Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hanswar32 (talk | contribs)
1,792 edits
Line 654: Line 654:


<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Firstly, as a casual Wikipedia editor, I'd like to acknowledge that respecting and adapting to community etiquette and guidelines is necessary for the success of the project, and if one were to disagree with certain policies, seeking consensus over time will likely create positive change that is acceptable to all. I recognize {{U|Ronz}}'s earnestness in his attempts to be a vigilant defender/applier of policy, but what he fails to realize is that his interpretation of policy does not necessarily equate to policy in terms of its intended meaning nor its correct application. It reminds of another user, SqueakBox, who has been blocked indefinitely on multiple occasions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASqueakBox] for his similarly extremely controversial interpretation of policy. I'd also like to note that Ronz is a bit sloppy when it comes to collecting facts or making accusations and he's even rescinded a previous claim he made against me on my own talkpage.

With that being said, I'd like to specifically address what has been said above. The edit he cites as my second edit ever, while true as "Hanswar32", is in fact not my second edit ever, as I was previously editing briefly as an IP user before I created this account in order to reap the benefits that a Wikipedia account provides a user. I invite any community member to review the ANI discussion above and its ultimate outcome as it was surely in my favor with me gaining the support of multiple editors by the end of it. Note that the ANI was started days after creating my account and I've never had to deal nor have been in conflict whatsoever with the editor who began that discussion as he simply disappeared afterwards from all articles that I'm involved in editing. In addition, and contrary to Ronz' false portrayal of me being involved in edit wars for over a year afterwards, I'd like to cite this talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mia_Malkova] in addition to my own talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hanswar32] as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there." The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four old examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was included in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding.

Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree. To counter Ronz claim, I've been editing for a year and a half productively on the same articles with the following users whom I bet are willing to vouch for me {{U|Scalhotrod}}, {{U|Erpert}}, {{U|Rebecca1990}}, {{U|Gene93k}}, {{U|Guy1890}}, {{U|Morbidthoughts}} and {{U|Dismas}} among others.

Although I appreciate Ronz' attempt to mention something in my defense, it's just another incorrectly deduced assumption he's made. My stance on including sourced award wins did not and has not changed. The cleanup he mentions was simply me doing what I enjoy doing, which is improve the quality of information presented in these articles by adding what is missing and removing what should not be there. I did a similar cleanup to Stormy Daniel's article by removing 11 awards. In both cases, the awards I removed were not won by the subject directly, but were awards presented to the films themselves that the subject was involved with in someway, and previous consensus states that awards of this nature in such cases should not be included. [[User:Hanswar32|Hanswar32]] ([[User talk:Hanswar32|talk]]) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:34, 1 May 2015

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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:46.177.166.134 reported by User:AlbinoFerret (Result: Stale)

    46.177.166.134 Disruptive editing, no dialogue or justification, violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in Olympiacos Women's Water Polo Team article.

    As you can see here: [1], [2], [3] this ip user violated the three-revert rule by making disruptive, unjustified and unexplained edits (he wants to impose his version or who knows what), despite my clear explanation after reverting his second edit. I am looking forward to your help, thank you so much for your attention.

    This is also listed on WP:ANI here is a link. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale – EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tytyim reported by User:Random86 (Result: Warned)

    Page
    CLC (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Tytyim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Members */"
    3. 03:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 05:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on CLC (band). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User will not stop adding unsourced information to the article. Random86 (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: Warned. If the editor continues to revert with no discussion they may be blocked without notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rarevogel reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

    Page
    Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "Could you please explain why you remove sourced content which is crucial to understanding the background?"
    2. 11:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "People reading this article would be made to believe that the Ottomans were sending the Armenians to death camps to be exterminated, Nazi-style. This article is utter propaganda. It relies too much on Amenian sources. I have added some background facts."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Fresh from a two-day block for violating 1RR s/he starts another edit-war and is at revert #2. Previous report on this user is still on this noticeboard and is currently #3 from the top. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a 1RR violation, since each of the listed edits is trying to restore material he was warring about earlier in April. We could try to go through discretionary sanctions and propose a topic ban, but the editor's persistence suggests he wouldn't be willing to follow the terms of a ban. How can we keep this sequence from going on forever? I'd favor an indefinite block, but would listen to other ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as an editor and Administrator who has encountered this editor a number of times, I have no reason to believe that Rarevogel can change. Take a look at the editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Agree with EdJohnston. Never met the editor before, but a look at their block log, which includes personal attackssource misuses, block evasion, and warring, strongly suggests that an indefinite block is in order.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely – This report was open for two days and I hoped the editor might respond. When someone is this persistent we can't be optimistic that they will negotiate with others or recognize the problem they are causing. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced the editor will follow policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indicative of the disruption this user is used to create that he did not even bother to respond to the generous conditional offer on his talkpage prior to being indeffed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ion G Nemes reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Traian Vuia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ion G Nemes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "changed lede to match reliable source which is already posted here"

    2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    1
    2.
    3.

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traian_Vuia sections 21-38, plus an RfC.

    Comments:

    Slow burn edit warring and another revert against consensus despite current RfC as recommended at ANI, see here which was an attempt to resolve the issue. There have been many attempts to resolve this on the article's talk page, and on the editors talk page, including here and they are all met with sarcasm. Flat Out talk to me 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 1 month. I see five reverts by User:Ion G Nemes in April to restore his own POV about early flights by Traian Vuia. He seems not to have budged one inch in spite of the many discussions he's been part of. For background, see this ANI discussion from April 23. In his opinion, the subject of the Traian Vuia article is a 'lying scumbag'. I doubt that Ion G Nemes can remain impartial enough to edit this article neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.198.72.162 reported by User:Brianhe (Result: Warned)

    Page: List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 80.198.72.162 (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. [4]
    2. [5]
    3. [6]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] also on user's talk page earlier: [9]

    Comments:

    Anon editor's hostility and unwillingness to engage in consensus-building forces me to bring to 3RR noticeboard. This is evident in userpage edits here and here where he tells editors basically do it his way or "stop altering wikipedia". – Brianhe (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikimandia reported by User:Sagaciousphil (Result: warned)

    Page: John Hay, 12th Earl of Erroll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wikimandia (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. [10]
    2. [11]
    3. [12]
    4. [13]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Comments:
    The editor is breaking all the reference formatting and was asked to discuss on the talk page but has failed to do so.

    • Boomerang. First, I didn't see the invitation to discussion; secondly, being told I had created "ugly infoboxes" was childish and uncalled for, as was the comment from "Eric Corbett" that the article was "an abortion." By the way, as you can see from the timeline, "Eric Corbett" coincidentally immediately stepped in to revert after Sagaciousphil had reverted it twice... what are the odds? These are likely sockpuppets or colluding offline. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned. Wikimandia is definitely not behaving well. But they haven't reverted more than 3 times; this wasn't a revert. Moreover, this isn't an edit warring warning, it's just an alert about this discussion. Sagaciousphil, use for instance {{subst:uw-ew}} to warn edit warriors. Wikimandia, you were edit warring against two users, and both your sockpuppetry accusation and your argument here are objectionable. No, infoboxes are not "standard", and you don't have consensus for adding one. If you carry on with this kind of behaviour, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    User:2605:A000:FFC0:44:51EC:69DA:22F8:643F reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: blocked)

    Page: Kim Richards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2605:A000:FFC0:44:51EC:69DA:22F8:643F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [16] - 19:42, 29 April 2015

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [17] - 21:35, 29 April 2015
    2. [18] - 21:43, 29 April 2015
    3. [19] - 21:46, 29 April 2015
    4. [20] - 21:50, 29 April 2015
    5. [21] - 22:35, 29 April 2015 (after another editor, independent of me, reverted the anon IP's edit).

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22] - User talk:2605:A000:FFC0:44:51EC:69DA:22F8:643F#Required 3RR warning

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] - Talk:Kim Richards#Appearance on Dr. Phil

    Comments:
    I made a good-faith effort at informing him of WP:BRD, I began a talk-page discussion, and I invited him to join the discussion. [24]. Despite this, he continued to edit-war over what he himself said (at revision #1 above) is "purely subjective" content. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DD2K reported by User:Lukeno94 and User:EoRdE6 (Result: No action)

    Page
    Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:50 (UTC) "No! Stop it"
    2. 22:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659952330 by Kenobi5487 DO NOT remove my comment"
    3. 22:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659950989 by DD2K (talk): Rvv. (TW)"
    4. 22:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659950705 by DD2K (talk): Rvv. (TW)"
    5. 22:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659950239 by DD2K (talk): Rv - And I said no, again, Opposers are NOT going to be the only ones prevented from posting replies. (TW)"
    6. 22:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659949949 by DD2K (talk): Rv --No way, opposers are NOT going to be the only ones not able to reply. (TW)"
    7. 22:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659949672 by Calidum No"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Doubtless this'll be framed as being a way to censor this user, given their edit summaries behind the reverts... but that's 5 reverts in ten minutes, against two different editors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Involved comment. I was merely trying to move his comment to the discussion section. The user in question noted replies should be moved there yesterday in response to another user. Calidum T|C 22:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Just an FYI to whoever closes this, the response DD edit warred over is now in two sections and should be removed from one of them. Calidum T|C 22:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with all above, user clearly knows where the comments belong by this edit, and now edit wars over his own, even as multiple users tell them on their talk page and by reverting. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to point out on this move request that there have been several Support voters posting in the Oppose AND Neutral sections. I asked one editor to remove their comment on my Oppose vote, and he stated that it was allowed and I could not remove his comment. The initiater in this very complain has posted several comments harassing both Opposers and Neutral voters. It is ridiculous that my comment kept being removed. Dave Dial (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes there are three very short replies in the oppose section, but any long ones (especially ones that mess up the numbering and indentation and require conversation back and forth) have been direct to a new section, by multiple editors from both sides of the debate. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe that people do have edit wars on talk pages too. One should not revert things written on talk pages unless it is very much abusive. Talk pages are made to express ourself freely. --Human3015 23:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what about the bright line of TPOC, which states

      Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

      I can take responsibility for my actions, as long as everyone, based on their own actions, knows that they violated TPG. As shown, an admin told me I could not remove his comment, and has now made other comments on other !votes. Yet mine was the only one repeatedly removed. Dave Dial (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I tried to implement a solution by hatting the comment, so as to not fragment the discussion, but DD2K still reverted me, isisting on the comment remaining untouched. I really think that they should take a step back from this at this time. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, I think any comments on a support or oppose vote should be moved; neutral is a bit more ambiguous really. But Dave, there is really no excuse for this many reverts (seven), and the fact you've made two more since the report was filed wasn't a smart thing to do. Describing things as vandalism when they clearly weren't is also a red flag. Your post was not (intentionally) removed, it was moved, or at least, it was supposed to be (everything seems to be lost in the mess of that edit history). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action. It appears the dispute has quiesced. There were enough reverts to justify a block, if we wanted to go that way. All parties are advised to stay cool from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Calidum reported by User:DD2K (Result: No action)

    Page: Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Calidum (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]

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

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

    Comments:

    • It doesn't surprise me that you would make that comment here, without making the same note that my 'warning' was given afterwards too. I used to believe you were a good admin and stand up guy. This whole move request has opened my eyes to a lot of Wikipedia cliques. The boys club. Dave Dial (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I didn't make that comment up there, because, as is clear from the time stamps, you made two of your reverts after the warning was on your talk page. I'm somewhat anal about facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes. Facts ARE facts. And since you were one of the Support editors who made comments on Oppose votes(mine), and when I asked you to remove your comment because I believed it was not allowed, you refused and told me it was allowed and that I should not remove your comment. Yet, you allowed several editors to keep removing mine wihtout any comment from you at all. Yep, unbiased good admin that you are, the facts are shining through. Dave Dial (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. I also allowed a cat in Jakarta to be hit by a car last month. I only turn my omniscience on during duty hours. More to the point, Comments that are placed in the wrong section may be moved to the correct section by administrators or other participants. There seems to be a general agreement that short replies are ok, but long rants with formatting that break the page are not. But all of that is quite irrelevant for this discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid excuse for breaking WP:3RR, and neither is Wikipedia:Cabals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Human3015 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Blocked 72 hours )

    Page
    Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Human3015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660096606 by Lukeno94 (talk) this issue has been widely discussed in talk, please see talk page. Except 1/2 POV users, everyone has consensus. Please read talk page., long discussion"
    2. 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660094673 by Mar4d (talk) revert of sourced material, don't indulge in edit war, groupism."
    3. 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "added more citations by Human rights watch accusing Pakistan too. consensus made on talk. Read talk page. Discuss there before deleting highly sourced matter"
    4. 17:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660090481 by TopGun (talk) unexplained revert., see the talk page for earlier discussion on this issue. Don't revert sourced material."
    5. 07:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659983004 by Kashmiri (talk) don't revert sourced matter, see talk page. "Human Rights Watch" accused Pakistan."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    [31]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    [32]
    Comments:

    Open and shut case; reverting four separate editors without gaining any consensus, and using bogus edit summaries as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Human3015 was blocked very recently on 23 April for edit warring at Indian subcontinent. The user still does not seem to have developed an understanding of 3RR, making five reverts and undoing 4 different editors within a day at this article. As in the previous block, there's the same attitude - constant warring, refusal to use the talk page, and not accommodating alternative views. Like last time, this time he was also notified of 3RR and asked to self-revert, and he chose not to. This is as damning as it gets for total disregard of 3RR. Mar4d (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • here is long discussion where final decision was to write section on Pakistan. Kindly read it if you have time. Some POV people kept on reverting highly sourced matter without reading whole talk page.
    • That section has citations of Human rights watch that Pakistan does human rights violations by supporting militants in Kashmir. And that report clearly mentions that.
    • Some users whose user page shows they are from Pakistan always revert it. They deny even sourced matter. Read the talk page again.
    • Long discussion on same issue has been already done, it was two day long discussion and whatever I wrote has valid sources. --Human3015 18:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two day discussion? That's nothing. In fact, for something clearly this controversial, it's nowhere near sufficient. You also allude to a consensus that does not exist in the slightest. You were discussing an edit that had about 1.5k of content; this one is FOUR times that as well. Oh, and sending me bogus edit warring notices in your position does not help you one jot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I will elaborate it.

    • Here is my first revert I reverted user Kashmiri : His name suggests that he is from Kashmir and many Kashmiris support Pakistan so this user will not see talk page or will not think anything and will directly revert anything written against Pakistan even if it is highly sourced.
    • My second revert User TopGun reverted Me : He has been involved with me several times. He is also from Pakistan(his profile says, he want Kashmir in Pakistan soon) and he was so enthusiastic that he not even gave edit summary to his revert. He just can't tolerate anything written against Pakistan even of it is sourced and highly discussed on Talk. But I reverted him adding two more citations. See above.
    • My third revert I reverted Mar4d: Mar4d also involved with me earlier many times. His profile also says he is from Pakistan. He also can't see anything against Pakistan. I will give an Example. read here Mar4d's old edit where he wrote "Kashmiri militants" or "Kashmiri designated terrorists by UN" as "Freedom Fighters". Means he edit wikipedia with that mentality and he also can't see anything against Pakistan even if it is highly sourced.
    • TopGun and Mar4d usually work in group and I was got blocked for 48 hours very recently for edit warring with same two guys on page Indian subcontinent. They always work in group to get other users blocked which can be threat for their hidden agenda.
    • Hope admin will study this matter deeply. And I'm ready to get blocked because I have broken 3RR rule and I accept my mistake.

    'I AM OFF --Human3015 19:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything is not a conspiracy. This has more to do with your attitude and your approach to dealing with content disputes. With a might makes right attitude like that, where everyone else is wrong and you are right, you can't go very far unfortunately. Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Human3015, don't edit war even if you think you're right. I quote the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy, to which you have been repeatedly linked: "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Frankly, I think you ought to have got this clear in your mind the last time you were blocked for edit warring. Accusations of other people 'working in group to get you blocked' are unconvincing and inappropriate, please read WP:AGF. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    User:‎Wildthang22 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: )

    Page: St. Augustine, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ‎Wildthang22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34]
    2. [35]
    3. [36]
    4. [37]
    5. [38]
    6. [39]
    7. [40]
    8. [41]
    9. [42]
    10. [43]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

    Comments:
    User presents their point of view, then reverts to their preferred version while consensus still not achieved. There may be weight issues, but they are not even being addressed. Other uninvolved parties would be appreciated to help resolve this. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Continuing edit-warring even after warning given. Also may be an WP:SPA, as they have only made edits to the St. Augustine article. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    User:124.180.153.119 reported by User:Anders Feder (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 124.180.153.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [46]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [47]
    2. [48]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No.

    Comments:

    The user is an IP editor who appears to be in breach of the 1RR restriction in place on Syrian Civil War related articles.[50] The editor has solely made pro-Zionistic/anti-Palestinian edits since it began editing yesterday.[51]--Anders Feder (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 1 week. Appears to be an WP:ADVOCACY account. Alerted to the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Benjamin.Franklin.1706 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Aleksandr Dugin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Benjamin.Franklin.1706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor is a single-purpose account whose only purpose is the remove the statement that Aleksandr Dugin is known for his fascist views. All his/her edits are marked minor. He/she has never posted on the talk page.

    Previous version reverted to: [52]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Revision as of 15:01, 29 April 2015
    2. Revision as of 15:08, 29 April 2015
    3. Revision as of 15:25, 29 April 2015
    4. Revision as of 15:29, 29 April 2015
    5. Revision as of 18:32, 29 April 2015
    6. Revision as of 16:05, 30 April 2015


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:21, 30 April 2015


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been numerous discussions concerning the statement that Dugin is known for his fascist views on Talk:Aleksandr Dugin. I expect that User:Benjamin.Franklin.1706 participated in them as an IP editor or under a different ID.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:David Corriveau & James Corley reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Indef)

    Page
    Dell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    David Corriveau & James Corley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143565 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
    2. 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143397 by Joseph2302 (talk) Don't be an idiot, search for c-r72Nr8A44"
    3. 23:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143297 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
    4. 23:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143153 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
    5. 23:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
    2. 23:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
    3. 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
    4. 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dell. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Repeated addition of unsourced content, ignoring my warnings about unsourced content and edit warring. This user is suspected as a sockpuppet, but if not then their edit warring, and edit summaries calling me an idiot should lead to a block. As I already explained, WP:VERIFY means they have to provide a source for their claims. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LLArrow reported by User:Gloss (Result: Blocked)

    Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and American Horror Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: LLArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: on American Horror Story and on American Horror Story: Hotel

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. AHS: Hotel revert 1 - falsely referred to the edit as vandalism
    2. AHS: Hotel revert 2
    3. AHS: Hotel revert 3
    1. American Horror Story revert 1 - again falsely calling it vandalism
    2. American Horror Story revert 2 - and again
    3. American Horror Story revert 3

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning given and very quickly reverted

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User began a talk page discussion after all of the reverting and after my warning.

    Comments:
    LLArrow was blocked for edit warring on the exact same article for 24 hours very recently. Has not learned a thing and continues to edit war. Neither article has the user passing 3 reverts in 24 hours (stopped at 3 on each), but this is the edit warring noticeboard and the user is clearly edit warring on these two articles. A 1-revert self-restriction was proposed to the user in the past but they declined. Reverting my warning and continuing to revert again after it shows that they're not willing to stop edit warring. Gloss 04:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I know I should not engage in edit wars with vandalizing IP's, but I was under the assumption that it was not considered edit warring, when it's a case of vadelization. I plead with Gloss to stop this unfounded vendetta towards me. They watch my actions like a hawk, it's borderline creepy and hounding. Thanks and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours. It's not very long since LLArrow was last here at AN3. He has been reverting things that he claims to be vandalism which actually are *not* vandalism. It's taking him a long time to come up the learning curve on policy, if we judge by a prior discussion at ANI (28 Feb 2015). The common element on these cases is him doing a lot of reverts that he claims to be justified by policy, but actually are not justified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MugenDarkness reported by User:Random86 (Result: 24 hours)

    Pages
    TVXQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also TVXQ albums discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (please see merged report)
    User being reported
    MugenDarkness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 13:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 09:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 09:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    6. 08:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    7. 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    8. 06:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 06:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ. (TW)"
    2. 07:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User is edit warring across multiple articles and will not stop adding unsourced information. Dr.K. gave warnings as well. An IP-hopping editor was making the same edits before the page was protected for three days. Random86 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: here they have also just been warned about adding copyrighted material at that page. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MugenDarkness reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ) (Merged report)
    Page
    TVXQ albums discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    MugenDarkness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 09:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 09:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 09:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 09:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on TVXQ . (TW★TW)"
    2. 08:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ . (TW★TW)"
    3. 09:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ. (TW★TW)"
    4. 09:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on TVXQ. (TW★TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This is a separate report which was merged with the one about TVXQ Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts, was warned. I see that he's done the same previously with IPs; let me know if semi=protection is needed. Kuru (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Travelbybus reported by User:RolandR (Result: 48 hours)

    Page
    United New Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Travelbybus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656423088 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    2. 13:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660018691 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    3. 14:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660062481 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    4. 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660062722 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    5. 14:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660062997 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    6. 14:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063405 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    7. 14:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063668 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    8. 14:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063772 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    9. 14:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063875 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    10. 14:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660064137 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    11. 14:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660065003 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    12. 14:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660065078 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    13. 02:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660066784 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Similar behaviour on New Progressive Party (South Korea), Korea Democratic Party, Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War, Democratic Republican Party (South Korea), Japan Restoration Party and many more articles. Editor would appear to be a sock of serial puppeteer Greekboy12345er6. RolandR (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Obvious massive edit war; was warned. Not sure on the sock claim, best to resolve at SPI (where you've already added it). Kuru (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:‎Tzowu reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: )

    Page: Economy of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tzowu (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. [53]
    2. [54]
    3. [55]
    4. [56]
    5. [57]
    6. [58]
    7. [59]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

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

    Comments:We all need a constructive discussion. I began a talk-page discussion, and I invited him to join the discussion. Despite this, he continued to edit-war. He has changed and reverted the article without the consensus. We can have a constructive discussion and reach a agreement on the talk page, but is seems that he does not want that.


    Lol, so this is why you were disrupting my edits on the Economy of Croatia article, to get me banned :D. First you ask me to shorten the article, then revert what I did to report me. However, you made one mistake in your low actions, there is still no more than 3 reverts on that page, while the stuff I removed on those edits you linked was actually material that I added previously. I can't say that I'm surprised by this, it's just lame. Tzowu (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Please you have started to edit-war, and now you are what, trying to play a fool? I have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page but you ignored and made the changes anyways. Everyone can see that.
    Yea, sure, you were so constructive in your comments and thoroughly explained your issues with my edits and never even thought about an edit-war, while "I ignored you". "Everyone can see that." Tzowu (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have violated the rules, and the administrators can see that.--Tuvixer (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are also two examples where recently Tozwu has tried to start a edit war:

    1. [62]
    2. [63] --Tuvixer (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, so when you start reverting me without explanation when I actually remove content that I added to fulfil your request it's not an edit war, and when I revert your unexplained removal of well sourced content it is an edit war? Tzowu (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can lie all you want but the administrators can see what you are doing. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And what do my parents have with our discussion? [64] Tzowu (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Winkelvi reported by User:MaranoFan (Result: )

    Page: Title (Meghan Trainor album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Winkelvi (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. [65]
    2. [66]
    3. [67]
    4. [68]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

    Comments:The edits were not vandalism, yet he goes on reverting them. The 3RR page suggests that reverts involving different content are blockable too. I think it applies here. He wants to get my articles unstable whenever I GA-nominate them. When I am editing them, he comes in and tries to get them unstable. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 16:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - 1) I wasn't notified of this report. 2) The filer 'thanked' me for my first edit in the list above. 3) The edits weren't reversions, but corrections of spelling and other grammatical errors. 4) There's no edit warring taking place, nor am I trying to sabotage anything, as the filer claims. I'm invested in this article, too, and am only trying to improve it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (non admin observation) Diffs 63 and 64 are successive edits with no other editor in between and should be counted as one instance. The other edits are over grammar in different areas, this doesn’t appear to be edit warring. AlbinoFerret 17:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You see the bad faith though? The editor's only intent is to get the article unstable and the problem with the edits is that I made them. They have behaved this way at Meghan Trainor and this one doesn't come as a surprise. I want some action taken though. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree with AlbinoFerret. There are only three sets of edits: the middle two are consecutive so only count as one. The first "revert" reverted your violation of WP:RETAIN and the second corrected a grammatical error. The final "revert" isn't really a revert at all: Winkelvi basically kept your edit as it is and just made a small correction to the grammar. I don't think there is a case for Winkelvi to answer to. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How on earth can you say you're assuming good faith and accuse another editor of bad faith when you're blatantly reaching for a case in an attempt to have Winkelvi blocked for no good reason and you didn't even leave a notice of this discussion on his talk page (which is required)? Good grief. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They have banned me from their userspace. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOBAN says that "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to." This project page says that anyone who is reported here must be notified. If Winkelvi has a problem with it then he can revert it, but the notice is mandatory, and I highly doubt you failed to leave one out of respect for the "userspace ban," especially when you left this (bogus) edit warring warning after WV has asked you on numerous occasions not to post to his talk. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you making the case for Winkelvi, shouldn't he be doing it? Are you the same person? Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the interactions you two have had, and this questionable filing, a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order. AlbinoFerret
    If this still makes any sense to you, I am sorry. If o many people think I am wrong, maybe a boomerang is in order. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...)
    I agree. The disruptive AfD nominations, bullshit AN3s, polemic userspace editing, etc. need to stop. A block, interaction ban, or both would really come in handy and stop the disruption from MF. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. Yes, WV and I are clearly the same person. You should really edit "good faith" out of your signature, because it's apparent from your postings here (and much of your editing in general) that you have no idea what that is. For crying out loud, you assumed that the reason for his "edit warring" was a personal vendetta against you to sabotage your good article nominations. That is the worst possible faith ever. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Say what you will, Chase. I am here with good intentions. I am getting articles to good status and sometimes even getting barnstars. My only problem is with you and WV. Only an interaction ban is warranted. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A clear case of a boomerang. Look out, (bad faith) MaranoFan! HandsomeFella (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hanswar32 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

    User being reported: Hanswar32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Hanswar32's edit-warring spans a large number of BLP articles, and his entire time editing. His second edit ever [70] is a revert, the beginning of a long-running edit war with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) that has continued over the entire span of his editing (most recently [71]).

    After he'd edit-warred with multiple editors, an ANI discussion was started: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Repeated_spamming_of_utterly_non-notable_awards_on_porn_star_biographies

    He's had over a year to resolve this problem, and his solution appears to be to edit-war despite his unblock request where he wrote, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me." Despite this he never did seek to resolve the dispute in other manners, and started edit-warring a month later: [72] [73] [74] [75]

    As he very rarely uses edit summaries, so it's difficult to tell exactly how much of his editing is edit-warring.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76] (After receiving the warning, he reverted it then reverted a tag on an article [77]).


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: His entire talk page is nothing but editors trying to resolve this dispute with him. Most recently, I tried to do so here as well as at Talk:Brandi_Love#Awards , Alexis Texas and Bobbi Starr - all articles where he's continued to edit-war.


    I've made the mistake of trying to remove the poorly sourced content from these BLPs, which he (eg [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]) and Scalhotrod (talk · contribs) (eg [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89]) simply revert.


    I want to point out in his defense that he might be changing his habits somewhat, given his cleanup [90] after that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, instead of the normal edit-warring. He may realize now that non-notable awards shouldn't be listed, but he's yet to say so and I'm not going to remove any of his additions again, despite their being BLP violations requiring consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Firstly, as a casual Wikipedia editor, I'd like to acknowledge that respecting and adapting to community etiquette and guidelines is necessary for the success of the project, and if one were to disagree with certain policies, seeking consensus over time will likely create positive change that is acceptable to all. I recognize Ronz's earnestness in his attempts to be a vigilant defender/applier of policy, but what he fails to realize is that his interpretation of policy does not necessarily equate to policy in terms of its intended meaning nor its correct application. It reminds of another user, SqueakBox, who has been blocked indefinitely on multiple occasions [91] for his similarly extremely controversial interpretation of policy. I'd also like to note that Ronz is a bit sloppy when it comes to collecting facts or making accusations and he's even rescinded a previous claim he made against me on my own talkpage.

    With that being said, I'd like to specifically address what has been said above. The edit he cites as my second edit ever, while true as "Hanswar32", is in fact not my second edit ever, as I was previously editing briefly as an IP user before I created this account in order to reap the benefits that a Wikipedia account provides a user. I invite any community member to review the ANI discussion above and its ultimate outcome as it was surely in my favor with me gaining the support of multiple editors by the end of it. Note that the ANI was started days after creating my account and I've never had to deal nor have been in conflict whatsoever with the editor who began that discussion as he simply disappeared afterwards from all articles that I'm involved in editing. In addition, and contrary to Ronz' false portrayal of me being involved in edit wars for over a year afterwards, I'd like to cite this talkpage [92] in addition to my own talkpage [93] as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there." The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four old examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was included in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding.

    Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree. To counter Ronz claim, I've been editing for a year and a half productively on the same articles with the following users whom I bet are willing to vouch for me Scalhotrod, Erpert, Rebecca1990, Gene93k, Guy1890, Morbidthoughts and Dismas among others.

    Although I appreciate Ronz' attempt to mention something in my defense, it's just another incorrectly deduced assumption he's made. My stance on including sourced award wins did not and has not changed. The cleanup he mentions was simply me doing what I enjoy doing, which is improve the quality of information presented in these articles by adding what is missing and removing what should not be there. I did a similar cleanup to Stormy Daniel's article by removing 11 awards. In both cases, the awards I removed were not won by the subject directly, but were awards presented to the films themselves that the subject was involved with in someway, and previous consensus states that awards of this nature in such cases should not be included. Hanswar32 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=660334501"