Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Tenski82 reported by User:Tiller54 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11], [12], [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

Tiller54 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Dreadstar ☥ 14:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Graemp reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [15] (prior inclusion of unsourced birthname)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:Graemp is edit warring to add an unsourced birthname and other unreferenced content to a porn performer biography. Both Dismas and I have removed the material, expressly citing WP:BLP. Graemp continues to add the content back without providing reliable sources, and most recently casting aspersions of bad faith by edit summary [22]. An unreferenced birthname in a porn performer bio is a textbook BLP violation, to be removed "immediately and without discussion" (as was done when the unsourced name was inserted previously); Graemp's repeated restoration of the unsourced name, and insistence that discussion is required to remove it, at best raise WP:COMPETENCE questions, and in the case of an experienced user like Graemp, simply show refusal to comply with BLP policy requirements.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is edit warring to revert an entire edit without giving any explanation of what part or parts of it he doesn't like or taking the trouble to raise issues on the talkpage first in line with Wikipedia:Reverting making it hard for me to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz confirmed WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:OR and added "not BLR" (whatever that is) with regard to the entire edit without stipulating any aspect of those policies, making it difficult to try and address his concerns. When I requested him to clarify he declined to do so and persisted in reverting and quoting policy codes and claiming that no discussion was required. I specifically stated that I wished to avoid edit warring and invited him to discuss the edits on the talkpage but without success.

Above he has at least decided to explain a specific concern which requires a response;

Unsourced birthname: Her original birthname was not properly sourced. The name 'Nasrin Alavi' can be properly sourced but not as a birthname. I would be happy to move 'Nasrin Alavi' from 'Info Box Born' to 'Info Box Other names', which should satisfy any BLP concerns. If Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was particularly concerned about that aspect, he could easily have deleted that particular reference and explained his actions either in the edit summary or on the talkpage. Instead he chose to revert the whole edit.

Other unreferenced content: Regrettably, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not specify which other parts of the edit he considers to be unreferenced or what he considers to be unreliable sources so these are issues I can not address. I believe that the rest of the edit was clearly sourced and referenced. Graemp (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, Graemp's response is nonsense. He tripled the length of this short article without adding a single reliable source -- "http://beautifulbritishbabes.co.uk" (NSFW) is an advertising site (and does not support any of the claims for which it is cited). Most of Graemp's additions are blocks of unsourced, unreferenced text, and it is beyond ingenuous for him to claim that they are "clearly sourced and referenced". There is no need to "specify" what is plainly visible. You simply can't stick blocks of unreferenced text into a BLP, and if you need other editors to "specify" the problem, line by line, you fail WP:COMPETENCE standards and shouldn't be editing BLPs. And it's the height of hypocrisy for you to cite WP:Reverting to justify your edits and condemn other editors when that essay says, plain as day, in emphasized text, "If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit". At least doubly so when two different editors have reverted you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two additional reliable sources I provided, "http://beautifulbritishbabes.co.uk/fcw/fc-full.php?ref=5018". was used as source for "In 2005 at age 20, under the name of Nasrin, she started glamour modelling in the United Kingdom as a brunette, and performing in solo girl scenes." because it gave her name, her picture, her performance, her age and the year that related to that sentence. This in my view does support the claims for which it is cited. The site exists as a database of information, the relevant details of which are confirmed by other sources already quoted in the article. Of the following 4 sentences in this particular block of text, only one sentence is specifically referenced. On reflection, the paragraph could have easily been closed by an additional reference, even if it is questionable if one was needed. From the reference list, either reference 1 or 5 would do the job. The other block of text contains one specific reference. I would be happy to add a couple more if it helps.

Investigating. Dreadstar ☥ 14:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected Dreadstar ☥ 14:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.133.35.24 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Leland Yee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.133.35.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

17:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC) ""
17:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC) "Neutrality"
17:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC) "Merged sections for readability and consistency."
16:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Arrest on corruption charges and gun trafficking */"
16:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Arrest on corruption charges and gun trafficking */ Removed uncited material."
16:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC) "Removed biased material"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continued removal of content. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected (semi) for a month by HJ Mitchell.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:108.3.172.179 reported by User:85.246.188.170 (Result: Semi-protected)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[600016206]
[600588207]
[600922275]
[601561885]

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

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

Comments:
He/she is now using the account: MengFan

Page protected (semi) for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Redmen44 reported by User:Flat Out (Result:Not blocked )

Page: Josh Gasser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redmen44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

12:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601796007 by Flat Out (talk) Page is cited and there are multiple links that prove without a doubt that this is a living person. Please discuss further on talk page"
Consecutive edits made from 12:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC) to 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
1. 12:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Still working"
2. 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Happy now?"
11:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Work in progress"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

12:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "/* WP:BLP */ new section"
12:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Josh Gasser. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

12:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Create discussion due to edit warring"

Comments:

This is an editor with a history of edit warring, and an unblock in the last 48 hours that refuses to work cooperatively with other editors. Has not exceeded 3RR but blanks talk page and refuses to engage around improving articles. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect was intended here I guess I am just confused on why the page that I created has a BLP tage yet I have shown with cited articles and links. Again, I am not trying to start an edit war I want to discuss why I have not done enough for this page. Thanks Redmen44 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to discuss it you would have started a conversation on the articles talk page or joined the one I started, or not blanked my attempt to start one on your talk page. The tag was "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification." and it does need additional sources. All claims must be supported with references. Waiting until a report is lodged to start talking is not good enough for someone who just came off a block for edit-warring. 13:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am truly sorry and I did not mean to start an edit war. I admit I went about it the wrong way as I should have gone to the talk pages first but I thought that I could delete the tag because I thought I added enough sources and links. If the page is still not up to par, then I understand the BLP tag being put back on the page and I will work towards making the page more complete. Once again my sincere apologies. Redmen44 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reinstated the BLP tag - this is a horribly-referenced BLP, and the only possible sign of notability (the extremely minor "accomplishment" of a triple-double) is only sourced to the university page, which is utterly unacceptable. I don't believe this article would even survive an AFD D P 13:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not blocked I'm convinced per statements above that such behaviour will never be repeated on Wikipedia D P 13:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jtrevor99 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[25] 03:47, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 restores text cited to http://www.atrazine.com/ScienceSafety/atrazine_science_safety.aspx.
[26] 03:52, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 restores text cited to http://www.atrazine.com/ScienceSafety/atrazine_science_safety.aspx.
[27] 04:46, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 restores text cited to http://www.atrazine.com/ScienceSafety/atrazine_science_safety.aspx.
[28] 16:56, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 removes text recently added by others.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29] 04:55, March 29, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30] 05:04, March 29

Comments:

Jtrevor99 has violated the brightline rule of four reverts in a 24-hour period, despite being warned against doing so after three reverts. In general, he has been using primary sources to defend and promote the agribusiness chemical company Syngenta. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – Article protected one week. Two editors seem to have broken WP:3RR. It is doubtful that any of the reverts, by either side, are justified under the exceptions to 3RR. Jtrevor99's use of primary sources is on thin ice regarding WP policy. Wikipedia attempts to summarize what independent third parties have written. We don't achieve balance by giving equal time to the combatants. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting the article. There was only one editor who broke 3RR or I would have reported the other one. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tonga2010 reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: Warning, Semi)

Page: Unix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tonga2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

17:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am reporting both this user and the IP 98.216.213.118, who have over the past few days repeatedly reverted the page Unix to show this operating system's first release date from 1973 to 1969, without discussing at Talk:Unix#First Release Date. I realize that this is drastic in the case of a new user, but I stand at risk of violating WP:3RR, and I request that the admin who checks this case consider the possibility that the IP and the account are the same user (without wanting to make the accusation of sockpuppetry, since the account was too recently created and no other registered user is involved). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Tonga2010 warned, article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Binksternet reported by User:Jtrevor99 (Result: See earlier report)

I apologize; this is the first report that I have filled out, and I know that this is not the correct syntax. It was unclear to me what information was needed, even after following the other examples on this page.

If it is helpful, I have opened a dialog on my own talk page regarding this topic, and Binksternet and I have been discussing it. In my opinion, the primary issue is around our differing views on what constitutes an "unbiased" article, and Binksternet's objection to my use of a primary (but publicly available) source to record Syngenta's public response (within the article) to the Hayes accusations. In essence, we are seeing a conflict between WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS. I am hopeful that through further discussion we can settle this without remediation; in fact, I am satisfied with the current version of the article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for my accusation: I know that Binksternet is a far more historied user than I, and thus, admins might tend to side with him if they do not examine the facts or recorded history. However, for evidence of the edit warring and Binksternet's impropriety, I would simply point you to the Syngenta article history. Binksternet repeatedly attempted to expand Tyrone Hayes' statements of accusation (regarding verbal/physical threats supposedly lobbied against him by Syngenta, damaging effects of the chemical atrazine, etc.) while attempting to block all efforts by myself or Jytdog to post a Syngenta response. He even went so far as to claim that a Syngenta quote does not belong in the Syngenta article due to it being a "primary source" - despite his repeated use of primary sources in favor of his viewpoint, and the fact that the Tyrone Hayes article itself makes repeated use of primary sources. I finally eliminated all but one reference to atrazine that Binksternet had posted, as that was distracting from the subsection's main point of "Alleged threats made by scientist against Syngenta"; I left both Hayes' accusations (posted by Binksternet) and the Syngenta response (posted by me). It was after this, the fourth compromise I attempted, that Binksternet reported me for edit warring.

As for my defense: Note that practically all reversions I committed were, in fact, reversions of Binksternet's reversions, which in turn were deletions of additions I tried to make. I must credit Binksternet: I was not aware of the "4 reversion rule" like he, so he knew to stop after the third time. Instead, he technically avoided the "4 reversion rule" by simply deleting my comments the fourth time. Study of the article's history will reveal that, in all cases, I was attempting to strike a balance. I never once tried to delete Binksternet's comments; on the other hand, he repeatedly deleted mine for flimsy reasons. Tellingly, his reason for deleting the Syngenta response was my use of a "primary source"...but he kept giving different reasons why a primary source should not be used in a subject's article. Each time I countered, he gave a different reason - 5 in all - and then finally pointed me to WP:SECONDARY, which per my reading does not support him.

In short, I believe I was ethically and morally in the right with my behavior, and even though I triggered the "edit war" warning, I steadfastly believe it was necessary in order to present unbiased and neutral language in the Syngenta article. If I am wrong, I apologize and ask for direction on what I could have done differently; I await the admins' decision. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article fully protected one week due to a report above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing a response to thank you for the protection status, and to further explain my use of the primary source despite it being "on thin ice". This final post is made because I'd like the admins to weigh in on what I should have done here. (We all learn from our mistakes.)

As noted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I believe this issue was sparked by a conflict between WP:BALANCE, WP:BALASPS, and possibly WP:WEIGHT. Quite simply, Syngenta was not given the opportunity to respond to Hayes in The New Yorker, Democracy Now, or all but two media outlets (that I could find). And Binksternet challenged those two as possible COI or unreliable. The primary source thus seemed my only option for WP:BALASPS, despite it apparently violating WP:BALANCE. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned this isn't the right place to have this discussion; it would fit better on the Neutral POV Talk page instead. I added a section for it so now consider this matter closed. Thanks again. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:USchick (Result: Warned both)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[31] 21:38, 29 March 2014‎
[32] 20:59, 29 March 2014‎
[33] 09:25, 29 March 2014
User has refused to engage in talk page discussion [34] No response.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35] Warnings are disregarded as "silly templates" and reverted as "nonsense." [36] [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments: Edit warring sometimes with no explanation and other times hostile remarks on talk page.
USchick (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Director admits to edit warring even though he has no intention of looking at the information in the article. He's waiting for someone else to show up, so in the meantime, he's edit warring. [39] USchick (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC) -->[reply]

Warned. I see edit warring by both USchick and DIREKTOR. I see contentious comments on the talk page by both of you. Indeed, the discussion on the talk page is a perfect model of how not to resolve content disputes. Neither of you has violated WP:3RR. However, if further edit warring occurs, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm doing something wrong. I would like to use this opportunity improve. Bbb23, would you please be so kind and point out where on the talk page you think I should have handled it differently? I reverted in two different sections of the article (one time each) and outlined my concerns on the talk page. My edits were reverted and my concerns have not been addressed. Other people's concerns on the talk page also remain unaddressed. There's a lot of talking in circles, but concerns are not being addressed. Other editors attempting to contribute to the article have been either run off in frustration and/or blocked. Two editors in particular seem to be working as a tag team to the point that one is unable to edit without the other one and even admits to holding back any further editing until the other half of the tag team shows up. What do you recommend? USchick (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see where a warning has been issued to either one of us. Can someone point it out please? What am I not seeing? Thank you. USchick (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your comments on the talk page: (1) I will ignore your POV comment about Kiev being part of the "original Russia."; (2) "The silly templates you disregard are mandatory warnings."; and (3) So you're saying that you can't be bothered to determine if my edits are acceptable, you prefer to edit war while you wait for Producer. Thank you for clarifying that. Now I understand. Of course, Director's comments are not constructive, either, but I'm addressing only your question. The warning wasn't given before. It was the action I took based on this report. Finally, I recommend you use one of the mechanisms in dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh.. USchick was pushing new edits, edit-warring to blank and rewrite sourced content on an extremely controversial article. I requested that she wait a bit for the user that posted the sources to respond, as he can best answer her concerns that the sources have been misquoted. This is in light of USchick's previous content blanking over there on grounds such as "Marxism is different than Communism" [40] (no, I'm not kidding [41]), and the fact that Producer has thus far satisfactorily explained virtually every issue re sourcing. I wish I could say I'm surprised she reported herself, and that while misunderstanding 3RR. Not that 3RR is a binding rule, but if anyone needs any sanctions its the reporting user, I'm just gonna say it: USchick lacks basic knowledge of the article's topic, and basically just disrupts the talkpage. Its WP:CHEESE over there. -- Director (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zvonko reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Protected, Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments: The material the user is reverting was reviously reverted by IPs. The user showed up when the article was semi-protected (the IPs did not want to discuss anything). The user responded at the talk page (though sadly they do not seem to care about policies or consensus - they have been reverted by three different users) but continues reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for 1 week. I also left a warning on Zvonko's talk page that further misbehaviour will lead to a block. → Call me Hahc21 06:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Page was just released from edit protection. It turns out that the editor displays a different name on the talk page.
The re-reverts took place quickly: six minutes, seven minutes, 2 minutes, and 11 minutes. After I pointed out that the D follows the first R in BRD, I made it to Talk:Ken Ham thinking the 3RR would kick in and discussion would finally be required, but as soon as I was done posting my first talk page comment, I saw the notification of the fourth revert. It is therefore not possible to keep the Article stable to allow for discussion. The editor has 100,000 edits, so I have to assume that this is some kind of Wiki-tactic. You will see in the edit histories and talk page diff that there is a second editor trying to stop the changes to the article, as well as also involved on the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments:

First of all, there are only two reverts listed here (the first two). Neither this nor this is a revert, as both were good faith attempts to get to compromise on the basis of good faith efforts on the talkpage to try to reach a compromise with User:AzureCitizen. He and I came to what I thought was a good compromise and then I tried to implement it in article space. The user here reporting is not involved on the talkpage and reverted three times (compared to my two). I also note that these diffs only include three reverts here: I am trying to edit in good faith to reach a compromise, but the user reporting here seems unwilling to discuss on the talkpage and oddly went here rather than discussing there. Well, color me confused. jps (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to endorse jps comments. The editor reporting this came out of nowhere (no talk page involvement) and reverted three times in little more than an hour: [56][57][58] whereas jps only did so two times. If anybody here should be sanctioned for edit warring it's Unscintillating, the editor who opened the report. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that jps is the editor reported. As the editors have commented, I am not an involved editor in this article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG. Doesn't matter which editor is being reported, you are accountable for your actions either way and the simple fact is that you breached WP:3RR, not jps. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AzureCitizen removed the word "incorrect" to find out if anyone objected. Nine edits occurred to the article without objection. Yet you restored the word on the grounds that you were restoring the article to a "consensus" version. Was it ~~a mistake~~ your intention to restore the word "incorrect", or was this simply a matter of not being aware that you were making a quiet change? Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff for clarifiction. Unscintillating (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to the version that was agreed 6 to 1 in the talk page not two weeks ago. My intention was to restore the WP:CONSENSUS version. Do you dispute that was the one? Then please point me to the correct consensus version. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, let's cease discussing the issue here on this noticeboard and take it up on the article's talk page. Sound good? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Unscintillating didn't breach 3RR because he only made three reverts. It's only a fourth revert in 24 hours that is a violation. On the other hand, it is also true that discussions on these noticeboards are intended to cast a wide net. jps (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for a week. Discussing at the talk page and reverting is *not* good practice. → Call me Hahc21 06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Foggas and User:Septate reported by User:Toddy1 (Result:Protected )

Page: Criticism of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foggas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Septate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Warning given to both editors at this point.

Diff of request that they use the article talk page to discuss what is a content dispute and not vandalism (as Foggas had claimed on Septate's talk page).Septate, Foggas

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Foggas, Septate

Link to discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Criticism of Islam#Edits by Froggas

Since they have continued to revert each other, I am reporting them here. I am certain that both of them are well-meaning editors who are acting in good faith.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're obviously editwarring, although neither has stepped over three rr. I could block them anyway, but have gone the route of just slapping a week of protection on the page to force them to work out their disagreements on talk. I'll put a note over there shortly to that effect. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:173.79.251.253 reported by User:Collect (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[60] 04:34 30 March
[61] 15:40 30 March
[62] 16:55 30 March
[63] 19:03 30 March
[64] 19:47 30 March
[65] 20:36 30 March

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66] warned about deleting comments on talk page, [67] warned about WP:EW, [68] warned and notified of this post [69] notice of this post

See Talk:Jason Russell, the IP's accusations of everyone else of "vandalism" and his position that if he can "verify' something that he is the arbiter that it passes WP:V. There is substantial discussion, and the IP is, at this point,tendentiously accusing everyone else of "vandalism" while making 6 clear reverts in well under a day. Collect (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70][reply]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solntsa90 reported by User:Lvivske (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning; revert #5 came after I posted warning of this 3RR dispute.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page - about 50% of the talk page is an argument on this topic to which he is the prime advocate of his POV.

Comments:

I attempted to intervene in this ongoing edit war with Solntsa90 as a neutral party (I did not edit the Yatsenyuk article until the other day, when I saw the talk page dispute). I was reverted, and as the diffs show, we're at 4 reverts now. My first edit was not a revert, but verifying the sources and re-editing on my own. He reverted, so I reverted back per WP:BLPREMOVE ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"). The issue is that Yatsenyuk has been smeared as "Jewish" by political opponents, even though he does not self identify as such and there are no actual sources proving he is. Solntsa is trying to prove he is, which may qualify as WP:LIBEL in this context. I issued a warning, and other editors have tried to intervene, but he keeps reverting. Further, he has been incredibly uncivil (calling me "Lvovskiy") and has been engaged in person attacks. He has also has stated he will not engage in talk page discussion and that I don't "have a place in this debate", which is not assuming good faith.--Львівське (говорити) 22:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided numerous sources on Yatsenyuk's Jewishness, most notably from the Consulting firm Oxford Analytica HERE with the direct quote: "Born in chernivtsi in 1974 to Jewish-Ukrainian Parents, Arseniy Yatsenyuk was affiliated with a local legal firm for most of the 1990s

You however have not only failed to provide any evidence refuting that the sources I provided stating he is Jewish (The Guardian UK, Oxford Analytica, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) are "slander" or that these companies are publishing slander, rather, you have taken it upon yourself to declare unilaterlly that this constitutes "libel", despite the fact you have been been sanctioned from editing on Crimea's referendum and have been repeatedly warned in the past from making edits regarding Ukrainians and their Jewish origins, when applicable.

I think I'm in the right on this one, and my sources vindicate me. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is not for content dispute resolution, but rather user conduct. --Львівське (говорити) 22:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have engaged in personal attacks? like "This attack" attack for instance? also, "Lvovskiy" isn't being uncivil, Russian is my first language and it's simply another way of saying "Lvivskie". In closing to your 'libel' comment, Yatsenyuk doesn't identify as Jewish, but that doesn't change the fact that his parents are from a Jewish family, and that's all I'm reporting, as per the Guardian, as per Oxford Analytica, as per all my other sources. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the warning given by Lvivske according to his/her diff related to content-sourcing issues. Nobody gave Solntsa90 an edit-warring or 3RR warning.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're speaking English here, not Russian. That you're essentially attempting a nationalist slur by warping my username is telling, especially that you've kept it up after I asked you to stop being uncivil. --Львівське (говорити) 22:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only has he accused me of both being responsible for "about 50% of the talk page is an argument on this topic to which he is the prime advocate of his POV" and yet in the same breath accuses me of stating that I "will not engage in talk page discussion", but this Lvovskiy guy has also accused me ironically of libel directly HERE, putting doubt into how much faith he actually has in his own claim, and making me assume he is trying to silence me (and my sources, which do not violate WP:BLPREMOVE btw as they're all credible) via arbitration. You refuse to discuss the issue with me on the talk page, because you know that my sources are correct and to do so would be to concede that I am correct. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOME HISTORY

A serious problem is that from day one involvement in this article, Solntsa90 has been bent on "outing" AY as Jewish and has insisted only his verbatim edit with the sources he alone chooses with the wording he alone chooses may be allowed in the article. When I suggested other wording to characterize the Harriet Salem Guradian piece, when I added sources including one of the chief rabbis of Ukraine to rebut the Jewish ethnicity claim (the other source Solntsa90 just blanked numerous times without ever even responding to), when I added unrelated sourced info to the birth section, etcetera, etcetera, Solntsa90 always just blanked back to his verbatim wording, excluding all sources that disagreed with Solntsa90. See HERE for diffs.

INCVILITY: Intentionally calling a user by a deliberately offensive nickname based on his real username is not the first example, and like the others when asked to desist, he still will not stop. Before I got involved on this page, Solntsa 90 had accused another user of racism because the user did not think a source offered was valid. Solntsa90 during my entire involvement in this article so far has peppered his edits and talk contributions with uncivil remarks, just for examples: A and "I'll edit your edits any time I see something wrong with them, and you'll see that my patience is rather infinite, if you want to go that far." Solntsa90 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2014

Actually, Solntsa 90 WAS warned on his talk page prior to the 3RR. He then proceeded to make multiple additional reverts.

I've never seen anything approaching this in my slightly more than four years on Wikipedia. Paavo273 (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you used the word "outing" Yatsenyuk in quotations. Can you please provide this qutation where I said it was my intention to "out" Yatsenyuk as Jewish?

I have repeatedly and over and over again said that Yatsenyuk is not Jewish, that his parents were Jewish, and that this is what the sources supported, not Yatsenyuk being Jewish. Once again, don't shoot the messenger.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, I deleted Dov Bleich because it's been already mentioned in the other sources I provided. You took the same source and drew a different conclusion with it. Finally, You have called me an anti-semite repeatedly (a quick review of the talk page can confirm this) and just now have said I want to "Out" Yatsenyuk, so there goes your credibility in that stance.

P.S: I was given no 3RR warning whatsoever.

P.S.S: hyperbole such as I've never seen anything approaching this in my slightly more than four years on Wikipedia. just reinforces the notion that you have an agenda to push by trying to claim extra facts in order to send me off into censorship. I'm quite perceptive to things like this. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're speaking English here, not Russian. That you're essentially attempting a nationalist slur by warping my username is telling, especially that you've kept it up after I asked you to stop being uncivil

1.) If we're speaking English here, then why is your username in Cyrillic?

2.) It's not a "nationalist slur" and the fact you think the transliteration of Lvivskie into Russian is such betrays a deep-seated hatred of Russians, and possibly Jews (given your previous older edits).

3.) You don't get to decide what words in my language are "slurs" or not. Do you even speak a word of Ukrainian or Russian? I assume you do not, or else you wouldn't have made this erroneous assumption. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of thing I've been putting up with while trying to get Solntsa90 to engage on the merits of the content. Just a couple minutes ago, I pointed out another baseless instance of Solntsa90 charging racism. The ink is still wet on my edit pointing out the prior baseless racism charge and here comes another one. The fellow editor is racist because he asks to be called by his user name? Who would ever want to edit any page under these conditions and this logic? Paavo273 (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've ever been to Lviv, it IS a nationalist slur. I've been there a number of times. But the real issue is even in arguing on the edit-warring noticeboard, Solntsa909 continues to show gross disrespect. The point is Lvivske asked him to stop but he just continues baiting. Paavo273 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did he just accuse me of having a 'deep seated hatred' of Jews? wow --Львівське (говорити) 23:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "fellow editor" just minutes ago accused of me launching a 'nationalist slur' for transliterating his username into Russian (while not correct and thus I'll cease doing so, it is NOT a slur) and I noticed you had little problem with that accusation of racism (Your accusation of me calling another "racist" is simply me warning another user not to discredit sources simply for being Russian; to do so would be--yes, that's right, racist).

And speaking of accusations of racism, do you mind showing me where I said I want to "out" (since you used quotations) Yatsenyuk as being Jewish? Or are you hoping such a slanderous accusation is conveniently swept underneath the rug?

@Lvivskie, You yourself said on your talk page you do not speak any Ukrainian. Would you even know the difference between someone calling you "Lvovskiy" and someone calling you "Lvivskie"? Because seeing as your ears aren't tuned for it, I highly, highly doubt it.

P.S: you and Paavo have both accused me of various things from antisemitism to libel. Why is my accusation so unprecedented? I've been accused of being an antisemite, of wanting to "Out" Yatsenyuk (a very slanderous accusation from Paavo), etc. with no comment on me insofar as much as you didn't comment on mine. I'm guessing the Guardian and Oxford Analytica want to "out" Yatsenyuk too. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Lvovskie is not a "nationalist" slur, it is merely a transliteration of Lvivskie, even the wikipedia page on Lvov can tell you this. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TECHNIQUE TO DISTRACT FROM DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS:

Solntsa90: Please 1. provide a DIFF for any accusation or even implication I made about you being anti-semitic, 2. of your using Dov Bleich before I did (I first used him HERE after which you blanked it many times. As far as I can tell, the first time Solntsa90 referred to the rabbi was HERE (the second "EDIT"), at that point apparently unaware 'cuz hadn't bothered to read my addition of RSd info--just blanked it over and over instead.

Call other people racist. Accuse others of calling you racist. Anything to distract and bully, even if not factually correct. A rather revolutionary technique, I'd say, not democratic, not consistent with civility, respect, or collaboration, just as multiple blanking of others' and verbatim restoration of one's own edits isPaavo273 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, and you accuse me of being uncivil (also in regards to your claim of me being "undemocratic": Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY ). Solntsa90 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps brush up on WP:OWN. To Paavo: "How can I take anything you say seriously" Or to me: "Upon further review, you don't really have a place in this debate, Lvovskiy." You've shown your unwillingness to collaborate or engage in any form of consensus building. It's not a democracy but it's also not a dictatorship. --Львівське (говорити) 23:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If both you two are going to gang up on me and provide soundbites, why not post them in the full context they were given so as to show why they were even said in the first place? My claim that "you don't have a place in this debate" was in response to admins having warned you not to take part for possible anti-semitism and ethnicity issues re: Ukraine. You said that the admin was found "to be wrong" later on, but you posted that after I posted this, so if you're going to try and get me on a "smoking gun", at least make sure your facts and context are correct to your own position.

Also, given that he has baselessly accused me of multiple things in the past few days, how can I AGF with Paavo? Solntsa90 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide diffs? DIFFS and specific references add meaning. Vague and general assertions are pretty impossible to respond to or evaluate. Paavo273 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just above, you accuse me of being "bent on 'outing' Yatsenyuk as Jewish", heavily inferring that it's his heritage (and not the accuracy of facts and the correctness of researched sources) that I care about. I assume you're going to have some excuse for this slander? Solntsa90 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it's slander; how are you defamed? In any case it's true. Your first main comment I saw on AY talk was HERE: "To ask the obverse of that question, why do some Wikipedia users take it on themselves to obfuscate Jewish identities on politicians or other famous people all the time, and in this case given that there are sources from think-tanks, journals and foreign policy advisories saying Jewish?" Solntsa90 (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2014 More importantly your entire course of conduct in squelching all dissent, simply blanking all sources and all references that suggest AY is not of Jewish ethnicity. The link to the talk section showing DIFFS is linked twice twice above and HERE.

Any others? Paavo273 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment, far from proving my obsession with Yatsenyuk's alleged Judaism, moreso implicates your own desire to obfuscate the facts of his Jewish Parentage; It's crass to call you "antisemitic" for it, but I don't know what your motives in this regard are. Maybe you really do believe that Oxford Analytica and The Guardian are trying to spread anti-semitic slurs in an attempt to undermine his presidency, I have no idea anymore. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least on this point you' ARE consistent: "[W]hy do some Wikipedia users take it on themselves to obfuscate Jewish identities on politicians or other famous people all the time...?" (to a prior 'nother user who like others melted away after that and the assertion that his own post was "racist") AND "implicates your own desire to obfuscate the facts." Paavo273 (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:173.177.14.25 reported by User:NeilN (Result:Blocked )

Page: Sexism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.177.14.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Removed the Feminism sidebar, as sexism isn't part of feminism and includes all genre."
22:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602024772 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk)"
23:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Someone removed the discrimination sidebar. Oh, and removed the feminism's."
23:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602027538 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) Watch that bad mouth of yours."
23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Removed feminism sidebar."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

23:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Took out feminism sidebar */"

Comments:

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itsbenja.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6th revert --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Up to 7 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Not sure about the sock puppetry thing, which may certainly result in a longer block. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:27.99.111.84 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: )

Page: Eustace Mullins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 27.99.111.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Eustace Mullins */ new section"
23:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Eustace Mullins. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No interest in engaging on talk page despite invitation and ongoing discussion sections already open, and have been for weeks. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lvivske reported by User:Stephen J Sharpe (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[74] 21:16, 10 March 2014
[75] 10:16, 11 March 2014
[76] 11:13, 11 March 2014
[77] 11:16, 11 March 2014
[78] 19:57, 11 March 2014
[79] 00:28, 12 March 2014
[80] 12:25, 12 March 2014
[81] 12:27, 12 March 2014
[82] 12:33, 12 March 2014
[83] 15:59, 12 March 2014

[84] 15:04, 13 March 2014

[85] 10:41, 14 March 2014

[86] 20:57, 15 March 2014

[87] 13:35, 18 March 2014
[88] 13:36, 18 March 2014
[89] 17:49, 18 March 2014
[90] 20:47, 18 March 2014

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Crimean referendum, 2014/Archive 2#"Potentially Declare Independence"]

Comments: Lvivske is currently under the following sanctions:

"Lvivske (talk · contribs)) . . . placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvivske was reminded that these sanctions still apply on March 5 by Alex Bakharev. The bolded reverts specifically refer to edit warring over the text of the referendum question where Lvivske replaced "status within Ukraine" to "declare independence" despite there being an ongoing conversation where the emerging consensus supported the original text. Beyond this article Lvivske has shown a pattern of disregarding his sanctions and I can provide further examples if requested. I attempted to bring this matter to the attention of User:Alex Bakharev with this discussion but received limited response. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards