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:107.178.43.177 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ken Ham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.178.43.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:
This may be a fairly new user who does not understand how WP works. H/she is engaging on talk page [10]. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Endorse, was just about to open a section about the IP myself. Has used the TP but still keeps reverting [11]. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimthing reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Locked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]
6. [18]
7. [19]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [21] Codename Lisa's attempt
• [22] Talk page discussion

Comments:

Initially, I took a hostile stand against User:Codename Lisa. I felt her revert was unjustified. But as the discussion went forward, it appears to me that User:Jimthing who is having a WP:BATTLEFIELD as he is dismissive of any attempt to resolve the dispute. For example, when CL offers a WP:3O, Jimthing responds "You should have done that BEFORE removing them, hence reverted to pre-removal state accordingly" without offering what else to do. When CL consents on leaving part of Jimthing's edit, he responds with a blanket revert. When I send him a message today, guiding him to WP:DR and restore the pre-dispute diff, he replies "WTF are you on about. I VERY CLEARLY discussed a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT edit on the template talk page." and that I am in cahoots with CL. (WP:ALLSOCKS, anyone?) It seems this user is adamant to take any step that might threaten his way. Fleet Command (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is completely selective history, isn't it FleetCommand! To start with your comment "Initially, I took a hostile stand against User:Codename Lisa.", erm, no you didn't, you instantly blamed me for my edits without even checking the facts, so that's flatly untrue. And looking at my edit today, it is NOT THE SAME one anyway, so should not just be "grouped" conveniently with the previous ones.

My last edit —if you actually bothered to check properly which clearly did not— on 17 March was completely DIFFERENT to the one done before. So lets get that quite clear – it has absolutely nothing to do with the previous ones whatsoever (check the history). Secondly, the user Codename Lisa completely ignored my comment explaining my edit reasoning on the template talk page, instead choosing to effectively wreck it by not only reverting it, but actually editing it against the previous comment they themselves made about the actual products NOT appearing in the template a week earlier – directly contradicting themselves in their own behaviour.

FleetCommand has completely ignored Codename Lisa's screw-up edit (checking history, they seem to be in some previous cahoots on just about everything!), and instead for reasons only he would know, decides to pick on my edit being instantly wrong — completely against the history of who edited what and when.

The other user, Codename Lisa, should have taken the edit forward to WP:3O are similar if they felt it was not correct (which I made clear on the talk commentary I said to them) and NOT me. THEY edited inappropriately, so THEY should be doing that accordingly. FleetCommend is also showing this "Retired: This user is no longer active on Wikipedia." which is supposed to mean what exactly?... as they are very much involved, annoying the heck out of users trying to make perfectly valid edits and follow procedure, whilst they chose to completely ignore the facts, instead going around blaming other serious users entirely inappropriately, despite the facts being presented to them on a plate via the page history! Jimthing (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jimthing: 3RR doesn't care about the substance of your edits unless they fall among the exemptions. It is irrelevant if each of your three reverts removed different information. If they happened in less than 24 hours, they are considered a breanch of this bright-line rule. Bear that in mind. → Call me Hahc21 20:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that, as Bbb23 said below, three reverts are not a violation. That was the main reason why I didn't block Jimthing. → Call me Hahc21 20:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Very true. Another thing to consider is that I could easily made a third revert today, and he would definitely have made his forth. But that's gaming the system. I am not a pig. When I made the second revert, I was hoping that mentioning WP:CON in my edit summary would dissuade him. I was clearly wrong. I advise a moderated discussion. Fleet Command (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note Woah. I went and fully protected the template before this report came to my knowledge. The protection lasts for a week, in which time I think you can freely discuss on the talk page without having to revert yourselves constantly. However, User:Jimthing might find himself blocked if he resumes reverting after the protection is over. → Call me Hahc21 20:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• He doesn't need to. Currently, the version that he loves is in effect. Of course, some admins revert to the fabled WP:Wrong Version (the version before the dispute, in this case Woohookitty's). But I of course his refusal to work towards a compromise or consensus would have the same effect. Fleet Command (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• He has to. Otherwise if consensus builds against him, and you enact it after the protection expires, he will start reverting again and that would lead to a block. By the way, I did not revert to a previous "edit-war free" version because this has been going since November 2013 and I felt it was not correct to revert to a version that old. → Call me Hahc21 20:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• "But I of course his refusal to work towards a compromise or consensus" eh...? Its very clear from the template talk history that I most certainly did discuss this with Codename Lisa, but they flatly did not answer the points I raised with them, only offering a "see previous comment" answer to everything, on things that were entirely unrelated to their previous comments. So who exactly was refusing to compromise, as it certainly was not me. CL even misedits the template against their OWN comment a week earlier, yet your saying my edit was wrong...get a grip on the facts, please. Jimthing (talk)

• Son, this act is called "working towards a compromise", i.e. she grants part of what you want and you in return discuss possibilities or give her part of what she wants. It was very generous of her. Yet you slap it in her face with "your edit was virtually exactly the opposite of what you undid before". Hell, yes, it was! Why do you complain? Fleet Command (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• (Clearly you know this user, given you now call this user "she" – as I said above you seem to be in cahoots from your page history. And while we're at it, don't talk down to other users with words like "son" in such a patronising manner, especially while you insist on talking utter rubbish on the facts concerned.) She did not "grant part of what you want" – she instead completely ignored my questions, and insead edited the way she wanted to by removing virtually everything I had added; oh how "generous" of her! I don't call that collaborative editing and nor would anyone else around here, apart from you it seems. I did not "slap it in her face" whatsoever, but rather it was exactly the opposite given the fact her edit was precisely what I said it was "exactly the opposite of what (she) undid (of mine) before"! First she insists on no products being on the nav box and it was left that way by me, instead I edit it to point to non-product pages accordingly yesterday, then she edits it to now INCLUDE links to said product pages – exactly the OPPOSITE and contradictory to what she said before! As is evident in the history, my edit yesterday was NOT THE SAME as the one before, hence should not have simply been completely edited differently by said user; following your golden rules, she should have discussed why she thought it was wrong, and not have just completely screw-up my edit instead to suit herself, while then refusing to talk about it. instead of seeing that as per the history, YOU revert back to her edit, ignoring those facts. Jimthing (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I agree with Hahc21's action. I was going to protect the template myself, although I was waiting to hear from Jimthing. Just so it's clear, there's been a lot of edit warring from everyone (hence the lock). Jimthing made three reverts in 24 hours today; therefore, he did not violate WP:3RR, not that that excuses him, but I wanted to make that clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lockean One reported by User:Finx (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [23] (after multiple editors raised objections on talk page)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24] (blanked lead)
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Possibly brought on by a previous edit war attempt, where Lockean One decided a reference s/he earlier requested had to be removed:

1. [28]
2. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] (though it's all over the current talk page, in different sections)

Comments:

This is an ideological crusader who has been given a lot of leeway.

This user has already been blocked once for edit warring on the same article. There has already been an incident report about more disruptive editing. There have been repeated complaints of personal attacks. Over and over again this editor has been reminded that the article is neither a message board for political arguments nor a diary for one's own political views; over and over, the editor tries to turn every discussion into a personal soapbox to proselytize some kind of ideology while finger-wagging at everybody and denouncing, with evangelical zeal, the evils of socialism. There's a history of posts like this:

The fact that some delusional socialists tried, and continue to try, to fraudulently use the word libertarian to refer to using force to maintain a monopoly over the means of production, use force to prevent competition, deprive people of their liberty to produce, associate, contract, etc as they see fit is just that: fraud. ... It's not like capitalism is imposed by government, or is a government program, or is a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word (coordinated scheme). Capitalism is just what people do when they are free to do so. They produce goods and services for sale or trade, employ and be employed by others, make agreements with each other, etc. Societies are referred to as "capitalist" because people are free to engage in all the things that define capitalism, not because they are forced to, or because everyone does those things. In other words, capitalism is merely a consequence of liberty. Socialism (in the normal, non-voluntary sense), to the contrary, is achieved by imposing a coordinated scheme and using force to prevent competition.

— Lockean One, [[32]]

And until you or someone else provides quote(s) from reliable source(s) that support that statement, I will keep adding the CN tag and periodically remove the statement.

— Lockean One, (after six reverts and over a dozen citations provided) [[33]]

This page is in trouble. It's badly lacking competent contributors, and more are giving up. I think it's pretty obvious why. There is a small handful of disruptive, ideologically-driven fanatical users who flatly refuse to check their political convictions at the door to try and write a truthful, detached article. Most come and go, but a few will camp there and make editing basically impossible. They will scream shrill murder any time some fact, detail or properly sourced interpretation is mentioned which doesn't strictly follow the party line. They will use any opportunity, no matter how slim, to tell you about their politics. They will debate any minor point that conflicts in any minor way with some preconceived narrative or what it says in some political party's brochure; and if you should say that the source was that very brochure on another page, photograph it and send it to them, they'll accuse you of lying and forgery. "Their side" will not be labeled, named or given any definable features, except (as far as I can tell) a link the USLP website and a shrine to Murray Rothbard. It's a fundamentalist kind of obscurantism. I can't think of a more appropriate reason for a topic ban. Finx (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If any administrator has any specific questions of me, please let me know and I will be happy to answer them. Otherwise I see no need to comment on the allegations above. Lockean One (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as my edits today, I may have in fact violated the 3RR rule. I'm not sure how many count as reverts since some were just to undo reverts of my edits by others (based on either inadequate edit summary explanation or mistaken revert reason). Regardless, I don't contest that claim, so please take the appropriate action. Lockean One (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did four reverts in less than 24 hours: [34], [35], [36] and [37]. I don't think that blocking you now would change anything, since I already protected the article. → Call me Hahc21 04:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the article is on constant 'ideological lockdown' as it instantly devolves into a bickering message board the moment something is presented that doesn't read like an advertisement for an American libertarian think tank. It's not an isolated incident of a few disruptive edits here and there, and the recent contrarianism on whether Rothbardian libertarians/anarcho-capitalists support capitalism by tenet or by consequence of their tenets (as if it matters) is just one such example, where they will argue and then edit war about absolutely nothing. The argument is that you categorically, absolutely cannot say this ideology supports something without, in the same breath, praising their wisdom in foreseeing how it's inevitable and the only logical conclusion. In fact, they don't actually support capitalism; they support freedom and freedom uncontroversially means laissez faire capitalism as some totally unrelated consequence and you should just say they support freedom, despite half a dozen references saying they explicitly support and defend capitalism. Would that be tolerated on an article about religion? It's beyond absurd and it keeps coming back. Whenever that subsides, it's a bunch of shrieking about how the article should expunge everything that doesn't conform to neoliberal capitalist dogma. It's treated like PR where one side, as Rothbard once put it bluntly, has take ownership of the term. I'm not seeing similar behavior coming from libertarian communists or libertarian Marxists. Finx (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for one week. First of all, what a lame edit war. I have fully protected the page for a week to see if you can all disengage from edit warring. After checking the history, all of you (Goethean, Lockean One and Finx) violated 3RR and have created a mess in the last 48 hours. However, since I protected the page, I will leave it to another admin if blocks are appropriate. → Call me Hahc21 03:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's just not correct. Please check again. I made three reverts in total, and only two were the same ([38] and [39] to return a deleted citation the reported user said was needed). The 'third' revert was to return the lead to what it was before Lockean One's edits, which didn't fly on the talk page. 3RR seems to say: "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page"; Goethean, by my count, made only one such revert and Jim1138 made the other two. Have I miscounted? Finx (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked again, thanks. So many reverts confused me. I have striken accordingly. → Call me Hahc21 04:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I participated in this one and I take responsibility, but I do stop myself before it goes over three edits. Goethean and Jim1138 deserve no blame here, in my opinion. Finx (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I intentionally left Jim1138 out because it is evident to me that his reverts were the result of him patrolling through Huggle. Goethean might well have the article in his watchlist (it's his topic of interest, for what I can see) and reverted upon seeing the changes appear there, I suppose. However, he has edited the article for a while. → Call me Hahc21 04:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One's edits were vandalistic. He has a history of vandalizing the article without regard for sources. I'm disappointed that we have received no assistance from administrators in attempting to control his behavior. — goethean 16:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:79.166.142.39 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600281096 by BethNaught (talk)"
2. 09:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600280897 by BethNaught (talk)"
3. 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600180549 by Delirium (talk) This is not a history website. Paros is about tourism and the summer. This will be added indefinitely so dont waste your time!"
4. 13:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 559690250 by Shade Jon (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Paros. (TW)"
2. 09:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Paros. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has repeatedly (4 times in past 24 hours) reverted the removal of promotional, advertising material from Paros. Edit summaries show clear lack of understanding of the purposes of Wikipedia. BethNaught (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lampstand49 reported by User:Gaba p (Result: )

