Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Walter Görlitz and User:208.81.212.224 reported by User:Evrik (Result: Declined)

Page: I Predict 1990 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 208.81.212.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:02, 6 June 2016 Preferred version of the article: 15:51, 9 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:33, 7 June 2016 - first edit after protection removed
2. 01:16, 8 June 2016
3. 13:11, 9 June 2016
4. 19:29, 9 June 2016 - reverted edit where disputed source had been removed and {{cn}} tag put in its place

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 12:22, 2 June 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Talk:I Predict 1990

Comments:
This is not the first go 'round for this disagreement. This is really a tempest in a teapot, but more than the content difference, I don't appreciate the bullying behavior exhibited by Walter Görlitz and his IP 208.81.212.224.

• User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Evrik (Result:Full Protection)

Let me state the facts as I see them.

• Prior to 11:22, 31 May 2016, the article and been static for about 3 1/2 years.
• My in initial edit was reverted.
• My second attempt to insert content then became an edit war on the reliability of the source, which resulted in a one week protection.
• After the protection ended the whole thing started up again.

I admit, the few other editors involved don't think it's a great source, but even after I removed the disputed source in an attempt to meet half-way, I'm being reverted. I will admit to using Pinocchio to comment on the truthfulness of a statement, but I don't deserve the insults:

• Being told to shut up.
• Having my competency questioned.
• Being called a dick.

Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

So he did not list his own reverts, against WP:CONSENSUS. One editor here indicated that he believe the source was not reliable. Two at RSN have stated it as well, and of course, since the start, I have claimed the source is not reliable.

After the first RSN editor commented and I replied and there was a lull, I removed the content at the article.

evrik said that it should be taken to RSN on the article's talk page, I indicated that it had been and part of his response was "Really though, I would say that the commentary in the blog is good enough to substantiate one line of text" essentially saying "I don't care, I'm going to use it because I think it's a good source for its purpose". At that point, he restored the content with the unreliable source to the article.

I continued to remove it explaining why each time and discussing on the article's talk page as I did. All this was over the course of two days.

Now I am really digging into the issue and have discussed the other salient point on the discussion at article's talk page: why does this one song need to be mentioned at all when there are nine others that are on the album. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I use this IP while at work and the registered account from home. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this feud before, can't remember where from, but I think it was a thread on WP:ANI last week. Anyway, I would recommend that everyone on the talk page calms down a bit, and the current state of the article as I look at it now does not look obviously problematic. I can't see any immediate need for protection or blocks, as there's not enough activity on the article to justify it. The only real thing I can suggest is the dispute resolution noticeboard. In any case, since I have had a finger in this debate, I am going to declare myself WP:INVOLVED (particularly since I think I expressed an opinion that the blog wasn't good enough to be used as a source) and let another admin take the decision on what to do with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Declined – Unless I misread it, there was no support from anyone else in the RSN thread for Evrik's desire to use empoprise-mu.blogspot.com to make a point about 'cult of personality'. Evrik should not count his own opinion as being enough to decide the matter. I urge User:Evrik to let this matter go unless he can find another source for the point he wants to make. For him to include the 'cult of personality' wording with *no* source is not meeting anyone halfway. It goes against WP:V. (Contentious material that is challenged and can't be sourced should be removed). Some people have engaged in personal attacks (as pointed out by Evrik) and that should not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for not using a WP:BOOMERANG. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I would like to point out, that any change I make to the page. ANY change is reverted by either User:Walter Görlitz or User:208.81.212.224. They also keep leaving messages on my talk page like this one. --evrik ^(talk) 14:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that the WP:BOOMERANG is now in order. Doesn't understand that the messages are warning templates. Doesn't understand that wikipedia is not a battleground. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Evrik is now angry that that things are not going his way and has decided to become WP:POINTY in the article and talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not angry. If I am making a point, it is to show that whatever edit I make is being reverted. This is the best example, I removed the disputed citation, left a tag on the text saying it needed a better citation. That too was reverted. I don't believe that Walter Görlitz is editing in good faith. I also don't appreciate the warning messages left on my talk page and the insinuation that I'm being a vandal. --evrik ^(talk) 15:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The point was made on the talk page: I have removed sentences about individual songs. However the qualitative difference between a sourced controversy and the meaning or theme of a song was not recognized. The last time you tagged the musical themes, I removed the tag as it was referenced in the liner notes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify the edit that evrik linked is not the current issue, this one is. It removes a reliable source that indicates Taylor's concert tour in Australia was cancelled because of a controversy around a song he wrote. It is similar to this edit where he tagged the stylistic origins of two songs—relying on two classical pieces. http://www.allmusic.com/album/i-predict-1990-mw0000864119/credits supports that, in part, but not to the song.

No, my issue is that WHATEVER edit is made gets reversed. --evrik ^(talk) 17:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page is around discussing the theme or thoughts behind the songs themselves. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion on the page has rambled from the quality ONE citation, to whatever it is now. The reason I have brought this issue here twice is the way that Walter Görlitz and the IP SOCK User:208.81.212.224 keep driving an edit war, using insulting language and abusing the term vandal to get what they want. --evrik ^(talk) 17:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

First, I am not an IP SOCK puppet. I use the IP while at work. That use is declared on my user page. I won't go into the reasons why I elect to do so while at work, but there is a rationale.

Second, the discussion on the talk page has progressed from discussing the source to questioning why there needs to be a discussion about themes of individual songs. I'm sorry if that's perceived as rambling.

Third, there is no edit warring. What we're† doing is telling you not to impose your opinion on the article. At first, it was clear that you were ignoring advice that the source was not reliable and then continued to add the content without reference. You have yet to explain why, but I suppose that's not really important. There has been very little abusive language. The links explain what's going on. Again, I'm sorry you're reading the links such as META:DICK and WP:COMPETENCE and not following the links to the essays that discuss what's going on behind the comments.

Finally, I don't believe I have ever called you a vandal. If I have, it should not have been said. You are trying to improve the article, but you're going about it the wrong way. I'd be glad to fully apologize for calling you that if you simply point to where it was stated. If it's the warning templates on your talk page, they're not stating that you're a vandal. Disruptive editing, which WP:POINTY addresses, is not the same as vandalism. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

† The we here does not imply that I at home or while at work constitute two editors. Rather, all of the editors who have weighed-in have focused on your edits as being problematic, hence we. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want your edits reverted, make good ones. Start by discussing the edits and waiting for other editors to agree or disagree. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:The Master reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Stale)

Page

Randolph Stone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724742292 by Alexbrn (talk) Per discussion, the article is not to be about Stone's ideas. Please reach consensus on talk."
2. 05:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724741538 by Alexbrn (talk) Revert whule talk page discussion ongoing"
3. 05:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724739250 by Jytdog (talk) Revert per discussion on talk. It discusses Stone's ideas. Stop edit warring or you may be blocked from editing."
4. 05:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724738979 by Jytdog (talk) Please stop edit warring"
5. 04:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "This is not what was discussed on talk. Also fails WP:MEDRS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[1]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This grew out of this talk page discussion, in which The Master expressed dissatisfaction with prior removal of extended content about Stone's ideas, which had been removed per COATRACK. They got support to have ~some~ more discussion of Stone's ideas; The Master took that as license to restore the entirety of the rejected content. I reverted that edit since it was not what they had support for (and was still under discussion), and obviously in retaliation (and like the 3RR report below) The Master POINTY-ly removed well sourced info required by PSCI. This is disruptive edit warring and is blockable in my view. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Lies and misrepresentations, as usual, from the above editor. Jytdog regularly abuses guidelines to preserve articles in his preferred version and whenever he's about to hit 3RR, Alexbrn magically appears to continue reverting (this has happened repeatedly and across multiple articles and involved multiple other editors). Earlier, he said he didn't want anything in the article about the subject's ideas, citing WP:COATRACK, which was fine with me. Except that now he does want a paragraph about the subject's ideas because this one is negative, while the others are neutral, and Jytdog wants to push his POV. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Stale Laser brain (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:B137 reported by User:Berkserker (Result: Protected)

Page: Climate of Miami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: B137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 12th June
2. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 12th June
3. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 12th June

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of my last warning, 12th June

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page as well as user talk page: [2] [3]

Comments:

I found this page to be under constant violation of this user (and some others) for several years, presenting personal beliefs, citing irrelevant sources, synthesising and fabricating facts. Tried to reason with the user, but the user prefers to avoid communication and reverts despite numerous warnings. The article is a complete mess, its only purpose is to debunk the facts with factoids and fabrications. The reverts are so fast that even caused me to make an edit conflict error while I was in the middle of my revision. The page is under constant supervision by the user and any changes by any user are reverted within minutes. I could date activity back to 2011.

I have responded to all your messages and discussions. The lead of the article relies clearly on the koppen classification. But there is well publicized evidence of falling short of a tropical climate, including the plant hardiness rating, documented cold spells, and occasional freezing weather. Not only did you effectively section blank, you removed relevant images. B137 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

While my earlier edits were of more questionable quality and I used to confront deletion and editors, I would say approximately my most recent 20,000 or so edits have been of objective quality. I create and add a lot of content to articles, including a few good articles. I have not been mired in any kind of significant controversy for several years. I recognize the lack of credence that may be asserted by my redlinked user page. It's been long deleted, I have little interaction with editors, and have enjoyed the stability of my contributions since raising the quality bar for myself. B137 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with your redlinked user page. In fact I support equality for all kinds of accounts and ip addresses. As for the content, it needs scholarly articles to question climate categorisation. According to what we have since the 1800s, as well as two revisions in the early 20th century and the later new classification systems proposed by other climatologists such as Trewartha, there is a consensus and all have the identical definition for tropical climates. The criteria have been revised for other types such as the threshold for the continental climates. The additional climatological revisions and new systems have been proposed to define mid latitude climates better, tropical and arctic climates have never been questioned. The limit set in all classification systems for tropical climates is 18 degrees Celsius for the coldest month and the city you are questioning has a mean temperature of 20.2 degrees Celsius, it is well above the threshold. There have been instances when numbers have been rounded up, for instance 17.5-18 degrees being considered for tropical climates or 0-0.5 degrees being questioned for continental climates. The thing is I was ready to discuss these with you on your personal talk page or the article talk page, however you chose to skip the argument, giving evasive answers instead and kept reverting. In order to cope with your methods the only method is to revert and edit-war, which is something I don't want to do, so you gave me no other choice to report the activity. It isn't my intention get anyone "punished", however on both your personal talk page and the article's, you didn't want to collaborate and discuss, instead you evaded my questions and comments and insisted on your synthesis of news articles, which have nothing to do with climate classifications. They are just proof that all cities/regions in the world experience record highs and lows, which is why extremes are documented by meteorological services for each locale. Otherwise extremes have nothing to do with climate categorisation (not only for tropical climates). If you have read about a scholarly article or publication contesting mainstream science, you are very welcome to present that. It would change the climates of the world we know as of today. However there is no such debate as of now, and the climatological community is in consensus with tropical climates for centuries. There are debates still going on for other types, such as continental and arid types. The thing is, this page (admin board) isn't the place to discuss these, if you had openly talked to me on talk regarding these topics, I would very well have explained you the same things, like I tried to do with other details both on your and the article talk page. Also I already explained why I removed some of the images, the article doesn't have enough text after the change, to support as many images anymore. Berkserker (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. You could ask for more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Miami or at WT:METEO. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Redzemp reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Spheroid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC) to 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "keep it up and you'll get reported...warned you on your talk. won't go beyond 3RR, but every time you do this, you get reverted unless and UNTIL we get REAL consensus that Mark's parenthetical statement should not be there..."
   2. 20:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "COMMENT EDIT: It IS "commonly called" that despite your wilfull ignorance, arrogance, and ownership behavior, and disrespect, and not recognizing that this is a WIKI...look that up. Also I gave SAMPLE references on Talk that it is stated that way...."
   3. 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "put "sometimes" called, instead...which you could have done, instead of your usual rude total removal and suppression for "I DON'T LIKE" reasons in violation of WP policy and drift, which says to MODIFY INSTEAD OF DELETE...etc etc.."
   4. 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "ref..."
2. 19:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "good point, the but the not all of that statement was "repetitive"...the ending part, which you and Strebe keep leaving out. Most of the sentence was the same, but not the parenthetical part, from Mark. So the mod part only...restored..."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC) to 19:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "look up NO OWN.... This is a wiki, and your arrogant ownership and bullying behavior I won't tolerate, and I will report. This was MARK'S own wording... You have no business deleting stuff you don't like.... Non-valid removal restored. see Talk..."
   2. 19:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "better placement...instead of wholesale removal"
   3. 19:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "COMMENT EDIT: if the statement was not in the best paragraph, that's a valid point, but deleting it completely instead of relocating it better, with the excuse of "repetition" is not valid cuz YOU JUST DON'T LIKE "PERFECT SPHERE" anywhere in the article"
4. 15:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "per Mark's words in Talk...added his sentence. See Mark's comments in discussion......"
5. 02:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "no explanation given, against WP policy. Ignoring the facts and points in my long comment and complaining about the length and words does not make an argument, it's just an evasion...and NO CONSENSUS WAS REACHED. Also Mark kind of agrees. Reverted."
6. 02:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724722687 by Strebe (talk) stop edit-warring and stop meat-puppeting, and see the points I put in Talk......thanks....."
7. 00:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "not redundant...discussed already in user's talk page and special talk page.... I'll paste all my points on article talk page now.....NOT REDUNDANT... "perfect sphere" is stated, and is NOT like "spherical sphere" or "wet water"...etc...."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [4]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [5]

Comments:

I put Mark's correct suggested parenthetical statement. But I even modified it better to "sometimes called". And have been placing RS refs. Strebe is the one who should be reported for violating "NO OWN" and removal of valid modifications for "I don't like" reasons. With his constant rude unwarranted reverts. (The other day all of his reverts were without any explanation or rationale or edit comments given, also in violation of Wikipedia policy.) Todd is putting the onus totally on me, which is false on its face, as even another Admin Neiln the other day did NOT put it all on me, but a lot on Strebe too. Why didn't Todd put ANY of Strebe's reverts from days ago till today? He left those out. Giving a very slanted picture here. What's up, Todd?? Also, there was a bit of a tag-team situation with David Eppstein. Anyway, if you actually look at the latest edit and mod of 'sometimes called perfect sphere' with valid refs, there should be no grounds for complaint or "notice boards" (if anything STREBE is the one who should have been reported, and I warned him that I was going to soon.) This is so backwards, it's ridiculous, frankly. But anyway, I put it correctly but instead of "commonly" called, then you could modify to "sometimes" called, but of course Strebe didn't do that. WP policy is to MODIFY instead of totally "delete". Regards. Redzemp (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

below was my very last edit, putting a Reliable Source ref for the minor parenthetical (valid and sourced) statement...

20:10, 12 June 2016‎ Redzemp (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,435 bytes) (+177)‎ . . (another ref...phys.org...) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:09, 12 June 2016‎ Redzemp (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,258 bytes) (+207)‎ . . (ref...) (undo)

LIST OF STREBE'S REVERTS AND MANY WITH ZERO RATIONALES GIVEN.:

But below are all of Strebe's reverts...which Todd left out for some reason, the whole context and it takes two to tango situations here...not even putting David Eppstein's reverts and tag-teaming....but just Strebe's...right below..

(cur | prev) 19:29, 12 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,024 bytes) (-25)‎ . . (Deleted parenthetical aside for dubious assertion. No reference I could find claims that a “sphere” is commonly called a “perfect sphere”.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:15, 12 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-99)‎ . . (Earth has no “generating ellipsoid”; it is a natural body. This material is a repitition of what's is previous paragraph. Undid revision 724941421 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 04:36, 11 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724725293 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

(cur | prev) 02:24, 11 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724724803 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

(cur | prev) 02:02, 11 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724711290 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

(cur | prev) 02:28, 9 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,962 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724252259 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

this gives a better picture (and fairer picture) of what is going on here. Edit-warring was started by Strebe, not me. Redzemp (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Redzemp has reverted once more, after being notified of this discussion – Special:Diff/724979432 – and by my count is up to 5RR already today. Their comments on Talk:Spheroid and my talk violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLEGROUND (not to mention WP:TEXTWALL), and show no interest in compromise. The claim that other people did it first (regardless of whether it's true) is no excuse. Incidentally, I informed Strebe of this discussion, since Redzemp did not do so when accusing Strebe of edit-warring. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think both parties should be blocked -- at least that's how I would settle it if two or more users can't discuss it properly with each other on the appropriate talk page. Tropicalkitty (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm WP:INVOLVED, so possibly biased, but I would give Strebe a chance to back off first (maybe after placing them on 1RR). Redzemp has already been given that chance and not taken it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I modified wording, changed it to make it "sometimes" instead of "commonly". I took MARK's suggested wording, of parenthetical, etc, from the article Talk page. I looked for sources, and put better ones on the Talk page. I have gone out of my way to "compromise", big time. David flat-out lies when he says I haven't. The only one "clearly not interested in compromise" is David Eppstein, because if you see what I've done I'VE BENT OVER BACKWARDS to "compromise". David's idea of "compromise" is don't change or modify it at all, and leave it the way it was. Hello, Tropicalkitty, but these are the facts. I provided good refs that show that "perfect sphere" is used by people in the field. David is unbelievable in saying that I am not interested in compromise, when he and Strebe are the ones who show ownership and "I don't like" attitudes and actions all over the place with ZERO compromise or give or take. Forgive my bluntness but he's been uncivil in his uncool actions and dissings of sourced mods and edits. Also this was MARK'S compromise and suggestion, that I tried putting in (with sources) that get rudely removed regardless. This is what I wrote and proved in the article talk page....

Yes, David Eppstein, I agree that the ref is not so good, which is I added the other one phys.org, which is RS. You have a problem with that one too, because it doesn't say "perfect sphere" but "perfectly round", even though the rest of the page is in the context of a spherical sun, even if not actually using the word. (And if you're honest, you'd have to admit that.)

But what do you think of "New Scientist.com"? Read these words here: "Now, an international group of engineers and craftsmen has gone him one better and built a pair of nearly perfect spheres that are thought to be the roundest objects in the world." (Click: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14229-roundest-objects-in-the-world-created/) You'll find some corny problem with that ref too, because in reality it's NOT about the source, as those are just convenient FRONT excuses that you (and your tag-team partner Strebe) are using, to hide the real reason of 'ME NO LIKE'. Even confronted with proof and good sources (here) that simply use that phrase that you think is so "redundant"...

But the phrase, in whatever context, IS sometimes used by scientists and astronomers and physicists etc, "perfect sphere" etc. That new scientist source is not the only one either. Want another one?

Ever heard of universetoday.com? These words: "The ones on the left are pulling towards the right. With all points pulling towards the center of the mass you would get a perfect sphere."

Would you consider those "bad references"? (Click: http://www.universetoday.com/112805/why-is-everything-spherical/) I'm sure you'll find some cop-out reason to diss those too, like maybe how it doesn't apply or "doesn't fit", or whatever. Ignoring the point about "sometimes used"...in GENERAL. Anyway, Strebe the presumed co-owner of this article did another revert. I won't violate true 3RR. Redzemp (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You see the sources? And I took the time and effort to make points and show proofs etc, making effort to discuss and make the case, and instead of appreciating any of that, David disses and belittles it and accuses me of "textwalling" putting a negative dishonest spin on everything. But look at what happened. That shows that the statement is justified and "sometimes used" by reliable sources, that David simply does not want in, regardless of sources. He'll find some excuse to diss or dismiss those valid sources anyway.. Showing NO compromise at all. I've tried. He's pot-kettle-black on this, big time.

I've done all I can to show compromise, from taking Mark's suggested wording. And then even changing that from "commonly used" to "sometimes used". Tell me. And then finding sources. One was not that good, so I got another one. And now I found two VERY good ones. Tell me. Where in any of that did I show "no compromise"?

But David keeps removing and reverting all the time, to bring it back to the original with no addition whatsoever. Tell me. Where is David showing any compromise with that? And he has the nerve to talk about "civility"? And "no compromise". That's why I made the blunt statement that I will be ignoring him, because he showed clearly that he has no real credibility on this (along with Strebe), but is blatantly dishonest on this, from start to finish. I have solid proof that I've showed BIG TIME "compromise". He said I showed none. (???) I have solid proof that David showed literally ZERO compromise. Yet he's making out like he's the cool collaborator and compromiser, when he'd been nothing of the kind. The proof is in the edits and in the talk page comments. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. It appears that more than one person has been edit warring, but Redzemp has made 12 changes since June 8 and appears to have done the most reverts. Strebe is warned that his reverts are not exempt from WP:3RR. Redzemp doesn't seem to have any support from others, so he appears to be going against consensus. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Monochrome_Monitor reported by User:Nishidani (Result: Topic ban)

Page

Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [diff 1] 01:39, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 00:59, 12 June 2016 this
2. [diff 2] 00:33, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 18:45, 11 June 2016 this
3. [diff 3] 03:34, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 03:09, 12 June 2016 this
4. [diff 4] 18:23, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 08:15, 12 June 2016 this

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [diff] Virtually the whole talk page at Talk:Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry I set out a list of the problems with this page as edited recently. There was no response from those who typically reverted.
• I asked MM specifically MM to explain what she was doing, in a later section. No response; except for an NPA warning (fair enough – I was riled that no issue raised on the talk page was being addressed;
• I asked her for a second time to address a list of issues, explained in detail – a few desultory answers as she kept editing the page, none corresponding to the problems raised; My impression at this point that she was just allowing me to work the talk page (I did few article edits, desiring some talk page consensus) while she persisted quietly in ‘fixing’ the article, so
• I opened a third section- One response from another editor, zero response from her.
• I alerted her the other day that if she were persist in this behaviour, esp. in reverting back material whose conformity with policy was noted as dubious on the talk page, that I would be forced to report her.
• The 4 diffs above followed that warning.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Notified hereNishidani (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Below MM writes:' I work hard on my edits too, just like everyone else, that's why I revert it when people revert me with little explanation why.' I challenge anyone to find the minimum justification in reality for this curious assertion. The talk page on the relevant article alone has massive, indeed tediously detailed, comments asking her to reconsider what I consider to be rash, simplistic reverting. Her response to all points is close to zero. Check the edit history. I tried to refrain from editing, when the dispute flared up: I made 14 edits from May 27, MM made over 60, all in complete disregard to the serious problems raised on the talk page. Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If an infraction has occurred, then it should be sanctioned. I think a month is due, if only because Irondome made a very gentle proposal, that would cost him much time and work, and she reacted with snippy disappointment, and used the conditional tense regarding her possible acceptance of it, because it is less 'draconian' (i.e. if she is not formally sanctioned, like every other editor for such behavior, then she'll acquiesce in 14 days off wiki). Something like a month is warranted because she does not yet appear to understand that breaching a limit, persistently pushing beyond the limits of tolerance to get one's way, is a recipe for disorder. At the same time, Simon, the sanest guide we have around here, is correct. If she can show a willingness to knuckle down to "self-discipline" by accepting a renewal of the terms of his earlier mentorship, then any penalty should be mitigated by her acceptance of those conditions.Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Well, she also just called the reporters and myself assholes. Really should be looking for a topic ban as well. Sepsis II (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I never meant to call you an asshole. I was saying the people who are overly nitpicky. I was trying to somewhat affectionately discourage your fear of being reported by saying people who would report you if it's not clear-cut are being jerks.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Oh, you too, huh? Fun. Anyway, those are four reverts, but I didn't make the same edit. That's what 3RR is about. Making the same edit multiple times. I didn't. Anyway, you haven't replied to me on that page either. It's not like I haven't replied to you, I have, I've pointed out significant flaws in your position (ie, your belief that information that doesn't mention khazars explicitly is OR except the quote you insisted on having.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll also remind you that you deleted a significant amount of references on the article because they "weren't up for debate", yet you insist on providing a false balance that they ARE up for debate.[6] Basically, your arguments contradict themselves. Just like you did with Galassi, you are reporting me because you're trying to silence debate.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, thats not what 3RR is about. Making 4 reverts of different edits is a violation of that rule. And calling people assholes because they follow the rules and expect others to do so isnt exactly expected behavior around here either. nableezy - 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That was when I thought nish and I were friends and he was above reporting me.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't just four reverts of different edits- it was four different edits. I did not make the same edits in every "reversion"--Monochrome_Monitor 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so that makes it okay to call people assholes? Kinda think a reading of WP:NPA might disabuse you of that notion. As far as the idea that because they werent the same edit it doesnt count, please read WP:EW, specifically the part in a big red box at WP:3RR where it says 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. (emphasis added) nableezy - 21:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani attacked me viciously, even leading another user to warn him on npa. Sigh. Whatever. Ignore every good edit I've ever made on the subject then, and let everyone who disagrees with me pile on. No nuance whatsoever.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This has been going on forever, and MM does not seem to learn or WP:HEAR no matter what. At this stage, after having read both this report and the one above, I no longer see any point in handing out short blocks for edit warring. It's already been discussed that Monochrome Monitor should be topic banned from anything connect to Israel, Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history and I think it's obvious the time for that is already overdue. Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is much more complex than you let on. Makeandtoss himself has been edit warring in that article, and my own reversions were repeated by multiple people.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't wikipedia about making a good encylopedia? I wish someone would talk about the actual content of my edits and not the way I made them.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Handing out an indefinite topic ban would be a bit too harsh, we can all learn from our mistakes. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Praise God. I'd never think in a million years that Nishidani would be the one accusing me and makeandtoss would defend me! It brings a tear to my eye. Anyway... my point is, reverts are supposed to be rarely used. Not just by me. But by the people I reverted. One of those was jonney reverting me because I was going "too fast", which doesn't make any sense to me.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules doesn't take context into consideration, just avoid violating 1RR/3RR (generally speaking).. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

At speed. Do you have the slightest notion that some of us spend hours, days, weeks, a lifetime closely reading up on topics, hours carefully looking at several sources we mightn't even use, to check that the one we edit in is, content-wise, reliable, only to see someone like you ignore long notes on the talk page, and barge in like a bull in a china shop to revert, and then rush to other pages, blissfully convinced that you haven't done anything thoughtless, indeed, you've set the world straight about the truth, whatever conflicting sources might say?Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciated what you said about yanover being unreliable and I also took out entine. Now it is using different sources. What more do you want from me?--Monochrome_Monitor 22:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been trying to assist MM for over a year now. There was a period of quiet, and now things appear to have rapidly deterorated, leading to a complaint from an editor who's intellectual capacity, wisdom and patience I repect beyond measure. I can only assist those want to be assisted. User Bolter21 was in a little trouble when he first began editing, we made a mentoring agreement, and now he is fine. B21 told me the topics he was working on and would ask my advice before making "difficult" edits. It worked fine. I see a fine addition to the hobby with great potential. MM is impossible to mentor at this time. I am given no indication by her on what topics she is editing, and never asks advice before causing..well..we are here in an example of clusterfuck proportions. MM this is not a game. N above said it well. An editor can work weeks on a couple of highly complex edits only to see them destroyed in as many minutes. Do you get how painful and frustrating that is? You have a huge amount to learn, in all senses. Here is my last proposal MM, obviously contingent on community consent.
• You take an immediate 2 week wikibreak.
• When returning, you submit all areas you are working on to me, on an ongoing basis
• all edits apart from grammar, etc, are to be submitted to me before making them for approval. It may take a couple of days, but if you edit without my consent I will recommend an indef topic ban. It may take a few days for me to get back to you. Tough. You are going to learn patience.
• Certain behavioural issues will be discussed off wiki.

That's all I have to say. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish you had kinder words for me. You once said "Keeping you in the project has been my only major achievement here. I am proud to have given you a measure of guidance, when things did seem critical. But you are still here and developing intellectually and emotionally and doing good work for the encyclopedia. Your honesty and directness will see you through." Of course I'd prefer your proposal to a topic ban, which is beyond draconian. But I think this is being blown massively out of proportion. I work hard on my edits too, just like everyone else, that's why I revert it when people revert me with little explanation why. I barely made any changes to the page. So little Jonney first said he didn't notice the difference. I didn't undue any complex edits, I barely even deleted content, I mostly added content. With sources. This seems to have nothing to do with my actual edits as much as it has to do with a content dispute between me and nishidani and the tension surrounding it.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a break regardless. Starting now I'm staying on the talk pages in all subjects for at least a week, with the exception of gnome mistakes that will absolutely kill me if they aren't fixed. But I wish you wouldn't throw me under the bus and renounce all ties to me when it's convenient for you.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to anyone I offended with the "asshole" bit. It had nothing to do with you sepsis other than you gave me an opportunity to vent my frustrations at breaking 1RR again. Ugh. Sorry for everything in general, I can get awfully defensive. I edit because I want to be useful to the encylopedia, I don't want to disrupt it. And as of late I have been in some areas, albeit unintentionally. There are some people I could never convince to give me the benefit of the doubt, makeandtoss really surprised me with his clemency. But I think overall I've been improving in the quality of my edits and my relationship to other editors, despite a recent downslide in the latter. So yeah, I await my judgement.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If youll allow a bit of advice, theres a simple method to avoiding things like this. If you make a change thats reverted, do not re-revert. Go to the talk page and discuss until theres a consensus for an edit, any edit, dont re-revert. Thats it, the end. Wisdom accrued over the last decade or so, crystallized and offered to you free of charge. Oh, and try not to be so snippy to people that try to help, I dont see how its at all convenient for Irondome to say what hes said right now. nableezy - 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it's not. I apologized on his talk page. I got defensive and lashed out. Being reported twice within minutes really freaked me out considering this hasn't happened for a while.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I did try. I asked jonney to look over my edits and tell me what I should change, why they weren't adopted, what was wrong with them. He said they were so similar to the statusquo that it didn't matter and that this page was good enough as is.[7] I was frustrated because no one was telling me exactly what was wrong with my edits. At the same time I remarked that the article Khazars had undue weight on the theory and several users agreed, but no progress was made. And Nishidani told me he wouldn't be talking to me anymore, which he did, so I thought a diplomatic approach out of the question.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nishidani made 3 reverts on this page during last 24 hours and 4 reverts just over 24 hours [8],[9],[10],[11]. Note exact timing of these reverts and this complaint. I think Nishidani is gaming the rules. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be showing consecutive edits, which would be one revert combined. Yes theres too much reverting all around, but you also have MM reverting while in the edit-summary counting the others reverts (eg [12]). nableezy - 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I never forgot about 3RR. I just didn't realize I broke it. I thought my edits were different enough not to constitute full reverts.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, I've called for a month sanction (it might seem harsh) because the perfervid, rampantly rapid editing there, in total insouciance to talk page discussion, indicated you'd lost all detachment. I could cite a dozen content disputes, but I'll give you just one example of what I regard as a very serious issue, quality of sourcing. It got to the point you were reverting two other editors and then reverting yourself, and then rereverting yourself within minutes, a sure enough indication that cool analysis and hard work were not there, just agitation and impatience.

In a key question regarding historicity and genetics, I introduced two leading scholars in their respective fields, Bernard Spolsky and Alexander Beider, both commenting on the Khazar-Ashkenazi issue. This is your record for removing those impeccable quality sources since 27 May, while insisting Jon Entine, who you persistently claimed was a geneticist, should have pride of place, without POV challenge, in the lead, when the talk page showed he had a BA in philosophy, a degree in journalism and is a polemical entrepreneur for agribusinesses, no where near a scholar knowledgeable in history or genetics. After some weeks of editing, and when I decided to take some measure against you, it finally emerged you had no idea whatsoever of what I had been telling you for weeks, that Spolsky and Beider were writing directly on the topic of the article- You had simply fiddled with removing or 'disappearing them' down the page without actually checking their background and their respective works.

• craaap red

Incomprehensible edit summary motivation

• johnny seems to agree speaking of the talk page. you can't decide electronic intifada is gospel but a popular science writer isn't.)

False edit summary. I have never used Electronic Intifada[[]] to source any wikipedia article.

• Reverting to version by Jonney. POV-pushing. Refusal to accept any opinion but her own.

Here I reverted you for ignoring the talk page. I put it back and it remained stable there for some time. I kept in Yanover to concede a POV I didn’t like, a compromise.

• since you dont like yanover (nor do I)

You concede that Yanover is problematic, and remove it, while

• No edit summary you introduced a new source, to strengthen the POV you're aiming for, with a link to p.5,

That source has the phrasing not on p.5 but on pp.281/4 (from memory), and it is a scholar’s opinion, badly phrased, not a fact, as presented].

• Then you shove Spolsky and Beider out of the lead and down the page.

This, as I kept arguing on the talk page, violated both WP:LEDE (summary style) and WP:NPOV, since the lead, lacking Spolsky and Beider, left the impression the other POV by Jon Entine, was unchallenged. Worse still, it showed that you had convinced yourself that the opinions of a journalist outweighed the views of leading scholars in their fields.

• wait a minute... I just realized this isn't even about khazars! it's about ashk jewish genetics in general. that's out of place. maybe put it on the article jewish genetics.)

Sudden rethink and a false edit summary. Spolsky and Beider are once more removed wholly from the article, with the spurious claim they are not commenting on the Khazars.

• I I restored this as erasing it unbalanced the lead-
• restoring sourced phrasing that one user doesn't like. you're the one who added the spolsky bit in the first place, it was never there. you inserted nuance based on your own opinions)

MM immediately confirms it now must stay out, by a revert. Meaningless edit summary. That I added Spolsky and Beider is not relevant to the merits of their being included. My attempt to balance the lead is a matter of personal opinion

• You are an inch from my using a long report to have you banned).

I gave you a formal warning you were grossly overplaying her hand, and pushing up against the limits of patience.

• (that's not a valid reason for reversion, it just serves to shut down debate. heads up if you revert this again you'll have violated 3RR)

Undaunted you removed it again, and warn me about 3R. What was esp. troublesome in that was that you understand ‘debate’ as a revert battle. You nowhere on the talk page gave any reason as to why Entine’s POV should stay in the lead, while Spolsky and Beider’s balancing comment should be removed.

• Instantaneously however you self-revert to restore them 20:13, 11 June 2016 'i still feel there's some hope that you haven't entirely shut down to me. i'll wait for tensions to simmer down'

First I'm reverted, then she self-reverts. I assumed this was partly influenced by a remark I made elsewhere that my mentoring tolerance was exhausted.

• Beider and Spolsky are chucked out again. Then an hour later you revert your self-revert, changing opinions once again. I.e. you clearly are reverting first and then thinking about the consequence only afterwards.
• (You changed a direct quote. Some of this stuff would be better in other article. Sources Eldad ha-Dani > Prester John > Matthew Paris > Giles Fletcher)

Another editor, active unlike you on the talk page, and the most even-handed there, restores Spolsky and Beider. It's 2 against one. You are alone.

• MM you need to go slower some of the small changes are find but start smaller

I.e. after you made several edits, Jonney again reverts you, telling you to slow down

• I don't know what you mean by "start smaller". that's not a legitimate reason for reverting, see WP:STATUSQUO. I work hard when I make edits. Tell me what you don't like instead of reverting it all.)

You revert him too, ignoring his friendly counsel.

• (the quote is simply too long- see WP:QUOTE) against you then rid the lead of Spolsky and Beider, putting them down the page, and shortening the quote. This once more leaves Jon Entine’s journalist POV in favour of a view you personally espouse alone in the lead, breaking NPOV. In shortening the quote without consensus you were doing a further revert.
• I brought it back to the lead saying that if her edit summary was correct, it justified shortening the quote. It did not justify her ‘hiding it’ far down the page.

Your edit summary was deceptive.

• my main objection was not the length, it was the vague way it was summarized and the fact that it's in the lede even though its relevance is only indirect, I feel it fits better in the body

IN short, you just insisted your feel for things was that you were right, and myselkf and Jonney wrong, and proceeded unilaterally to reverted the two scholars back down to the bottom. Again, in all this there is no talk page participation. You were using arguments only in edit summaries while reverting.

• this sentence was actually helpful. my main objection was not the length, it was the vague way it was summarized.) This restores Spolsky and Beider to the lead.

You suddenly change your mind again, and revert the two scholars back to the lead, reverting yourself.

• (edit summary = whoopsie) No. You change your mind again, and again.

You reverted your self revert, sending Spolsky and Beider packing, down the page again, illustrating for the nth time that you press the revert button, then starts thinking about what you’re doing, only then to reconsider and restore your original excision or down page dumping.

All of the above is evidence not of 'hard work', but of temperamental excitability, impatience, rash urgency to get your way against a consensus. What was the substance of all these changes? You want a journalist's POV to trump the informed area-familiar views of eminent scholars. That is POV-pushing, in the face of a small, but stable consensus. This is one of several reasons why I think you need a month to just reconsider your behavior, and try to learn to be a little less dramatic, and overly invested in editing Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Monochrome Monitor is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Khazars on all pages of Wikipedia, per the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. This ban may be appealed in six months. The Khazars are a hot topic and there is a risk of ethnic edit warring. The article would benefit from a climate of calm discussion in which people will use reliable sources to create a neutral account. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:64.151.2.245 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Semi)

Page

List of Girl Meets World characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

64.151.2.245 (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

[13]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is not in the letter of WP:3RR (though edit-warring is not restricted to violating 3RR), but the user in their edits [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] has insisted on making some character descriptions in the article that are broken into separate paragraphs into one paragraph, without explaining why. Warnings are on their talk page, all in this month, and user has not made any effort to discuss their change after reverted. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've re-added this report as it was prematurely archived. Unresolved. Amaury (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Thanks. User still does not get it, and continues to make unconstructive edit [19]. Still not violating the letter of 3RR given the difference in time between their edits, but nonetheless edit warring. I decided not to revert this edit for now, but having the article their way with the descriptions each in one paragraph does not improve it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. The IP has previously been blocked three times and never uses the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bender235 reported by User:Jujutsuan (Result: Declined)

Page: Omar Mateen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bender235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: this revision

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Comments:

This user has more than violated 3RR and refused to initiate a discussion per other editors' request (not me, someone else). Has been warned not to start an edit war by another editor via edit summary. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 05:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No one suggested to "initiate" a discussion. BrxBrx reverted my edits claiming that the issue in question had been addressed on the talk page already, which it had not. --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Stale – The latest diff is from June 13 and this is a very active article. If there actually was an edit war involving Bender235, it must be ancient history by now. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:NicolitoPaiva reported by User:Jbhunley (Result: Page protected)

Page

President of Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725100409 by Iridescent (talk) [[26]] << Source"
2. 15:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725098581 by Iridescent (talk)"
3. 15:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725094192 by GoodDay (talk)"
4. 14:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724971217 by GoodDay (talk)"
5. 14:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723364678 by Frenditor (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Warning given [27]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Discussion at -Talk:President of Brazil#Should we replace Dilma Roussef with Michel Temer as the incumbent president?
• Thread open at AN WP:AN#President of Brazil

Comments:

Jbh^Talk 16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Per my comments on the AN thread, as one of those he's reverted I won't take any action myself, but this is as straightforward a case of "I'm right and the sources are wrong" editwarring as I've ever seen. Per his own website, even Temer himself is scrupulous about only ever referring to himself as "acting president" or "interim president". ‑ Iridescent 16:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Page protected I protected the page earlier seeing that I couldn't just block one editor in this edit war. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've opened an Rfc at the article-in-question, on this matter. Hopefully ending this dispute, one way or the other. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Darkside Of Aquarius reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Darkside Of Aquarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "No evidence this is a "hate crime".

Crime of hate != Hate crime"

1. 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 17:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 17:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 17:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "AP now reported an Islamic motive."
5. 17:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 16:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 16:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
8. 15:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
9. 15:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
10. 13:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
11. 13:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
12. 12:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "Islamic terrorism added. The man pledged allegiance to Islamic State. It is dishonest to describe it as anything else."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Type of Shooting: Islamic Terrorism? */ new section"
2. 16:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Waiting for consensus about the motive before putting it on the infobox */"

Comments:

Repeatedly adding unsourced original research. Refuses to follow consensus to leave this material out until it can be properly sourced. - MrX 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Consensus" means nothing. The FACTS are what matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Wow. Given some time off to read Wikipedia:Consensus NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: )

Page

Loch Ness Monster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725166439 by Moriori (talk) WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE"
2. 00:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Fyunck(click) (talk) to last revision by Bloodofox. (TW)"
3. 01:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "RV: Stop with the pseudoscience. Read WP:UNDUE. Folklorists study folklore, which the loch ness monster is a prime example."
4. 02:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "No, "cryptids" are a concept in the pseudoscience of cryptozoology. In folkloristics, there's no such term—for a reason, as it's an academic field. Enough with the bullshit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Loch Ness Monster. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC) on User talk:Fyunck(click) ""

Comments:

This guy. Welp, first of all, this is the anti-climate change guy that popped up waving a flag over at the cryptozoology talk page some time ago ([28]). He's got a problem with science and academics generally, as that diff will make clear.

Next, that last diff isn't a revert but a modification of his fourth edit. He's again inserted cryptid, but this time decided that it has something to do with folkloristics (or the general concept of folklore, who knows in his case). The diff to "resolve dispute" is apparently something that doesn't even involve me.

Finally, we've got a general problem with these articles getting hijacked by cryptozoologists despite WP:UNDUE. I recommend more eyes on the article to keep the pseudoscience at bay. For that matter, the whole thing needs to be rewritten from reliable secondary sources, i.e. academics that study folklore—folklorists—publishing through peer reviewed sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• This did not start with me. It started with reverts of administrative editor @Moriori:. I asked user Bloodofox to self revert because he had reverted 4x. he refused with a "bring them around" request. So here we are. His edits on my own talk page about the subject may not cross over to outright nastiness, but they were not exactly friendly either. He does not own the article and he certainly needs to learn what edit warring is. He needs to self-revert this pronto. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nah, that fourth "revert" is me modifying your inaccurate edit, not a revert. And actually, this guy has been ignoring WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and WP:FRINGE for some time to promote cryptozoology concepts. See edits like this one ([29]) and his leaning on cryptozoology sources here: ([30]). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You had best read up on edit warring because you are wrong. You are also woefully inaccurate about my beliefs of climate change and cryptozoology, so please stop spreading lies and focus on your own poor choices. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Outside of those edits, I don't see how anyone could otherwise interpret this edit ([31]). :bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:70.161.173.99 (Result: No violation)

Page: Neoconservatism#Notable people associated with neoconservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:18, 14 June 2016
2. 00:16, 14 June 2016
3. 07:43, 12 June 2016
4. 12:34, 10 June 2016
5. 10:06, 09 June 2016
6. 12:09, 08 June 2016

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:

I have added Hillary Clinton into the section in question, and provided several reliable sources. Rjensen frequently misrepresents his reverts in the edit description, in which he frequently refers to sources as blogs which are clearly not, or outright lies about what he is reverting. In his most recent revert, he removed both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton from the section in a single edit, but in the edit description only mentioned Jeb Bush. His contributions to the discussion on the talk page seem to be merely for the purpose of presence. He argued against some of my sources because they included quotes from "political opponents", but then went on to claim that not even Hillary Clinton's opponents claimed she was a neoconservative, which contradicted his own argument. I also spent the time typing up a small paragraph explaining and justifying my use of a source, and he tried to claim that my doing so constituted original research. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Rjensen makes a credible claim of BLP concerns in any case. The use of the word "lies" must stop, or the reporting IP/account will be blocked for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

His claims of credibility aren't the concern. He is misrepresenting his edits. When he is contesting a source, he doesn't go to the talk page to discuss it, he reverts it with an unclear edit description.70.161.173.99 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you read the discussions, it was he who first accused me of politicizing the issue, and trying to project my view of the "truth" onto Wikipedia. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jujutsuan reported by User:Roscelese (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jujutsuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]
7. Previous six reversions took place in under two hours. User also made a seventh revert earlier: [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user was blocked for edit warring less than a month ago, after a generous history of warnings for edit warring and other disruptive behavior. User is therefore obviously aware of sanctions. [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a, I haven't edited this article

Comments:
I was just going to template, but why bother? The user reverted 6 times in the space of an hour and a half and has been blocked for this behavior in the past, he doesn't need to be reminded that he's edit warring. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There has finally been a discussion started on this. Now irrelevant. Isn't the policy against reverting the same thing over and over without resolution? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Laser brain (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:AmericanExpat reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Racism in South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "I had made proposals for change on the Talk page. Not my problem if you guys don't read what seems such an important matter to you."
2. 07:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725207455 by Jim1138 (talk)"
3. 07:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed citation"
4. 22:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC) uw-3rr
2. 07:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* edit warring notice */"
3. 07:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* edit warring notice */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Introduction Overhauled */"

Comments:

The editor in question has responded to warnings regarding edit warring and BRD with claims that he doesn't require consensus [[42]]

Personal attacks [[43]]

statements that if he doesn't mind if he has to get blocked to get his way [[44]]

more personal attacks [[45]]

and a response to accusations of sockpuppetry stating "Let's say I am a sock puppet account. What of it? " [[46]]

So, not only edit warring. Incivility and a general lack of respect for any rules that all editors are required to follow. WP:NOTHERE would be an apt description Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This article has been plagued with what appears to be years of inflammatory opinions, bias, bad citations and insubstantiated claims. There appears to be several editors, who perhaps have had some unpleasant personal experience, who seem bent on retaining the bad quality of writing on the article with the excuse of "consensus prevails." That is rather like the proverbial three wolves and a sheep deciding on what to eat for dinner with the consensus prevailing.

The article page will not be edited to any extent without some adversarial conflict such as this. So be it.

Yes, what if I answered accusations of sock puppetry with "what of it?" Why does the editor not actually respond to the enumerated points of concerns on that same section instead of fulminating about my "fucking" edits and accusations of sock puppetry? Was the plan to ignore my concerns and engage in vituperative exchanges to delay and thwart attempts at conforming the page to Wikipedia standards?

As stated, the editor, unprovoked, accused me of being a sock puppet and started off the acusation with the word "fucking." So the claim of personal attacks seems a bit rich.

AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional - Despite this being a new account, this editor has been editing under more than one IP in the past, so I'm assuming he is more than aware of 3RR rules. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You are ignorant on this matter and you have raised the issue so I think you shuld leave it there. I had one other IP address, which I had been using for very minor Wikipedia edits. I stumbled upon this disasterous article under the IP. I raised some concerns but it became apparent that the editors were intent on keeping the incendiary and biased tone of the article, not to mention illegitimate citations and outright inaccuracies. So I created the current account to make an official complaint with the Help desk. I freely stated there that I had made changes (under the previous IP). So this claim is ridiculous and unfounded.

AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also - 07:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed citation" is a highly deceptive edit summary. It was a mass removal of content (-2,660) with a summary of it being merely fixing a citation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There was a citation fix in addition to reverting back to my edits which instilled neutrality and objectivity to the article. I am sure anyone semi-intelligent can tell the motive was not to deceive other editors. Almost all of the citations in that introduction section were in need of removal or moving to another section.

AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has started an SPI, since this new account's edits are similar to the recently blocked sock User:Cleftetus. One of their first edits to the page was to propose renaming to Ethnic Issues in South Korea [47], the same title Cleftetus favored, complete with a capital "I". Random86 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Good call. I guess as soon as I get a moment free in my (not very busy) workday, I will be filing an SPI report as well. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I find it very amusing that this editor takes the same ("similar"?) edit suggestions on a very controversial article and presumes it must be one person making the same suggestions. I think it shows lack of judgement, curiosity and intellectual honesty.

By all means, please do file the report. AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin, please be advised there is a request for an admin oversight on this page. It really needs to be rewritten and completely overhauled. It is far below the quality standards dictated by Wikipedia. AmericanExpat (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged here by Jim1138 (thanks). I warned AmericanExpat about edit warring, but unfortunately that seems to have been ignored. Having said that, I'm not without sympathy for the editor, I myself found the tone of the article deeply disturbing and near-racist in tone. I've avoided editing it myself in case I needed to use the mop, but it really needs some serious oversight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. But, that's a content issue, and certainly no excuse for edit warring, especially when you have been warned and you combine it with a "go ahead a ban me, I don't care" attitude .If you don't like content, you follow BRD then try the vast array of options we have for discussions, resolutions and third party opinions. I might have some sympathy if he had tried every avenue and eventually got sucked into an revert war...but the account's first ever edit was a revert. [[48]] - which kinda shows he is here to revert, not discuss. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

All the more then- the SPI should be interesting! _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No. One, my first edit was not a revert. Two, there appears to have been many attempts to tone down the language on this article and you guys through "consensus" shut them all down. The last AfD was dismissed with "change the content, if need be." Did it change?

You guys have the most ridiculous and asinine statements on there. You take some stupid article, like the BLOG STORY on one black person who (along with a white person) did not get a job interview and you use that to cite for "black Americans are frequently denied jobs." What kind of joke is that?

You make claims like that the US expressed concern over "the widespread nature of racism in SK," then you link to some unpublished article by some imbecile who teaches English just because he submitted his UNPUBLISHED document on a DOE affiliate site. It wasn't even reviewed by an editor. The site is open submit to the public. But being on that website makes it "US (not even the Dept of Education but the US Sec of State or something) expressing concern over widespread racism" in a foreign country. Like the US really cares? Doesn't the US have its own problems?

Then you have some idiot who pretends to be a foreign policy expert on South Korea but who is, in fact, just a lit professor (that was his PhD). He self-publishes (wow, that's got to instill confidence) and true NK policy experts all pan his books. Yet, somehow, an OPINION EDITORIAL he wrote is a legit reference for "Koreans believe that they are the least inclined of all people to commit evil," and that's why SK didn't believe a warship sinking was perpetrated by NK. As I stated, do you not think SK witnessed horrific evil, maybe unprecedented evil, committed by the Communist North? Really? And that gives you the perfect segue into, "so Koreans denigrate foreigners by calling them filthy and unclean"?

And that is just the intro and the first paragraph of the main body. It is a disgrace. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If you don't like Korea, just don't go or live there.

I find it really curious how my Talk points have been up there nearly a week and not a peep from any of you except one to accuse me of being a sock puppet doing "fucking" edits but the minute the suggestions get implemented, all you so called so-busy people come out of the woodwork to defend complete drivel. How very curious!

AmericanExpat (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin, please note how some people in the general public do not understand that Wikipedia is an open source reference material. There is a Reddit thread discussing racism in South Korea and the OP starts, "How's racism in (south) Korea doing? Wikipedia says it's not doing so well, unless they're mistaken?" And s/he goes to link to the article in question and explains how the citations checked out. Really this article needs to be completely overhauled. It is really embarrassing. AmericanExpat (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Don't bother filing an SPI. AmericanExpat is  Unrelated to Massyparcer (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, thanks for the heads up, regarding the SPI. It saves me wasting more time on the seemingly millions of Massyparcer socks accounts, that I've had to report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Debresser (Result: )

Page: Religion in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VanEman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:02, 14 June 2016‎ [50] from [51] & [52] (& others).
2. 04:22, 14 June 2016‎ [53] from [54][55]
3. 17:36, 14 June 2016 [56] from [57] (additional consecutive reverts)
4. 22:47, 14 June 2016 [58] from [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Comments:
Please note that this report about edit warring without a 3RR violation.

I have noticed on previous occasions that VanEman is an edit warrior, who does not accept being reverted, and this is just another case. My first revert of his recent changes to the article gave detailed reasons. VanEman acknowledged implicitly in his first undo that he read them. In my second revert I stated specifically "Your edits were contested in detail. Please obtain consensus, BEFORE you repeat the edit. How many times do we have to explain this to you?!", and his subsequent undo also acknowledged implicitly that he read this, but willfully chooses to ignore the burden of proof. I am aware I have not discussed this on the talkpage, however, in view of my experience with him, and in view of the fact that he has read the edit summaries of my reverts, and refuses to obtain consensus, I see he is still not aware of the purpose of a talkpage and the importance of Wikipedia pillar of consensus. Since he has done this on previous occasions, and since I think editors like that are detrimental to the project, I am asking this noticeboard to temporarily block him, till such time as he acknowledges the need for him to proof that his edit enjoys consensus. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It was a 3RR violation - see the corrections. CaseeArt ^Talk 06:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

VanEman was warned for the same behavior recently by another editor: [61]. He was also blocked for edit warring just a few months ago. [62] And here he was for yet another case at this very same noticeboard also just a few months ago. [63] Debresser (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't dispute resolution, trying to get your another editor blocked simply so you can have the version you prefer is highly frowned upon. Sepsis II (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of all that. Why would you think that is my purpose? The requested block is to impress upon VanEman that his behavior as an edit warrior will not be tollerated, and that if he wants to make a point, it is on the talkpage that he must do so, not through edit warring. I explained this above. By the way, you did notice that it is not me who is trying to push through a change here? Debresser (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• It doesn't excuse edit-warring by VanEman, but Debresser was edit-warring himself, as evidenced by these three reverts made within nine hours: [64][65][66] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I was reverting to the consensus version against an editor whom I know from experience to be a repeated edit warrior, as I explained above. When I saw that he is not stopping, and in order to not violate 3RR, I reported him here. I explained this above, and mentioned my reverts. Let's not confuse me with the edit warrior, please. Debresser (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not do three reverts and did not violate any Wikipedia rules. No one is required to get approval from others before adding up to date and well referenced information. If someone wants to voice an objection, that's what the Talk page is for. Another editor made a significant revision to the same article---deleting unreferenced information--- and was thoughtful enough to add to the Talk page, but didn't feel the need to cover the issue in advance. Debresser simply deleted my additions without first sharing on the talk page why he had any objections. He had previously objected to excessive info on Reform and Conservative Jews, but the section I just added did not mention them at all. VanEman (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If after all your warnings and blocks you still don't know that edit warning is a behavioral problem of certain editors, you included, and not the mathematics of making 3 reverts, then you should definitely be blocked, just to give you time to read up on things (if assuming good faith) or to reconsider if you are here really to contribute or to fight edit wars (if assuming bad faith). And please review WP:BRD (mentioned on your talkpage a few times, including recently) as well, for good measure. Debresser (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this at all; however, Van, take it from someone who was blocked indefinitely from chronic edit warring—it's even in my talk page archives as I have no shame. Constantly denying that you're edit warring just causes you unnecessary stress that you don't need. It can potentially reach critical levels to the point where you just blow up and are in full-out denial mode as well as getting mad at other editors who are trying to help you. I actually encourage you to check out my talk page archives and see all of the stress it caused me. Save yourself the headache. You'll have to do more than just admit you made a mistake as you've done it multiple times now, but it's not too late to change. Show other editors that you can change and discuss edits rather than edit war any time there's a dispute in order to peacefully reach a consensus. Amaury (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Debresser did not violate 3RR. (And Debresser is not a usual warrior).

VanEman who was blocked 3 times for edit warring (and warned over 10 times by users and admins) again broke the 3RR rule by reverting four times in 9 hours:

• 04:02, 14 June 2016‎ [67] from [68] & [69] (& others).
• 04:22, 14 June 2016‎ [70] from [71][72] (VanEman already was edit warring over this edit)
• 17:36, 14 June 2016 [73] from [74] (additional consecutive reverts)
• 22:47, 14 June 2016 [75] from [76]

Not to mention that in this revert [77] he/she used a misleading and false edit summary "add Pew research info from March 2016" when really user edit warring and removing detailed info from the pew search that was added by multiple users with a talk page consensus in May [78]. CaseeArt ^Talk 06:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:AesopPeep reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

Page

Ode to Joy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Lyrics */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC) to 22:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725316855 by RolandR (talk)"
   2. 22:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725317262 by WikiPedant (talk)"
3. 22:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Lyrics */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) to 22:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Lyrics */"
   2. 22:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Lyrics */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ode to Joy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor is continuing with the same disruptive behaviour, even after being informed of this report.[79] They have now repeatedly reverted, and been reverted by, three separate editors. RolandR (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

71.217.109.105 and 79.75.109.90 reported by User:Gladamas (Result: Page protected)

Page: Galkayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 71.217.109.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — 79.75.109.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]
5. [85]
6. [86]
7. [87]
8. [88]
9. ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts: [89]

I (Gladamas) am a completely uninvolved user relating to this topic. I saw this hours-long edit war involving two anonymous editors while patrolling on Huggle, and thought it would be better to bring the issue straight here rather than to the talk page. –Gladamas^talk 13:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• Page protected Semi-protected 1 month. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: He's been blocked for breaking 1RR before.

Comments:
First revert he changes annexed to occupied, second revert he reverts another editor changing Palestine to Land of Israel.

Comment by Debresser

Wait a second. These are completely unrelated edits. Also, the second was a very tiny partial revert at best (worst). Thirdly, in view of the misleading edit summary of the the previous editor, as I mentioned specifically in my edit summary, the one word I reverted was close to a deliberate disruption. Fourthly, please notice that my edit has not been reverted, including by you, meaning that editors agree I did the right thing. Lastly, I am willing to self-revert, if an uninvolved admin here will tell me to do so.

However, in view of the above, I think that telling me to self-revert would be a futile exercise in bureaucracy, since my edit seems to be acceptable to the community and is correct in and of itself, not to mention that in just another few hours I can repeat it. In any case, I definitely had no intention to cause disruption with a 1RR violation, and as said am willing to self-revert. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser See what an admin tels you. But here is my comment: Even if you undo a ridiculous edit, or even if you undo vandalism, though there was no "edit warring" just reverting two edits - I would say that you should self revert just to show that you respect the 1RR (which could very often be mistakenly violated). You could specify in your edit summary that you are ONLY doing so out of respect to the Israeli Arab arb and request that another user should undo your edit). CaseeArt ^Talk 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, the way the 3RR/1RR rules are written, it doesn't matter whether you revert the same material or, as in this case, completely different material. It appears you have violated 1RR. Since yours was the last edit, I would recommend that you simply follow Caseeart's advice: self-revert with an edit summary that indicates you realize you violated 1RR, and wait for another editor to restore your sensible edit. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:100E:B141:37A0:1104:5BA7:5438:C3CF reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Sting (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:100E:B141:37A0:1104:5BA7:5438:C3CF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725446968 by Aloha27 (talk)"
2. 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725446831 by Aloha27 (talk)"
3. 18:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725446627 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk)"
4. 18:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725446202 by Aloha27 (talk)"
5. 18:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725445451 by Aloha27 (talk)"
6. 18:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Quack, revert."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP sock of blocked User:Who R U?   Aloha27  talk  18:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours @Aloha27: No need to add a 3RR report for a sock. Just report to WP:AIV instead for obvious socking or ask an admin who's familiar with the master. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:SheriffIsInTown (Result: )

Page: Koenraad Elst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 17:40, 14 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:28, 14 June 2016
2. 20:39, 14 June 2016
3. 15:52, 15 June 2016
4. 18:18, 15 June 2016

Comments: Seeing this edit-warring happening from the sidelines, this needs to stop admins should give a wake up call to the editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)