Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Southern strategy#Neutrality Dispute and the seven or so sections under that

Comments:

This editor originally posted as an IP. After a 3RR warning, a referral was made for edit warring with the result of semi-protection. See [[5]] he IP was also blocked for 24 hours for uncivil edits (see [6]. The IP obtained a registered account and has generated a great amount of text on the article's discussion page. Four or five editors have responded and all disagree with every point raised -- nobody has agreed with him. Today he started editing against consensus on the main article. He reverted the first sentence to a different version (which was the main focus of the IP editing), deleted a paragraph that had been discussed at length with no agreement to change, and added sources that had been rejected on the discussion page. The third deletion above (this is not a 3RR referral) came after the new warning that I issued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This accusation of edit war is unfounded based on the three included references. I made two changes to the article only one of which was disputed. The first change (see as links 60 and 61) was the inclusion of additional references in the opening title. The first change was not a revert but an original edit. The second was a revert based on the one revert rule [[7]]. In other words it was undoing the removal of material I added. The last claim of reversion is unrelated to the first two. I had previously removed a single sentence paragraph that was in the opening section because the same sentence also exists in a later section. Hence I was not removing content from the article but making a simple style edit. I did that style edit twice because the revert of ref 60 added back that change as well as undid my changes to the first sentences. Thus the revert of link #60 was more than a revert of a single edit of mine.

For reference and in case things change the links to my edits in question are currently #60-62.--Getoverpops (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first change listed in the diffs above reverted this edit [8] that I had made on March 18. After my edit the first paragraph read:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.

After Getoverpos first edit listed above the first paragraph read:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to an Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States. Some sources claim the strategy specifically appealed to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5] Other sources dispute that there was a strategy to appeal to racism.[6][7][8][9] Regardless of the dispute over the facts and origins of the term, the "southern strategy" has come to imply an appeal to racism in the Republican Party.

This change was the central focus of the discussions on the article talk page.

As to the other edit, he made a material change to the lead. Saying that he was just reverting the elimination of a repetitive sentence is disingenuous. Material in the lead is often (always?) repetive of material in the body of the article. Two editors had reverted his elimination of this material from the lead and Getoverpops, after he received the edit warring warning, still eliminated the material. This material was mentioned throughout the discussions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The March 18th change and the more recent change are not the same. The objection to the March 18th change was based on the use of "alleged" as a leading word. I attempted to address that concern in the later edits. It is also important to note that the editor did not move the conversation to the Talk page after undoing my changes. That you disagree with the changes I made in the talk page does not make it an edit war. Your claim regarding the final edit is true in that I removed it from the opening section but it stylistically does not fit in the opening and it means the same sentence appears twice in the article. How is that problematic? Furthermore, that is not the same edit as #60 and #61. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slight rebootage here:

Revert 1: 13:45, 24 March 2015‎, edit summary "Removed unsupported, inflammatory entry."

Revert 2: 16:41, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Per one revert rule I am re-reverting. Move to talk."

Revert 3: 17:06, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Removed sentence that was nearly identical to one in later section (Recent comments on Southernization and Southern strategy)"

Revert 4: 20:51, 24 March 2015, edit summary "This article has been submitted to the neutrality review board. I am adding the neutrality tag for the time the article is under review." Note this reverts removal of POV template by a previous editor here.

Four non-consecutive reverts in (much) less than 24 hours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Boris this now looks to be a plain old WP:3RR violation, besides a long-term pattern of warring. Normally this calls for a block. If Getoverpops will promise to stop warring on the article and wait for a talk page consensus, it would help his case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, what exactly is meant by non-consecutive reverts? My understanding of the 3 revert rule is three reverts of the same material. That is not the case here. It was 1 revert of disputed material which is allowed per 1 revert rule. The redundant sentence was only reverted because it was re-added with an unrelated revert. That is I made two separate changes but an editor incorrectly reverted both while only talking about one (the other was not a subject of discussion). Finally, the warning tag was one that I originally misunderstood the use of. However, it was re-added after I submitted the article to the correct board. That is, it is not a revert at all. I would also point out that my IP address based reverts included requests (which was per BOLD even if I didn't realize it) to move the discussion of the removal to the talk section. The editors who were removing those section were not responding to the request to move to talk. I don't think consensus will be easy to reach given the nature of the article and the way the editors have not been open to addressing the issues I have seen. That said, I have opened a dispute to avoid further 3RR issues. Please take that as a promise to not revert with out discussion. I would hope in kind North Shoreman will promise to engage in an open discussion regarding issues in the article. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I want to point out that the rebootage claim #1 was a revert that should be seen as undoing vandalism. This should qualify as a revert exception under [[9]] rule #4. Thanks. --Getoverpops (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admins are requested to review the 3RR violation in the context of a larger pattern of behavior that includes not just edit warring but forum shopping and canvassing for support. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request to have this review closed. I seem to be the only case that was started with just 3 cited reverts (my reading of the rule is that 3 is the edge but not over the edge). I think North Shoreman acted incorrectly when citing the first revert. That one was removing vandalism and it's notable that no editor disagreed with the removal nor has the removed text been added back. That revert is one of the ones Boris cited. With that removed North Shoreman has cited only 2 reverts which I think would put me more comfortably back from the edge. Boris cited a 4th revert that North Shoreman didn't. However, that was an editing error on my part. I didn't realize I needed to post to the neutrality dispute board before posting the notice to the article. Thus it was proper for the editor to remove the tag. However, after the tag was removed I did post to the neutrality board thus it was proper to add the tag. Thus I would argue that was not a revert at all. As a new editor I was not aware that I shouldn't appeal the general neutrality of the article at the same time as requesting moderation on a specific change. The Neutrality discussion is still on going. Regardless I feel there were only two reverts that would be subject to the 3RR rule and thus would ask that the case be closed. Thank you.--Getoverpops (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stale Swarm ^X 02:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:1.47.41.20 reported by User:DiscSquare (Result: Page protected)

Page: Evelin Banev
User being reported: User:1.47.41.20 User:1.47.166.103 User:101.99.43.253

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
Using multiple IP addresses, this user repeatedly changes the summary of the page without confirmed sources - the edits by this unidentified user are disruptive, inaccurate and also biased - while this living person is under criminal investigation, he is NOT a convicted criminal since his trials are ongoing with multiple acquittals and reversals of convictions.

Page protected. Swarm ^X 03:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:OccultZone reported by 72.196.235.154 (Result: IP blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

He keeps revet a topic I am bringing upo to delate. I tried to revert a couple times but he keep changing back with no comment and tries to call myself the vandal.

Any admin can read the recent WP:AIV report[10] and consider blocking this sock. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've cleaned up the formatting here... but I'm pretty sure this should WP:BOOMERANG back on an IP who has a previous EW block, and who kept adding back in a non-existent AfD into the log. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its hard to make a prpper page when all the work kept getting delated. 72.196.235.154 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The IP was blocked for one week by Kuru.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irondome reported by User:194.187.250.204 (Result: Semi)

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

Manual removal by attemting to push POV, by assert the Source as Unreliable and the major Edit as "poor"

15:11, 29 March 2015

15:45, 29 March 2015 - tagging
15:47, 29 March 2015

User Irondome does not showing any good faith in his recent edits. He left me an unpleasant comment with the immediate demmand (talk page, 15:42) to remove and comment my revert. 3 Minutes after that, he used an very guileful tactic by calling: "No consensus talk attempted by IP", 15:45 as main reason, to push his own POV and to remove my add.

There's no way that we could have made any consensus or that I could express myself within 3 Minutes after the demmanding command on my talk page

User Irondome seems also involved in other reverts, 24 hrs:

Revision as of 00:07, 29 March 2015
Revision as of 00:25, 29 March 2015 failed attemp to revert
Revision as of 00:28 manual revert

Its seems that Irondome have made 6 reverts (3 manual) within 24 hours.

As a new User, I'm very alienated by such behavior. could somebody please take some actions? Thanks

Comments

You completed ignored my comments on your talk section, which were perfectly reasonable, and refused to discuss. Your "sources" were inferior which I have amply explained on the relevant Talk page. You now run to the boards without attempting to communicate in any way whatsoever. You appear to be extremely knowledgable about the mechanics of the drama boards. New user? I doubt it. It is a pity your obvious knowledge and experience of Wikilawyering does not extend to the Tiger I. Irondome (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignored? You revert my add in less than 3 Minutes before I could comment upon your demmand. There's no way i could have convince you, that you're wrong! You dont have explained anything to me, you just making pure assumptions! The report clearly states "the vehicle's desgin for such a powerful gun is excellent accomplished" - written straigt on the entry of the Report. As next, the Lone Sentry article provides the press release of the "Aberdeen Trials", althought very controlled for such wartime publication it still elucidates how exceptionall well the internal mechanical system was made. Please stay on subject, and keep personal attacks aside. You getting nowhere with your pretentious behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "demmand", but a request to communicate. Only now are you interacting with me on content, here of all places. 3 mins was actually 24 minutes. You have had nearly 4 hrs to communicate with me, but you chose to come here. Now. Lets drop this crap and go to the talk page, where we can discuss the weakness of your sources and their context. Withdraw this, and go to the talk page. I take WP:BRD very seriously, (I left you the link on your talk page). Editors who refuse to discuss but merely revert are not a plus to the project. Now, withdraw and discuss at the Tiger I talk page. Irondome (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wont drop this 3RR warring report. Stop twisting it. You clearly demmanded on my talk page: "Please can you revert your most recent edit. Both your sources are unreliable in the context of being primary sources and Lone Sentry is shaky as a source. Please revert your edit and take it to the Tiger Talk Page" 15:42, 29 March 2015 . 3 Minutes later you did it by yourself, without giving myself the opportunity to convince you, that you're wrong! See edit on Tiger I page: No consensus talk attempted by IP Revision as of 15:45 , 29 March 2015. You gave me no time to start any discussion on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk)

Your technical abilities are excellent for a "new user" also. Hmmm. You had 24 minutes between those reverts. NOT 3. Dropping off a 1 line message on my T/P would have taken 30 seconds. Your refusal to drop the stick, indicates a potentially problematic temperament. And your err, economy with the truth is not helping here. I would watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. Irondome (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me 3 minutes (!) from the comment of my talk page to the revert on the Article. I was already writting a lengthy comment on my talk page before you interupted me again by calling me: No consensus talk attempted by IP Revision as of 15:45. So i droped and searched for some possibilities to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your 6 reverts in 24 hours are still on subject. No WP:BOOMERANG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. Your interest in those is "interesting" too. Even though they have nothing to do with the case in hand, as I was dealing with a very similar situation. If I screwed up, I hold up my hand, but to the community, not to you certainly. Irondome (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. You have attempted no communication with me in over 4 hours, but "searched for some possibilities to report you". I think that speaks volumes. Irondome (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why I should? You stigmatized me after 3 Minutes! You didn't let me to express myself on my talk page, before you took prejudicial reason No consensus talk attempted by IP to make the revert again. Of course I dont want to attempt any communication, with such behavior. You simply could wait more, I could have send you the report in pdf and you would have seen that you are simply wrong. But yeah, keep on twisting anythin in your favor with your biased POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a polite note on WP:BRD, you were not "stigmatised". In other words, you refused to communicate and you are using that as a rather weak hook. I have no POV on a piece of inanimate metal. I do have a POV on editors who refuse to communicate. It is the worst behaviour pattern on WP and causes the most stress, and directly leads to crap like this. Irondome (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article semiprotected due to edit warring by IP-hopper from Manchester. Cf. WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winkelvi reported by User:PBS (Result: Voluntary article restriction)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

See user:WordSeventeen exchange with User:Winkelvi at User talk:WordSeventeen#Biography MOS diff

After I read that, I placed advise in the section Talk:Robert Hastings Hunkins#WP:UNDUE with a list of the edits that had been made by different editors since 22:00 yesterday. In that list it was clear that User:Winkelvi had broken the 3RR on five or six occasions. As User:Winkelvi was blocked for 24 hours by user:Swarm on the 13 March for 24 hours for breach of the three-revert rule, I expected User:Winkelvi to show contrition and promise not to repeat the behaviour. I did not think it necessary to report it to this notice board at that time because the last edit by User:Winkelvi to the article had taken place at 02:44, 29 March 2015‎.

However User:Winkelvi reply to my posting shows that User:Winkelvi still has no idea what this rule means (diff):

"How is it possible an administrator doesn't know that reverts of disputed content are not what makes for edit warring when it comes to 3RR? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"

I will leave it to an uninvolved editor to decide what to do with an editor who has recently been blocked for breach of 3RR who writes "reverts of disputed content are not what makes for edit warring". -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Interesting how I have been discussing the disputed content on the talk page (here [11] and here [12]) and have not edited the article in question for about 18 hours (the reporting party has edited there 6 times since my last edit there, and the latest just 6 hours ago - see here [13]) but I'm being reported for edit warring, at this time, almost a day later. I've even been trying to get opinions on this content dispute from other parties (see here [14]). The intent by the reporting party seems to the hope for punitive action rather than prevention as well as silencing me in the content dispute and keeping me from editing the article further. I smell serious ownership issues along with dishonesty in this report. Pretty shameful behavior coming from an administrator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate that PBS took the time to make this report regarding Winklevi edit warring at the Robert Hastings Hunkins article. I was a bit shocked when Winklevi tried to tell me that all of my edits on that page (7 at the time) were reversions when I pointed out he had done four reversions in a very short period of time.

From here [15] Please learn what 4 reversions in less than 24 hours (between 02:44, March 29, 2015 ‎and 22:54, March 28, 2015‎ means on the article Robert Hastings Hunkins. WordSeventeen (talk) 9:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Is that a threat? Because, if it is, I see seven reversions at that same article for you [1]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 9:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

While you are please trying to learn please read over the difference between an edit and a reversion. LOL WordSeventeen (talk) 10:00 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

I posted a warning about edit warring on the talk page of Winklevi here [16] but he quickly deleted the notice from his talk page. At that point Winklevi had been warned about edit warring by myself and the admin PBS. I would like to point out as illustrated n the chart listing of reverts at the article Winklevi had six reverts in a very short time like 4-6 hours. I did do a warning on the talk page on Winklevi hoping they would understand that their edit warring was wrong. I was not sure how to do a report here since I have never filled one out before. If I had known how to do the report I would have done one at the time. I really had no idea that Winklevi had a history of edit warring until I read the report above. The comment above by the user Winklevi that " I smell serious ownership issues along with dishonesty in this report." is false the report was not dishonest at all. It was true and accurate. As for ownership issues, I believe they belong to Winklevi. Thank you. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The violation of WP:3RR by Winkelvi is clear-cut. The user's apparent lack of insight into what constitutes an edit-warring exemption is surprising given his history. Finally, his reaction to this report evinces at best a lack of maturity, defensively attacking the filer when Winkelvi is in the wrong. That said, the user appears to be saying he will not continue edit-warring. Based only on that comment, I will not block Winkelvi if he will agree to not edit the article for any reason for the next 10 days. Frankly, this is a generous offer considering all the circumstances, but it's up to the user whether he wishes to accept it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this, Bbb23, however, the characterization of my statements in this report are out of context. I'm not going to even bother to post diffs to put it into context, because it's clear to me that because an administrator brought this report here, I'm fighting a losing battle. In fact, I'll go you one better in regard to the article. I won't edit it for longer than 10 days, nor will I give a shit about what a piece of crap article it is. Why? Because PBS won't allow anyone to do anything to it, anyway. Like I said, it's a piece of crap article -- obviously, he wants it to stay a piece of crap article, so if he is so set on owning it, I'll leave him to his ownership of it. But, it would be nice if next time someone reverts one of his edits using Twinkle, he realizes that the canned comments in the edit summary saying "Revert good faith edits..." are not actually telling him he edits in bad faith. Yeah, that actually happened. [17]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the most gracious of accepts, but it will have to do. If Winkelvi violates the terms of this agreement, anyone can report the violation either at this noticeboard (linking this report) or on my Talk page. I consider the matter closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Winkelvi really seems to have no idea what constitutes reversion, there is a real danger of transfer of this behaviour to other articles.

Winkelvi seems to be editing pages which were created by or edited by user:Kbabej (currently blocked). For example Winkelvi put the article Benjamin Hunkins up for deletion on 6 March 2015. Another page created by Kbabej on 28 December 2014,‎ was Autumn Jackson this article has been edited by Winkelvi during the last 24 hours.

Winkelvi's editing of Benjamin Hunkins between the opening of this report and Bbb23's first posting to this section, led user:BoboMeowCat to state on user talk:Winkelvi that "Edit warring on Autumn Jackson You are over 3RR on that article."diff (in fact I do not think Winkelvi was -- see below). However Winkelvi response was not to question the 3RR assertion, but to state "You keep putting incorrect content into a BLP. Do you realize the seriousness and possible liability to Wikipedia by doing so?" diff, eventually after further exchanges Winkelvi self reverted, but then negated that self revert by making another edit.

