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:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: No blocks)

Page: Hit the Deck (1955 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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]
5. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]

Note that there's been no response from the user.

Comments: I originally reported a similar issue a couple of months ago. I've tried to discuss this with the editor on their talkpage, but apparently I'm "banned" from that page and every attempt to enagage is met with a revert. On the article in question, admin Philg88 also reverted the change stating "Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout "Notes" should be used if there are any, but not for references". Phil has also raised this issue on BMK's talkpage, but with no repsonse. Phil also raised the issue of 4 different editor's posts being removed while trying to discuss issues with this editor. After consulting with Phil, I'm at a loss of what to do, hence bringing this here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts' basic position is that MOS does not allow the References/Notes formatting, and therefore he is justified in edit-warring to remove it from articles. In point of fact, MOS does not support any specific formatting: it describes several possibilities, and leaves the choice open to editors. I've pointed this out in various edit summaries, but this has not deterred Lugnuts from edit-warring on a number of articles in (erroneous) support of MOS, an action which ArbCom has specifically warned against in a number of decisions.

As for removing Lugnuts' posts form my web page, this is clearly within my purview. His contributions have not been welcome there for quite a while. For many years, I have found Lugnuts to be an aggressively obnoxious editor -- one can see why simply by looking at his user pages -- and do not wish to have his contributions on my talk page. His behavior has never been egregious enough to justify any attempt to have him sanctioned (Wikipedia is big enough to allow even aggresively obnoxious editors to participate), but he does make any interaction with him distinctly unpleasant, despite the excellent Eddie Haskell imitation he's doing in his comment above.

Concerning discussion of this specific issue, he and I have been through the discussion numerous times in the past - of which Lugnuts feigns lack of memory - so I did not, and do not, think it would be profitable to discuss it again, at least as long as he continues to labor under the incorrect premise that he is supporting MOS.

(I do not think this issue is worth the energy it would take to dig up specific diffs, but I will do so on request of an admin.) BMK (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And now when offered some friendly advice by Philg88, BMK reverts that too and removes the notice of this discussion. Beyond My Ken - now that Isaidnoway has also removed your edit on the article citing the MOS, are you going to revert him, without discussion, too? Comments in edit summaries? Please. You know how to discuss things like an adult via the talkpage(s) in question, so why have you not done so? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Does Lugnuts really think it is appropriate to use this forum to attempt to litigate how I maintain my user page? And what, I wonder, does he think the purpose of an edit summary is, except to communicate with other users? BMK (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Just pointing out that you've been offered advice by other users and you choose to ignore them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that User:Beyond My Ken has reverted four times on 19 September at Hit the Deck (1955 film) beginning at 09:03 and these reverts are just one episode in a long-running dispute. One option is a block. BMK, will you make an offer to pursue dispute resolution to avoid a block? For example, agree to open an RfC and promise to accept the outcome? EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ed, of course I have no desire to be blocked, and would consider an RfC/U were it not for my long time observation that that vehicle is almost entirely ineffective, and is very often used for prosecuting old grievances rather than for a frank discussion between editors aimed at compromise and consensus. Also, how can I possibly promise to "accept the outcome" without knowing what the outcome is? These things can go every which way, as I'm sure you know, and I'm not going to commit myself to accepting what could become a run-away attempt at petty retribution. I would be willing to promise to take the outcome of a well-focused and disciplined RfC/U seriously, though.

