Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

---

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

Additional notes

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

---

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

User:Bobi987 Ivanov reported by User:Laveol (Result:blocked 1 week)

Page: Yane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bobi987 Ivanov (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 the user's own talk page: [8]

Comments:
I've laid out my concerns over the editor's behaviour at the incidents noticeboard. Since that report, he has been engaged in a fierce edit war on a number of articles (the most blatant example is Yane Sandanski, but there are others, such as Todor Panitsa, Boris Sarafov). Initially, I tried to contact him via the talkpage, since he was guaranteed to see it there. Later, I found out he was actually an experienced editor who was well aware of his actions. I also get the impression he is bringing his personal feud with another editor from mk.wiki to en.wiki.--Laveol ^T 11:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I just add some more useful info., and provide the sources. That's all. I never delete anything, unlike others. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You've been adding info directly from blogs, misinterpreted and misquoted a number of sources, and you've cluttered articles with unnecessary (mis)quotes. However, this is not the topic of discussion here. The question is why you continued to revert and revert, and doing it without a proper justification. You were warned that you needed to calm down. --Laveol ^T 11:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if one has got impeccable sources, this is no reason to edit-war. Here's a summary of five reverts on Boris Sarafov:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13].

At this rate (5 reverts/ 7 hours) you would break even a 15RR, if there were one. Also, you ignored my comments on the talk page. This is not the way to go. Tropcho (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Berean! Just so you guys know, it seems that this IP Special:Contributions/79.126.250.162 is picking up Bobi987's cause. Tropcho (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've increased his block time to 1 week for evasion and semi-protected a couple of articles. His IP address is hardblocked one week as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Tropcho (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the user is back under Special:Contributions/79.126.186.106 as well as Special:Contributions/85.30.109.189. On Talk:Boris_Sarafov he doesn't conceal that he's the user who made the earlier edits (he referred [14] to the earlier edits he made as his own and he copied comments he made earlier on his talk page [15]). That it's the same user is also suggested by the fact that the two IPs are editing the same five pages Bobi987 was editing before the block (except the two with protection, Boris Sarafov and Todor Panitsa). Tropcho (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Javier2005 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Stale)

Page

Anita Sarkeesian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Javier2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "I won't give up to the truth"
2. 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
3. 13:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "relevant source"
4. 13:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "why it is not relevant? it is a relevant source"
5. 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Utah State University statement IS RELEVANT on the section "Terrorist threat at Utah State University""
6. 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629978024 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) relevant sourced information"
7. 12:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629974197 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) relevant sourced information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bayonetta 2. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned for edit-warring on a different article, clearly should understand the rule + has flagrantly violated it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to tango (or three in this case). User:TheRedPenOfDoom and NorthBySouthBaranof were edit warring the exact same edit to remove the wrong version rather than discussing the validity of the reference as a reliable source at the talk page, as they should have done instead. They have stopped below the 3RR hard limit, but that's not an excuse for continuing an edit war. They should be engaging the new editor instead of WP:BITEing him. I'd say a WP:BOOMERANG is in place for failing to follow proper behavior policies. Diego (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If one is being reverted by multiple users, that's a good clue that they should stop. The user made no effort to discuss the issue on the talk page and blanked all attempts at discussing the issue on his user talk page. The idea that this is a WP:BOOMERANG issue is patently absurd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's obvious that one editor is new to Wikipedia, that's a good clue to follow Don't bite newcomers and stop edit warring yourself. I've seen you making three reverts to the same edit and adding a threatening message to the warning notice, NeilN making two, and TheRedPenOfDoom making another three ([16], [17], [18]) and insulted the newcomer by implying that he had an intent to disrupt. Old-timers should know better than that, and a 24h block for edit warring would be a good reminder. Diego (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

...no. That's laughable and you know it. It's not "gaming the system" for three different people to revert an editor who is singularly edit-warring. That is literally not even a thing. The entire point of 3RR is to remind a user that if they're getting reverted multiple times by multiple editors, that they're probably edit-warring. The reported user here was reverted multiple times by multiple editors. I'll be sure to waste your time in return and make unfounded demands that you be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If all these editors had limited themselves to a single revert and had cared to properly explain how Javier's behavior was wrong, I would agree. However, you and I know that's not what happens here. Diego (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Old timers" should also know not to pass themselves off as neutral observers when they're clearly not. Diego was cautioned for edit warring on a related article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So what, you mean that civility and consensus-building can be thrown out the window when editors are involved? I've never said I'm a neutral observer (my edit history is clear at that very same article and talk pages), nor should that matter at the admin's noticeboard; what matter are documented breaches of policy. As a zero-tolerance editor against biters, my interest here is avoiding a newcomer being blocked by a tag-team. And I accept I may have been a bit leeway a couple of times recently, but you can see that I've been restraining from it, and you have yet to see mee tag-teaming against a newcomer. Diego (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus-building means using the talk page when you're bold edit is reverted, especially by multiple editors. Not reverting again and again, saying "I won't give up to the truth". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you know that, why did you revert twice? Diego (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Has not participated in the talk page discussion here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User is now at 7 reverts and shows no sign of being interested in complying with policy; all attempts at discussion on their user talk page have been blanked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also possibly related: User:187.210.189.223, which is repeatedly and without explanation section-blanking material on a related article that this editor had previously removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that @Javier2005: has stopped edit warring after someone actually cared to explain policy instead of tagging him and trying to win. Diego (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that you're playing the victim card for someone who auto-blanked anything on his talk page. You should be blocked for 24 hours as a good reminder not to support edit warriors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No action is necessary here. We give leeway to new editors, since they can't be expected to know about our policies, but experienced people should know better. Since Javier now understands and has stopped, it would definitely be wrong to block him. It's tempting to block NorthBySouthBaranof, who clearly knows better and (judging by the comment of 14:10) indeed cares more about winning, but blocks shouldn't be punitive. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If Javier2005 has stopped, that's fine. The rest is a poor assessment, all around. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your "has not participated" statement is out of date; since you said that, he's added three comments at the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If the edit warring has stopped, so much the better. But blocking NorthBySouthBaranof would be ridiculous. The problem at these pages isn't with among the "editors who know better", it's with the high number of new accounts coming in with a agenda.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why editors are expected to make the new editor feel welcome and explain the expected behavior to the newcomer, instead of throwing them full head into a trial, barely thirty minutes after the content dispute started. As an administrator you should know, follow and enforce this, instead of justifying the behavior of those who breach the guideline. Diego (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrators need to focus on the editors causing disruption rather than those reporting disruption. Here the disruption is coming from one direction: the SPAs coming here with an outside agenda, and those who enable them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So that's your official stance as an administrator, that biting newcomers is not a disruption that merits admin attention? No wonder that editor retention is dismal. Diego (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

My official stance as an editor is that we spend far to much time navel-gazing and not nearly enough time dealing with blatant disruption so that content contributors can go about the business of building any encyclopedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And in any case, using an aggressive warning message as the first comment you make to a new editor is unacceptable. @NorthBySouthBaranof:, next time please use {{Uw-ewsoft}} instead; you may find that those new editors behave in a much saner way and tend to stop edit warring, instead of them becoming angered. Diego (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Marked stale by User:Nyttend at 14:16 on 17 October (see their comment above). EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:AntiTheJakAremania reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

Page

Persib Bandung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629981499 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
2. 07:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629937131 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
3. 22:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629901345 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
4. 08:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Undid revision 629686807 by MbahGondrong
5. 07:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Undid revision 629677690 by MbahGondrong

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Persib Bandung. (TW)"
2. 13:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "/* RfC: Should it be shorter? */ Reply"

Comments:

This is an edit war that goes back two days, 56 hours, and a total of five reverts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I stepped in as one of the editors involved has been discussing and attempting to seek consensus (asking for my input and that of the football project and finally on the article's talk page) while the reported editor has only been reverting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The user did not breach 3RR but stopped at 3 reverts. However, he has been edit warring on the same page since October 15. In addition, the user is a new WP:SPA with troubling and disruptive edits elsewhere on the project in the short time they've been here. The user's limited English and repeated use of Indonesian on talk pages makes it that much more difficult to understand what he is doing. Even though he retracted the personal attack directed at Walter, at the same time he promised to revert as often as was necessary to maintain his version of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Due to similarity of user name and activities such as here, I suspect that the blocked user have made another account AntiTheJakAremania123. MbahGondrong (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. The new account has been indeffed, and the original account's block has been increased to one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:FF-UK reported by User:Turkeyphant (Result: no violation)

Page: Europlug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FF-UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&oldid=629795480

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&diff=629820216&oldid=629795480

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&diff=629820216&oldid=629795480
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&diff=629943265&oldid=629929452

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Europlug#FF-UK_is_edit-warring_again

Comments:

Hasn't violated WP:3RR due to de-escalation by me. However, is clearly edit warring and refusing to discuss outside of edit summaries. User has a history of edit warring on this page. Turkeyphan^t 18:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. I don't see any prior edits to that article by FF-UK; is there a prior name I supposed to be looking for? There's just two reverts, and you posted to the article's talk page maybe an hour before posting here. Maybe wait and see if he responds? This seems premature. Kuru (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I swear I saw warring on that article in their edit history but if you didn't find it I must be mistaken. How long should I leave it? Turkeyphan^t 03:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Titanium Dragon (Result: Butter and Cream blocked per ANI)

Page: Talk:Gamergate controversy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of Ryulong's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]

Diffs of Butter and Cream's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]
7. [30]

Previous warning: He was warned about this previously by Masem, for the same article no less.

I did notify him of this action against him, but he reverted it; there was no 3RR warning on his user page prior to this action for this particular dispute, the dispute was mainly confined to talk:Gamergate controversy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The relevant section.

Comments:
From a quick perusal of the history. The number may be higher, but they may not have been listed as such; that was just ones I found with the line "reverted" or "undid" in the edit. There appears to have been an edit war between him and @Butter and Cream: over closing a topic of discussion regarding a factual statement in the article. Ryulong has had something of an issue with regards to this in the past on the article, trying to close discussion over NPOV issues that the article has had. The article has had a DRN about NPOV and undue weight issues and is presently having mediation set up to deal with these issues as the discussion became too complicated for a DRN. Ryulong has steadfastly refused to be involved in either.

Ryulong simultaneously claims that there is consensus for his point of view and that he has to continually close discussions on the subject matter, and yet refuses to participate in mediation or the DRN on the issue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit war ended and has not continued for at least an hour. Anything now is long after the "dispute" so to call it has ended. And I did not do any such closing that he claims to have happened. I refuse to involve myself in those dispute resolution aspects because they are just new forms of forum shopping by people trying to push a POV and encountering opposition from established editors who know how the site is supposed to work. And I still stand by the fact that you, Titanium Dragon, should never have been unbanned from this topic area on that stupid loophole you discovered. And I will fight tooth and nail if I am going to be blocked over some fucking SPA meatpuppet garbage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And what the fuck is this shit?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

In my defense, my part of the "edit war" was simply opening the section Ryulong kept closing. At one point he also kept removing my additional comments to the section. --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to edit war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black. --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. I reverted precisely once and stepped away. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

At one point it seemed like even you were struggling with Ryu's edits, and seemed like you were editing out his goofs at that point. Which is what I were mostly doing in this "edit war". --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The other editor, User:Butter and Cream, is just as guilty of edit-warring. Note that the editor's complaint on ANI was closed as several editors noted that the issue is long-settled and Butter and Cream needs to drop the stick. The user's third edit was to ANI, which is rather suggestive that they know and understand policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof also edit-warred at one point. The only one who didn't partake was Titanium Dragon. --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

False, as above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Butter and Cream: If you feel someone else was involved in the edit war, provide diffs, as Ryulong and I did above. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

He's blocked bro.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And Titanium Dragon, your "note that he reverted the notification" note, you warned me after you started the thread rather than before or even during the dispute. And I'm allowed to remove shit from my page if I feel like it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. I misunderstood what the purpose of that was. Removing it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, going through your history, you have been involved in a lot of disputes recently. Including one other editing reversion dispute over GamerGate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I happened to open the page just as an edit I disagreed with was made. Do you have a problem with that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Butter and Cream has been indefinitely blocked as a disruptive single-purpose account. Ryulong should be commended for acting to prevent this account from disrupting the encyclopedia any further and this matter should be closed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It is really irrelevant to Ryulong's own disruptive behavior, doubly so given that Ryulong himself was desysopped for abusing the rules in the past to get users banned who disagreed with him, and for blocking users himself. Indeed, in the light of his past behavior, I would say that additional scrutiny on this matter (and on the other user's ban) is very important here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Christ are you seriously going to just dig up everything bad I may have done in the past 8 years I've been on this website? People in glass houses, man.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a pattern of behavior. Generally speaking, people are not supposed to be banned for one instance of behavior, something you should know very well, given that you got in trouble for it in the past. You also had issues with baiting people, which honestly your repeated warning of others about WP:STICK and pre-emptive closing of discussions and other behavior strongly smacks of. It does take two users to get in an edit war, but sometimes one user's actions help to create one. Given that the other person got blocked, I think it is appropriate to ask this question, because, well, you do have a history of it. As for glass houses: you clearly haven't paid much attention to what I've done in the past. My snout is quite clean; I haven't been involved in anything really exciting "rules wise" outside of GamerGate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I never fucking baited anyone. You are picking some random shit out of the "Proposed principles" section of a 5 year old ArbCom case that is not mentioned at all in any of the proposed or final findings of fact or decisions. If you want me banned, do it through the proper channels. Don't make an AN3 thread because I was dealing with someone who was not here for the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The user in question brought up the question of issues about the claim that the claims were "unfounded" when in fact the source for the claim was the company whose integrity was (and has been) called into question, ultimately relied entirely on the testimony of the journalist in question (because it was a secretive personal relationship), and the source says that they found no evidence for the relationship starting prior to the publication of the article, rather than that the claims were false. That is an entirely legitimate question, and the claim that they're not here for Wikipedia is simply false - that is an entirely reasonable thing to talk about and question. We are supposed to hold to WP:BLP here, and WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL, and his question was entirely polite and well-founded, given that the only source for this is someone who has a vested interest in his company not being seen as incapable of policing its own reporters. How is that being WP:NOTHERE? This sort of thing is very important, and WP:RS even notes that inline citations for stuff like this is important, doubly so when there are potential issues of bias or conflict of interest. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a venue to continue the content dispute which has been dealt with on a bidaily basis ever since the article left your hands.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have something against Ryulong that doesn't involve reverting a now-blocked disruptive SPA, I suggest you open an ANI thread about it rather than try and turn this thread into open season. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is for edit warring. One of the users in question was banned. It is relevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you seriously claim that the warning two weeks ago for actions on the article itself constitute a warning for archiving that thread made by an intentionally disruptive user now? Titanium Dragon, you are drawing at straws and need to be banned from the topic area again. And this request should be closed as stale.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Butter and Cream has been indefinitely blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise per the ANI discussion. If this needs to be debated further, please use ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Betterday123098 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mirko Vučinić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Betterday123098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Club career */Try edit it again."
2. 13:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Club career */Stop or I will report you to Wikipedia policy."
3. 13:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Club career */Why don't you just read the (see this) and stop disturbing me."
4. 08:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Club career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

3RR warning here: [31]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

bonadea contributions talk 14:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The user did not breach 3RR but did edit-war here and on at least one other page. The edits are driven by an ethnic/nationalistic agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:180.216.85.183 reported by User:The Rambling Man (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gina Rinehart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.216.85.183 (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 (in the past 97 minutes, notwithstanding the other reverts in the previous few days):

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37], and user's talk page: [38], [39], [40], [41]

Comments:
There's a lengthy discussion on the talk page which shows a clear majority and consensus for a particular variation of "chairman/woman/person". However, that's somewhat irrelevant to the case in question, whereby a clear violation of 3RR has taken place in just over an hour-and-a-half. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Froboy69 reported by User:Kante4 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

James Rodríguez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Froboy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "I am sorry, what part of him scoring the only goal of this match isn't note worthy? We've ALWAYS entered the goals/assists he does for the national team. Also, it was all over social media for the type of goal he scored."
2. 20:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "Look I am sorry but we must say consistent; his history both club and nation has referenced whenever he scores/assists, and we've always done this. There's no reason to treat this goal any different even as a friendly and the goal itself gain attention."
3. 20:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "This one is. The goal itself has attracted enough attention to be note worthy and it was the deciding factor in this match. This pages VALUES every goal that he scores/assists because that's how it's been done for the last few years (3)"
4. 21:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "This one is."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "Been reverted by three different users, please stop."

Comments:

User consists of adding a non-notable goal to the article. He has been reverted by three different editors and been warned on his user talk page. He keeps reverting, making it 4 in a couple of hours. Kante4 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

To add to this discussion he also added the content (diff [42]) so he has actually insterted same content five times (so far). QED237 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts; warned prior. Kuru (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:spshu reported by User:75.162.179.246 (Result: Page protected)

Page: One Magnificent Morning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version before reverts: [43]

Current version: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1 [45] 2 [46] 3 [47] 4 [48] 5 [49] 6 [50] 7 [51] 8 [52] 9 [53] 10 [54] 11 [55] 12 [56] 13 [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:

Besides what I wrote in the talk page, let me just note how many breakages of 3RR spshu has here, vs. just general edit warring (without breaking 3RR):

If I counted right, then spshu has 2 breakages of 3RR: Diffs 3-6 (4 reversion-based editions within the same day's worth of time), and diffs 7-11 (5 reversion-based editions within the same day's worth of time). Then the other diffs constitute one general edit-warring, for a total of 3 violations so far.

Spshu has received a number of other warnings for his or her disruptive editing.

75.162.179.246 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. Certainly there's an edit war, but it appears to be just the two of you going back and forth. I've elected to protect the page and see if y'all can work it out on the article's talk page. It may be best for you to stick to using your account, instead of pretending to be separate editors and claiming consensus. Kuru (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"The two of [us] going back and forth"? Did you miss spshu's reversion of Summer Fun Man's editions? When was I supposedly "pretending to be a separate editor" from someone else?

Besides that, why is it that when someone reports me for edit-warring and they were warring with me, I get warned or even blocked, but when I report them, all you do is protect the page instead of warning/blocking them?

75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly trivial to look at the edit history of your IPs and that account to see the significant overlap in topics, articles, and editing style. Do you really want to play this game? Kuru (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that I have the same editing style as him and so that means "we're the same people." But moving on: regardless of that, Kuru, you never even attempted to answer my other question: Why is it that when someone reports me for edit-warring and they were warring with me, I get warned or even blocked, but when I report someone from another case, all you admins do is protect the page instead of warning/blocking that person?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: 1 week)

Page: Alison Lundergan Grimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CFredkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alison_Lundergan_Grimes#Massive_content_deletion

Comments:

• Five reverts in 1 hour and 22 minutes, and this user knows of the consequences of breaching 3RR. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Also, the editor had the opportunity to self-revert explained in his talk page after his fourth revert [66], which he obviously declined. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Clear reverts, no mitigating issues I can see. Seems to be intent on continuing. Kuru (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Spiritclaymore reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: )

Page: Huns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spiritclaymore (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. [67] - With copyvio on the last source, which was why he was reverted three more times yesterday (a half dozen reverts in the past 36 hours)
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70] - With the edit summary "Adding poor quality science and mot reliable just to be fair"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Huns#.22Mongoloid.22

Comments:

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And Spiritclaymore seems to think that 12 hours is more than 24 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

1) No one had replied me in the talk page of Huns and I've already waited for more than 24 hours after re-editing ----> ( my mistake is 12 hours, I waited and slept and woke up at night, Ian.thomson is absolutely correct ) . 2) Also I still do not understand why is an data being removed after it had been edited since 2014 April. Why was it able to last for almost 7 months if the moderators were doing their job, why didn't any moderator remove it until now? this leads anyone suspect that some people are biased against some certain data and wish it remove. 3) why are some edits I've been told to rephrase counts as being part of the edit war? I'm overall very suspicious. 4) The anthropology data on Huns by our Hungarian anthropologist and archeologist should at least be mentioned while stating the great possibility that it had errors subject to scientific racism. This is what I can non-biased editing because it shares both of our opinion. To remove it like basically claiming it never existed. Spiritclaymore (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dougweller replied on the talk page, repeating the clear consensus on the talk page to not add the material. You were then reverted by a number of editors, a sign that your edits were against consensus.

That the material was there for some time does not matter, it should not have been there, and it is not there now. You have not provided any convincing arguments for the inclusion of the material. The consensus is to not include the material, and that's so obvious that Ray Charles could see it from the dark side of the moon. Your refusal to listen to consensus is not an excuse, it only makes you look bad.

As for you taking way too long to learn to not plagiarize, I've seen editors blocked for screwing up with plagiarism half as much as you did.

As for "shares both of our opinion" - Wikipedia does not operate that way, see WP:GEVAL. If scientific consensus is on one side, and the opposing view is not backed by mainstream academia, we do not create a false balance. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, you and other moderators had reverted my edits in a very short time, it was like stalking me and removing all my other wiki page edits in a matter of minutes or less than a hour and I complied to it. Yet this time is the totally opposite, you claim not to add unwanted materials yet you obviously allowed such a unwanted for materials for a long time, or perharps not every moderator can be on their job 24 hours ( or for other reasons ) but lasting for half a year is still inexcusable. I still feel suspicious though and other possibilities of why being removed now. My feelings are 50/50 and sadly I may never know the truth and I do not have the power to restore the edit. I wouldn't be surprised half of the stuff I read would be removed later on.

There is even a wiki page of Optimism bias on moderators. It says " A meta-analysis reviewing the relationship between the optimistic bias and perceived control found that a number of moderators contribute to this relationship. " so I can't say I totally agree with all your opinions -- Spiritclaymore (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note. Spiritclaymmore, I should block you for breaching WP:3RR and your lack of insight into the policy but, instead, I'm going to give you some tips and let another administrator decide whether to impose sanctions:

• You are very stubborn. You don't really listen to what other more experienced editors tell you, and you keep repeating your notions as to how things should work instead of learning how they in fact work here.
• Your understanding of WP:3RR is flawed. All you have to do is change the article in some substantive way, and that counts as a revert. Your notion that because you have theoretically eliminated the copyright violation and rephrased the material, that doesn't count as a revert is wrong.
• Your idea that because something was in an article for a long time, it must be okay to restore it is flat-out incorrect. I believe there are over 4M articles here, and even with all the editors we have reviewing the quality of articles (not to mention bots), much inappropriate material goes unnoticed for long periods of time. It's effectively impossible for it to be any other way. It's no one's "job" here; we're all volunteers.
• Just because no one replies to you on a talk page does not give you implicit permission to revert.
• Articles must be neutral and reliably sourced. However, they don't have to be balanced if the only way to achieve that "balance" is to include material that is fringe and produced by unacceptable sources.

End of Wikipedia 101.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Alifazal reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 01:52, 7 October 2014
2. Revision as of 01:59, 7 October 2014
3. Revision as of 02:04, 7 October 2014
4. Revision as of 15:18, 19 October 2014
5. Revision as of 15:51, 19 October 2014
6. Revision as of 16:05, 19 October 2014
7. Latest revision as of 16:20, 19 October 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk Page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page Section

Comments:

User has failed to receive consensus and has chosen instead to violate 3RR so he could add a Monument. Despite presenting no evidence he has accused me of having a "Conflict of interest"; which he attempted to "resolve" at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Despite being able to easily solve it at the talk page, he choose to go there instead. It, however, was quickly rejected by an admin who stated:

"This is not the board to come to because you're not happy with having your edits reverted. This is a board to come to when you have actual evidence of a conflict of interest problem. You have none. Please take discussion of content to the Talk page of the article."

He too has accused me of presenting no explanations as to why I removed the image despite the fact that I had already given him two reasons.

The most shocking thing about his edit waring is the fact that this is the same issue that got him blocked for two weeks due to a failed attempt at accusing me of being a sock of Middayexpress and vise versa, just so he could avoid receiving consensus once again. Instead of complying with his block he choose to continue socking; which again has got him blocked for another week. AcidSnow (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

To what AcidSnow writes above I'd like to point out that this user Alifazal actually pretended to be a separatist from Somaliland through his now blocked "User:No More Mogadishu" sock account. Besides the telling username (Mogadishu is the capital of Somalia and he claimed to want "no more" of it) he added a big flag of Somaliland to his userpage with the caption that "We greet you with the memory of the heroes who sacrificed their lives For the nationhood of Somaliland" [72]. If that wasn't enough, he also rather bizarrely added two infoboxes reading "this user comes from Somaliland" and "this user recognizes the independence of Somaliland" to the userpage of one User:Theyuusuf143. Theyuusuf143 was at the time causing disruption before he was eventually blocked [73]. Unlike Alifazal/No More Mogadishu, however, Theyusufabdi is actually from the Somaliland region. Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As Middayexpress pointed out, a one week block seems pretty odd after what he has been doing, Bbb23. Nonetheless, I thank you for your assistance. AcidSnow (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Aight 2009 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Stale)

Page: Council of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aight 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&oldid=628831988

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628835211&oldid=628831988
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628851008&oldid=628844430
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628955710&oldid=628852090
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=629021340&oldid=628988280

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aight_2009&diff=628856863&oldid=628853670

Attempt to resolve dispute on the User's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aight_2009#Names_of_the_Danish_political_party_.22Radikale_Venstre.22

Aight 2009 (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I paste ther my arguments on the user page Blue-Haired Lawyer. He didn't respond on it: if you see close to talk which somebody started you would read that no one answer on my statement. please read it firstly. next thing is if people think that radikale means social-liberal it's shame and being against the dictionary. Why we then include radical left name on the article of party? I repeat it but going this way Portuguese social democratic party should change name but only in English translation because isn't social democratic but centre-right. Oh but why didn't do it? because they use dictionary. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can add that until this year people used "original" name of party GERB in Bulgaria which was said to abbreviation but it doesn't. Party was registered as GERB only. People used to think that cannot be full name so they created false acronym GERB= Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria. We should keep only original name. I add also that this cannot take place with irish parties because they are registered only in irish, so irish English use it without translation. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition I don't want to change article name of radikale venstre (name of GERB I changed) I just defend using original name on the article Council of the European Union. Aight 2009 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

3RR slightly outside the 24h period (perhaps due to night), however Aight 2009 has been pointed out by three different editors (Tsuroerusu, Blue-Haired Lawyer, and myself) that the naming issue should be discussed at Talk:Danish Social Liberal Party, where it actually seems resolved; in spite of these three opinions, Aight 2009 keeps reverting correct edits. I will be grateful for an authoritative opinion on this edit war. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 23:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Stale. The reverts you're listing are from October 8-9. The last revert was on October 12.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's only because the edit warrior's preferred version was left in place. There's already been one further revert today, and I suspect another one shortly. Btw Aight 2009's edit summary was "Result of your edit warring: stale". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Juno (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:

Article is subject to 1RR Community Sanctions per WP:ARBAB. I let Roscelese off with a warning for edit warring on a different abortion-related article earlier this week but she chose to continue to edit war.

Elizium23 warned Roscelese about the removal of maintenance tags, a warning that Roscelese removed. Elizium23 then warned Roscelese about her subsequent 1RR violation and offered her the chance to self-revert. Roscelese, after being warned multiple times about edit warring on abortion-related articles, chose to make 2 reverts in 40 minutes and chose to not self-revert when offered the chance to do so. Juno (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing an unclear maintenance tag shouldn't be counted as a revert. Take a look at the talk page. The current version is acceptable with no need of the maintenance tag. The source still doesn't mention Scott Roeder and he's still in the article. Some of the points are pedantic. Oh no the source calls him a killer but not a murderer. Shulman was hypothetical. "I will kill you but only if this person is acquitted." The source didn't say Roeder was anti-abortion but the hot linked article on him did. If the tag and the reason for the tag was clear that could have been added to the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:REVERT, it counts as a revert. The discussion about that tag was ongoing on the talk page, the user was warned about 1RR multiple times, she was let off with a warning about edit warring on the same topic earlier this week, and she declined a chance to self-revert. Juno (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well obviously yes it is but then so is [79] and [80]. It's already clear that Elizium is aware of the policy here. But I'm sure that should really be counted either. Not much of an edit war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That was 2 reverts inside of 23 hours and 58 minutes (as is opposed to 2 reverts in 39 minutes), if you want to file a report for that I'm not here to stop you. Juno (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes but the other abortion article incident that you are talking about happened about as close as that. There's no need to file another report. It's right here already. It's of the same incident. It was case of drive by tagging. It led to some absolutely ridiculous comments on the talk page. The article said killer and not murderer. Really? The article didn't call this hypothetical threat hypothetical. Really? And while the source didn't mention.....I'm hoping that common sense can be used here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, it is a fair bit more complicated than that. Juno (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• If we should strictly apply 1RR both Roscelese and Elizium23 should be blocked for edit warring. But looking at the silliness of the dispute as pointed above by Serialjoepsycho, and considering that the dispute appears moot (the sentence was rewritten and the tag removed), I suggest to close this thread. Cavarrone 11:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:64.183.48.206, User:107.220.86.220 reported by User:Willondon (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: White Rabbit (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User(s) being reported:
64.183.48.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
107.220.86.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is last calm, before the storm: [81]

In the article White Rabbit, between October 16, 14:56 and October 19, 11:12, there have been eight assertions and reverts, with one unrelated edit. Two IP editors have repeatedly made substantially the same assertion, and three other editors (including myself) have reverted it.

After "Notes", reverts show quotes from the edit summary.
None of the assertions contain anything in the edit summary.

First assertion by 64.183.48.206: [82]
First revert by Willondon: [83]; Notes: unsourced; original research?

Second assertion by 107.220.86.220: [84]
Second revert by Radiopathy: [85]

Third assertion by 107.220.86.220: [86]
Third revert by Willondon: [87]; Notes: unsourced material; original research? (wikilinks to WP:VER and WP:OR)

Fourth assertion by 64.183.48.206: [88]
Fourth revert by Radiopathy: [89]; Notes: unsourced; original research

Fifth assertion by 107.220.86.220: [90]
Fifth revert by Radiopathy: [91]; Notes: unsourced, original research (with wikilinks now)

Sixth assertion by 107.220.86.220: [92]
Sixth revert by Willondon: [93]; Notes: pls discuss on talk page before reasserting this edit

Seventh assertion by 107.220.86.220: [94]
Seventh revert by Hchc2009 [95]; Notes: As per Willonden, pls discuss on the talk page first

Eighth assertion by 107.220.86.220: [96]
Eighth revert by Radiopathy: [97]; Notes: unsourced and no discussion

Comments:

I'm not aware of any warnings (edit warring or 3RR) given to the IP editor(s). The recent edits and reverts have not been discussed on the talk page. As far as I know, the only communication is in the edit summaries, and through the fact that the assertion has been consistently reverted.

Recognizing that edit warring is independent of whether the edit is correct or not, I note that repeated assertions become more refined with a little expansion in later ones. Sure signs of original research, in my opinion.

Willondon (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NB A warning notice was left yesterday, difference [98]. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for two weeks. The truth of the matter is I'm too tired to figure out what really is going on here, so I'm taking the easy way out.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User: Carlojoseph14 reported by User:112.198.82.96 (Result: Already semi-protected; stale)

Page: Loboc Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carlojoseph14 (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. [99]
2. [100]
3. [101]
4. [102]
5. [103]
6. [104]
7. [105]
8. [106]
9. [107]
10. [108]
11. [109]
12. [110] – by a different user
13. [111] – from different user
14. [112]
15. [113]
16. [114]
17. [115] – protection applied solely to thwart my anonymous editing
18. [116] – edits by another user
19. [117]
20. [118] – edit by another user
21. [119]
22. [120]
23. [121]
24. [122]
25. [123]
26. [124]
27. [125] current

NB I edit anonymously, so all IPs starting 112.198.82 in this list are me.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

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

Comments:

Editor continues to flout WP:CAPITALS WP:OVERLINK WP:ROC WP:EDITORIALIZING. I have directed him/her to WP:OWNERSHIP, wikipedia abbreviations and WP:WIP but I doubt s/he has read them, or considered their application. Messages to me are condescending and dictatorial, e.g. "Don't accuse behind anonymous IP addresses", as well as attempting to contravene WP:PRIVACY (– depends who "I" am).

112.198.82.96 (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note. The article is already semi-protected by another admin, and the edit war is stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• The remaining issue is the WP:CAPITALS which was copyedited and resolved by another user. Granting the page semi-protected infers that the edit by the IP user is not good. I question that the accuser still use an IP address. I think he/she must be brave enough and edit using his username. The page was formatted similar to articles on churches in the Philippines. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war is not stale, it's ongoing. It's paused on Loboc Church because of temporary page protection limiting my means of assertion. Arrogance continues unabated. User acknowledges flouting all the rules I quoted. NB user has been editing only since May this year. I have just started editing all Philippine church pages according to WP standards, not this user's own. 112.198.82.96 (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My edits were supported by an edit of another user (diff here), which was reverted again. [Why use different IP address with your edits if you have your own username?] --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, user continues to assert all manner of WP:OWNERSHIP and insists that WP:PRIVACY is not a matter to be considered either. Fact remains his edits are lacking in syntax and lexis, and do not follow any of the norms that Wikipedia requests. This issue is not resolved merely by page-protecting so I cannot apply anonymous edits. User needs to be told how Wikipedia works - it is not his/her personal playground. 112.198.77.39 (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not insisting that I own the article, I knew that once I posted it here, everyone owns it. I am not stating that because you are an IP user, your edits and comments must not be considered. All I am saying is, if you're proud and stand by your edits, use your own username. If my edits were not constructive, why did you revert the edits here? The article was patterned after another article I started, Maribojoc Church, which is currently in GA status. I'm serious with editing, I knew this is not a playground, that's why I always edit with my user logged in. I may not be new here, last May 2014, but I make it a point that I'm not only editing but I also contribute quality edits. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Luxey reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: )

Page: List of Irish Travellers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luxey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [127]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [128]
2. [129]
3. [130]
4. [131] Didnt fully remove on first attemp
   1. [132] Completed above removal

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

Comments:
Luxey is an SPA, who does not like that one of those one the list is not a good representative of the travelling/gypsy community and wishes to remove hin from the list. Murry1975 (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Blocks, Warnings)

Page: Alison Lundergan Grimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [135]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [136] 1st revert, restoring content that was widely discussed in talk - no attempt to join in the discussion

1. [137] Reverted edit by me

1. [138] Reverted edit by Binksternet

1. [139] Reverted edit by MelanieN

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141], Talk:Alison_Lundergan_Grimes#Massive_content_deletion

Comments:

• After he breached 3RR, I suggested to he self-reverts and engages in discussion, but he declined [142] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's edit-warring all right. My only defenses are (1) that they were already edit warring to keep the content out, before I showed up at this article, and (2) the material is clearly well-sourced and very relevant to the article subject's notability. Nobody has made a cogent case for excluding the material, but everybody seems real enthusiastic about removing it.

As for the material having been "widely discussed in talk", I did see a talk page section, but it seemed to revolve entirely around 3RR threats against CFredkin and accusations that he was a paid editor. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That section contains a substantial discussion which you chose to ignore (Talk:Alison_Lundergan_Grimes#Massive_content_deletion0. CFredkin reverted five times on that article, and was blocked for a week. I have no idea why you would want to follow in his footsteps. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That was the precise discussion section I was referring to that revolved around making accusations against Fred and getting him blocked, seemingly for nothing more than reverting your inappropriate edits. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a plain 3RR violation, and in his comment above Factchecker does not admit to anything wrong. In my opinion a block of at least four days would be justified based on the block history. Factchecker might avoid a block if they will agree not to edit this article or its talk page for the remainder of 2014. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this is a legitimate demand and thus I cannot acquiesce to it; sorry. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the penalty for lack of remorse comes after the conviction, Ed. Before that, it's called "defending yourself". ‑‑Mandruss (t) 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha, a ringing endorsement! Jaykay, jaykay, thanks for that. But I will say in my defense that one of the two blocks that I have received in my Wiki-career resulted from 3RR violations against a tendentious editor who was later indef blocked for disruption. There were some very sincere expressions of sympathy, including from a friendly admin, though I don't think anyone argued that I was innocent... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Cwobeel was clearly also edit warring at the same time [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] for 5RR on 20 October 03:25 to 13:50 , and is fully as guilty of edit war here. Collect (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Check the history, these were my consecutive edits to explain the deletion of each sentence in edit summaries as a courtesy. Actually, I checked these diffs and these are not reverts. These were edits. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Every single one of the five was a "revert" under the Wikipedia definition -- you cannot reasonably assert that edits which did not precisely "revert" a prior edit are not reverts - every one of them made changes of substantial effect concerning edits made by others in the immediate past. To assert that "reverts are not reverts" is not an effective plea. And they were not "consecutive edits" as you appear to initially assert here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect: The admin closing this report has the history available to him/her to make a determination. My position is that I worked on the article yesterday late night and in collaboration with an other editor we added material and added sources. It is all in the history. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RE Centrify/FC's claim that "Nobody has made a cogent case for excluding the material:" In fact I have twice made a substantive argument at talk for excluding the material.[148] [149] Nobody has addressed my comments; they just keep re-adding the material. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Those comments, which you did not even bother making til you had already reverted me two or three times, did not raise any policy issue and in fact suggested that you wished to inject your own political analysis into the article. And then there's the "isn't it convenient" personal attack. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight. I reverted you once, then posted my comment at the talk page, then reverted you a second time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I can see that one of the deletions was not a revert. You still didn't cite any policy, just your unsourced WP-editor analysis that was contrary to the analysis given by the source, that fundamentally misstated the facts and looked like POV pushing. You also leapt right into unnecessary personal attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked MelanieN at the article talk page to explain the personal attack(s), she's now moved those attacks to her own talk page, still not answering why she thinks they are necessary or from where she is getting an impression of wrong-doing. My guess is she thinks you and are in collusion. Truth is, I don't think you and I have ever interacted previously. I saw what was going on at the article and felt reverting the content out was wrong and unnecessary. That's all there is to it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My, my, aren't we touchy! I make one sarcastic comment (which was here if anyone cares), and two people take it as a personal attack! The policy based reason for my argument is WP:UNDUE, not to mention WP:NEWS. We are not supposed to include every passing news item in an article, certainly not a BLP article. The point these two are so eager to include is a complaint filed by the opposing party, of the kind that is routinely made by both sides in any election. If the complaint achieves any lasting significance, followup reporting, action by the FEC, etc., then it should certainly be included. But to date it has not achieved any such significance. And it is certainly not significant enough to excuse Centrify/FC for their edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Touchy"? Not at all. But considering you've now posted personal attacks against me at the article talk page, your talk page, my talk page, and now here, I think you're trying to provoke me in that direction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think that reverting three times in a row yourself in the last couple of hours, each revert against a different editor, while this report is still open is a pretty bad idea? - Cwobeel (talk)

• Result: User:Factchecker atyourservice and User:Cwobeel are each blocked four days. Both editors have previous blocks in 2014. User:MelanieN and User:Winkelvi are warned for edit warring. Further reverts by either of them may lead to a block, unless consensus has already been obtained. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Eurocentral reported by User:Borsoka (Result: )

Page: Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eurocentral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [150] (first sentence of the lead)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [151]
2. [152]
3. [153]
4. [154]
5. [155]
6. [156] (his first return to his version after an RfC was initiated and a consensus was reached)
7. [157] (deletion of an inline template message)
8. [158]
9. [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160] (Eurocentral is warned in the edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [161] (RfC - which ended with a consensual lead: [162])
2. [163] (he opened a separate debate on the same issue during the RfC, with warning to stop edit warring)

Comments:

User:Isuruwe reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page

Ayn al-Arab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630398287 by RGloucester (talk)"
2. 16:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630230975 by 97.117.187.212 (talk)"
3. 12:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630205827 by Dekimasu (talk)"
4. 17:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629864604 by Dekimasu (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user continually attempts to create a fork of Kobanê. That article was moved from the title Ayn al-Arab a few days ago, as part of a requested move discussion. The user did not agree with the move, and has since been edit-warring to establish a fork of the Kobane article. This article is under strict WP:1RR in line with WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, which he has clearly violated. RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked Nick (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

But after the block of Isuruwe, an IP,103.21.166.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has rolled up with the same edit, so the article looks as if it needs semi-protection. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)