Page

Talk:Ken Ham (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lampstand49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
   2. 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* edit request by Lampstand49 */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* edit request by Lampstand49 */"
   2. 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
3. 12:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
4. 12:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600295976 by Gaba p (talk)"
   2. 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"
6. 12:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"
7. 12:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ken Ham. (TW)"

added previous warnings-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

1. 1. [40]
   2. [41]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* It is a fact that the Age of the Earth is not 6000 years old */ q"

Comments:

Editor has posted two walls of text to the article's talk page rambling about creationism and how the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Both comments were collapsed several times by a number of editors to which he proceeded to un-collapse. He was warned to stop un-collapsing but refuses to stop. Gaba ^(talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lunapiertech reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: Protected)

Page: Coney Island hot dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lunapiertech (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. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Merger with 'Michigan Hot Dog'

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

Comments:
Even though the merger discussion has been up for more than a month, the votes are 100% opposing the merger of this article with the Michigan hot dog article for very valid reasons. But the reverting editor still wants to keep the proposal alive despite consensus going against him. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• No violation of 3RR. Taking a look at the history, Lunapiertech has not done more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. However, this does not mean that they are not edit warring. But since all of you are edit warring, I have fully protected the page for 72 hours until you sort this out. → Call me Hahc21 15:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Can the merger discussion be closed because the merger proposal is rejected? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you can ask an uninvolved administrator at WP:AN to take a look. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 02:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:50.202.78.174 reported by FriendlyFred (Result: Protected)

Page: Washington Redskins name controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 50.202.78.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 15:39, 18 March 2014 (edit summary: "got rid of "disign by a native american". Not true, in consultation with but not firm on that facts.")
2. 18:27, 18 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 600191923 by FriendlyFred (talk)")
3. 07:58, 19 March 2014 (edit summary: "read artical he was talking about he word redskin not the NFL team. Also there are many opinions I am sure but the Name redskins and it's defence on a resievation is the point of supporters.")
4. 08:10, 19 March 2014 (edit summary: "put in context out of total us 62 schools with name redskins. 3/62")
5. 08:18, 19 March 2014 (edit summary: "added US to make the compareson clear 4.8 percent of all US schools with the name redskins are predeminatly native american.")
6. 08:21, 19 March 2014 (edit summary: "")

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

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

Comments:
The one week semi-protection did not work, since it did not take long for edits to resume that inserted opinion/OR into the opening section of the article, all without discussion and usually without edit summaries. In particular, additions that I made to balance the POV were reverted (diffs 2 and 3 above, and there were earlier ones also by a different IP). The edits are by IP users which trace back to ComCast and ATT wifi access, so they are completely anonymous, although I placed the notice of this discussion on 50.202.78.174 talk page anyway. I also have a new section on Edit Warring on the article talk page, never had any response. FriendlyFred (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. Let's try a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jdogno5 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Space Jam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jdogno5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]
6. [52] (added by Betty Logan (talk))
7. [53] (added by SchroCat (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Jdogno5#March 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Space Jam#Revision and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Content change and trivia addition over at Space Jam

Comments:

This user clearly does not know how Wikipedia works and the steps to constructive editing. They were also warned once before about stating their case through reverting and using the edit summary, as opposed to taking it up on any talk page (article, user, a Wikiproject). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked by Nikkimaria.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnDoe2014 reported by User:Ali-al-Bakuvi (Result: Blocked)

Page: Rohingya people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JohnDoe2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [Rohingya people&oldid=600275218]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]

The User changes the numbers that are proved by sources 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:

The User repeatedly changes the numbers proved by sources in the article, despite being reverted by multiple users. After being warned a new User User:Jawal_Massad appeared and started to continue the vandalism. We think that the last one is a sock puppet.

• Blocked by Alexf and Parsecboy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:1.10.217.14 reported by User:B20180 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Yoshihiro Sato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1.10.217.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]

Page: Hiroya (kickboxer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 1.10.217.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Comments:
The IP user also appears to have edited under at least one other IP address. --B20180 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – 1 week block of 1.10.127.0/27. The IP-hopping user is going to various articles to remove any reference to Muay Thai, a type of martial art. He never participates on talk. I advise B20180 to not keep reverting in these situations. If the pattern continues you might consider reporting at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Aoidh reported by User:CodeCat (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]
6. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Linux Mint#DistroWatch again

Comments:
This started with a content dispute over qualification of DistroWatch statistics that were quited in a way that could potentially mislead readers. At least one other editor User:JohnGoodName also tried to address these issues, but every attempt that has been made by either of us has has been reverted by User:Aoidh. Even attempts to tag the entry with requests to improve the wording of particular phrases was reverted. The six reverts listed above were the only edits the user has made to the article; they've not contributed anything else. It feels to me like they are policing the article to make sure I don't manage to get any changes through, no matter what. A request for assistance at WP:ANI did not get anywhere. A request for WP:3O was submitted and even that got nitpicked about. I can't seem to do anything right here.

I've tried to discuss the issues with the article at length on the talk page. But it was a long and drawn-out process of trying to get my point across, my good faith being questioned, battles of Wikipedia policies being thrown around, and so on. It didn't feel like a discussion to me, but more like a show trial in which the outcome was already predetermined; Aoidh would not allow anything but the current version to stand. It has totally exhausted me and left me at wits' end. Just when I felt there was finally some kind of conclusion, I thought I could finally add something with some kind of consensus behind it, and that was reverted as well. I'm totally done with discussing with this user, as there's no point. Discussion won't address any of the issues I still have with the article, and it's just a battle of attrition by this point. CodeCat (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A "long and drawn out process" of a only few hours of discussion without waiting for any additional input before you resumed edit-warring? I have no problem with the content being changed if there's a consensus for it, and I have no problem with discussion about it, but trying to edit-war until the other editor doesn't revert isn't the way to push content into an article; I haven't violated 3RR, and I'm only asking that the WP:STATUSQUO be respected until discussion takes place. However, despite CodeCat's gaming of the system to try to push until his edits are included, I self-reverted and added it as a note before he notified me of this report. Also relevant is the AN/I report he opened (and subsequently ignored). I'm not sure why I'm being reported for edit-warring by the individual who is also edit-warring on the same article, but I self-reverted and am going to wait for further discussion as I intended. - Aoidh (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See this is the kind of stuff I am fed up having to deal with. Constant counter-accusations, non-assumptions of good faith and accusing me of trying to push content into the article. I'm not even edit warring; I keep making new attempts to accommodate Aoidh's wishes, until I can find something they like. And then more extremely stressful discussions that get nowhere, until I get exhausted and give up. The only winning move is not to play.

