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:Quadrow reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Warning)

Page

Theresa May (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729617709 by Coltsfan (talk) No consensus that she should change to Prime Minister."
2. 12:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729616084 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
3. 12:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC) "Not prime minister yet"
4. 12:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC) "Theresa May is not yet Prime Minister. There is no such post as Prime Minister Designate. Please learn the constitution before editing."
5. 23:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC) "Theresa is not presumptive prime minister either. The constitution is clear. The head of state determines the next prime minister and until the queen invites her she is not prime minister (be that presumptive or designate)."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Theresa May. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Prime Minister (Designate or presumptive) */ cmt"
2. 12:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Prime Minister (Designate or presumptive) */"

Comments:

Persistently inserting idiosyncratic interpretaion into the article, despite advice / warnings of seasoned editors. This is dispite the fact that there is a TP discussion taking place, which they edit-war through. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering the experience of this editor, the single edit after being warned, their willingness to discuss, the timescale, and the previous edits contrary to facts and consensus, I'm going to leave the user a warning. I will continue to monitor the article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate zzuuzz intervention. I believe that I was reversing disruptive editing in a matter that had no consensus. I believed there was possible sock puppetry going on to continually add a title that wasn't accurate without providing sources or demonstrating consensus to support adding the title. I didn't know how to report it or respond properly. It was a time sensitive issue and time has moved on and the matter is irrelevant now. I must say the exchange doesn't leave a great impression on a new user.Quadrow (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If you had read the policies your attention had been drawn to, then you would have understood the nature of consensus -what it does not constitute, and what edit-warring does. Alright. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Zakawer (Result: Nominator blocked)

Page: 2013 Egyptian coup d'état (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]; note that an anonymous editor corrected "partaked" to "partook" in this edit. The edit right before completed my series of edits on the article. Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]

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

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

Comments:
SnoogansSnoogans calls my edit "vandalism" even though it's not vandalism; vandalism involves fucking up articles and inserting bullshit into them. That's not what my edits are.Zakawer (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Four RfCs, including one only a few months ago, have concluded that 2013 Egyptian coup d'état should not be moved or renamed, because of the overwhelming consensus of available reliable sources. Zakawar disagrees with these sources, with the RfCs, and with fellow wikipedians, and has unilaterally implemented his proposed changes multiple times, despite the RfC results.

I am glad that Zakawar has brought this complaint, because the edit they're defending, here, is emblematic of their contribution to Wikipedia overall: a blatantly partisan fixation on the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état despite the record of available reliable sources, editing consensus, and a very recent RfC that failed to convince anyone. For any admin looking into this case, I'll provide some diffs below. Note that Zakawar has multiple times now, despite warnings, ignored this RfC result to rename the page or rename contents within it (see similar actions: [3], [4], [5] and [6]).

Also note that the same RfC in various forms has ended with the same result multiple times: [7], [8], [9].

It's pretty clear Zakawar has needed sanctions for some time, and I think their efforts to unilaterally overthrow the latest RfC deserves a WP:BOOMERANG. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Zakawar's original post here is a wonderful summary of this whole situation. -Darouet (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 72 hours. This is not a discretionary sanctions topic area, so additional sanctions beyond a block are not within my scope as an individual admin in this case. If the disruption resumes, I suggest an WP:ANI thread requesting a topic ban or other sanctions.

@Zakawer: Your disregard of the consensus(es) in this topic area is both blatant and willful, and you have also made troubling comments implying ownership of this issue/article. It is very clear that you are not willing to participate in the Wikipedia community's processes or abide by the consensus that has formed on this issue, hence the block. You're correct in one point, your edits are not vandalism, but they are tendentious editing. Please stop it before you end up banned from this topic altogether. –Darkwind (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Hasbro Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729796217 by NightShadow23 (talk) nor have you"
2. 16:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729795194 by NightShadow23 (talk) do not rmv. reliable sources for non-reliable sources - per BRD - do not change until discuss consensus is reached"
3. 15:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729786829 by NightShadow23 (talk) sorry but Variety is a better source & you are removing content for no reason"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Spshu and NightShadow23 are currently engaged in an edit war over sources; the former claiming their source is more reliable, and the latter claiming that the former is violating WP:OR. Given the former's block log - with five counts of edit warring - action may need to be taken. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Electricburst1996. Hasbro bought the company Boulder Media Limited. Spshu claims that Boulder Media Limited is a subsidiary of Hasbro Studios referring to a Variety. But the article does not say that Boulder Media is a division of Hasbro Studios. In Variety says nothing about Hasbro Studios. "Cullen and his team will report to Hasbro’s (!) chief content officer, Stephen Davis". Davis is Hasbro’s chief content officer (and not only the President of Hasbro Studios). Spshu says the following: "Yes, it does say it, not directly. He is Hasbro’s chief content officer as he heads Hasbro Studios. Thus reporting to Davis is being a part of Hasbro Studios. Unless, you think that is consumer products licensing division under his over site (probably why he is also an executive vice president)? The Hasbro website states that "His responsibilities include oversight of Hasbro Studios, the Los Angeles-based entertainment division responsible for all television, film and commercial production and development as well as international distribution, where Hasbro Studio shows are placed in more than 180 territories." (Emphasis mine.) Which thus indicates that Hasbro Studios is in charge of all TV & film productions, thus unless otherwise specified that includes Boulder Media." — This is original research. Boulder Media is not a division of Hasbro Studios. The source says nothing about it. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• I warned NightShadow23 just two days ago for edit-warring in a different article. After the warring, they finally opened a thread at the talk page of that article, but since today they exactly repeated the same thing, may be time for blocks has come. I will not block myself because of that warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There was no edit warring. See. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

1, 2, and then again OR claim [10]. But today you really made four reverts, even after I warned you about the necessity to discuss. Four reverts within 24h after warning mean a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"But today you really made four reverts" — Was 1-2 returns in several articles. You can't block me. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This report was filed because you made four reverts in the same article. But I will indeed wait for another administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page". Was 1-2 returns in several articles. Other edits are not considered reverts. So Electricburst1996 not complained to me. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you are clearly wrong on this point. You made four reverts on the same page (Hasbro Studios) today. Everybody can check the history. 4 > 1-2.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Rebuttal/Counter report

NightShadow23 is a highly confused editor. He has a argument about whether Hasbro Studios or Hasbro is appropriate to list as the parent of newly purchased Boulder Media Limited. I have made other edits upgrading sourcing on Hasbro, Boulder Media and Hasbro Studios in my edits. NightShadow23 has disregarded this in his effort to revert to his position. I have left edit summary messages to attempt to get him to leave the sourcing alone and continued the discussion about the issue at hand. So, in effect instead of focusing on the issue, NightShadow23 has chosen to remove reliable sources nor follow BRD. He chosen to be a disruptive editor by removing reliable sources.

Electricburst1996 instead of joining the discussion and see what the real issue is jumps to ANI/EW. He has become a stalker of sort. He has made previous EW reports with any attempt to join discussion to resolve the issue and has been fixated on getting be permanently blocked. As he seems to have the need to bring improperly previous blocks carried out improperly (on behalf of a edit warring sock or unevenly). So, instead of being able to attempt to get NightShadow23 to discussion and stop removing sourcing, I am currently have to defend myself from an incorrect noticeboard report.

Page

Boulder Media Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

NightShadow23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

729748300

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:46, 14 July 2016‎ (Boulder Media are not division of Hasbro Studios. In Variety says nothing about Hasbro Studios) 15:47, 14 July 2016‎
2. 16:24, 14 July 2016‎ (Wikipedia:No original research)

Continues removing reliable source at

Page

Hasbro Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

reverts to

• 22:10, 13 July 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:25, 14 July 2016‎ NightShadow23 (Hasbro, don't Hasbro Studios.) - Which only reverse to the tformers.com source over Variety
2. 16:16, 14 July 2016 (Wikipedia:No original research)
3. 16:25, 14 July 2016 (You haven't reached a consensus. The source does not say about Hasbro Studios) - after I mention BRD in the edit summary that we should discuss to reach a consensus & still just reverting the source
4. 16:53, 14 July 2016 (Please stop. Boulder Media is not a division of Hasbro Studios. The source says nothing about it.)
5. 18:04, 14 July 2016 (See WP:AN3#User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: )) - apparently considers AN3 a green light not to discuss but to continue editing contrary to BRD

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 17:36, 14 July 2016 by Electricburst1996 (who only reports me).
• 16:21, 14 July 2016 a direct post warning against removing reliable sources under the guise of NOR

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• 15:37, 14 July 2016 - talk began on my talk page
• I respond explain who the subsidiary reports to does indicated where they are in the conglomerate structure.

Spshu (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The source was removed as it is not associated with Hasbro Studios. I have repeatedly warned you. The article says nothing about Hasbro Studios. He didn't want to negotiate and to return their questionable edits. see Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you continually added back a non-reliable source in Hasbro Studios sourcing that Hasbro Studios owns Bolder Media. I warned you about using non-reliable sources and you were not editing for what you were arguing for and what you "warned" me about. And you did not talk towards a consensus nor pay attention what you were doing. Spshu (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"non-reliable"? What? I just told you that the source does not say anything about Hasbro Studios. Variety is a reliable source, but nothing was said about Hasbro Studios. "And you did not talk towards a consensus" — The article had to get back to a stable version, and then to conduct a dialogue. These edits were controversial. How can you claim that Boulder Media is a division of Hasbro Studios? You violated WP:NOR and WP:3RR. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Administrator note (in response to entire section above) It doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong" in an edit war; the fact remains that both of you violated the three-revert rule at Hasbro Studios on 14 July (UTC). Therefore, Both editors blocked, Spshu for 1 week due to extensive block history for edit warring, and NightShadow23 for 24 hours as a first "offense". –Darkwind (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Davidcpearce reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned again)

Page

Thomas Pogge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC) "Buzzfeed stuff"
2. 07:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC) "The Buzzfeed Effect."
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC) to 06:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 06:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not Buzzfeed."
   2. 06:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729572178 by Ollyoxenfree (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was blocked for 24 hours by SlimVirgin yesterday after a warning for edit warring (see previous AN3 report here). This user was also reported for edit warring with a sockpuppet on the same page last month (see AN3 report for that here).

This user continued their edit war less that 1.5 hours after the block by Sarah/SlimVirgin expired (see [11]).

See this version of the user's talk page for warnings and attempts at resolution. Also see Talk:Thomas Pogge. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I've left another note for David. [12] I hope this is the end of the reverting. If it isn't, the blocks will have to escalate.

For the benefit of anyone looking at this in future, it's worth noting that an occasionally used account, User:Janepharper, arrived to revert too. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davidcpearce, the accounts are technically unconnected. David said it was a friend of his. [13] Between 21 May and 14 July David reverted the same or similar material at Thomas Pogge 20 times and Janepharper reverted twice, on 13 and 14 July. I've advised David that the page is under discretionary sanctions because it's a gender-based dispute, [14] and I'm about to advise Janepharper. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I intend to stop editing because I have been inappropriately contacted off-Wikipedia by another editor - apparently as part of a concerted campaign against the subject of the entry. But silence does not imply agreement, let alone consensus. Prof Pogge - whom I have never met, or had the slightest interaction with - has become the victim of a Buzzfeed-fed witch-hunt, with other editors as collateral damage.--Davidcpearce (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Sro23 reported by User:92.63.100.80 (Result: Nominator blocked)

Page: Moldovan language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sro23 (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]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
Edit War in pages. 92.63.100.80 (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The IP is the edit warrior, since others are reverting their edits. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 05:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

IP is sock of User:Unghhg aka User:Никита-Родин-2002 and they've reported me here before. Sro23 (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked by Widr as an open proxy. clpo13_(talk) 05:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16] 23:51, 14 July 2016
2. [17] 00:20, 15 July 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

Link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed: [20]

...to where JFG edits the signature size -> 0.5: [21]

...to where Dervorguilla restores it to 0.5: [22]

...to where YoPienso restores it to 0.5: [23]

Diff of attempt by JFG to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Dervorguilla (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User Yopienso's edit was aimed to correct a gross markup error, nothing more. User JFG did not offer any opinion on signature size, he/she only took the median between an inappropriately minuscule size based on bogus argument of "sexual equality", and the long-standing template:Infobox person default sig size. (That makes as much sense as "compromising" that I cannot fill up the gas tank of my Toyota, because a woman at another pump has a Volkswagon with a smaller tank size!) I cannot find any substantive contribution by User Dervorguilla in the Talk:Donald Trump thread, only shifting irrelevancies, disruptive mocking of the BLP subject and of me, and ongoing/never-ending off-topic posting. Plus his several reverts without cause or consensus to change the long-standing template default sig size, over the same time period. IHTS (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Diff of original talk page discussion just before 2 comments were silently deleted (by IHTS): [25]

Dervorguilla (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 02:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Silently deleted"?? How about I was regretting being enticed by user Jack Upland into off-topic poor humor posts thickening an already too-long Talk thread. (More irrelevancies. Ghosts & goblins!) IHTS (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The OP continues to revert the long-standing sig size at the article even while this incident is open! Amazing. (At this point, I think it's clear, this incident was opened as part of a campaign to harass & intimidate.) IHTS (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt by YoPienso to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Link to where Dervorguilla restores YoPienso's revision: [27]

Link to where IHTS reverts: [28]

Dervorguilla (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 09:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:195.128.1.27 reported by User:331dot (Result: Semi)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729892881 by 331dot (talk)"
2. 08:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729892343 by 331dot (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Keep external links to External links sections at the bottom of an article on Raphael Douady. (TW)"
2. 08:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Raphael Douady. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Dispute */"
2. 08:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Dispute */"

Comments:

IP has stated an intention to edit war; possibly could have used a username or different IP before 331dot (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected ten days by User:Yaris678. It can't be ruled out that these IPs are socks of Special:Contributions/Antoine kornprobst. That editor was blocked at AN3 on July 10 for making similar edits on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:91.242.184.88 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 15:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 03:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 02:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Warned by Toddy1

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Plain and simple edit warring. The IP hasn't justified their edits in any way, whether on the talk page or even through edit summaries. clpo13_(talk) 16:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Bongaosl reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

• --Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:Tryptofish (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39] (revert of: [40])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diffs of attempts to solve on the talk page: [42], [43].

Comments:
User has a history of 3RR blocks, and so is familiar with policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Fully protected one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in this edit war too. When it comes to irrational fundamentalist Christianity versus science people on both sides get frustrated and keen to fight their corner. With the Creation Museum there's also the problem of young children being taught unscientific material before they can think for themselves. Meanwhile the fundamentalist Christians are fighting for what they're convinced is people's eternal wellbeing. Locking the article for a week looks like a reasonable way of dealing with things. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Chilton reported by User:Manul (Result: Blocked)

Page: B. Alan Wallace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chilton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45] Straightforward undo of previous edit.
2. [46] Partial revert, as admitted in the edit summary.
3. [47] Straightforward undo of previous edit.
4. [48] Partial revert; restored changes include the addition of "vacuum state of consciousness" in the first sentence of the subsection, deletion of "another dimension of consciousness", addition of "hampered".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:
Looking back, over a 3-day period I suppose I am guilty of 4 reverts, though that wasn't intentional. I'll take a lump for that, sorry. However I think the difference is that I'm through editing the article for now, while Chilton appears determined to continue warring whatever the cost. The issue is exacerbated by Chilton accusing me of bad faith while evidently not understanding essential Wikipedia policies, as shown in the talk page discussion. Manul ~ talk 23:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to put this on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but decided that I will make another version which replaces unjustified claims with justified ones while preserving all of Novella's criticism, and see if you're alright with it. I also restored my additions (which you deleted a few times without any justification, despite the fact that I asked for it more than once on the talk page). Here's what I aimed to write, for what it's worth:

The article claims that B. Alan Wallace "cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception" as evidence for a certain aspect of his proposed theory of consciousness, namely what he calls substrate consciousness. I haven't found any such statement in any of his writings or speeches, although he does sometimes reference quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena, eg. when criticizing reductive materialism* or discussing other aspects of his theory. Unfortunately, the source given in the article also mixes these things up and makes this claim, without providing any further references or quotes to back it up. I pointed it out to the other editor involved and asked for a primary source (eg. an interview or book by Wallace), but he insists that it is my obligation to supply a source to contradict Novella (which is pretty much impossible, as it would have to say that Wallace never claimed what Novella says he did).

*Note: criticizing reductive materialism doesn't count as supporting this particular theory of consciousness IMHO, as there are many nonreductive accounts of consciousness. It would be extremely imprecise for the article to claim that.

My proposition for a solution:

Read the talk page and remove the disputed claims if the other editor fails to provide a primary source.

Chilton (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Though User:Manul has agreed to take a break there is no assurance from User:Chilton that they will stop warring. Their response above doesn't seem to acknowledge any problem with their edits, even though they made four reverts in 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Pincrete (Result: Warned)

Page: Talk:Elizabeth Dilling (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

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

Comments:The editor has four times today deleted RfC discussion on talk because he believes the RfC is biased and invalid. The editor is also the subject of an ANI about ownership of the article. Because someone at the ANI mentioned that the RfC is poorly framed, zzz believed he was justified in the 4th removal. I consider it outrageous to delete (not close, nor attempt to close) an ongoing RfC. I have communicated this outrage at the ANI and on talk but not formally warned Signedzzz. Could we please have the RfC restored and the editor warned at least. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

An admin had confirmed it is "obviously inappropriately worded", and since I am the one being personally attacked, I think it is reasonable for me to remove it. Having said that, I was not counting the reverts, including from last night. But I think it is reasonable to remove a bad faith RFC started after no discussion that is "obviously inappropriately worded". zzz (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And I should add, it is indefensible to repeatedly restore an illegitimate "obviously inappropriately worded" RFC as some kind of alternative to discussion. zzz (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the advice of the admin at ANI [57]. Pincrete (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"To minimise drama" - I disagree that it would minimise drama to leave it there. I left it for a couple of days, and drama ensued. But no one got round to removing it, so I finally removed it myself, which I probably should have done immediately, in retrospect. zzz (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

To avoid a block for violatioin of 3RR on the talk page, I recommend that Signedzzz restore the RfC that he removed and leave its future up to others to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. In response to my warning on his talk page, User:Signedzzz has restored the RfC, and is agreeing to leave its future up to others to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, User:Pincrete: On the RfC, there is clear majority support for a variety of changes on the Elizabeth Dilling page. I carried out those specific changes, however Signedzzz has immediately reverted that edit, refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the RfC to start with (See here). Isn't this further evidence of edit warring on this page, in which case a block would be warranted? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, given that they have been repeatedly blocked in the past, both for edit warring and other offences, a more severe block would be warranted on this occassion (three months, perhaps?). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

72.47.67.147 reported by User:Oshwah (Result: )

Page

Johnny Marzetti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2016-07-15T21:31:27‎ "The source for this link provides absolutely no mention of Texas or the Rio Grande Valley. Therefore, it was deleted."

1. 01:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "None of the websites you cite relate to the claims you make about Texas. There is a one-person mention of PCZ, but this isn't legitimate by any stretch of the imagination. However, there are literally no mentions of Texas..."
2. 01:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Yes it is. You cannot just link to random cites. You need legitimate sources. Otherwise, what you copy-paste will be deleted. Count on it."
3. 01:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "It either is or it isn't. There is no "believe". What you keep copy-pasting is not legitimate. You need real proof. You need to educate yourself on what constitutes legitimate feedback. Thanks!"
4. 01:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Again, this is not a reliable source. Understand this will not be allowed until you can provide a legitimate source. Thanks!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Johnny Marzetti */ new section"
2. 01:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Message re. Johnny Marzetti (HG) (3.1.21)"
3. 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Johnny Marzetti. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

(none)

Comments:

Repeated deletion of content without discussion first. Has been asked to discuss his reasons on the article's talk page. Contributions show that this has been occurring for months. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor actually may something useful to say here but obstinately refuses to use the article's talk page. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Does the IP have a point? People keep putting back the Darbee reference, which does mention the Canal Zone but not the Rio Grande Valley. It is awkward to block someone for removing unsourced info, even though such removals aren't formally allowed as an an exception to 3RR. Can people at least acknowledge the lack of a source for the presence of this dish in the Rio Grande Valley? I believe that other sources can probably be found, though the Darbee article doesn't mention the Rio Grande Valley. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:603cq reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: )

Page

Scarborough Shoal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

603cq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730008180 by Seav (talk)"
2. 02:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730005911 by JohnBlackburne (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC) to 02:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729909050 by Seav (talk)"
   2. 02:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 729908925 by Seav (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Scarborough Shoal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:टीम निकी मिनाज reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

टीम निकी मिनाज (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:

• Johnny Au you have provided no evidence of edit warring in this report. This is likely to be closed or rejected outright unless you add proof that a 3rr violation has occurred. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Jobas (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: Here and Here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. A
6. B
7. C
8. D

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Warning reverted by Xenophrenic as "humor"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Forced conversion - Three users object to Xenophrenic's Section Blanking on Talk Page
2. Cambodian genocide - Two users object to Xenophrenic's Category Removal on Talk Page

Comments:
User:Xenophrenic has been blocked a total of seven times thus far for edit warring. I've provided just two articles where User:Xenophrenic has been recently edit warring, despite the fact that User:EdJohnston, a sysop, recognized the fact that User:Xenophrenic been edit warring across several articles and offered to protect the pages (see this one for example, where User:Xenophrenic once again reverts User:Ad Orientem). Another user, User:LoveMonkey, who seemed frustrated with User:Xenophrenic's WP:IDHT attitude also felt the need to report User:Xenophrenic as seen here. With specific regard to the Forced conversion article, another editor who noticed the edit warring attempted to discuss the issue with User:Xenophrenic on the talk page but then User:Xenophrenic proceeded to revert them. On the Cambodian genocide article, User:Xenophrenic is reverted by User:TheTimesAreAChanging who, in their edit summary, noted "You sure revert quickly" and attempted to dialog with User:Xenophrenic to no avail, since User:Xenophrenic continued to hold to an IDHT attitude rather than acknowledging consensus and dropping the WP:STICK. How User:Xenophrenic has been able to get away with his WP:HOUNDING and WP:EDIT WARRING behaviour for so long is beyond me. Thanks for your consideration, Jobas (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I can't address Xenophrenic's longer term record, which may well be one of a great contributor. But the admittedly limited editing I have seen on their part strikes me as bold to the point of evincing an element of indifference, or even contempt for the opinions of other editors not in conformity with their own. As also a certain willingness to push the envelope in advancing their particular POV. I will leave it to others to parse the record and decide what, if anything, needs to be done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:60.241.22.142 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: )

Page: UFC 200 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 60.241.22.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
All of them on edit summary, as IP clearly read them and responded. IPs typically do not respond to talk page messages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Discussion on edit summary.

Comments:
IP modified the article as soon as the protection was lifted. It was obviously good faith, but he changed the structure drastically. Separated parts of the story, messed with the timeline of events that occurred on the background and add some informal text to it (e.g. The UFC booked so much star power for the event). I proposed to him via edit summary that he engaged a discussion on the article's talk page as he was the one changing the article that way, considering plenty of registered users did not. At first, he clearly read the comments on edit summary. So I insisted on that and even mentioned that I was going to report him for edit warring if he kept ignoring that and reverting the article. I'm open for adjustments of some stuff he added, no problem. He clearly had the good faith to begin with, but is stubborn enough to ignore policies and keep reverting. Perhaps a page semi-protection for a while or a warning for him in case he reverts it again after I restore the article would be fine. Obviously, can I restore it in that case without being considered edit war as well? I don't want to be punished for nothing. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)