It also concerns me somewhat that you're addressing your comments only to me, without dealing with the equivalent "bright line violation" (as noted below) of Lugnuts. I'd be more inclined to agree to some sort of dispute resolution if I thought things were being dealt with even-handedly. BMK (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To say you'll accept the outcome of an RfC only if it says the right thing is like saying you won't accept it. (I asked for a content RfC, not an RFCU). I think admins should block *you* rather than Lugnuts because you have signalled you will keep up this battle indefinitely, while Lugnuts wants to pursue discussion (which you evade with every possible excuse). EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Bright line violation with edits after warning. BMK's comments avoid the 3RR issue and complain about Lugnut's EW (two to tango) or divert to talk page maintenance. Lugnuts is also a bright line violation of 3RR; Lugnuts gave the warning and continued to revert the article. BMK does have history of imposing particular style on articles and has been blocked for 3RR earlier this year on style EW; there's also an ownership flavor in the edit comment at No Other Woman (1933 film) here. Unknowingly, I crossed paths with BMK's similar format changes at Midway Atoll where BMK had reformatted sections.[10] I reverted some of BMK's explicit character formatting to the previously existing heading styles. Glrx (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I can't speak for EdJohnston, but I think most admins are reluctant to block experienced editors with valuable contributions to the project (even though both of these editors have been blocked before). However, we pay a price when we attempt to avoid the block and come to a more reasoned resolution because many experienced editors are stubborn and reject potential solutions that they don't like or can't control. So, there's not much confusion here, but there's still a little (at least in my view). I want both editors to agree to an RfC (not an RfC/U as BMK talks about) on the reference/MOS issue (perhaps I missed it but I didn't see Lugnuts formally agree to an RfC). I will block the editor or editors who don't agree (someone has to do it). So, the ball is now in their courts: @Beyond My Ken: @Lugnuts: --Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This BMK/spacing dispute has been bubbling away for years: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Disruptive_Editing_by_User:Beyond_My_Ken_on_Reach_for_the_Sky, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Additional_discussion_about_BMK.27s_behavior and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Using_hidden_comments_to_make_a_space_by_User:Beyond_My_Ken. Many editors have objected to him installing white space at the bottom of the article (to insert a gap between text and footers) so it ultimately comes down to personal preference. Personally I agree it's a visual improvement, but it is really a typesetting issue, not an editorial one. If readability of text is improved by increasing the gap between text and footers then it should be initiated across all articles in a way that is uniform on all displays. BMK should take this to the village pump rather than edit-warring spaces into articles manually, and if he did I would support his proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, Betty Logan, it has been "bubbling away" for years, and every time it has come up at AN or AN/I, the complaint against me has been rejected. Consistency is not a vital issue when it comes to formatting -- what's important is that our information be accurate and presented in a way that's effective for the reader to take in. That one article does it one way and another does it another way is really unimportant, and that is one reason why MOS is a guideline and not a mandatory policy.

    Concerning an RfC about the formatting issues that Bbb23 is calling for, I would be happy to participate in a centralized discussion about that, and would follow whatever policy-compliant consensus that was to come out of it. I hope that Lugnuts will agree to that as well.

    EdJohnston, my objection to accepting in advance the result of an RfC/U (and I did think that was what you were asking for, not an RfC) has nothing to do with whether it comes up with the "right" result, and everything to do with how it is framed and executed. I've said that I would take the result of a well-focused and disciplined RfC/U very seriously, but I've seen much too much abuse of RfC/U's to do anything more than that. As for "signalling" that I would keep up the reverts forever, I don't see how you get that from the editing, but in any case - although you have no way of verifying this - I took the article off my watchlist yesterday and have no plans to return; this despite the fact that I have been expanding the article in substantive ways while Lugnuts has merely been edit warring to enforce his favored version of formatting. BMK (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Just in case I buried the lede in the above comment, it included my formal agreement with Bbb23's RfC proposal. BMK (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm going to hold you to your second statement, not to your first. In particular, you must accept the result of the RfC, even if in your view it's not "policy-compliant." As an aside, I thought the issue here was about the inclusion of "Notes" more than about spacing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
        • It was. BMK (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
          • BTW, given this thread, can we book you and EdJohnston and a third admin of your choice to close the RfC? BMK (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's deal with the logistics after we get Lugnuts's input. I have a feeling I've gotten myself into quite an undertaking here. In any event, Lugnuts hasn't made any edits to Wikipedia since I pinged him. I can't imagine how he can ever stop editing given his edit count, but apparently he manages. I may not check in myself on this board until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleep is my only weakness. RfC sounds good to me. How to procede with that? After trying to engage Ken in discussion and his refusal to do so (as pointed out by several editors), then it seems the best way forward. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well, perhaps you can teach me how to sleep. Initially, let's move the logistics discussion to my talk page. That discussion must remain civil. I don't want to hear direct or indirect negative remarks about each other no matter what. As an aside, BMK's name is not Ken. You can call him by his full user name or by BMK for short.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to the part of WP:RFC that states it has to be your talkpage? Surely it's the relevant MOS or article in question, so myself and Ken (and others) can participate? And seeing as it's only Ken that currently takes issue with the current MOS, then he should start it too? I'd drop a note on his talkpage to get the ball rolling, but, you know... Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not reading my comments very carefully, Lugnuts. I didn't say the RfC was going to be held on my talk page (god forbid). I said we should discuss the logistics of the RfC on my talk page. And please stop calling him Ken.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So a pre-RfC? OK, I'll wait for Ken to man-up and start the ball rolling. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it's not needed at all with multiple editors agreeing that Ken's edits are superfluous. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

Brianmathe (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 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC) to 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "myth to legend"
   2. 19:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "incorrect facts"
   3. 19:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparative mythology */"
   4. 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Flood geology */"
2. 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC) to 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Flood geology */"
   2. 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Flood geology */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Noah's Ark. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal of sourced content */ new section"

Comments:

We are dealing with a POV vandalism only account. Needs a good block. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626323531 by Dodger67 (talk)"
2. 20:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626229306 by Dodger67 (talk) Don't even start. It was more than that, and if you know what your talking about, you know this to be true."
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC) to 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626198836 by Srnec (talk)"
   2. 16:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626198836 by Srnec (talk)"
   3. 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626198836 by Srnec (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on South African Republic. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Discussion at Talk:South African Republic#Maritz Rebellion

Comments:

The issue has been discussed at the article talk page yet the user persists against clear consensus. The user's talk page shows a history of contentious editing with another warning about a different article being posted more recently than the warning about the article concerned here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Another article affected by this issue is Maritz Rebellion. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I'm not sure I'd call it a "clear consensus", but the user has been down this road more than once, and he was edit-warring against multiple editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:UxUmbrella reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Already Blocked)

Page

Umbrella (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626479191 by Chasewc91 (talk)"
2. 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Example */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Umbrella (song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was just blocked for 60 hours for edit warring at Umbrella (song) (see here). User's edits are focused on restoring an overly detailed music video section against consensus. A discussion was opened on the talk page; the user is aware of it and has posted to it, but insists on restoring the article to his/her preferred version. User has clearly not learned his/her lesson.

Civility/personal attacks are also an issue; the user was previously blocked for 48 hours for this reason (not shockingly, related to the "Umbrella" article). –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 1 week by Vsmith -- Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:StanTheMan87 reported by User:Krzyhorse22 (Result: )

Page: Mohammed Omar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

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

Comments:
StanTheMan87 was created last month. [16] He keeps uploading images [17] after they get deleted. [18] Files that show unknown people he names them "Mohammed Omar" (wanted one-eyed spiritual leader of Taliban). See also [19] [20]. He uses images that he uploaded under fair use in multiple articles [21] when they should only be used in one article. [22] These images don't even qualify for Wikipedia because (1) they're uploaded without permission from author/owner and (2) there is no proof that the person is Mohammad Omar. It is only suggested that it may be him but that is not enough for encyclopedia purposes. People in the past have come forward to challenge the accuracy of the images. For example, Maulvi Hafizullah, a former protocol officer for the Taliban stated: "I looked at the photo and it was me. The CIA are blind and stupid." [23] The support that Maulvi Hafizullah is telling the truth. The guy in that particular image is wearing a pakol hat, Mullah Omar is from southern Afghanistan and nobody ever wears pakol hats in that region. It's like a cowboy hat being worn in New York City.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Krzyhorse22, you appear to be on an anti-StanTheMan crusade. You say that the account was created only last month. So was yours. You have made a grand total of 127 edits (not counting deleted edits), of which only 32 are to article space. The majority of your edits, 50, are to Wikipedia pages. Indeed, your first edits were to create a report at WP:ANI about StanTheMan. You're not even involved in the edit war you're reporting. StanTheMan reverted three times. However, so did User:Maxforwind, whom you did not report. And Max's account was created only two days ago. There's a lot of weird stuff going on here, and, frankly, I'm not about to sort it out, but for the moment, I'm taking no action, although I'll leave the report open in case another administrator wants to look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • My first edit was nominating an image for deletion, the image was deleted and StanTheMan87 re-uploaded it and in the process my first edit was deleted. You cannot see that deleted edit of mine. That's when I began reporting StanTheMan87. I have no relations to Maxforwind (talk · contribs), I was going to report him/her but got busy. I expected admins to block that person also by reporting one. I'm making constructive edits, if anyone is against this they can report me but this report is about StanTheMan87 who violated 3rr and is attacking me. [24] If you want to allow him to violate 3rr that's a different issue. Next you're going to tell me not to report anyone who violates Wikipedia policy. I'm a very serious person, I don't come here to play games.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It's already been established that Krzyhorse22 is indeed insane and has a deep-seated obsession over me though I do not know why. Again, this is not just my opinion, DocumentError can attest to this rather awkward behavior exhibited by Krzyhorse22, [25]. Those images that I have uploaded, I did with forewarning Krzyhorse22, [26] and he never stated that it would be a violation then, instead simply providing pathetic excuses that the images were not legit without providing any sources to support his claims, see [27], [28], [29], [30]. Note that the images uploaded have nothing to do with the one Krzyhorse22 is ranting about [31]. I am not going to type ten paragraphs proving my innocence and wasting my time and admins time in reading the material, in yet another trumped up charge filed by this moron, see [32], [33]. The violation of WP:3RR on my part was justified, as there was no explanation given at all for the reverts, besides "Irrelevant to article" [34]. I suspect Krzyhorse22 is now just making accounts to hassle me on Wikipedia, removing the content I have uploaded through puppets e.g User:Maxforwind, as Krzyhorse22 has relentlessly attempted to remove the images in the past [35] though I cannot prove they are both socks as this is just an assumption. For someone claiming to be "a very serious person", and "I don't come here to play games", Krzyhorse22 seems to have no qualms over claiming to call CIA director John O. Brennan in order to support his POV [36] then writing it off as "it was a joke" [37]. I just can't help but feel so sorry for those that have had to read the same nascent bullsh*t from Krzyhorse22 over and over again. If it is determined that really, I am in fact the problem here, then ban my IP from Wikipedia for 12+ months becuase these constant accusations are just really starting to irritate me. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, KrzyHorse22 is a chronic disruptive account, possible sockpuppet and well-known lunatic (I know this is a WP:CIVIL no-no but the guy has previously claimed he was consulting with the director of the CIA on the copyright status of images, so I'm not sure how else to describe him). I'm not going to retype his whole, sordid history, because I have to do this every 5-6 days, like clockwork. If anyone would like to read it, I've posted it on DeltaQuad's Talk page (please see here [38]). All of KH22's edits are essentially vandalism so 3RR doesn't apply as per WP:3RRNO. DocumentError (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Spidermedicine reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: )

Page

Ann Ree Colton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Ann Ree Colton. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Slow edit warring is still edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

Although not over three and not within a single day, the editor has removed the same content three times in one month without discussion on talk and without appropriate edit summaries. diff, diff. The editor has also blanked a related article Niscience diff. I think a topic ban is in order. MrBill3 (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wearypoet reported by User:Dsprc (Result: )

Page

R. Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wearypoet (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 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) to 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "BLP Vandalism"
   2. 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626533826 by Wearypoet (talk) I don't get why there's a "personal life" section when there's already a "life and career" section and why was the legal issues article deleted?"
   3. 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal issues= */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on R. Kelly. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* legal issues */"

Comments:

There are numerous edits in page history specifically dating back to about last month or so when I initially attempted to engage with the editor, at which point the disruptive editing became more agressive, and a number of similar edits prior; such as these from 2013 [39], [40], and so forth (some of the earliest edits are attempts at removal of this content). The editors talk page is littered with warnings about this behaviour.

Editor seems intent on unilaterally censoring material they WP:DONTLIKE using bogus rationales (or none at all). I've attempted numerous times to engage in meaningful discussion, yet, they're unwilling to reciprocate attempts at forming consensus. The disruptive editing has resulted in a content fork at R. Kelly Legal history and image which was previously deleted per WP:A10, and then recreated anyway. Sushuki12 has attempted to revert the edits but they do not engage in dialog either. They are now both edit warring it out. -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Taivo reported by User:DMacks (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626599563 by Hoshie (talk) not really notable"
2. 16:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626637940 by DMacks (talk) The New York Times also reports lottery results"
3. 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626644720 by DMacks (talk) And you should know that WP:BRD applies here. When reverted, do not reinsert, but talk it out on Talk Page to build a consensus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I made an edit-summary "you should know better than to edit-war, especially once it's obvious that at least two other experienced editors disgree with you. I won't bother templating you.", to which editor made his next edit with edit-summary "And you should know that WP:BRD applies here."--dialog indicating having read my edit-summary (so I indeed did not follow up with a formal warning on his talkpage). Literal 3RR violation, and note that his third included the apparent recognition of having read my warning. It's a valid point to have a discussion, but it's a bizarre starting point to consider the New York Times as a default non-reliable source and to do so solely because it contains some trivial/unencyclopediac facts. DMacks (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DMacks thinks that his edit summaries substitute for a discussion on the article Talk Page (which I initiated and he failed to participate in). He doesn't seem to know the the meaning of WP:BRD. He also doesn't seem to know that it takes four reverts to constitute a violation of WP:3RR. --Taivo (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I did indeed participate. Maybe your noticing that is as {{ec}} as my moments-belated noticing you had started a discussion while I was writing my edit-summary. Give-and-take via edit-summary is a common starting-point for raising a simple point (I couldn't understand how a NYT cite wasn't plausibly "notable", and still cannot really, but now we are on talk-age about that), though now we obviously do need more extensive discussion which is when we go to talkpage. And "dammit, mis-counted" also during the rapid EC...sorry about that. DMacks (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Perhaps you can request that this complaint be dropped as unnecessary. But "discussion through edit summary" is not the best practice in Wikipedia. Per WP:BRD, as soon as I reverted the initial insertion of the information, the discussion should have moved to the article Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin/clerk, feel free to close as withdrawn (and welcome to join us in the on-going discussion!) DMacks (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Non-standard cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Dichotomous cosmology */"
2. 22:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626535594 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk)"
3. 23:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626544687 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk)"
4. 04:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626569237 by AndyTheGrump (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Repeated insertion of OR */ new section"

Comments:

Not a clear 3RR but clearly EW. Editor shows a lack of understanding of WP policy diff MrBill3 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned User:Yheyma. If they revert again to add the disputed section at Non-standard cosmology they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Jobas reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Warned, protected )

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

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 01:34, 22 September 2014
2. Revision as of 08:16, 22 September 2014
3. Revision as of 15:00, 22 September 2014
4. Latest revision as of 16:10, 22 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link to section

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page Link

Comments:

User has broken 3RR and has made false accusations against me in his edit summaries. AcidSnow (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Jobas (talk · contribs) because he received no warning prior to this report being filed and because he has no prior blocks for edit warring. Page protected for five days to allow discussion of the disputed content on the talk page so that consensus on its inclusion may be reached. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Madere reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "The "dispute" is with you, in any case, your you are the one that must go to the talk or stop disturbing the article."
2. 13:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "It is necessary to show to the human being in its natural state, like the animal that really it is. It is not necessary to go to the talk, there is no such a dispute."
3. 12:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Such a consensus never existed, you can check in the discussion. Thank you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[41]

Comments:

There is an attempt to resolve at talk, to no avail so far. 3RR warning left here [42] last revert was after the warning. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Still reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Alexf^(talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Red Slash reported by User:Widefox (Result: Warning, protection)

Page

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

User being reported

Red Slash (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

1. 22:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on ISIS. (TW)"
2. 22:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ well, you're at your 1RR, so you need to be aware of it..."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring on ISIS redirect. Reverted by 3 editors. 1RR limit reached on hatnote on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [43]. Previous disruption on ISIL redirect and related. Ask for admin to notify Template:Syrian_Civil_War_enforcement as these redirects are related. Setting ISIS and ISIL unilateral WP:PRIMARYTOPIC without due discussion. Widefox; talk 22:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, after nine years of editing and some 10,000 edits (roughly), getting reported to WP:AN is a first. I have not violated either the spirit or the letter of 3RR, which requires three reverts in a 24-hour period. And I have no idea what on earth my alleged infringing upon a "1RR limit" is supposed to refer to; I changed a hatnote on the main article to make it one line instead of two (The horror!), and I can't see how that's a revert (I did "undo" a previous editor's edit to make that happen, and maybe I should've just copy-pasted the template in instead).

As for the actual problem, which is the redirect at ISIS, I have not found WP:RFD to be amenable to efficient discussions (I recall Steve Austin taking so long that I unilaterally closed a discussion I was WP:INVOLVED in and begging anyone to revert me and make a decision to close the discussion--which nobody took me up on), so I'm not sure where a logical discussion on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could be held that would lead to a speedy result for that redirect. But the evidence is obvious. Pageviews for all capitalizations of ISIS (right now grok.se is down for me so I can't prove it) have skyrocketed over the past few months, and you get one guess as to why that is. To me, this is so obvious that I'm not entirely sure why anyone would disagree, but if someone wants to seriously suggest that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant isn't the primary topic... I mean, sure, we can talk about it. But I'm in the business of getting readers to the articles that they want, and if you can see that 90+% of our readers are looking for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant when they type in ISIS, you'll get why WP:IAR is pretty doggone valid here. Red Slash 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that Talk:ISIS still redirects to Talk:Isis (disambiguation). Red Slash, whatever merge you did, you didn't even do it correctly. (And do scroll to the bottom here and see the previous discussions for which consensus was not reached for this WP:LAME edit war.) – Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I did no merge. I moved ISIS (which was a disambiguation page) to a different location so that ISIS could redirect straight to the topic everyone wants to read about. And the discussion you linked to says nothing at all about where ISIS should point to. Red Slash 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I put an RfC up... Talk:ISIS Red Slash 03:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Two things:

@Widefox: This request is malformed. You have not provided the diffs of the edit warring (though I can see it in the talk page). Would you mind including those diffs above?

@Red Slash: You're right - after 10,000 edits this may be a first - and you've already been templated. After the second revert (or even the first) you should have taken it to the talk page. You're currently at 4RR - I would suggest stopping, lest you may find yourself blocked a little faster. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, what are you referring to? Please help, I mean it sincerely. I have absolutely no idea what you might be referring to. 4RR? (And I've been templated a kajillion times--that part doesn't concern me.) Red Slash 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

4RR means that you've reverted someone (or others) four times within 24 hours, which is a blockable issue - as it's considered edit warring. I meant that you've already been templated as in - a warning about edit warring has already been placed on your talk page so I'm not going to place anther one... besides, I don't like templating the regulars. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dusti, I don't understand. Four? What is this about? Red Slash 03:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)7

(edit conflict) I'm wrong - you've reverted twice within the last 24 hours. IIRC everything related to the Syrian Civil War is subject to a 1RR sanction - which means that you can only revert once within 24 hours or you may be blocked for edit warring. See WP:1RR. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well, Dusti, that explains that. I forgive you, with or without an apology. I am not an editor who fools around with 3RR and being accused of 4RR and getting threatened with a block concerned me, but I now see it was a mistake. If there is a 1RR rule applied to anything related to the Syrian Civil War (which does make sense, though it was news to me), I will not violate that again; indeed, I even apologize for having unwittingly done so. Thank you for clearing things up.

My apologies again. @EdJohnston: if you're willing - I think this could get closed as Warned? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Red Slash, It would be helpful to whichever admin closes this if you would agree to refrain from any more unilateral changes concerning the name ISIS or any other names that may have something to do with the Islamic State. You have now redirected ISIS three times, which may possibly break the 1RR on everything related to the Syrian Civil War, and there is a long list of people who disagree with you. Continuing here with an indignant defence of your actions could make the closing admin think that a block is the only way to get your attention. I assume that's not the case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, can you help me please? I am so confused. I have reverted an edit on this twice in the last week (both today), which I'm pretty sure is nowhere near 3RR. I have no idea what rules, written or otherwise, I may have broken. I filed an RfC on Talk:ISIS, EdJohnston, and that'll have to do. Red Slash 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You changed ISIS into a redirect to the Islamic State once on 14 September and then twice on 22 September (first one, second one). By doing so you joined in a long-running war that was begun by others. Each time your change was reverted by someone else. Your 22 September edits appear to break the 1RR on 'articles related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. EdJohnston, thank you. I had not been aware of any sanctions applying to ISIS, which was a disambiguation page when I found it. I was even less aware of any ongoing wars (except, sigh, for the actual ones). I will adapt my behavior. Red Slash 03:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Red Slash is warned for WP:1RR. The ISIS article (currently a redirect to ISIS (disambiguation)) is fully protected one month. The WP:Requested move process is available if anyone disagrees with how these articles are currently named. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:175.141.37.33 reported by User:Jase240 (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of Nvidia graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.141.37.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Second previous version before him continuing on the 20th.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Non warned, only asked.)
(Warned for edits.)
(Warned for talk page harassment.)

Comments: The user has been doing this for days, at first he was reverting with someone else with semi-valid information. After the first 2 cards released they stopped being reverted and I ensured the table was correct, he continued to add a 3rd unreleased card. This has been going on for days and the user is also harassing using edit comments and talk page edits. Also to note after he was warned, he blanked his talk page multiple times.

Other comments: I apologize if I did not follow the proper warning and reporting method in this case, I have tried to read through the rules to warn and report as much as possible and hope I did it right.

Jase240 (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Jase240, you didn't do it right. You're not supposed to list refs, and the pointers to the reverts in the article should be diffs, not links. Finally, as the instructions say at the top of this page, you are required to notify the other user of this report (I did it for you).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

- Thanks for fixing that, I'll remember to list diffs like so next time and I can't believe I forgot about the notifying after telling myself to notify him. Thanks for resolving this also! Jase240 (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Serialjoepsycho reported by User:Atsme (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]
5. [49]
6. [50]

I added the word "Foundation" to a section heading because it is part of the organization's correct legal name. He reverted it back to the common name. I also added more information to the section for accuracy, and he did revert that, too. I was not going to keep reverting him, or I'd be the one in trouble.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning - I warned him on his Talk page about his disruptive editing: [[51]]

He responded by posting a warning to my Talk page: [52]

I was forced to file an ANI against him a few days ago for his relentless disruptions, hounding and civility violations, and requested a topic ban. [53] To date, there has not been a response from an admin. They left my previous ANI unresolved as well, which explains why he has become so emboldened.

Comments:

Please, I just want him to stop so I can do my job as an editor. He has made little to no edit contributions on any of the articles. I am the lead editor on the IPT article where he has also spitefully reverted my edits. He spends the majority of his time hawking talk pages, and hounding me. Atsme☯^Consult 06:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)