Oh, and if I'm going to be blocked for edit warring as well... I really just don't care at this point. I'm fed up going nowhere with them. I just want it to stop. If Wiki-suicide is what it takes to end it, then fine with me. CodeCat (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:AAGF (not the first time you've accused me of this); I never accused you of not using good-faith. However, as for "counter-accusations"...do you really think that you did absolutely noting inappropriate in any way, and I'm just the big mean editor trying to "scare you off"? I pointed you to WP:DR, and you are trying to push content into the article; instead of waiting for discussion you're trying to reword the same edits and reinsert them, and then accusing me of edit-warring whenever I revert you (yet you're not edit-warring). Before you even made that last edit I had already explained why that edit would be inappropriate, but you made it anyways. I'm interested in building a consensus and I respect a consensus whenever it is established (don't take my word for it) and I'm not interested in either of us being blocked and if it's becoming stressful how about we both just step away for a few hours (or however long it takes) and wait for a third opinion? I won't touch the talk page and certainly not the article until someone new to the discussion weighs in. I'm not trying to stress you out or drive you away, I just don't agree with your edit and I'm discussing it to that effect, but it looks like waiting will be the best bet at this point for both of us. - Aoidh (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It does look a little odd, however, that you notified JohnGoodName, who made the same edits as you, but not User:Dodi 8238, who disagreed with you. That was the only difference between those two editors, so that comes across as WP:CANVASSING. - Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF again please. I did not notify that user because they were not involved; they only made one revert and didn't do anything else. They didn't partake in any discussions, didn't make any other edits. I did mention them at ANI though. CodeCat (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

John was no more involved than Dodi, yet you only notified the editor who agreed with you. What you did does come across as canvassing, it's not assuming bad faith to point that out, and I'm tired of telling you to WP:AAGF; if you don't understand what WP:AGF is don't cite it, because now it's coming across as willful incivility since by now you should know better. Either way it's a problem; please stop. - Aoidh (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I was and am more involved. JohnGoodName (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, yes. That doesn't change that they only notified the editor that agreed with their edit, despite both you and Dodi only editing that page a couple of times, and neither of you editing the talk page in the past 9+ months. I'm not saying it was done with the intent of canvassing, but that's how it comes across. - Aoidh (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. This shouldn't have been brought here. One administrator noticeboard was enough. No matter how you slice it, this is a content dispute, and neither here nor ANI is the proper place to resolve content disputes. Trying to transform it into a conduct dispute because of a rise in argument heat and frustration won't work. I don't see any egregious misconduct by anyone. I just see mostly two editors who are going in circles. If WP:3O doesn't work, take it to WP:DRN. Other suggestions were made at ANI. If you're too tired or too frustrated to continue, then take a break from the article completely. There are lots of articles to edit besides this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:58.7.142.54 reported by User:Sam Sailor (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Health, maintenance and longevity */"
2. 13:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Health, maintenance and longevity */"
3. 13:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Health, maintenance and longevity */"
4. 13:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Health, maintenance and longevity */"
5. 14:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Health, maintenance and longevity */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User continues warring after final warning. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Finlay McWalter for 12 hours. I think they got the message. → Call me Hahc21 16:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Saint91 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: )

Page

The Moral Landscape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Saint91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597860512 by Mann jess (talk) Perfectly valid - see WP:VIDEOLINK"
2. 10:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600346539 by Mann jess (talk)"
3. 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600463773 by Mann jess (talk) - You are removing large amounts of sourced information. If you wish to justify its removal, please use the talk page. Stop edit warring."
4. 18:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600478591 by Mann jess (talk) Absurd reasoning - this is a criticism of the book, not the person. BLP violation does not apply. It is a relevant source under WP:VIDEOLINK."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Moral Landscape. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Reverts */ new section"

Comments: