Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

User:Turkeyphant reported by User:FF-UK (Result: Protected)

Page: Europlug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Turkeyphant (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

User Turkeyphant persists in inserting a claim that the Europlug is physically compatible with the BS 1363 socket, despite the BS 1363 standard requiring that it not be possible to insert a Europlug into a BS 1363 socket. It is possible on some, but not all, BS 1363 sockets to tamper with the safety mechanism to open the shutters, and then force a Europlug into the BS 1363 socket (this is clearly stated in the article), Turkeyphant has not disputed that this can only be done by tampering, and then forcing (The pins of the Europlug have to be forced apart to enter the socket), but claims despite this they are still physically compatible. He also refuses to acknowledge that socket contacts designed to mate with flat pins are not compatible with round pins (there is a danger of arcing caused by poor contact). Further, he insists on distorting a published warning from the UK Electrical Safety Council warning of the widespread occurrence of fires due to the practice which he wishes to promote. FF-UK (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week. Please use this time to reach agreement on the talk page. Use WP:Dispute resolution if needed. If the dispute continues after protection expires, it would be logical to block anyone who reverts again without being justified by a consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Haken arizona reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Protected )

Page: 2014 Russian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haken arizona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Russian_Grand_Prix&diff=630898469&oldid=630898047

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:
Haken arizona has repeatedly edited the "attendance" figures into this article, despite the use of questionable sources. His first, from ABC.net.au referred to attendance figures from the Saturday of the event, but was being used to support attendance figures from the Sunday of the event. His second source referred to a "near capacity crowd", but gives no indication to how near to capacity "near capacity" is. The issues with these sources have been repeatedly pointed out on the talk page, but he has made no effort to address the issues with his sources, instead declaring that they are acceptable despite one of his key arguments being that the journalist is unable to count everyone in attendance, thus demonstrating that it fails WP:VERIFIABLE. He has since taken to sitting on the page, reverting edits on sight and refusing to address the questions that gave been asked of him. Given that he was made aware of the issues several times and willingly ignored them, I considered the edits to be vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy is totally out of line. Journalist will not go and count every seat to give specific down to one digit number. It is reported that the event was sold out to capacity, which means 55,000. Prisonermonkeys is out of line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If the journalist cannot count every person in attendance—which makes the source unverifiable—why haven't you provided any evidence of the venue's capacity? You only have the journalist's word that the venue hosts 55,000, but as you just said, the journalist could not have counted all of them. And as far as I am aware, the venue only has 55,000 fixed seats, but there is a general access area that can host up to 10,000 people. So if that is accurate, then claiming the venue is at capacity with 55,000 spectators is off by nearly 20% of its total.

Again, this comes down to the fact that you have not reconciled the issues with your sources. I am not opposed to the inclusion of the attendance figures; I simply ask that you demonstrate reliability, verifiability and specificity in any source you post. You have ignored this, despite being made well aware of the issues on multiple occasions, and gave instead taken to trying to force the edits through by brute force—all of which could have been avoided if you had addressed the issues that were raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected You're both lucky not to be blocked, both of you violated WP:3RR. If this continues after protection expires, I will block you both. Dreadstar ☥ 08:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: may I ask for clarification here? I reverted Haken arizona's edits because I felt they were vandalism. I pointed out the issues with his sources on the talk page before the edit warring began, and did so several more times once it started. Given his knowledge of the issues while editing that content in, and his refusal to address it, doesn't that qualify as vandalism? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits like this do not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Vandalism; and if you thought it was vandalism, then instead of uselessly edit warring, you should have reported it to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. But I can tell from the source and by the language used by your fellow-edit-warrior, that the intent was not to harm WP. Haken Arizona's edits were not vandalism, and neither were yours - it was a simple content and WP:RS dispute that got out of hand. You two should have taken it to WP:RS/N or get a WP:3O, not bang heads, disrupting the article with edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No. A disagreement over the capacity of the venue is not vandalism, which is a quite different phenomenon, often involving the word "poop." Labeling a disagreement as vandalism will not help you to win an argument, and diminishes your credibility. Acroterion (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, yeah, what Acroterion said. Simpler than mine... :) Dreadstar ☥ 10:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you administration prisonermonkeys is totally out of line. comment added by Haken Arizona 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs)

He's certainly no more out of line than you are. It would be a mistake to see this as a validation of your editing, or your preferred version of the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

He was deleting my work and I was not touching his. It is clear he is a villain here. He has habit of doing this. Attendance data is accurate enough, and it should be there. prisonermonkeys should not be deleting well sourced data just because he wants to play editor warrior. I would like my attendance data added because that is what Wikipedia is all about, improving the quality of each article. Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop. You were edit warring and could have easily been blocked, but I tried what I thought would be a fair outcome and give you two a chance to correct your behavior. You're in a content dispute, which does not make either one a villain, it's what you do that counts. Follow WP:DR, if you two continue edit warring, I'll block both of you. Dreadstar ☥ 14:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Purpl9 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: blocked indefinitely)

Page: Miracle Mineral Supplement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Purpl9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

See User talk:Purpl9 - this is a new account, but clearly not a new contributor. Despite repeatedly being told that sources regarding medical claims need to comply with WP:MEDRS, Purpl9 insists on citing a website promoting a conspiracy theory that the Red Cross is engaged in a coverup as a source for medical claims concerning 'Miracle Mineral Supplement' - a toxic (and on at least one occasion fatal) substance promoted as a 'cure' for HIV, malaria, and more or less every disease know to man. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - none - I asked Purpl9 to use the talk page, to no effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And the edit-warring continues: [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Maincorel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a likely sock- (or possibly meat-) puppet. The Maincorel account was created 8 minutes after Purpl was blocked, and 3 minutes after that made his first and only edit: a revert back to Purpl's version of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And now another sock has turned up pushing the same crap at Chlorine dioxide [21] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Einsteiniated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades Skeptrubador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am afraid the user has engaged themselves into more suckpoppuetry by creating another user under the same edits summary about the Red Cross and whatnot. (Btw, I didn't know where to put this, so this was my only option). Callmemirela (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Homeostasis07 reported by User:Lapadite77 (Result: no violation)

Page: Not Your Kind of People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23] (second revert from Not Your Kind of People page linked above)
2. [24] (first Control page revert)
3. [25] (second ^)
4. [26] (first Big Bright World page revert)
5. [27] (second ^)
6. [28] (first Blood For Poppies revert)
7. [29] (second ^)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] Control page: [32] (the exact same is stated in Big Bright World and Blood For Poppies talk pages).

Comments:
User has been reverting my recent edits on multiple pages of this band. He is not assuming good faith as evidenced in second diff provided here, and in the process is airing his personal reasons for dismissing such edit (the brief expansion of 2 quotes, for accuracy and balance, which are currently cherry-picked.) Apart from engaging in edit warring (in multiple pages, as linked above), he is engaging in and/or violating WP:TE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK. For context, user has a history of bias particularly against me, and shows no sign of wanting to consider views he disagrees with in the editing/discussion process, implicitly WP:OWN.

I'd like to note that user made the second reverts after responding to the sections I made on the talks pages of the songs (not the Not Your Kind of People album talk page), exemplifying he has no intention of considering it or engaging in anything but what he's already engaged in.
Adding: Reading over an older section on the album’s talk page, I realize Homeostasis07 has a personal bias against this album. It is strongly suggested in this section he dislikes the album and endorses the negative criticism of it. So, in my recent copy edit of the two quotes from two sources (diffs linked above), again to improve accuracy and balance, which he clearly does not want, the parts of the quotes he reverts/removes, particularly of the second quote, would suggest a less negative response (in how it's contextually stated) from the source than originally as presented. It puts his disagreement here (for this page), ergo his edit warring, in greater context. He even quoted in this section the negative part of the quote he supports. It is clear he does not want to expand the quote for context and accuracy because he has a personal bias here. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, first thing's first, there's no third edit mentioned anywhere here. And I've explained the multiple issues I have with the source he's trying to use on the three separate song articles, in both the edit summaries and on the articles talk page's. This isn't disruptive editing or edit warring on my part, so should this user really have thrown an inappropriate 3RR warning on my talk page. For the record, this is the second time in as many months @Andrzejbanas: that Lapadite77's thrown an inappropriate warning at a user while in the middle of a discussion.

This entire thing in a nutshell: Lapadite77's been involved in two lengthy discussions about which genres to include on Garbage articles (here and here). He's a lone voice among at least a dozen editors who support the inclusion of genres he doesn't agree with. And now he wants to use this source ([33]) to cite three different articles as electronic rock, alternative rock and industrial rock, while even admitting that this source doesn't include what he's trying to attribute to it and accusing me of cherrypicking. And regarding his accusations of me having BADFAITH against him, that all stems from this discussion about Curve. I made two edits to that topic, and even though I was agreeing with his position, he still ended up making a soapbox reply where he effectively called me a biased Curve fan (in his post dated 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC) - I couldn't find the matching diff in the history). Homeostasis07 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR. It is edit warring period (and there is such a thing as WP:1RR btw), pay attention. And I haven't been involved in genre disputes, everyone at that page has been involved in discussing disagreements between genres in the infobox, including RfC. You bringing up unrelated issues/pages says a lot, especially you pinging a user that has been involved in such disputes and might be biased against me (by nature of previous disagreements). "This isn't disruptive editing or edit warring on my part" - you're joking; It is especially on the NYKOP album reverts. The warning to Andrzejbanas's edits then was not by any means an inappropriate warning; it was specifically related to a couple of edits he has made at the time. It's even more blatant your bias against me. "He's a lone voice among at least a dozen editors who support the inclusion of genres he doesn't agree with" - a gross lie and misrepresentation. First, there's not a "least a zone editors" and the latest poll, which I created, consists of everyone agreeing on genres that will be included in the infobox there. Funny you don't mention the originator of the past poll's use of misleading content which was pointed out by editors other than myself. "while even admitting that this source doesn't include what he's trying to attribute to it and accusing me of cherry picking" - seriously, you must be joking. Anyone with reading comprehension sees there's no admittance of such kind and that my cherry picking comment is directly in reference to your NYKOP album quotes reverts. "And regarding his accusations of me having BADFAITH against him, that all stems from this discussion about Curve" - Interesting, you know what I'm thinking. In all actuality, again easily obvious to anyone actually following this, my bad faith comment here is in direct reference to your last edit summary on the album page: "You only want this entire quote here because it includes the words "electro-rock";" This user's bias against me is so ridiculous that after a few random ips were making edits he disagreed with, some disruptive, in one of those pages, he started persistently accusing me (out of all other editors) of being those ips. --Lpdte77 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. Your best bet would be to continue your content dispute in the existing discussions on the article's talk pages. While I understand that genres are particularly ambiguous and the source of much frustration, there is no rush. Kuru (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kuru, the genres aren't the primary concern here. The recent album diffs that were first linked above (and expounded on in the second paragraph under Comments here) are. Why are those not mentioned? Why is the blatant edit warring (2 reverts of same information currently), rooted in cherry-picking and tendentious editing (as mentioned above), NOT a violation? Please explain directly. "Your best bet would be to continue your content dispute in the existing discussions on the article's talk pages" - there is none of that, as the reported user does not need that since he feels he can just revert what he disagrees with even if it's accurate and cited (as in the album page), clearly enabled by a post like yours. He has not bothered to consider the discussion created, and especially won't now, and in removing the noticeboard temp on his talk page, said: "That was quick.". I'd suggested he use a Request for Comment (as I'd done before on another page), and he has not bothered. So, please elaborate, as what your reply currently does is enable this WP:OWN-inspired edit warring, and suggests to other editors with his inclinations, and editors on the other end like myself, that it can just keep happening without any consequence. If you don't consider this blatant edit warring behavior, then I'd like another admin opinion here on the diffs presented. --Lpdte77 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:MichaelHolmes36 reported by User:Omnedon (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Villa Grove, Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MichaelHolmes36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [40]
2. [41]

Comments:

Originally this user's efforts to add a non-notable person to an article were countered by another editor (DualFreq) with explanations in the edit summaries. This evening this user made edits which seem to amount to vandalism, removing referenced material and replacing it with unreferenced material, and which were reverted by both DualFreq and by myself. When warned on the user's talk page to stop edit warring, the user ignored this warning and continued reverting. Omnedon (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the original issue: but MichaelHolmes36 deleting this thread [42] doesn't look good... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from a one-time editor and viewer I see no reason in this editor's editing. They added unnecessary spaces for a template. In addition they removed references in the history then adds the unreferenced section template which totally out of this world. I've seen the history and this user engages themselves in true edit warring by reverting whatever an editor reverted from their edit. I reverted their edit once from my part, but they have reverted me too. I want to revert again, but I believe I've reached my limit. This person needs to be stopped. This is vandalism from my perspective. Callmemirela (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts, was warned. Kuru (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:72.198.187.238 reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: Blocked)

Page

Steung Treng Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 04:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 04:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 04:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Oddar Meanchey Province. (TW)"
2. 04:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Steung Treng Province. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Other Cambodia-related articles are involved as well (for example Oddar Meanchey Province. User will not communicate or even use the edit summary. William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Doc James reported by User:AlbinoFerret (Result: Both warned)

Page: Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doc James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
I changd the order of the page after adding a section because a comment left by someone in a rfc above pointed out that the order wasnt correct, but the order of the sections was not part of the rfc. I made a comment in the edit that it was to changed it how the order of the lede. Doc James reverted without any reasoning in the comments to the edit to the old order. I copied in the section in order to change it back it back and didnt even finish because its a big edit and I needed to do it in stages because of the size of my screen. I warned him he had made 2 reverts in 24 hours and the 3rr rule. I then was able to revert oncefor a second time. He then reverted it for a third time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbinoFerret (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)changes His actions may not violate the 3 revert rule. But they are clearly edit warring, even making changes before the final editing was done in the second instance, the version he reverted had not existed before, so that was no way to know what the end product would have been, he just wanted his version. He even continued to edit war after warning others not to do it.AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC) The ac

Comment: The Electronic Cigarette article has been unusually contentious, with multi-day arguments on the Talk page regarding issues as simple as whether to use the word "vapor" or "aerosol". It would be nice to find a solution for this as it contributes to a negative atmosphere. AlbinoFerret and KimDabelsteinPetersen have taken particularly opinionated roles in this discussion, and I am surprised to see the accusation of edit warring here given that in Kim's own words the two of them just tag teamed to "Use up Doc Jame's reversions" and thus "win a edit war".Formerly 98 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I was of the opinion that discussion was part of the wikipedia process. And since when is having opinions on something a negative? Sorry, but there are several sides to this issue, and none of them are WP:FRINGE or alt-med related. And Nope. I didn't tag-team anything. (my revert was at 17:58[49], the comment that you claim is tagteam buildup was at 19:50[50] after i had i realized what had happened (which was at 18:06[51] (18:02 actually when i read Doc James claim that i edit-warred))) --Kim D. Petersen 22:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What is curious though User:Formerly 98].. is that you revert (continue the edit war) after you posted that comment[52] - i'm shocked (not really, but i should be). --Kim D. Petersen 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Response So first of all the long standing version of the article is this one [53], which is the one I was restoring. It is not the one mentioned at "previous version reverted to"

User:AlbinoFerret change the content here Oct 25th at 01:27 [54]

Than when reverted, restored it again and again

At 16:24 on Oct 25th they were warned on their talk page regarding edit warring.[55]

At 16:30 they placed a warning on my talk page [56]

Earlier that day they had already WP:CANVASSED for support here [57] asking User:KimDabelsteinPetersen to support them. Kim than reverted at 16:58 [58]

I requested that they get consensus first before this controversial change in both the edit summary and here [59] at 16:27

Another concern is that AlbinoFerret is current more or less a WP:SPA [60] as are a few others.

Additionally there is no 4th diff listed above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the time stamp of the so called "canvas" it was the night before after I finished a major edit of the article. I only asked Kim to look at the page to see if the NPOV problems were gone enough to remove a banner she had placed on the article. I never asked kim to do anything or give any type of support. I was basically looking for her to look at what I had done. She has been an editor on the page for a long time and I respect her opinions. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am far from a single purpose account. While the e-ciagerette article has taken a lot of my available time lately. I have edited a wide range of topics and I have even created a article in the about an art glass company. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• If anything, boomerang. I see that Doc James made the first attempt to resolve things despite claims to the contrary. AlbinoFerret and Kim need to cease reverting during discussion. This comes across as battleground mentality.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the order of events.

• Doc James does the first revert at 9:07 diff#1

• I revert the page because no reason is given, no talk page section on it exists. diff#2
• Doc James Reverts that at 9:24 diff#3
• I later found out that instantaneously Doc James places a edit warring template on my user page also at 9:24 but does not discuss the issues why, but he keeps reverting.diff#4
• Doc James starts a section on the e-cigarette talk page at 9:27 but I wont see it. diff#4
• I change the page 9:30-932 I revert it a second time. diff#5
• I go get a cup of coffee.
• Doc James reverts the changes again at 9:33. diff#6
• At 9:34 Doc james starts talking after he has reverted again and again finally placing it on a page I get notifications on. diff#7
• I came back with my coffee and saw the notification thing at the top blinking. I have stopped editing the page at that point and went to discuss the problem at 9:39. diff#8

Two reverts and then stopping to discuss while the other editor keeps reverting? I dont see a boomerang. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• @KimDabelsteinPetersen: Just to set the record straight, a simple examination of my contribution history shows that I did not "revert (continue the edit war) after you posted that comment". I reverted (I agree this was probably a poor decision) and later came over to comment here. Its easy to make this type of error and I understand that. But part of the problem here has been the attitude exemplified by your comment "i'm shocked (not really, but i should be)." There is a pattern of not only failing to seek consensus, but also of making belittling and insulting comments whenever someone disagrees with you. It is fine to criticize behavior, but when comments are directed at the character, good will, or intelligence of those you should be engaging with, it is very unhelpful and contrary to what we are trying to accomplish here. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Formerly 98:|Yes, i'm sorry. You are correct. You placed the comment on this board almost an hour after you reverted. I was misreading the times, because there is an hour between the dates i see on diffs and the ones that gets timestamped. Once more i'm sorry about that. Please take a look at your assumption of tag-teaming with the diffs i provided in mind now. --Kim D. Petersen 01:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In another dispute, I removed original research and replaced it with sourced text. I clearly explained this in my edit summary the problems with the article. I expanded the safety section a bit and a few editors did not like that. For no good reason, User:KimDabelsteinPetersen blindly replacing sourced text with original research in a revert and User:AlbinoFerret blindly reverted back in the original research and other problems. There are long term issues with both User:AlbinoFerret and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen. If admins want to fix the problems they should show them the door. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Look who is canvassing[61][62] his teammates. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Both of them are currently actively editing that article (both within the past 24 hours). I don't think that fits the definition of canvassing. Arzel (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There's more to that older dispute than Quack would have you hear [63]. It's a bit more along the lines of pots and kettles... Mihaister (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Arzel, they are very active editors on the page. I only asked them to look at the talk page, and I only asked two. Very far from canvassing. But what we do have is an example of QuackGuru's concept of guidelines. Twist them to the point of breaking. He does that with Original Research to try and stop any changes to the words he puts in. The problem is a lot of his edits are copyright problems.AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To avoid any further false accusations of canvassing, I have went down the history for three pages and notified all the editors who have made an edit to the page who have not commented. I only excluded ip addresses. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc James continues to work at winning his version of the article. He started a biased phrased RFC, only listed it in the medical categorydiff. When I posed comments pointing this out and offered a alternate phrasing he moved mine and other editors comments on the talk page going against WP:TPOC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah really the "medical category". Can you please show me what this medical category is as last time I checked there was NO medical category for RfCs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice CANVASSING here [64] especially seeing they weighed in a couple of hours later Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Both Doc James and AlbinoFerret are Warned against edit warring further in the article and for ratcheting up the level of discourse. AlbinoFerret is hardly blameless in any of this, but I'm not going to look to see who started what when. The net result is disruptive to the article. There's at least one complaint AlbinoFerret makes with which I agree, and that is the comment Doc James left on the medical project, which is not appropriate. It may indeed be acceptable to notify relevant projects of a dispute, but the notification must be neutral, and Doc James's comment was not only not neutral but did not even sum up the nature of the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have only did a minor edit to the page today and did not edit after I got the reasoning from Doc James on my talk page yesterday. I did not revert but only added one word. I am very frustrated at what I see as a corruption of the RFC process to try and manipulate the results. I have only notified editors that have edited the page in about the last week or so and did not selectively notify other than to exclude editors only using IP addresses. Am I blameless in all of this? Maybe not, but the talk pages and rfc are designed to help fix the problem. The only thing thats happened is that its made it worse and created a new problem. The false canvassing accusations are another matter, The WP:CANVASS page clearly says its on to tell other editors who have edited the article about an RFC. I even notified people I had good reason to believe would agree with Doc James. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In the very beginning you only notified your teammates.[65][66] After editors commented you were canvassing then you notified other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not my teammates, I am not part of a team, and your continued posting of false accusations is in violation of assuming good faith. There is no time limit on when a notification is to be completed. Even if I only notified the two you are pointing out, they are active editors of the article and would have see the page eventually. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Adroit09 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Protected)

Page: List of Khandelwal Gotras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adroit09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:

Note that there were similar problems involving this user on this article back in February 2014, as can be seen on the contributor's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The user has been making significant reverts without discussion [[74]]. A stand-alone article was redirected with clumsy explanations. On being confronted, the user has resorted to posting policy guidelines without looking into the matter. The basic Wiki belief of assuming good-faith has been violated. Also, before reverting, the user made no attempt to discuss on Talk:List of Khandelwal Gotras. The user Sitush has chosen to go for deletion of all the painstakingly put information in one go. Adroit09 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There have been past discussions, as I indicated above. There was also some related discussion at Talk:Khandelwal_Vaishya, where you were very misguided. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You started with deleting all the content. [75] You then redirected it without discussing on Talk page. [76] I reverted the redirect [77]. You reverted it again citing references are not reliable. You didn't choose to use refimprove but decided to do a blank clean and redirect. Even after adding citations, you continue to revert first blindly and then citing clumsy reasons. The references are supposed to be judged on context WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. You could go through the edit history and summary here. [78] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adroit09 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that the article as shown at present is also a copyvio of this. It has long been established that caste associations are not reliable sources but violating their copyright really is beyond the pale. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You decided to revert the article due to copyvio. However, the information being contested is in public domain and all the references contain similar information. [79][80][81] It is like saying List of Indian states and capital is copyright-violation. I would recommend you to use discretion and not act hastily without looking at the situation at hand. Also, you should have used copyvio template and discussed it before resorting to reverting. Anyway, I hope you constrain your over-zealousness. For the time being, I have restored it to the previous version.

Note, I don't say we shouldn't make any changes to the list. There is still some information missing which could be added from other sources. Also, the other details could be presented in a better way. But you don't need to delete the content for it. --Adroit09 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected for one month on the version prior to the edit war (last February). Sitush has pointed out that the present article content looks to be a copyright violation from a website operated by a caste association. Some of the material was also cited to a blog source. I'm leaving a notice of WP:GS/CASTE for User:Adroit09. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cid Campeador3 reported by User:Amortias (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page

El Clásico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cid Campeador3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Restoring referenced material"
2. 20:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Restoring referenced material. Let's talk."
3. 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Restoring the referenced material, please talk with me, I'm the only one who is using the talk page at the time"
4. 20:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Your referenced material is a biased POV, and my referenced material assures this person told him that"
5. 20:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "The Independent and Syd Lowe don't prove anything in that reference, they are not reliable sources in this case, the jorunalist is recognized and ssures Barcelona player told him the truth."
6. 21:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "My reference, "Diariogol.com" is a legal and registered sport news site, owned by EDICIONES DIGITALES DEL DEPORTE SL, a limited company registered in Spain. It's as valid as Syd Lowe writings."
7. 21:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631107265 by Carlos Rojas77 (talk) My reference, "Diariogol.com" is a legal and registered sport news site, owned by a legaly registered company."
8. 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "I hope Amortias will try to bring an agreement between ourselves and not side with CarlosRojas77 in the edit war. My reference is as valid as Syd Lowe, Guardian, and Independent references."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on El Clásico. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I blocked Cid Campeador3 and then saw this. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:50.103.148.57 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page

Third-wave feminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631027307 by Frosty (talk)"
2. 01:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631124117 by Frosty (talk)"
3. 04:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631134769 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
4. 04:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631141109 by EvergreenFir (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Third-wave feminism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Dreadstar ☥ 04:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:190.203.140.28 reported by User:98.21.60.198 (Result: Alerted)

Page: Quneitra Governorate clashes (2012–2014) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.203.140.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

Comments:

I have tried to avoid an edit war regarding this topic by addressing it on the article's talk page. However, this user continues to revert other users' changes without discussing the topic on the talk page. I request that this user be blocked from further edits, as his edits can be considered libelous. 98.21.60.198 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note. The edits by 190.203.140.28 are disruptive, particularly considering the articles they are editing. However, on this article and others I looked, the IP has not even violated WP:1RR as the edits are spaced too far apart. I've alerted the IP to the existence of the Syrian civil war sanctions so they may be sanctioned for disruption if they persist.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:LesVegas (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91] and then [92]
3. [93]
4. [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: added this notice about edit warring in the edit summary and yet QuackGuru reverted again. and I recently posted this on his talk page and here he was recently warned by an administrator Just today, I counted his reverts, and he committed 4 on Acupuncture in a 24 hour period. Clearly, this user should know better.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[95] [96] and [97]

Comments:

QuackGuru has a long history of edit warring, and in fact, I had to report him only quite recently for violating the 3RR on acupuncture with 6 reverts. Then an administrator had to get involved on the page because of some gross incivility and edit warring and QuackGuru ducked onto another page for the time being, refusing to respond to my discussion with any specifics on talk here Now he is throwing out any reason possible for these well sourced edits to not stick, and won't work towards working out our differences on the talk page. He simply argues on talk and reverts on the article. Given that he was reported recently, blocked numerous times, and has been warned on his talk page a lot lately, such as here here edit warring here and the list goes on (QuackGuru deletes all warnings from his talk page) I thought he would've learned his lesson, but sadly he is back at it. LesVegas (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note. If you refer to another report here, please give us a link to it. I assume you mean this report filed in early October. As far as I can tell, no action was taken based on that report. I don't even see comments posted to the report by an administrator. Back to the present. I count three reverts by QG, which is not a breach of 3RR. The situation is, of course, complicated by the discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPS, which I assume apply to this article. I'll let another administrator address that aspect of the problem if they wish to.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• I too count 3 reverts, though I am seeing some pretty aggressive editing (warring up to 3RR and then slipping in some bold edits). Looks like the filer has 2 reverts, and a whole bunch of other people have 1 revert in an unrelated edit war. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The tag was removed multiple times and the previous concerns were addressed. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive_15#The_tag_was_removed_multiple_times.

• Takahashi, Toku (2011). "Mechanism of Acupuncture on Neuromodulation in the Gut-A Review". Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 14 (1): 8–12. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1403.2010.00295.x. ISSN 1094-7159. PMID 21992155.

Text that is in article: "Health is viewed by traditional acupuncturists as a balance of yin and yang, sometimes equated to the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems.[3][177]" See Acupuncture#Theory. See diff. There is no reason to add redundant text to the article.

• Langevin, Helene M. (2014). "Acupuncture, Connective Tissue, and Peripheral Sensory Modulation". Critical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene Expression. 24 (3): 249–253. doi:10.1615/CritRevEukaryotGeneExpr.2014008284. ISSN 1045-4403. PMID 25072149.

• Zhao, Zhi-Qi (2008). "Neural mechanism underlying acupuncture analgesia". Progress in Neurobiology. 85 (4): 355–375. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2008.05.004. ISSN 0301-0082. PMID 18582529.

Current text: "A 2014 review stated that despite ample controversy encircling the validity of acupuncture as a modality, developing literature on its physiological effects in animals and humans is giving new views into the basic mechanisms for acupuncture needling.[196] The same review proposed a model combining both connective tissue plasticity and peripheral sensory modulation as a needle response for acupuncture's physiological effects.[196] The evidence indicates that acupuncture-induced pain relief effect has physiological, anatomical and neurochemical origins.[197] The mechanism of action for acupuncture is still unclear.[198] Evidence suggests that acupuncture generates a sequence of events that include the release of endogenous opioid-like substances that modulate pain signals within the central nervous system.[198]"

The sources are already in the article. LesVegas added the same sources that are already summarised in the same section.[98]. There is a separate article for electroacupuncture. The information that is too technical is not appropriate for the general reader. The technical information goes against the clear wording of WP:MEDMOS of writing to a general audience.I explained this on the talk page. See Talk:Acupuncture#POV. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:RioHondo reported by User:Unbuttered Parsnip (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Silion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RioHondo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [I use he/him/him throughout but it could equally be she/her/her]

Previous version reverted to: [99] Revision as of 08:05, 22 June 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [100] Revision as of 14:38, 26 October 2014 NB time here is 8hrs ahead of UTC
2. [101] Revision as of 14:48, 26 October 2014
3. [102] Revision as of 14:49, 26 October 2014
4. [103] Revision as of 14:52, 26 October 2014
5. [104] Revision as of 14:53, 26 October 2014
6. [105] Revision as of 14:54, 26 October 2014
7. [106] Revision as of 15:06, 26 October 2014
8. [107] Revision as of 15:22, 26 October 2014
9. [108] Revision as of 15:39, 26 October 2014
10. [109] Revision as of 15:40, 26 October 2014
11. [110] Revision as of 15:42, 26 October 2014
12. [111] Revision as of 15:50, 26 October 2014

<-- I went to bed -->

1. [112] Latest revision as of 15:58, 26 October 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: just edit comment flames

Comments:
User has no facts to support his argument. His first reference indicates that there is a barangay in Bantayan, Cebu called Sillon. That is true, but irrelevant as barangay Sillon and Silion island are two different places. See map [114].
His second reference is to a newspaper article which if true would contradict his first reference (but I think it's a newspaper typo, and should refer to barangay Sillon).
His third reference, not a reliable source, refers to brgy Sillon, whose 2010 population according to his first source is 4064 His fourth reference also not a reliable source, also refers to brgy Sillon not Silion island.

You might care to take note of his response to my 3RR post [115] – some kind of veiled threat.

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 10:42, wikitime= 02:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's not edit warring when you add information supported by sources. Furthermore, all you did was simply revert all the sources I added, without even considering opening a discussion in the article's talk page since you are disputing those sources. This is the same IP user who annoys editors with his reverts and edits without even consulting them or trying to achieve consensus. See comments about user at WT:TAMBAY. Keep up with this attitude and you and all your IPs might get the ban you are seeking.--RioHondo (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter who's right and who's wrong, what this issue ultamitely boils down to is that both of you broke 3RR. In fact, I don't see either one of you trying to resolve this issue on the talk page seeing how this article does not even have one. "It's not edit warring when you add information supported by sources", after reading that I would encourage both of you to read WP:Edit Warring since that's not a valid excuse. I would not be supprised if both of you are blocked for 24 hours. AcidSnow (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Tutelary (Result: )

Page

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631279690 by Javier2005 (talk) You are asking us to identify the people who made the statements that The Verge is quoting when that is not what Wikipedia can or should do."
2. 03:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631276514 by Javier2005 (talk) READ THE REFERENCE AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE FFS"
3. 03:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631275483 by Torga (talk) "Boogie" and Yiannopoulos' stories have not been addressed by any of the reliable sources stated so there is no reason to include them"
4. 02:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631274145 by Muscat Hoe This revert is addressed on the talk page at Talk:Gamergate controversy#Muscat Hoe's removal of "jokingly" in more detail than the edit summary allows"
5. 02:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631270366 by Torga (talk) this isn't biased, it is accurate based on the preponderance of reliable sources that define it as such; look at the talk page; also a typo"
6. 01:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Torga (talk): Unexplained blanket revert to an old version. (TW)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 16:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) to 16:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631199378 by Belorn (talk) This section is indeed covered in http://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting & http://time.com/3274247/video-game-culture-war/"
   2. 16:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631198871 by Belorn (talk) In Vox and Time at the end of the entire paragraph"
   3. 16:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631189092 by Halfhat (talk) this isn't bloat, part of it shows other evidence of misogyny in the community"
8. 05:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Pengo (talk): Stop going "it's actually about ethics in journalism". (TW)"
9. Consecutive edits made from 04:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC) to 04:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 04:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631144633 by Pengo (talk) it's not an edit conflict, stop changing it to downplay the misogyny aspect"
   2. 04:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631144004 by Masem (talk) Masem, this is accurate to the present weight of the sources out there"
10. 04:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631142985 by Pengo (talk) stop throwing the reliably sourced and almost universal description of this as a misogynist movement deep in the last sentence of the lede"
11. 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631126833 by Tutelary (talk) Yes I am because they're reliably sourced"
12. 04:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Belorn (talk): Are you reading the sources in question? (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Ryulong is at 15RR in this single article, and with no signs of stopping or slowing down. They have not asserted any 3RR exemption and as a result, are grossly edit warring and way over 3RR. Tutelary (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Users in question are almost exclusively pushing a POV on the article despite reliable sources supporting the content that had been consistently removed and issues variously addressed on the talk page despite actions consistently taken by the other editors arguably in this larger dispute. This is an attempt to silence me on this issue when I have been working diligently to edit the article in a way that fits in with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that most of the editors I reverted do not care about. I should not be punished for making sure that the article is not disrupted by POV pushers simply because I'm the only one editing the page. All edits have been extensively discussed on the talk page, and as usual, I am being chastised when other editors do not adhere to the community's policies and guidelines on article content. I am simply the big bad wolf in all of this. This is just another attempt to silence me in the GamerGate debate because of my alleged position.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I will not comment on this report based on content issues. This is about editor conduct. I don't believe asserting 15 reverts on an article after being given warning for edit warring should be rubber stamped as fine because Ryulong decided he wants to be the sole caretaker of the article and to stop apparent POV pushing. 4RR or even 5RR could be justified and forgiven because of the fast paced notion of the page and loss of counting. 15RR is deliberate. Tutelary (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom has also been involved in reverting the actions of editors, as has Countered, NorthBySouthBaranof, Tarc, Bilby, among others. In addition, Muscat Hoe's concerns were addressed in a self revert (I think it was a self revert because there was an edit conflict at some point). Nearly everything here is under discussion on the talk page, and I pressured the other users to discuss it on the talk page. The fact that WP:BRD is never adhered to should not be my fault.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So is 4 hours considered suitably stale considering nearly every issue that the reverts concerned have been under talk page discussion since long before Tutelary began this thread and were either resolved or in the process of resolving before the posting was made? Not to forget that due to the general sanctions, some of these might be considered acts that violate BLP as several edits called for identifying non-public figures, or denying statements made in reliable sources that effectively violate BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is overrun by SPAs and POV pushers who are trying to take advantage of their numbers to shout down constructive work on the talk page and 'win' at reverting the article, making large numbers of transparently unconstructive changes like tagging cited material with citation needed tags and removing wording that was added based on an established consensus because it's 'biased.' Tutelary has consistently been very supportive of these accounts as they share an anti-feminist POV, so it's unsurprising that it's an editor who's been trying to keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia policy for months who's been reported here when there are several pro-gamergate POV warriors who are clearly engaging in disruptive editing patterns. (Cue Tutelary accusing me of being an SPA because I was inactive for two months over the summer.) -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:92.236.35.88 reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: )

Page: Ego death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.236.35.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• link
• diff

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

Comments: