Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:55, 17 March 2016

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Tyler Gonzalez reported by User:LM2000 (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Comments: User has been blocked twice for edit warring over similar material on the same article.LM2000 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Blocked – for a period of 3 months~~ w^L^{<speak·check>} 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I was involved in previous issues in regard to this, this action was challenged; now it's reversed. This user has been blocked twice by uninvolved admins, and the behavior seems so persistent, I saw it as blatant disruption that any other admin would agree as such. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 03:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A breach of 3RR, but not sure about the escalation from 1 week to 3 months. Would 2 weeks be more appropriate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:WikiLeon has restored the seven days of full protection on Lana (wrestling) that were originally placed by User:Courcelles. I recommend that WikiLeon not take any further admin actions on the article, since he appears to be involved. The situation is now too confusing for me to consider blocking anyone, though the edits by User:Tyler Gonzalez are pushing the limits. That editor has been here nine months but has never used a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this incident, I have relinquished my admin rights --w^L^{<speak·check>} 11:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BillieKing reported by User:Sebk (Result: Blocks)

Pages:

Tal (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Le droit de rêver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Le sens de la vie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: BillieKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello,
First, sorry for my english (and sorry if I don't post in in the right place), this message is a partail copy a my post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
I request for blocking the account BillieKing for vandalism (he did the same vandalism on wp:fr) basically he suppresses the fact that the French singer Tal is also a songwriter [9] [10], [11] [12] but the website of the SACEM (a kind of RIAA) indicates she has written 12 songs [13]). Plus on wp:fr BillieKing is the 5th sockpuppet of Billie Aiden (full list here). Billie_Aiden was blocked twice WP:fr (for the same kind of modifications). He also vandalized these pages Le droit de rêver [14] and Le sens de la vie [15].
Blackmane says to him "Please be aware that repeated unexplained removal of content may lead to your account being blocked from editing as it could be viewed as vandalism. Please discuss your changes on the talk page" but he continued without explanation or discussion. In wp:fr, he was blocked for that and now he use sockpuppet to continue his vandalism. Sebk (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS : On wp:fr I blockedBillieKing for being a sockpuppet.

Apparently (on wp:en) he uses a (new) sock puppet (Jumbo38) I opened an investigation.Sebk (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:BillieKing and User:Jumbo38 each blocked indef, one for vandalism and the other as a sock,by User:Swarm. See this action on the French Wikipedia. Also, see this user page. User:Sebk is an admin on the other wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BillieKing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:QuackGuru reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result:No Action ... but... see comment below )

The result of this complaint is No action by User:Spartaz, though he did leave some comments about QuackGuru's editing: I spent a significant period of time considering whether I should just remove QG from the project all together. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

This user was also reported to ANI today for disruptive behaviour at the same article, with no resolution in sight (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#QuackGuru ongoing disruptive behavior at Peyton Manning).
(At ANI an admin there suggested a 3RR report be filed.)

User notified: [22]

Additional edit warring

Further evidence of QuackGuru's willingness to edit-war; This is on a talk page of a blocked user. QuackGuru could advise an admin, or just ignore the page altogether, instead he chose to do this;

[23],
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27].
It's more than likely he'll do it again and again. - ^theWOLFchild 06:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Belaboring the most minor of points to death. Little regard for consensus or common sense. Plenty of WP:STICK and WP:IDHT. Enough is enough. - ^theWOLFchild 05:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you hat other peoples comments[28] User:Thewolfchild? Not all of them dealt with the content dispute. Some of them dealt with the issue that QG did not break 3RR and that some of your difs are not correct. And now we know that the other account involved in this not only broke 3RR but was a sock per User:Tracescoops. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strongly agree. I call for an uninvolved admin to remove the collapse as removing valid arguments such as my "I count three, not four. You are allowed to make an edit and then minutes later revise/improve it without it being counted as two edits" comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This entire report has turned into a looong mess. I simply condensed it. This report has been passed over for action while others have been dealt with. Meanwhile, some people continue to add to it with posts that don't belong here, making it even longer. I figured if it was condensed, it might stop growing even more unwieldy and hopefully some uninvolved admin would finally action it. Every comment was still here. I can't imagine any admin not knowing how to click the "show" button. There is no conspiracy or attempt at deception. I obviously didn't think it would be such a big deal, and it's easily reversible. Why would an "uninvolved admin" need to undo it? Anyone can. In fact, it's already been done (and now this report is further bloated). I am so sorry. I promise to never do it again. (really... it's not worth the grief) - ^theWOLFchild 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You hatted the evidence I did not violate 3RR, including my response and evidence Tracescoops violated 3RR.[29] QuackGuru (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hatted everything. And there is big difference between "hatted" and "removed". - ^theWOLFchild 21:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the block log and all of the filings on various noticeboards. Clearly repeated short blocks are not working to convince QuackGuru to follow Wikipedia policies. I suggest that he be given notice that from now on the length of each block will be at least double the last block, and perhaps more depending on the nature of the violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please post content disputes on the article talk page or behaviour complaints to the related ANI report Thank you. There was no 3RR violation. These two edit were consecutive edits.[30][31] See here. There is plenty of discussion on the talk page where editors support "some". But "some" is a WP:SYN when combining different sources together. Verification was not provided after asking for V.[32] I will make a proposal on the talk page that is verifiable rather then support text that failed V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Another editor remove the OR, but the SYN violation was restored.[33] QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss content disputes on the article talk page and only discuss whether or not you edit warred here. Edit warring is not allowed even if you are right. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 previous edit warring blocks, one as recently as late last month (Feb 27, 2016). In the two weeks since this last edit warring block the editor has been given three edit warring warnings: [34] [35] [36]. This is ridiculous. Meters (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each individual source must verify the claim. Editors did not provide V from each source to verify the word "some" after I asked for verification. The SYN violation was removed again.[37] What should be done if an editor restores the SYN violation? I requested verification on the talk page for the word "some". QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewolfchild claims "no verification is required."[38] I claim V is required. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @QuackGuru: - You used the word "claim" in your last comment (twice in fact!), I demand you verify the word "claim", or remove that comment immediately! - ^theWOLFchild 20:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC) ( ...by the way, this just about sums up the entire dispute) [reply]
The issue is clearly one of wording (an editorial matter only) and not of "verification" here as long as opinion is clearly identified and cited as opinion. In the case at hand, this was done, and the "verification" argument fails, alas. Collect (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps time for a mentor...as its clear there is a larger problem at hand.Moxy (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Moxy: - An excellent suggestion. Perhaps after a lengthy block, some mentoring would be helpful. But as this is really just a 3RR report, can I suggest you post your suggestion at the concurrently running ANI report regarding QuackGuru's "disruptive behaviour"? See here. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 20:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter of "verification" when none of the sources verify the word "some". No editor ahs attempted to verify the word "some" using any of the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru, multiple people have now explained to you why your "verification" argument is not relevant. Accept it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On the talk page you claimed "some" is sourced. I asked for V. You could not provide V. Now you claim V policy is irrelevant? Are you suggesting it is okay to add text that failed V to the article? QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - V policy is irrelevant in this situation because it is purely a wording issue, not a verification of information issue. You've already had that explained to you several times. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is clear. QG reverted 4 times in less than 3 hours. Much more concerning is the fact that it's a pattern over many years, which causes chaos in articles and on talk pages. The editor refuses to accept an overwhelming consensus or listen to literally any other editors, as proven by the current ANI discussion. Since this has happened so many times before, QG should receive a lengthy block and be limited in the number of reverts allowed each day. I also agree that each subsequent block should be at least double that of the previous block. Tracescoops (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I count three, not four. [39] and [40] are a single revert. (You are allowed to make an edit and then minutes later revise/improve it without it being counted as two edits). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Making false claims that I reverted 4 times in less than 3 hours is disruptive. Tracescoops was continuing to revert over the text.[41][42][43][44] There was a discussion for a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first 2 diffs would count as reverts against 3RR. The next 2 diffs were to implement consensus. The consensus established on the talk page that that you completely disregarded and continued to edit war against. Do not comment on others, focus on yourself. I strongly suggest you stop arguing this loooong dead point and move on. - ^theWOLFchild 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I also count four reverts by Tracescoops.[45], [46], [47] and [48]. Regarding the edit comment on that last revert ("Wording is per clear consensus on talk page") and the above comment, I would remind Tracescoops and Thewolfchild that there is no "it's OK to edit war to implement consensus" exception to our rules against edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw it as countering disruptive editing which I believe is 3RR exempt, but if I'm wrong on that, then so be it, I won't belabor the point. If either of you feel that another 3RR report is in order, then I'll leave that to you. - ^theWOLFchild 02:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest you take another read on Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule. "Counter disruptive editing" is not an exemption. The closest exemptions are "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" and "Reverting obvious vandalism" neither of which applied here. Since this is a BLP, the BLP exemption could apply but there's no suggestion from either side that the claim or removing the claim violates BLP and it's difficult to argue any BLP concerns are strong enough for the BLP exemption to apply. Note that the reason why we have a bright line 3RR rule is because edit warring, even to implement consensus, is nearly always disruptive. If someone refuses to accept a clear consensus even after resonable discussion and explaination and refuses to let it be implemented, then administative action may be needed, not edit warring. In other words you normally can't "counter disruptive editing" by edit warring, you're just making more disruption. Of course the other factor is that if it's really only one person against consensus by multiple other people, the consensus can normally be implemented without breaking the 3RR. However since edit warring is not just 3RR, you should still take great care with this. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like I said, I wasn't sure, wasn't pushing the point, and was willing to be wrong. But that said, another way to look at it is QG and TS were editing the same content back-and-forth. After TS was a 3 edits and QG was a 4 edits, QG states that he agreed to finally accept consensus. When TS then made their 4th edit, it was no longer part of an edit-war, as there was no longer a dispute. So the question is, if 2 editors EW each other to 3 reverts apiece, then finally agree on content, can one of them implement that final, agreed upon change, without it being considered edit-warring? Basically, TS can (and does) maintain that QG was edit-warring. But how can QG claim that TS was edit-warring if in the end, TS was making the consensus-based change that QG agreed to? Just a thought exercise. Anyway... I think we're pretty much done here. Just waiting to see what an admin does with this and the concurrent ANI. - ^theWOLFchild 11:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If countering disruptive editing was 3RR exempt, we could simply shut down this noticeboard and allow infinite reverts. Everybody who gets into an edit war thinks he is countering disruptive editing. The key point is that Tracescoops needs to study the policy and become intimately familiar with what is and is not a 3RR exception before assuming that something is allowed. Or he could just follow WP:BRD / WP:TALKDONTREVERT and advise others to do the same. That's really the best choice for any of us. To answer your question ("if 2 editors EW each other to 3 reverts apiece, then finally agree on content, can one of them implement that final, agreed upon change, without it being considered edit-warring?") "implementing that final, agreed upon change" is a clear 4RR violation. There is no "we agreed that it is OK to edit war" exception. Furthermore, in the situation you describe, you were both edit warring and subject to being blocked already. You don't get three free reverts and then get blocked only for the fourth. Talk. Don't revert. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, got it. For the third time, I was wrong about that. I obviously shouldn't have used the word "exempt"... it really seems to stir up some feelings around here. Now, as for the scenario I pondered... it was just a "what if" kind of thing. Surely there are some situations where 4RR, outside the specific "exemptions" stipulated, would still get a free pass, no? Otherwise we could just get rid of all the admins and let bots do the 4RR blocking. I think there are times when an editor could revert a 4th time and not get blocked, or even warned. I've seen it happen. Just recently, in fact. Anyways... there is no need to belabor this any further. "the best way to stop talking about something is to stop talking about it". ☺ It's time to move on. Cheers everyone - ^theWOLFchild 16:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no established consensus for the other wording when I made my edits to the page. The claim "The consensus established on the talk page that that you completely disregarded and continued to edit war against." is false. I started a new discussion on the talk page on 23:14, 12 March 2016. Consensus was not established at that time for the changes. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec) QG, You are discussing the content dispute again. Nobody on this noticeboard cares who was or was not editing against consensus. That needs to be brought up elsewhere. All that matters here is whether or not anyone reverted, how many times they reverted, and whether they have a history of ignoring our WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy. To all: could everyone please slow down and give others a chance to comment without hitting edit conflicts every time? Much of the recent discussion consists of repeating things you folks said a few minutes previously. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three edits by QG not four within 24 hours. He did not break the bright line. All the same I would recommend a few people back off. User:Tracescoops did breach it though with 4 reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you strike your comment above. As an admin you have basically warned people to back off while providing a biased opinion on both here and ANI. This should be grounds for a review of your adminship as you clearly are involved.PedroScience (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly more to this than just the "bright line". QG was edit warring, and it is not mandatory that 4-in-24 must be met to take action. I don't think you're looking at the whole picture, or listening to the community. - ^theWOLFchild 03:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was the original implementation of the overwhelming consensus. If I had known that implementing consensus was an edit-warring violation, I certainly wouldn't have done it; I would have asked someone else to do it. I'm not sure why the 4 diffs showing 4 reverts in 2 hours 55 minnutes only count as 3 reverts. In any case, QG is simply diverting from his own actions, as he's done all day at ANI. And with regard specifically to edit warring, QG has been edit warring for nine years. So, Doc James, when you referred to the "bright line", I had to look it up to see what it meant. I found WP:EDITWAR, which explains it. However, the edit warring policy goes on to say "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." So if someone, such as QG, has been edit warring and blocked for it many times over many years, does it make sense to keep applying the soft "bright line" standard? Tracescoops (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet, you did make another revert which did breach 3RR. User:Drmies warned User:Tracescoops for violating the 3RR on March 8, 2016. QuackGuru (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should check your math. Also, you have yet to address your nine years of edit warring. We'll let ANI sort all of this out. Tracescoops (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracescoops, are you denying you violated 3RR?[49][50][51][52] QuackGuru (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about if the implementation of the consensus, which I did twice in those 4 edits, is not counted. Nevertheless, I have already said that I am willing to accept that I may have inadvertantly edit warred if in fact my implemenation of the overwhelming consenus is included. But, again, you divert. So, what have you accepted? How do you explain your nine years of edit warring and disruptive editing? You have ignored all the editors who have asked you to address these issues, so I don't expect you to answer them now. But it doesn't matter because the editors at ANI will decide this. Tracescoops (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my edits I did accept that consensus has formed because I did not revert after consensus was formed on March 13. My edits to the text were on March 12 before there was a consensus for the change. On reflection the issue is not that important to me. After there was a strong objection on the talk page I left the matter for others to decide. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the evidence shows that you not only did not accept the consensus, but that you argued with the other editors about it for hours afterwards. You also continued to dispute the validity of the consensus at ANI, where you argued with the dozen or more editors who told you you were wrong. Tracescoops (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did accept that consensus was formed because I did not continue to revert. I wanted to make a few edits to the talk page what my concerns were. So what? QuackGuru (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, it doesn't matter if you edit warred before or after the consensus. But that's beside the point. Just because you didn't continue to revert doesn't mean you accepted the consensus! You didn't accept it and everyone knows it. They know it because they can read the discussion on the Manning talk page and at ANI to see exactly what you said. The only reason you didn't revert again was because you knew you were already on the edge with regard to edit warring. But after consensus, you continued to fight with everyone, for hours, and held the discussion hostage because you had to "win". Tracescoops (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You think editors should stop commenting on the talk page when it was less than 24 hours? Another editor tried a compromise, but you reverted that too. QuackGuru (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the consensus is overwhelming... yes! And you were not merely "commenting", you were aggressively challenging the otherwise unanimous consensus. The only reason the other editor tried to "compromise" was to get rid of you because no one could believe that you actually reignited a battle after it had already been settled. Nevertheless, one editor cannot override an overwhelming consensus. What I'm now realizing is that it's pointless to discuss anything with you because you'll never stop arguing until you "win". Tracescoops (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my experience that the best way to stop talking about something is to stop talking about it. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He "just says"... right after posting another lengthy comment. ☺ - ^theWOLFchild 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that I wanted to stop discussing this. Tracescoops did ("it's pointless to discuss anything with you [QG]"). There is nothing wrong with me advising someone who wants to stop discussing that a good way to do that is to stop discussing. As it turns out, Tracescoops ended up enjoying an even more effective way to stop discussing; being blocked from editing Wikipedia. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked is an effective to stop a lot of things on Wikipedia... ☺ - ^theWOLFchild 14:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If QG wants there to be exceptions for thinking they are right then they can work on reaching a consensus to change our policy. Until then my suggestion is that we enforce our edit warring policy as it is. HighInBC 16:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't the board for it; but is it possible than editor with ~ 20 blocks on their record is possibly WP:NOTHERE...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latest twist

So, after a very lengthy debate over the language of a specific sentence that was frustrating for many, but that had finally reached consensus only yesterday... now QuackGuru has opened a new RfC and "straw poll" to re-open the matter. He wants to re-word that same sentence again, only now he wants the word "some" to remain in there and he also wants to add content that is apparently not supported by the attached the sources. The very issue he doggedly railed against for the last three days. And he does this despite the fact that neither the ANI or 3RR against him, both started because of the debate, have even been closed yet, and there are still several editors here calling for him to face a lengthy block. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be funny or if there is a competency issue here, but if someone here knows QG and can reach out to him, perhaps convince to stop this nonsense... please do. - ^theWOLFchild 20:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is supported by the book used in the article and I quoted the book on the talk page. I did not reopen the matter over the previous discussion involving the word "some". This is not about the word "some". This different proposal gives an explanation of why the Mannings were seen a football's royal family. You also brought this up at AN/I. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#new_development. QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, why re-open it at all? Do you understand what "consensus" is? It means that just yesterday, the community decided that the way it was written was just fine. Therefore, there is no need to start debating how it should be written all over again, the very next day. Leave it alone. Further, my comment here was to advise reviewing admins of your continued battle-ground behaviour, not to debate article content here. Any comments you have about the Peyton Manning article should be made there, not here. (but, like... a few weeks some now, give everyone a break. - ^theWOLFchild 22:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that is was extremely obvious that Tracescoops was a sock? QuackGuru (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you...? - ^theWOLFchild 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Reverting a sock is not considered a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. At no time prior to this did you base your edits on TS being a sock. - ^theWOLFchild 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew Tracescoops was a sock from the very beginning, but that would be considered a personal attack to accuse a new editor of being a sock. QuackGuru (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiight... of course you did. - ^theWOLFchild 15:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still pushing your 3RR report when there were 0 reverts by me? QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "pushing" anything. It's filed. It'll get reviewed by an admin. They will either take action or not. That's it. - ^theWOLFchild 15:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you want an admin to review it considering I was reverting a sock? QuackGuru (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you don't want an admin to review it? - ^theWOLFchild 15:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if QG knew he was dealing with a sock (I myself strongly suspected it based upon the "new user" having the knowledge of a veteran user) his claim that "reverting a sock is not considered a revert" is factually incorrect in this case. There is no "I think that the person I was reverting is a sock" exemption to our rules on edit warring. You need to prove it at WP:SPI before that exemption kicks in. In my opinion, QG made the above claim in bad faith in order to disrupt the deliberations at this noticeboard. He has been blocked many times for edit warring and can correctly quote and interpret our policies on it when it suits him, but then he misinterprets or misstates policy when doing so casts a doubt about whether he violated policy. I have seen him do this several times, and I am convinced that he does it on purpose. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The discussion at AN/I was closed. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#QuackGuru_ongoing_disruptive_behavior_at_Peyton_Manning. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky for you, considering a dozen editors there wanted you blocked for disruptive editing. - ^theWOLFchild 20:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this as no action for a couple of reason. Firstly the edit was was against a sock and while QG probably didn't realise this at the time of the reverting, there is an argument that this could still be a protected. Secondly, this has been open some days and no one has acted, reinforcing the suggestion that this is too complicated to be a simple 3RR case - especially given that the ANI was inconclusive - although the usual obfuscation and back and forth that you see at ANI makes it very hard to follow a clear thread through to a decision. So does that means that QG gets off scott free? Not entirely. I spent a significant period of time considering whether I should just remove QG from the project all together. This is because the issues that led to the topic ban from electronic cigarettes seem to be rearing their head again. Some editors just seem to have a style that makes it difficult for other editors to get along with them. Does that mean we should reject these editors if they are otherwise producing productive content. Of course not, but the degree of disruption and tension brough to other editors is a factor and you don't get a free pass to be disruptive of other editors just by being a content editor. At this time I decided that no block was justified but I would suggest that QG review their participation on the page and consider whether giving it a break might take the temperature down a bit. There are plenty of crappy articles that need improving that QG could work on in the meantime. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the absolute dog's breakfast this report turned into, I appreciate you taking the time to review and consider it. In lieu of a block, the strong caution you have given here certainly seems apt. "I spent a significant period of time considering whether I should just remove QG from the project all together." - Let's hope that QuackGuru takes your warning seriously and gives it very careful consideration. Thanks again. Finally we can all move on. - ^theWOLFchild 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Yeah, but "moving on" to my talk page to rant at QG some more is probably not what most of us would think of as moving on, TWC. :-/ I wasn't aware of the above dispute until just now, but the close seems reasonable. Call it WP:STRIPES. I have to say as a mostly-outside observer that this is a two-way street. The amount and vitriolic character of the invective being hurled at QG by the same handful of parties on multiple pages at once is a bit excessive. This "out for blood" act is unseemly. While I agree QG can be a bit stubborn, and maybe should rely on RfCs instead of so many reverts (it's actually less time consuming in the long run) I just don't have the same problems with this editor that you do, even when editing in highly contentious MEDRS topics. But I would rather have someone who is a bit revert-happy in the direction of a strict interpretation of WP:CCPOL, than someone overly permissive with regard to OR. I know it can be frustrating to get called on OR when you are sure you are not engaging in it. There is always a legitimate way to work around it if you are not really ORing; move statements around so the reader is not being "led", qualify them with additional attributions, add some sources. While MoS is a style guideline, not a content policy, the advice atop it (which i wrote, and you're welcome) to rewrite around disputes is applicable site-wide. We should probably add it to the WP:EDITING policy and several other pages. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandish - TL;DR - I got as far as the word 'rant' and realized what I was dealing with here. And here is a link to my 'post', so that anyone here can see what you call a 'rant'. QG has more a dozen editors (in one ANI alone!) that want him gone. There is reason for that, so matter how much you try and soft sell his editing style. But you choose the company you keep, so... good luck with that. Now, anything else? Or can this "closed" report now actually close? - ^theWOLFchild 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru and Thewolfchild, is there ANY possibility that you two could adopt a voluntary interaction band? This means not checking editor's contribution history and following them to pages where they have edited and antagonizing them. I can only see blocks all around if this battleground behavior continues. There comes a point where it's less about deciding who is right and who is wrong and more about taking measures to end disruption on the project. Right now, you are being disruptive. Please move on to more productive activity that doesn't involve each other. It's easy, there are 5 million articles, you don't need to interact unless you choose to. Don't choose to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:VoltaireEditor2016 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Stale)

Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VoltaireEditor2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Legal affairs */ (reverted) stop edit warring; the talk page is thus far against putting this personal issue in with the business lawsuits; wait for a talk page consensus before making these edits"
15:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 709977307 by SocraticOath (talk)b stop edit warring; get a consesnus from talk page before edits"
05:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 709967450 by Muboshgu (talk) that would refer to something different than illegal immigration and would require a separate sentence, which may not be appriopirate for the lede"
02:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 709931204 by SocraticOath (talk) talk page is against this edit; get a consensus before making one and stop edit warring"
03:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Legal affairs */ this is personal life stuff and may not be noteworthy enough to include at all if it didn't have any result"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Proposed_merge_with_Alleged_links_between_Donald_Trump_and_organized_crime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Lawsuit_vs._Ivana:_too_personal_for_Wikipedia.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Legal_Issues_Section_Needs_to_be_shortened_way_down_or_made_its_own_separate_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Honorary_degree_from_Liberty_University

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Donald_Trump_segment_on_Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Weasel_words_in_lawsuit_reporting

Comments:

Continual edit warring at the article, another editor involved as well (will submit a 3RR report for them next). If no one blocked from these reports, article likely needs to be protected as this has been ongoing for the last few days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neither editor has been persuaded to stay away from the article since getting notification of the 3RR reports filed. My intuition tells me the disruption will not stop apart from an edit warring block or strong warning (or the article being fully protected). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's untrue on my part. Looking up the editing history, you will find that the only edit I made since receiving this notification was a minor edit fixing a typo. All of my edits have since ceased, and will until this noticeboard issue is fixed. SocraticOath continues to make major edits and engage in the edit warring mentioned here, all without talk page consensus. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to contribute well-sourced, policy-compliant information to expand this article. This is under talk page consensus that the lawsuits of Donald Trump are notable. SocraticOath (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so is a continued violation of the administrative order to refrain from editing the article in contention for 24 hours, after being placed on this Administrator's edit warring noticeboard for edits on that article. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't follow this logic. The 3RR rule applies to reverts: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. New contributions are not reverts. SocraticOath (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be protected. However, if you look at my edits they were clearly made to prevent edit warring, not engaging in it. These edits were preempted by the talk page.VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SocraticOath is literally going through my edit history and reverting edits of unrelated articles I made months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_C._Miller&diff=prev&oldid=710064029 This is totally bizarre. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VoltaireEditor2016, I was trying to find more out about you, as is expected for public things like Wikipedia. I was able to find two sources for the unsourced item on the article in question. SocraticOath (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding this comment made by SocraticOath above, "I was trying to find more out about you", very, very troubling. EdJohnston, since you frequently are the admin monitoring this noticeboard, and you have placed a DS warning on SocraticOath's talk page, I'm pinging you on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was kind of chilling to read, WV. I already tried to contact another admin who frequents this page - Bbb23 - about that comment, "I was trying to find more out about you" , but have yet to hear anything back :( VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that SocraticOath may be going through another user's contribution history to find things to fix. In the one case I checked, he was at least providing a reference for something that had been marked as uncited. But if SocraticOath is changing edits of unrelated articles by User:VoltaireEditor2016 in order to annoy a content opponent, that is worrisome. (See WP:HARASS). If appears to be up to no good, he can be banned from the Donald Trump article under WP:ARBAP2. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, EdJohnston, though it seems unlikely that the only reversions this user is making just so happens to be the specific edits I have made. Perhaps that addition was made as a way to make the tactic seem less damning. Nonetheless, I think User:Winkelvi outlined that comment, "I was trying to find more out about you", as a way to suggest a possibly dangerous and personal escalation of edit warring. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VoltaireEditor2016, I hope you don't feel harassed by my actions yesterday. I would not want you to feel like your participation in Wikipedia is not appreciated, from one editor to another. I hope we can find more things to agree upon! SocraticOath (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be blockable edit warring if not bannable disruption, but it appears to be stale now so I'm just going to close this as Stale. That being said, if disruption continues, please re-report this user. I would be inclined to issue a page ban given the severity of the edit warring. Swarm ♠ 05:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lewisthejayhawk reported by User:Zachlp (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [53], [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (I took this action on their own talk page, because it was taking place over multiple articles) [65]

Comments:
The user sometimes seems to speak in somewhat broken English, and usually does not sign comments (in case you see any unsigned comments). I will also add that the user is generally a great contributor to Women's college basketball and college football articles, which are often overlooked, and I have tried many times to resolve issues with the user without taking administrative action. However, the user continues to make disruptive edits, and continuously reverts my edits.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is an administrator going to finally step in and do something? Lewis is continuing his disruptive editing and edit warring by editing while not signed in. Here is an example[66] from last night. IP 71.217.119.25 is most certainly him....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC) >.[reply]

I'm not sure why this wasn't actioned earlier because there's clearly disruptive behavior going on. I understand administrators are usually reluctant to take action against established editors who contribute positively, as am I, but I do see a need for action here. Now, the edit warring is pretty severe with no attempts being made at discussion; despite valid reasons being given for the reversion of their edits, they are not answering these or attempting to communicate in any way. As we all know, that kind of thing doesn't fly. Now the edit warring in itself is stale by now and normally we wouldn't block in these circumstances, but it does appear to be a persistent problem rather than an isolated incident and as such I think a block would still be justified for this behavior. I have also reviewed the AN/I thread in which multiple users explain a behavioral pattern, and cite examples of, persistent disruptive editing, including edits for which they have been blocked before. I am in agreement with them that there is a problem here. Further, this user's few comments are patently belligerent and uncollaborative, with comments such as, "you're not blocking shit". Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 05:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:45.33.81.117 reported by User:68.109.238.244 (Result: semi-protected)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Almost the entire talk page is comprised of various discussions about this, and attempting to engage further is pointless since the IP editors, who are probably all Timothy Parker himself, never respond to anything.

Comments:

It may seem odd for me to say this but this article needs a longer lock than the one it was previously placed under. This person has made tons of counterproductive reverts while using edit summaries to engage in personal attacks rather than explanations, and if previous behavior indicates a pattern, they will probably be back with a different IP or new account soon. 68.109.238.244 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this (full disclosure: I was one of the people reverted). Include the following problematic edits removing the same content again: [73] [74] . So it's more like a 5RR violation or something by now. Please semiprotect the article as it seems the only way to get this user to actually discuss what it is they want. (Note that as best I can tell the edit summaries are sheer fantasy, as there isn't positive material being removed too, and if there is sourced positive material to be added back, the IP is free and welcome to do so....) SnowFire (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected. I really hate to semi-protect a page when there is at least one productive IP editor, but since you asked and he has rotated IPs before; ironic protection applied. I don't see this as a BLP issue since the material is solidly sourced and neutrally stated. Kuru (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we re-open this and also block User:Arcenter? He's doing the same edits as the IP and was blocked earlier for the same nonsense. SnowFire (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that account earlier and assumed he might return to it if I applied semi-protection. I've restored the block on the account as he has clearly resumed the same edit war. Kuru (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually just turned this block into an indef, given his past behavior. I hope this doesn't step on your toes too much. It's just that I don't think we'd get anything from him unless he was indef'd, as he'd likely just wait until his block was up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I was the admin that previously blocked Arcenter and protected the page, if anyone was wondering where I came into this. I did try warning Arcenter several times, including several warnings on transparency, all of which were outright ignored. I don't necessarily think that all of the IPs are Arcenter, but I do think that this is all coordinated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Defenderofthruth reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: blocked sock)

User being reported: Defenderofthruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: multiple articles

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[75], this is a revert of my edit on 30 Dec 2015
[76]
[77]
[78]

At this time, Defender has not used the Sultanate of Rum talk page to explain his deletion of references/referenced information nor to gain consensus for changes made to the lead.

Xiongnu:

[79]
[80]

At no time did Defender use the talk page to explain why he was removing this reference.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81],[82],[83],[84],[85]

Comments:
This so-called "new user", Defenderofthruth, is actually the blocked user Yakbul. Yakbul's editing, prior to being blocked for disruptive editing, was primarily anti-Persian POV, which consisted of removing references/referenced information that contain the word Persia, Persian, Turco-Persian, Iranian, etc. Defenderthruth has continued this anti-Persian POV on Xiongnu(see above) and Sultanate of Rum(see above). In both cases, Xiongnu and Sultanate of Rum, Defender has not engaged on the talk page and has removed references or referenced information pertaining to Persian/Iranian wording. When Defender has decided to use the talk page, in a prior case concerning a discussion on Xiongnu(5 March 2016), it consists of childish trolling, "Kansas Bear what's wrong with writing from U of Manchester,it is a university with huge academic facilities, not like a small village in iran, are you jealous or something". Which would indicate Defender is incompetent or has failed geography, terribly.

When confronted about their removal of referenced information on Sultanate of Rum, respond with a personal attacks, "you racist ignorant", you trying to spread you ultranationalistic racist persian propaganda, and show the state as persian state.Probably,it hurts you really bad being ruled by Turkics under Seljuks than Akkoyuns than Qara Qoyuns than Safavids than Kadjars,i dont know how much you are paid by Khamanei but nice job bro.. The personal attacks are extremely indicative of user:Yakbul's mannerisms.

The edit warring over multiple articles are indicative of Yakbul's editing and now his sockpuppet Defenderofthruth. I believe it is time to "take off the kid gloves" and realize Yakbul and his sockpuppet Defenderofthruth are not here to build an encyclopedia, but here to right great wrongs as they see them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. No comment on the edit warring, but this is clearly a sock of the still-blocked Yakbul. I must say that it's pretty odd to see someone editing from the University of Manchester with that curious grasp of grammar. Kuru (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kansas Bear reported by User:Defenderofthruth (Result: sock blocked)

User being reported: Kansas Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi,

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[86], this is a revert of my edit 2 March 2016
[87]

Kansas didn't accept to discuss the issue about Xiongnu on talk page and never answered back 1, and even continuosly reverted my edits which was including references from Harvard University Press and University of Bristol, multiple times without addressing it's substance.2.

In this case, i reported him to a mature user 3, named Oshwah and Oshwah accepted that my references were reliable. But Kansas continuosly reverted my changes, as i didn't want to involve a edit war i reported him 4 but got no answers back. Kansas even argued with other users to delete my references 5. But everybody except him accepted those references and decided to put into Xiongnu article which specifically needs additional citations for verification and just because Kansas didn't want to put in, those reliable resources stayed out from article.

In Seljukids case, unlike Kansas claims i moved my worries to talk page 6, and didn't get a proper answer but still got my edits reverted without any adress to substance of my changes.7 as you can see, Kansas writes "Turko-Persian" to the beggining of every state to make people feel that the empire was Turkish and Iranian but unlike this guy thinks those empires "contributed to Turco-Persian Tradition" this doesen't make them "Turco-Persian Empire", even his claim redirects us to Turco-Persian Tradition page because there is nothing called Turco-Persian Empire.

As a newbie, unfortunately, I also got disrespectful insults like "can you read?" by him, 8 which was a unpleasant behavior unlike mine.9--Defenderofthruth (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Defenderofthruth blocked in previous report as sock; the rest is moot. Kuru (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:2606:A000:410A:1900:EA98:3FE3:5958:AA8B reported by User:Reach Out to the Truth (Result: 48 hours)

Page: The Last Airbender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2606:A000:410A:1900:EA98:3FE3:5958:AA8B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) "The edit was not unexplained. No one has yet to make a valid argument for this section's purpose on this article. | Undid revision 710137695 by Lazylaces (talk)"
04:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC) "It's not about that article's existence. It's about its unnecessary inclusion in the article for this film. Calling TLA "whitewashed" is inapt. Many characters were cast outside of their race, not just non-white characters."
04:28, 15 March 2016‎ (UTC) "So, is there a "List of Indian-Washed Films" or "List of Iran-Washed Films" list we can add to the article? | Undid revision 710091885 by Reach Out to the Truth (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Last Airbender. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has attempted eight times to remove a "see also" link which is supported by sources. Warnings are ignored with no attempt at discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 22:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The first four were a 3RR, the last four are simply a running edit war where there should be a talk page discussion. Kuru (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.83.143.151 reported by User:Woovee (Result: Semi)

Page

Bauhaus (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.83.143.151 (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Talk:Bauhaus (band)

Comments:
All the users of this article told this ip to stop. This genre warrior was blocked last week but his diruptive edits are back. This user doesn't understand what is a consensus. Genre warring is a waste of time whereas we are here to build an encyclopedia. Can this Bauhaus (band) article be protected from ips.

Comments:

Note that the IP User:67.83.143.15 hasn't edited anywhere on WP for two days. And that, although there maybe no clear blue line for edit-warrring, it is tendentious to say the least if you have to include two month-old edits just to "make up the numbers." Suggest this report be closed immediately as stale. Also suggest that the reporting user is warned for making bad-faith reports. This is clearly a content dispute and on another board WP:BOOMERANG would doubtless apply._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was reported at 00:10, 16 March 2016] only 28 hours after it happened. I only demand this Bauhaus (band) article to be semi-protected from ip. This ip was blocked last week for the same problem on this article. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, If I am bad faith, why did the administrator block this ip for edit warring last week, read the result here. 5 users have reverted his edits, he hasn't got any consensus... Woovee (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But it is erroneous to think that becasue an IP was blocked last week, it is automatically wrong this week. That is why we- including you- WP:AGF. The point is that "only 28 hours" is far too long a period after the edits have ceased: any action now would be WP:PUNITIVE. Hence, this report was stale before it was even lodged, and wasting everyone's time. No worries. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I concur with Woovee and respectfully ask how he could be in bad faith? The genre warrior in question was blocked for 48 hours due to repeated disruptive edits, genre warring and numerous personal attacks on other editors. As soon as the block was removed, they went right back and started making the exact same disruptive genre-warring edits, and refused to examine the guidelines for consensus. So how can it be that Woovee is wrong for thus suggesting a more protective solution?Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected two months. The statements by the IP editor since their last block don't inspire confidence. (There is no hint of being open to any negotiation; they are simply right about everything). The essay at WP:Genre warrior explains some of the problems with editors who seem to be here only to change music genres. The change the IP is requesting can be made just as soon as they get a talk page consensus in their favor. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dcasey98 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [89] ]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[90] as 2601:243:400:ae4e:c198:4a6b:8a8f:4c13
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments:

Fairly straightforward case. Dcasey98 has removed content five times (including reverting two editors and a cluebot five times) in the space of a few hours, solely on the basis that his disagrees with the source. I have explained that removing sourced content solely on the basis that you personally disagree with it is not acceptable but it has had no effect. Betty Logan (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Dcasey98 contiues to remove the same material even during the course of this report; here and here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 11:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bellatrix2017 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: List of children's films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bellatrix2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 12:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC) to 12:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1. 12:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 12:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 2000s */"
3. 12:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 2010s */"
Consecutive edits made from 12:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC) to 12:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1. 12:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 2000s */"
2. 12:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 2010s */"
Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) to 14:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1. 14:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 2010s */"
2. 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 2000s */"
Consecutive edits made from 12:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC) to 12:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1. 12:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 2010s */"
2. 12:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 2000s */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

12:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
12:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of children's films. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

11:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Harry Potter */ Now:"

Comments:

Also reported as a sock: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98 _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Sock has been blocked as a result of the SPI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:K Sikdar reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

15:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC) ""
13:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710354205 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
13:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "para 1"
Consecutive edits made from 13:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC) to 13:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1. 13:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710332754 by Materialscientist (talk)"
2. 13:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC) ""
09:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "The first paragraph lacked clarity. So, I added an introduction paragraph from IIT nptel courses that make it more clear."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

14:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Thermodynamics. (TW)"
14:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "further"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Now edit-warring against three other editors. Both warnings and advice have been given in equal measure. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF reported by User:SMcCandlish (Result:withdrawn by reporter)

Withdrawn by submitter, and marked as such by User:GB fan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

CFCF inserts promotion of, and the gist of, his attack-page "essay" WP:VERBAGE into the guideline with no discussion
Another editor reverts this as WP:CREEP
I removed part of it they missed. I then did other, unrelated, work on the page [97] (overlapping some additional constructive edits by an anon).
I took the "essay" to MfD, now open at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Verbage‎ for violations of WP:POLICY#Essays and WP:POLEMIC, among various other policies and guidelines.
In retaliation, CFCF reverted all work that I and others have recently done at the guideline, with the nonsensical and hypocritical edit summary "Discuss your changes, this is disruptive." This edit summary also constitutes a false accusation of WP:DE, following immediately on the heels of multiple warnings [98] [99] that I would take CFCF to WP:ARCA or WP:AE, for WP:SANCTIONGAMING the WP:ARBEC case. I've decided to try to deal with this at a lower-drama venue first, though any further personal attacks will result in an ARCA request to extend his sanctions and impose an I-ban, since this is verging on harassment at this point.
I undid that revert with edit summary: "Your attempts to insert material from and promote your WP:VERBAGE attack-page "essay" (now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Verbage‎) were already reverted by others, so you are editwarring (destructively, rv'ing unrelated work)". Note that CFCF has raise no objection to my unrelated work that he keeps nuking (much less provided a rationale for such an objection).
Before I could even warn him that ANEW action was pending, he mass-reverted again, with a WP:AADP "rationale" that because it wasn't reverted instantly when he first added it, it must have consensus and: "This was accepted for a number of weeks, and was also seen by several other editors, that you dislike it is not rational for removal".
I've left the guideline as-is after his revert, since I trust someone else will undo the mess he's making. [Update: It's already happened [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

This is all part and parcel of the dispute at MfD, about an essay with which CFCF is attempting to sanction-game a semi-recent ArbCom case, in which he was given a stern warning about editwarring. He's sorely testing the edges of that sanction, by editwarring with editors involved in the ArbCom case, and verbally attacking them, in pages that don't technically qualify as subject to the case's topical scope.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]:

As other editors have already rejected the VERBAGE [sic] related material CFCF is trying to stuff into the guideline, I had not seen a need to raise a new discussion about that on the guideline's talk page. It is CFCF's responsibility to engage the "D" in WP:BRD if he wants to gain consensus for inclusion of the material. [Update: In the time it took to write this, he actually did so, but it's a hollow gesture, since VERBAGE is highly unlikely to survive MfD even as an essay, and the inclusion in GAMING was opposed already by multiple, unconnected editors.] The editwarring matter isn't really about inclusion of that material, since no one but CFCF is in favor of it and have objected to it. In fact, given that it's up for MfD, the attempt to re-insert it in the guideline while that process is active is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. "If only a local consensus at the guideline buys it, the MfD will have to go my way." Um, no.

Comments:
This is really all about CFCF pursuing a retribution campaign for my having been critical of his very strange proposal and bringing it up at the ARBEC case (his actions since then have included writing the attack-page essay, which did not name me, then [crowing, in an off-topic post at WT:MEDRS – this is the tie that binds all these actions to ARBEC – that he wrote it specifically about me personally. That makes it a big pile of aspersions and personal attacks. It's time for this to end, and quickly. I note that discretionary sanctions have been authorized for ARBEC, so the present editwarring incident is more of a last straw; his actions to date were already sufficient to trigger DS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF notified, as required [103]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Verbage can handle it. This report seems malformed. You are commenting on the dispute. The specific dispute belongs on the talk page. This is not how to handle things by mentioning it elsewhere. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it where it's directly relevant; the editwarring at the guideline is a forumshopping attempt to shift the decision making on the fate of "VERBAGE" out of one venue and into another. All the involved venues need to be aware of it. MFD doesn't settle editwarring matters, or I would not have gone to the edtwarring noticeboard. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like inappropriate behavior when you go to another page and state you reported someone to this noticeboard. The MFD page is not relevant to this page. You have not fixed your malformed report. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) QG, I just explained why it's relevant. Simply re-asserting your claim without addressing the rebuttal already provided is not an argument. As this is an administrators' noticeboard, I'll let them give their opinion, and also let them know that the only other editor sanctioned in WP:ARBEC besides CFCF was QuackGuru, so he is hardly a neutral observer here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You went to another page to point directly to this page. That is not a cool. A short time ago I was accused of edit warring and they tried to ban me. Let's give peace a chance. Protecting the page is a much better option. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: - why do you care? You've made zero contributions to that page and this report has nothing to do with you. This is why "other editors wanted to ban you"... because you argue everything to death. It's SMC's report, leave them alone. Let the admins sort it out. (yeesh) - ^theWOLFchild 19:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) QG: Since the goal was to ensure that participants in two related discussions understood how they were related – by CFCF's improper actions, not mine – and where the dispute resolution was migrating (here), of course I would link "directly" here (I'm unaware of an indirect way to do it). I don't know who "they" is, and whether someone accused you of editwarring has no bearing on whether CFCF has been editwarring. Honestly I don't spend enough time in noticeboards to be part of the "in crowd" or to buy into any unspoken wikiquette about notices regarding noticeboards; there appear to be no published rules about this, and one would think not, per WP:BUREAUCRACY. PS: I don't think page protection is at all a better option, since this is a one-editor problem, and all other editors should not be barred from continuing to participate at that page just because one is playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that CFCF has been reverted again by other editors, I'm skeptical he'll keep revertwarring, so I'll see about closing this as moot (assuming it doesn't require an admin to do that), on the proviso that I'll reopen the matter here or at WP:ARCA if the GAMING (ironically, at GAMING) continues. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The report has been closed as withdrawn for now. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Simgrant reported by User:FoCuSandLeArN (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kogan.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Simgrant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710431833 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk) Next revert and will be placed on noticeboard, formally warned on talk page."
22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710339405 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk), not "VANDALISM" but shaping up to be edit war and next time will be reported. Article too long."
04:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710298348 by LibStar (talk) yet again re-reverted, see talk page and comment there before reverting."
02:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710289030 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk) Undid revert as no explanation of revert given. If not happy with edit please seek moderation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

02:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Notification of good faith revert found using STiki"
10:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Kogan.com. (TW)"
23:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "re"
23:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Kogan.com. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

23:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC) "re"
22:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC) on Talk:Kogan.com "updating talk page re evolving edit-war. User:FoCuSandLeArN continues to want to discuss on my user page rather than here."

Comments:

Newly created account who has consistently vandalised The Kogan article for some reason and refused to consider reviewing his actions. User performed 4 consecutive reverts, three from my STiki reversals and one from another patroller's. He has ignored repeated attempts at discussing the issue in the article's talk page. No further actions can be taken from my part at this time. Note the last diff above was the wrong one. Should be 710435458. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for this to be reviewed, have tried to explain my reason for editing on talk page. I would point out that history would indicate User:FoCuSandLeArN was the first to revert my edit but that is obvious form history. I would also surmise that other patroller User:LibStar was an account under the control of the same user as the User:FoCuSandLeArN account but if I am found to be at fault am happy to abide by decision. I would also hope the community at some point review the neutrality of the article. Also by no means a newly created account here. Best of luck. Simgrant (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak — LibStar: you've also justly reverted this user. I believe this is self-evident. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anna_Frodesiak presumably also sock puppet please investigate further. I will for the time being not try to prevent any further reverts until this is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simgrant (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. The editor's claims about sockpuppetry are not very credible. One of the people he has accused is an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nihlus1 reported by User:Nick-D (Result: )

User being reported: Nihlus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104] (pre-edit warring version)

Diffs of the user's reverts: This is a report of sustained cross-article edit warring rather than a 3RR violation.

Nihlus1 has been edit warring the order of flags to place the US first in two related articles on Western Europe in World War II, with this commencing in February. They have continued edit warring despite talk page discussions and repeated requests that they stop.

European theatre of World War II

[105] (15 Feb)
[106] (15 Feb)
[107] (15 Feb)
[108] (16 Feb)
[109] (16 Feb)
[110] (16 Feb)
[111] (14 March)
[112] (14 March)

(the edits by Colonialmarine9 (talk · contribs) and more recently The Pittsburgher (talk · contribs) are also unhelpful, but Nihlus1 initiated this edit war and kept it going)

This conduct has carried across to the Defence of the Reich article, where it is continuing

[113] (23 Feb)
[114] (14 March)
[115] (15 March) (with a false claim in the edit summary that this was a stable version)
[116] (16 March)

While less serious and not ongoing, there has also been similar conduct by this editor in the New Guinea campaign‎ article:

[117]
[118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119] (24 Feb), [120] (14 March), [121] (15 March)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Very lengthy discussion at Talk:European theatre of World War II#Order of flags which Nihlus1 wrongly said had concluded in favour of their position as justification for renewing the edit war [122]
Further discussion at User talk:Nihlus1#Please stop edit warring
Nihlus1 has not initiated a discussion at Talk:Defence of the Reich to discuss their changes, and is demanding that other editors do so to contest them in obvious violation of the principle of WP:BRD [123].

This seems to be clear-cut WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, with Nihlus1 attempting to edit war their way to victory across articles rather than engage in discussion to build consensus. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Ywx12vw reported by User:Random86 (Result: Blocked )

Page: Lee Seung-hoon (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ywx12vw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

08:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC) ""
08:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710496889 by Random86 (talk)"
08:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710495848 by Random86 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

08:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
08:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Lee Seung-hoon (musician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has uploaded several non-free images, and continues to add them to the article after being warned. None of the images have evidence of permission. Random86 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely indefinite duration selected as the editors only contributions have been to edit war this copyright violation into the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.55.50.76 reported by User:Gabriel HM (Result: )

Page: Saint-Louis, Haut-Rhin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.55.50.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) possibly being Renekm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [124]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

since it is an IP users I opened a thread on his talk page telling him that we were on a war editing, I could not notify it with the proper edit warring. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

Comments: This German based IP contributor is "new" to wiki, and he is focused to add the word German, or a German translation of Alsatian names even in articles where a German translation is not relevant. In this particular case the town was named in honour of the King Louis XIV in 1684 commemorating the French King Saint Louis. There is no reason to add a plain German translation in an English article. Instead of trying to reach a concensus, he prefers attacking me on my talk page, saying that I am an "anti German" person. If I was this kind of person I would try to erase all the German translation of Alsatian names on all Wikipedia articles. I just did it on the particular case for historical reasons. Adding a systematic German translation has no justification. I spent hours to try to discuss with him, providing articles, sources and links. But it keeps reverting, and justify its edits with wrong info. Even when he accepts my point of view when he says: "The town of Fort-Louis for example was named after the French king but did not get a "German" name. See the difference" he keeps reverting with wrong info. He has serious issues with history, taking the Saint Louis French King for a German Saint, he is reverting other articles as well where the consensus has been reached for a long time and seems to me motivated by something else than the accuracy of the articles. It is a shame that such a small detail in a very basic article about a small French town, would lead in a war edit. Furthermore I suspect this anonymous users to be in fact Renekm specialised in former German Territorites and its German name mostly during the nazi era, and that spends most of his time to gave German names to all territories, cities, communes, provinces, forts etc [131] without any distinction, and even naming French maginot forts with a German translation, wich is very weird [132]. Indeed his last post under his name was just before I reverted his edit, and in the following hours he disappeared from Wikipedia, and the anonymous IP appeared and started to to do the same. On other articles where he seems to have issue as well with names that are non standard German some other contributors showed me support [133]

--Gabriel HM (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The town Saint-Louis (Sankt Ludwig) in former German inhabited Alsace, only a few km from Germany and Switzerland, is named after the catholic saint Louis IX (Ludwig in German). I never, at no point said, that he is German, which would be irrelevant anyway. The place was called like this by its German inhabitans and had it as an official name from 1871-1918. Nevertheless user Gabriel HM himself decided that the name is not relevant contrary to WP:Places. In another edit he claims that Alsace-Lorraine was Alemannic speaking completely neglecting the other German varieties spoken there, Lorraine Franconian -> His edit in the article Francization --78.55.50.76 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. It looks like you've already warred using two different IPs at Saint-Louis, Haut-Rhin. If you sincerely want to effect any changes on Wikipedia, conducting a war while hopping IPs will just get you into the clutches of WP:SPI faster. I suggest you pause, take a breath, and agree to wait for consensus on this issue. If you are actually User:Renekm you are well-advised to limit yourself to your registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not User:Renekm. This is a baseless assumption.--78.55.50.76 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are are just 78.55.50.76 (talk · contribs) as well as 77.180.148.237 (talk · contribs)? EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not checking my IPs but yes they are definitely both mine. I registered an account right now for having an overview. user 78.55.50.76 and user 77.180.148.237 = --Hombart (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are creating an account, that is good news. The next step is where to hold a discussion to resolve this. User:Gabriel HM opened a discussion at Talk:Francization but that's not the best place. Why not try either WT:WikiProject France or WT:WikiProject Germany. If the parties are willing to discuss and it there are no further reverts, this report might be closed with warnings and not blocks. Alsace has been part of Germany at various times so the issue of place names may not be simple. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miesianiacal reported by User:Trackratte (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Miesianiacal#Monarchy of Canada

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135] and User talk:Miesianiacal#Monarchy of Canada

Comments: I took the discussion to the User's talk after their 3RR to avoid using up valuable editor time. Since the warning however, the user inserted the same material a fourth time. I had already voluntarily stopped doing any edits to the infobox since I stopped at Step 2 of WP:DDE at 21:39, 16 March 2016, after the user's 2RR.
Both user's comments copied from Talk page:

You have removed an image 7 times against four or more editors. Further, four or more editors were in favour of the image, with you being the sole dissenter. A violation of 3RR in spirit, especially as your third revert was only several hours after the "24-hour mark":

Today you have inserted text into the article which you knew was controversial, without any reference, knowingly against the four references presented in the Talk, and without discussing at all in the Talk. A clear violation of 3RR in inserting the same controversial text 3 times in roughly 30 minutes, in contradiction to the sources: (now 4 times in 24 hours)

I made one revert regarding the Arms in total which was to restore the entire Arms box that you had removed that has been there since 2007, and wasn't an issue of the image, but an issue of removing the entire Arms formatting from the info box. The only other revert I made regarding the Arms I made was over 5 days ago when I restored your edit when you put in a copyrighted image where I had mistakenly thought you had put in the official free-use one, which I then self-reverted to remove the copyrighted image not allowed in that article (which is not considered a revert as per WP:NOT3RR rules #1 and #5) for the official free-use one. I made two reverts regarding your inputting of unsourced statements (as per the step by step Guidance outlined at WP:DDE) that contradict provided reliable sources. So, in accordance with the prescribed steps provided by Wikipedia at WP:DDE I did the following: Step 1: "Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material. Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms", and step 2: "If editor restores, or unreverts: If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again", after which I haven't made any revisions since, even though policy states to move to Step 3 and revert again: "If the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request an administrator". Instead of reverting a third time and requesting an admin as prescribed in policy, I came to discuss the issue with you here as I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and your contributions here not to attempt to resolve it here with you first.

3RR is more than three reverts within a 24 hour period.

I don't believe you should be lecturing on inserting "controversial" material into the article, given you've repeatedly inserted the 1957 arms when there was no consensus to do so. If you include the anon (who is obviously one person who has no interest in the article, only exacting some kind of revenge with impunity by anonymously undoing whatever I do), there are four who favour the 1957 arms. Including an anon, there are three who don't. Even if we dispense with the anons because they've contributed nothing to the discussion or the dispute other than reverting, three to two is not a consensus. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, something which I have not done, and you are now at 4RR within 24 hours. As an aside, who are the three? Myself, GoodDay, Moxy and one or more anons are in favour of the official rendition, user Qex simply chose to leave the official rendition in place and add the date that the Arms were approved, showing either neutrality or tacit support at the time of editing and hasn't replied on the Talk since, and I see no one else except yourself objecting to the use of this official symbol at this time. You are the only one to continually revert several others (three to five other editors) in inserting an image never approved nor adopted by Canada, moreover inserting this image on seven different occasions. And your repeated justification for doing so was some supposed consensus against using the official 1957 Arms, but as far as I'm aware, this consensus against this official image has never existed, and despite repeated requests, you have failed to show where such a consensus exists. In the absence of any consensus against the official symbol, a consensus was established where four or more editors were in agreement, and the sole dissenter, you, had had your sole point addressed through credible sources, by definition consensus, a situation which has yet to change (four or more in agreement, and you edit warring against). And by the way, the sole occassion I reverted your removal of the Arms was after you had removed them seven times (against several editors that were not myself), and after consensus was achieved (and remains unchanged at time of writing as no further users have yet become involved). trackratte (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It must be a stretched argument indeed behind any conclusion I'm at 4RR. On the other hand, it's clear you broke the limit yesterday.

Qexigator leaving the 1957 arms there does not necessarily count as an endorsement. More certain is this statement of his.

You seem to not understand the difference between consensus and simple majority. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly did not "break the limit" yesterday. I reverted you only once regarding the Arms in total since the 5th of March, and only after your refusal to stop after your 7 reverts of the image, and your refusal to acknowledge consensus. When you then inserted unsourced text in contradiction to reliable sources, I followed steps 1 and 2 of WP:DDE, and stopped short of the 3rd revert prescribed in the policy, even though the Wikipedia Guideline states that a third revert should have been my next step. Following prescribed policy steps to deal with disruptive editing, and stopping short of what is prescribed due to the principles of WP:AGF to discuss it with you here first is not edit warring. However, you have inserted the same unsourced material four times in 24 hours as you can see above. Just because you use slightly different words to convey the same meaning four times does not mean you have circumscribed the rules. Secondly, WP:CON: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". Four editors in favour, one against (you), and where your legitimate concerns were incorporated and reliable sources were shown to prove that your concern that the symbol in question was no longer a current Official Symbol of Canada is in fact false, and numerous other sources were shown at the Talk demonstrating that the Arms in question were used after 1994, and continue to be used as an official symbol of Canada (and continue to symbolise the authority of the monarchy[136][137]) today. Therefore, the only concerns brought forward by the only objector were incorporated and addressed through reliable sources, and absent any other objections, consensus was, by definition, achieved. trackratte (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell after reading only the first few lines that you're either not reading what I write or are refusing to accept it. You broke 3RR yesterday. Your sources don't state there are two coats of arms for Canada. And majority does not equal consensus. I won't repeat myself again. The RfC will hopefully find a resolution to this. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC isn't about the infobox, nor about the unsourced text you keep inserting. And whether or not the Monarchy of Canada has one or two Arms, or 14 Arms, is irrelevant to the infobox image as well. None of which is relevant to the current discussion. I'll leave this at just a few lines as they're the only ones you bother to read anyways. Which would explain your continued refusal to show this previous consensus against the use of the official 1957 Arms you keep referring to. trackratte (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

trackratte (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.176.90.45 reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: )

Page: Palestinian National Authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.176.90.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710584129 by Spirit Ethanol (talk) yet 2-1 agreed upon this addition. get a majority of no voters if you want to cancel it."
21:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710583675 by Spirit Ethanol (talk) yet 2-1 agreed upon this addition. get a majority of no voters if you want to cancel it."
20:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710582684 by Spirit Ethanol (talk) 2-1 to Yes upon this info, according to Talk Page."
20:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "according to talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 500 edits, 30 days */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

20:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Adding the exact 'Demographics' category off State of Palestine */ no"

Comments:

Continued reverts even after placing notice on talk page. No consensus on talk page.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you were aware of this, but you should be aware that Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. So, I'd therefore advise that you stop reverting yourself, whilst this gets sorted out. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, thought reverts are also not subject to all edit warring rules. IP re-added information which is copied from another article (also copyright violation...). Will wait till closure of this report.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations are a valid 3RR exemption. The IP continues to edit war, up to 9 reverts now, within the last hour. Scr★pIron^IV 21:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material was copied from another WP page (so not sure if you can cite copyright violations from wikipedia against wikipedia), but it seems that at this point they are just blindly reverting, and need to be blocked. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various users at Wythenshawe Hall reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )

Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
78.151.27.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wythenshawshank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A familiar name, and what's likely a throwaway account. But it's at 7RR, bad tempered and at least some of these people ought to know better. See the Talk:s too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You missed me out. Please pay more attention. J3Mrs (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Talk page consensus appears to be quite clear. The editor being reverted appears to have a COI and I'll drop a note on their talk page asking them to read up WP:COI and WP:Consensus. --regentspark (comment) 21:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 828: / Line 828: @@
 A familiar name, and what's likely a throwaway account. But it's at 7RR, bad tempered and at least some of these people ought to know better. See the Talk:s too. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 21:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 :You missed me out. Please pay more attention. [[User:J3Mrs|J3Mrs]] ([[User talk:J3Mrs|talk]]) 21:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
+*{{AN3|d}} Talk page consensus appears to be quite clear. The editor being reverted appears to have a COI and I'll drop a note on their talk page asking them to read up [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:Consensus]]. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 21:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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