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:Twobells reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Stale)

Page: The Crown (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Twobells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] (November 19)
2. [3] (November 20)
3. [4] (November 20)
4. [5] (November 24)
5. [6] (November 24)
6. [7] (December 1)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Crown (TV series) § British or American-British?

Comments:

Do note that rather than being a report for a 3RR violation, this is a report for constant edit-warring over multiple days.

Please see a further discussion of the editor's behavior at User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 17 § Twobells, which includes notes of previous occurrences of identical behaviour as that which is currently being reported (which, if you look at their contribution history, they are continuing even as this report processes on yet another article). The editor continues to revert even while they take part in the discussion, completely ignoring any form of WP:STATUSQUO or WP:BRD. Also noted is the editor's extensive block log, consisting almost entirely of edit-warring blocks, going as far back as early-2008. Pinging Drmargi, another involved editor who is familiar with the behaviour of the editor in question here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is a little drama we play out with Twobells from time-to-time as he edits on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. After a couple blocks for edit warring, he's learned to game WP:3RR by slow edit warring; the pattern above (one edit a day with an occasional day off) is quite commonplace (check the long, drawn-out slow edit war and fruitless discussion over some sort of British weaponry a year or so ago). Meanwhile, he runs through a series of reasons to continue to revert, and to disengage from the corresponding discussion: a) that his edits are "non-controversial and reliably sourced"; b) that national "mash-ups" aren't appropriate (just common as can be on engWP); and c) that his edits represent "best practice" (as though there is such a notion described on WP) and thereby cannot be reverted. And it goes and it goes until he finally gives up and moves on to the next edit war. He started the same thing with Lawrence of Arabia, a film produced by Columbia Pictures and American Sam Spiegel, this morning. He has a rabid resistance to labeling American involvement in increasingly common British-American/American-British co-productions. The production at issue here was commissioned by Netflix, and produced collaboratively by Sony Pictures Television (which is in Culver City CA) and Left Bank Pictures (a production company which is British-based, but a subsidiary of Sony Pictures Television) He's pushing the show as British-only based on a website that promotes films produced in Britain. No one is questioning that the film was made in Britain, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is substantial American involvement in the production, which the article must reflect. But Twobells is determined to edit war it out, and is unwilling to discuss or to work toward any form of consensus. And so we find ourselves here with him once again. --Drmargi (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Reports created after this one have already been closed. Requiring action from administrators. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Stale This is unfortunately days old at this time. Edit warring appears to have stopped, and ny action at this point would be punitive, not preventative. SQL^{Query me!} 04:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Dkendel reported by User:WilliamJE (Result:)

List of Mayday episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dkendel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752503032&oldid=752447155
2. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752435497&oldid=752319185
3. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752238584&oldid=752162761
4. 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752265688&oldid=752263872 Which was a modified version of a post that had been reverted here[9]

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

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

Comments:
At least 4 editors have been involved in reverting this editor's additions to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Dkendel has reverted once again. See this[10]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just adding a note that DKendel tried to delete the above comment but I reverted that. - MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:Hakan3400 (Result: )

Page: Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakan3400 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:

The user refused to use the talk page on the article and instead kept editing the article many times despite being warned by me. I asked him still to use the talke page and he refused. After a while he used the talk page on the user page (not article) and yet he kept editing it without comming to an conclusion witch is against the rules. By now he still ignores me by not going to the talk page of the article and keeps editing/reverting back the edits I did by using first the talk page. Hakan3400 (talk)

User:Ag97 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 48 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Ag97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Manually undid the edit by Neutrality. You have refused to negotiate and deleted my claims about why the word falsely should be removed rather than responding to them. Please stop edit warring or you will be reported."
2. 15:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752661586 by Neutrality (talk) Article isn't a biography, so WP:BLP doesn't apply. You can't add your personal opinion to Wikipedia articles, see WP:NPV"
3. 15:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "removed word "falsely" as per consensus on talk page"
4. 23:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC) "removed word "falsely". That is only the opinion of the writer, the conspiracy theory has neither been proven nor disproven"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Plenty of discussion on the talk page as to why this is a serious BLP issue; user is edit-warring to create FUD about a false, fabricated and debunked conspiracy theory which makes highly-defamatory claims about identifiable, non-public living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, clear reverts. Kuru (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Richard B. Spencer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bulldog123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[18]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC) to 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
   1. 18:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 23:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
   4. 23:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "The only person edit-warring is he who is not willing to find a compromise. RV"

Comments:

Was blocked for edit-warring three days ago -- after the block expired, the editor repeated the exact same edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not the same exact edit as the one I was blocked for, but I wouldn't expect someone of Nomoskedasticity's vigilance to notice that. I also changed it back FYI. Bulldog123 21:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

After looking at the recent edit history, it is my opinion that Bulldog123 appears to be pushing the POV that Spencer is not known for white supremacist views; each edit; regardless of subtle tiny differences, is designed to dilute the well-sourced lead sentences to make Spencer appear more mainstream to the casual reader. I don't see any improvement, at least, not to this point, in how Bulldog is collaborating on the page - in short, he's not. He's just edit-warring in the hopes that his unilateral changes stick. Rockypedia (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The behavior continues. These edits all focus on the same, extremely controversial perspective, as Rocky says. Justification on talk hinges on a hyper-literal interpretation of sources which does not have consensus. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Katie^talk 03:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring, continous breaking of WP:BRD and WP:Consensus on the page Blacorum

With DIFF1 ([19]) started everything, the bold edit of a user was reverted because of disagreement to the last stable version. Soon after in the past days, another user reverted continously to the unconsensused version more times with this breaking WP:BRD and only then he started a discussion in the talk page. He was informed about the rules of WP:BRD and status quo ante principle there until any possible consensus, but the user still continued, despite also other editors informed him that this is not an appropriate behavior. Soon, despite not any consensus has been reached, after waiting a while, this happened again, thus has been warned in the personal page also for edit warring as prolonged that the next similar action will be regarded undoubtedly the state of edit war. With a good faith - despite the frame of repeated reverts would imply a clear edit war - nobody acted yet just made more level of warnings.

Despite all of these warnings and notifications, the user who intially made the first bold edit again commited the same revert, knowing with this he intentionally continuing edit warring, breaking WP:BRD without any consensus reached. I tried to persuade the user on his talk page - again with a total good faith - that he should revert himself because of the mentioned above, and giving a time for that. It did not happen, although this user also knows and applied WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and status quo ante principles in other cases but simply ignored them this time, I am extremely concerned.

The commited following reverts:

DIFF2: ([20]

DIFF3: ([21])

DIFF4: ([22])

DIFF5: ([23])

DIFF6: ([24])

I avoided personalization and name-calling intentionally, but if I would have done such behavior with just half amount of reverts harming WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS I would have been already reported everywhere and sanctioned heavily, I wish to believe that Wikipedia rules have weight and there are not a selected group of users who deal with different rules unlike others.

Everything else on the edit logs and in the discussion page.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2016 (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. We ask you to use the template because we need all the information there, and this comes nowhere near the data we need to make a judgment of any kind. Katie^talk 03:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• The editors KIENGIR and Arpabogar after extensive discussions at Talk:Blacorum and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacorum still don't understand nor want to accept the WP:NPOV principles. They are against the different intro because they don't want to accept that the information (hypothesis) they push is a refuted WP:FRINGE theory. Even if we go on a consensus and there equal votes (2vs2), the principles will give weight to the specific side, but what to do when those two editors don't accept the principles? I started the discussion Talk:Blacorum#Intro, also see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Blacorum.--Crovata (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Katie, I'll do it. The above remark is again an accusation of a personal POV, although I definetly understand what is WP:NPOV on the contrary, this user is pushing his personal views and misusing the rules, even if a theory would be considered fringe, it does not mean it is refuted only this user, however not any scientific refute exists. But the problem is they simply did not respect WP:BRD principles, this is the issue here. The user even removed my notification about edit war under the pretext that "false talk page", that is ridicoulus....(KIENGIR (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

I can't believe what kind of liar KIENGIR is - what he said refers to him. He ignores the Wikipedia's editing policy, and due to personal POV he ignore and twists the policy and facts to push information on a extremely minor, refuted, fringe theory.--Crovata (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not lying, and be careful because this is not the first time you make personal attacks and uncivil comments towards other editors, only my good faith keeps me not to raise another incident right now. It is funny to hear from a user about "ignorance of Wikipedia policy" who reflects his own behavior to others, on the other hand multiple times harmed WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and started an edit warring despite many notification! Be civil and polite, with such a behavior things cannot be solved!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

User:Crovata and User:123Steller reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: )

Page: Blacorum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Crovata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
123Steller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ([25])

• note: meanwhile many other intermediary edits appeared, before the last revert 123Steller made a rephrasing as Crovata proposed, it was accepted, but after again in an inunderstandable way 123Steller made again a revert to the unconsensused version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. ([26])
2. ([27]
3. ([28])
4. ([29])
5. ([30])
6. ([31])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In a very tolerant way only after the 4th diff it was stated the next will be regarded as an undoubt edit warring

{{[32] -> Some remarks section Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All this section is about this mainly

Original title: Edit warring, continous breaking of WP:BRD and WP:Consensus on the page

The original report was:

With DIFF1 started everything, the bold edit of a user was reverted because of disagreement to the last stable version. Soon after in the past days, another user reverted continously to the unconsensused version more times with this breaking WP:BRD and only then he started a discussion in the talk page. He was informed about the rules of WP:BRD and status quo ante principle there until any possible consensus, but the user still continued, despite also other editors informed him that this is not an appropriate behavior. Soon, despite not any consensus has been reached, after waiting a while, this happened again, thus has been warned in the personal page also for edit warring as prolonged that the next similar action will be regarded undoubtedly the state of edit war. With a good faith - despite the frame of repeated reverts would imply a clear edit war - nobody acted yet just made more level of warnings.

Despite all of these warnings and notifications, the user who intially made the first bold edit again commited the same revert, knowing with this he intentionally continuing edit warring, breaking WP:BRD without any consensus reached. I tried to persuade the user on his talk page - again with a total good faith - that he should revert himself because of the mentioned above, and giving a time for that. It did not happen, although this user also knows and applied WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and status quo ante principles in other cases but simply ignored them this time, I am extremely concerned.

The commited following reverts:

DIFF2, DIFF3, DIFF4, DIFF5, DIFF6.

I avoided personalization and name-calling intentionally, but if I would have done such behavior with just half amount of reverts harming WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS I would have been already reported everywhere and sanctioned heavily, I wish to believe that Wikipedia rules have weight and there are not a selected group of users who deal with different rules unlike others.

Everything else on the edit logs and in the discussion page.

UPDATE

- since the original report, Crovata deleted my notification about the warning of edit warring under the pretext "false talk page", that is amazing...

- also a new section named intro has been created with this topic I'll check on the discussion soon.KIENGIR (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)}}

• • • NOTIFICATION***

- Crovata intentionally continoued edit warring as he again made and unconsensused revert ([33]) - the 7th already - despite the ANI botice and the ongoing case, despite WP:BRD process ongoing dispute since there is no WP:Consensus achieved, with bad faith remarks and accusation and threats, he really lost his head, failed to grasp Wikipedia rules and principles. He is not even respecting not just the Wikipedia community, but also disrespecting the rules Katie, it is this not an immediate block, I don't what it is....Administrators, I kindly ask you to act rapidly!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

The discussion is over. It is useless to discuss and respect the opposition side who intentionally make a fool of everyone and everything, ignore the WP:NPOV principles. The editor still don't understand and don't want to understand and accept the way Wikipedia is edited (as well the topic issues), who calls NPOV and Wikipedia principles as invalid phrases. As well, there was no official BRD or Consensus because the editor doesn't even know how they work. The editor remarks on my behavior are nothing but lies which he done (push of his personal opinion and the fringe theory). As well see my reply in the report above.--Crovata (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No the discussion is not over, as also more users does not share your opinion and your claims. You repeat the same invalid statements about defamating others of a behavior you do "i.e. the famous NPOV". Claiming I would not understand how Wikipedia is edited is meant to be a joke, since you failed contiously the rules and deliberately crossing them. WP:BRD does not have to be official, the rules imply when it starts and ot has started, despite you have continoud edit warring. I did not lie, what you state about personal opinion - reinforced by other users - is true for you. However, I can understand you try to explain out the unexplainable, everything else are on the releavant talk pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

The editor still twists the facts by lowering the Wikipedia principles authority and policy to my personal "opinion" and "claims". He even admited that to him Wikipedia principles and NPOV are nothing but invalid phrases.--Crovata (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:86.187.163.107 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752813767 by LuK3 (talk) nothing to discuss unless someone has the goddamn courtesy to explain their objection to the edit"
2. 13:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "DO NOT revert if you can't be bothered to explain why you are reverting. the section you are desperate to include is NOT ENCYCLOPAEDIC. NO-ONE has claimed otherwise."
3. 13:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752813406 by Bbb23 (talk) grow up"
4. 13:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Notable cases */ rv vandalism. do not restore unencyclopaedic text. if you believe it is encyclopaedic, then explain the objective criteria that you believe exist for items to be included in this list."
5. 13:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752804992 by SeniorStar (talk) rv vandalism"
6. Consecutive edits made from 11:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC) to 11:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752800831 by SA 13 Bro (talk) you are reverting for no reason. that is disruptive. either explain yourself or stop."
   2. 11:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "rv the rest of the vandalism"
7. 11:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752796289 by SeniorStar (talk)"
8. Consecutive edits made from 10:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC) to 10:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
   1. 10:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "rm jargon again, restored by a careless and rude editor"
   2. 10:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Selected court opinions */ selected for what reason? no objective criteria for inclusion = not encyclopaedic. previously restored by a careless and rude editor with no attempt to justify why"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Do note the lack of any explanation for why people were undoing my edits, and restoring the self-declared vandalism of this edit. If the user reporting this here intended to be productive, they would simply give a reason for their edit in the summary, would they not? 86.187.163.107 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —SpacemanSpiff 14:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Konsash reported by User:Hydronium Hydroxide (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&oldid=752631428 is the version before the first revert below, however https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&oldid=752807240 is IMO a better subsequent version.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752811255&oldid=752807240
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752811728&oldid=752811541
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752812863&oldid=752812692
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752815050&oldid=752813691
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752816607&oldid=752815893

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Konsash&diff=752812515&oldid=752800461
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Konsash&diff=752816483&oldid=752812515

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• N/A - no discussion on talk page, however repeated requests to use talk made have been made in edit comments, as well as requests to take it to talk also in the warnings above.

Comments:

The article is under Discretionary Sanctions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Konsash contacted me on my page at User_talk:Hydronium_Hydroxide#Crimea; I have responded there. Hopefully that will suffice. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 16:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Ukc71116 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

Ukc71116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 18:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 17:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Definition was wrong"
4. 17:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 16:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 16:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 16:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
8. 16:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
9. 16:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Updated to proper definition"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Obvious. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who to site this definition, but it cur is a breed of dog recanized by the untitled Kennel club.

Re-instate comment, not intentionally disruptive I don't tgink. Just clueless. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved party to intervene

• Archive.is (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Jnavas2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Jnavas2 (previously Jnavas) seems intent to edit war over a particular line of text at archive.is: "On 2 December 2016 the site became unavailable with browsers displaying Loading spinners indefinitely. It resumed normal operation late in the day." My attempts to explain (on my user page) why an unsourced status update is not appropriate seem to have rubbed him the wrong way, and I think that any further attempt to discuss on my part will be counterproductive. 3RR has not been breached yet, and I'd rather it stay that way (hence why I'm not including diffs here). Requesting outside voices to intervene. Feel free to move to ANI or elsewhere if that's more appropriate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely sure that this is necessary, the editor has made a "let's discuss" comment at the article talk page. Hopefully a good sign that no edit-warring will be engaged in. That said, there was no tone in your comments. I don't think you could have been any more civil then you were. Any tone that JNavas2 is reading into your comments is entirely of their own making. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have notified User:Jnavas2 that they are being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: ??, the problem is that I've already been over, at length, why it should not be added. I'm not interested in repeating myself to someone who doesn't want to hear it. What about that article talk section makes you think engaging there will be more fruitful than the preceding thread on my talk page? There's also a problem in that the new discussion section is premised on an edit war and demand that the addition stand. I can't accept that he must be pushed to violate 3rr in order for others to intervene. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites I didn't necessarily mean for you to re-engage with him, but, rather any other interested party at the article talk page. That is where the discussion belongs after all. There's no need to push for him to violate the brightline rule and be blocked. That's not really a preventative solution. Unless you think that an admin should intervene in a less official capacity? - I imagine AN/I of all places will either get the editor blocked or alternatively, the discussion will be shut down as a "content dispute". For that matter, I'll leave a comment on the article talk page. Let's see if outside input from another random editor has any good effect. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

There has been some progress made in a discussion with Jnavas2 at User talk:Rhododendrites#Archive.is. At this time it seems unlikely that any admin action will be needed. Any further discussion should take place at Talk:Archive.is#Reliability. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I don't know where you're seeing progress. The entirety of that section up to your comment took place prior to opening this. It worsened rather than progress. Now there's not even any talk of the actual issue -- just personal complaints. The long section on my talk page (which I did not start there, btw) is explaining why the content is problematic. For Jnavas to dismiss all of that with "I don't like your tone", "I disagree", etc. and then open a section on the talk page claiming to seek the very discussion he dismissed is troubling to say the least. I can copy/paste what I already said to the article talk page, but I think that would be viewed negatively (understandably). Unless someone reverts the content again and Jnavas does not revert, I don't think this is resolved. The reason I'm here instead of ANI -- and doing so without pushing him to 3RR -- is precisely to avoid a block. Ideally we would be able to turn this person around... but at the same time I'm not going to stand by and let the edit warred content remain because someone dismissed all discussion of policy/guideline with "I disagree"/"I don't like your tone"/WP:IDHT. So I will be blunt in my request for intervention: I'm requesting someone else be the one to revert the added content and either reexplain why it's inappropriate to edit war to restore unsourced trivial original research, or to explain that Rhododendrites isn't just making this stuff up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - I understand your frustration, I'm writing up a response at the article's talk to discuss both our policies and the pros and cons of them. I don't know how progress will turn out, but, no harm in trying. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - here's a possible happy thought. I think the issue has been resolved. Amicably even given the context under which it came here. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. This page is for edit warring not dispute resolution. Try WP:Dispute resolution. Page protected for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Pointer22 reported by User:Primefac (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Allen Meadors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pointer22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 03:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC) to 03:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
   2. 03:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
   3. 03:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC) to 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
   2. 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC) to 00:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
   2. 00:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   3. 00:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC) to 00:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
   2. 00:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   3. 00:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   4. 00:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   5. 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   6. 00:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   7. 00:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC) to 23:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   2. 23:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC) to 22:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
   2. 22:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   3. 22:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
7. Consecutive edits made from 13:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC) to 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
   2. 13:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   3. 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   4. 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   5. 13:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
   6. 13:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   7. 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* request to remove excessive negative details */ reply"
2. 23:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* request to remove excessive negative details */ addendum"
3. 23:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* The new "Controversy" section */ new section"
4. 01:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* The new "Controversy" section */ reply to pointer22, indending stuff"

Comments:

Pointer22 still insists on just editing away without reaching a consensus at the talk page (despite multiple attempts to get them to actually state what they want). As a note, a warning was placed on their talk page by Majora (they beat me to the punch). Primefac (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably should have come here now that I think about it. I reported to ANI instead. Eh. I'll remove that one. --Majora (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I'm surprised Twinkle didn't throw an EC on the talk page.

While the admins can probably see this already, this is not the first time we've had this dance. Primefac (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a further note, the editor keeps using the phrase "we" which pretty much shows a shared account issue as well. So, COI, edit warring, shared account. Fun. --Majora (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I actually read that as "we" meaning the community, as AN3 is a community noticeboard. SQL^{Query me!} 04:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pointer22, where another user editing the article made this comment about their use of "we". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also say that this example makes it clear that "we" refers to multiple users of the account, SQL. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the rule regarding who can add material (with supportive references) and who can not. Why can some remove misleading or false information and other can not? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pointer22, anyone can add or subtract material from a page. However, when there is a dispute about how the article should be written, it should be discussed on the talk page (see WP:BRD for more info). I have been trying to gather a consensus on the talk page about the content to add to the article, and you keep deciding that you want your edits in there regardless of how much effort I'm putting in to reach a middle ground. Though I will say, if a user is making improper edits (e.g. removing {{reflist}} tags and/or the references themselves) they will be reverted every time (regardless of who it is). Primefac (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Still confused, if material is added that meets the criteria and is factual and is straight forward and unharming ( and most of all not based, on opinion journalism) why it repeatively removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)