Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Mikel Sarwono reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Blocked)

Page

European association football club records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mikel Sarwono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:19, 11 July 2016 " (rev) (Tag: section blanking)"
2. 14:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728910433 by SLBedit (talk)"
3. 14:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728910433 by SLBedit (talk)"
4. 13:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728909987 by SLBedit (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC) to 13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Club records */"
   2. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Most trophies ever */"
   3. 13:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Most trophies ever */"
   4. 13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Most trophies ever */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on European association football club records. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User avoided discussion. SLBedit (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Users continues edit warring and adding unsourced content that was removed because of lack of sources. SLBedit (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Soupforone reported by User:Libanguled (Result: Both parties cautioned)

Page: Arab League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Arabs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soupforone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

I tried talking to him but he is not reasoning with me.

Comments:

He keeps deleting my edits. I sourced my edits with CIA Factbook and another book.

The statement below is the one he keeps deleting even though it has reliable sources to support it.

Somalia was the first non-Arab country to be a member of the Arab League in 1974. <ref>Somalia Business Law Handbook: Strategic Information and Laws. International Business Publications, USA. Aug 1, 2013. p. 48. ISBN 1-4387-7104-5.</ref

In Somalia there are only 30,000 Arabs in the country. "People and Society Somalia -". CIA Factbook.

• Result: Both parties cautioned. It appears there is a disagreement between the CIA Factbook and the charter of the Arab League. The League says it is only open to Arab states, while the CIA has its own specific way of designating people as Arabs. The claim that Somalia is a non-Arab country is cited only to a single source; maybe not all sources agree. If the issue is going to be kept, the two of you should work out a compromise about the wording. For example, you could use indirect speech and don't treat 'Arab' as a fact of nature, treat it as a social construct where opinions could differ. (In our biographical articles we usual rely on self-identification for ethnicity). If warring continues, one or more blocks may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Dingowasher and User:149.254.58.249 reported by User:Darkwind (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Andrea Leadsom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
Dingowasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
149.254.58.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of some of Dingowasher's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diffs of some of 149.254.58.249's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a, Dingowasher has been blocked for edit warring in the past, and the behavior of both parties was egregious

Comments:
This is a pro-forma report for the record, as I've already blocked both parties for edit warring. I encountered this article when Dingowasher (t c) reported the IP editor for vandalism at WP:AIV. The IP editor appears to have been trying to explain their edits via the use of edit summaries, which means it wasn't a case of obvious vandalism. However, because both editors were disrupting the page, Both editors blocked, Dingowasher for 36 hours because of a prior block history for edit warring, the IP editor for 24 hours as a first offense. –Darkwind (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:The Almightey Drill and User:JoshDonaldson20 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Disgrace of Gijón (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: The Almightey Drill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JoshDonaldson20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of The Almightey Drill's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

Diffs of JoshDonaldson20's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link for The Almightey Drill y find yourself facing a block too --> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:
After repeatedly revering each other on Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)‎ to the point where both editors were blocked and the page required full protection when the blocks expired, these editors have now taken their dispute to Disgrace of Gijón (see diffs above) and to a lesser extent to Netherlands national football team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

He has also done this at 2015 Copa América Chase (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Get real. I've told Josh to engage in dialogue (see both talk pages) and informed him of BRD and he still doesn't communicate or attempt to cooperate. His edits to the Dutch national team were reverting me just because (no explanation) and reverted instantly by others because they were that obvious. As for the Copa América, I was removing a gigantic chart of original research that someone just made up one day, only to be reverted and told to find sources for something that doesn't exist. Why were the other users so zealously defending something without being zealous enough to prove its existence? I opened discussion there as well. In all of these cases I have been the first to request and open discussion. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Oh and get this. When I posted on Josh's talkpage to open discussion so that he would avoid another block, he just instantly undid my posting of that message. With no explanation, as always. I don't care if I'm blocked when someone else is refusing to cooperate, I can't just sit there and let them take over. It's immense hutzpah from Chase to bring up the Copa América thing when the other users couldn't be bothered to source the existence of their sacred chart of holy original research '''tAD''' (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• The Almightey Drill, just because you believe you are "right" does not mean you have a free license to remove content from a page an unlimited number of times. Another editor's failure to engage in discussion with you also does not give you that right. Because of your behavior in this situation, as well as your history of disregard for community policy (as shown in your block log), you are Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Furthermore, if you continue to engage in disruption on football-related articles, you are going to earn a topic ban.

• JoshDonaldson20, failure to engage in discussion, as well as edit warring again so soon after being blocked for the same behavior, is concerning to me, and you are Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. You may also end up with a topic ban from football articles if you keep up with these disputes after your block expires. –Darkwind (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Darkwind is known for blocking people to force his opinion.--2003:5F:3E7B:C0CA:81B:4A5B:3263:6F8D (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:58.96.107.130 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: Blocked 2 days)

Page

Visa policy of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728986286 by Sro23 (talk)"
2. 01:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728944093 by Sro23 (talk)"
3. 19:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728931492 by Sro23 (talk)"
4. 17:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728745790 by David.moreno72 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Comments:

User has continually re-added this unsourced statement and made no effort to discuss the issue instead. Edit warred on Pumped-storage hydroelectricity with two other users as well. Sro23 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 days NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Exciting2015 reported by User:59.89.41.149 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Burhan Muzaffar Wani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Exciting2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17] - Editor removed sourced statement regarding subject's activity and threatened me with block.
2. [18] - He reverted and readded bare sources that were eithed already in the article or not needed.
3. [19] - Termed the subject who is a militant as having joined been a freedom movement and saying he is fighting against oppression by security forces, completely personal POV.
4. [20] - Removed another sourced statement and threatened me again displaying continous disruptive behavior despite being warned several times to stop such behaviour.
5. [21] He removed another source content and threatened again.
6. [22] - Again added his personal POV about the subject Burhan Wani.
7. [23] He added his personal POV back again after being reverted by another user.
8. [24] He added back his personal POV again.

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

Comments:

Hello. This editor has been induldging in continuos disruption on the article. Asides from edit-warring he has violated many other policies including adding his personal POV, removing sourced content many times without any reason at all, threatening other users so he can have have his way. I have warned him many times in edit summaries to desist from disruptive editing or he will be blocked. I also warned him on his talk page about this yet he continued to do what he wanted. I stopped editing as I do not want to be involved an edit war. However even after being reverted by other editors many times, Exciting2015 is reverting them as well. It seems that this person is clearly not here to make Wikipedia better and editing articles solely according to his own personal views, having no regard at all for the rules. He also wrote on my talk page that the article was "not a political discussion of Kashmiri Pandits and was about Kashmiri Muslims" and told me to remember this even though clearly all I added in the article was about the subject. You can see his message in this link here: [26]. His message to me also shows his personal bias and that he is editing the article based on his personal POV. Clealrly he will not listen to anything. I request the admins to block this disruptive user for some time so he does not repeat this behaviour again. Thank you. 59.89.41.149 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Page protected Exciting2015 blocked one week under discretionary sanctions. Multiple editors edit warring so article fully protected one week. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Erus97 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 4 days)

Page: Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Erus97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]
6. [33]
7. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has not chosen to engage in discussion

Comments:
Erus97 has been reverting other editors since 7 July 2016. Clearly this editor is not a new user, making only 1-2 reverts/day. Despite this clearly avoidance of 3rr, this is still disruptive editing, since Erus97 has chosen not to explain their concerns on the talk page. Erus97 was blocked for 31 hours by Widr at 04:34, 8 July 2016,[36] and once the blocked expire went back to removing referenced information. Please note all of Erus97's edits consist of removing "Persian" from the Nasir al-Din al-Tusi article.[37] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 4 days NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Craft37by reported by User:Hebel (Result: Blocked)

Page: Grand Duchy of Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Craft37by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]
6. [44]
7. [45]
8. [46]
9. [47]
10. [48]
11. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the article talk page but on his and my talkpges [51] and [52]

Comments:Blatant POV editing

Repetitive blatant POV editing. The first edits weren't made in one fell swoop and also not by one person. User has been asked to go to talk repeatedly, but hasn't done so. This is an ongoing situation and another POV editor User:Admiral buba is involved as well. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. I'm also giving an alert of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:TheGreenGiant23 (Result: Declined)

If someone, administrators or anybody involved in the Wikipedia project, can help us to end once for all the edit wars between User:Sportsfan 1234 and User:Raymarcbadz, it will be more than appreciated. I think that the attitude of user Sportsfan 1234 towards others is in cause here : he is rude, uncooperative and try to intimidate several experienced contributors, including me, of blocking or reporting for vandalism even if other users had only suggested different views of thinking and showed respectful behaviour toward the user.

If anybody can just calm him down, it will be great, and more important, remind him that he is not elected as an administrator, thus he has no powers to block anyone or to act like an administrator, and that he should always tried to discuss with respect instead of insulting, intimidating, and creating endless edit wars by reverting systematically the work of some veterans contributors.

I’m suggesting a first courtesy warning and if doesn’t listen, temporary block to calm him down and change his behaviour.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

TGG23

Examples:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raymarcbadz&diff=prev&oldid=729055122
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=next&oldid=722616944
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=next&oldid=725300474
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=next&oldid=727722746
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=next&oldid=728900900

etc.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Qualification#List_of_quota_places_and_shooters and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=prev&oldid=714791235.

Comments:

TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment TheGreenGiant23 where are they edit warring? It isn't at Shooting at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk),

See the examples. The edit war has been active since 1 year or more between those two. Just check the history of contributions for Sportfan1234 and you will understand. He pick on him regularly and other users who edits pages after him. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunasuttuq 10:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&offset=&limit=500&action=history

TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=717575685&oldid=717511893 TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Raymarcbadz has been told on multiple occasions of the MOS rules for WP:Olympics by multiple users [53] and accepted receipt of the message. Yet when the rules are applied for example here [54] and [55], he decides to not apply the MOS rules. I don't know what that is, but it clearly is not constructive editing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC) @Basement12:

@Sportsfan 1234:, calm down. You are the only one who reminded me about the MOS rules, and you took too much control on reverting my edits, in which they make me stressful and irritating. Are you born to be an administrator of the project? That's why you want to intimidate me all the time? @TheGreenGiant23: I'm also an experienced contributor for quite a long time. I've contributed heavily on the WikiProject Olympics, and I've done a tremendous effort on the NOC articles. I also created thousands of articles throughout my four-year span. And btw, he also judged me on my grammar in the edit summaries. Isn't it disrespectful? He acts himself as an administrator of the WP:OLY, and tries to strictly dictate everything without further discussion. Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

His general behavior toward other users, regardless of the content, right or not, is clearly disrespectful and a source of tensions and edit wars since at least 2 years, and goes against many rules edicted by the Wikipedia conduct rules, including civility, consensus, dispute resolution, edit warring, harassment, non-discrimination and no personal attacks. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, he showed some form of disrespect whenever I edit something. Lately, he just put the word "grammar" in the edit summary in which it may sound annoying towards the user or does not point out the specific details regarding somebody's grammar and composition. [56]. Is he making so many rules that many users do not know? How can I ever complain if he doesn't care or understand what the users and I are saying and pleasing? Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Declined. See the instructions at top of this page for how to create an edit warring report. Specify the article you think is in dispute, and provide diffs of the reverts on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Whut? Are you joking? Do you want Sportsfan 1234 to keep him and let him abuse me on Wikipedia by his uncontrollable attitude? Do you deserve him to be the "best contributor" of Wikipedia. You guys are letting me and others down and defeated. BS.≥ Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Antoine kornprobst reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked)

Page

Raphael Douady (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Antoine kornprobst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729192914 by 331dot (talk)"
2. 15:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC) "Please read the template you send me yourself !!!"
3. 15:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC) "LEARN TO READ ENGLISH ! We are doctoral students, NOT notable students with a wikipedia page. I'm editing the page on behalf of the person it's about btw. Please go away and mind your own business. I didn't know Wikipedia had trolls too :("
4. 15:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC) "I disagree. The wikipedia templates has two sections : "doctoral students" and "notable students". We are all PhD students though none of us are notable students. My edit was appropriate, please don't reverse it again or I'll complain to Wikipedia. Thanks"
5. 14:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729136333 by Melcous (talk)"
6. 00:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Raphael Douady. (TW)"
2. 15:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Raphael Douady. (TW)"
3. 15:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Raphael Douady. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Dispute */ new section"

Comments:

Seems to be attempting to add non-notable persons to an infobox. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This is absurd ! Here is the template [57]. I added "doctoral students" (me and my colleagues), not "notable students". The person who reported me is obviously in bad faith and has nothing better to do than harass other users on Wikipedia ! Antoine kornprobst (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn reported by User:DustWolf (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: multiple

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments:

I'm new to this so help me fill this out. User undoing any contribution to the page that does not line up with their personal views on the subject, including contributions aimed purely at improving the article. Has undid contributions provided by multiple users over a longer period of time. Undid properly sourced contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustWolf (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 July 2016‎ (UTC)

No violation. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't notified of this report which is a violation of the rules of this NB. In view of this, and the fact that the filer is repeatedly re-inserting their text into the Probiotic article despite being told - and not just by me - that their content is unreliably-sourced, I wonder if a boomerang might be in order? (The invocation of my "personal view" is also a failure of WP:AGF, and also false.) Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

No violation. Alexbrn's reverts were justified based on weak non-WP:MEDRS sourcing. --Zefr (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• As a point of order, I remind everyone that the quality of or presence of sources does not generally excuse edit warring. That being said, nothing here crosses the line of edit warring. @DustWolf: I would like to remind you to assume good faith in your interactions with other editors, and try to focus on their contributions and not the reasons you assume that they are editing in a certain way. Accusing editors of being on an ego trip or of editing with a particular bias is not going to get you very far in actually resolving problems. If you feel that there are issues with this page that you are unable to resolve through talk page discussion, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for advice. No violation –Darkwind (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Drive to save reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Various articles pertaining to Major League Baseball teams

User being reported

Drive to save (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User edit-warred in various articles pertaining to baseball teams over grammar. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Sockpuppet. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:82.132.213.198 reported by User:Hebel (Result: Semi)

Page: Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.132.213.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've communicated with this user by requests to go to talk in the edit summaries. I've opened a section on the talkpage here after 4rr was reached by the editor. Comments:IP user 82.132.213.198 keeps introducing unsourced and contradictory content to Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg). Also this matter is now involved, which involves a number of similar articles and suspected sockpuppetry.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebel (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotecting five articles on Prussian orders of chivalry per the evidence in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.132.228.210. The IP user has continued to edit, while making no response to this complaint. I have not checked the content changes to see who is more likely to be right but the use of multiple IPs in an edit war is against policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn reported by User:Élisée P. Bruneau (Result: No violation)

Page: Circumcision and HIV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff|15:40, 11 July 2016‎ ]
2. [diff| 15:34, 11 July 2016]

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

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

Comments:
The problem with the article is the fact that it is biased. I tried to solve it by improving the article. My main source is Earp, Brian D, a Researcher on the University of Oxford. He wrote about the topic on "University of Oxford: Practical Ethics". He might not be peer-reviewed, but his sources are - and the fact that he is working at the University of Oxford and his article was published there makes him an acceptable source. And I used all of his sources. And all I wrote can be found in these peer-reviewed articles:

• [Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Art No CD003255]
• [American Journal of Preventive Medicine]
• [Department of Pediatrics and Human Development, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Marquette, MI, USA]
• [Journal of Law and Medicine]
• [Horizon (in French). pp. 185–210 (a French research database)]
• [Global Public Health: An International Journal for Research, Policy and Practice: Volume 10, Issue 5-6, 2015]

The only non-peer reviewed material I used were the article written by an University of Oxford Researcher and a Huffington Post article. But both were just additional material, because most readers don't understand science journals. Not to mention that nearly all sources were news articles and not academic research material when I started to add some text to the article. But, as I said, all what I wrote was covered by peer-reviewed articles in renominated, peer-reviwed journals.

And here is the clue. Even though all my material is peer-reviewed, he deleted a whole section because: "blogs, the Huffington Post and fringe journal articles are not WP:MEDRS (or even WP:RS) for the serious aspects of this topic. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's principles. You also appear to be publishing links to illicit copies of copyrighted material, which is a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)". Not to mention that I used one blog and not blogs, and that the one blog was hosted by Oxford University. Not to mention again that Huffington Post wasn't a main source - and that Huffington Post articles are used overall at Wikipedia. Not to mention that 4/6 sources are peer-reviewed and that the journals have a good reputation. Still he claims that my sources aren't all right.

Honestly, could it be clearer that he is trying to establish a biased article?--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, no violation. That's two in one day. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's all happening! Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• No violation – Not enough reverts. But the filer of this complaint should read WP:MEDRS if he wants to add text to articles about the medical benefits of circumcision. If you want personal blogs used as a source for medical facts you probably won't succeed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:107.77.216.42 reported by User:Hexafluoride (Result: )

Page: John Newman (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.77.216.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74] warning from 2 editors separately

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
The user is an anonymous IP. They have many similar edits on different articles like the ones in John Newman (singer). It's not vandalism, and I'm AGF, and trying not to WP:BITE. But the edits are disruptive, aren't in accordance with WP:MOS, and the user keeps reverting reverts without addressing the raised issues (and many of the edits on different articles are similar to the ones in Newman; don't add, and don't fix anything). They're not responding to talkpage warnings, or article talk discussion (pinged). The editor continues to make the same edits after being warned. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:71.246.152.193 reported by User:Debresser (Result: )

Page: Judaism and masturbation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.246.152.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]

Diff of edit warring: User talk:71.246.152.193

71.246.152.193 is making an edit war about a non-trivial change on Judaism and masturbation. He is introducing his original research and non-conventional claims, and demands I discuss with him before I revert, while I try to tell him the burden of proof is on him and that he hasn't met that burden. He seems to have an agenda and in his edit summary "your theology trumps what it actually says while too proud to engage in discussion" he didn't refrain from making personal statements about me. I wouldn't go so far as calling it attacks, but making this into something personal, or suggesting that such is my approach, is not professional and not nice. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the issue is edit warring without a 3RR violation so far. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify the issue? I see the IP added stuff, but it is sourced. The major issue is that neither of you are using the talk page before you re-insert claims. Some of the stuff he added seems OK for the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue is behavioral. This IP is an edit warrior.

If you mean the content issue, this is not really the place, but for your information, and just to show that there is indeed an "issue", it is mainly the "Other than this" section which is original research, and the rearrangement of the paragraphs also is not okay IMHO. By the way, the sources are not his, they are just rearranged. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: now a 3RR violation as well. I added the diff above as #4. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

He now also says that this edit is mine, but I don't edit as an IP, and my IP is in the 77. range! In short, he is now lying and making unfounded personal attacks. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I now noticed that he has been behaving on other articles in a similar vein, making changes based on his own findings or opinions, and have reverted a few of them. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Update #2: Calling me an idiot and an asshole now.[81][82][83] Debresser (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Insulting Palestinians"? GMAB You might wanna look up the meaning of philistine in a dictionary ffs 71.127.129.76 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you no sense of humor? That is why I wrote it in the edit summary only and not here. You just took the bait with both your eyes open. :) Debresser (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, 71.127.129.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same as the editor being reported, so sanctions should cover that IP address as well. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:The Copper Miner reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Page protected)

Page: Seeberville Murders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Copper Miner

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (entire day)
2. (specifically)
3. (specifically)
4. (specifically)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:
Editor @The Copper Miner has serious ownership issues as demonstrated by his message on my talk page ([87]), to wit, "If you would like to make changes to the article hence listed above, please confer with me first as I do not wish to have all of my tireless work undone by yourself"; he also clearly has no idea how to edit in good faith. The article thus has serious OR and POV issues which I tried to address but was met with edit warring. Quis separabit? 20:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, he has not even bothered to make an appearance here. Quis separabit? 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected There are problems on both sides. Rms125a@hotmail.com, an edit summary of "start over --- there is no ownership of articles" is not a substitute for discussion. Yes, I know The Copper Miner is the one making changes, but it does look like a fair amount of work and a talk page post detailing your objections would help. The Copper Miner, same goes for you. Use the talk page post to explain why your changes are improvements. Also, Rms125a@hotmail.com does not have to confer with you before making changes and their edits are emphatically not vandalism. Protected the article one week - both of you please start discussing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:108.162.138.228 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: 108.162.138.228 blocked 24 hours)

Page

Canada Post (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) "rev"
2. 22:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC) "stop edit warring with me. if you have a problem with me edit. bring it up on the talk page. thanks."
3. 22:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC) "you use the talk page."
4. 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 22:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC) "stop reverting my edits. thanks."
6. 20:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC) "i very much disagree"
7. 10:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Organizational issues */ Why is there a seperate section on a political agenda like privatization? That's not neutral"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Canada Post. (TW)"
2. 22:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Canada Post. (TW)"
3. 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Canada Post. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Privatization */ new section"

Comments:

Still at it. Refuses to justify their edits on the talk page as requested. clpo13_(talk) 22:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Clpo13 is consistently reverting my edits. I am removing the section in good faith because a privatization section on an article about a crown corporation is politically slanted. I don't appreciate the users above failure to read, understand the context in which I am doing this, and personally attack me as well as threaten me on my own talk page. 108.162.138.228 (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You've been reverted by a number of different editors and you haven't bothered to give a reason on the article talk page for your removal. Please read WP:BRD. clpo13_(talk) 22:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I have given a reason in my edit summary, as required. You are just as guilty of edit warring as I am. I just joined wikipedia. Whats your excuse, mr been editing for 10 years? And threatening me with a ban like you're an administrator?

I am making an edit in good faith. This is very unnecessary. 108.162.138.228 (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not sufficient. It doesn't matter if you're editing in good faith. Once you were reverted the first time, you should have stopped reverting and made your case on the talk page. Since you didn't, I can only assume you are a vandal. clpo13_(talk) 22:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)