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:86.18.93.134 and User:RichardWilcox20 reported by User:217.115.113.216 (Result: Semi)

Page: Inversion therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.18.93.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and RichardWilcox20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inversion_therapy&diff=627358520&oldid=627143503

Diffs of the user's reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inversion_therapy&diff=627358520&oldid=627099336

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inversion_therapy&action=history

User at IP 86.18.93.134 also using username RichardWilcox20 repeatedly vandalizes the Inversion Therapy and Inversion Tables pages with irrelevant links to his personal affiliate site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.113.216 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: I formatted this report, combining to reduce redundancy. I take no stance on any part of the substance of this report. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: Article has been semiprotected one week by User:Rjd0060. Report again if you perceive that User:RichardWilcox20 is continuing to revert, since a block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: If the user continues to vandalize the page, I strongly suggest you making a report here: [1] These 2 users used each other to vandalize the page, if you report it to them, the account (not the IP), will be blocked indefinite and the IP for at least 1 month. The IP is based on Europe England, Sweden and using the DSL cable. See [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KYR SMARTER (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnmoor reported by User:Ronz (Result: Both warned)

Page: Talk:Nofel Izz (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnmoor (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. 22:27, 26 September 2014
2. 02:43, 27 September 2014
3. 16:13, 27 September 2014
4. 22:51, 29 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:33, 28 September 2014

Discussions on appropriate use of aticle talk page with : User_talk:Johnmoor#WP:TALK, User_talk:Johnmoor#Courtesy_notice

Comments:
Edit-warring on the talk page to interfere with an RfC. Johnmoor has been behaving as SPA and owner of this article since the end of July/early August, apparently as a paid editor. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Defence

Apparently, User:Ronz has come to AN3 again, probably, to get me to stop contributing to Nofel Izz, so as to WP:WIN even when most contributors to Talk:Nofel Izz, particularly Talk:Nofel Izz#Puffery and Talk:Nofel Izz#RfC disagree with him. When he first come to AN3, it resulted in Talk:Nofel Izz#Edit warring; his trick is to rush to AN3 to get you who disputes him to stop contributing so that he can push on with his views even when majority clearly disagree. Ronz is reporting me now for correcting him by reverting a talk page section title contributed by another user which he changed for no just reason but (probably) to hide or suppress its critical view of the RfC he started.

Here is the true picture of the edit differences:

1. 15:57, 26 September 2014
2. 22:27, 26 September 2014
3. 00:07, 27 September 2014
4. 02:43, 27 September 2014
5. 15:29, 27 September 2014
6. 16:13, 27 September 2014
7. 15:30, 28 September 2014
8. 16:36, 28 September 2014
9. 15:04, 29 September 2014
10. 22:51, 29 September 2014
11. 15:19, 30 September 2014
12. 15:49, 1 October 2014

—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So you defend your reverts by showing that you don't like it when someone tries to clarify discussions on a talk page. That's no defense. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: Both User:Ronz and User:Johnmoor are warned against any further changes to talk headers, before gaining an explicit consensus to make the change on the talk page. It is very tricky to change the parameters of an RfC once it is opened. It might be better to request that the current RfC be closed per WP:AN/RFC before raising new questions. Any closing admin who perceives that the headers were manipulated may hold that against the party responsible. Anyone who voted in a section whose header changed might need to revote. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made no reverts, so if we want to address the other problems, we should do so in a proper venue.

I will refrain from making changes to section headers created by others. However, I think if we are concerned about the headers, that we block Johnmoor if he continues to use them to shift focus from improving the article to focusing on me, as he's been doing? I've been extremely patient with Johnmoor's ownership of the article and attacks against me. However, I don't think anyone should stop efforts to improve the article. As Johnmoor doesn't believe in consensus by any definition that fits our policies, I'm at a loss here. --Ronz (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Deplorably, the evidence at Talk:Nofel Izz, particularly Talk:Nofel Izz#Puffery and Talk:Nofel Izz#RfC, supported by the differences above and the history of Nofel Izz with the many discussions on my talk page (some already archived) contradicts your claims, User:Ronz — just a classic case of being WP:POINTy and desperate to WP:WIN at all costs. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So your edit-warring is justified because you assume bad faith and ownership of the article where you are a paid editor? Are you going to continue to edit-war or not? --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at who wants to lay claim to WP:NPA! I already advised you here—User talk:Bilby#Nofel Izz—to imbibe WP:FOC, and stop making accusations which you cannot substantiate; besides, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Editor Johnmoor is still open. Anyway, this is characteristically—Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard—User:Ronz though, who is always right and must WP:WIN. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So, Johnmoor, you respond to accusations of personal attacks with personal attacks? Look, you both lucked out by not getting blocked - go and sin no more, and DON'T take the bait the panda ₯’ 11:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood, the panda; advice taken with thanks. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User:JRacer reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Warned)

Page

Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Made it better"
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC) to 12:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "fixed it"
   2. 12:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "fixed it"
   3. 12:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 12:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Noah's Ark. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

Clue bot vandalism warning link. Warning by other editor diff. Welcome with reminder of PAG diff. SPA contribs that doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. Given recent indef of editor with similar (although different) edit Brianmathe I wonder if a check user is also in order. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User warned on their talk page of the prospect of a WP:NOTHERE block. They have made no more edits since 1 October. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Temeku reported by User:183.171.168.48 (Result: )

Page: Physical (Olivia Newton-John song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Temeku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:48, 29 September 2014 "Added genres and sources. Please do not leave the Genre field blank."
2. 04:19, 2 October 2014 "Allmusic is a reliable source"

Comments: First he added unreliable sources on first diff, but re-added on second diff and he thought that "Allmusic is reliable source" (the point is genre sidebar is unreliable). Proof that he is not an administrator. 183.171.168.48 (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I re-added a source that I believed to have been overlooked previously (Allmusic.com), as the user only commented on one of the sources but removed all three of them. I did not re-add the unreliable source in question, although I did add a new source which the user has not commented on. I explained my edits in the edit summary. Looking at the edit history [3] for the article, the user has been very persistent in keeping the Genre field blank for a long time, regardless of whether sources were added or not. I did not revert or undo any edits on the page, and they only reverted mine once, and somehow it has already escalated to this. The accusing user has made no attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. No edit war has taken place. I also never stated nor suggested that I was an administrator (?!?!?). Temeku (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The above IP user is now Wikihounding me, posting on various user talk pages, accusing me of being a fake admin. He/she still refuses to confront me, and keeps slightly changing their IP address.

1. 22:11, 2 October 2014 "new section"
2. 21:49, 2 October 2014 "new section"
3. 20:33, 2 October 2014

The edit history even for this page shows the user (likely with a changed IP address) even tried to remove my above message, however it was quickly restored by another admin:

1. 17:52 2 October 2014 "Block evasion"

More Wikihounding from very similar IP addresses:

1. 18:00 2 October 2014
2. 22:54 2 October 2014 "new section"
3. 06:46 2 October 2014
4. 18:28 2 October 2014
5. 18:32 2 October 2014 "new section"

This is all despite one of the users he/she reported to, Binksternet, vouching for me and telling the accusing user that I was not a fake admin, seen below:

1. 20:40 2 October 2014 "reply"

The IP user has either ignored or not read this message, as they have continued to Wikihound me on other user talk pages since Binksternet replied. Also, the article dispute (over genre and sources) has been resolved (hopefully), albeit without the IP user's help. You can see it here:

1. 19:31 2 October 2014 "Actually, we don't use Allmusic's sidebar for genres, we use the prose review. And LastFM is not a reliable source for genre."

Temeku (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rangeblock needed for the Malaysian IPs that are being used to harass Temeku. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Toolen reported by User:Dodger67 (Result: )

Page

South African Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has just come out of a week long block for edit warring and has simply picked up exactly where he/she left off - "a luta continua".

Given that none of the advice and warnings about proper editorial behaviour has had the slightest corrective effect at all, and the rather long record of problematic behaviour by this editor over more than a year, I'm of the opinion that an indefinite block may be in order. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one who started this. Zarpboer has repeatedly reverted my edits and ignored my sources. I haven't even had time to add all of them before my edit was reverted. Placing the blame entirely on me isn't just. It is true that I have made mistakes in the past. I won't deny that, but I have worked to improve myself and to do better. If you punish me for this transgression, then it follows that you should punish the other guilty party, though in my opinion, the other party is to blame for this conflict. If one needs evidence of said conflict, look no further than the talk page of the article in question. I am not an instigator, nor was I the first person to add the information Zarpboer deleted. I merely set out to restore the information deleted by said user. Zarpboer deleted entire sections of the article without making any discernable attempt to find or verify sources for the information the user deleted. When said user deleted the edits again, I tried to discuss it with him on the talk page, where he not only criticized my work and sources, but also refused to reach a compromise. I eventually decided to simply preserve the dates in the infobox in order to satisfy the user, but they wouldn't even accept that. Around this time another user, going by the name of Mitsukorina (though I may have spelled it incorrectly, as the name looks Japanese, a language which I am not fluent in) took my side and joined the discussion, only to be met with criticism and a stubborn refusal to reach a consensus. I tried to keep the discussion civil, but the users constant criticism and accusations tried my patience. Mitsukorina also appears to have also lost his or her patience. I must apologize for not coming to you for help in the matter, but the last time I tried to report someone (after giving them a final warning), they beat me to it after and I got banned. Since then I have made no attempt to report other users. Now, in the face of such troubling accusations, and facing possibility of being indefinitly banned from a site I love and have contributed much to, I beg you to show some sympathy and mercy. Thank you. Toolen (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: No action)

Page

September 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "there is a clear consensus on the project talk page."
2. 19:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by EvergreenFir (talk) to last version by Dr. Blofeld"
3. 19:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by EvergreenFir (talk) to last version by Dr. Blofeld"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:September 1. (TW)"
2. 19:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "/* October 2014 */"
3. 19:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on September 1. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Lead summary */"
2. 22:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Lead summary */"
3. 19:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Dr. Blofeld (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir. (TW)"
4. Also see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Lead_summary.

Comments:

User is edit warring (not violating 3RR yet, but warring nonetheless) and ignoring WP:BRD. Claiming consensus when there is none. Also making personal attacks (diff link here) regarding this edit war. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Another personal attack (diff here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year that my edits are constructive and a step in the right direction. Damn right I'm going to edit war and become aggressive if you insist on reverting sourced content which I took the time to write which complies with WP:MOS. This is pure vandalism, any decent editor here can see it is destructive. Arthur Rubin reverted more times, you didn't warn him did you?? Arthur Rubin is clueless how to build content and what articles require. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK...but then a local consensus of a project does not override the general consensus of the overall community with guidelines and policies. I am confidant you know this.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I had to do that. It's always nice to see an admin edit warring (and then throwing warnings at others for doing exactly what they have done!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know (1) you don't edit war even when correct, (2) Wikipedia is not a battleground, (3) not to become aggressive in your editing, and (4) never to make personal attacks. There is no consensus on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Lead_summary or Talk:September 1, and discussion has been going for a whole 2 days. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You've reverted as many times as me in the last two days!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not make the bold edits, you did. You are not following WP:BRD. It's not BRDRRRR. "That" edit you refer to was to give you the edit warring warning. I've not undone you're last warring edit; I'll let someone else do that. If you want to be remotely constructive, try discussing the issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19[:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're full of shit, I did discuss the issue here after the first revert and more editors agreed that my sourced material per LEAD was an improvement. There's input by at least four seasoned regulars. by reverting you're ignoring it. And you didn't cite WP:BRD and blabla to Arthur did you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"You're full of shit" is a personal attack. What is going on here DB? Calm down. Please!!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arthur and SchroCat finally started discussion after their little back and forth. You started a discussion, yes, but in under 48 hours decided to redo your bold edit despite an ongoing discussion. I don't understand your urgency here or why you refuse to allow a discussion to occur. Anyway, that Arthur or SchroCat had a back and forth yesterday does not excuse your behavior today. You started by calling Arthur a shitty editor and then proceeded to revert the edits. I reverted you once to remind you to discuss the issue, and then again since it was clear you wanted to edit war so I warned you. Upon your third revert, I initiated this post (stopping the ew and leaving your bold edit for someone else to deal with). Anyway I'm done trying to explain this to a seasoned editor. And I am full of shit at the moment, so I'm off to the toilet. Ta ta. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely he is if he insists on reverting sourced prose and violating basic editing procedure with a lead summary based on little but "dates are special, they don't need sourcing or any decent prose". The style and insistence that it doesn't need to be sourced is based on whatever convention has existed from as far back as when even Jimmy Wales was an editor here and that's saying something!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

But she's a female and therefore allowed 6RR. Eric Corbett 19:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that was constructive....not. Come on Eric.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin reverted three times earlier too. Did you template him and report him here Evergreen? No. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, SchroCat did (who was also templated). They both stopped and actually discussed the issue (without making multiple personal attacks). Again, the issue is WP:BRD... you refuse to respect the revert and discuss part and try to impose your edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"They both stopped and actually discussed the issue": Can I just correct you: I walked away from such close-minded intransigence. If you (and Rubin) could stop Wikilawyering and warring for more than 30 seconds, and ask yourself: "Does the addition of a lead improve the encyclopaedia". At the end of the day, that is all that counts, not running to 3RR when someone has not breached 3RR. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I refuse to respect the revert because there is clear consensus here that the sourced lead is a desirable addition from at least four very respected regulars. Why on god's green earth would you ever think a non sourced article without a lead summary would be a superior article? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, as you've already pointed out: 1. Blofeld has not violated 3RR. 2. You have edit warred to the exact same equal degree as he has. 3. (to quote you): "you don't edit war even when correct". What exactly are you trying to achieve here. If you think Blofeld should be blocked for edit warring (which I presume is the basis of your visit here), then you are equally guilty as him, and should face exactly the same action. Is that really what you are after? As I have said elsewhere: neither you, Arthur Rubin, nor any project own the page. The page, as it stands, fails the MoS guidelines: a lead would make it so. The oft-repeated claims that it is impossible to summarise the page without falling into POV are spurious in the extreme, and can be easily overcome if people are try and open their minds for a change. - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: would ANI be better since this is a personal attack + edit warring? This is not about ownership, this is about consensus and discussion. 48 hours is fast even if everyone agreed, and not everyone does. The number of edits are not the issue here, it's the timing, nature, and order of them. WP:EW makes it clear that 3rr is the bright line, but that it's not necessary to be edit warring. From WP:EW: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. I am not trying to override Blofeld, I'm trying (repeatedly) to get discussion going and have BRD followed. As I said on the DOTY discussion, I really don't care too much about the structure of the lead, but it clearly needs to be discussed (as I said here) as there is a project consensus to not have large leads and WP:STATUSQUO applies. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You've templated me about edit warring when you also were engaged in it and have reported me here when I could have also done the same thing to you. It's pathetic. That you even think ANI would be constructive illustrates how bloody clueless you are in dealing with content issues. "This is not about ownership, this is about consensus and discussion." -exactly, and there is already significant feeling that you're wrong to revertAny project which rejects basic editing procedures and goes against FA/FL requirements is clearly in need of being kicked into touch and brought out of the Wales-Sanger period into modern times.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, opening of minds will never be achieved on any dramah board: I've rarely seen any actual improvements to the encylopaedia come from visits there. The PAs are also rather minor, and the civility pillar is something of a joke. I'm afraid it is about ownership: that of the project, and it's against any form of common sense that you may wish to apply. As I have said above, please stop wikilawyering: things never improve when people use the rules as weapons against others; it goes back to what will or will not improve the encyclopaedia, not over which forum to use, or which rules are the best weapons. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A number of people are right on the edge of making four reverts. I hope they will pause for reflection. Can anyone suggest where the best place to work out an agreed solution would be? (You disagree on whether day-of-the-year articles can have leads). Someone could open an RfC at WT:DAYS. With enough publicity for the RfC you might be able to avoid having the thread 'captured' by a local project view. Or how about WT:MOS? Does anyone have a better idea? Continuing the war will probably force admins to do something that not everyone will be happy with. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Ed, Hoops can be jumped through, but when the MoS already states "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list", then there isn't much more to be said that is worthwhile, to be honest. As for admins coming in, the last one that did edit warred to the point I templated him for 3RR. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The existing discussion on WT:DAYS is fairly new (less than 2 days) so it's not clear if a local consensus can be made yet or not. An RfC would be grand if no consensus is reached there. The whole reason I filed this notice was because discussion was being ignored and rushed (and the personal attacks didn't help... but sadly, as SchroCat said, a certain group of people see the civility pillar as a farce). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's because the consensus is miles out of date (it's nine bloody years old, for crying out loud!), the entire page is unsourced, the page fails MoS in terms of sourcing, lead, quality and 101 other bits. If this was filed at WP:FLC today, I'd remove the nomination within seconds. There seems to be a large amount of straw clutching and wikilawyering going on here, not helped by edit-warring admins who are more keen to protect a mythical set of rules and a project's ownership, than in any thoughts of improving the encyclopaedia. EvergreenFir, you miscontrue what I have said slightly: it's not a "certain group of people" regarding civility - it's part and parcel of the modus operandi here - just read through the threads at AN and ANI. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that everyone is so calm and happy this might be a good time to try to close in an agreeable way. If we can count on everyone who has commented above to *not* revert again for the next 48 hours this complaint might be closed with no action. If we have no hope of that then admins could put on the inevitable five days of full protection. Which is better? EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If the same constraints also apply to Arthur Rubin, and to any other of the project members who try to "defend" their territory by deleting the only cited material on the page.... - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind it being restored to it's pre-bold status, but I'm fine so long as discussion is done. However those personal attacks really should be addressed... it seems to be a recurring problem for multiple commenters here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Another revert? Good grief! That would not be productive, constructive or an improvement, regardless of what policy or guideline you try and wikilawyering into the conversation. It's unlikely the PAs will be addressed: they are extremely minor and are not interfering with the discussion: just ignore them. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying someone produces shitty content is not a personal attack. Haven't I told you about the boy who cried wolf before?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure....but saying here that someone is "Full of shit" is.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Two kinds of pork: We apparently have differing definitions of personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Nah. "You're full of shit, I did discuss the issue here..." was a (vulgar) refutation of Evergreenfir's claim that there was no consensus. The good doctor could just have easily said "Your claim is unfounded, I did discuss the issue here..." which has the same exact meaning, but minus the vulgarity (and possibly minus the satisfying release). And after a quick glance at the discussion, it does seem that EvergreenFir was being disingenuous. On that talk page @Cassianto: who said At the moment, EvergreenFir you are offering nothing to the discussion and are simply hiding behind BRD. I appreciate that a consensus should be sought, but at the moment that consensus seems to be against you. Others agreed the edit was an improvement. Doc's version of events reflects what was written on the talk page. EvergreenFir's, not-so-much. EF cries "personal attack" every other edit. One of several civility crusaders who smell offense around every corner and then willingly steps in it only to cry to the world how they've been scarred for life..Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Please use WT:DAYS#Lead summary or other suitable venue to discuss this. If there are more reverts about the lead of September 1 in the next 48 hours some admin will most likely apply blocks or protection to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time an consideration on this report Ed. I will not question your good faith in the decision. These things can be difficult to decide on sometimes and this one is certainly one of those times!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jacktobe reported by User:Vortiene (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (I warned him/her via the talk page, and he/she realizes 3RR is in play at this point) Diff of report notification: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARiot_V&diff=628033330&oldid=626142639

Comments:

I'm not sure how this should end up. I'm only reverting it because I believe that it is removing valuable information from the article. Riot, a long-established band recently had their oldest (founding) member Mark Reale pass away in 2012. In 2014 the band announced they would continue as Riot V, with members that were part of the band in the past. The user in question doesn't believe anything regarding the new version of the band, Riot V, belongs on the article for Riot. I personally believe that this is a case of a name change and continuation of the band, and doesn't warrant an entirely new article. The member in question claims it is disrespectful to discuss this new version of the band on the Riot page, since Mark Reale never approved of the continuation of the band (he can't at this point, as he has died). I don't see how information about Riot V is not relevant to enclose on the Riot page, as it is a direct continuation of the band, not an entirely different effort. I would prefer to keep the large amount of information about Riot V that had been previously compiled on the article. I discussed it on the talk page, but the member in question seems a bit adamant on the matter. I can definitely see where he/she's coming from, but I don't see how separating it into two articles would be sensible as the band is essentially the same group. They have the same website, the same facebook page, albeit with an added V everywhere since continuing with the same name without Mark Reale wouldn't really be polite. Vortiene (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

He/she went on to describe reasons he/she does not want discussion of the continuation on the article other than what I initially said, quoting the talk page: "Riot V is a NOT in any way a continuation of the band RIOT, they are just copying what has already been. No… they are trying to link there band to a band that has already been…thus trying to ride on some others history. When a user is looking for the band RIOT, they are looking for that band…not some other band that’s trying to sound like them and do not have any right to that bands name." Which seems to lend to the thought that his/her edits are based partially on opinion. He/she subsequently went on to discuss how the band Dio's article is not called Dio's Disciples (which is an extreme case), but made sense, and I said that this example does not justify completely removing any discussion of the continuation in Riot V, since the band Dio's article still goes on to discuss Dio's Disciples as well. If a name change of the article is what he/she's after, I'm fine with that, but voiding discussion of Riot V seems restrictive to providing accurate information on the article. Vortiene (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I Admit also that I previously did a move on this article, from Riot (band) to Riot V, which may have been a bit hasty and may have contributed to the formation of this edit war. I'm completely open to moving it back to Riot (band), but I believe completely avoiding discussion of the band's continuation in Riot V is a bit draconian, as it is recent, relevant information regarding the band. Vortiene (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Jacktrobe is also a long-time editor of the article on Mark Reale. I don't think it's out of the question that his edits removing content related to the band's development after the death of Mark Reale are based on the POV of a fan of Mark Reale, and not a neutral point of view. He adamantly believes that the band is nothing without Mark Reale, that it is a completely different venture, and should be discussed elsewhere. He believes this such that he refuses to discuss inclusion of Riot V at all, despite apparent similarity outside of the departure of Mark Reale. Vortiene (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Vortiene reported by User:Jacktobe (Result: Submitter blocked)

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

[10]

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (I warned him/her via the talk page, and he/she realizes 3RR is in play at this point) Diff of report notification: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:
Use he or she wants to change the title of the band RIOT and compare them to RIOT V that is not really the same band at all. Pertaining to the comment “which is an extreme case” is not extreme at all but factual and is the same issue here.

The user admits to changing the article title but he does not have that right does he or she? I don’t care much about what text he or she post but saying there the same is false., clearly it’s a different band without any original members and the name is RIOT V not RIOT. Jacktobe (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, anyone has the right to change the name of an article. Whether this was a good idea or not is where discussion occurs (Although it is true that controversial changes should be discussed on the talk page, which is what I originally attempted, and received no response.) Moreover, I did not break 3RR within a 24 hour period. Vortiene (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Submitter blocked per the report above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User:120.28.125.109 reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: Pending Changes applied)

Page

Sophie Hunter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 10:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 11:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Sophie Hunter. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps removing speedy tag even though I have warned them and told them to contest the speedy rather than remove the tag LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done I have applied pending changes to the article and declined the Speedy as it was wholly ineligible for G5 the panda ₯’ 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User:OneGreek, aka User:98.116.132.141, reported by User:LaszloPanaflex

Page: Yenisei Kirghiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) }
User being reported: OneGreek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , aka 98.116.132.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [24]

Comments:
User continues to edit war even after being warned in descriptions and on his talk page regarding WP:ERA policy. User has been asked politely to discuss the issue but has not responded and continues to edit war. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This should be in the Sock puppet investigations [25] I strongly suggest you, creating a investigation because this user used his account and IP to vandalize the page. KYR SMARTER (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You "strongly suggest" I what? Apparently an operative word was left out. The user has continued to edit war several times under the name OneGreek and twice under the IP address. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:ElNiñoMonstruo reported by User:McVeigh (Result: )

Page: Ikaw Lamang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of telenovelas of ABS-CBN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElNiñoMonstruo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Edition of ElNiñoMonstruo in Ikaw Lamang
2. Edition of ElNiñoMonstruo in List of telenovelas of ABS-CBN

Comments:
Hello I come back here, because ElNiñoMonstruo continuous reversing my edits without giving any reason. Whenever I try to leave a message on the discussion. Only do this. I'm trying to add a related template telenovelas ABS-CBN in List of telenovelas of ABS-CBN‎‎, but ElNiñoMonstruo reverts my edit without giving any reason. In Ikaw Lamang explain in my summaries of issues and each issue that I also reverted my edits.--McVeigh (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dark Liberty reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2014 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dark Liberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

Sorry, can't follow these instructions. User is Dark Liberty (talk).

Page is 2014 Hong Kong protests.

User blanked sections yesterday with incorrect edit summaries, and was reverted by other editors. He started blanking sections again today and was reverted twice by another editor and twice by me. Minutes before he started blanking today, an IP blanked the same material first, which seems likely to also be him. zzz (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Now user STSC has 3 times inserted unreferenced claims into the infobox. zzz (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:EEng reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Blocked)

Page: Eleanor Elkins Widener (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39](his user talk page)

Comments:

User:EEng keeps adding the nobots template after my comments that the issues have been fixed and there is not reason to prevent bots actions on that page. This is a typical situation where Eeng reverts edits on pages they edit. This is not the only pages they behave like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours by Bgwhite. Stickee (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Christophe Krief reported by User:Serten (Result: )

Page: Renewable resource (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Christophe Krief (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renewable_resource&diff=628214900&oldid=628209869 Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:

User:198.48.187.167 reported by User:JudeccaXIII (Result: Semi)

Page

Epistle to the Ephesians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628249921 by JudeccaXIII (talk) I believe it is, and it's sourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epistle_to_the_Ephesians&action=history

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Epistle to the Ephesians */ new section"

Comments:

IP address is violating WP:MOS/WTW, WP:LABEL. I warned the IP and reverted, but I was reverted by a newly registered account:Tikki tikki tempo, I believe to be a sock puppet of the IP. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month due to apparent sockpuppetry. But consider using the talk page yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:RRoyce624 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

RRoyce624 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC) "Selectively restoring factual information, having regard to SummerPhD's input."
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628143845 by Eustress (talk) - Historical information is contained in the underlying citations. Eustress was the one who vandalized this entire page some months ago, and was reverted"
   2. 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628142951 by Eustress (talk) It was the first business school affiliated with a broader University."
   3. 01:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628144313 by Eustress (talk) 1980s to Present would be more accurate."
   4. 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "This doesn't apply specifically to Wharton, noting points made by DMacks about other schools at the University."
3. 04:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Please check the citations - each one validates multiple pieces of the information, even if not listed immediately thereafter."
4. 21:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Interesting - you deleted the valid citations (I.e. first collegiate business school, high yield bonds), and inserted 'citation needed?) Your June 11 vandalism also raises concerns, and similar style to adieubask (now banned)"
5. 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Additional citations and factual information. Updated article talk page. Feel free to discuss further."
6. 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "/* 1970 to present */"
7. 22:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Reverted again

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Issues with History section */"

Comments:

Hello, you can verify that the edits do not violate the 3 reversion rule, as several of them (including 628259566|21:53, 4 October 2014) are not reversions at all, but addition of new content taking into account suggestions. This focused on the research contributions of professors, and added new citations. Also, there is active participation on the article's talk page, which can also be verified. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRoyce624 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The fourth revert ([47]) did include material from previous reverts (compare to [48]). User is an SPA and had been warned and reverted by Eustress, an admin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:64.134.171.181 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: )

Page

Dennis Toeppen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

64.134.171.181 (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 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "formatting change"
   2. 02:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "edit warring? yes, please do stop."
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "why are you reverting my good-faith contributions?"
   2. 02:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "i think you should take a trip over to the company article talk section to learn about appropriate division of information between the two."
   3. 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 02:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "whitewashing? there is a separate article for the bus company."
4. 02:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "replace pejorative term with more appropriate wording. acpa was passed after this man registered his domains and fought legal battles."
5. Consecutive edits made from 02:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "remove redundant statements"
   3. 02:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Bus Transportation */ this belongs in article about the company"
   4. 02:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "this is not true, is it?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Was just preparing to report this IP user myself. Seemingly attempting to whitewash BLP article, possible conflict of interest based on statements made in edit summaries. Refuses to stop edit warring and reverting. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Update: Based on this comment from the IP "And finally, Wikipedia is all about teamwork. It's not about winning or delivering a "Checkmate!". Editors must work together to build a reliable encyclopedia, not try to prove themselves to be "better" than others", seems to be a sockpuppet, possibly of a blocked user. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)