Winkelvi Between 04:11 and 04:36, 29 March 2015‎ made a number of edits diff
- BoboMeowCat at 13:29, 29 March 2015 This series of edits was partially reverted
(1)Wikielvi reverted BoboMeowCat edit at 18:54, 29 March 2015‎
- BoboMeowCat partial revert over a series of edits between 22:53 and 23:04, 29 March 2015‎
(2)Wikielvi partial revert at 23:51, 29 March 2015‎
- Wikielvi made 2 more edits
Wikielvi self revert at 00:38, 30 March 2015‎ back to the last edit by BoboMeowCat
(3) Wikielvi diff at 00:38, 30 March 2015 made the next edit to the page which deleted the content of the parents parameter in the Infobox, and this means that the two edits together were another revert of the first revert by BoboMeowCat.

In the last few days I have seen Wikielvi make a bold edit to several different pages which when reverted instead of following the advise on WP:BRD immediately reverts the revert (diffs can be supplied if Winkelvi disputes this). The better course of action would be not to make this revert of a revert to a bold edit, but to follow WP:BRD and discuss the proposed changes on the talk page, (and if consensus proves to be illusive to follow the dispute resolution process).

I would suggest that Winkelvi, should agree that if Winkelvi makes a bold edit that is reverted, either fully or in part, that Winkelvi agrees not to revert the revert but agrees to start a discussion on the talk page of the article and follow the dispute resolution process.

-- PBS (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: The kind of restriction you're suggesting is a generalized one on Winkelvi's editing of all articles and goes beyond what I believe is my authority to act unilaterally in these circumstances. The appropriate forum to propose such a restriction if you wish to pursue it is WP:ANI or WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will wait if others post any additional comments to this section, before considering whether to take it further at this time. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged, I will chime in. Yesterday Winkelvi violated 3RR on Autumn Jackson. I brought this concern to his talk page. [18] It’s a confusing edit history at this point, in part because Winkelvi eventually self reverted in a series of edits, but never indicated agreement to comply with that request on talk page, and he didn’t call it self-revert in edit summary, which would tend to make him look more uncooperative than he actually was, and might lead one to believe the edits I was complaining about were up toward the top when they were lower down. The reverts include more than just the parent info-box content. Anyway, I agree there's a concern here, but currently I’m not seeking any sort of action against Winkelvi, because, at this point, he has self-reverted, and is participating in the various talk discussions on talk:Autumn Jackson which I opened regarding the disputed content. However, I do think PBS's recommendation that if Winkelvi makes a bold edit and it is reverted (either fully or in part) that he not just jump back in and immediately re-revert and instead open a discussion, is a good recommendation.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, here's what I know: PBS is unhappy with me and has been for over a week. I'm not surprised he wants more to come from this report and the decision you made. It was my gut feeling from the moment he filed it that it was about punishment rather than prevention (otherwise, why file an edit warring report when any hint of edit warring stopped over 18 hours prior?) He's painted a very one-sided picture of my editing (at Hunkins article as well as the Jackson article) by taking my comments out of context and not providing the whole story (as BoboMeowCat attested to above). On two separate occasions PBS has demanded an apology from me for things that were completely benign and didn't merit an apology. One instance was because he felt the canned response from Twinkle saying "Revert good faith edits by PBS..." was implying he made bad faith edits. I still don't know why that ruffled his feathers so much or why he thought I was accusing him of anything. I also know that when I have made edits at articles he watchlists and guards to keep status quo he has threatened to take me to ANI. He insists BRD should be followed, yet he doesn't have the same requirement for himself -- just those who edit "his" articles. At this point, I have taken all articles I have on my watchlist that are edited by PBS off my watchlist. My hope is I never run into him again because of what I've experienced to be his tendency to fly off the handle about nothing and WP:OWN articles. I have been here long enough to know when someone has placed their territorial ownership seal on an article that it's not worth the hassle as practically everything you try to do will be contested and/or reverted with demands of talking about every little tiny detail on the article talk page. As far as me being more mindful of BRD, yes, I can do that -- I don't need a special sanction or group of watchdogs following me around to make sure it happens. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wester reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] (further revert after this case was started)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] (now removed)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Max Verstappen#Nationality of drivers

Comments:
Talk:Max Verstappen contains two sections where today I and other editors have attempted to explain why F1 driver Verstappen races under the Dutch flag, but Wester maintains that Verstappen is a Belgian national holding no Dutch passport, and has edit-warred persistently to that effect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, those were not simple reverts and NOT an edit war but a constant reworking of the text based on real sources. I have sources, Bretonbanquet has not. Also it's a bit bizar that Bretonbanquet makes this report now since the edits were from this after noon with no threat on escalation. --Wester (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent, repeated reversion (both straight undo-style and more subtle alteration of text) to support their own poorly-supported claims regarding Verstappen's nationality despite overwhelming weight of evidence that Wester is incorrect. Highly disruptive, and reversions far in excess of 3RR. Pyrop e 23:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have clear sources. An interview by his mother and other factual sources such as the FIA rule book. For the interview: [27]. You on the other hand have no sources and you dare to say that I am incorrect?! You don't even speak Dutch to READ the sources.

I even started a discussion on the talk page.

Also point out that in this edit Bretonbanquet even agrees. But wrongly since he implies that Verstappen has dual passport. That's not true. That's why I corrected it in the next edit. Than Bretonbanquet boldly reverted it based on absolutely nothing. Than I made the following edit that is no reversion but more a factual correction of the text based on sources. Also not that I tried to make a compromise: I for instance did not revert the Belgian flag in the infobox. So no, this is not a 3RR case and it's a bit pointless that Bretonbanquet made this request other than silence me to win the discussion based on force rather than arguments. --Wester (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not need to "silence" you because you lost that argument a long time ago. But you continue to edit war. You call refraining to make an utterly incorrect edit "a compromise", and you fail to understand that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." (my bolding). You've disrupted this page, and arguably the talk page as well, all day. I turned a blind eye to 4RR but 5, 6 etc, forget it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1.There is no edit war since it's not a reversion but an evolution of the text. 2.I stopped editing that page long ago. 3. There is an ongoing discussion which I started on the talk page. So it's not that I'm unwilling to discuss. That did not withhold Pyrope to edit the page and making false and on-sourced statements. 4. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Three users against one does not mean you are right. --Wester (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.190.249.214 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: No action)

Page: Talk:Abiogenesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.190.249.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
21:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) to 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
1. 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086434 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086734 by BatteryIncluded (talk)"
21:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086914 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088045 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088239 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088380 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088612 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088948 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654089243 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654089413 by Apokryltaros (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:: Two editors warring over the talk page. The ip was amply warned, and kept warring. Not really sure what to recommend be done, so I'm reporting here and to RfPP. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence does not meet the standards of Wikipedia core content policies

Wikipedia was founded on the fundamental principle that its content must fall under certain criteria to be admissible. One criterion is that it must submit to a neutral point of view ( see WP:NPOV ), another is that it must be verifiable. (See WP:VER ) "Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does not meet these standards, whereas "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does. Since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes, saying so is not a neutral point of view and therefore not acceptable.66.190.249.214 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Users Apokryltaros and BatteryIncluded continually deleted a suggestion I made on the abiogenesis talk page regarding the statement of a simple, objective fact. Upon resorting to their respective talk pages for further discussion, they also chose to delete rather than discuss it there as well. Even going as far as to claim harrassment for me calling them out on their personal bias.66.190.249.214 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The only scientific debate regarding abiogenesis is not "if" it happened, but how. While the proposed chemical mechanisms are hypothetical, it is not so for abiogenesis, as life is factual, an evident empirical phenomenon. The continuous demands to label abiogenesis a "hypothesis" are a chronic recurrence in this scientific WP article. Multiple and similar discussions have happened in the past years regarding the labeling of abiogenesis a "hypothesis": ([28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48].

All the dicussions listed above concluded to dismiss it, on the grounds of the cited scientific publications. Several of the requests of labeling it a 'hypothesis' had the ulterior motive of including religion/creationism as an alternate and equally valid scientific explanation for abiogenesis, but were dismissed by the WP community because such religious and philosophical arguments are best presented in non-scientific articles. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that since abiogenesis itself is a hypothetical processes like you just stated, the lead sentence needs to be changed to reflect this. The statement "abiogenesis is the natural processes..." is not a neutral point of view since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes in the first place. The statement "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process..." IS a neutral point of view AND a true statement, unlike the former, since no model of abiogenesis at this point in time has been empirically verified.66.190.249.214 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows how gravity and mass came to be; there are hypotheses, explaining the possible mechanisms, but they do not make gravity and mass hypothetical facts. Juggling semantics will not make it less real. I will not discuss science in this venue, besides your semantic arguments have not succeeded in academia or in the US Supreme Court. I don't expect you will produce a reliable reference that may supersede the hundreds of references now cited in the WP article, so I leave this matter in the hands of the administrators instead of entertaining WP:CHEESE. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between mass & gravity and abiogenesis is that mass and gravity have been OBSERVED. Speculation and assumption are not science. Testable, observable hypothesis are. That's why we call it the big bang "theory" and the "theory" of evolution. Abiogenesis is no different, and for these reasons it is necessary to change the lead sentence of the article to reflect this fact. Since we are currently unable to explain or describe any natural processes by which living cells could emerge from non-living material, we cannot just assume there is one and call it science. There will be no double-standard in Wikipedia articles and since abiogenesis has yet to be empirically verified, it is merely hypothetical at this point in time.66.190.249.214 (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Regardless of the scientific merits of the IP's argument, I don't particularly see any reason they weren't 100% within their rights to post that comment on the talk page. Apokryltaros's repeated deletion of their comment was inappropriate and clearly in violation of the talk page behavioral guidelines. I've unprotected the talk page, as this incident certainly doesn't warrant protection. Mann jess appropriately warned Apokryltaros to stop edit warring and they appear to have done so, thus I see no need for action on this front either. Let's take this opportunity to brush up on WP:TPO, WP:OWN, and WP:BITE. Best regards, Swarm ^X 03:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.168.220.179 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: Both blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments: Anonymous IP user has been repeatedly asked over the past week to stop tendentiously editing this article without engaging in a discussion on article Talk page to attempt to gain consensus for an edit that does nothing to improve a previously stable article. This leads up to today's edit warring by anon IP in which further warnings were given to cease reversions of article without discussion. Anon IP finally engages on Talk page, but continues to revert, demonstrating no real effort to gain consensus for edits. Anon IP was informed about 3RR, and blatantly reverted afterwards, while still refusing to reasonably discuss on Talk page. Anon IP has also removed 3RR warning from their Talk page, demonstrating that the warning has been noticed, and apparently ignored. Temporary page protection may also be required, as it would appear we are dealing with a stubborn and combative anon IP user.
GarnetAndBlack (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are edit warring, both of you decided not to discuss issues, and when I finally did start discussion, y'all argued about each other and did not bring up the manual of style, policies, or guidelines. The IP posted three times as often as you have in the thread I started, and you completely ignored a neutral third party's reasoning and failed to provide a policy-based reason for your content preference.

Were I an uninvolved admin, I would give both of you the same treatment, be it warning or block. Both of you have shown serious WP:BATTLEGROUND problems, and you may have shown WP:BITE problems. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has posted NOTHING of relevance in the Talk thread, but comments about me, and "I know I'm right" statements about their tendentious edits. I have no inclination to waste my time dealing with an anon IP editor whose tone in those comments and in edit summaries thus far has been one of stubborn indifference to Wiki policies or any sort of compromise. But if you want to go to bat for this type of editor here, have at it. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly true (though this one at least directly responded to my third-party findings), and your single post on the talk page ignored my third-party MOS-based argument and made a vague WP:OR argument that football is more important without providing sources.

Technically, once I made an MOS based argument, and you failed to provide any policy, guideline, or source to support alternative arrangements, the consensus became alphabetical order. Both you and the IP were edit warring, both you and the IP used the talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND instead of discussing things, and both you and the IP need to back away from the article and let people who have more level heads handle it because neither of you is capable of playing well with others on this topic. It does not matter that he is an IP and you have an account, both of you are in the wrong. As someone with an account, you should actually know better. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with an account, and years of helping to maintain articles dealing with the University of South Carolina, I've seen far too much of this type of behavior from anonymous IP editors, and I've had my fill. Editing from an anonymous IP is no excuse for not approaching this project with an open, helpful approach, and learning the policies and procedures used here. This IP editor has done neither, and in fact, only chose to parrot back my attempts to elicit some sort of discussion. Like I said, if you want to bend over backwards for this type of all-too-common disruptive editor on Wikipedia, be my guest, but don't expect the rest of us to fall in line behind you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that both the IP and User:GarnetAndBlack should be blocked. They are both over WP:3RR and neither party appears willing to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that you are wrong. I was more than willing to discuss the edits in question here, but anon IP editor showed no inclination for a solid week to do so even when prompted. That's not the basis for me to assume good faith toward an IP that does nothing but revert and claim in edit summaries that their opinion is the only one that matters. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion either party could avoid a block if they will agree to wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which I clearly did, after posting a 3RR warning on the anon IP's Talk page. What was the response of anon IP? Why to post the template to my Talk page in retaliation, and immediately revert the article. And here we are. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you were edit warring without meaningful discussion.

(edit conflict × 2)GarnetAndBlack: If you were willing to discuss matters, you should have started discussion and left a message asking him to discuss it there. If you were willing to discuss matters, you should have made a response to third-party feedback that indicated you actually read said feedback. It is your duty to assume good faith from the IP if their edits could possibly be an attempt to improve the site. Not "only if their edits were an obvious improvement," but "if their edits could possibly be an attempt to improve the site." You have ignored everyone else's feedback in this, which is at least as tendentious as the IP's possibly-ignorant behavior.

(edit conflict × x3)GarnetAndBlack: The account isn't a badge, it's a responsibility. One of those responsibilities includes teaching IP editors how things work here if they don't know. Another responsibility is to pay attention to third-party feedback and gauge responses accordingly. Another is patience, instead of just lashing out with reverts.

Ed: Yeah, blocking both is starting to look necessary, because both of them seem convinced this as a zero-sum game and think that the other's misbehavior excuses their own. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Haberstr reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[57] this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 [58])
[59] this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 [60])
[61] this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 [62]
[63] - again

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64].

He came today and repeated his previous edit war conducted on the same page on March 25. This user was previously blocked for edit war and warned by User:Callanecc about EE discretionary sanctions[65]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected by Nakon. User also warned about personal attacks. Swarm ^X 03:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to place a POV tag at the top of the article. Other users repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy by removing it. This is the most contentious, biased article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, other than the other articles on recent Ukraine history that the anti-Russia editors maintain control over.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are telling that you are satisfied by result of your edit warring [66]? My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All participants in this dispute are encouraged to behave well in the future. The sanctions of WP:ARBEE can be imposed if it appears that one or more people are unable to edit neutrally about the disputes between Ukraine and Russia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. However, the neutrality of edits is frequently difficult to judge. For example, the claim of anti-Russian bias is wrong because the majority of sources criticize Russian politics in Ukraine, and we simply go with sources. What can be easily judged is this: (a) the violation of 3RR rule, (b) an editor openly expressing satisfaction by results of their edit warring, and (c) casting aspersions about "anti-Russian editors". My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Frankly, I'd appreciate it if some administrator could patrol this article in line with WP:ARBEE. The amount of tendentious behaviour surrounding it is enormous, and enforcement is lax. Could you keep an eye out, EdJohnston? RGloucester — ☎ 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emperortikacuti reported by User:Dolescum (Result: Indef)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments:

Slow edit war over the formatting of numbers in an infobox. User simply refuses to discuss edits and appears to ignore any discussion on their talk page. Would be reporting @EkoGraf: who's been reverting Emperortikacuti aside from the fact I can't blame them for they've tried discussing the matter with Emperortikacuti and been utterly ignored.

Tired of watching this. Dolescum (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Dolescum said, I left three messages at Emperortikacuti's talk page, as well as at least a dozen messages (if not more) in the edit summaries, to none of which he replied. I made a compromise proposal, which he ignored, just like he ignored all of the messages. He's only course of action has been to revert every time and reinsert the break in the rows, despite me trying to compromise and make arguments that it was ether redundant since the text was already in another row or that it broke the flow of the text. The reverts would always take place little over a day later or a few days later, but sometimes even within 24 hours. Other editors also tried to revert his edits (I was not the only one) but he reverted them as well. EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been doing this for weeks, across many, many articles. He needs to stop. RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. This user has failed to communicate in any form during their entire time here on Wikipedia, and they've demonstrated they don't plan to start (they've only ever made one talk page comment but it's proof enough that they're capable of communicating in English). User may be unblocked if and when they assure us that they'll change their ways in the future, but unless that happens I don't see their behavior as being tolerable in a collaberative project. Communication is key, as they say. Swarm ^X 23:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kb333 reported by User:Aoidh (Result: 48h)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Comments:
This is not a 3RR report but a general edit-warring one. Editor has just come off a 24 hour block for edit-warring (their AN3 report is still above) and immediately has resumed their incivility and edit-warring, pushing their GNU/Linux POV despite being very aware by this point that consensus on Wikipedia does not support their edits (MOS:LINUX). The editor has made no attempt to discuss the redirect change on any talk page, yet still continues to revert against consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently "whatever" is justification to continue edit-warring. The editor has made is perfectly clear that they have no intention of discussing, but rather reverting and forcing their changes into articles.[91][92] This is reinforced by the declaration (while still edit-warring) that the editor does not care about consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I was just looking at this editor's reverts over at GNU/Linux earlier and wondering if I was going to have to block them again. Apparently they haven't gotten the message yet. Swarm ^X 00:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.194.125.162 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 1 week)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[94]
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98] - Hypocritically accusing me of edit warring, even though I've stopped and he keeps going.
[99] - And disregarding the insight of neutral third-parties.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Corona_del_Mar_High_School#Rewrite_done

Comments:
WP:SPA IP (who geolocates to near the school) has a long history of trying to whitewash the article to WP:RGW. Their citation of WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS is wikilawyering, plain and simple. This would not be the first time that they've been blocked under WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. If citing WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS is prohibited wikilawyering, Bahooka committed the first crime. The article subheading that Ian Thompson repeatedly reverted was straight out of WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS 72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He said "maybe" (recognizing that the page was an essay, not policy) not "should be adhered to" (which was where you were wikilawyering). You've reverted almost twice as much as anyone there, and reverted multiple users. The section I reverted was an attempt to separate the nationwide attention into positive and negative to promote one and hide the other, instead of presenting all sourced information neutrally. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please can the IP editor be given a very long block, and please can the page be protected against non-autoconfirmed editors, so the IP editor does not simply use another IP.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I made today would have improved the article, and Bahooka supported them. There are no grounds for blocking me or protecting the article.72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you made were an attempt to promote material you liked and segregate material you didn't like, instead of presenting all sourced information neutrally. Bahooka modified one portion of an edit without commenting on whether the rest of it was appropriate, and has not expressed actual support. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As my user name is being mentioned here and apparently I "committed the first crime" by citing advice from a WikiProject, let me reiterate what I stated on my user talk page. I stated that "I also understand that under WP:CSECTION controversies should generally be integrated into the article rather than be a standalone section. Combining the sections does achieve this goal, although it is simply a guideline.". I think combining the sections to include both the controversies and academic rankings is the best way to integrate the controversial material into the article, rather than having a separate controversies section. I changed the section title slightly when it just contained academic rankings for consistency among school articles, but that is not an appropriate title for the combined section. Bahooka (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two links to consider:

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats were found to have been made. Going back to the merits, the "Nationwide attention" section mixes apples and oranges; or rather, buries apples in an avalanche of oranges. The lede repeats the controversies that are detailed in that section (see footnote 3). In my opinion that is not encyclopedic. Am I not allowed an opinion?72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nationwide attention simply addresses the issue "what attention has the school received from the rest of the nation?" Not apples and oranges, just fruit. Your edit promoted national attention you like and segregated attention you didn't like, even though all the material was reliably sourced and in proportion to the sources available.

You are allowed to have your own opinion, but not shape the article to fit that opinion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Clear reverts at 21:45, 21:41, 21:32, 20:55, 20:18, 19:45, and 19:30. Warned previously and blocked previously. If he rotates IPs I'll consider semi. Kuru (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got block evasion by Special:Contributions/174.240.39.203|174.240.39.203]], which geolocates to the same place. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Blocked the wireless IP, extended the block on the stable IP, and semi-ed the page. Kuru (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: Hop, hop, hop. Don't know if you can do much though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really hate protecting talk pages in any way, but it looks like the only IP edits to that page over the last two years at least have been him. I've semi-ed it as well. If he moves to other pages we'll shift to whack-a-mole. Kuru (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadraa reported by AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User Talk Page

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

Comments:

The first revert is a revision of this: [101] Although clearly explained he is still unable to understand as to why it was removed (see here:[102]) Oddly enough, he speculates that I am a sock of Amaury vis versa (see here:[103]) AcidSnow (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i know a bout this because its not the first time he did this to and i used all my 3 times for today not 4 see the dates and see you tommorrow. Hadraa (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. AcidSnow, in the future please notify any user reported here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apolgize Bbb23. AcidSnow (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (Result: Not on this board)

There appears to be a single-issue edit war going on at Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System about the names of certain people involved in the early history who don't have wiki articles of their own. Their names were removed by multiple users and IP addresses that you can find in the page history, but someone seems to be bent on including them with excessive detail using the rationale as stated in their edit summary as "Wiki rules say creators of notable works are notable" -- this sounds like straight vanity to me, if not a complete misunderstanding of notability. I'm going to take a Wikibreak from that specific article for a week or two. I would like someone from here to read the article and edit as appropriate. -- 128.211.167.1 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This really isn't the place to make this kind of a report. There isn't enough recent activity to justify protection of the article, and nothing I would call edit-warring. There hasn't been any discussion about the content dispute. If you're willing, I would start a topic on the article Talk page and raise your concerns about the material being added (restored? - can't tell). The section in the article that's disputed is very poorly sourced, and it certainly doesn't help that the user is adding yet more unsourced material.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sabahudin9 reported by User:Yerevani Axjik (Result: Both editors warned)

Diffs of the user's reverts: [104] [105] [106] [107]

[108] [109] [110] [111]

[112] [113] [114] [115] [116]

[117] [118] [119]

Comments:

User:Yerevani Axjik has been vandalizing multiple Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles with his Serbian and Croatian nationalist opinions. I have reverted several of them, only to have said user revert my reverts, numerous times. The country is called Bosnia and Herzegovina, not Bosnia-Herzegovina-Croatia-Serbia. The user has also been reverting my proposal for deletion of the new article Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina, without reason or explanation.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not he. :) Second. You're the one pushing your Bosniak ethnic nationalist propaganda everywhere, with comments such as "Reverting Serb nationalistic POV vandalism", ""Muslims" is a dated and beyond offensive term. Serbs do not want to be called "Christians". Thats not their ethnicity, its their religion. Stop with your nationalist edits", "Stop denying Bosniaks of an identity", "Stop denying Bosniaks of an identity and attempting to delete Bosniaks from history. The term "bosnian Muslim" is offensive and dated". Callim my edits nationalist doesn't hold any ground at all. As for your proposal for deletation of the Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina - you don't mention a single reason why the article should be deleted. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are nationalistic and denying Bosniaks of an identity. The term "Muslims" as an ethnicity is dated and BEYOND offensive. Serbs are ethnically Serbs, not ethnically Christians. Calling Bosniaks "Muslims" as an ethnicity is offensive, dated and ridiculous. As for the article I have proposed for deletion, the reason is in the proposal.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why it would be offensice? Look. I don't have nothing against anyone, and I hate being accused of nationalism. I don't care for your ideology, but, you must look into this - http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/Popis/Etnicka%20obiljezja%20stanovnistva%20bilten%20233.pdf

According to the 1991 census, which was a census where you could write what ever you want as your ethnicity, 1,898,963 of people declared as Muslims; 10,727 as Bosnians, 876 as Bosniaks-Muslims; 96 as Bosniaks-Yugoslavs and 22 as Yugoslavs-Bosniaks, so you could say there was 994 Bosniaks in total, compared to 1,898,963 Muslims by nationality.

And this is not offensive term at all, especially not to people who declared or still declare as such. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says they are ethnically Muslim. That was Yugoslav-era propaganda that should be dead and gone but nationalists like you keep it alive. Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina are BOSNIAKS.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims from Bosnia and Herzegovina, if we speak about religious group - can be whatever they want to be. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the source says Muslims it should not be a problem of putting them as Muslims. Also Sabahudin, you should stop your personal attacks and accusations of nationalism towards the other user. It is not the first time you start making personal attacks and remarks to editors you are opposing. FkpCascais (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after posting a warning to Sabahudin9's talk page concerning edits of his that struck me as blatantly chauvinistic. On further inspection, however, it became clear that the other party's motives are just as dubious. WP:AN/3 does not appear to be the best venue for this issue, not only because it is unclear if either (or both) of the parties broke the 3RR, but also because both users promote opposing extremist views. As such, they will continue to clash and will contribute nothing to factual accuracy and neutrality of articles in their area of interest. The general WP:ANI might be a better place. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user insists on changing Serbian Cyrillic to Cyrillic in Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles. I have commented on his talk page about it.--Zoupan 05:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not Serb-related... they are articles about villages and towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country of Bosnia and Herzegovina has both Bosnian and Serbian as official languages. Both Bosnian and Serbian use the Cyrillic script. It is incorrect to flat-out say it is "Serbian Cyrillic" when both languages use it.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK... you're doing it again - [120]. And as for Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if you want to discuss why the article should be deleted, please, join the discussion, which I started yesterday. As you didn't joined the discussion, I assumed you gave up. And, if you won't join discussion, there's no reason why there should be a deletation template standing there. So, either discuss, or stop reverting my edits on the article. ([121]) --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevani Axjik: this is a two-way street. You are attempting to portray me as a nationalist vandal. You are telling me that my reversals of your nationalistic edits are wrong.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@"The articles are not Serb-related..." — this clearly shows your POV. The Cyrillic in Bosnia and Herzegovina is the Serbian Cyrillic script, and not the Russian. It is in official and every-day use in Republika Srpska, and not in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.--Zoupan 09:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles ARE NOT Serb-related. They are articles about villages in BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. Cyrillic script is also in use everywhere in the Federation (road signs, etc.) That specific Cyrillic script is both Serbian and Bosnian.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages. Republika Srpska doesn't name it's official languages, but states that official languages of Republika Srpska are "language of Serb people, language of Croat people and language of Bosniak people", which is Serbo-Croatian. It's one language. Only in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina the languages are explicitly and separately mentioned as Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that it's 2015... not 1992? Serbo-Croatian was only official in SFRY. It is no longer in use. The languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. All use the Latin script, but only Bosnian and Serbian also use Cyrillic.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This division of Serbo-Croatian language is political, not linguistic. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Both editors are warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert on these topics. User:Sabahudin9 is warned not to engage in WP:Original research. If people report themselves on a census as being 'Moslem' it is not up to you to record them in our article as 'Bosniaks.' This is on the edge of source falsification, for which a long block is possible. Deciding whether a certain script is Serbian or Cyrillic needs consensus. Both of you are expected to wait for an agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:115ash reported by User:CosmicEmperor (Result: Blocked)

Page: Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 115ash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I haven't done this type of reporting before , so i don't know how to fill up the above spaces.I am mentioning the details below:

After I was warned by Ged UK , I didn't edit this page Bengali people .He was also warned. Right now there is a discussion going on in talk page in order to reach a consensus. But still he is editing Bengali people according to personal bias as evident from his edits. He has a biased mentality against Bengalis living in West Bengal and he wants to remove them one after another as evident from his comments here . https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABengali_people&diff=654462048&oldid=654460363

He wrote "To conclude, in my opinion this article should possess more BANGLADESHIS' images rather than EASTERN INDIANS, GIVEN THAT innumerable people from Kolkata do not claim to be BENGALI (although the can speak it fluently)." Cosmic Emperor (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check the reason given for this revert I suspect , sometimes he IP edits to avoid detectionCosmic Emperor (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is blocked after I made this report , no need for any more comments from me.Cosmic Emperor (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Merinsan reported by User:Ncmvocalist (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654196624 by Ncmvocalist (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 13:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 13:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverting unjustified bulk content removal. Undid revision 654488385 by Ncmvocalist (talk)"
2. 13:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverting unjustified bulk content removal. Undid revision 654486544 by Ncmvocalist (talk)"
3. 13:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverting unjustified bulk content removal. Undid revision 654483834 by Ncmvocalist (talk)"
13:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted unjustified bulk content removal by this user. Undid revision 654489998 by Ncmvocalist (talk)"
14:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted unjustified bulk content removal. Undid revision 654497761 by Ncmvocalist (talk)"
here
here
here

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

12:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "/* April 2015 */ new section"
13:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "3rd level warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Merinsan is repeatedly inserting poorly sourced or unsourced content into this BLP article and is simply refusing to stop reverting. He seems to lack competence, and if anything, appears to be using Wikipedia as a fan page article and platform to promote the "Super Singer World Tour" which will be held in 2 days. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist is removing bulk content from the article without justification. This article is not about "Super Singer Wold Tour". That is just an event passingly mentioned at one small section of the article and with valid references. But what Ncmvolaist is removing is every section in the article. He is removing valid references by simply calling them 'poorly sourced' without any justification. The same references have been reviewed and accepted by other experienced users prior to and after creation of the article. The same references are also used on other related articles such as Airtel Super Singer Junior, Diwakar, etc. Ncmvolaist is the one who has engaged himself into an edit-warring. Merinsan (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That, coming from an SPA editor who repeatedly reinserts "Spoorthi was born in Bengaluru, formerly known as 'Bangalore', Karnataka, India, to Santhosh Rao, who is a Senior Manager at IBM Global Business Services (reference: http://retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com/re-tales/author/137/Santhosh-Rao) when the source does not even mention the subject of the article. In fact, there is no source cited for the actual assertion; it is pure misrepresentation of the stated source in a BLP article. This editor lacks competence to be editing here, edit wars to repeatedly violate BLP policy, and expects everyone else to mentor him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I've had a look, and the personal life section, giving huge detail about their family is undue and looks poorly sourced. The " Airtel Super Singer Junior 4" also gives far too much information about the competition itself, which should be in the competition's article, not here. "Spoorthi, during the course of the competition, which ran for almost a year, received favourable reviews and comments from the programme judges and personalities from Indian music and film industry appearing in the show as guest judges. Her rendition of the song 'Vizhigal Meeno' was hailed as a masterly performance by the original singer of the song, Indian playback" is clearly WP:ADVERT.

To sum up, I think the revision to smaller article is perfectly correct. The edit summaries seem clear, and this user is not listening to advice. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spoorthi's notability comes from her participating and winning the Airtel Super Singer Junior title as well as her inclusion into the "Super Singer World Tour" which features popular personalities from Indian music industry and that is the reason those sections were included in the article. I have taken positive suggestions and advices from other reviewers and removed puffery terms from the article. If there are still some puffery terms in the article, those can be removed, but removing the whole and bulk content of the article is excessive. And Ncmvocalist seem to repeatedly calling other users, new or otherwise, as 'incompetent' only shows his attitude towards new users joining and trying to contribute to Wikipedia as a whole. I have also taken this issue with other experienced contributors and they also feel that this 'bulk removal' of contents from this article by Ncmvocalist is excessive. Merinsan (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they are continuing to revert, despite being well over 3 reverts. Blatant unconstructive edit warring, with no attempt to address the concerns above. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding valid and additional references and still these two users are collaborating with each other in removing bulk contents and valid references from the article. The same references were accepted as reliable sources by other experiences users prior to and after the article creation. These same references as well as similar type of references from same website were used in other similar and related articles such as Diwakar, Alka Ajith, etc. This type of bulk content removal is also branded as 'excessive' and has not been agreed by other experienced users. Merinsan (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're "collaborating with each other"- please find some evidence for this. Just because we agree with each other doesn't mean we're collaborating to get content removed. Collaboration implies that we've planned this, whereas we're simply removing the poorly sourced, unnecessary for a BLP content that a persistent edit warrer keeps on adding. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How come only you agree with each other on removing the bulk of the article and valid references. There are other users who do not agree with what you are doing Merinsan (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If other people agree with you, then how come: (1). Nobody except you has added the content back onto the page?

(2). Nobody has come here to defend your point of view? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may see what his user has to say about this bulk content removal. [122]. Not many people comment here because this article is newly created. Merinsan (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they clearly say "But Ncmvocalist has been editing Wikipedia since 2006, on a wide variety of Indian topics, so the suggestion that they may be acting from partiality in a children's talent contest is patently ridiculous." Stop harassing other users by claiming that they are deliberately trying to undermine this article, it's a ridiculous accusation. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at your contributions], it's clear that you are a single purpose account, whereas the two people who disagree with you clearly aren't. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some background information about this competition which the person of the article Spoorthi recently won. This Airtel Super Singer Junior is a children's talent show which has run for over a year on a popular Indian TV channel. The title of the contest was won by Spoorthi at the grand finale. The final result was decided by a panel of eminent musicians from the Indian music industry as well as public voting from the general public all over the world. As public is involved in choosing the winner, the later stages of the competition generated a highly divided public opinion among viewers and the credentials of the participants were hotly debated on social forums such as Facebook. Even after the award of the title, it is still debated among fans of other contestants accusing the channel and judges for not choosing one of their favourites. In these circumstances, only I have suggested that the removal of bulk contents by Mcmvocalis could be possibly due to some biased viewpoints against the merits of the winning contestant Spoorthi. Other than this I still don't see why you continue this edit war by removing bulk of the article, even though I continue to provide additional references as well as removing some unacceptable statements. Again, you are removing bulk contents and valid references only on the article Spoorthi whereas the same references used in articles about previous winners of the same contest Diwakar or Alka Ajith are not subjected to such kind of bulk removal by yourselves. This can only be termed as 'biased editing' ethic on part of you. Merinsan (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, I'm a biased editor, as someone who only only got involved after you violated 3RR, has no actual connection to this event, and believe that everything added to Wikipedia should be adequately sourced. About 1/3 of what you added was sourced only. Your user contributions clearly show that you are a SPA, yet you decide to call me a biased editor. I hope the admin adjudicating this takes into account not only your blatant, continuous violation of edit-warring policy, but your completely unfounded, defamatory remarks to other users. You should assume good faith, rather than telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are a biased editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should know the fact that I have created this article Spoorthi after taking advice from other experienced users and asking many details in the Wikipedia chat room help. Prior to approval of this article for creation, I have always accepted and incorporated every comment suggested by experienced users. Only after that this article got approval for creation. Suddenly after creation, you come and remove bulk of the contents leaving only a single statement at the top. If you have objection to some content, experienced users like you should give your advice and opinion in a constructive manner. Calling the new comers as 'incompetent' and assuming only yourselves as the right people to create any article on Wikipedia runs against the noble cause of Wikipedia which welcomes new users with open hands. I have found many experiences users here very much helpful and giving valuable advice to new comers like us. But some people like you do this kind of bulk removal without proper justification and start branding the new comers 'incompetent' to create an article. Merinsan (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another point to note is that Ncmvocalist has tagged File:Spoorthi with the Title Trophy after winning the Super Singer Junior 4.jpg which I uploaded for this article Spoorthi as having no source information, labelling my claim of having personally taken the photo myself as "bogus". This tagging by him is unsubstantiated. This type of activity along with his other unjustified removal of bulk contents and valid references from the related article Spoorthi only shows his biased editing ethics. The image in this file is my own work and hasn't been published elsewhere prior to my uploading here to Wikipedia. You may also take note of what an experienced user has to say about this unsubstantiated tagging this file as bogus sourcing Merinsan (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't always assume bad faith of other users. Here they clearly say that the file talk was unclear on whether you were the owner or not, which it doesn't clearly say. Also, my objection is to you calling me a biased editor earlier, which is clearly untrue, given that you seem to be a WP:SPA and I'm not. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Ncmvocalist has tagged the file two times, once even after I have clearly stated that the file was my own work. He only has backed down after some experienced user came in my defence. Furthermore, what is it to do with your calling me as 'single purpose' account. I am a new entrant to Wikipedia and this is my first article. Just a week old in Wikipedia. Are you saying newcomers such as us should not contribute? There is a beginning to everything my friend. You are also telling me no one is coming here to support me, but you are two people. Getting other users to support oneself might be easy for experienced users like you for having made many friends over the years. But it is not the case with newcomers like us. Also, it is irrelevant how many users come to support or defend, but only the credentials of an argument should count. User IDs can be created easily in Wikipedia and the same person may also have multiple IDs as far as I understand. Merinsan (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should really be about the content, not the users. An admin has fully protected Spoorthi for a few days, which means only admins can edit it. In case you don't know, you can make requests for changes by using <edit protected>. On the talkpage I've requested removal of personal life section things that aren't sourced (about family) and some of the detail about the current competition. It's up to admins to decide to accept/reject it, but other people can discuss it there. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

User:Mveratucci reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1
21:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654549292 by Joseph2302 (talk) How is it "spam linking"? If anyone would like to edit this with another link, please do so. However, the current link is relevant to the content."
21:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654541944 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk). Not seeing how this is spam. This seems a bit ridiculous. There are citations for other similar sites in the article."
20:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654528030 by Flyer22 (talk). Not spam. Addition to article is informative. Citation is necessary to prove that some companies provide strippers for party buses."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Adding spam links on Stripper. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Adding a link that appears to be an irrelevant spam link multiple times. Ignoring warnings, including this telling them to revert immediately. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn the user when he -- most likely inadvertently (as a new and apparently one topic editor) -- violated 3RR. Since then a different IP reverted the edit which triggered the 3RR violation. Quis separabit? 00:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely ridiculous and it feels very personal. I'm being accused of "spam" when I added one sentence to an article with a citation. Said article contains external links to similar websites as the one that I linked. Wikipedia should be a place where freedom of speech is protected and where censorship doesn't run wild. If my link is considered spam, then why not just remove the link and leave the rest of the content? That would have been a more mature way to handle this situation. The way this was actually handled seems silly and childish. I wasn't vandalizing this article and I certainly wasn't spamming. I added something that I felt was relevant to the article and I was immediately attacked and accused. Now I'm on trial? This is not the way that you should guide new users on Wikipedia. If someone is doing something in a way that you don't agree with, you should be able to have a civilized conversation with them. Saying things like "spam" and "spam linking" without any proof (as I said, replace it with another link if it displeases you) is not constructive. It seems to me like there are a few power-hungry individuals on Wikipedia who simply have nothing better to do with their time than harass people who are adding (not removing or changing) appropriate content. If my account is banned over this, then I suppose I never truly understood Wikipedia and I have no interest in coming back. Thank you to the mature people who have taken the time to read my comment. Mveratucci (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, after doing a little more reading it would seem that I am not the only person who has an issue with the way Joseph2302 is treating people. I would agree with what at least one other editor has mentioned in another report. It does seem like Joseph2302 and other editors may be working together to bully editors into doing things the way they want. This may be worth looking into. Wikipedia should be a source of knowledge, not a source of ego stroking. While I do appreciate the many editors who keep Wikipedia free of vandalism and spam, I do not appreciate the editors who spend their time trying to bully others into submission. Mveratucci (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was probably mistake by me, because although it looked to me like spam linking, there are lots of similar sources in the article. Whilst I don't think these are very good-quality sources, the spam-linking accusation was probably harsh. Please don't assume bad faith on me, the other 2 things I'm involved in on here are completely different issues. Also, I don't intentionally "work" with user users to bully Wikipedia editors like you suggest, I find it insulting that you would say that. Sometimes people make mistakes, and this way probably a mistake, but I never go out of my way to bully editors.

Request withdrawn I'm officially withdrawing my edit warring request, although @Mveratucci: I believe I deserve an apology for your claims of bullying. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC) (unwithdrawing)[reply]

Please do not withdraw this. let's be clear, here is the content and sourcing that was being added: "Some agencies will even allow customers to hire strippers to perform on party buses.^[1]

References

^ Sweet Strippers - Female Stripper Events

that is unambiguous WP:PROMO spamming and the edit warring is report is valid. Fixing an article has to start somewhere. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unwithdrawing, even though they didn't technically break 3RR. Two wrongs don't make a right, so adding rubbish links to a rubbish article isn't okay. I just feel every time I try to report someone here, it ends up in a massive deal, this user is claiming I've been bullying them. I don't like being accused of bullying, and I figured that the easiest way was to just get out. Glad someone actually agrees with me. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good on you! and mveratucci should get a warning for spamming. i just looked through the article and there were other sections that were the same kind promo spamming, i have removed them. still working over it. (not surprising to find in an article on this subject matter) Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already warned them for spamlinking yesterday.

Personally it's the lack of admins around this board that is frustrating me. There's this case, which started almost 24 hours ago, and no admin input, allowing them to now accuse me of bullying. Similar ridiculous accusations on edit war notice above, which admins don't appear to have look at after over 30 hours. And they waited 2 hours to block someone who had violated 3RR by reverting 12 times, and let them revert a page 30 times before getting a minimal block. I get that admins are volunteers etc, but at times I think they are too slow to respond, and fail to protect good contributors. Because admins aren't dealing with edit warring quickly enough, it gives editors time to construct ridiculous claims that I collude with editors to bully people, which is ridiculous. If the cases had actually been dealt with, then none of these rubbish accusations would have surfaced themselves. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andypatch reported by User:SummerPhD (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "I removed my name from this project."
21:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "I DO NOT WANT MY NAME ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT!!! I AM GETTING IT REMOVED FROM IMDB. PLEASE DO NOT PUT IT BACK UP!!!"
02:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "The name is being removed from the project on imdb."
06:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC ""
00:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "my name is being removed from this project."
04:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

04:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Saving Christmas. (TW)"
02:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Editing while logged out on Saving Christmas. (TW))"[reply]
02:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "/* April 2015 */ c"
04:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC) ""[reply]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Cinematography - Andy Patch */ new section"
04:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film "Signing comment by Andypatch - "/* Odd situation at Saving Christmas */""

Comments:

User:121.216.42.217 reported by User:Jcmcc450 (Result: )

Page: List of animals in the Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.216.42.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

19:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "Orthodox Jews can touch a pig but they can't eat swine or any of its byproducts. So the swine is unclean as food but not abhorred. They love swine as God's creation. Don't fchamge it to shot abhorred ever again."
06:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Orthodox Jews during Moses time had pet pigs along with lamb. They just didn;t and don;t eat swine or its products., They still love swine equally to hare. So don;t ever change that to the fucken damn cursed word abhorred please."
08:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Orthodox Jews during Moses time had pet pigs along with lamb. They just didn;t and don;t eat swine or its products., They still love swine equally to hare. So don;t ever change that to the fucken damn cursed word abhorred please."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP is a multi according to other users (as you can see on the talk page). He is currently in an ongoing edit war on this page with various nonpartisan users in which he is continuously reverting content to a change he wants to push through instead of talking about it on the talk page. Jcmcc450 (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP should be blocked anyway. As currently stated on his user talk page, he is a problematic editor that has been WP:Blocked under different IP addresses and is evading those blocks; WP:Block evasion applies in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The IP has now IP-hopped to 121.218.163.41 (talk · contribs). Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Coburn MEP reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result:Blocked)

Page: David Coburn (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David Coburn MEP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

15:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "this is totally untrue I have never said that"
15:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "this is conjectureand has no basis in fact"
15:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "I no longer live in London Iive in Edinburgh"
Consecutive edits made from 15:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC) to 15:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 15:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 15:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "How can I complain to Wiki about these people misrepresenting me? What action can I take?"
14:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "I can prove I live in Edinburgh to whoever wants to see it - Stop misrepresenting me"
14:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654642139 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC) to 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Who are you exactly - & why are you deliberately misrepresenting me?"
2. 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654641771 by Jay-Sebastos (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC) to 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654640177 by Jay-Sebastos (talk)"
2. 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "The sources you are quoting are historic I now live in Edinburgh - I know more about my life than you do"
Consecutive edits made from 13:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 13:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "I am David Coburn MEP - I am aware of where I live - I live in Edinburgh - I am also aware of where I went to school & which University I attended - there are several people changing the facts and they need to stop"
2. 13:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "I have never stated I will "work closely with London elite" -whoever they are - whoever inserted that comment would need to back it up with proof"
3. 13:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "There are some people amending my wiki bio who appear to think they know more about my life than I do -"
16:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ""
16:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ""
16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 16:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC) to 16:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 16:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
2. 16:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC) to 16:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 15:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 16:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ""
15:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ""
15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ""
17 (continuing to edit)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 and 27, 2nd part, 3rd part (with overly sarcastic comment), 4th part (implicit legal claim).
28.
29

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

15:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on David Coburn (politician). (TW)"
Warned again here after 18th reversion. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:: Please note there are also separate investigations/discussions open at: [123], [124] & [125]. Cheers --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]; Also now one at WP:ANI#Possible legal threat. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BaldBoris reported by User:37.54.221.20 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [126]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments:
User BaldBoris removed all (!) related navboxes from cycling teams' articles. Also he removed (5 times) link to Tony Martin from Bradley Wiggins, although that link needed to avoid conflict with Dany Martin, another rider. 37.54.221.20 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Martin is linked already in the prose. This is ridiculous. Why would I destroy an article I've spent many hours on getting to good article status ? Bald Boris 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:74.84.81.66 reported by User:Wuerzele (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:36, 28 March 2015‎ [135] added new section “Related Media works” (sic)
23:21, 28 March 2015‎ [136] re-added editorializing language.
23:23, 28 March 2015‎ [137]
23:26, 28 March 2015‎ [138] edited editorializing language
23:33, 28 March 2015‎ [139]
00:07, 29 March 2015 [140] shouted “the references and content DIFFER GREATLY from previous versions and others edits which are incomplete. STOP removing relevant facts.”

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142] and [143] replied to user on my page, where user posted again, after I had moved his prior posts to Talk:John Kiriakou.

Comments:
This is a somewhat difficult case because

I can see good faith at work. I did not plain revert his initial edit, but carefully modified it, to improve it/ bring it in line with WP:BLP rules. I explained this in my edit summary as "wordsmithing, removing editorializing terms".
User has absolutely not recognized my good will, misunderstood the first edit as hostile and kept pushing his edits ignoring basic WP rules: Not signing posts, Using facebook as a ref in WP:BLP, posting discussion on my talk page even after I moved it to Talk:John Kiriakou per my edit summary. He finally posted a threat to report me "to my superiors", which is completely inappropriate [144]
He appeared to plead special circumstances for using an IP account as a traveling military professional, which I understood as "dont report me so other users of this IP account will not be affected". In fact, it was the reverse, he wrote "(I don't want to be attached to possible problems caused by others using same IP)". This shows to me the user doesn’t appear to understand the implications of his behavior and the reason for using his registered account as user:mtmsquared, which he's used since 2012. I don’t want him to get into trouble, but I think he needs to understand basic WP editing and behavior rules, and his post cant stay as it is.

User:Kb333 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: )

Page: Debian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kb333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

19:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654674561 by OMPIRE (talk) reverting vandalism"
19:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654674146 by Ahunt (talk) Debian has a consensus too, by calling itself as GNU/Linux."
19:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654673077 by Rwxrwxrwx (talk)"
19:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654669771 by BethNaught (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux#The_GNU.2FLinux_redirect"
18:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654261482 by Aoidh (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

4 here: [145] and many others before.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See Talk:Linux#The GNU/Linux redirect for an attempt to reason with the editor.

Comments:

Recidivism in a long-term pattern of edit warring against consensus. See histories of GNU/Linux, Debian, GNOME. BethNaught (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Kb333 just came off a 48 hour block, a block that was given because the editor immediately resumed edit-warring immediately after coming off a 24 hour block. Kb333 has shown that they have no intention of editing collaboratively with others, or that these blocks will stop the behavior, as they have immediately resumed the same edit-warring on the same articles as soon as their blocks expire. Their continued incivility isn't as serious as the edit-warring, but is still indicative of their ability to collaborate with others. - Aoidh (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This file needs some admin action. This user seems to be on a POV-pushing spree, very much WP:NOTHERE. His disregard of civility, POV-pushing against consensus and complete ignoring of 3RR requires action. Countering this is taking up much editor time that could be used for writing new articles and improving existing ones. - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:ThisIsDanny reported by User: Smurfmeister

User:ThisIsDanny has continually reverted my changes on List of EastEnders characters despite all sources supporting my version (that Kathy Beale is a returning character, not a current one). The BBC website - by definition the most accurate source - does not list Kathy as a current character.

User:ThisIsDanny claims to have consensus from two other IPs; however, one of these - 92.18.182.241 - has never been used before this dispute, and indeed has only been used to revert my edits, which reeks of sock puppetry. Please review. Smurfmeister (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Genesee.gbh

User violated WP:3RR and is engaged in edit war. Was clearly notified of the dispute over year of birth of Doris Day, which, as an admin recently pointed out on another page, has been disputed "ad nauseum", without attaining unanimity. @Genesee.gbh was notified if the edit warring continued he/she would be reported yet continued to restore disputed/inaccurate text (see [146], [147]). Editor also adds names to stand alone dates/years of birth that are unsourced (see [148], [149]). Quis separabit? 15:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Afterwriting reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: )

All times in UTC

Previous version reverted to: 12:52, 3 April 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

13:10, 3 April 2015 - Edit summary: Undid revision 654772691 by AussieLegend (talk) This is currently under discussion. Please provide the MoS source to support your claim
13:55, 3 April 2015 - Edit summary: Undid revision 654778063 by AussieLegend (talk) Reverted as per MoS and discussion. No valid reasons for italics. You are just wrong.
14:03, 3 April 2015 - Edit summary: Hypocrite

Diff of edit warring warning: 13:58, 3 April 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:44, 3 April 2015

Comments:

This is an edit-warring report, not a 3RR report. Afterwriting made some changes to Sydney Opera House that were incorrect so I corrected the formatting errors.[150] I was subsequently reverted by Afterwriting[151] so I looked at the article talk page and found no discussion. I then checked his talk page and found that the changes had already been disputed by Machina.sapiens.[152] During this time Afterwriting had opened a discussion on the article's talk page so I responded to that[153] and, since the changes had been disputed by two editors, reverted to the status quo per WP:STATUSQUO, with an appropriate edit summary.[154] Afterwriting did not respond on the article's talk page, but simply reverted and, even though he hadn't responded to the discussion, wrote "Reverted as per MoS and discussion. No valid reasons for italics. You are just wrong" as his edit summary.[155] Since he didn't seem interested in discussing and had clearly discounted both Machina.sapiens and my opinions, I left an edit-warring warning on his talk page. After a few minutes I also reverted to the status quo again leaving the edit summary "Stop edit-warring and discuss on the talk page", thinking that those actions would encourage him to participate in the discussion. Around the time I left the warning on his talk page, he made this post on my talk page, which made no sense as I had already done what I demanded 14 minutes previously. He then made a similar post on his talk page,[156] before again reverting at the article, this time with the edit summary, "Hypocrite".[157] I have requested that he revert his last edit, but he has refused to do so. I am not claiming complete innocence in this, but my two reversions were made only to revert edits that were disputed by two editors to the status quo, which Afterwriting, instead resorting to edit-warring with inappropriate summaries to force his preferred version. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sweet Strippers - Female Stripper Events

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards