:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "Film politics Hollywood and others would protest, thinking that what I wrote was against them, so maybe there were lawsuits on wikipedia, so I understand you. You are free to return, I understand, I will not edit you again. Greetings"
    4. 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "I agree with you that there should be a source, but there is no source in this sentence either. I just wanted to simplify the sentence so that readers can understand it better."
    5. 04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "What I wrote wrong, look at all those that belong to "cult films" have a low rating on imbd or other and someone who likes the film does not agree with that. I don't think I wrote anything wrong."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.5)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RRN