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:Jytdog reported by User:DrChrissy (Result: protected)

Page: Glyphosate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User reporting: DrChrissy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Glyphosate#Toxicity expansion]

Comments:

These are only some of the reverts that Jytdog has performed today (September 1, 2015) at this article. There is ongoing discussion about recent edits on the Talk page involving multiple editors, but Jytdog's large-scale reversions are extremely disruptive to this process.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is starting to look like the GMO content dispute noticeboard. For goodness' sake, please just full-protect the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with the protection just to settle everyone down for a bit. It seems like some of the more recent edit warring cases related to other GMO articles above got other editors active all of a sudden. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ugh yes, please lock the article. I drafted a case earlier today and withdrew it as I was hoping to work things out on Talk but my RW job ate my day. (still buried and just peeped my head in only to find this)

The aggressive editig continues in the GM suite - the destabilizing started by Prokaryotes is spreading, with DrChrissy unfortunately broadening and deepening his field of conflict with me and other persistent anti-GMO editors joining in. Things are not looking rosy.

But yes today DrChrissy decided to make a significant expansion to the toxicity section, adding loads of WP:TECHNICAL detail in some places like 'In a study of rats and mice fed diets of containing 0%, 0.3125%, 0.625%, 1.25%, 2.5%, or 5.0% glyphosate for 13 weeks, endocrine effects..." or "Pregnant rats given 3,500 mg/kg/day glyphosate by gavage (stomach tube) on gestation days 6-19 suffered effects including both increased maternal mortality and the number of fetal skeletal abnormalities" (3,500 mg/kg/day is a huge amount of glyphosate).

and in other places adding really introductory explanations (eg. explaining what LD50 is) and nonsense babytalk like "Glyphosate can be lethal to non-human mammals." (nonsense because you can put any noun or gerund into the place where "glyphosate" sits and it will be true b/c The dose makes the poison. Anyway here are some diffs but this doesn't come close to capturing today's disruptions

1. diff and dif expanded Tox section, big expansion without discussion. WP:BOLD yes but reckless on an article like this
2. diff reversion restoring it after I removed it
3. diff again
4. diff expanding yet more after objections already raised on talk

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to DrChrissy: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section and section

yes please lock the article so we can discuss. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looks like DrChrissy doesn't exactly have clean hands here either. I'm counting four reverts at a minimum 1, 2, 3, 4, but they also have eight distinct series of edits in the last 24 hours. It seems DrChrissy was having trouble with slowing down to discuss content and kept adding more content in rather than stop and discuss the weight of the section. This edit stating "You have already accepted and contributed to these edits" seems quite dismissive and a mischaracterization of the concerns brought up on the talk page. Jytdog did violate 3RR here (the first diff is debatable since the next edit was mostly a self-revert of that). However, I tend to look more towards overbearing editors who ignore requests to figure out a problem on the talk page and keep blazing forward with edits instead as the dominate source of disruption in such cases. There's a myriad of edits to consider between the two editors if any action occurs, but page protection would be helpful here either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Recommend arbcom level sanctions implementing 1RR for all GMO-related articles. I also recommend long blocks for Jytdog and Kingofaces43 for disruptively feuding in this topic area for several years. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Strange comment considering there is no edit warring on my part here. This is part of the general toxicity though in the topic that needs to be locked down that an eventual ArbCom maybe would give some tools to deal with. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your concurrent edit warring in the GMO topic area was documented by multiple users here. I have refrained from addressing your battlefield attitude and tag-team behavior because the evidence against you is already damning. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, this is not the place to pursue your personal vendetta against me. In this section, the evidence shows I was not edit warring, and the other section shows a rather more complex case than what you portray. I'm not going to engage you further here and have asked you to voluntarily refrain from following me around. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

V, Arbcom will not touch this, until it has been through DR, thoroughly. There has not even been at ANI yet with regard to the current wave of unrest at the article. I have thought about it but have not gone there yet; at this point ANI would just turn into an unproductive dramafest. We need to really try to work things out at the article Talk page; folks need to show restraint as this is a controversial topic. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces, you may continue to deny that you were edit warring and disrupting the GMO topic area, but the link I provided up above shows otherwise. I'm sorry that you feel that contradictory information is a "personal vendetta". It sounds like you and Jytdog are heavily and personally invested in the GMO topic area and that might explain why your names keep coming up on this board and other places. It's probably best for Wikipedia if the both of you step away from this area before you are permanently removed from it by community sanction. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I fully endorse Viriditas' statement, and found my way here via Viriditas' Talk page, where Kingofaces went to, in my view, attempt to intimidate Viriditas. I have warned Kingofaces and Jytdog on article talk pages regarding their editing, but it is becoming clear that community sanctions are indeed likely for the tendentious tag-teaming they repeatedly indulge in. Jusdafax 02:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 04:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Viriditas, and if Jytdog mentions me here he should ping me at least. I see that Jytdog continues to engage in edit warring and with making up claims. Apparently page protecting is not ending the OWN and EW behavior by this editor. prokaryotes (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• OP response to Jytdog

Jytdog's accusation of me edit warring or violating 3RR is misleading to say the least.

The first two diffs Jytdog presented attempting to indicate edit warring he admits himself are simply WP:BOLD. Whether they are "reckless" is purely his opinion, but even that is not "warring".

The first diff Jytdog presented[8] shows that all I did was add non-contentious material using a reliable source that was already used in the article. I also moved a section unchanged because it was clearly in the incorrect place.

The second diff Jytdog presented[9] shows I again expanded the article using the same RS as before, and 2 new RS.

The fifth diff Jytdog presented[10] again shows a perfectly valid expansion of the material. He complains above this was "expanding yet more after objections already raised on talk". One of the objections raised on the Talk page was the environmental relevance of the doses in the studies[11] made at 17.02h. At 17:59h, I introduced this new material complained about by Jytdog, specifically to address the other editor's concern.

Furthermore, Jytdog complained above that I added the sentence "'In a study of rats and mice fed diets of containing 0%, 0.3125%, 0.625%, 1.25%, 2.5%, or 5.0% glyphosate for 13 weeks, endocrine effects...". The material was actually added to the article on March 3rd, 2014 here[12]. I moved the material here[13] with very minor tweaks as this material had clearly been deemed acceptable for a considerable time. Jytdog complained about this sentence here[14] at 15.38h. At 16:00h, I rewrote the sentence[15] with the edit summary "Conciseness as per talk".

In short, rather than edit warring, I have been editing in a demonstrably collegiate manner. With regard to 3RR, Jytdog has presented only 2 edits of mine that might contribute to that.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• OP comment on comment by User:Kingofaces43

More dirty tricks? Kingofaces43 states here[16], with an ES that raises the question of whether I should receive a boomerang, that I made at least four reverts and then provides four diffs. The first two of these[17] are the same diff! I know we are supposed to AGF, but this is getting more and more difficult to maintain. Perhaps the closing admin would like to consider further action against Kingofaces43 for misleading the community.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

With the copy paste typo (the correct diff is now included), anyone not engaging in a toxic attitude would expect a duplicate diff to be intended for a separate one instead of some "dirty trick". Common sense is required here. Please stop raising drama instead of attempting to lower it. We have enough at the related pages already, and I've mentioned your human medicine topic ban because it demonstrates a history of these kinds of problems (including edit warring) now shifting to other areas. The diff that was missed was a revert because you were asked to stop adding pieces of content to the section and asked to come to the talk page in order to figure out weight issues. You instead went ahead and kept adding chunks. The diff is a clear sign that the spirit of 3RR was violated at that point, especially since small chunks were added at a time that ran up other editor's revert counts as you kept adding. That's really beside the point now as the page is protected, so I'm just clarifying now. I'm done with this particular section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really do not follow what you are suggesting at the beginning of this post. If you want to post diffs that I reverted more than 3 times, I would expect to see 4 different diffs. Anyway, I see that you are withdrawing from the discussion, so thank you for your input.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm saying this to everyone here, and not specifically directing it at anyone. Enough already. The page has been protected. That's all that is going to happen here. Talking about how horrible other editors are is not going to result in any administrative action. But it will reflect badly on the editors doing the complaining, when (as appears increasingly probable) the GMO issue ends up at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Trypto, but I have to respectfully disagree. Something simply must happen here. Even Kingofaces43 agrees that Jytdog has broken WP:3RR. Jytdog can not be allowed to edit war and violate 3RR with impunity. Action must be taken here or we are sending out completely the wrong message to the community.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    • You are asking for something to happen here, that will not happen here. If you want, you can go to ANI, but the question of you following Jytdog around will also be raised there. I made that comment because I like a lot of the editors on both sides of this content dispute, and I see this ending badly for editors on both sides of this content dispute. My sincere advice: WP:STICK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
      • But why will something not happen here? WP:3RR is described as "A bright-line rule" which is a "clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation." Jytdog has stepped over that bright-line and must be held accountable. Why should we all follow the rules but not him?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify since my name was mentioned, if there was a lopsided one person at fault, I'd be suggest a block, but I'm seeing two editors edit warring with one engaging in more significant behavior problems as described above. That makes individual decisions difficult when we’ve had mostly involved editors arguing here so much already. While I do think behavior related to edit warring should be addressed at this board more than just protecting the page, I’m sure those uninvolved watching this page are tired of this constant drama to pursue more action. Page protection is the simplest solution right now, and I’m fine with that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I am amazed that such an experienced editor as yourself would agree that another editor has breached 3RR and then say "protect the page and I am fine with that". Jytdog stepped over the line and simply must be held accountable for that. If not, what is the purpose of this noticeboard?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

OP note to closing admin

When I raised this thread, I envisaged it would be a fairly simple count of whether a number of Jytdog's edits violated WP:3RR. This seems absolutely clear to me. However, it appears that editors from many directions are causing these waters to become muddy. I seek closure here, not endless discussion of edit histories. Perhaps the most defining posting is Kingofaces43 clear statement here[18] that Jytdog violated 3RR. I do not wish to cause unnecessary work for already over-worked admins and I therefore suggest the following. I will be happy if only evidence/diffs in this thread are considered - there is no need to go back and check through Jytdog's extensive editing history. However, at the end of considerations, please can the community have closure on this. I believe the usual sanction for a first-time 3RR violation is a 24-hr ban. I will obviously leave any sanctions up to the opinion of the closing admin, but if they feel that all that is necessary at this stage is a clear, formal warning to Jytdog about their behaviour, I will be satisfied by this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr Chrissy asks valid questions. Are some editors here considered untouchable? If one has the right friends who show up to noticeboards, it seems they can easily evade blocks and other actions that a less "popular" or active user, or one less skilled in the battle of words and diffs that constitute our justice system, would receive without delay. If anyone is to be blocked for 3RR, then Jytdog cannot be excluded - but if he is, there should be justification given. I'd like to think that we are equal and subject to the same rules, regardless of how powerful, numerous or aggressive our allies may be. These noticeboards are to look at behaviour and weigh it against PAGs. The 3RR guideline is not murky. Page protection was a good move, but in no way addresses edit warring, and I'm dumbfounded as to why editors above indicate otherwise.. petrarchan47คุก 04:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I hesitate to step back in here, but... When I was a relatively new editor, I was in a content dispute (at an animal rights-related page) with another editor (now long-retired from Wikipedia). That other editor violated 3RR. Unambiguously. I reported them here. A very sensible admin closed it with no action, and told both of us to go back to the talk page and work it out. No block. And the admin was right. And that was a more clear-cut case than what we have here, where editors on both sides of the dispute here have less-than-clean hands. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Trypto. Please note I have indicated above that as the OP, I would be satisfied with the simplest of actions - a simple warning. The OP here is only one of many similar complaints that could have been raised in recent weeks by several other editors - Jytdog's behaviour has become extremely disruptive out there.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Behind the times as usual Doc. The rest of us have moved on. Page has been protected to stop your edit warring, OK? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Itanaman reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: protected)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679276489 by Buaidh (talk) It is not appropriate to state formerly Mount McKinley, because it wasn't called Mount McKinley until 1917 after it was already being called Denali."
2. 21:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "Unanimously decided on talk page to be "Denali, officially known as Mount McKinley from 1917 until 2015" Please refer to there before changing again."
3. 21:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679326895 by Fyunck(click) (talk) I did, search the talk page for formerly, you will find the discussion on it. Please go back to talk page to discuss it further."
4. 21:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "That is not true discontinue the edit war and take it to the talk page where we already have it. Thank you"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "that 4x revert is a 100% no-no. Two editors disagree with you. Bring it to talk please"
2. 22:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "3RR cannot be crossed."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "/* former known as, or also known as */"
2. 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "/* former known as, or also known as */"
3. 22:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "/* former known as, or also known as */"

Comments:

This user is reverting two other editors, myself and Buaidh. He said I didn't take it to the Denali talk page... I did. He said some agreement was unanimous... I don't see it. I asked him to self revert and told him of the 3RR and he doesn't seem to care... Maybe there is something else Buaidh and i could have done to dissuade him from 4RR. I can certainly step back from editing the Denali article and keep it to the talk page, but he must be told to self-revert. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note: We both were guilty of the violation. I apologize for my part, as I didn't even realize I had gotten to the 3 part till I had already. As you will note in my comments, however, I tried to get both users to come to talk page to the discussion in progress regarding that very subject, and neither of them did until after both of us had broken the 3RR rule, which I was first to point out on the users talk page in order to get him to discuss it with me. Again, I apologize for my part in this, and understand if a temporary block needs to be put in place. Itanaman Dakar (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected — it looks like there's an ongoing attempt at dispute resolution on the talk page @ Talk:Denali#former_known_as.2C_or_also_known_as. If consensus isn't clear, I recommend opening an WP:RFC. --slakr^\ talk / 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on Popular_Republican_Union_(2007)

Hello, I am reporting an edit war on the page Popular_Republican_Union_(2007) that had been lasting for at least 6 months, consuming so much of my time to try to protect the page. Users involved: User:78.250.33.145, User:84.100.171.95, User:86.68.87.172, User:86.68.87.219, User:86.68.87.24, User:86.68.87.55, User:86.74.28.232, User:78.250.19.230 and the only active currently User:Francis Le français.

The cause of the disagreement are these topics:

1. Is the part related to Departmental election is valid or does it fall under WP:NOT? Discussion here
2. What is the political positioning of UPR? Several proposal in the talk including: neither right nor left, syncretic, centrist, diverse, far right, sovereignist. Discussion here
3. Is bondy blog source valid? . Discussion here
4. Lamayenneonadore source valid? Discussion here
5. Official radio of quebec university choq.ca valid source? Discussion here
6. Announcement of presidential candidacy at national congress, does it fall under 5P? Discussion here
7. Asselineau sitting with UMP members at Paris counsel or member of the UMP? [Edit war]

I attempted every way possible to solve the issue in a calm way. History of the conflict:

• [edit war on page with some IPs], I invite them to discuss but my request is ignored that leaded to [page protection by admin against IP contributors].
• [After forcing them to explain their motive on the talk page, except first topic, all discussions are to explain to the other party the reasons the changes are not proper]. Sometimes, their request were justified and I integrated the change in the article.
• [Discussions went on my talk page from this topic and all following]
• Due to their persistence, I filled a request for 3rd party opinion. But it was declined.
• [At the same time, I had a strong doubt on socketpuppet usage], since several IPs and Francis le Francais had same complains, and same style of contribution half in French, half in Frenglish which was concluded with an advice on behavioral monitoring
• [RFC opened] but the other party refuse the comments brought by experienced user "focusandlearn"
• [RFM, but refused] due to lack of French understanding of the board
• [DRN opened but refused] because the proper place to solve the issue should be admin board according to Jaaron95

And one more thing, if you would like to see what would happen to the article if I would not have protect it, you can see the disaster created by this user on [[19]]. Waiting your suggestions. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  Note we've got people looking into this. That includes myself, but since I can't speak French I can only do but so much... Other patrolling admins can consider this report resolved for the time being — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe the first thing D0kkaebi should do is to report that he is in a situation of conflict of interest when he edits the articles UPR and François Asselineau because he has official responsibilities in this party. I think that he bears the primary responsibility for all the edit wars that might have taken place on both articles because he cannot edit them in an unbiased way. --Lebob (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Disagree with this request. Shall we have, after all, to state who D0kkaebi really is? Do we have to disclose his exact rank within the Popular Republican Union organization? We are facing a blatant conflict of interest, and D0kkaebi has the front to come forward and shamelessly complain that he - of all people! - has to "to protect the page"!
  Stop now! This is becoming really indecent... --Azurfrog (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123 reported by User:70.91.216.5 (Result: no violation)

Page: The Scientist (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinevans123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

I warned the user on their talk page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martinevans123&diff=679348522&oldid=679338380}

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24][25][26]

Comments:

The user is repeatedly removing my post of another version of the song, solely based on the user's opinion that the version is not notable. I've posted discussion in the talk page, but the user continues to revert without any discussion or response on the talk page. User reverted 3 times in a short period of time, and may have enlisted another user to revert a fourth time, also with not merit other than "not important"70.91.216.5 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You're in a content dispute. With two people in fact. Martin only reverted twice, another editor once. No disruptive edit warring there. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. My Apologies as I misunderstood edit warring versus content dispute.70.91.216.5 (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Just an update - this content dispute is still going on. I've been making comments of substance to the Talk page, while others have conspired to assist in reverting without making useful comments in Talk. I'm am now being accused of edit warring, however I understood this to be a content dispute per the above, so now I'm confused. Can you provide guidance? Thank you. 2601:182:C001:AAD1:ACF9:D78E:C819:213C (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Francis Le français reported by User:D0kkaebi (Result: blocked)

Page: Popular Republican Union (2007) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francis Le français (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. version after admin warned of dispute
2. but several mini correction happened and basically this is the original version without war topics

Diffs of the user's reverts (actually I could list 50 reverts since this war is a happening for 6 months and I tried many other way before (3Ropinion, RFC, mediation, RFM...)):

1. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 673731805 by D0kkaebi (talk)ump 2006 ->reliable and true source + exclusively + most (not one of the most) + citation needed are not bad sources removal)
2. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 673751515 by Francis Le français (talk) you proceed again very questionable changes such as source removal without discussion)
3. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (less "centrist")
4. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (is it that complicate for you to wait the result of rfc before proceeding changes !!!!)
5. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (for you it's hard not hide behind RFC ( citation needed isn't in rfc !! !! ))
6. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 674516923 The sources doesnt mention Asselineau belong to UMP party)
7. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 674597205 by D0kkaebi (talk) the source say : "élue présidente du groupe UMP ... vient de recevoir la démission d'un membre de son groupe : Celle de François Asselineau...")
8. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (So it means he was sitting with ump group at the assembly not that he belonged to the party)
9. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 674993459 by D0kkaebi (talk) So it means you don't respect the source - original research WP:OR)
10. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (The source is saying is leaving the group ump at the counseil of paris not that he belonged to ump party. Read carefully the sources !!!)
11. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 675143581 by (talk)the source say : "élue présidente du groupe UMP .. vient de recevoir la démission d'un membre de son groupe : Celle de François Asselineau" + centrist? gaullism? revue republicaine?)
12. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (From her group at the paris counsel !!! You dont need to be ump member to sit with ump group like Collart sits with FN without being FN !!!!! You get it now?)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (You need to read accurately the sources and not interpret as you want WP:POV. You need to respect the consensus before changing things as you feel like)
2. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Change upon RFC result, thank you to respect consensus)
3. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (If no consensus then it should return to the state before the claim happens and until decision is taken)
4. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Since there is dispute, until resolution is done, basic principle is to stick to version before the claims. Edit war is useless and time consuming)
5. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (You have been warned by another user, Aya, one more, on your non-collaborative behavior)
6. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 678312643 by Francis Le français (talk) last warning)
7. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Reporting to Edit war page and admin noticeboard)
8. Still he reverted again after Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 679332880 by D0kkaebi (talk) war edit by you)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Is the part related to Departmental election is valid or does it fall under WP:NOT? Discussion here
2. What is the political positioning of UPR? Several proposal in the talk including: neither right nor left, syncretic, centrist, diverse, far right, sovereignist. Discussion here
3. Is bondy blog source valid? . Discussion here
4. Lamayenneonadore source valid? Discussion here
5. Official radio of quebec university choq.ca valid source? Discussion here
6. Announcement of presidential candidacy at national congress, does it fall under 5P? Discussion here
7. Asselineau sitting with UMP members at Paris counsel or member of the UMP? [Edit war]

Comments:

Please note that I tried every way possible to resolve the issue for 6 months against IPs then Francis le Francais:

• [edit war on page with some IPs], I invite them to discuss but my request is ignored that leaded to [page protection by admin against IP contributors].
• [After forcing them to explain their motive on the talk page, except first topic, all discussions are to explain to the other party the reasons the changes are not proper]. Sometimes, their request were justified and I integrated the change in the article.
• [Discussions went on my talk page from this topic and all following]
• Due to their persistence, I filled a request for 3rd party opinion. But it was declined.
• [At the same time, I had a strong doubt on socketpuppet usage], since several IPs and Francis le Francais had same complains, and same style of contribution half in French, half in Frenglish which was concluded with an advice on behavioral monitoring
• [RFC opened] but the other party refuse the comments brought by experienced user "focusandlearn"
• [RFM, but refused] due to lack of French understanding of the board
• [DRN opened but refused] because the proper place to solve the issue should be admin board according to Jaaron95

D0kkaebi (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked by another admin. --slakr^\ talk / 03:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  As per above: Shall we, after all, have to state who D0kkaebi really is? Do we have to disclose his exact rank within the Popular Republican Union organization? We are facing a blatant conflict of interest, and D0kkaebi has the front to come forward and shamelessly complain that he - of all people! - has to "to protect the page"! Come on now!
  I don't have any specific opinion on whether or not User:Francis Le français's edits are legit; but at any rate, let's not be fooled by D0kkaebi's claims: the way he manages his COI is becoming really indecent... --Azurfrog (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:306:CF91:4110:D80E:6EBA:8AFA:4641 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked one week)

Page

Chloe Lukasiak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:306:CF91:4110:D80E:6EBA:8AFA:4641 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "Y'all can't tell me what to do. Leave me alone and stay out of my business. If I want to make disruptive edits then I'm gong to make disruptive edits. I have the First Amendment right to do disruptive edits."
2. 14:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 14:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Chloe Lukasiak. (TW)"
2. 14:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Keep external links to External links sections at the bottom of an article on Chloe Lukasiak. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WHile they have not violated 3RR from this IP today, the following edit summary is of concern: "Y'all can't tell me what to do. Leave me alone and stay out of my business. If I want to make disruptive edits then I'm gong to make disruptive edits. I have the First Amendment right to do disruptive edits." Scr★pIron^IV 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Page semi-protected for one month given the amount of IP disruption to that article. Lol at that edit summary though! Swarm ♠ 01:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:RaqiwasSushi and User:68.231.26.111 reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: IP blocked 60h)

Page: Portal:Current events/2015 August 27 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: RaqiwasSushi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 68.231.26.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not in this war, I'm just reporting that it's been happening for days, as can be seen from [27]. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Apparently bot-generated edit warring alerts were sent to two unregistered users. I, User:RaqiwasSushi, did not receive a warning though deeply involved.(**) Through this, my changes were explained in edit summary, with blind HTML, talk pages.

Thursday, about 3 am EDT, I yelled "HELP" on the Help Desk page where I posted a summary of the experience. User:68.231.26.111 did comment there. Recommendation was we move this to Portal talk:Current events/2015 August 27.

Later that morning I did that, hoping to get a discussion started. No comment from the other user later that day or now. There was an alert that my rewrite for NLRB, 8/27 was "undone." But when checked the item, the content was not changed. Couldn't find user's talk page. ... Today is was "undone" again.

Last night I thought at least for this one event problem was moot. WRONG Just checked item; changed again. Not over. UGH!

Appreciate advice on proper, next step.RaqiwasSushi (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrote too soon. Edit war alert to me, had been there since 10:46 EDT today. No more changes on item, which had been my intention yesterday until I jumped to the wrong conclusion last night. There is no conclusion.(** above)RaqiwasSushi (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• IP user 68.231.. Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by Drmies. Reasoning for not blocking the account has been given and I agree entirely with that decision. Swarm ♠ 02:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:197.248.92.82 reported by User:Bentogoa (Result: Page protected)

Page

Bidco Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Ethical issues */ The information on this page is inaccurate and defamatory"
2. 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Ethical issues */ The information on this page is false, defamatory and malicious"
3. 16:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Ethical Issues */ This entire section is false and carries false data"
4. 16:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Ethical issues */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bidco Africa. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected by Chillum. Swarm ♠ 02:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:78.133.27.179 reported by User:HardstyleGB (Result: Blocked one week)

• 78.133.27.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Repeated vandalism without taking importance of my notifications, as I've warned him various times. He kept reverting and making changes,his last 3 changes are: 1 2 3. This user keeps reverting useful/trustful changes acusing me of "vandalism" while puts stale information or information without any sources. Also, it keeps reverting and changing articles without discussing on the talk page. It's a well known user from Malta which made vandalism editions beforem, one of his IPs is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.133.67.226) and every time uses different static IPs to edit articles. Always edits the same kind of articles; which are climate related articles. HardstyleGB (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week Swarm ♠ 02:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Yobol (Result: )

Page

Séralini affair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Support */ per David Tornheim, we should be able to replicate the critic per neutral"
2. 18:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "Add per Tornheim and WP neutral"
3. 18:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "rm POV edits by editor Yobol, Per previosu edit by Tornheim, see talk page"

# 19:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Publication strategy */ rm to much SYN" See comments below

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[28] Editor also previously blocked for edit warring.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Objection -- article lacks NPOV */ r"

Comments:

• Comment It appears that Yobol has also broken the 3RR [29][30]. The last two revert coming after his opening of the talk page discussion [31][32]. AlbinoFerret 19:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yobol apparently confuses reverts with unique edits. If you look at the edit history you can see that he reverts my edits seconds after i made them, i wasn't even aware while editing that he was interfering. Additional, he begun removing content, which had been part of the article for month, and added artefacts. Now editor Jytdog steps in and removes all edits from me and Tornheim. Both editors have a history of edit warring over this and similar articles, i.e. Yobol here.

• Yobol violated 3RR

The editor reverts/removes content seconds after my edits. My edits were for the most part readditions from editor David Tornheim.

• 4 September (Yobol removes my readdition of long standing content)
• 4 September (Yobol removes my readdition of Tornheim's content)
• 4 September (Yobol removes my readdition of Tornheim's content)
• 4 September (Yobol removes Tornheim's content)

• Jytdog begins to remove long standing content
• 4 september Removes study
• 4 September Removes all my edits prokaryotes (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: You need to review your diffs again. Your 2nd diff is me reverting myself. Self-reverts don't count towards 3RR.

@prokaryotes: Your first diff is not a revert, it is WP:BOLD removal of content added in 2013. As far as I can tell, it has been present in some form in every version of this article since then, and well before you came to this page. It's probably best if you take time to be accurate and avoid such mistakes in the future. Yobol (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Strange, the only mistake i can spot here are your accusations, for instance your claim that i was blocked, and you made 4 reverts which count as a violation. You interfere with other editors, your edits are disruptive and most importantly, not neutral. Something which you have in common with editor Jytdog. prokaryotes (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your block log indicates you have been blocked before for edit warring. Yobol (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yobol, even if you are given a pass on the second revert. You still continued to revert after going to the talk page. Instead of discussing you went back to edit war after going to the talk page. The 3RR does not have to be broken to engage in edit warring. AlbinoFerret 21:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Univolved IP editors perspective: Yobol made a legitimate WP:BOLD edit and removed content added in 2013 (there was the B in BRD), then user Prokaryotes legitimately reverted that bold change (the R in BRD). At that point, the next step would be to discuss at the talk page (the D in BRD), but instead it seems that Yobol reverted Prokaryotes to restore his/her Bold edit again? In my view, there should not have been another Revert by Yobol after the original B and R had occurred, that made it BRR and started the edit war. There seems to be an extensive, recent history between these two editors and they should be strictly held to WP:BRD when editing the same articles. In this case it seems that Yobol started the edit war by breaking the WP:BRD cycle, however Prokaryotes seems to have broken 3RR first between the two. 108.181.201.237 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @IP: Thank you for your comment. You should probably read the history of the article again, I have only made the bold edit once. I did not revert prokaryotes' revert of my bold edit, and did not break the BRD cycle in this instance regarding that specific material. I should also note that the only person involved here that has broken 3RR is prokaryotes. Yobol (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Again you make a false claim, Diff No 4 is not a revert, its me editing the page, per talk - an attempt to make the article fit per NPOV, which you disrupted. prokaryotes (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be correct about the 4th diff not being a revert, my apologies. Struck the 4th revert above. Suggest protection of the page as it appears no one has broken 3RR. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yobol, I have reviewed the edit history for todays edits again per your request. I see it this way:

The B in BRD, Yobol boldly removes longstanding text: [33]; then Yobol restores some of the text in a new location: [34]

The R in BRD, Prokaryotes restores original version before Yobols edits: [35]

The edit war starts, This should have been where discussion started and editing this text stopped! However, Yobol instead restores their version: [36]

There is no need to look further, the edit war has now started. I will stick to my original analysis, that Yobol broke WP:BRD and started the edit war, but Prokaryotes seems to have hit 3RR first. The whole thing could have been avoided by sticking to WP:BRD.108.181.201.237 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments, IP. You are, of course, correct that my behavior has been suboptimal and agree that if everyone, including prokaryotes, agrees to BRD we would avoid situations like this. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Do note that BRD is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. "Broke BRD" is a meaningless phrase. BRD is a process that works well for most editors in most situations. Not all of them. It's good that Yobol says they'll use this process, but it's not required, and not using it isn't grounds for punishment (nor is using it grounds for exoneration; there are ways to disruptively game BRD); it's basically not all that relevant to whether editwarring is happening, other than in that it may slow the editwarring.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yobol follows me now to other article and reverts my edit there, and ignores talk page discussion arguments. At the article we discuss here, Yobol removes long standing content, but on the other article he followed me, reads long standing content, (edit sum = restore long standing consensus; this wording has been in the article since 2010, per talk page. Time for RfC). Notice that "per talk page", he refers to his own comment. RfC with these editors basically means weeks of stalling discussion(example).prokaryotes (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I've had most of the suite of GMO articles on my watchlist since I responded to an RfC on the topic earlier this year, no "following" needed as your edits popped up on my watchlist. Yobol (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • "Following" in this context means pointedly reverting or otherwise interfering with another editor's activities in particular; it doesn't literally mean studying their contributions list. I opine neither in support nor confirmation of you "following", I just note that the pages being on your watch list wouldn't disprove following, if your edits really are targeted in a pattern at Prokaryotes. But following isn't automatically harassment or anything like it; if a user is doing something inappropriate on multiple pages, they're apt to be followed (and in fact to actually have their contribs tracked). As with the BRD point above, this basically doesn't relate very strongly to an editwarring case, unless the edits really are focused against one editor, and the focus is inappropriate. A couple of diffs don't prove this, and as Prok. indicates, the nature of the two edits were different (not in a pattern). "See talk" means "see talk", it doesn't mean "there is an RfC that concluded in a consensus there"; it might simply mean "edit summaries are short, and my rationale can be found on the talk page". So, basically, neither editor is raising anything relevant in this exchange.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
• After striking one of the four diffs originally provided as "evidence" and an admission by User:Yobol that he has behaved sub-optimally, it appears User:Yobol's accusation of Prokaryotes breaching 3RR is demonstrably completely without foundation. Surely we are in boomerang territory here.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Like what? I'd support a mild admonition/warning, but don't see much justification for anything else, esp. after Prok.'s not-well-supported insinuation of hounding. Everyone can make mistakes, and it is not necessary to be punitive toward editors who make them; blocks in particular are used preventatively, not punitively.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:31.168.164.210 reported by User:Perplexed566 (Result: )

Page: New Israel Fund (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.168.164.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Examples of reverts:

1. 1. this reverted this edit.

Which is also something that is under discussion in the NIF Talk Page. I opened up that discussion because I understood that it was a complex question.

1. 2. This edit reverted both this and this.

You'll see that I went to his talk page to warn about previous violations of the 1RR on Sept 2nd here.

Comments:

This is about a violation of the WP:1RR to which articles on the Arab–Israeli conflict are under as per the warning at the top of the New Israel Fund Talk Page... I know that there is much tendentious editing when it comes to Arab-Israeli conflict, and I feel sheepish asking for help here, but I don't know how else to manage with the behavior of this editor... I'm having a bit of a problem with the form. I hope you have everything you need. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Perplexed566 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Have discussed every change and provided umpteen sources which are continually being removed by Perplexed566. Shall not violate any rules - and did not violate 1RR to best of my knowledge. Will be careful moving forth. 31.168.164.210 (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24 reported by User:SMcCandlish (Result: Filer topic-banned)

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Quotation marks in English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: It's not just one; see detailed report below. I realize everyone hates style disputes, but this is a behavioral matter in a content dispute on a style topic, across WP:POLICY pages, talkspace, articles, and even multiple projects. This latest round is part of a 6+ year advocacy/soapbox/great wrongs campaign by the user to get rid of logical quotation (LQ) on Wikipedia, by deleting its mention entirely or by equating it to British quotation style (falsely - see sources at the RfC which DF is disrupting) so DF can try to convince people it's a WP:ENGVAR matter. User ignores all sourcing they don't agree with, and has started deleting sources from related articles, and inserting PoV self-published stuff in their place.

Diffs of the user's reverts [and other disruption]:

Update: The editor has resumed revert-warring and their WP:IDHT firehose again, despite this ANEW report being open.

• 03:24, 5 September 2015: Reversion [37] of me rescinding [38] and archiving [39] my own RfC (because Darkfrog24 editwarred [see below] to trainwreck it by hiding the Comments section under a text-wall regurgitating all their already-disproven nonsense). The whole "RfC" consists of DF24 recycling the same noise over and over again in a IDHT pattern, and me trying in good faith to respond to it to no result but more IDHT. DF24 has now resumed the constant stream of irrational blathering: [40], [41], [42], [43] ... Virtually every word of it is a distortion, fiction, evasion, projection, or rehash. There's a series of 7 more new such posts at Talk:Quotation marks in English, one of which blatantly lies twice in the same post about what I said. This has to stop.
• 02:28, 5 September 2015: Refuses to acknowledge dispute [44] (multiple editors raised policy-based objections to DK24's UNDUE/POV/SPS addition to Quotation marks in English, as detailed below), and DF24 (in same diff) accuses one of bad faith for having objected. It's clear that this editor is going to WP:OWN all of these pages or die trying.

The disruption is happening at such a fast clip I can't keep up any more (and had to stop trying to undo it, or I'd be 3RR myself), so I apologize if this is missing a diff it should have. These are in newest to oldest order:

Diffs of ongoing and recent editwarring and related disruption

20:38, 4 September 2015: At Quotation marks in English, reverted my inline RS tag [45] (without resolving the dispute, just asserting without demonstrating the author is exempt from WP:SPS). 17:00, 4 September 2015: At same article, reverted my inline dispute tag [46] without doing anything to resolve the dispute, just engaging in more IDHT and OR; in same edit, deleted a reliable and properly cited source at (cite of neutral article about logical quotation by a language professor and well-known writer on English language usage, that was used for multiple citations in the article, which DF broke by doing so), and replaced it with an anti-LQ rant from someone's "Daily Writing Tips" blog. Classic WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. This should be reverted, but I don't want to do it myself, lest I be seen as editwarring, too. 16:42, 4 September 2015: At WT:MOS, trying to hijack and disrupt [47] the RfC I opened, by inserting a huge new subtopic between the RfC and its comments section, making it unlikely anyone would comment (and the insertion consisted almost entirely of rehash that's been addressed numerous times in the last three days) . DF then inserted into the RfC itself a contrary opinion [48] (the same factually incorrect WP:OR and WP:POV that the editor has been relentlessly pushing against all facts, sources and reason during this editwarring spree, and for many years more tendentiously . I moved this to the Discussion section of the RfC. [49] [50]. Darkfrog24 editwarred to put it back where it was improperly inserted [51]. I would have to violate WP:3RR to fix it myself, and request that this be administratively fixed quickly, or the RfC will be wrecked. 13:09, 4 September 2015: MOS: Deleted "logical quotation" from MOS:LQ for umpteenth time [52]; I reverted [53] on the basis of there being no consensus for the deletion, and the rationales provided for it being disproven (as they are in detail on the talk page and in previous discussions over 6+ years); I then attempted a compromise [54] (one I'd tried before, but which DF also deleted) 23:06, 3 September 2015: Deleted "logical quotation" again [55]; I reverted [56] on the basis of no consensus to delete, and multiple editors having objected. 13:09, 3 September 2015: Attempted to hijack [57] a clarification proposal I made about logical quotation by changing it to have "British" in it, and making it about DF's own proposal, already being discussed in [WT:MOS#Example sentence for editors unfamiliar with British/logical style|its own thread]. I undid that [58] but did not touch any of their other edits made in the same session. 13:00, 3 September 2015: Deleted "logical quotation" again [59]; another editor reverted [60] 13:55, 2 September 2015: Inserted the false claim that logical and British quotation are identical into wikt:logical quotation [61], and reverted me when I fixed it [62], adding sources that show nothing but that some sources do not distinguish, while the actual distinction has been very well sources, and DF just IDHTs that. I've since then tried a factual compromise version that actually says what the sources support not what DF wishes they did [63]. 23:24, 1 September 2015: Deleted "logical quotation" (and made undiscussed, incautious changes that introduced an error) [64]; I partially reverted [65] on the basis that there was no consensus for this deletion, and fixed the error, noting what it was. I then attempted a compromise edit [66] to address DF's ostensible issue. 22:55, 1 September 2015: Falsely equated British and logical quotation: [67]; See point #1 at the RfC for sources that it's false. I put it back how it was [68] on the basis of no consensus for injecting such an error, and the fact that DF knows it's factually wrong. DF has known for many years: In 2009, an editor explained the difference between British and logical quotation [69], DF agreed and wanted MoS to make it clear they were different [70], someone else chimed in about how different they are [71], and DF agreed and said they'd found sourcing that said so [72]. DF now repudiates their agreement and the desire to see MoS be clear on this [73], but they can't repudiate the fact that they personally sourced that the two styles are different. This is just one of a large number of such discussions on the matter over the last 6+ years, with similar evidence in them, including numerous sources DF repeatedly pretends do not exist or do not say what they say, but I needn't belabor the point. 14:35, 1 September 2015: Deleted "logical quotation", in a series of edits, compressed into one diff here [74], making a large number of undiscussed changes, and introduced a serious error to one of MoS's guidelines. I very carefully, in a multi-stage edit, undid only the obviously anti-consensus or error-injecting parts, fixed typos in the new material, and left the rest of DF's changes alone; compressed into one diff: [75]. It should be noted that this section of MoS has a big HTML comment in it no one can miss: "EDITORS PLEASE NOTE: Changes to this section may escalate into heated dispute. Please consider raising any proposed changes for discussion and consensus-building on the talk page before editing."

The present issue is both temporary(?) [3 days running] conventional editwarring and part of a pattern of very long-term slow editwarring against the consensus for and about logical quotation. This new spate closely mirrors, and looks like the beginning of a new version of, the same editor's 5-year editwar at WT:MOSFAQ.

A slow-editwar campaign to "win" by never giving up, using a series of consistent tactics:

to get rid of or sow confusion about the terms "logical quotation" and "typesetters' quotation", either by hiding them entirely or by editwarring in "British style" and "American style", respectively, to confuse the distinctions and to support the editor's 6-year campaign to undo logical quotation on WP as somehow "anti-American" (despite the fact that British and logical quotation styles have been conclusively proven to be different and that many American publishers use logical quotation, demonstrated repeatedly in years of re-discussion of this issue): [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] and/or to try to paint this as not a matter of well-sourced facts, but just as the opinion that some editors have arrived at: [81] [82] [83] [84] [85], [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] (note denigration of counter-arguments as "stupid") and has pursued this slow-editwarring tactic relentlessly after multiple editors object, as here: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99], including attempts to compromise [100]. Darkfrog24 has even tried to turn MOS's own FAQ into a rallying point for "challenging MOS" to get "satisfaction": [101] and is insistent about it [102] over objections.

Statement (there are others, I just happened to run across this one) that indicates this is a long-game advocacy campaign: "I most certainly have not abandoned proper American punctuation. ... I am as stout an advocate of American punctuation as ever." [103]

I have pulled together a lot of other diffs, but these seem the most relevant, and should surely be enough for action to be taken.

Diffs of edit warring warnings: [104], [105] [106] [107], and others included in the sequence above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple threads at WT:MOS, etc. WT:MOS#Proposal: Clarify the difference between logical quotation and British style is probably a reasonable starting place, It's an RfC proposal to resolve the issues central to the dispute, an RfC the other party immediately began disrupting (and has reverted to keep disrupting, after objections, and disrupted an earlier one yesterday), despite the fact that half the point of the RfC is to come to agreement with this editor (the other, more important, half is to resolve guideline comprehensibility problems reported by another user). Other attempts to compromise with this user are diffed above in the main evidence. I'm not sure anyone would want to read past the now-disrupted RfC back through the miles of Darkfrog24 demanding sources/evidence/reasons, being provided with them, ignoring them, and recycling the same WP:FILIBUSTERing demands. It's all about wearing down opposition to get a WP:WIN. This is a long-term habit with this user, too, which I can show with another set of diffs if needed. There's no resolution to be found with someone behaving this way.

Comments:
Sorry this is long, but it's about an extensive and now worsening pattern). Darkfrog24 is engaging in an ongoing, 3-day pattern of editwarring, RfC disruption, tendentiousness, WP:IDHT, source deletion, and OR/PoV-pushing, disruptive of WP:Manual of Style and other pages, spilling over into mainspace, part of a much longer-term campaign. I've tried in good faith to address every single concern raised by this editor, only to have them re-raised in the same terms over and over and over again as if never addressed before. I've tried to compromise in the actual guideline page wording, the RfC wording, and elsewhere (taking disputes to talk pages, etc.) to make this editor happy, and nothing works. As far as I can tell there's not quite a 3RR (the reverts move to a different page, then resume after the day boundary has passed), though it's come close (on both sides; ).

While the right-now problem is "fast" editwarring, RfC disruption, and disruptive edits at an article, I demonstrate in the second box of diffs just one example of how long this has been going on, and to what levels of "civil-POV", "slow-editwar" tendentiousness. I'm only diffing the most blatant stuff, not all the IDHT, etc. I'm also not raising civility issues; both of us have been testy, but it's been within limits. I do at this point have to rase a WP:HARASS issue, has DF has trying to mire every post or proposal I make about the topic in circular argument, and no matter what I say or do anywhere about quotation styles, DF is there to revert or disrupt it as soon as possible. This is a WP:OWN problem as well as all the rest.

When I took the early stages of this editwarring to WP:RFPP the other day [108], the responding admin agreed it was editwarring, but thought that page protection would not help, and suggested that the matter be taken to WP:AE for discretionary sanctions [109]. AE seems a bit heavy handed to me; sometimes they indef people pretty summarily. I wasn't even going to suggest a block, but in the course of writing this, Darkfrog24's behavior has worsened dramatically (RfC disruption, source deletion, etc.).

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: I didn't even think to look until just now, but the editor's block log consists of blocks for tendentious OWNy behavior at a particular page repeatedly, including both short-term and long-term editwarring, and editwarring when already under the microscope. Same pattern, except this time it's spread topically to multiple pages. The conditions that were applied in the unblock for the long-term editwarring seem to have been effective in that case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish says "disruption" when he really means "disagrees with me." He's done this before.[110]

I'll try to keep this simple:

• No I wasn't edit warring. You can see that I was changing my edits to address the concerns raised by other editors. Example: DrKiernan says that the link was not clear enough because the section to which it linked included American style (not just British). [111] I change the link and try again: [112] When SMcCandlish objected to that, I changed the link still further: [113] Both the substance and the descriptions of my edits demonstrate that I am continually trying to address others' concerns so that we can triangulate our way to a version that we all find acceptable. That's not edit warring; that's Wikipedia.

  "Well why not take it to the talk page?" you ask? Well I had a question about a comma and took it to the talk page...Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Unnecessary_comma_in_WP:LQ_example.3F ...and now there are five different threads full of semi-relevant complaints [114][115][116][117][118][119] and the original issue still isn't resolved[120]. A format that forces SmC to be concise is a format that facilitates progress.

• SMcCandlish has already started an RfC that I think is supposed to be about this issue. I haven't altered this part of the MoS since he started it.
• As for disruptions, SMcCandlish tends to confuse disagreeing with him with disruption. You will see that I'm the one trying to avoid disruption:

  a) When he continually posted digressions complaining about my choice of terminology in other threads, I created a new one so we could keep the issue separate. [121]

  b) I suggested hatting content that others might not care to read. [122]

• I absolutely did not introduce false information. According to reliable sources, including some of those that SMC has cited himself, "British" and "logical" are two names for the same system and are often used interchangeably by RS.[123] All of the changes that I have made to the article space and Wikitionary are fully sourced and consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

A brief bit of background showing why this matters:

The background here is that a clique of linguistic revisionists at WP:MoS have decided that they like British punctuation more than American and, rather than follow an ENGVAR-based rule allowing both punctuation systems (like we do with spelling), they require British in all articles. Many of them prefer to believe that "British" isn't really British, so ENGVAR should not apply, but this is not borne out in the sources [124]. I feel that including the alternate name "logical," but not the common name "British" pushes the POV that British style is somehow better than American. No evidence has ever been presented that it is. All this for a rule that's routinely ignored by most Wikieditors, even in featured articles. [125]

• "Rallying point"? I don't know where he's getting this. The FAQ and MOS: REGISTER both contain neutral and accurate descriptions of WP:LQ and its history. I've even removed text that presented WP:LQ as more unstable than it really is.[126] Oh, and I wouldn't let SMC used an unsourced term in the FAQ. [127]
• I would love to get WP:LQ changed, but I am not trying to undermine it. Whenever someone new comes in and challenges or suggests changing the rule (which is often), I say "Yes!" But whenever someone comes in asking how to use it correctly, I say "Here's how." [128]
• SMcCandlish jumps to IDHT whenever I listen to him very closely but still don't agree with him. For example, a source that he cited directly supported my position and directly contradicted his. I said "This actually supports my position." [129] He claims IDHT. [130] Then I show him exactly which part of the quote I'm talking about and why. [131] I've given him every opportunity to explain his position further.
• I will address any other of SMC's specific complaints upon request. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

All trivially easy to rebut. It's so transparent, and such obvious "do not look at the [person] behind the curtain" handwaving that people probably don't even need to see me answer it.

But just in case:

I'll stick with the original numbering: Disproven by the evidence. Playing games like adjusting links to keep re-re-re-re-deleting wording you want to delete against consensus is editwarring. Stating you're trying to address others concerns while persisting in the same single-minded pursuit for 6 years isn't fooling anyone. Given that DF24 keeps repeating the same anti-consensus deletion edits in that section, there wasn't much for them do in that section but violate 3RR, which DF24 WP:GAMEs like a pro. I'd also repeatedly asked DF24 to stop and discuss, so maybe they finally did...at that page. Then moved the editwarring to another page. Whack-a-mole. If it doesn't appear at WP:DE, it's not DE. That's why I have so many diffs demonstrating behavior, instead of coming here to complain about DF24's tone or volume or whatever. a) DF24 keeps injecting their anti-LQ campaign into every quotation-related discussion there, clouding it with FUD. This is a standard technique with DF24: Make false claims or unreasonable demands in each section it can be made in, so others refute it in each place (or maybe give up! I win!), next pretend it wasn't addressed and make the same claims again in each place, so it gets refuted again, etc., and then accuse the other party of textwalling and bringing it up too much. It's transparent gaming. Hand-in hand with the civil-PoV pusher's most worn tool, faux civility implying the other party has emotional problems – Is something wrong?, and I'm trying to address others' concerns, AGF, and Are you OK?, etc. But "who posted more" is another handwave distraction, a "don't look at me" move. This report about reverts, RfC disruption, WP:IDHT, and PoV/NOR. If anyone wants diffs proving DF24 injected their anti-LQ and/or "LQ = British" dead horses into those discussions first, that's easy enough to provide. b) DF24 started using collapse boxes to shrink conversations after I started refusing to respond to their circular bait, and I at least twice verbally observed that others on the page were getting annoyed with the circular rehash. But again, this isn't about too much discussion, it's about editwarring, thwarting consensus processes, ignoring WP:CORE, etc. Editwarring is usually over a content dispute. What else do people editwar about, since what we're editing is content? I think DF24 might be trying imply a bad faith "trying to punish me for disagreeing" motive (after repeatedly claiming I was the one assuming bad faith, natch), but the evidence speaks for itself. DF24's changes are not sourced, they're falsely sourced by WP:CHERRYPICKING and piles upon piles of OR, ignoring or warping, as needed, to suit the desired result. I can diff you DF24 refusing to go look at past discussion (that they were a part of) for sources provided, pretending that sources do not exist and claiming none have "ever" been provided, rejecting sources as "disputed" because they don't agree with DF24, accusing other editors of being untrustworthy to read sources correctly or without lying, rejecting reliable paper sources because DF24 can't get them right now online, etc., etc. Just in the last 3 days. Go back through 6 years of this stuff, and you'll see every "I refuse to look or believe" trick there is. I took this to WP:ANEW because the editwarring was the immediate hemorrhage that needed first aid, but the disease is far more serious. The falsehood of "LQ = British" has already been proven, irrefutably. The sources DF24 keeps waving around are sources that don't chose to distinguish between them. The existence of sources that treat them as if identical (because they haven't noticed the difference, because they don't need to get into such details, or whatever) cannot magically made disappear the sources that spell out what the differences are. Arguing and slow-editwarring about this until the end of time will never change the fact that the sources on LQ and the sources on BQ describe different systems, even if some (mostly American) don't talk about it. This is very, very basic reasoning. The "background" story is false. MOS has used logical quotation since its earliest days in 2002. It didn't put that name to it until 2005, but who cares. The idea that "revisionists" with a Rule Britannia agenda showed up and imposed it is ridiculous. It's like believing that moon landings were faked. "Rallying point" and MOSFAQ: The diffs are self-explanatory and can't be handwaved away. Undermining LQ: The diffs are self-explanatory and can't be handwaved away. Even if that weren't the underlying issue, it wouldn't matter, because this report is about editwarring, RfC disruption, WP:CORE violation, WP:IDHT gaming, etc., not the ultimate rationale for them. "SMcCandlish jumps to IDHT whenever I listen to him very closely but still don't agree with him." IDHT has nothing to do with agreement, only with a pattern of denial the arguments have met, that sources have been provided, that a source says what it does, that policies like NOR apply, and other externally verifiable facts. No one sane would say IDHT applies to "not agreeing with someone". It's about a disruptive behavior pattern of denial and projection.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather get to the heart of the matter: DF24's "beliefs" are the problem. Since when is WP based on beliefs? Since when is belief sufficient to ignore sourced facts and pretend that because a source someone likes better doesn't mention the fact, that the fact does not exist in reality and that all other sources about it don't exist, are wrong, or >fzzzt!< say the opposite of what they say? The editor will not accept any evidence or sources that don't support their personal view/agenda, and uses out-of-their-own-head WP:SYNTH to bend all sources to an interpretation (however unsupportable, often contradicting the plain wording on the page) that supports DF24's unshakable conviction. And that is, as it's quite frequently stated by DF24, that LQ is wrong in American English articles. It is British, you see, no matter what any source says. When "MoS doesn't use American-style quoting" is your WP:GREATWRONG to right, it becomes impossible to admit that there are multiple quotation styles that are not geographically tied somehow, so you can get your American newspaper style eventually if you just never give up until everyone else quits. We could come back probably 20 years from now, and DF24 would still be fighting this fight. Almost hilariously, this isn't even about conflicting facts, it's just refusal to accept it and move on.

In this particular round of tendentiousness, it's been the insistence that because some sources do not distinguish between British and logical quotation that they must be, no matter what, two names for the exact same thing. I fully accept DF24's source (that the editor did not reinterpret on the fly to say something they don't); they simply show that some sources don't draw the distinction that other do, not that the distinction has not been drawn and doesn't exist. There can be, in DF24's view, only American and British style, sources be damned. No amount of RS are enough for this editor, including the very style guides DF24 demanded be cited (never mind that MoS is not an article), which (woops!) demonstrate the facts of the distinction between LQ and British, are enough for this editor. Why? Because someone somewhere didn't also mention a distinction and lumped them both together under the name "British". It's mindboggling. By this reasoning, an observation that some sources call all felines "cats" as a shorthand means that in reality there is no difference at all between a house cat and a lion, no matter how many sources exist detailing the different characteristics of each. Obviously no one can really believe such poor logic.

The now inevitable WP:SPADE assumption is it's just gaming, to tire out the opposition until DF24 gets what they want. The diff-stack of what DF24 did to WP:MOSFAQ is incontrovertible proof that this technique is being used, and when pursued for long enough, will prevail by eventual attrition. Until the editor is stopped by sanctions. (And it doesn't require any assumption of bad faith, either. I'm sure that in DF24's mind it really is an absolutely crucial thing for WP to have American-English articles use "American" quotation style. Never mind that it's not really American, it's just common in the US, and used plenty of other places, even British fiction).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish thinks that the sources are wrong and he is right, and he doesn't understand why I don't prefer his opinion to RS.

Pretty much everything SMcCandlish is saying about me us either entirely untrue or so grossly exaggerated that it might as well be. I'll address any one of his points upon any uninvolved editor's request.

Editors JG66 and Curly Turkey were present for many of these conversations. Here is what JG66 thought of the matter: [132] Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

More fabrication and "not me". I've never challenged a single source mentioned in this debate on any page (other than the WP:SPS DF24 added to the article a few hours ago), only DF24's misuse of them. This is pure projection of DF24's own actions onto me. Yes, JG66 was annoyed with me trying to respond to all of DF24's rehash, and me getting testy about it in the process; I'm sure to any outside observer it looked like a slow-motion faceplant, and I should not have taken the bait. That's why I started refusing to respond to DF's circular posts. Curly Turkey and I have history (though not all that long), and he was involved in one of the discussions DF24 derailed by injecting confusion and falsehoods about LQ and BQ; we were making progress despite previously ruffled feathers, and both of the proposals I started were attempts to resolve the issues he had reported (and to address DF24's concern, to they extent they could be addressed), but DF24 hosed the RfC [diffed above], and implemented their own proposal without consensus [133] while theirs [134] and mine [135] were still under discussion. Rather than revert or even object I merged them into an RfC to seek compromise and community consensus [136]. Evil and bad, I know.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

SmC, reverting one change on a talk page for a good reason isn't edit warring. I returned the thread containing your proposal, which you had archived early, to the talk page because you've cited it here and complained about the posts I made in it. Let the respondents to this AN/I filing look at it. You can archive it when this is done.

Again: rebuttal on request. I'll be checking in but please ping me just in case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If there's edit-warring and IDHT behaviour here, it certainly is on SMcC's part at least as much as on Darkfrog's part. There's also incivility and personal attacks now. I'm considering imposing a two-month topic ban from WP:MOS on SMcC under discretionary sanctions, possibly on the other party too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd only ask that you look at the threads carefully before doing so; read the posts in the context of what was said in response to what rather than in the context of the descriptions given next to the link in this filing. I think you'll find my actions reasonable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have topic-banned User:SMcCandlish for two months under DS procedures, as this filing and related discussions display recurrent issues of battleground attitude over style issues. Darkfrog24 has been warned but couldn't be sanctioned under DS for lack of prior alert. The present filing on this board with its jumbled and long-winded assertions doesn't allow me to assess whether Darkfrog's own edit-warring rises to the level where a standard block for edit-warring would be indicated; in any case, they are strongly advised to walk away from the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well if you want a short way of looking at it: 1) SmC thinks I was edit warring. 2) I don't think I was edit warring. 3) After SmC started a proposal thread on the talk page about the thing I was/wasn't edit warring over, I made no further changes to the article, warlike or otherwise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:Huldra (Result: Declined)

Page: Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: dif

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:53, 4 September 2015
2. 23:01, 4 September 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned

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

Comments:

This template has been mostly quiet, for the last 5-6 years (which is rather exceptional in the Israel/Palestine area). User:Alakzi then earlier today brought up what is actually a nice simplification here...which -very unfortunately- made Pigsonthewing aware of this template. He then proceeds to turn it into "standard colour"...not knowing a thing about the Israel/Palestine conflict, where the colour blue is typically associated with Israel (.....take a look at the flag..) and where green is associated with the Muslim Palestinian majority. This is a highly political change; unfortunately I am in some doubt that Pigsonthewing is even aware of this. <facepalm>

Also, Pigsonthewing claims that the template is "not an article"--which, narrowly, is correct; however the sanctions in the I/P area very specifically mentions; "broadly constructed"...In my understanding; everything pertaining to the conflict is covered. And the 1948-depopulated villages are at *the very centre* of the conflict. Hence: 1RR. Huldra (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• This template is part of many I/P-related articles, so of course it is covered by ARBPIA. Huldra is right that the colors are sensitive. If there are accessibility problems with the template then a discussion should be opened so that a solution meeting the requirements of the area can be found. Pigsonthewing should cease trying to force a change without taking these matters into account. For the information of admins, I'll note that Pigsonthewing is not a regular of the I/P area so shouldn't be treated like a warrior there. Zero^talk 00:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Well, light blue is the navbox default; I think people would catch on pretty quickly, if they were to visit other articles. In fact, of all the navboxes in Category:Palestine templates, this appears to be the only one to use a green background. Anyway, I've made a proposal on the template talk page; let's resolve this amicably without anybody getting blocked. Alakzi (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• A template consisting of content transcluded into an article qualifies under "broadly construed", FWIW. That said, PotW isn't a warrior there; some people are color blind and don't know or remember what color flags are; and color stuff like that doesn't always occur to everyone immediately, if they're focused on something else. Also, if people want templates to be subject to the WP:ACDS of a particular set of articles, the templates need to have the DS banner at the top of their /doc page so they're transcluded and visible. Most template editors just edit the template; it's not like they're going to think "Hmm, I wonder if this template maybe is subject to ACDS for some reason, perhaps I should look at the talk page's banners first." We don't all memorize and think all the time about what ArbCom case might apply to what page, since most of us are not WP:JERKs or WP:BATTLEGROUNDers, and generally don't run into ACDS problems to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Any way to remove ANY color from this navbox? End of problem. Montanabw^(talk) 06:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Declined The template does fall under the DS. However, I think that Andy was acting in good faith and was not attempting to make an edit "relating to the topic". I see that a discussion is ongoing and it should play out there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:118.172.31.31 reported by User:Gothicfilm (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Martian (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and The Imitation Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 118.172.31.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [137]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]
4. [141]
5. [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:
This IP has threatened to and is most likely using more than one account, for example Special:Contributions/118.172.27.45, and is at both The Martian (film)‎ and The Imitation Game removing cited sources and contradicting them. The two film articles will need auto-protection to prevent similar edit warring from other IP addresses. Note edit summary from IP: stupid ass dont be double standard The American Martian Directed and made by britsh you say its an american. The British Flim Imitation Game directed by american you say its an american film I have 1000 ip addresses and i will keep editing dumbass

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours and semi-protected for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Durr-e-shehwar reported by User:Jimmy Aneja (Result: blocked)

Page: Karan Singh Grover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Durr-e-shehwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [145]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [146]
2. [147]
3. [148]
4. [149]
5. [150]
6. [151]
7. [152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154]

Comments:
The user repeatedly reverting irrelevant, non encyclopedic tone, unnecessary and undue weight content. The user has broken 3rr in 4 hours after warn him/her. This user reverted my edits by using IP [155], [156], and not just this, later user vandalized this page, [157] and by IP [158]. Jimmy Aneja (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This user is the one who is removing encyclopaedic information and is continuing to edit war continuously moreover is a very fresh editor and has been taking interest in removing content only User:Durr-e-Shehwar (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

and they continue to edit war

• [159]
• [160]

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment Wow. Can't say that DeS doesn't do the work of running down sources. The key problem here seems to be a disagreement over what does and doesn't constitute suitably notable information. (Maybe the tattoos aren't notable, but maybe the Sikh riots are.) If the three or four of you could agree on some kind of litmus test, that might solve the problem. "Did it affect the wider culture and not just Grover?" "Has it appeared in either three fan-catering RS or at least one mainstream RS?" "Are there at least two other articles on subjects of similar notability that include a paragraph on this topic?" It would at least save you the trouble of arguing every point. But that's the underlying conflict, and this complaint is about edit wars: I've looked at the links offered here and yes, I'd say this user has violated 3RR. Although there's some mix-and-match to what was reverted when, the paragraph on religion has been re-inserted at least three times, and date of birth has been re-inserted at least three times.

However, the content that they want to insert is things like the subject's date of birth, views on religion and the way he was affected by public riots. At least some of this stuff should stay in. Or did I miss something? I didn't click on every single source. Are they not RS?

This user's history goes back only to 2014. Have an admin give the noob a talking-to about the Wikipedia-acceptable way to get disputed content into an article: how to build consensus,show content to be notable, use the NPOV noticeboard and run an RfC and see if it takes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked by another admin --slakr^\ talk / 07:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Now he/she reverted my edit again with a newly created account. Jimmy Aneja (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jimmy Aneja: blocked. --slakr^\ talk / 08:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Aneja reported by User:Durr-e-shehwar (Result: nominator reblocked, page semi)

This user is the one who is removing encyclopaedic information and is continuing to edit war continuously moreover is a very fresh editor and has been taking interest in removing content only! They continued to remove proper encyclopaedic and sourced information on the page Karan Singh Grover for no reason at all, clear case of vandalismUser:Durr-e-Shehwar (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Will look at the article. It would be best if you could cite diffs of specific changes Jimmy A has made that you think are in violation of the rules. For example, here is a diff showing the most recent change that Jimmy Aneja has made to the article: [161] But just one change is not an edit war. Has he been doing this a lot?

Usually, you demonstrate that someone has been edit warring by showing that they broke WP:3RR, the three revert rule. That means making the same change more than three times within any twenty-four-hour period. It also helps if you can show that you tried to work this out on the talk page and they kept it up anyway. ...but from what I see on the talk page, Jimmy might not be the problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week for block evasion + Page protected. --slakr^\ talk / 08:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hollywoodbollywood22 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Karanvir Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hollywoodbollywood22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC) "(talk) the editors who edit this page removed loads of information on karan singh grover page y they didn't get vandalising warning?"
2. 14:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679746855 by ClueBot NG (talk) it is not vandalism all this information is not valuable and fan crap the same was done to karan singh grover page"
3. 14:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679746739 by Winner 42 (talk) no there is no unexplained removal, there is a lot of removal on karan singh grover page which is unexplained"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Karanvir Bohra. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also see the message on my User Talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi#karan singh grover; it is not so much that he has hit the red line, but there is such self-justification in his doing so, and having ignored me and a bot, that he is coming across as quite definitely WP:NOTHERE. Note that he is also obviously the IP who made this edit today: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karanvir_Bohra&diff=prev&oldid=679746633 _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

why is it vandalism when I am removing information on this page and it is not violation when loads of information is removed from the karan singh grover page?Hollywoodbollywood22 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of fan-warfare and socking going on between the two articles Karanvir Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Karan Singh Grover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The Grover article has been the hub of terrible editing for a long time. see the two cases above and the unblock request from User:Durr-e-shehwar -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that counts me out- I can identify edit-warring, but the topic is well out of my comfort zone _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours It took me a while to figure out what's going on here, can one of the editors familiar with the two article histories take this to the relevant SPIs? —SpacemanSpiff 15:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing warring on male rape

Tsbarracks has made three edits to the entry on male rape in the last 24 hours, all of which either remove or substantially modify a well-source statement that female-on-male rape is rare. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page over the appropriate remedy, but it seems like the original statement should be left alone in the mean time.

1st

2nd

3rd

The same editor is also warring over subsection titles:

1st

2nd

3rd

Nblund (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor is new to wikipedia. Perhaps Nblund might want to explain policy first.Mattnad (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Its a new account, but it doesn't seem like this editor is entirely unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. I'm not trying to be punitive, but the material clearly doesn't have consensus support and I want to avoid engaging in edit warring myself. If you want to make the revisions, or if Tsbarracks wants to self-revert, I think that would solve the issue for me. Nblund (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Isambard Kingdom reported by User:23.233.86.86 (Result: Reporting editor blocked)

Page: Higgs boson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Isambard Kingdom (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. [162]
2. [163]
3. [164]
4. [165]
5. [166]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments:

IP:23.233.86.86 has repeatedly been inserting "Homer Simpson" comments into the Higgs Boson article. Over the past few days, I have, yes, reverted his/her "contributions". He/She is now submitting comments to my talk page that might be reasonably interpreted as harassment. Have a look to confirm. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: The IP made a pair of edits (together) on Aug 31, I reverted them once (1R). The IP made a pair of edits (together) on Sept 6, which I reverted once (1R), and the same edit again on Sept 6, which I reverted (another 1R). I have not violated the 3R rule in all this mischief. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

These are factual edits, where the writers added information showing a math equation that Homer used which has been validated by scientists and has a reliable source added (I could add other RS's if needed) 23.233.86.86 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Also i dont know how this user interprets appropriate notices has harassment. One was a notice for his valdalism; the other was a notice of the 3r war which I am required to post. 23.233.86.86 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A TV series used some random combination of physical quantities in a formula. So what. This is not a discovery in any way. It has no relevance for the article and should not be included. By the way: the equation there gives 775 GeV, which is far away from the mass of the Higgs. Repeatedly adding it to the article is vandalism and can and should be reverted as often as necessary to maintain the quality of the article. --mfb (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

Page: Séralini affair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prokaryotes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:11, 6 September 2015 diff
2. 19:37, 6 September 2015 diff
3. 19:40, 6 September 2015 diff
4. 19:46, 6 September 2015 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif (edit note) and this edit note (we have been down this road 3 times this week, i passed on the formal notice)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section Note: if you take a minute and actually read that section, you will see that two other editors besides me are trying to talk with Prokaryotes, and none of us understands what he is upset about.

Comments:
Clear violation, exceeding three reverts. I'l note that I am at 3 reverts. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC) (add detail Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

• Comment Both the accused and the reporter are on AN/I over this page and others. Neither is clean and innocent. Both are involved in edit warring. Both should be blocked or this section closed pending the AN/I sections close. I requested page protection, and it was protected for 2 days, so the drama is over for now. This goes back days at least though. The admin should look at the history. They both deserve a week off to protect the other pages they are fighting over. AlbinoFerret 20:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment In this dif I've added a study, after a talk page discussion didn't gave any reason why not to. Jytdog himself added this very study last year after a talk page discussion. Then he begins to revert, and on revert No3 replies at talk page and claims the study has nothing to do with the article (Jytdog: Adding a much later publication by someone else, about something else, is not relevant to the Seralini affair). I made 3 reverts, so did he. I think that editor Jytdog may be trying to retaliate in response for reporting him at ANI. Also he made a 3RR last week, which he withdraw. He also tries hard to remove content i added, here, in addition to an AfD, and manual removal of legit content by editor Jytdog. And this guy seems to be in a very bad mood, here he pisses of another editor, after that editor tried to be cooperative. Here he wrote, Your mischaracterization of what I wrote and of MEDRS is malicious, incompetent, or both., though he apologized for that, but these are just examples from the last few hours. This editor is continuously disruptive and in a very unfriendly way.prokaryotes (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note: article has been protected via a third party request at here Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll add here that Prokaryotes aggressive editing and refusal to go slow and discuss things on Talk is worthy of blockage. We have been to this board so many times in the past week. What is new? Prokaryotes' interest in these articles and their hot editing. They don't even finish discussing one thing before they move to the next. This is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog now claims he does not understand me In this recent edit, Jytdog added a claim that he or others do not understand me on the talk page here. However, the difs and responses from me there are very clear, i even repeated them. This seems to be a very poor and desperate attempt by Jytdog to again disrupt edits and to undermine the consensus finding process.prokaryotes (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here is what I mean by the disruption that Prokaryotes aggressive editing is causing, just here at EWN:
  • Aug 28 EWN on Genetically modified food
  • Aug 31 EWN at Genetically modified organism
  • Sept 4 EWN at Seralini affair
  • this one

To provide perspective, I searched EWN for "glyphosate", "Monsanto", and "genetically" and here are the last EWN reports on related articles.

• • June 2015 EWN at March Against Monsanto
  • May 2015 EWN at Glyphosate
  • Feb 2014 EWN at Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser
  • May 2014 EWN on Genetically modified food controversies

This is really disruption has been caused by Prokaryotes' arrival on the scene. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It should ring a bell when you look at your own involvement. There are 3 EWN reports, because 2 of them are from you.prokaryotes (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)