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:Raskolinkover reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794624904 by FyzixFighter (talk)"
2. 02:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794623674 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
3. 02:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794622949 by Just plain Bill (talk)"
4. 02:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 02:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794621973 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
6. 02:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794620857 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
7. 02:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793945358 by Darkness Shines (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Yahweh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See talk page discussion also."No, this is fake history made up by atheist to discredit God and his Word Jesus Christ his Son who died for us" and "Again this is all fake history. God is my witness and he knows your lies. " etc Doug Weller talk 15:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 16:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Keith Johnston reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Google memo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Keith Johnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "re-introduced section on sources used in the memo - this is subject to a talk page section and we have not reached consensus so it is not done to remove this"
2. 11:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794675610 by ChiveFungi (talk) why not engage in the talk section to find out? See talk page"
3. 22:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794589799 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Who cares? Multiple RS do, which is why the editor uploaded it. Argue on talk."
4. 21:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794587076 by Volunteer Marek (talk) This is a source which provides an overview of academic opinions"
5. 21:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794583145 by Sandstein (talk) Lets keep the scientific reaction separate from other commentators (of which there are many). This is a key distinction."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Sources cited in the memo */"
2. 15:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Sources cited in the memo */"

Comments:

User ignored warnings from other users, appears to just entirely reject the concept of 3RR. Demands that the material be left in unless there's a consensus to remove it, which is not the way things work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Anmccaff reported by User:VQuakr (Result: page protected)

Page: Oath Keepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anmccaff (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]

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Oath_Keepers#Background_checks?
• Talk:Oath Keepers#Failed verification

Notified: [8]

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but pretty clear WP:EW violation. Previous history of blocks for the same, most recent was just last month. VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Read the talk page; I think it's clear enough that more editors have trouble with this source than not, and that VQuaker has edit-warred against other editors posts. Anmccaff (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Opinions seem pretty evenly divided: the straw poll was 3:3. That that's not relevant to the complaint here though, which is about your behavior. As noted on your talk page, policy is "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As the page hisory clearly shows, from this diff forward, we have a disputed section that has seen three edits proper, by myself, you, and @DrFleischman:, and one revert by DrFleischman, two reverts by yourself, three by myself, and four by Morty C-137.

This followed a section, as the history also shows, in which a considerable number of IP scoks, following rather closely to Morty's usual line, disrupted the page; I'll let those speak for themselves. Anmccaff (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: @VQuakr: @Anmccaff: Please do not start an argument over the dispute in the article, on this noticeboard. Let an admin sort out what should be done here. I'm not taking sides here, but I do note that Anmccaff has already had two blocks here, so that will likely go against him.

To Admins: I think a page protection on the article is needed to stop disruptions on it, as this looks to be a serious Edit Dispute going on there, that needs to be calmed down. GUtt01 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any argument here over the dispute in the article per se, @GUtt01:, where do you see that? Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• With 1-2 exceptions, nothing but reverts, by 4-5 different editors, this whole month. Page fully protected for 3 days, form a consensus on talk page or follow WP:DR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we all at least put on wrong version tags? Anmccaff (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:98.16.78.80 reported by User:PureRED (Result: Page Protected)

Page

My Pillow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794739333 by 208.54.83.224 (talk) Please use talk page to discuss if we are going to summarize all sections or not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:My_Pillow#Must_we_summ"
2. 16:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794700317 by 208.54.83.208 (talk) It is a stated fact on the BBB site - see cited BBB link."
3. 14:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794692134 by 208.54.86.133 (talk) Huh? The edit was only about updating the BBB text based on what is currently on the BBB site."
4. 14:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794605422 by 172.56.14.87 (talk) Information is not false - it is on the BBB page in the BBB link."
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC) to 17:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 16:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794457504 by 172.56.14.135 (talk) Either we summarize ALL of the sections in the lede, or let the sections speak for themselves."
   2. 17:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC) "Updated BBB review stats to current stats."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This isn't concerning this user alone, though they're definitely a culprit. This page has blown up with edit warring today, and I suspect there is some sockpuppetry at work too.

I've already requested protection for this page, but it's been sitting in the queue for a good while. PureRED (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I would suggest that this IP and the other's on the article mentioned in this report, be fully investigated for possible sockpuppetry, or, at the very least, for disruptive editing. This one IP User, is not the only one causing problems on this article. (Check article's history log) GUtt01 (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Result: No action will be taken against the IP User in this report. However, Samsara has placed the page under semi-protection for two weeks, due to the disruptive editing by the IPs listed in the article's history log. GUtt01 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Amar Tushar reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked Indefinitely)

Page

Template:Kamal Haasan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Amar Tushar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794820650 by Kailash29792 (talk)dont do it again, i like kamal haasan, his hindi films must be written separately"
2. 06:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794819937 by Kailash29792 (talk)It was necessary"
3. 06:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Navboxes */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

NO ACTING CREDITS must be included in navboxes per WP:NAVBOX. But Tushar has violated that, not only by adding select films that Kamal Haasan has acted in, but those which are of Hindi-language, in an extreme display of WP:POV. This was done even after he was warned and given an explanation. Nevertheless, they persisted. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop these logic and Please Publicize Kamal Sir's Hindi films. Amar Tushar (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This reported user has not committed a 3RR offense, but there may be a possibility that they are not conforming to WP:NAVBOX, in terms of the section WP:FILMNAV, which states:

"Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question."

I would suggest that an admin possibly give the reported user a warning about their actions, if there is another evidence in their edits to show that they did not conform to the above policy. GUtt01 (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – by User:Swarm for admittedly biased editing. As his reason for the inclusion of the Hindi acting credits in the NAVBOX, contrary to the guideline, Amar Tushar says "Kamal Haasan is GOD to me, also my mother tongue is Hindi...". In his above response to this complaint, Amar Tushar says "Please Publicize Kamal Sir's Hindi films". EdJohnston (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:U990467 (Result: Blocked for 2 weeks)

Page

Ariana Grande discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fan4Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794491445 by U990467 (talk) "Jason's Song (Gave It Way)" is not a single."
2. 14:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794871986 by U990467 (talk) It was not sent to radio, meaning it was not a single. Do not add again."
3. 15:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794874228 by U990467 (talk) Publications misuse the word single all the time. It is not a single, stop adding it."
4. 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794877464 by U990467 (talk) Vandalism."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

User keeps edit warring despite warnings and reliable source shown in the hidden note. --U990467 (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edits were vandalism, and reverting vandalism doesn't count as edit warring. As per WP:SINGLE?, "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" is not a single. Also, the same publication later called "Everyday" the fourth single, and so did Ariana herself, if "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" was a single, then it would be the fifth single. Fan4Life (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Fan4Life should be blocked for starting edit warring so many times. --U990467 (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A user can't be retrospectively blocked, and in this case, it wasn't an edit war, I was reverting vandalism, which doesn't count as edit warring or 3RR. Fan4Life (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Alex Shih^Talk 16:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Quick question (although I know this report can be considered dealt with), but did the blocked user's reason for his edits, in that the disputed information didn't conform to WP:PROMOSINGLE, was correct perse, or were they trying to push their POV on the matter? GUtt01 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Clown town reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Already blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Clown town (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Criticism and controversy */ Again, use the talk page. This is a pov point and has established, equally qualified articles showing it is wrong. Since it is debatable, it should not be included or at least discussed on the talk page."
2. 18:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794898917 by Calton (talk) No, that is not how it works. You need to argue how it is reliable. Go on the talk page and stop with the harassment."
3. 18:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794887894 by Calton (talk)Again, please discuss this on the talk page before contributing to an edit-war."
4. 15:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794872961 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Read and review the talk page before you begin edit-warring. This is your warning. Discuss on talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Reliable sources */ new section"
2. 20:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "/* 3RR violation */ new section"
3. 20:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Reliability */"
2. 20:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Google Memo */"

Comments:

Also note that the user a 3RR warning on my talk page, (though I have only reverted twice) thus demonstrating that they well know what the policy is. It is not an inadvertent error, then, but a calculated and knowing violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Request: I think this page needs some protection for the moment, as the article;s history log seems to show this to be a heated Edit Dispute between the reported and the reportee. GUtt01 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I am, as the edit history demonstrates, not the only person who this user has reverted. It is the above user who has behaved as an edit warrior, repeatedly reverting two separate editors objecting to his remove of reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You were pinged to use the talk page by another editor and did not. The input was not NPOV. I asked multiple times to use the talk page, which you refused and reverted multiple times. I warned and pleaded, but you chose to keep reverting. Thus, you had to be pinged by another user to use the talk page. Clown town (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There is one person who is edit-warring in violation of policy here, and that is you, as the diffs above clearly display - you reverted the same material four times in just over five hours after your edits were objected to by two separate editors, myself and User:Calton. That is a violation of 3RR and of bold, revert, discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof:@Clown town: Right, both of you, cool off for the moment, and don't continue arguing over this matter here on the noticeboard. You both have reported each other for Edit Warring, so don't start an argument over who is in the wrong here. Just leave this matter to an admin. I will state this though; if neither of you couldn't have agreed on this, why didn't you both go to the article's Talk Page and had a civilized discussion on the matter? And I also do not approve of Clown town's report... That looks retaliatory at best, and could be on the fringe of going against WP:NPA... GUtt01 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I did use the talk page. If you look at the diff, I wrote on the talk page yesterday. He never responded on the talk page and only reverted. I kept stating to use the talk page each time and she refused. This got to the point to where another editor had to ping her to use the talk page, which is all I asked because the addition was npov. My report was not retaliatory. I warned her and she reported me before I could report her and she never gave me a warning. She wanted to fire the first shot so to say even though I followed the rules. I warned and then reported. I also requested each time to use the talk page which she refused.Clown town (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC) @NorthBySouthBaranof:@GUtt01:

@Clown town: Look... I don't want to hear anymore. You said your piece. Now please let an admin sort out this matter.

User to Admin Request: I'm gonna now recommend that the disputed article is given temporary protection, until this Dispute between the reported and reportee can be resolved with civility and peacefully. GUtt01 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, that is all I wanted, to discuss this on the talk board. She didn't want to. I asked that multiple times. @NorthBySouthBaranof:@GUtt01:

• Already blocked -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

User: NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Clown town (Result: Nominator blocked)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794910696
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794872961
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794720506
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794720132

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Google_edit-warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Google_edit-warring

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google&diff=prev&oldid=794739476 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google&diff=prev&oldid=794905261 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google&diff=prev&oldid=794915987

Comments:

These four edits are not within 24 hours, and the third edit listed is not a revert - it's the simple insertion of a Wikilink to the subject's main article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Request: I can't believe this. If an admin can, protect the page in dispute, and have words with both users. I can't believe that this one decided to report the other for Edit Warring, after they were reported themselves... GUtt01 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Your "both sides"ism is unhelpful. As even the most cursory examination of these edits reveals, I have not violated 3RR. Before you toss out accusations, check the facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You reported me after you were warned many times to stop edit-warring and use the talk page. You didn't. So here we are now over a NPOV post that should have easily been discussed in the talk page, but you wouldn't do so, even after being warned and pinged by multiple users. Clown town (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a diff for "multiple users" warning me - you can't, because it doesn't exist. The only one is you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Clown town (the filer) is at 4 reverts on Google in the past 24 hours. NorthBySouthBaranof is not violating 3RR, this report appears to be purely retaliatory in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794904960 you were pinged here in the first diff of the talk page. Clown town (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC. I used the talk page. He didn't.

• Nominating editor blocked -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

User:KnowledgeAndPeace reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: )

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

The user has been repeatedly adding information on a "Cantonese conference", despite it being removed by three other editors (myself, Citobun and Drmies) with clear consensus against it being added on the talk page. These are not straightforward reverts but the diffs of the most recent additions of it to the article:

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

The most recent additions are smaller as they have forked off most of the unwanted content into a new article: Worldwide Cantonese conference

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Discussion on article talk page: Talk:Cantonese #Why I deleted the "Worldwide Cantonese conference" section

Comments:
The only other thing to add is the editor seems to have an uncommon obsession about this conference, suggesting some conflict of interest, though this is only a supposition. They do though seem unwilling to contribute to the encyclopaedia outside of this narrow area.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The user JohnBlackburne have repeatedly targeted only the Cantonese conference section page but ignoring all others wikipedia pages having a "conference" of their own such as the Hakka people conference. I had asked him multiple times why he didn't remove but he never replied it and kept ignoring it. I've checked on the wiki user JohnBlackburne apparently also chatted with other Hakka wikipedia users and including with other moderators to help him out. I've used multiple references, well sourced from both English and Chinese again and again but removed in the end. Other wikipedia pages with unsourced references can have a section or even just mention of their own conference so why can't the Cantonese people wiki page with multiple reference of their own have neither a section nor a mention in their own wiki page. There is no rule that says you ain't allow to mention of having a conference.

It is a abuse of moderators bias judgement, unfairly deciding what page should they allow to edits and what page don't want to allow.

Hakka conference page had existed since 2009, nearly a whole decade, almost 10 years. This shouldn't be consensus either but why they they ignored for so long while not allowing the Cantonese to have their own conference? it is double standard hypocrisy at best.

1. [14] 24 December 2015
2. [15] 14 March 2011
3. [16] 7 June 2009

Also Drmies), he had ignored the red links of the Hakka people page that has over 70+ red links of unsourced figures while on the other hand my page only had a few but he chose to remove mine and unwilling to remove the ones in the list of Hakka people. The conversation can be seen in the talk page of JohnBlackburne and Drmies being extremely double standard and unwilling to remove anything from Hakka people wikipedia page. In the end it took me to do it again even though it's suppose to be their job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cantonese_people (talk page).

I demand justice for this unfair abuse, bias judgement. There is absolutely no reason for other unsourced wiki pages to have a conference of their while my sourced wiki page is not allowed to have it.

My personal feelings: I don't want get blocked right now, I will stop editing the conference page to safe myself from getting blocked if that what it takes. But I won't be surprised if I get blocked since moderators have more rights/control than any normal wiki editors, they make the rules but they also abuse it and you have to submit to their way, in the end we don't even know what their real intentions are (or their real true identity being the bias judgement). I didn't think having a conference page, some may consider it insignificant and not a big deal, I only copied from the other wikipedia pages, if they can have it ( with sourced/ or unsourced reference ) why can't I have it aswell with sourced reference. I'm supposed to believe that the moderators are being fair on this ? They absolutely did nothing to other wiki pages who had a conference of their own for nearly a decade but started doing something when I created my own. It's not fake because there is high number of multiple reference. Because I really can't think of any reason other than the fact they are against those they dislike. They are not just against wiki trolls and abusers but also against those people they like and don't like.

-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 12:50 , 11 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: diff 20:50, 10 August 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 21:22, 10 August 2017
2. diff 09:09, 11 August 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Hiding the sex differences section and [[Talk:Neuroticism#POV_tag]

Comments:

So this is related to the Google memo kerfluffle. This editor has floated in, made several unproductive joking remarks on the talk page, and slapped a POV tag on the article (their only contrib to the article itself) solely because the article doesn't give a ton of space to the RECENTIST nonsense: ...Shouldn't the sex differences part have at list a heading for itself? I know the various arguments. But it looks way too bad.... etc. (diff) and this is what most people will deem more central... (diff). None of this has anything to do with editing per the policies and guidelines. They have obviously not violated 3RR but this is classic disruptive tagging. Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The article was massively amended in the recent days. Original passages were removed.

Lots of heavy-handed editing. By Jytdog (the complaining party here)

Lots of edit undo *not by me* but Jytdog forced his way via edit control, rather than more consensual discussions

Finally, Jytdog decides that the POV issues do not exist.he removed the POV tag, even though it is now clearly explained.

He did not got a *single* sarcastic remark of my, and comes here dishonestly portraying my arguments "several u productive joking remarks". Where in fact, I have argued my cases in great length, along with offering editing suggestions. And..... Unlike him, I have put my edits as suggestions on the talk page, rather than brusquely forcing my edits through Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog might need a talking about how t behave politely without one handed decisions and edit "undo". One can count him for how many undo he did on the said article alone 10:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)