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)
345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
Incidents (archives, search)
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329
330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Trackteur reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result:Not blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts at Charlie Hebdo shooting:

And at Arpanet:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: in every revert's edit comment, and on Tracktuer's talk page.

Comments:
These are the exact same edits Trackteur persistently made for which he was slapped with a two-week block—immediately after getting off the block he went back to making the same edits with broken English, repeatedly restoring "print run of 60,000 in French language" no matter how many times he has been told that it is incorrect English—I can't imagine why he would think such wording is acceptable. He tries to hide what he's doing with edit comments like "répétition, space", which have nothing to do with what he's doing to the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was the blocking admin the last time, and having looked through his edits to this article from the end of January up until today I'm not so sure he should be blocked. He has quite a lot of good contribs to it, both before and after the block, and I frankly don't see the issue with the last diff[8]; he removed a duplicated or redundant part of the lead, and that's a good thing in my opinion. I'd like to hear from others on this; as an alternative to blocking some kind of restriction (1RR) might be a better solution for the encyclopedia. I'd also like a comment from Trackteur on this if possible. Bjelleklang - talk 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please look more closely—he replaced "print run of 60,000 in only French" with "print run of 60,000 in French language", which he has done repeatedly, despite being told over and over that this is broken English. I assume it's okay to fix it? Or am I now to be blocked again? Let's remember that Competence is required, and when an editor's English skills are not up to the task, they should step aside and let those of us who know what they're doing handle things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, English is not my native language, and if it is the only topic to discuss, there is no problem criticizing me for that; but when I see the diff [9]; like that I make sure to remove this completely unnecessary redundancy. I just think it might be better cooperation between contributors and Curly Turkey could just rectify my language mistakes instead of proceeding to simple cancellations. Moreover, I note that he gave up his version, which contains some more errors, without any discussion on the page provided for this purpose --> (1RR).

Bjelleklang, thank you for your understanding, especially for your solution on Arpanet to first focus on the readers, not the contributors. Trackteur (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is now being discussed on the article talk page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not blocked. The problem seems to have been resolved for the time being.Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.80.218.118 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Semi)

Page: Naturopathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.80.218.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

13:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC) ""
13:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649988702 by NeilN (talk) so I can fix some NPOV problems."
15:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649989286 by NeilN (talk) Over WP:NPOV and the fact that naturopathy works."
15:44, 5 March 2015 dif (no edit note)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:34, 5 March 2015 dif

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk discussion is here; also discussion on other editors' Talk pages here and here

Comments:

Edit warring warning. Discussion. Basically, a fringe theory advocate. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting this edit summary from the ip: "Fixing naturopathy article, don't revert changes, or you will end up having your edit reverted." Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that the lead paragraph has been discussed many times on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, adding a new revert to the report: [10] — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added additional dif above, added 3RR warning, and links to article talk page discussion and 2 user Talk discussions above. They should be in main case. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by an IP who does not wait to get consensus on Talk. This article is covered by WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is still engaged in battlefield behavior and comments. They also edited with another IP:

207.241.247.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Now they have finally created an account:

Young_Naturopath_01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They may need some heavy handed warnings from an admin. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The named accounts has not used the IPs since creating an account, and the new account announced who they were on the article Talk page. At this point I don't see the need for warnings.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's good they created an account, but the behavior hasn't changed. We need to keep an eye on them. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer in an edit war, and I am trying to fix this problem because there have been NPOV problems on the Naturopathy article. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Locked)

Page: Battle of Borodino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649872640 by Pinkbeast (talk) stop editing against consensus!"
17:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649996835 by Charlesdrakew (talk) edit warring against consensus, sources, and Wiki policy"
10:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650060304 by Charlesdrakew (talk) vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Renewed edit warring against clear talk page consensus on the same topic after previous blocks. Seems only an indef block or topic ban will stop this disruption. Charles (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the talk page will show who is edit warring against consensus on this article. Countless users have tried to insert a "result" into this article - in keeping with all other Wikipedia articles - but Charles keeps monitoring the page and threatening anyone who disagrees with him with "bans" for "edit-warring" "against consensus". Clearly, "consensus" in his mind, does not equal a majority of users on the talk page, nor ALL the sources presented on the talk page, but merely his and one other user's own personal opinions. Charles has repeatedly deleted sources, harassed me on my talk page, and followed me around Wikipedia to "undo" whatever edits I attempt to make. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A read of the talk page will show that the above is tendentious nonsense. I have followed clear consensus and I have not deleted sources or harassed this editor.Charles (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Borodino&diff=624458356&oldid=624438253 here, Charles deleted an eminent scholarly source which states that the battle was a Pyrrhic Victory. He subsequently reported me here, and had me banned. If you work up from this edit, you'll see he has repeatedly deleted the sources I have added, reverting by claiming a completely non-existent "consensus" (the majority on the Talk page are in fact AGAINST him and Pink.beast). Most unforgivable of all, he simply refuses to engage with the sources I've provided him on the Talk Page. He just screams "CONSENSUS!", reverts, and runs. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected (full) for one week. I've also left a clear warning on the article talk page about reverting after the lock expires. Blocks may be handed out if that occurs. As for the report here, what the two editors say here is not completely accurate on either side. Zinedine has been blocked once, not multiple times. Zinedine has labeled other editors' reverts as vandalism, and Charles left a vandalism warning on Zinedine's talk page. None of the reverts constitutes vandalism, so both parties are advised to drop the word. Such accusations may be construed as personal attacks, which are blockable. I also urge Zinedine to make their points without strident language. If nothing else, it doesn't help you. As for consensus, I don't see a clear consensus on the infobox issue. At the article Talk page, I suggested an RfC to establish one.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mansourblake11 reported by User:Nick Number (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: 16:11, March 2, 2015‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

This user is persistently removing a reference and adding an unsourced fact in its place. It is accompanied by a wikilink to List of Arabs by net worth, but that list is out of date and its only source (the Forbes list) does not list the name Juffali.
No explanation has been offered (the edit summaries are all blank) and there has been no response to attempts at discussion. Nick Number (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. This is a troubling report as I believe the reported user may be a sock puppet. I also think the edits come very close to vandalism (deliberate insertion of incorrect material). I also think that the article itself is poorly written and virtually unsourced. Finally, List of Arabs by net worth, where the family is listed (added by the probable master), is in horrible shape as well. Based on all that, I am not blocking Nick Number for edit warring, applying a blend of exemptions.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.169.42.101 reported by User:Hibrido Mutante (Result: Semiprotected)

User being reported: 86.169.42.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff Comments:
Anonymous editor adds depreciative notes without further explanations and ignores appeals to discuss the issues on the talk page.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected two months. The three 86.* IPs who have been reverting since 17 February are presumably the same person. Using a fluctuating IP to edit war violates WP:SOCK. Hibrido Mutante, you were edit warring as well and you could have been blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:49.151.124.167 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result:Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] (4th revert in a day)
[19] (5th)
[20] (6th)
[21] (7th)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Esc2003 reported by User:Steverci (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: First removed Armenian origin, then added poorly sourced Iranian origin

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:30, 2 March 2015
18:36, 2 March 2015 (also calls user a troll)
19:14, 2 March 2015 (warring an admin)
20:06, 2 March 2015
13:20, 5 March 2015
18:55, 6 March 2015 (also calls user a vandal)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Full talk

Comments:
Clearly a very aggressive user who's personall attacks and edit warring are harmful to Wikipedia. Just by glancing his talk page, it seems he has a very long history of edit warring. --Steverci (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this person is talking about himself. 1, 2 & 3. His edit wars are similar. And, his contributions are destructive 4. I think should be careful for this status. --Esc2003 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Esc2003 is warned for edit warring. If this continues a block may be issued. Calling people trolls or vandals in your edit summaries could lead to a block for personal attacks. This article is subject to the WP:ARBAA2 arbitration case. EdJohnston (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:GabbyisEbola69 reported by User:Snowager (Result:Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Gabby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GabbyisEbola69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

00:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Factual statements"
00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
00:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
00:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
00:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

00:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Gabby. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He/she did personal attacks on certain users, including me. Snowager-Talk to Me! 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're all clear vandalisms, looks like a vandalism-only account to me. Think this should be an indef block for vandalism-only account, rather than a ban for edit warring. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Indeffed by Kudpung as vandalism-only account. Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:LunarPhyla reported by User:PhantomTech (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LunarPhyla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

04:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "1. That is incorrect. 2. Another strawman. I changed it. 3. I have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia regarding neutrality? This entire article is utterly biased against the topic it is about! You are vandals, not me"
04:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Once again someone is attacking a strawman. Yes, age is dependant on evolution (biological, planetary, cosmological). You know exactly whwhafdtat"
03:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Correct. This is about science, but who's interpretation of it are we talking about? The mainstream evolution and old universe concept (not a theory) is untrue. I removed popular, done attacking a strawman? Even then it doesn't matter, the ARTICLE is crap"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Young Earth creationism. (TW)"
04:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)" by User:McSly

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was told multiple times to discuss the edit on the talk page by each of my reverts and a warning another user placed on their talk page. User's edit summaries indicate a WP:COI. User's edit summaries also seem to be violations of WP:ESDONTS. PhantomTech (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is very likely the same user, so this would add to the numbers above:

68.188.225.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

BullRangifer (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my two-bits here, this definitely appears to be the same user. Not optimistic about this. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and the same for the IP. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I'm not too familiar with how things work after an edit war. I'm wondering if I should revert the content to before the edit war, requiring the edit to be discussed on the talk page, or if the content should stay as is with the reverting it discussed on the talk page? PhantomTech (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I hadn't thought in those terms either. Reverting it is fine, but you reverting it wouldn't have been a good idea. Things don't return to scratch just because one editor has been blocked. I see it's moot now, so all's well (Just Plain Bill has reverted). Bishonen | talk 08:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Dustylappss (Result:blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

07:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650265633 by Cleatword (talk)The contentious content has not been added. There is no discussion about the content I added. I removed content which is being discussed."
07:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650264281 by Cleatword (talk)Why dont people TALK before reverting me lol? PLEASE talk talk talk"
07:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650262748 by Dustylappss (talk) talk first edit later. Talk is ongoing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

07:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on islam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps editwarring and making massive changes even after warnings of edit-war and violation of 3 revert rule Dustylappss (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from freeatlastchitchat

I have done three things to the article. 1)There was some content regarding slavery in the section of family life. The content was causing constant pain, some wanted it removed, some wanted it there. I removed the content from family life and created a new section called slavery. The content in this section was taken from the article on slavery from wikipedia. As this content has already been agreed upon no one will be removing it, and I thought (incorrectly I guess) that everyone will be happy. 2)The second thing I have done is removed "Quran and science" subsection from the section of jurisprudence. The section had no relation whatsoever to Jurisprudence. I put a link to the article Islam and science at the end of the article. 3)The third thing I did was to remove any mention of "wife beating" from the article because it was from biased sources aka an Israeli writer and an online newspaper which itself claims that it is biased. I then started a discussion on the talk page so that the content regarding wife beating can be discussed before we add it.

And out of nowhere three editors who have done almost no editing started to revert me. All three accounts want to revert all of my changes. I repeatedly, again and again asked them to at least discuss on the talk page before reverting my changes, two of which seems to be IN THEIR FAVOR as they want to include slavery in the article, but they still revert me. I would like an admin to please take a look at the history of the page and perhaps help with the discussion. Also I would like to request that someone protects the page with heavy protection allowing only reviewers and admins to add/remove content. When we have reached consensus on the talk page we can just ask the concerned admin to add the content.ThanksFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I only reported FreeatlastChitchat's today's editwarring. This editor has been removing chunk of material & reliables sources from the article for quite a long time (for example here) and justifying it by replacing it with irrelevant information and unreliable sources (such as here). Even after being told not to do so on talkpage (such as here).--Dustylappss (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FreeatlastChitchat is not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she wishes to remove content that he/she thinks are unfavourable to Islam. He/she attacks other users[24], even though he/she has been asked not to do this.[25] He/she marks controversial edits as minor.[26][27] During this edit war he felt free to revert other editors' contributions, whilst issuing stern warnings not to revert him whilst the discussion on the talk page is ongoing. This looks like an attempt to game the system. It is hard to have discussion with an editor who reverts edits whose main sources are newspaper articles, but who claims to be reverting original research based on primary sources such as the Koran and hadiths.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:55, 5 March 2015 (Undid revision 649944255 by Cleatword (talk))
06:24, 5 March 2015 m (→‎Family life: Removed biased sources and added text to create neutrality. One source was an Isreali newspaper hence biased and the other was a tabloid just reporting an incident not giving any interpretation.)
09:41, 5 March 2015 m (Undid revision 649963520 by Toddy1 (talk)Talk on the talkpage about sources if you wish. Do not revert sourced material discuss before reverting)
08:36, 6 March 2015 (→‎Family life: Removed POV discussion is ongoing on talk page. DO not revert this or add text untill discussion reaches an end.)
03:46, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650212967 by Dustylappss (talk)Do not edit before the talk page discussion reaches an end. discussion is ongoing. please do not start edit war)
07:27, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650262748 by Dustylappss (talk) talk first edit later. Talk is ongoing.)
7:42, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650264281 by Cleatword (talk)Why dont people TALK before reverting me lol? PLEASE talk talk talk)
07:55, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650265633 by Cleatword (talk)The contentious content has not been added. There is no discussion about the content I added. I removed content which is being discussed.)
09:06, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650270898 by LalaResne (talk)no consensus reached, this content is from wikipedia and already agreed upon.)
09:17, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650271991 by LalaResne (talk)The material from BBC is in science which has no connection to jurisprudence hence removed. Slavery has been mentioned in a new section, not removed .)
09:28, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650273126 by LalaResne (talk)this source is mentioned in the slavery article which is linked here. therefore not needed here)
09:37, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650274028 by LalaResne (talk)slavery has this so not needed in family. talk had no consensus. this is the best way to stop wars. What is wrong with new section btw? it covers sex)
09:55, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650275064 by LalaResne (talk) giving content without context is bias. Slavery has this with context. therefore this is in slavery . I can copy paste to family if you wish)
10:06, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650276429 by LalaResne (talk)that was BEFORE slavery article being added. Now that slavery is here, we have context. without context bias is created)
10:16, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650277122 by LalaResne (talk)There was no consensus. The last thing I am reading on talk page is you being pointed out as an agenda pushing single purpose account user.)
10:22, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650277702 by Toddy1 (talk) stop biased editing plZ)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) updated-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC) updated-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC) updated-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are my "EDITS"(Where I add content and create neutral POV) included in my "reverts" ? just asking not complaining. I already explained myself and anyone can see that I have done nothing wrong as soon as they look at the articles history. Three editors with nill history of edits gang up and create content which is from biased sources , what am I supposed to do? To be honest an admin should just heavy protect the page and no one should edit till we get a consensus. This holds especially true when these three aforementioned editors use abusive language like saying "I know that most Muslims are taught from a very young age to never question their religion, and be blindfolded bigots" . I have never attacked another user. If you look at my talkpage you will see that I called someone an imbecile once for he wanted to brand terrorists as fundamentalists, and in the heat of the moment i called him that. Even then his edit was reverted by another user who changed the word to insurgent as that is the case. newspaper articles from fringe newspapers which themselves claim to be biased are biased. This is why i wanted a discussion on the talk page about sources FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment appears to refer to edit No 2 (06:24, 5 March 2015), where you partially reverted another editor, and added some content. If you read Wikipedia:Reverting, it says that "Reverting means reversing a prior edit, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it."-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, not complaining here. All of the sources presented about domestic violence are biased and will not stand any test. they do not give neutral POV and are therefore revertable. Three users show agenda and are single purpose accounts, one of them is biased as per his own admission and comments. You yourself admit that you do not understand English. Surrounded by all this what am I supposed to do? I created a section on slavery, it is linked to slavery article, highly sourced, why would anyone want to put contentious text inside family life when slavery can exist as a separate section and is sourced? Same with Domestic Violence, why are you pushing for fringe theories and mis interpretations from biased sources? I repeatedly requested that sources be discussed before putting in text? Why dont you guys just discuss sources?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for sources to be neutral POV. The requirement is for the article to be edited to a neutral POV. See Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You create ALL content from biased sources and the content is biased. why cant we discuss this on the talk page instead of here? Slavery is there. science and Quran has no connection with Shariah. only thing left is wife beating. Lets discuss it on talk page then add it. Why are you being so unreasonable that you have to add biased content? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Two warriors who surpassed three reverts were blocked for 24 hours. Please stop reverting and start discussing.Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ymblanter, for your information, Cleatword too had exceeded 3RR:[1][2][3] --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry, my ignorance. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 05:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Mormography (Result: Filer warned)

Link to version from before edits took place. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gordon_B._Hinckley&oldid=634159662#Member_of_First_Presidency

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[29]
[30]
[diff]
[diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:

Somewhere around mid November the section 'Member of The First Presidency' had editing concerns raised, particularly regarding the word 'implicating'. An edit war was determined to have occurred and the section was protected. Discussion occurred on the talk page without resolution. Dispute resolution was requested without anyone volunteering. The reported user AndyTheGrump participated in these events. Under BRD on the current talk page the POV concerns have been formalized. Another editor [user:Trödel] joined the discussion further pushing for their own POV, summed up by the editor declaring the matter a "simple issue". Under the BRD on the talk page Trodel was challenged to defend the assessment "simple issue". Trodel did not do this, what rather removed long standing, secondary-source-cited items that contradicted his POV on the talk page. For example, that several books describe the situation and that an Mormon defender had confessed in publication that the "the whole episode achieved epic proportions." Removal of these cited items served only to help Trodel POV of "simple issue".

The section has been heavily debated on the talk page. Editors have been blocked for the simplest of edits to the section and consensus has been deemed necessary. Trodel has obviously acknowledge the existence of the talk page discussion and the current formalization of POV dispute, but made his edits without discussion on the talk page. Most importantly his edits only served to push his POV and did nothing to address the concerns "implicating" or "on behalf of the church". However, after making his edits Trodel sarcastically wrote "Proposed edit made to resolve issue."

Obviously edit warring, I reverted to the original. AndyTheGrump, having had a contentious back forth with me on the talk page, insisted I play dumb with him or else he would continue the edit war. I refused.

Mormography (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This so-called 'edit-warring' report is utter nonsense (and incidentally, intentionally misleading, given that only one of the diffs provided is to an edit I made). Trödel made an edit. Mormography reverted it without providing any explanation as to what was wrong with it, instead describing this single edit as 'edit-warring [33] I repeatedly asked Mormography what was wrong with the edit - no explanation was given. Given that the edit removed a lot of confused quote-farming and general poor writing ~~that Mormography had recently added (without the consensus he seems now to be claiming is necessary to edit the article)~~, I restored Trödel's edit. Sadly, Mormography seems to combine his WP:OWN issues concerning the page with an almost complete inability to actually explain in simple English what he wants the page to say - and he seems intent on inflicting his confused wording on our readers too. He is apparently still insisting that the article should assert that we should refer to a "forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging", despite repeated objections to a phrase which simply defies logic. The forgery was intended to implicate Smith, certainly, by all accounts. It was however a forgery - and once we have told the reader it was a forgery, simple common sense says that we cannot then assert that its contents actually implicated Smith. This has nothing to do with the details of the case, and everything to do with writing articles in comprehensible English, for the benefit of readers who don't already know the story. Evidently Mormography cares more about getting his own confused wording into the article than he does about our readers actually being able to understand it, and it seems he is willing to file entirely bogus complaints about imaginary 'edit-warring' to get his way. I have to suggest that the appropriate response is at minimum to close this discussion with a warning to Mormography not to waste people's time in future - though I would suggest that a more appropriate response might be to block Mormography for a while for misuse of this noticeboard with the intention of edit-warring his own content (added without consensus) back into the article by abuse of process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to the above - the confused quote-farming was already in the article - there was however a clear consensus on the talk page that the phrase about the forgery 'implicating' anything was unacceptable - and it should be noted, Mormography had earlier appeared to accept this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frivolous report. Mormography, you're reporting Andy for reverting once at an article where you appear to revert more than anyone else and have an extensive block log for edit-warring, the most recent of which was for doing so in this article. You list two "diffs" (they're links), only one of which belongs to Andy. You are Warned that if you persist in reverting at the article or you file another bogus report in this forum, you may be blocked without notice. You're lucky I'm not blocking you now, although any other administrator is free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serioiusly? I am not allow to revert at the page but AndyTheGrump is? You have in essence banned me from the page. How do I appeal your unjustified ban? This is not at all a frivolous reportMormography (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently Mormography has failed to get the message - he is now arguing the toss about this on Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley, reposting the content from here to there, minus Bbb23's statement, making further accusations of edit-warring against Trödel (who it should be noted had made one edit to the article). Since it seems self-evident that Mormography has failed to take note of what Bbb23 said, I formally request that Mormography be blocked from editing for a substantial period - the last block (regarding the same article) was for a week, and that seems to have had little effect. Maybe a month might get the message across? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And on it goes - see User talk:Bbb23#How Do I appeal Your Ban Of Me At Gordon B. Hinkcley. We are clearly facing a basic competence issue here, and I suggest we give this time-waster the boot. Permanently... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nehemiah Narzary reported by User:George8211 (Result: Indefinitely Blocked)

Page: Nehemiah Narzary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nehemiah Narzary (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

15:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Nehemiah Narzary. (TW)"
15:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Nehemiah Narzary. (TW)"
15:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked: Indefinitely blocked by JohnCD as a "Spam / advertising-only account:". - 220 of ^Borg 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Omar-toons reported by User:Kaiyr (Result: No violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:

No violation – You made a report here after just one revert. This is not a case of edit warring. Please make some effort to discuss your concern with User:Omar-toons. For example, at Talk:Languages of Morocco. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.62.102.142 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Semi)

Page: Que te perdone Dios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.62.102.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 17:13, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) to 18:29, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC)
1. 17:13, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexico broadcast */"
2. 17:15, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexico broadcast */"
3. 18:29, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexico broadcast */"
15:51, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexico broadcast */"
04:15, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexico broadcast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:30, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Que te perdone Dios. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Leave you a notice and ignored him. When got rid its Edition for the first time allow in my summary of Edition that the information did not have reliable sources. Back and did the same. Now continue and does not seem to stop. Now I am going to leave a last message to see if it answers. Philip J Fry Talk 19:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected one month. IPs making unsourced changes with no discussion on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.130.172.5 reported by User:McDonald of Kindness (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

^{One of the links is now gone due to it not being a revert. I linked to the wrong thing. However, another revert just happened, and the last link is that revert. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Comments:

This anonymous editor claimed that the article that I am talking about in this report is a copyright violation. However, your vandal fighting bot, Cluebot NG, doesn't think so, and so two times, he has reverted the anonymous editor's edits. Another editor came in on this matter too. The article could be copied from somewhere else, but this individual is definitely violating the three revert rule, which is why I have brought him to your attention. Thanks. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio is valid and listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 March 6. Both users McDonald of Kindness (talk · contribs) and Joaquin008 (talk · contribs) are in the wrong removing the banner as it specifically states "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent.". As for ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) reverting my edits, it's being I'm editing anonymously and effectively blanking the page (normal procedure for a copyright investigation). I've reported the revert as a false positive in both cases. I've contacted both McDonald of Kindness and Joaquin008 on their talk page.

Also I am not in violation of the 3RR rule as I have not reverted more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voicing your side of the issue. You probably didn't mean it, but you still violated the three revert rule by reverting more than three times on the same page. This situation would not have taken place if you had started an Articles for Deletion discussion about the article. I believe, that, to resolve this issue, an Articles for Deletion discussion would have done good. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article itself (via the edit history) and the sourced website, there is certainly a word-for-word copy of text on the "Damages" section. But the rest of the article doesn't seem to have any copyvio issues. The article topic itself is something I am not familiar with. However, if it will resolve peace between all editors involved in this dispute; then I don't mind offering my help to completely re-write that entire section into original words, so that it is in compliance with copyright regulations. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment happened to spawn the same time as mine. Anyways, yeah, a rewrite of that section could also do some good. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed all rules for a copyright investigation and not violated the 3RR rule (per "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." WP:3RR). However I'm not going to touch this article anymore until somebody cleans it. I must say that it's a little bit frustrating having regular users revert copyright investigation banners without any kind of explanation and in contradiction with the rules. 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) With that in mind then, I am assuming that all editors here have no objection to restoring the article to its status prior to this banner being added; so that I have something to work on and improve. Is that OK with everyone? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this if you're "administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't object to this. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24.130.172.5; the "administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent" would be the ones to investigate whether the content is copied from a website. I've intervened as non-admin. Any editor can vastly modify content within an article, if they discover it is a copy/paste of text from a website. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the copyright banner, and making a start on the violating copied content. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@McDonald of Kindness: and @24.130.172.5: I have taken the proverbial axe to the copied material, and have re-written the damages section. Please check Royal Palaces of Abomey#Damages to see if this is sufficient enough. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, as far as I can tell. Apparently, the copied content was written in terms of the past, but it did still need to be changed. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action, since the IP made a good faith claim of a copyright violation. Removal of the {{copyviocore}} banner by others is questionable, unless you are fixing the article at the same time. It looks that this is resolved. If anyone still has copyright concerns, please explain them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 March 6. If the IP is planning to be active in copyright enforcement in the future, be aware that ClueBot may be undoing your work from time to time. For this kind of activity it may be more convenient for you to use a registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Olonia reported by User:Parsecboy (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Parsecboy#Roma

Comments: Olonia has had problems following basic Wikipedia policy, most relevant to this board is an inability to solve problems without edit-warring. We had an earlier run in on the article Italian cruiser Fiume a few weeks ago which can be seen in the edit history there. He has also begun using personal attacks, as can be seen here. I'd appreciate it if an admin could take care of this, as I am obviously involved. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the reported guy: Surely I lost temper, but I believe I had some reason to. I suggested Parsecboy to 1) look for more info instead of keeping reverting my edits without bothering to see if they are correct; 2) sourced my edit with a link to the Italian navy website that stated the correctness of what I had written, which Parsecboy ignored, stating that the linked page did not state what I said (and I invite you to personally check that link so that you can verify who was right there); 3) twice proposed to move the discussion to a talk page (for example the Battleship Portal talk, but also any other of his preference) so that others might join, and he completely ignored my suggestion, instead unilaterally reverting the edit. So I tried everything that was in my power to "solve problems without edit-warring", and honestly Parsecboy seems to me the one not able and not wanting to solve the problem without edit-warring. --Olonia (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) I did consult other sources - to include the definitive work on the topic, which disagree with your sources, which are primarily WP:SPS self published or from vanity presses (again, I'm not linking these for my health - you really ought to read them). 2) I skimmed the marina.difesa link initially and missed the figures - big deal. 3) It's your responsibility to initiate discussion elsewhere if you think it needs to take place elsewhere, not mine. Parsecboy (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved editor: The last edit on the talk page of this article was on 01:26, 27 August 2014. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion on the talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I don't see this as being anything other than a good-faith content dispute. Olonia's obviously frustrated, but he's provided at least one reliable source and made an effort to explain how his edits are accurate and verifiable—this isn't much of a constructive response for a dispute resolution, particularly from an admin, someone who's supposed to remain cool-headed when things start to get heated and collegially explain the proper way of doing things around here. Both users are reminded that Jsharpminor is absolutely correct and that reverting multiple times is not an acceptable course of action—don't get me wrong Olonia, I don't think the severity warrants a block as of now, but you can get blocked for edit warring, even if you're right in a content dispute. However this report seems premature and unnecessary as of now. Swarm... ^—X— 05:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darwin1986 reported by User:TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

80.236.246.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 195.244.166.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments: This user is obviously a continuation of the IPs who can no longer edit because the page is protected. How and how much of the books content to present has been discussed multiple times on the talk page with the enduring consensus being "very little" because of the poor scholastic quality, in particular no eyecandy tables/graphs that would give the wrong impression about the validity of the claims of the book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. TheRedPenOfDoom, why must you edit-war yourself before bringing this report here? Other editors who reverted Darwin1986 exercised restraint. The only reason I didn't block you was because Darwin1986 did far more than just violate 3RR in disrupting the article. However, if I see you do this again without a policy justification, you risk being blocked regardless of whether I agree with your analysis of the material at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.236.138.19 reported by User:Doc James (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:

The difficulty is not one of the refs mentioned dementia among others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to come and report this. Clear edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:RefHistory reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: Link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67] This has been ongoing.

Comments:
Repeated addition of promotional content. Jim1138 (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm... ^—X— 05:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:49.151.124.167 reported by User:MONGO (Result:1 week)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[68]
[69]
[70]
[diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:
This is ongoing from this IP...see link above..its the same material and same argument. Now three more reverts right after coming off a 24 hour block.--MONGO 07:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC) -->[reply]

hey kid im just wondering will the world end if mockingjay gets squash by american sniper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 week, the IP just was out of the previous block and decided to continue edit warring. Next time, a long duration block may be warranted. Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zekenyan reported by AcidSnow (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: Preferred link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's Talk Page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page

Comments:

Despite being warned the user continued to revert in an attempt to push his change. The same can be said about the Harari people page. Though, he has yet to break 3rr. AcidSnow (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user told me to head to the talk page and when I did he reported me. I believe he has nothing to discuss and wants to edit warr. Zekenyan (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you since you have reverted 4 times despite being asked to stop. Anyway, I had asked you to provide a source for your claim regarding the Argobba. You, on the other hand, demanded that I prove a source despite it already being present. AcidSnow (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a source. The current source says nothing about Somali. You just added it in. Zekenyan (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*, it seems you haven't read the article at all. AcidSnow (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we are discussing the matter here [73]. Zekenyan (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dissucimg now doesn't mean much. You still violated the policy despite being well aware of the consequences. You didn't even bother to read the page but rather blindly reverted. AcidSnow (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have ceased reverting and am discussing the matter. Isnt that the whole point? Zekenyan (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Let's see what an admin has to say. Although, you do seem to already know a lot of how Wikipedia works. Nonetheless, bye for now. AcidSnow (talk)

I was not aware of the tools on how to provide sources into the article but I have done it in the talk page. It is you who has failed to provide any. Zekenyan (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking since the article is rich in sources. Nonetheless, good bye. AcidSnow (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary shows clearly words have been added into sources which say otherwise. Zekenyan (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. User broke 3rr after a warning was given and has had plenty of time to rectify this (i.e. self-revert after breaching 3rr, it doesn't matter if you "ceased reverting" if you have the last word). Swarm... ^—X— 17:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alfiobaldini reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80] [81] [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments: Editor has repeatedly used misleading edit summaries. Looks like a SPA judging by similar disruptive POV editing on South Ossetia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gouncbeatduke reported by User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[84]
[85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:
The page in question, like all articles in the topic area of the Israeli-Palestinians conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction.

The edit in question, repeated twice, is arguably also a case of vandalism - it removes the entire article content, including material sourced to reliable sources like Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, The Jerusalem Post, and The Forward - using a false edit summary that says they are not reliable sources, but then ADDS back a single source which has been removed several times - which is clearly not a reliable source- a self -published activists' blog.

User:Gouncbeatduke has blanked a large part of the article content twice, which violates the WP:ARBPIA 1RR. In my opinion he might be able to avoid sanctions if he will agree to take a break from the article and its talk page for seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia article about an anonymous blog full of illegal Hate speech, Anti-Arabism, and Islamophobia. I was surprised to learn Wikipedia is protecting it with a 1rr rule, I see no mention of it on the article or the article talk page. When I started checking the sources given in the article, they were mostly citing information only on the anonymous blog and had no WP:RS. Sometime a WP:RS would be given, but there was no mention of the anonymous blog in the WP:RS, and the statement in the article was just original research created by combining information on the anonymous blog with information on a WP:RS that never mentioned the blog. The article should be considered very far below Wikipedia standards, and I cannot imagine why it is protected with a 1rr rule. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like an article doesn't mean that it is not subject to Arbcom sanctions, including, as in this case, WP:1RR. I agree that it would be better to have a notice of the sanctions on the talk page and, just to make it absolutely clear, an editnotice warning you about 1RR when you edit the article. However, like it or not, now you know about the sanctions, and Ed's question is still unanswered. I suggest you respond to it rather than discussing tangential issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not "protected" by a 1rr, it's simply part of a larger topic that has been determined to be an "area of conflict". To control this long term and widespread conflict, administrators are authorized to impose sanctions problematic editors at their discretion, and all editors are restricted to one revert per day in this topic area. It's not a protection for any article in particular, it's a remedy for a problem that has proven to be necessary in an entire topic area. Swarm... ^—X— 21:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours for 1RR violation. Now that he is aware that 1RR applies, Gouncbeatduke could have backed away from the issue by agreeing to take a break from the article. He chose not to do so. He merely complained that this article is under 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spearmind reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 24 hrs)

Previous version reverted to: dif - that was status when EdJohnston protected the page per my last 3RR report per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive273#User:Spearmind_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_Protected.29. and as soon as it was lifted, Spearmind was back at it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:32, 8 March 2015‎ diff initial series of edits removing most instances of "conspiracy theory"
13:55, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by Second Quantization
14:09, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by Second Quantization
14:18, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by Second Quantization
14:28, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by Second Quantization
14:34, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by me
14:49, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by me, with edit note "it is not about consensus here; its about unsourced use of term "conpiracy theorist""

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

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

Comments:
Back here again. There is no consensus for these changes on the Talk page, and Spearmind isn't even waiting for conversation to develop. He really doesn't understand WP:CONSENSUS. Please at least restore to last protected version and protect the page again. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

continued to edit war even after I posted notice of this discussion. just wow. new dif added above. I left the article there. He will surely come here and write about how his content was correct. He doesn't understand the behavioral issues here. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to remove term "conspiracy theorist" wherever it pops up as long the claim not covered by a cite and I use all my reverts on it. Its not about consensus its about good faith and common sense and to protect wikipedia from ideology. Just recently we did speak about the use of such term at DRN.To make it clear Im citing DRN Volunteer Bejnar: "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)" See also his talk page on that: "Indeed. When neutral reliable sources consistently agree that a person is a "conspiracy theorist" it is not inappropriate to use the label; however, in most instances that is not the case and "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly, and hence should be avoided in accordance with the logic expressed in the WP:Tone essay. --Bejnar (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)" --- Global warming conspiracy theorists typically... - this was claimed to be from Latours article (see pdf in refs) but it was totally wrong cite, misused by whoever was editor here, possible in bad faith. I explained on articles talk too Spearmind (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as predicted. no understanding at all of the behavioral issues here. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just blocked by Vsmith here. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And ec... blocked 24 hrs. Vsmith (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Dragon (2004 film) (Result: Blocked)

[88] First revert
[89] Second revert
[90] Third revert
[91] Notice re WP:3RR
[92] Fourth revert
[93] "IT'S NOT OVER DETAILED , IT'S JUST RIGHT , AND IT'S NOT PREFERRED , ITS CORRECT , AND IT DOES NOT LACK SOURCES , AND THERE'S NO "REFLECTING" ANYWHERE , AND I'M NOT "VIOLATING" ANYTHING , AND IT'S NOT ESSAY STYLED"

User Gojira4eva is apparently terribly stressed out by the assertion that xyr 2,500 word "synopsis" of the film is in any way less than a perfect addition to Wikipedia. IPs have also been used (e.g. [94], [95]) and there doesn't seem to be any other editor of the article who thinks it's appropriate (removed by Nederlandse Leeuw, Materialscientist, me).

Seems like the user needs some careful tutoring in what is appropriate both in content and in ownership of articles. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if it wasn't correct i wouldn't have it that way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gojira4eva (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four different people have removed it in recent weeks. It sounds like your belief that it is correct, does not translate into any acceptance that it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Came here to report the same user - now on 5RR despite 3RR warnings by Guy and myself, and an explanation of the problem on the talk page - last revert [96] with an abusive edit summary - Arjayay (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours John (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Augustremulous reported by User:Avono (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650375934 by Strongjam (talk)"
00:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650375015 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

page is under WP:1RR of which the user was warned on [97]. Avono (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2015 (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