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:97.117.16.185 / 97.117.54.205 reported by User:RexxS (Result: IP editor warned)

Page: Scuba set (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.117.16.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
97.117.54.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version before reversions: [1]

Diffs of the user's edits/reverts:

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

Warnings given:

• Breaking links
• Unconstructive editing
• 3RR warning

Comments:
The first edit to Scuba set made by the IP user made around 20 changes, many minor, but one broke the link to Diving regulator#Demand valve and others in that paragraph changed the tense from past to present, despite the item described being a 1990s prototype which was only of historical interest. I restored the original paragraph with edit summary "restore previous version of one paragraph : section links are case-sensitive", and left a message on his talk page explaining: If you're making a dozen edits, then make them in batches, so that it's easier for other editors to review and correct your mistakes. The change of tense in that paragraph was unnecessary anyway.. However the IP user reverted it back, once more breaking the links. He was reverted by Pbsouthwood, but he reverted again. I restored the paragraph once more, only to be reverted by the IP yet again. In the process he has called my edits to the article and his talk page "vandalism" three times 1, 2, 3, which breaches WP:NPA.

I don't believe that this IP editor has any intention of discontinuing their edit-war against two other experienced editors in good standing, so the only way I think we can fix the damage to the article is to block this user. If they return with a different IP again, I may have to ask for semi-protection, but I'd prefer to keep the article available for other IPs to edit constructively. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, "buddy," thanks for just assuming I'm "not experienced" too just because I'm only an IP. And I wasn't trying to force my broken version back into the article. I was just using the same tactic you were using to redo the GOOD edits, which happened to redo the bad ones, which is the same irresponsible tactic you were using on me to undo the bad edits, so that you can see that you were making the mistake of ruining good, unrelated edits while fixing bad ones. So if you have no problem with my other changes (adding the needed hyphens and removing the stray quotation marks), then why do you keep reverting them along with your reversion of the broken links? How do you figure that the onus is not on you to make the repairs and then leave the edits you have no problem with alone?

And then you say, "In the process he has called my edits to the article and his talk page 'vandalism' three times." Really, you're going to be hypocritical by complaining about my having done the same thing you did by summarizing your reversions of my warnings with "rvv" ("re------vert vandalism" [not that "rv" even makes sense for "revert," since it's like trying to multi-initialize parts of the same word])?

97.117.54.205 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: This is getting messy. There's a bit of an edit dispute going on within the article, yet this IP User is being considerably troublesome, as his last Revert had an edit summary that sounded aggressive, and they have since decided to retaliate by nominating the reportee for edit-warring. It may be best to block them for this, disregard the report below, and put the article into protection for a few days so that the editors can determine whether it should use past or present tense for the information in dispute. GUtt01 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Uh, NO, GUtt01, it's rexxs who was being troublesome. This started with his stubborn insistence that he revert some of my perfectly good edits for no good reason while trying to correct some links that I accidentally broke. Okay, fine, so I broke the links. Then he should fix only those links; not several good, unrelated edits. So my putting them back was only using the same method that he thought was so "okay" to use on me: "Uh, yeah, let's just make sure that none of this editor's edits get through even though all we're really worried about is broken links." Since when is that an okay attitude to have? Is it not his responsibility to change only the things that really should be changed, rather than reverting a bunch of unrelated stuff just for the hell of it?

And where did you get the idea that they should disregard the report below just because it came in second? Where did you get the idea that just because a report comes in second that it's "retaliation"? What are you saying: there has to be a race to who makes the report first, because if it's not first then it's "retaliation"? What kind of absurd attitude is that?

97.117.54.205 (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@97.117.54.205: First and foremost - How can RexxS be the troublesome one? You got reverted by him and two other editors, which means he's not troublesome, but you are. Even when you took it to the article's talk page, there is a clear concern from what I read, that you are reverting information back to your style, and thus not in a neutral manner, per WP:NPV. The way you responded to my comment shows me that you aren't being civil, and are giving off a hint of aggression. A reported editor doesn't make a report against the reportee at all, because it just shows that you are in dispute with someone else and acting childish because "you aren't getting your own way". Don't drag me into this, and leave this report up to an admin. GUtt01 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I must also condone the IP for believing the warnings they received were a form of vandalism. They are not; warnings given that have no basis, may be considered as a personal attack, but the IP should not claim that, as, although they have the right to remove warnings and messages from their talk page, these were made because of their edit war they have engaged in. GUtt01 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor is warned for edit warring using more than one IP address (See WP:SOCK). If you revert again before consensus is reached, blocks or semiprotection are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS reported by User:97.117.54.205 (Result: Filer warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

We have these two, but remember, as it says above: "edit-warring has no such strict rule" (as 3RR):

1. [7]
2. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9], [10], and [11].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

And then he's being uncivil by telling me that he will report me just IF I revert my improvements back into place again (which happened to rebreak the links, but I told him he should correct the links WITHOUT reverting the unrelated material for no good reason), and even though I did NOT do that since his warning, here he is, still reporting me anyway. Why tell someone that you will just report them IF they do the thing again (implying that you won't do it if they don't), if you're just going to do the report even when they have NOT done it since the warning?

97.117.54.205 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: The filing IP is warned for using multiple IPs in an edit war per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:WikiEditCrunch reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiEditCrunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 20:19, 24 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)
2. diff 09:47, 25 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)
3. diff 22:41, 26 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, removed by them here with edit note, Uneccessary threat..Cheers.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Investment#Scope where this was agreed to by WikiEditCrunch twice (the first time before the content was added) here, and again here after their first reverts. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Investment#Major_scope_change.3F where someone else asked a process question.

Comments:

Not over 3RR but I find the agreeing but then removing-without-edit-notes tactic to be dishonest at best; the "cheers" when they removed the edit war warning notice, pointy. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And they have now misrepresented their own behavior, here, writing The reason is that we never agreed to adding it.I agreed with you on what certain things not going into the scope but did not agree to keep the scope restriction (I once said it can stay temporarily) My advise to you:Move on.There is no actual issue here that is worth disscusing mate. Cheers!. In addition to being dishonest, this misrepresents the fact that there is a dispute at all, and thwarts the DR process. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:Not this again.Here is the thing;You are actually being disruptive by adding these things to the scope.I agreed that certain things have no place in the scope, but I never agreed to your edit.

WikiProjects define their scopes and since you are not a member/participant you adding to the project scope without consent is disruptive.

I nicely asked you to revert your edit on the talk page ("We have also disscused this so it does not need to be mentioned in the scope.Could you please revert the edit?I would appreciate that.").

Also I end almost all my comments with "Cheers" as it is friendly.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You are still not threading your comments competently. argh. You appear to be unaware of how that "cheers" comes across. Both of those are not exactly relevant to this matter.

Trying to argue "members only" is invalid, and so is reverting on that basis (if that is what you are saying, and it appears to be). I am participating, so I am a "member". You tried to make that claim on the talk page as well (diff); it is not how Wikipedia works.

What you quote from yourself there, is not an actual disagreement to restricting the scope, and you consented to the restriction after you wrote that, in the second agreement that I provided a diff for, above. Please be aware that both you and I mistook Sphilbrick's diff in their new section on "Major Scope Change?" - they were actually objecting to your changing of the scope back on August 11, here is the diff they presented.

Again, you need to state your objection to the edit; if you don't we cannot work out the disagreement.

Edit warring without edit notes, and not stating an actual disagreement, thwarts the DR process. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And... on the talk page, still not actually stating a disagreement. diff Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:Cheers is a nice word mate.Anyway again;I did not agree to you adding your input on the scope.Here is the bottom line on the issue and my objection:

WikiProjects define their scopes.What you are doing is creating too much information.For the project to be easily navigated and successful things have to be made simple.The disagreement is that you are not allowed/supposed to add or re-add things to WikiProjects since you do not participate.

Also your edit does not improve the use of the Projects main page

You need to understand:It is time to move on.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Still not threading comments competently.

What you write above, is not relevant. You are again making the "members-only" argument, which is not valid. You also appear to be discussing the content issue here, but this board is about your edit warring behavior.

You agreed twice. You need to state your own reason for your edit. You still have not done so but have continued to revert. There is no way to work dispute resolution with this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am not going to reply here further. I think it should be clear enough to patrolling admins, that WikiEditCrunch is edit warring here. They seem unaware of the fundamentals of how we work out disagreements, and not responding directly when this is explained to them. The continued claim of "members only" is troubling Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I am still trying to understand if you are trying to help or disrupte.The members argument is part of a policy and is valid.Also you made the edits and followed to revert as well so I suppose you are edit warring.If you do not want communicate then I am not the issue here and this discussion should be closed.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A last response. No. This is a notice board where admins will evaluate your behavior, and decide what if any action to take. I have not withdrawn this thread; you are edit warring, and you are thwarting the DR process by not giving valid reasons for reverting (again, nothing in WP is "members only" - that is absolutely not policy) that we can negotiate over.

I am not writing here further, as there is no more evidence I need to provide. I gave some, and you have done the rest by what you have written here.

For patrolling admins, WikiEditCrunch appears to be referring to an outcome similar to the ANI they filed on me, which boomeranged and they withdrew. That ANI is here. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not going to take action myself as I commented in the ANI thread mentioned above, but this looks absolutely clear-cut. WikiEditCrunch is not a new user and (given the number of people who've tried to explain things) can't reasonably claim ignorance of policy; every indication given by WEC's comments here, at ANI and on talkpages (particularly WT:WikiProject Investment) is that this is someone who's misunderstood WP:IAR to mean "I can do whatever I like without consequence". ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I used the WP:IAR once.Also in this case I am following the policies, which Jytdog is not doing.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding material to a wikiproject is surely participation. I commented on WikiEditCrunch's talk page about his archiving material only a few days old at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Investment[13] unnecessarily. His statement that "The threads were too long and it would be hard to navigate the page otherwise" wasn't satisfactory, as it's been restored and the page is now longer but still easy to naviagate. Note that in the end he agreed witih me. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring on a project page. The user continued to revert the disputed sentence from WP:WikiProject Investment that excluded individual investment opportunities after appearing to agree that specific investment opportunities should be excluded from the scope. Issues have also been raised about WikiEditCrunch being unwilling to follow normal talk page conventions and engaging in premature archiving of still-relevant threads from talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I used the WP:IAR once.That does not mean I understand the policy as "I can do whatever I like without consequence".

Also in this case I am following the policies, which Jytdog is not doing. The policy in part states:"A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project." What is lacking her in my opinion is patience, calmness and maybe moving on perhaps. I literaly just started getting this project active again and Jytdog is being extremly aggressive, demanding, unpatient and unhelpful.

If I am right he was once even blocked for disruptive editing?So he has a history with this problem perhaps.

Additionally he reverted my edits as well so he is also edit warring. It took my quite some time to revive the WikiProject Investment.Jytdog has not been helping me. I do not see why Jytdog is unable to move on.

In the AN/I I mentioned multiple occurences of being hounded.This behavour is continuing. Jytdog quite early on in the discusion said that he would also to nominate the project for deletion if I would not stating "that is what happens here" [14]

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Legacypac (Result: declined)

Page

User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. . https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts&diff=next&oldid=797552363
2. 20:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797552363 by Legacypac (talk) you don't own the page; I di"
3. 20:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "obviously a user is allowed to delete a subpage of his user-page"
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'speedy G8?'"
   2. 19:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "←Redirected page to User:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage"
   3. 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* All drafts */"
2. 19:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* All drafts */"
3. 20:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* All drafts */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Taku is disrupting wikipedia all over the place. Pushing his own userpage that has been used to collect his notes off on another user and then edit warring to delete the redirect is beyond inappropriate. As expained to him, the redirect is necessary because the page is linked from many active discussions. I also understand we need to redirect for attribution. Only a block will stop this madness. He will never stop. And see [15] Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a simple solution. A history merge with the other page can work. It would be like a page move. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason a user is not allowed to request a subpage of the user page? If it is the history that needs to be preserved, I can permit @Legacypac: to store the history in their user-page. -- Taku (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts&limit=500 Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Request reversion to redirect. Many pages point at the Taku page and histories point at it. Reverting/deleting breaks these links. Just annother day in the Taku disruption factory. Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That's hardly a lot of links. They could be fixed rather quickly instead of focusing on all of this fighting. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I think I fixed all the relevant links. So the problem solved? -- Taku (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No one should be modifying my posts. Period. Back to reverting this vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It's hardly the modification; I even left an old link so the change is visible. How else do you fix the links? -- Taku (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Your actions here show you are not working towards a solution and are being disruptive. Please see WP:TPO:

Disambiguating or fixing links, if the linked-to page has moved, a talk page section has been archived, the link is simply broken by a typographical error, etc. Do not change links in others' posts to go to entirely different pages.

If you have moved the page then the links need to be updated. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku moved the page and keeps trying to remove the redirect. Changing the links fundamentally changes the point of my posts which in some cases say he should keep his notes in his own userspace. His change of my posts turns them into an absurd suggestion he keep his notes in someone else's userspace. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the more ridiculous arguments I have seen on this wiki, ever. If you want them out of userspace, then keep them out and change the links. If you don't want them out, then stop your edit warring with one another, close the AN thread, and move on. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Declined — it's not a violation of the WP:3RR to revert things within your own user space, so long as the content within it isn't overtly violating anything from Wikipedia:User pages. Nothing should be linking to user space from article space, and while it's probably not the "nicest" thing to do, it's entirely acceptable for someone to request deletion of content in their userspace, even if others have linked to it. If you feel contribution history would be lost by a deletion or feel it needs to be collaborated upon by multiple editors without fear of deletion, I'd suggest moving the page to the Drafts namespace or adopting it into your own userspace; both are also valid for requesting undeletion. Similarly would go the solution to the suggestion that the drafts are stale; they'd be better served in the Draft namespace. I don't feel the spirit of user pages implies the ability to force someone to redirect a their userspace pages elsewhere out of convenience. --slakr^\ talk / 01:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

An Admin unwilling to deal with the problem Taku insists his userspace is not a good place to store his notes and he insults, degrades, attacks and denegrates anyone that touches the notes he put in draft space. A lost opportunity to deal with this circus. Legacypac (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Nihlus Kryik reported by User:Legacypac (Result: declined)

Page

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Fibration of simplicial sets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nihlus Kryik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Legacypac (talk): WP:TPO stop being disruptive. (TW)"
2. 21:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Legacypac (talk): WP:TPO Disambiguating or fixing links. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User reverted my warning on talk. Insists on modifying my posts in a way that fundimentally changes the meaning of the post. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. This user has been nothing but disruptive, unwilling to communicate, and quickly seeks to get anyone blocked who disagrees with him. Please block him. Also, I suggest you read WP:TPO before you open ridiculous threads in WP:ANEW again. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

i've communicated plenty. This user has not participated in any discussion about Taku's efforts until right here. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

How would that be relevant? You edit warred because you said a page couldn't be deleted because it had a lot of links to it (which is wrong on two levels), then I suggested you change the links if it is that big of a deal. Taku did that, then you edit warred again. So obviously you have no interest in discussing. So you should be blocked for being disruptive. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

unfortinately that is in inaccurate summary, starting with the part I'm trying to preserve is page with a necessary redirect from a page move. You, not me, suggested changing all the links. You, not me, have violated WP:TPO by changing my signed posts. Now go away please because you are making the Taku situation worse. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now you make personal attacks by calling AGF edits vandalism. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac:@Nihlus Kryik: Okay, can you guys please take a breather and calm down here? This isn't helping, having you two arguing like this. Legacypac, you should just leave these reports alone, and let them be handled in time, because the way you are behaving isn't going to help you here. And Nihlus Kryik, I wouldn't continue replying to his responses, because you'll be just inflaming the matter if you do. You guys need to calm down, or an admin may not look favorably over this display of behaviour. GUtt01 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And you don't need to respond to every edit war report that comes through here as it's not needed. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Note to Closing Admin: check recemt user history for more Reverts across multiple pages after filing this report and warning user. Better if my signed posts were left alone. Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Declined @Nihlus Kryik: Please see WP:TPO; this sort of completely-avoidable disagreement is why it says "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." (emphasis added). @TakuyaMurata: I'd strongly recommend when doing things like this in the future to instead simply add an additional comment below it or at least annotate the change in some form (so that it doesn't look like like someone said something they didn't; again, see WP:TPO). Apart from all of this, I don't see a clear violation of the three-revert rule, though better behavior could have been had all around. --slakr^\ talk / 01:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ilirpedia reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Greek government-debt crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "m (→‎Social effects: - World Health Organization is NOT a nationalistic ogranization. DR.K has nationalistic pov)"
2. 00:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Social effects */ - no contributions added by DR.K. and POV used by DR.K"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to 22:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 21:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Social effects */ - the crises had an impact on the social effects in greece. Also causing rising rates of depression, infant death, and HIV cases. No need to take to talkpage. Multiple sources provided. Please obey the wikipedia rules. Thanks."
   2. 22:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Social effects */ - No changes, but "Whispering" is OK to have in the article the impact on Horse Racing, and Soccer Players, but gives me BS and a hard time on effect on greek people's lives. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!!"
4. 21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "updated social effects and added source on the rising HIV rates in greece linked to the greek govt debt crises. thanks"
5. 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "few was not defined by World Health Organization. plus "few" greek lifes do matter and all lives matter. the social effects on slef inflicted HIV among Greeks were enough to be reported by WHO. Please stop messing up the links if you have nothing to add"
6. 20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "part of social effects. and the source is World Health Organization. If you think WHO is irrelevant, than you shouldn't be editing here. thanks"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Nationalist-based SPA disruption. Rapid-fire edit-warring against multiple editors adding irrelevant material to article, Will not stop despite warnings. Edit-warring while this report is ongoing. Dr. K. 00:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No rapid editing, but my contributions were undone without any type of logical justification by the gang of editors of the page in question. Ilirpedia (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of bad motive by Ilirpedia, but they have technically violated 3RR. I'm working with them to try to get them to self-revert their most recent edit and then discuss on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not really sensing bad motive here either, just a new editor that needs some guidance. Whispering 01:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how familiar you are with this area of the wiki, but this is a topic infested with nationalist SPAs and socks pushing all kinds of POV. Sure indicators are usernames indicating an association with Illyria, a favourite focus of nationalist POV-pushing. Another sure indicator is loud edit summaries with exclamation marks trying to shame their opponent. Another indicator is attempting an edit which is clearly disruptive, yet somehow they can't see why other editors disagree with them. Yet another sure indicator of nationalist POV-pushing is an apparent inability to understand 3RR and a refusal to self-revert, even when they are given clear guidance and warnings about it. Still another, is calling editors who oppose them, a "gang" multiple times, including in the comment just above, and during their unblock request, this time in all capitals. Yet another indicator is rapid-fire edit-warring, indicating that they have a battleground mentality. This SPA fulfills all these criteria in spades. Dr. K. 02:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:C.Fred , User talk:Whispering and trigger happy User:Drmies- To make the record straight. DR.K accused me of having a nationalistic pov, because of my user name. I want to clarify to your excellence that my user name is based on a common name for people living in a certain area of Eastern Europe. Based on DR.K's logic/IQ level, having the name Whiteman, or Blackman should be automatically assumed that such a person is a Racist. And therefore, if your last name is Whiteman or Blackman, you should be silenced on Wikipedia no matter if it involves facts from the World Health Organization (part of United Nations). I might a be a new user in Wikipedia (two days old, inclusive of 24 hr block by trigger happy User:Drmies), but that does not mean that I can be a victim of nationalistic pov's by DR.K and his baseless assumptions that are looking for the next gullible admin ((User:Drmies do you know any?)).

I respectfully, ask you User:Drmies, to block DR.K for 24 hrs, for manipulating the facts as I described above and using his own pov where he successfully argued with you to block me based on my user name. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilirpedia (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

User:RFN98 reported by User:Echoedmyron (Result: Warned)

Page: Tampa Bay Rays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RFN98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22] Warned by another user.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] Discussion created on article talk page.

Comments:

Up to this point, no edit summaries beyond "correction" by user, and warnings left on talk page have gone unanswered. Also appears to be a SPA based on contributions. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It has since been brought to my attention that the phrasing of the subject matter has been up for debate, and another editor has since come up with a compromised phrasing that suggests the editor in question was on the right track, albeit breaking 3RR in the process and doing it poorly. Just noting this. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:RFN98 is warned for 3RR violation. According to the above comments by the filer, it sounds like a compromise is within reach. As of this moment, the article lead says that the team is based in "..St. Petersburg, Florida, part of the Tampa Bay Area." I hope that will satisfy all the participants. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:1:C577:C224:7032:F1D3:1F38:E91A reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Gender dysphoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1:C577:C224:7032:F1D3:1F38:E91A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797787450 by Funcrunch (talk)"
2. 05:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797786649 by Funcrunch (talk)"
3. 05:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "No original content is contained - "typical determination" can be derived from prevalence statistics below. Reposting edit..."
4. Consecutive edits made from 04:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC) to 05:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 04:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "The citation involved in this introduction is a reference to suggestive, rather than defined evidence. Suggestive evidence belongs in a secondary paragraph where it can be used to define a point, rather than an introduction or definition."
   2. 05:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Removed suggestive/inconclusive research from prevalence paragraph (1st paragraph). Replaced summarized text with direct text from the research cited (end of first paragraph)"
   3. 05:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC) ""
   4. 05:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC) ""
   5. 05:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Simplified prevalence paragraph"
   6. 05:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */ Removed redundancy ("discontent", "emotional distress")"
   7. 05:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */ Removed definition of GD from "causes" section - redundant"
5. 04:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Editing introduction for clarity and brevity"
6. 04:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Editing introduction for clarity and brevity"
7. Consecutive edits made from 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC) to 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Does not belong in introduction - should be used as secondary support for a point"
   2. 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Removed an incorrect statement from introduction - "transgender" is a term referring to people who have made distinctive changes in their gender expression, which does not include people at an early stage of gender dysphoria"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[24]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[25]

Comments:

Warning and resolution forthcoming Added. User seems to have their own definition of gender dysphoria that is at odds with the article's. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note Funcrunch's report here which I bulldozed while reverting the IP's blanking of this report. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Your report is better/more complete than mine was anyway. :-) Funcrunch (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: IP removed this EW report diff Jim1138 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Filer warned for going over 3RR too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Religious Burp (Result: )

Page: The Loudest Sound Ever Heard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (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=The_Loudest_Sound_Ever_Heard&oldid=788182029
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:Walter Görlitz has a long history of edit-warring & sock puppeting. In March 2017, he promised to change his ways but he has not.

In the current case of The Loudest Sound Ever Heard, I have added a simple sourced quote from the band giving their perspective of the album. I am not connected to the band, I just want to flesh out the article as it is bare bones at the moment. Many Wikipedia articles about music projects feature quotes from the band. Walter doesn't like the quote, so he has taken it upon himself to persistently remove it.

In addition to a number of blocks Walter has received previously, he was edit-warring with me at length on The Prayer Chain page, and clearly was sock-puppeting to avoid breaking the three revert rule, though the case was unreported at the time. Again, he reverted additions to the article, for no reason except that he thought the band didn't warrant having more information written about them. Wikipedia is a source of information, it's why people read the articles.

This is a small example of Walter's behaviour in unnecessarily removing content. I believe it is so he can be controlling, rather than enhancing articles. He has done this to me often, which I consider bullying. As he has a habit of doing this, I believe it is negatively impacting Wikipedia. It is antagonistic behaviour for the sake of being antagonistic, as evidenced that he reguarly gets blocked.

Attempts to reason or compromise with Walter are in vain. He is driven by his own self-importance and antagonistic attitude. I am driven by Wikipedia's core purpose - to be a source of reliable & interesting information.

I propose that Walter and his IP address be banned until he can learn not to bully other users. His IP address should be banned to avoid sock-puppeting behaviour.

Religious Burp (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)