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:Toolen reported by User:Dodger67 (Result: )

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has just come out of a week long block for edit warring and has simply picked up exactly where he/she left off - "a luta continua".

Given that none of the advice and warnings about proper editorial behaviour has had the slightest corrective effect at all, and the rather long record of problematic behaviour by this editor over more than a year, I'm of the opinion that an indefinite block may be in order. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one who started this. Zarpboer has repeatedly reverted my edits and ignored my sources. I haven't even had time to add all of them before my edit was reverted. Placing the blame entirely on me isn't just. It is true that I have made mistakes in the past. I won't deny that, but I have worked to improve myself and to do better. If you punish me for this transgression, then it follows that you should punish the other guilty party, though in my opinion, the other party is to blame for this conflict. If one needs evidence of said conflict, look no further than the talk page of the article in question. I am not an instigator, nor was I the first person to add the information Zarpboer deleted. I merely set out to restore the information deleted by said user. Zarpboer deleted entire sections of the article without making any discernable attempt to find or verify sources for the information the user deleted. When said user deleted the edits again, I tried to discuss it with him on the talk page, where he not only criticized my work and sources, but also refused to reach a compromise. I eventually decided to simply preserve the dates in the infobox in order to satisfy the user, but they wouldn't even accept that. Around this time another user, going by the name of Mitsukorina (though I may have spelled it incorrectly, as the name looks Japanese, a language which I am not fluent in) took my side and joined the discussion, only to be met with criticism and a stubborn refusal to reach a consensus. I tried to keep the discussion civil, but the users constant criticism and accusations tried my patience. Mitsukorina also appears to have also lost his or her patience. I must apologize for not coming to you for help in the matter, but the last time I tried to report someone (after giving them a final warning), they beat me to it after and I got banned. Since then I have made no attempt to report other users. Now, in the face of such troubling accusations, and facing possibility of being indefinitly banned from a site I love and have contributed much to, I beg you to show some sympathy and mercy. Thank you. Toolen (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:ElNiñoMonstruo reported by User:McVeigh (Result: )

Page: Ikaw Lamang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of telenovelas of ABS-CBN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElNiñoMonstruo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Edition of ElNiñoMonstruo in Ikaw Lamang
2. Edition of ElNiñoMonstruo in List of telenovelas of ABS-CBN

Comments:
Hello I come back here, because ElNiñoMonstruo continuous reversing my edits without giving any reason. Whenever I try to leave a message on the discussion. Only do this. I'm trying to add a related template telenovelas ABS-CBN in List of telenovelas of ABS-CBN‎‎, but ElNiñoMonstruo reverts my edit without giving any reason. In Ikaw Lamang explain in my summaries of issues and each issue that I also reverted my edits.--McVeigh (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dark Liberty reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2014 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dark Liberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

Sorry, can't follow these instructions. User is Dark Liberty (talk).

Page is 2014 Hong Kong protests.

User blanked sections yesterday with incorrect edit summaries, and was reverted by other editors. He started blanking sections again today and was reverted twice by another editor and twice by me. Minutes before he started blanking today, an IP blanked the same material first, which seems likely to also be him. zzz (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Now user STSC has 3 times inserted unreferenced claims into the infobox. zzz (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:EEng reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Blocked)

Page: Eleanor Elkins Widener (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15](his user talk page)

Comments:

User:EEng keeps adding the nobots template after my comments that the issues have been fixed and there is not reason to prevent bots actions on that page. This is a typical situation where Eeng reverts edits on pages they edit. This is not the only pages they behave like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours by Bgwhite. Stickee (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Christophe Krief reported by User:Serten (Result: Both warned)

Page: Renewable resource (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Christophe Krief (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renewable_resource&diff=628214900&oldid=628209869 Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

The four links are to versions, not to diffs. I see only 3 reverts, since the second and third versions are contiguous and the third is the result of a minor edit (removed one insignificant word). The reverts are #1 #2 #3. So 3RR was not broken even though this looks like an edit war in the making (Christophe Krief keeps removing a source that Serten keeps inserting). I'd prefer someone else handles this since I have editing interactions with Serten on other pages. Zero^talk 05:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I did my own study of the edit history (without relying on the four diffs offered by the submitter) and saw four removals of the German-language source on 4 October, starting with this removal. User:Serten reverted three times. User:Christophe Krief has now returned to editing but did not respond to my advice that he come to the noticeboard and promise to stop warring. Serten would be wise to wait for consensus before making any more controversial edits. If Christophe still won't respond here a block seems appropriate. Unless admins do something it seems that a fight on this article will continue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Thnx for the effort. Its my first turn here, so sorry if I misunderstood the procedure. With regard to the article, I provided some English sources beyound the University of Cologne study. User:Christophe Krief seems, in my eyes, to stay in a soapboxing mode, compare quote 'If too many cows are killed to make the beef that you eat, then there will be not enough milk for your breakfast and it could lead to extinction.' I think that needs to be adressed, as any fruitful cooperation better not involves my breakfast. Serten (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC) I assume that he could use a short break, but its more important to remind him that a) WP is not a Webforum and b) valid sources may have different origins. In the case of Talk:After_Saturday_Comes_Sunday#Suggested_change_to_article_lede, where Zero and I are involved an Arab 19th century study helped to improve an article lede. Serten (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi there. First I must say that I have worked on this article for a while with other editors who already had problems with Serten regarding this article. Please note that Serten forced the article towards a very different definition of "Renewable Resource" without following any consensus and by removing important informations. Note that I am a long time editor and that I am not arguing for the sake of it. I understand that Serten has a point of view on the subject and I accept it. However, his position seems to be the only one that he accepts and understands. Note that I have not removed any of his insertion except for the lead reference which is fully in German. A reference that many of us cannot understand. This is the English version of Wikipedia and there is no need for a reference in German, especially in the lead. Researches should have been official translated prior to be used, unless the subject relates to a foreign matter.

I am trying to improve articles, I respect others' point of view when they are pertinent. I did not consider my action as an edit war. I was only working on the article. I was reinserting information with references that Serten had deliberately removed after imposing his point of view to other editors. I could bring some of these editors to this page if necessary, but I would prefer sparing their time for more important matters. There are 2 conflicts with Serten in relation to this article - 1) Serten is hijacking the article towards Non-Food Renewable Resources, I have worked on the article to provide a full definition of Renewable resources. - 2) Serten is using the article to promote a German point of view. I have no problem with that, but the use of a reference in German in the lead is misplaced. Even if Serten was right when he states that the German are leading in this field, many Americans, English, or translated foreign researches will be more appropriate in the English version of this article.

I may have broken a protocol on Wikipedia, and if so, I apologise. If I did, it was only for the sake of improving the article. To solve the present issue, I think that administrators should tell us if it is appropriate to have the first reference of the article, or a reference from the lead in German language which is understood only by a minority of English speakers, when the article has no particular relation with Germany or any German subject, while many references exist in English. Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Christophe Krief (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a separate entry on Energy transition in Germany, the largest project of its kind world wide, in so far I doubt German and (often German driven) European current research should be left out. I m not hijacking the article towards Non-Food Renewable Resources, whoever wants to preach about Food can do that in the appropriate talk pages. I am confining this one article based on current studies, so my - of cause hvalbiff only - breakfast might be excluded. vennelig hilsen Serten (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten, I have fully revised the article because it became incoherent due to your position which focuses on non-food renewable resources. The following insertion of yours that I preserved in the article: "Besides fresh meat and milk, which is as a food item not topic of the article" (see "historical role) is now included in a "non-food" sub-section. Please act and speak in good faith; you have hijacked the article. If you have something to say about the German position on this subject, and if it is really relevant (which I doubt), so create a sub-section about the German point of view which, if I believe what you are telling us, is so advanced compared to the rest of the world. I have lost enough time on this matter. I had a similar problem with the article on "Deconstruction" before... Unfortunately some articles cannot be saved. I leave it up to the administrators to decide about this one. --Christophe Krief (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. If either party reverts again without first getting a consensus on the talk page they may be blocked. User:Christophe Krief is advised to get an opinion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if he truly thinks a German-language source can't be used; he is unlikely to find any support there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:198.48.187.167 reported by User:JudeccaXIII (Result: Semi)

Page

Epistle to the Ephesians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628249921 by JudeccaXIII (talk) I believe it is, and it's sourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epistle_to_the_Ephesians&action=history

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Epistle to the Ephesians */ new section"

Comments:

IP address is violating WP:MOS/WTW, WP:LABEL. I warned the IP and reverted, but I was reverted by a newly registered account:Tikki tikki tempo, I believe to be a sock puppet of the IP. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month due to apparent sockpuppetry. But consider using the talk page yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This was unfair, and not at all close to edit warring. I am the IP, after I saw one particular user lord it over this article, I created an account (as wiki recommended. Still, not anywhere near the wiki warning for sock puppets or edit warring. I reverted twice! that's it! and not I cannot edit this article for a whole month! Please take of the protection. The user who reported me reverted more than me. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:RRoyce624 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

RRoyce624 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC) "Selectively restoring factual information, having regard to SummerPhD's input."
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628143845 by Eustress (talk) - Historical information is contained in the underlying citations. Eustress was the one who vandalized this entire page some months ago, and was reverted"
   2. 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628142951 by Eustress (talk) It was the first business school affiliated with a broader University."
   3. 01:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628144313 by Eustress (talk) 1980s to Present would be more accurate."
   4. 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "This doesn't apply specifically to Wharton, noting points made by DMacks about other schools at the University."
3. 04:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Please check the citations - each one validates multiple pieces of the information, even if not listed immediately thereafter."
4. 21:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Interesting - you deleted the valid citations (I.e. first collegiate business school, high yield bonds), and inserted 'citation needed?) Your June 11 vandalism also raises concerns, and similar style to adieubask (now banned)"
5. 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Additional citations and factual information. Updated article talk page. Feel free to discuss further."
6. 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "/* 1970 to present */"
7. 22:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Reverted again

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Issues with History section */"

Comments:

Hello, you can verify that the edits do not violate the 3 reversion rule, as several of them (including 628259566|21:53, 4 October 2014) are not reversions at all, but addition of new content taking into account suggestions. This focused on the research contributions of professors, and added new citations. Also, there is active participation on the article's talk page, which can also be verified. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRoyce624 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The fourth revert ([23]) did include material from previous reverts (compare to [24]). User is an SPA and had been warned and reverted by Eustress, an admin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:64.134.171.181 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Dennis Toeppen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

64.134.171.181 (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 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "formatting change"
   2. 02:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "edit warring? yes, please do stop."
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "why are you reverting my good-faith contributions?"
   2. 02:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "i think you should take a trip over to the company article talk section to learn about appropriate division of information between the two."
   3. 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 02:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "whitewashing? there is a separate article for the bus company."
4. 02:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "replace pejorative term with more appropriate wording. acpa was passed after this man registered his domains and fought legal battles."
5. Consecutive edits made from 02:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "remove redundant statements"
   3. 02:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Bus Transportation */ this belongs in article about the company"
   4. 02:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "this is not true, is it?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Was just preparing to report this IP user myself. Seemingly attempting to whitewash BLP article, possible conflict of interest based on statements made in edit summaries. Refuses to stop edit warring and reverting. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Update: Based on this comment from the IP "And finally, Wikipedia is all about teamwork. It's not about winning or delivering a "Checkmate!". Editors must work together to build a reliable encyclopedia, not try to prove themselves to be "better" than others", seems to be a sockpuppet, possibly of a blocked user. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours by User:Gilliam. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:VeryangryBrit reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Warned)

Pages:

2014 American-led intervention in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and

2014 military intervention against ISIS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: N/A - POV editing to push UK over Australia

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq#United_Kingdom_subject_to_the_bottom_of_the_listings (see clear stated intent to edit war, evidence of past edit warring, and note single purpose account)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627969785 (Eat it)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VeryangryBrit (many contributions have not been constructive)
4. His edit warring was part of the reason this page was blocked yet we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS#UK_military_involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS#Who_on_earth_is_running_this_page.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS#UK_and_it.27s_leaders_should_be_placed_under_the_US.2C_ahead_of_Australia_and_other_nations_who_it_is_behind.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Warned by User:SantiLak and Kudzu1 in link #1 above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] See links above. I previously cleaned up his unconstructive edits but did not personally discuss.

Comments:

This situation may get interesting now that the lock is off 2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS I having no personal feelings about this, just bringing it up so that more experienced editors/Admins are aware and can take whatever action is appropriate. Maybe a warning...? Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to defend myself. I continually edited as I believe there is a legitimate anti-British bias that is affecting the quality of the page in question. Many other users back me up and I have evidence that only one day ago there was a blatantly inaccurate listing of the British contribution and all I did was tried to amend it to benefit the quality of the article. Why is that the people who kept putting Britain at the bottom of the rankings were not reported for bias and edit warring? It takes two to tango. VeryangryBrit (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. If User:VeryangryBrit continues to make loud promises to edit war like the ones at Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq#United Kingdom subject to the bottom of the listings. then a block is likely. ("Yeah and I just reverted your revert. Until this article is locked I will keep doing it.") I don't see that he made any actual reverts on either article for the past 36 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:STSC (Result: )

Page: 2014 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]
6. [31]
7. [32]
8. [33]
9. [34]
10. [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] [37]

Comments:

User Signedzzz seems to be owning the page by reverting and removing the edits that are not to his/her liking. Within a 24 hr period from 4/10 to 5/10, he/she had made more than 10 reverts. STSC (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm supposed to respond? I had 3 conflicts with this editor:

• He kept adding this [US Openly Approves Hong Kong Chaos it Created to External links
• He kept altering the infobox, removing protest sites (or, later, just marking them as "abandoned" or whatever it was he said): [38], note the edit summary, "Infobox - ce". Surely an experienced editor like him, who knows what "ce" means, also knows that removing the most vital information from an infobox (right at the top of the page, getting 20,000+ views per day) is nothing like "copyediting"? This was a particularly important revert, since Hong Kongers would have been just getting up, and wondering whether to go to work or to protest, quite plausibly - it did occur to me that it was his intention to convey false information for this very reason. Why else, I wonder, did he persist? Next one, [39] "According to the fact" (not a fact in any source, reliable or otherwise) [40] ES "ce"!. [41] ES "show us the sources"- like I have to prove the sites still exist ! [42] here instead of removing 3 of the 6 sites, he inserts the text "cleared by 3 October" (ie the previous day) next to them. At this point, since no one else is noticing the problem with all the crowd of unimportant edits going on, instead of reverting I have the bright idea of adding "citation needed" in the infobox next to "cleared by 3 October". Eventually, someone removed the tag along with his uncited "cleared by 3 October" - and it was only after this that he opened the talk page section, where he implied that I had "no right to argue" because I was, in his opinion, "sitting in an armchair in Europe". (As a particularly ingenious editor pointed out, he is forced to endure a harsh existence in Adelaide, South Australia).
• He, and the editor Dark Liberty, who you guys were meanwhile taking your time about blocking (see section, above) objected to:

"The People's Daily stated in a front page commentary on 4 October that the protests 'could lead to deaths and injuries and other grave consequences.'" The objection was to the word "stated". (the source, NYT, used "said"). He felt that this was POV, and insisted that "warned" or "warned the protestors" should replace it (although it wasn't addressed to the protestors, but rather mainland Chinese readers, as I patiently explained in edit summaries). Again, he only decided to discuss this particular issue on the talk page after he had given up. The most bizarre argument I have had yet, over my reason for thinking that "stated" is a neutral word. He accused me of having some dark ulterior motive, of course. I failed to get annoyed, since this was merely surreal after what had happened earlier.

I hope that's not too much detail. Let me know if it's not enough. I might be away for a while, now, though. zzz (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: User:Signedzzz was merely maintaining the page in the face of two editors pushing POV. User:Dark Liberty was suspended for edit warring. User:STSC has a long history of obfuscating potentially controversial edits within convoluted article restructuring (note "Treaty of Nanking" changed to "British occupation", for example), or as User:Signedzzz noted, through an innocuous-sounding "c/e" edit summary. Nearly all his/her edits on Hong Kong subjects ultimately serve to promote a specific political worldview. And it is pretty rich of him to try to shut up another editor by accusing them of "sitting in an armchair in Europe" and not knowing the local situation when he doesn't live in the city himself yet inexplicably holds an intense interest in imposing his politics (and little else) on Hong Kong-related articles (and other controversial subjects related to China). It is also hypocritical of STSC to accuse anyone of "owning" a page when STSC tends to enforce his/her political edits through blunt force reverting, for example on the Hong Kong and Occupy Central with Love and Peace pages. When I run into this sort of dispute with him, I usually give up. User:STSC appears to have reported User:Signedzzz here because User:Signedzzz didn't give up. The "US Openly Approves Hong Kong Chaos it Created" shouldn't be spammed on the protest pages unless it is reflected by a reliable source, which it presently isn't. Citobun (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Blugrant15 reported by User:Jaam0121 (Result: )

The user adds the candidates from Tonga and Samoa that are referenced by various web pages, BUT have not been confirmed by the official website of Miss Earth ---> . Leaves a message on his page explaining the issue, but did not respond and instead reverted changes despite explained. Also, not only reverses the above information but melts intermediate revisions of article which affects credibility. Help please. Jaam0121 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

References

User:Choor monster reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Both warned)

Page

Helen Hooven Santmyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Choor monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628393968 by Winkelvi (talk) Reverted bad faith reversion: see WP:FNNR for actual policy"
2. 22:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted revision 628392367 by Winkelvi (talk), more sources added, more to come"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Changes since here are definitely incorrect. Statements on weakness, obscurity, Hollywood, chance are based on RS."
   2. 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ No OR, summarizing RS only"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Helen Hooven Santmyer. (TW)"
2. 22:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* October 2014 */ +"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Lack of reliable sources */ new section"

Comments:

Just keeps reverting, refuses to place inline citations, refuses to take part in article talk page discussion started as a result of reverts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Beware of flying sticks comes to mind. Just check page history. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Response:What User:Winkelvi hasn't mentioned is that he is simply engaged in revenge-harassment regarding the Talk:Chelsea Clinton and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Children names in BLPs discussions. Nor does he mention that he liked to drop unnecessary but purposely hostile warning tags on my user page related to those discussions. Nor does he mention that when told to leave my talk page along, he rudely announced he planned to keep up his harassment tagging, and when some anon proved him a hypocrite complete with diff on his talk page, he reverted the anon and then reported the anon for vandalism/harassment, going so far as to cite a 2-year old edit by the anon as grounds for a possible checkuser.
• Nor does User:Winkelvi understand what a "reversion" is. Adding content, in this case, 3 RS references, is not a reversion. Nor is he aware of policy. There is no requirement to footnote obsessively, or even footnote: WP:FNNR. And he then comes rushing here to report me within minutes for not taking part in the discussion that very second.
• It's pretty much bad faith harassment on his part. Choor monster (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't mention something that isn't happening based on an accusation that is untrue. The accusations by Choor monster in his statements above don't even deserve to be addressed as they are rife with misrepresentation and untruth. It appears to me, that rather than address his own edit warring behavior and refusal to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, he is trying to get this report dismissed by making something "stick" to me. I will say in regard to his accusation that this report is based on disagreements we've had in the past: my edits and improvements to the Santmyer article have nothing to do with the Clinton article or Choor monster. There is absolutely no harassment occurring. If he truly believes what he is accusing me of to be accurate, he needs to either produce diffs as proof his non-AGF claims or stikeout his dishonest mis-characterizations and exaggerations.

The article in question has no inline citations to support claims made at the article, and there should be at least some. There was more than one instance of peacocking and claims made with no cites to support those claims. These edits stood for quite some time before I worked on the article today. For the betterment of the article, inline citations need to be placed within the article to improve the article's verifiability and standing as a biography. As it was prior to my edits, the article was basically a puff-piece full of POV and unverified claims. Choor monster's reverts and edit warring have now taken it (in part) back to that status. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I will not bother with the liar-liar-pants-on-fire comments of Winkelvi. They are childish nonsense. However, his characterization of the Helen Hooven Santmyer article at the time he found it is highly, grossly inaccurate. It was a puff-piece before I started editing it, and I've been reducing it, slowly, while added new, more significant material. His statement there were no inline citations is just a bald-faced lie, there were about 6 or 7. Winkelvi is also ignorant of actual policy and guidelines: the citations were all there to support the claims, but not every phrase and sentence was tagged.

And I repeat, I do not believe for a moment Winkelvi was editing the article in order to improve it, but was looking for an edit-war and an excuse to revenge-harass. The discussion here on this noticeboard is simply a pointless waste of time, and a ridiculous bit of hypocrisy [43]. As I mentioned, he had (earlier that day or the previous day) abused the vandalism noticeboard, reporting an anon for posting snark on his talk page and calling for a checkuser. This seems no different. Choor monster (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I see revert-warring by both parties here, and the logical outcome would be to block both editors. I urge both of them to respond to the complaint and promise not to revert again until consensus is found. Reverting article-improvement tags such as {{refimprove}} and {{original research}} is quite conspicuous and is likely to receive unfavorable attention from admins. A tag is not an emergency that justifies removing it before discussion can be held. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand. A tag says please add references, and I have added 6 of them. The tag has served its purpose. What discussion is needed? Choor monster (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tags need consensus. It's not in your sole discretion whether the article is adequately referenced. If the matter is controversial you should persuade others to agree with you that the referencing has been fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But it is worth mentioning that some editors use these tags to perpetuate disputes and use them as badges of shame in articles. All articles can be improved. If there are a few statements that require sources, editors should use the inline {{cn}} template instead. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• To Ed: I still do not understand. There was no consensus to put in the tag in the first place, either. Are tags exempt from WP: BRD, or at least its spirit? And how can I achieve consensus regarding references with a person who claims that were no inline citations whatsoever, when there were NINE? (The first two cites also cover most of the points in the main section, and both are linked and easily accessible.) Cwobeel has instead made the objective claim that the main section has no in-line citations, and it would be improved by putting them there. Choor monster (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment:Sorry, didn't see the Admin request/instructions prior to making reverts at the article today (the reverts were reasonable, and in no way edit warring behavior, just keeping the article on track and in accordance with the MOS). Glad to see the references needed tag in the Body of the article. I believe it was needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. The next person who undoes any change by the other party may be blocked without notice, unless consensus was previously obtained on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jaymasterjunkie reported by User:NeilN (Result:31 hours )

Page

Grounds for Sculpture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628395994 by NeilN (talk)"
2. 22:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Exit sign. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Didn't break the bright line but has been edit warring across articles to add his snapshot as the lead picture. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And continuing to edit war as this report was made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Now they have in fact crossed the bright line, on no less than three articles. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC).

User:122.57.186.150 reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of Viking metal bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628343832 by Rhododendrites (talk)For a band to be accepted, you must prove they play black/nordic folk metal, you know the drill."
2. 07:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628289192 by Rhododendrites (talk)STOP adding bands who blatantly do not play Viking Metal. Viking Metal (as sourced) is nordic folk + black metal."
3. 23:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "What part of offshoot of black metal and folk metal' is too hard to understand? Do not add a band if they lack these essential elements. 'because other websites say so' does not cut it. You need to actually use logic."
4. 08:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627023262 by 3family6 (talk) A source is not reliable if it considers a band that possesses neither black metal or nordic folk music 'viking metal'. Viking lyrics =/= Viking Metal."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Regarding List of viking metal bands */ capfix"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite explanations in edit summaries, on the user's talk page, and on the article talk page, the user is not understanding core Wikipedia policies of WP:NOR and WP:V (i.e. there are several cited sources saying certain bands belong on this list, but the user repeatedly removes them based on his/her view that sources don't matter if the bands simply don't belong. I have no stake in whether or not these bands are included, but this approach is purely disruptive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been removing bands that have failed to be proven to play Viking Metal and contradict the sourced definition of Viking Metal (Black Metal modeled after Bathory with influence from Nordic Folk music). I am trying to prevent the page being vandalized.

The 'sources' for Amon Amarth and Unleashed do not prove they play Viking Metal. Look over them. These bands are lazily labelled viking metal regarding lyrical content, where as Viking Metal is a musical genre, and musical genres are not defined by lyrical themes, if AA and Unleashed are to be accepted, a source must be provided that AA and Unleashed's musical style contains that of black metal and nordic folk influence, NOT because they have Viking lyrics. If these bands lyrics were not about Vikings, you would be laughed at if you called them 'viking metal'. Amon Amarth and Unleashed remain Melodic/Death Metal.

A 'source' described Falconer's 'Viking Metal origins', but what wasnt explained is that these origins were actually in a separate band, Mithotyn, This 'source' then stated that Falconer were returning to their origins as Viking Metal.... simply because the lyrics were in Swedish... I am sorry, but changing the language does NOT change the genre. This is like me calling Galneryus 'ninja metal' because their lyrics are in Japanese. Absolutely ridiculous. Falconer remain Folk/Power Metal.

Why the addition of Mortiis continues to plague this page is absolutely beyond ridiculous. Havard Ellefson formed an INDUSTRIAL ROCK/AMBIENT band Mortiis after he grew sick of playing Metal in Emperor. Yes, Mortiis arent even Metal, for a band to be Viking Metal, they must first at least be Metal, let alone Black Metal. This 'source' that somehow finds a way to sneak in the black metal/nordic folk tag into a band that possesses ZERO of these elements is ridiculous, and should not be considered a reliable source. After a decent search, i have found zero other sources that consider Mortiis 'viking metal'. I understand the 'no original research' policy, but surely this does not mean you are not allowed to use basic logic. No one with an understanding of both Viking Metal or Mortiis would label them 'viking metal'. It is simply ignorance.

The Viking Metal band page is an absolute mess, an embarrassment to Wikipedia's attempt at accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.186.150 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The IP user has persuaded themselves that their definition of Viking Metal is correct and they have been continuing to revert to force their definition on the article. The above reply from the IP does not show any willingness to accept consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:76.170.129.159 reported by User:J8079s (Result: Semi)

Page: List of Muslim scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.170.129.159 (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]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muslim_scientists&diff=628391761&oldid=628268760
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muslim_scientists&diff=prev&oldid=627894879
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muslim_scientists&diff=prev&oldid=627870642
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muslim_scientists&diff=prev&oldid=627856692

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] mutiple attempts at User talk:76.170.129.159

Comments:
11 reverts by a new user? doesn't understand wiki editing do not know if coaching will help. J8079s (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring and vandalism by a variety of IPs since 1 September. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:67.181.254.125 reported by User:Dogman15 (Result: )

Page: Pound Puppies (2010 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.181.254.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&oldid=628059710

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&diff=628126236&oldid=628059710
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&diff=628283948&oldid=628156167
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&diff=628303860&oldid=628287128
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&diff=628405665&oldid=628375100

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.181.254.125&diff=628434291&oldid=622142517

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&diff=628434343&oldid=602339547

Comments:
Pound Puppies, the 2010 cartoon, ended in 2013. This is a fact. The show is no longer airing any episodes on the Hub, or if that isn't true, then production definitely ended on it more than a year ago. This one user, Anonymous IP 67.181.254.125, started this revert war in May 2014, but I seem to remember identical edits coming in from other IPs before then. The disagreement about the show ending started back in December 2013. There was one other revert of this edit, before I came in with two tweets from a writer on the show and one of the directors. These tweets confirmed that no new episodes were planned to be made at the time. Seeing that no episodes have yet been made since then, it is logical to conclude the show has ended all production. I am asking for a mod or an administrator to either semi-protect the Pound Puppies (2010 TV series) page, or block this person's IP from editing it. Thank you. Dogman15 (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about verifiability: Dogman15, you've reverted to say that November 16, 2013 was the last broadcast episode. Have you got a WP:Reliable source to that effect? Putting your own inferences into the article is not allowed under our WP:Original research policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, are you implying that 72.129.141.161 is my IP address? Because it's not. I don't live in Wisconsin. Secondly, what kind of proof do you want? Dan Vs. is another show on The Hub that has most certainly ended its run. Is there a difference between "last brand new episode being aired" and "last episode aired on the channel ever"? If so, this was never clearly stated anywhere. And who does this Anonymous IP think he is? Do I have to contact The Hub directly through customer service to get an answer? Dogman15 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Campb292 reported by User:JohnInDC (Result:48 hr )

Page: Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Campb292 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

User persists in changing content, specifically, treatment of an officially "vacated victory", contrary to Talk page consensus as well as broader consensus established after considerable discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Archive_9#Dealing_with_vacated_awards.2C_records_and_wins. Edits have exceeded 3RR. In light of this extensive background, which the user does not acknowledge, this has also transformed from a case of possible GF - overinsistence, to vandalism. JohnInDC (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Now also reported at WP:AIV. JohnInDC (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

… and recommended for resolution here. JohnInDC (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done It's by no means vandalism, however, blocked for 48hrs for edit-warring. Not happy to see a failure to "Welcome" this apparently new editor the panda ₯’ 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Amt000 reported by User:Origamite (Result: Blocked)

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amt000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]

After Amt000's previous edit war and reversion, [54], he's decided to start reverting again in an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

Origamite^ⓣⓒ 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:67.80.9.248 reported by User:Theironminer (Result: )

Page: Men, Women & Children (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.80.9.248 (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. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]
5. [61]
6. [62]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:
Anonymous user not only doesn't accept my edit, but also says that my edits are "irresponsible" yet the user had only two edits at the time, both being the revisions. User does not have a talk page, unlike most IP addresses, so I tried to resolve it in the brief summary of my recent revision. User then rejected my request to stop this war and reverted my edit again, and continues to do so. - Theironminer (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:2602:304:AF53:3E99:4CA2:28D8:2EF3:450D reported by User:DrNegative (Result: )

Page

Robots (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:304:AF53:3E99:4CA2:28D8:2EF3:450D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 18:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628514616 by St170e (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [64]
2. [65]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [66]

Comments:

User was warned after multiple reverts. Also seems to be IP hopping and reverting from here and here in addition to reported account.

User was warned on one of the accounts several times including a final. DrNegative (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a string of ten unexplained reverts of the article to a version which is almost four years old (457 edits ago) [67]. Prior to the three reverts by 2602:304:af53:3e99:4ca2:28d8:2ef3:450d the edits were made by

1. Special:Contributions/2602:304:af53:3e99:f852:975e:afee:6f16 [68],
2. Special:Contributions/2602:304:af53:3e99:b86c:d7bb:fe99:d9dc [69] and [70],
3. Special:Contributions/74.245.51.233 [71],
4. Special:Contributions/2602:304:af53:3e99:8197:d937:1c2a:f22c [72], and
5. Special:Contributions/2602:304:af53:3e99:5d4f:e8e9:8b71:9c5e [73] and [74].

After the article was put up for protection I was given a bogus 15 year block notice by one of the IPs [75]. Meters (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Piotrniz reported by User:ImprovingWiki (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments: Piotrniz has edit warred in an extremely aggressive and persistent manner, and presently appears to have absolutely no interest in discussing the content he added to the Nietzsche article with other users. He has reverted both myself and Goethean multiple times, sometimes editing while logged out or from multiple IP addresses. Note that while the diffs I provided above link to edits made from IP addresses, they are clearly all made by this user. Piotrniz has tried to justify his behavior by repeatedly referring to the essay WP:ONLYREVERT, as though it overruled policies against edit warring and original research.

ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• The man has reverted edits which were actual improvements to the article, contrary to WP:ONLYREVERT. They keep doing total reverts which are not accepted by the editor and other people, instead of marking things they deny or doubt with the 'fact' template. According to WP:ONLYREVERT and the general rule of freedom of improvement and encouraging to edit, it is ImprovingWiki and his friend Goethian who are offending. 46.77.124.247 (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently, there is disagreement over what constitutes an improvement to the article. You decided that your edits were improvements, and that therefore your views must prevail, no matter how many other editors disagreed with you. That is not how things are supposed to work here. It is really too bad if you don't like it. That essay which you keep citing, over and over, does not override actual policies such as WP:NOR. Goethean certainly seemed to think the material you added was original research. Note that although the IP above - who seems to be Piotrniz - says that my edits were not accepted by "other people", no one but Piotrniz ever restored the material he added to the article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• You filed an edit-warring report on October 1 but the incident occurred on September 20-21. This likely closed without action because the info was stale. After all, what good does it do to block now? There isn't a current edit war, right? I have semi-protected the article for one month and added PC1 indefinitely to curtail the obvious IP socking. Had you filed this report just after it happened, you would have likely gotten the results you were looking for.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be so sure that there is no edit war right now. Edit wars can be either fast or slow - sometimes users will revert each other only once per week or per month, for example. If it drags on for long enough, it's still an edit war, even though there is no day-to-day reverting. You're right of course that I should have moved more quickly. Thank you for at least protecting the article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• A collection of Warsaw-based IPs seem to be editing along with User:Piotrniz to force certain material to stay in the article. (5.172.252.104 (talk · contribs), 46.77.124.134 (talk · contribs) and 89.67.140.182 (talk · contribs)). Presumably there is one person using all these identities. The behavior is sufficiently blatant to justify sock enforcement. If User:Berean Hunter is leaving this open for closure by other admins, I suggest a one-month block for User:Piotrniz for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting. A block for actually what? For adding unwanted content (who knows why unwanted, perhaps money) or for using multiple accounts? I do not use multiple accounts. Some IPs you pointed were likely mine but perhaps not all in the article history. Besides, it is the ISP who keeps switching IPs of users (so called dynamic IP assignment). Perhaps you really mean another guilt(?). Piotrniz (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked account 1 month for socking. Hardblocked all three /24 ranges for several months after looking at other IP contribs in the same range and determined that they are him...no collateral damage. He won't be using other accounts through them. He edited Lucilio Vanini today for example.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:2.26.42.243 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Blocked and semi-protected)

Page: Problem of evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.26.42.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]
5. [88]
6. [89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91][92]

Comments:

The anon IP (who has clearly also edited earlier under other IPs) is insistent on adding a particular perspective on the article topic to the lede, sourced only to what appears to be a personal website. I have tried to explain policy, and have explained that edit-warring is unacceptable, but the IP seems more concerned with bringing "confidence in the idea of the meaningfulness of existence brought about by the goodness of God" to readers than with conforming to policy, and is evidently going to edit-war until blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Since it looks like the IP is determined to promote their POV, I've semi=-protected the article for three weeks. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dark Liberty reported by User:RGloucester (Result: )

Page

2014 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dark Liberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC) "We would rather you Annihilate us than destroy our faith in God with your false admiration and your double-standard Lies. you are not one in favor of freedom and Liberty, and your rhetoric fools no one."
2. 01:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC) "unsourced speculation, Annulment of weasel content towards that of encyclopedic standards. to other editors and administrators: compare selected revisions, revert if necessary."
3. 01:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC) "restored to latest revision by OhConfucius. to other editors: take note of the changes in content for reference."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Hong Kong protests. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has not strictly broken the WP:3RR yet (he's at his third revert), however, his behaviour shows clear battleground tendencies, and his edit summaries are inflammatory. What's more, he only just came out of a block for the exact same behaviour on the exact same article. He also deleted my warning, and continued to remove even more content from the article. I believe that the editor has not learned anything from his prior block, has shown no sign of stopping this behaviour, and hence should be blocked. RGloucester — ☎ 02:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)