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:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: 1 week)

Page

Han Taiwanese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC) "Please bring it to talk, Montanabw, stop nonsense edit war. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:REDUNDANCY, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:SYN"
2. [1]
3. [2]
4. [3]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [4]
2. [5]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Taiwan Han Chinese */ add"
2. 15:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Taiwan Han Chinese */ reply"
3. 12:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC) "/* "Han Taiwanese" and "Taiwanese Hans" */ reply"
4. [6]
5. [7]

Comments:

Although not a 3RR violation, I am asking for an indefinite block for this editor who has already been blocked twice previously for edit warring on this article. The editor has no intention of understanding that discussions are important and will continue to edit war and WP:OWN their version of the article. They have been blocked twice already and I see this as a severe case of WP:IDHT. More importantly, I also see language issues and often they never reply properly to queries. This is wasting an enormous of time and I think the way forward is an indefinite block. If not an indefinite block at least the editor should be restricted to suggest changes on the talk page and not edit the article directly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am asking for an indefinite block... Why not an indef or temporary pageban? If the editwarring is on one article than it seems far less punitive to PBAN them than to indef block them. Or if preferred, a combination of both a short escalated block (say 1 week) and a PBAN (say 3 months or whatever). An indef at this point, with only a 24 hour and 48 block is an extreme punitive measure. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Based on my previous interactions with the editor, I am highly sceptical that they would adhere to a PBAN. They have done this edit warring on another page as well and considering that this has been going on for a month or more, my patience has run out. Part of the problem also seems to be English comprehension. I have tried discussing this at DR (moderated by UY Scuti, but the editor stopped responding) and also at ANI but nothing came of it --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am highly sceptical that they would adhere to a PBAN - I like to think of it another way, if they adhere to the PBAN and their other contributions are of a good caliber, then, carry on. If they fail to adhere to the PBAN, WP:ROPE at work. I'll take a look at the DR and ANI threads, my thinking may change, you never know. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• This open case was archived by the bots without a resolution, I have undone the bot's actions which resulted in several closed discussions being re-instated. I have re-archived those discussions + 1 extra finished one. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week — several editors indicate a growing consensus against Lysimachi's repeated changes. Given several blocks already, this needs to stop. --slakr^\ talk / 00:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lemongirl942 reported by User:Lysimachi (Result: declined)

Page

Han Taiwanese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:09, 23 September 2016‎
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

[link]

1. [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Comments:

The user Lemongirl942 has been editing the first sentence of the lead for one month to push the idea that Han Taiwanese are Chinese and to add the term "Taiwan Han Chinese" to the sentence. Although the user is unable to provide relevant evidence on the talk page ([17]), he repeatedly reverts the article to his version. Lysimachi (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh great! A retaliatory report now? That too with a bunch of old reverts. Do your realise that you are the one who was edit warring against multiple users now? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Content discussion irrelevant to the report
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Content Comment; Well, the Han Taiwanese article is a loaded front, just the first sentence has seventeen citations. That is extreme WP:OVERCITE and a perfect example of in-article conflict. If you have five reliable sources saying one thing and five reliable sources disagreeing with that statement, then you only need 1 or 2 of those sources to verify that there is a disagreement and apply due weight by stating both positions. Even in a 5 v 2, if the sources are reliable and is stating a opposing statement, it will suffice. There is no need for 20 citations across one sentence. Add; A quick look at Han Chinese gives me the impression that "Han", "Han people" and "Han Chinese" are the exact same thing. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC) I don't understand what overcite has to do with the current report. Regarding the equivalence of the terms, please note Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Lysimachi (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC) 1. The overcite is an observation and as I said, a comment on content not the report. 2. The RS that are cited to statements within Wikipedia are reliable sources, even if Wikipedia is not. For that matter, Taiwanese people says the exact same thing with different reliable sources as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC) I checked both pages. There is no proof that everyone thinks "Han", "Han people" and "Han Chinese" are the exact same thing, that every author uses them interchangeably in any context, or that "people" and "Chinese" are synonyms. Even if you think these are the exact same thing, could you explain why "of Han descent" in the lead sentence must be changed to "of Han Chinese descent", as Lemongirl942 repeatedly did? Lysimachi (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC) .... That is in part a disappointing response. You've built yourself a strawman and then proceeded to knock it down. I have made no such claims as those that you have presented (for clarity; "that everyone thinks" I have only said what I think). I'll take a stab at addressing the actually worthwhile question you have; could you explain why "of Han descent" in the lead sentence must be changed to "of Han Chinese descent" that depends only on the sources available. To me it does not appear that a distinction between Han descent and Han Chinese descent exists, they are synonymous. I would find it relatively unusual for a Han not to be of ethnic Chinese descent (that does not mean they are or identify as being Chinese) given that the Han people is a reference to the Han Dynasty of China. Where else could the Han Taiwanese come from but China? it sounds to me so similar to Australians - where else could they have originally come from but the United Kingdom? Mr rnddude (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

What also concerns me is the user's behavior of removing large amounts of text ([18]) without first discussing it or tagging the problems. It seems that he was only trying to prove his point. He even removed the same text again after additional references explicitly mentioning Han Taiwanese were added ([19]). His additional edits include removing sourced text, without first discussion ([20], [21]), based on peer-reviewed studies that explicitly mention Han Taiwanese. It seems all his edits on Han Taiwanese are adding "Chinese" to the lead, demonstrating he has a point, or removing texts he doesn't like, instead of really trying to improve the article. Lysimachi (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

[[22]] is getting close to breaching civility rules. Either way, it all seems very silly. (like most nationalistic disputes on Wikipedia) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this was uncivil. Redacted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Good work. It takes far more class to accept a mistake than to make an excuse. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• The reporter needs a WP:BOOMERANG for tendentious editing and edit-warring. This is another POV-pushing editor who is inappropriately pushing a nationalistic agenda. He has been WP:BAITing Lemongirl942 for days. He has been told repeatedly to stop edit-warring, but continues to argue minutae and push the issue. What I am seeing is a bad case of WP:OWNership and a bad case of using mockery and imitation—anything a user does to caution this person, he will promptly to do them. Not good Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Declined — if anything, the axe is going to drop on the reporter. --slakr^\ talk / 00:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Therealjuice215 reported by User:RunnyAmiga (Result: Blocked)

Page: Major Key (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therealjuice215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

This user has repeatedly insisted on capitalizing second words in section headers (that's wrong here; see MOS:HEADERS) while replacing the accurate word "favorable" in the "generally favorable reviews" text from Metacritic with the false word "mixed." It's beyond my comprehension why boilerplate edit summaries are permitted for mobile edits, but because this truly awful idea is our reality, pretty much every edit has been summarized with the lying text "Fixed typo." This user has never responded to several attempts to engage in discussion over this, instead reverting User:Xboxmanwar and myself with the predictable, dishonest explanation. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Signal boost

Trying to keep the archiving bot at bay. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for long-term warring. During September they reverted about twenty times at Major Key (album). User has a bee in their bonnet about capitalization of the second word in section headers. Since there is no reply to warnings and no negotiation, it's hard to tell if this will ever stop. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

For Goodness Sake

What a shame that a User was blocked for simply capitalising heading letters! Wikipedia has really gone too far to allow such blocking. If capitalisation was really that important, somebody would have written a bot to automatically standardise capitalisation of all headers.

I advocate apologising to the blocked User for inappropriately limiting their activities for such minor indiscretion as use of Upper Case. It really does seem trivial. One wonders whose bonnet really has the bee in it.

Style notes: some typists only use Upper Case for the first letter of a heading because that is more time efficient for them than pressing the shift key for the first letter of every word. Longer headings also tend to read more naturally written in sentence style. However these typographic purists, which include many of us, needn't think themselves better than anyone else less sensible.

Whatever the idiosyncrasies of deviant capitalists, we must ask ourselves if they ought be treated so harshly by a community once focussed on creating shared content. Using upper case in such reported instance would seem hardly worth a blockage, if that is all they did.

Good grief, I've seen people who write with Caps Lock on all the time and it doesn't bother me a bit! Contrary to popular myth some such folk aren't necessarily "shouting" or even trying to be disruptive, in some situations they're either blind or comics or manually inept and keep pressing Caps Lock by mistake. I know one elderly typist who used Caps because he was too short-sighted to read lower case easily. Such sillyness ought make us smile, instead of becoming miserably punitive to weaker typographists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly impressed that you took the time to type all this out, and I'm glad you managed to save your edit before you got blocked for edit warring. Your effort here won't change anybody's mind because you're a barking lunatic but hey, thanks anyways. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga - You should probably strike that out per NPA, I was dragged to ANI last year for simply telling someone to go to their nearest optician so it's probably not a good idea to give someone a reason to drag you there too :). –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I seriously did think twice about posting it; of course, the hesitation came right after I saved changes. And I don't know. I still kind of like it. Because flippant tone aside, I was sincerely annoyed that I'd spent any time of my life at all reading that. Had this person not gotten blocked for edit warring, they might have gotten it for socking or vandalism, if all those walls of text count as vandalism. So I'll make you a deal: I'll keep it, and if the worst-case scenario comes to pass and I end up eating a wheelbarrow full of shit, I'll remind you to tell me that you told me so. Because you're right: it's a very real possibility that I'll be sorry I did any of this. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga - Your choice, I just didn't want you giving them a reason that was all but hey it seems you're well prepared anyway lol, Anyways happy editing :) –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Arianewiki1 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: No action, diplomacy suggested)

Page

List of brightest stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740881056 by Tarl N. (talk) Removing this leaves the quoted variable star magnitudes unexplained. The proviso already formally says "not perfectly defined for the following reasons.""
2. 21:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC) "Commonsense does not need to be referenced. It is either maximum brightness or an averaged maxima, as proven on the talk page.."
3. 04:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC) "I've proven this true in the Talk page. Refute the logic, as it is commonsense."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC) "/* List of brightest stars */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I'm not quite sure how to handle this case. It's six reverts in ten days, not exactly WP:3RR, but the increasingly shrill statements that either he's "proven it" or that it's commonsense so needs no citation are irritating.

Presumably the statement that he's proven it on the talk page refers to the section Talk:List_of_brightest_stars#Given_Magnitudes_of_Variable_Stars which hasn't been edited in 14 months.

I may be the wrong person to get involved here, I've butted heads with this editor before (as you'll see in the above section and others), as has User:Lithopsian, so an external viewpoint would be helpful. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do feel I am being deliberately targeted in editing this page (and a few other pages.) Lithopsian has refused to engage with any discussion with me. I.e. States "And I'll say it one last time, stay off my talk page."[30] They refuse to engage is discussion on talk pages, gaining consensus and refuses to offer anything is solving the actual problem. I.e. Such issues also appear at Talk: V399 Carinae [31] As User:Coffee has said: "@Arianewiki1: I spoke with Lithopsian regarding this matter, and they have refused to speak with you further. In lieu of me fully protecting this article, I request that you take this to WP:ANI and lodge your complaint there." [32] (I have not acted on this.)

So how do I gain the formal engagement to make edits here?

As for this particular page and the questionable edits were discussed in length under 'Given Magnitudes of Variable Stars' Talk:List of brightest stars starting here[33] in July 2015, with Lithopsian unable to support any argument to support his contention my statements are/were wrong.

IMO, requesting some citation for this text is unnecessary because the text given is only a guide for users using this table to avoid contentions with non-specialised readers and editors. (It is why I added this originally text.) The proviso of this article clearly states "Any exact order of the visual brightness of stars is not perfectly defined for the following reasons:" Methodology often depends on the researcher and the available data being used, but the principles are fairly simple defined to satisfy most. Lithopsian falsely accuses of 'personal research', even though I cite examples within the Talk page and NOT the article.

My support for including the contentious edit was explained as follows: "Betelgeuse, as exampled here has the magnitude of +0.42, whose range of variability is +0.2 to +1.2 - a range of 1.0 magnitudes over a main period of 5.7 years. If the quoted value in the table is the 'average', then the magnitude quoted should be +0.7 not +0.42. If you look at the AAVSO light curve displayed on the Betelgeuse page under the heading "Recent studies", the line draw through the peaks of the maxima, find the magnitude of +0.42. At +0.7, being the alleged average, the number of points below a line through +0.7 is about 15%-20% - showing clearly this is not an average value."

The actual table in the article now says "0.50 (0.2 - 1.2var)". (I didn't add this.) This very close to the value of +0.42, which is the average maximum brightness determined over many cycles. The text in question explains how this is derived in just in simple terms. (Note the average magnitude is not +0.7, derived as the average of +0.2 and +1.2, as explained in the article note too.)

As for deeper knowledge on magnitudes, User:Tarlneustaedter / User:Tarl N. [[34]] has already been explained by me some of these issues (which are not very straightforward.) The reverting of this edit seems a bit unfair within this context, especially in light of my own expertise on variable star analysis determining periods and behaviour of light curves using Fourier analysis software. In light of this, this current revert of this edit seems perplexing, especially not explaining the revert but instead just begins blaming/targeting the editor.

User:Tarl N. only complaint here is that the text is uncited, even though I've explained exactly why.

I have already tried to improve this text further[35], and will try to formally cite it.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• I should have also said that a preexisting discussion on brightness and averages appears on Betelgeuse#Variability, showing the text here is not contentious at all. Note: Although not really necessary, I have just added a citation on this issue, which can be reviewed and verified here.[36] Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not strictly broken WP:3RR here, so this complaint becomes immediately invalid.

Furthermore, the statement by User:Tarl N. in a WP:ANI stating "...increasingly shrill statements that either he's "proven it" or that it's commonsense so needs no citation are irritating." are neither objective nor extends to edits follow WP:GF nor, incidentally, have they follow the rules in reporting WP:3RR incidents. I request that either these be directly withdrawn here or possible sanctions instead be used towards User:Tarl N. for ignoring them.

Lastly, the words "Presumably the statement that he's proven" is sexist, and should be expressed as neutral gender. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This section isn't/wasn't the place to debate the merits of the particular edit, that belonged on the article's talk page six reverts ago. The complaint was filed due to your edit warring behaviour, and in particular your contempt for the possibility of administrative sanctions (User talk:Arianewiki1#List_of_brightest_stars_2). I mention above that I may not be the best person to be involved, because of previous run-ins with you, which is why I brought this here - someone more objective needs to address the issues. Tarl N. (discuss) 13:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Saying "...and in particular your contempt for the possibility of administrative sanctions." is plainly silly. You must prove beyond doubt that there is a violation of the WP:3RR rule and show that attempts has just been made to gain consensus or discuss the issues on the Talk page. The dispute IMO is basically saying that the statements need to be cited, which is not the case. The text in question has been written to explain the order of stars by brightness, but the problem is there is no absolute way of defining it as the data can be interpreted in different ways. I.e. There is no "right' answer. My 'contempt' is your arguments for a complaint is quite feeble and weak, especially is that you've made not attempt to prove the argument in the Talk page.

So far, your arguments fail because you have not proven the case towards Edit warring, and it seems that the administrators looking at the evidence concur. What is questionable here is the motives behind the complaint, which from your response here, is now attacking an editor and not the complaint. Frankly, you own words do look more like a personal attack or payback for some past indiscretion rather than address the problem. I.e. By saying: "...because of previous run-ins with you, which is why I brought this here" clearly display the desire for WP:PA rather than the specific problems of WP:3RR. Furthermore this revert by you [37] was clearly made for other reasons, because I have made significant efforts to explain my point of view and have explained why it is very difficult to maintain a definitive list by magnitude. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action. There isn't a 3RR violation, but User:Arianewiki1 is surely capable of editing more diplomatically than is shown here. You've been blocked twice before for edit warring, once for a week. Since you appear to be a real content contributor, it's in your interest to be more harmonious. As another editor told you last June, "Please, take the warning about your confrontational manner to heart, as some editors may not want to work with you". EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User:212.253.112.184 (reported by User:Mewtwowimmer) (Result: Semi)

Page

Dubbing (filmmaking) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism."
2. 16:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC) "Did you bother to read the sources?"
3. 18:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "The sources for the old Hungarian page were for Romania"
4. 07:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC) "Restoring the Romanian section, which was changed to "Hungarian" in July by a vandal. (5.46.136.193) I am writing a true section for Hungarian because Romania does not dub adult movies."
5. 17:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "The Iszdb.hu has dubbing information on mature and children's movies."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Several anonymous IP's, including 212.253.112.184, 212.253.112.8, 212.253.112.232, 84.117.92.217, 5.46.129.62, 5.46.177.38, and 5.46.136.193, are repeatedly replacing references to Hungary with Romania and vice versa, without even paying attention to the sources cited. I added a few more sources to confirm that Hungary does, indeed, dub most adult films and series, but these IP's keep removing the sources from the section, including a long-standing map of Europe. Furthermore, the change from Hungarian to Romanian dates back to July 10, 2016, when 5.46.136.193 changed the country names around. In August 2016, User:Polemicista also confirmed that Romania strictly uses subtitles (not dubbing), but their edits were later removed by the IP's.

On the talk page for this article, I explained that according to Graph QA11 on the Eurobarometer (which is cited in the article itself), 62% of Romanians would watch foreign shows subtitled compared to 15% of Hungarians. 84% of Hungarians said that they prefer dubbing.

I added a hidden header in the sections for Hungary and Romania, warning the IP's to not switch the country names around, because that would conflict with the sources provided. I am starting to get very annoyed with these IP's removing factual sources, and would highly suggest a range block on 212.253.112.X. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Status update: 212.253.112.184 removed one of my messages from their talk page for no reason. I have pinpointed the vandal's city to Bagcilar, Turkey. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I noted your complaint here by accident. Mewtwowimmer you should be careful when pointing out other Users for WP:OUTING and WP:PRIVACY, which can be construed as harassment. Whilst your complaints might be justified, you yourself could be sanctioned for such behaviour. If the issue is WP:3RR, then stick to that argument and try not to stray to far from it. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. If this information about dubbing is important enough to include it is important enough to source properly. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Prcc27 reported by User:Sparkie82 (Result: )

Page: United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prcc27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with other editors

-- Edits add candidates to the infobox which do not meet agreed-to criteria --

NOTE TO ADMIN's: There is an IP (198.84.229.179) who is vandalizing the talk page. He made changes on 9/17 and again on 9/26. Please be aware that if you read the discussion today (9/26) after he make his edits, the thread was corrupted. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User Ramires451 is also vandalizing the talk page. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Before candidates began to be added by Prcc7: [38]

(Note: There is a constant noise-level of drive-bys adding their favorite candidates to the infobox, but Prcc7 is a persistent case.)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39] Prcc7 adds a candidate

(Note: I reverted that 9/5 edit and it was put back in. Then we went to the talk page, discussed it for a couple of weeks with no consensus for Prcc7 edit, so I reverted it on 9/22. Then...

1. [40] candidate added
2. [41] another candidate added
3. [42] revert again

other reverts by by Prcc7 during the September discussion:

1. [43]
2. [44]

06:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC) - And the war continues...

1. [45] (this editor may not have known about the edit war/discussion - this is her first recent edit there and she started a new, duplicate discussion thread)
2. [46]
3. [47]

10:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)...

1. [48]
2. [49]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Infobox_inclusion.2C_again

Comments:
There is a long standing criterion for inclusion of candidates in the infobox of presidential election articles. Prcc27 has been trying to add a candidate that does not meet that criteria. We have discussed it at length. Prcc7 believes that write-in candidates should be included, but that is not the agreed-to criterion. I have asked Prcc27 to open a RfC if s/he would like to change the established criterion, but s/he continues to rv and argue for inclusion of write-ins without any consensus for that (although s/he contines to claim that there is a consensus for her edits). (Note: I don't get into many disputes so I'm not familiar with this form. Please excuse any mistakes in this submission.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 12:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• An RfC isn't necessary for every dispute on a talk page, especially when many users were discussing it already and it has been discussed in the past. In the 2012 article candidates with sufficient write-in access were included. A month ago there was consensus to continue doing what we did in 2012 which was to include write-in access. Then this month that consensus was challenged but so far Sparkie82's viewpoint hasn't gained consensus. Please note that many of the links that they provided were not my reverts but rather edits by other people. Furthermore, my reverts were done several days apart from each other. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not the venue for discussing this, but for the record, the 38-hour-long, late August thread you cited above (consensus) did not gain the consensus you claim and on the same day of that discusion an edit was made to add your candidate to the infobox and was immediately reverted here and discussion of the issue continued (and continues) in the more extended discussion I cited above ([50]), which shows there is not consensus for changing the criterion to add the candidate you want. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Sparkie82: None of us violated WP:1RR. A dispute resolution is probably more appropriate than trying to get us blocked. And it will more likely result in us resolving the issue at hand. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Just to be clear, my edit at 08:49, 25 September 2016 has nothing to do with the dispute over the template. Someone boldly added this photo (which has been requested for deletion) and I reverted it per WP:BRD. I don't know why that edit is included in this report. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)‎ For whatever reason, one of the links basically just shows whatever the most recent edit at the article is. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That link was mistakenly added as a diff to current, rather than an incremental diff. I fixed it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Four (so far) users from Swedish Wikipedia reported by User:SergeWoodzing (Result: Filer warned)

Page: Prince Bernadotte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Four (so far) users from Swedish Wikipedia working together: User:Adville, User:Elzo 90 (defending the reverts), User:Dnm & User:Le Lapin Vert

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]
5. [56]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Prince Bernadotte#Source: Princes and Princesses Bernadotte in Luxembourg's Nobility

Comments:
Four users from Swedish Wikipedia are acting as a group and reverting information which I believe should be discussed by editors who are uninvolved in personalized disputes between all 4 of them, on one side, and me, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:SergeWoodzing is warned not to keep restoring material from an apparently self-published website at http://ristesson.tribalpages.com to Wikipedia articles unless he gets consensus that it's a reliable source for this use, for example at WP:RSN. In the case of the Prince Bernadotte article, he is conducting an edit war over what appears to be a minor tweak in a coat of arms that was conferred in 1951. Unclear why this is such a weighty issue that it's worth getting into an edit war for. There is also a discussion at Talk:Prince Bernadotte where it looks to me that Serge is overusing primary sources. The indefinite block of Serge Woodzing on the Swedish Wikipedia was concluded on 16 September per a thread at sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer om administrationen av Wikipedia/SergeWoodzing (you can use Google Translate). EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your neutral input! I was hoping to find some understanding in this forum for my surprise at two editors coming to English Wikipedia only to revert something without using an article's talk page, no matter how badly I may have behaved myself.

Of course I will abide by consensus. I always do. I cannot see that consensus has been reached yet, but if it is, and the finding is that the citing of the Ristesson paper is inappropriate, that will be OK by me.

What has happened to me at Swedish Wikipedia and why, if relevant here (?), is much too complicated to go into on this page. Suffice to say that Swedish Wikipedia greatly differs from English Wikipedia in all aspects which facilitate conflict resolution here.

I have addressed your question about the little arms issue's importance on the article's talk page. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User:NVG13DAO reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Blocked)

Page: JT LeRoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NVG13DAO (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. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]

and numerous earlier ones, and now two more since this report was first made:

1. [61]
2. [62].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64], also at WP:THQ, [65]

Comments:
Edits have repeatedly added the same unsourced material, and most have also removed sourced text. Editor has claimed sockpuppetry on behalf of other editors, but has not presented evidence thereof. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour continues next day with the removal of cited material after warnings given. Attempts to add uncited info with the rationale "if information awaits a citation, that does not mean information is incorrect". I'm seeing this as a COI issue and have expressed that concern on his/her talk page.   Aloha27  talk  14:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The evidence of sock puppetry is there in the under the page's View History -- the same self-promoting vanity additions in the same language, throughout January and recurring now. This is not a war, it's a siege -- someone wants to use this entry for their own self-promotion and to further their own agenda, rather than present impartial and relevant information, and that must not happen.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. User:NVG13DAO is critical of material added by User:Msturm 8 while making unsourced additions of his own, regarding another film about JT LeRoy that said to be just released. He also deletes references to the NY Times for no apparent reason. This happens over and over. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Tarl N. in association with User:3primetime3 reported by User:103.9.40.129 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Anschluss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• Tarl N. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (3x reversions one after another) and
• 3primetime3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(change of user account for 4th consecutive reversion).

Previous version reverted to: [66].

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:

Noted edit history of User Tarl N. shows they have a habit of removing viable content from others by making reverts to previous versions. User seems disinterested in collaborating with others to improve content.

User made no attempt to provide own content in the case above, and simply reverted without contributing new or re-written content. User made no suggestions via talk to improve existing new content before reverting it, in this instance. User never discussed content before reverting it.

User shows no instinctive initiative for discussing and creating content, and tends to rely on Wikipedia "lawyering" to excuse their essentially disruptive and unproductive behaviours. Shows no tolerance for the contributions of others. Apparent lack of empathy. Shows no good faith in edits from others. Exhibits a disparaging point of view about edits made by an "IP" contributor. Uses terms such as "idiocy" to describe another contributor, exhibiting a limited capacity for making any effort to understand or work with others.

User seems generally uninterested in providing counterbalancing information in articles where content might involve complex histories or accounts from a variety of sources. User seems to favour censorship over collaborating to provide a greater range of information, and appears opposed to increasing understanding or facilitating understanding by sharing knowledge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me also point out that the anon did not listen to any of the warnings left by Tarl and Favonian on his page and deleted them. Both Tarl and I have also discussed the edit in great length on both his page, my page, and the anon's page about the edits by the fact his edits violate WP:NPOV, yet the user continue mentioning that it's 100% correct information.

Let's go over the dubious claims that the anon created:

"User made no attempt to provide own content in the case above, and simply reverted without contributing new or re-written content." I may be wrong here, but isn't it okay to revert edits if they are published incorrectly? This isn't required of an editor.

"User seems disinterested in collaborating with others to improve content." Incorrect, see here, here, and here. Tarl has responded all of them with valid reasons to the reverts, yet the user continues to state otherwise.

"Exhibits a disparaging point of view about edits made by an "IP" contributor. Uses terms such as "idiocy" to describe another contributor, exhibiting a limited capacity for making any effort to understand or work with others." He did this because of your edits here and here. You simply copied the warning onto his talk page and tampered with signatures. He's also not calling you an "idiot", but rather the actions.

"Exhibits a disparaging point of view about edits made by an "IP" contributor." I have yet to see this.

"User seems to favour censorship over collaborating to provide a greater range of information, and appears opposed to increasing understanding or facilitating understanding by sharing knowledge." Besides the false warning left by the anon, Tarl has never ignored any messages about this matter. I have yet to find an instance of when he censors your post.

This has been beautifully written, until you realize that there's actually no backbone in evidence with this. You've also never left Template:An3-notice onto either of our walls to notify us about this. How nice of you.

-Primetime (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

In careful thought;

• please consider that "the anon" (being a freelance IP contributor disparagingly referred to by User 3primetime3 in this instance) did clearly heed the "edit warring" antics of User Tarl N. and User 3primetime3 and so took up their challenge in reporting them here.

• The reported user's Primetime reply on this page is clearly partisan and deliberately misrepresentative. They fail to address any of the other users whose contributions User Tarl N. disruptively removed through reversion, as can be seen in a quick perusal of Tarl N.'s user history.

• User Tarl N. has no valid reason for removing content by reversion, other than an apparently intolerant temperament and propensity for "edit warring" by insisting on reverting valid content contributed by many other users.

• There are more constructive ways to improve content provided in good faith than removal, including adding citation and or providing counterbalancing (cited) material. In this instance User Tarl N. could have discussed such content in well considered talk statements before initial reversion, but didn't. The user could have set an example by rewriting the content in a style they preferred, but failed to do that as well.

• In good faith it would be fitting to remind User Tarl N. and their accomplice accounts to exercise more empathy and compassion. Or to encourage them to collaborate productively with others on challenging topics. On the other hand, if such users as these have in the past (as shown in previous reports on this page at time of writing) asked for others to be blocked or banned for reverting content then perhaps such action should be taken against themselves.

• Neither User Tarl N. nor any contributions made under the account 3primetime3 were of any "great length" in this matter, contrary to User Primetime's misleading and inaccurate claim that they were. They preferred instead to revert edits and paste "boiler-plate" copy onto talk pages. It would seem fitting to treat this matter without much waste of time in response, considering their own efficient approach in dispensing with much talk previously. Investigate their accounts (and permanently ban them for often disruptively reverting the content of a number of good faith contributors), or if time constrains then simply give them all a cooling off suspension period of a week or two in view of their plainly disruptive techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Extensive back-and-forth on talk pages on this case (mine and the IPs), you'll see a fair amount of it in the history for User talk:103.9.40.129. Including a warning by @User:Favonian for edit warring, after the IP had deleted my previous warning and copied it to my talk page. On my talk page history, you'll see where the 3RR warning was precisely copied, making it look like I had warned myself. Until SineBot came by, forcing the IP to fix up the signatures. Truly amazing. May I suggest that since Favonian has already touched this case, perhaps that's the right administrator to close it? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I should note that another edit war is brewing at History of Vienna, see here. I wonder if this complaint is going to be amended to include @User:Green Cardamom as another sock of me. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

We both have green names. Clearly a matching sock. -- GreenC 03:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – Filing IP blocked 48 hours. He is the only one to break 3RR in this dispute. The IP's additions at Anschluss certainly look to be original research, and he is warring to keep his changes in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:ŠJů reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "the relevant text restored and extended by sources"
2. 18:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741149245 by Khajidha (talk) - my god, there are basic facts!"
3. 18:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741149003 by Khajidha (talk), a vandalism"
4. 18:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741148274 by Khajidha (talk), Bohemia was never a "region" nor a "province""
5. 18:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741147146 by Chris troutman (talk), Bohemia was never a "region" but is a land"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bohemia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Before you start edit warring */ new section"
2. 18:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Before you start edit warring */ I recommend you take some time off Wikipedia, today."
3. 21:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Before you start edit warring */ asking for a second opinion"

Comments:

I'm not fluent in Czech and the only Czech I know on Wikipedia recommended I file a report. This is a content issue but ŠJů has passed three reverts in 24hrs and the responses I'm getting are partisan claptrap, not a discussion of source material. I don't know if ŠJů is a good-faith contributor or not but we can't be edit warring, regardless. Also note I've already returned the page to status quo ante once today and don't intend to do so again. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Regrettably, the edit war was caused by two users who have zero knowledge about the item and zero capability and will to judge substance of the edits, but have no restraints for absolutelly nonsense allegation of me from "POV" or some "partisan" actions. How to discuss with editors who have no knowledges and no serious objections and make nonsense reverts to the version with errors and defects?

Yes, maybe I (and not only I?) violated the 3RR rule, from the helplessness from the situation, but I also completed the requested sources to my edits (paradoxically, just nothing previous in the poor article have its sources). Both of the two edit wariors can do similarly and find sources and verify the facts they doubt and don't know. However, they seem prefer assaults, fights and conflicts above the constructive work. I don't prefer to waste my (and your) time in meaningless personal allegations and defends. Who is able to improve the articles, let do so. Who is not able nor willing, let himself not bother editors and damage articles. --ŠJů (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

As a non-partisan observer may I suggest both users take some time away from Wikipedia and be prepared to make up and be friends on return. If the only reason for your difference of opinion is whether Bohemia should be named a province or region or a land, then count yourselves lucky and preserve yourselves and Bohemia in good faith by having a rest.

Your situation could be resolved on return by agreeing to acknowledge all three terms might be reasonably applied. Each User in this instance could agree to provide cited arguments in favour of each disputed term and include all these in the article, under a minor sub-heading named "Academic discussion on the status of Bohemia" (or such similar title).

Please, be open to understanding others. Explore your semantic differences by sharing and agreeing to publish cited descriptions for each phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My edit contained more repairs of inacuracies and addings of missing detail information. However, they were reverted en bloc. Of course, I can resign to quality of the article and go back away from whichever vandal, ignorant etc. The world will not crash from some small nonsenses and errors in one Wikipedia article. However, I nevertheless feel some liability. Theree's nothing for discussion on the facts that Czech lands are lands and the Czech constitution mentioned them etc. There is no real controversy in the whole edit. Only there appears two editors who like conflicts, and one of them who love to create assualt pages as this one with precisely cited diffs etc. I would like to not support this his hobby and not to waste time on it. --ŠJů (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a valid discussion. "A land" really does express the romanticism of Bohemia quite well. To some English speakers the words "region" and "province" could evoke red tape and modern bureaucratic divisions on maps, whereas people from other parts of the world might read "region" or "province" in ancient tribal or more loosely territorial terms. "A land" evokes an un-possessed natural landscape, beyond anything that might be expected in a Kingdom and a precursor to Crown land concepts. These terms together construct a historical picture in changing semantics and attitudes to property. Perhaps it is a good idea, in the age of the internet, to remind readers that "lands" really do exist outside story books and that such fairy tale concepts are founded in ancient concepts of real estate and relative environmental freedom. Be interesting to see what happens to the article. In any case I do like the phrase "a land", it is still used by folk such as us and surely there must be other citable evidence for it in oral as well as paper history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dbdb reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]
4. [77]
5. [78] 5th revert in same time frame added at 02:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Talk:Barrel_bomb#Barrel_bomb_as_propaganda

Comments:

Dbdb has now engaged on the talk page, but continues to revert to desired version. Meters (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the page's edit history, Dbdb was concerned about the removal of an entire section. It seems the section just disappeared without any attempt from the removalist to re-write or refine the section. Why not leave the section up for now, when it covers a matter relevant to the topic?

To resolve the situation, have a think about what worries you in the section you wished to remove. Then try re-writing a draft in a style you can cope with, before suggesting your version to the creator on a talk page. Facilitate quality publication covering the theme or meme discussed in the removed section. It is contemporary and appropriate for internet editors to discuss memes associated with Wikipedia topics.

Take the pressure off yourselves by letting the section be. It is a valid contribution, if hastily drafted. Think about ways to strengthen the content instead of just removing it.

Be brave: nobly make peace and help the other editor find more citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If the IP who suddenly showed up today had actually looked at the history he or she would have seen that I was not involved in the edit war. I made one minor removal of a direct quote that was not cited. Other editors have been removing the bulk of the material. I simply raised a 3RR report on a clear violation of 3RR. In fact, Dbdb has now added the material 6 times and is at at 5RR [80] in 14 hours. This addition is contested and is under discussion on the talk page. It's up to the editor attempting to add it to get consensus from other editors that it is appropriate for the article and properly sourced. It should remain out until that happens. I will restore the original state of the article pending talk page consensus and this 3RR investigation. Meters (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If the User who claims he was "not involved" was really not involved, then such user would never have involved themselves in removing content or reporting the incident. In any case, User Meters who claims he was "not involved" has clearly removed content under the guise of "undoing" and ought be admonished for misrepresenting such involvement.

User Meters (of socks, as their user page would suggest) might improve relations if he considered how to work diplomatically and supportively with conscientious restorers, whoever such persons may be, before reporting them or instead of engaging in sock puppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I clearly and correctly stated the extent of my involvement in that section of the article up to the time I made the above post, and I clearly stated why I was going to restore the article to its pre-edit war state. Accusing me of socking with no evidence is a personal attack. Please remove it. Meters (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days. Is it possible that User:Dbdb and the IP who posted above could be the same person? The encouragement to 'nobly make peace' doesn't fit well with a pattern of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the IP is all over this page in multiple discussions, plus being investigated for a separate edit warring incident. And calling everyone a sock (quack quack). -- GreenC 13:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I got Oshwah's attention on IRC, and he's semi-protected the page for a week. Dbdb seems to have attempted block evasion using two similar (but different) IPs: 86.187.164.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 86.187.160.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Neither are currently blocked. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dbdb Meters (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:TimothyHorrigan reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 23:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Discretionary sanctions - 1RR violation */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Some or Many */ new section"

Comments:

The article is under 1RR restrictions, which TimothyHorrigan apparently considers bogus. Since September 14, this editor has repeatedly added the same content to the lead against repeated objections from other editors (also a violation of the discretionary sanctions restriction prominently advertised in an edit notice), while bypassing discussion on the talk page. In this diff (his third revert in 24 hours), he changes content contrary to the outcome of a recent RfC.- MrX 00:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well this is really unsurprising. It is a good idea to expect such page will be controversial at the moment. Suggestion: don't bother edit warring it, who in current circumstances would believe anything published on the page either way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• The user does not appear to have been warned before they made their 2nd and 3rd revert: that said, there is a whopping notice about 1RR on the article itself, that this user could hardly have failed to notice. Since this is a slow-moving edit-war, I believe it will resume soon enough, and so I'm inclined to block here. If no other admin weighs in in the next few hours, I will go ahead and block. Vanamonde (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Vanamonde (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:74.76.67.208 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Semi, Block)

Page

Dillard's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC) "It is clearly a secondary source. On top of it the original sources are more than sufficiant. Either actually read the article or take to the talk page why this fact should not be included."
2. 22:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "You can deny the truth all you want Steve but I have never been wrong. College research institutions are one of the most reliable sources you can have. Please get the help you need Steve."
3. 22:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "Sources are hard evidence and clear as day."
4. 18:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "Sorry but here's more hard evidence. You clearly did not read the article. Undid revision 741132220 by Stevietheman (talk)"
5. 15:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "You have no idea what you're talking about. There was clearly already a source and I directed you to it. Have several seats."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jenimcphersoncow Bahooka (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Also, the IP has been blocked two months per the WP:SPI complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User: User:MarnetteD (Result: declined, no vio)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Apologies for everyone on this page if I am doing things incorrectly I am very new to wikipedia and overwhelmed with the process of trying to engage in a dispute resolution. And I think I need administrator intervention to help. I have just created an account yesterday. I did this for the purpose of improving the standards of several marxist related topics. However, I'm faced with a lot of trouble with one user in particular. I may be in the wrong on the process so I apologize. User:MarnetteD is engaged in edit warring with myself.

I have posted my concerns on his talk page but he continued to delete them, not respond. I have posted a notification on his talk page about reporting him here, he has deleted it. I have created a talk page on the Leninism topic to help mediate a discussion, he has ignored it and continues to revert any changes I have made without any mention of the merits of the edits. I'm relatively new to wikipedia and I spent a lot of time last night trying to improve the Leninism articles according to Wikipedia standards. Can someone please direct me where things are going wrong or is this user engaged in a malicious reversion? He has reverted the edits numerous times and the page is categorized as a start article. Requesting for bold edits, but I cannot do anything because this user continues to twart every edit.

I hope someone can help direct me on mistakes in the process.CrisisSandwich (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note: a) This report is malformed. b) I have only made two edits in relation to this persons removal of content from the article c) I have taken part in the discussion on the article talk page and d) the new account was created because the IP 2607:FEA8:DE0:A93:31B3:3911:934B:CF95 (talk · contribs) that they had been editing from was blocked. MarnetteD|Talk 22:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. + 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. --slakr^\ talk / 00:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Zaostao reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]
4. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:
3 of the links are the same and the first and last are well over 24 hours apart? Zaostao (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Blatant lie. User Zaostao knows full well that he made 3 reverts in his edit war, waited for 24 hours to pass, and resumed warring again. He also knows he's already been blocked once for edit warring on this page and multiple editors continued to warn him about his behavior for weeks before this report. He has removed at least one such warning from his talk page yesteday, see this diff. His edit warring on this page is a months-long attempt to whitewash the Jared Taylor page by distancing the subject of the article from the terms "white supremacism" and "white nationalism", despite all of it being extremely well-sourced and more experienced editors explaining to him, for months now, why his attempted POV edits run contrary to Wikipedia policy. He has not shown any sign of understanding this or slowing down his edit warring and this latest attempt is one of many. Rockypedia (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit the diffs like you did here without stating that you did as it makes comments made before you changed the diffs seem out of place. And again, there was no consensus on the BLP noticeboard to keep the contentious white supremacist label in the lede as it was, so a NPOV editor respecting BLP would have tried to reach consensus and not just reverted to reinsert the LABEL without in-text attribution. Also, this is more of the same of what Ryk72 stated at the bottom of the previous filing, a group of the same few editors collectively reverting in an attempt to WP:OWN an article—which is why I have said below that I think this BLP issue would benefit from mediation of some form. Zaostao (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR violation. However, Zaostao has constantly been edit warring on this page. He has been previously sanctioned for violating 3RR on this page, as well as violated 3RR on subsequent occasions ([88]). This user shows no signs of ceasing edit warring, despite multiple editors talking to them about this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I can't comment on the 3RR issue, but I will point out there was a discussion that I raised at WP:BLP/N with unclear consensus results regarding the lede wording, and the discussion continued with again unclear results on Talk:Jared Taylor. I will point out that this is not a clear case of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE (as where we'd normally allow 3RR to be ignored) as the material in question, it seems all parties agree should be in the article, it's just a matter of where it is located, that still is a BLP issue but one that shouldn't be edit warred over. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Zaostao was blocked for edit warring on the lead of this article per 3RR back in July per this report. A report about similar warring early this September was declined, per the rationale "BLP issues are at play, multiple people are warring, and discussion is ongoing. The BLP noticeboard might be a more appropriate venue to help hash out the dispute." A follow-up did occur at BLPN, and can be seen here. It is not easy to tell if a consensus was reached about how to describe Jared Taylor in the lead. I personally don't think that Zaostao's edits are exempted from 3RR enforcement due to BLP, because that clause of 3RRNO is intended for removal of unsourced defamation, which this is not. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going to report this myself because, as EdJohnston correctly summarized, this is a continuation of an edit war from before as well as the BLPN and ongoing talk page discussions. I agree with Ed vis-a-vis 3RRNO. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The first and last diffs are well over 24 hours apart. This is the continuation of a BLP issue which went to the BPL/N but was archived with unclear consensus about keeping the contentious labels in the lede without in-text attribution. Again, as I say below, I think the BLP issue needs mediation of some kind, but I'd be fine with imposing a 1RR restriction on myself on this article in the future to avoid needless side disputes like this. Zaostao (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You are edit warring even if not doing >3 reverts in 24 hours. You're continuing the same disruptive behavior that resulted in your last block. This issue is not about defamatory content or some other BLP issue that is exempt from edit warring restrictions. This is widely sourced content that you happen to disagree with. Don't cry blp to justify this. I say this as some generally very accommodating to and hard line on blp concerns even for people I think are deplorable (e.g., on Roosh V). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion has been about BLP, and there was a >100,000 byte discussion on the BLP noticeboard about this very same issue so it's hardly a CRYBLP example. Also, you were the editor who reported D.Creish for supposedly CRYBLP'ng on this very same article, which was not an example of CRYBLP. Zaostao (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As PeterTheFourth states, this isn't a 3RR violation. I agree with Masem that this is a BLP issue that should be discussed and not edit warred over, which is why I respected 3RR despite the possible 3RRBLP exception and was actively discussing the issue on the talk page, but also why I objected to this edit which made "white supremacist" (the issue of discussion) into the foremost description of the subject, despite no consensus to make such a change and when there was a clearly ongoing discussion about the contentious label on the article's talk page. I believe this BLP issue would benefit from some form of mediation as the BLP/N discussion ended with one side not responding and, as Masem states, unclear consensus. Zaostao (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Page: 2016 Uri attack (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: 00:08, 26 September 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:29, 26 September 2016
2. 20:38, 26 September 2016

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: Editor was aware of these 1RR restrictions and was at the forefront of getting them imposed on all Kashmir conflict related pages but not abiding by them himself Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)