Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 16 April 2015 (→User:Yagmurlukorfez reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Alerted under ARBAA2: Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.

    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

    War

    The Voice of Peace (marathon) - User:Green Zero

    User:Ghatus reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: Ghatus blocked; Xtremedood warned)

    Page
    Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ghatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Diffs of the user's reverted to
    1. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"(Undid revision 656237692 by Xtremedood (talk) I am to wiki before you came and know the rules. It is you who has violated the rule. I have open discussion on the Talk Page. Go there.)"
    2. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656235749 by Ghatus (talk) Source is legitimate and respected publication. It has been utilized in a variety of academic sources. Do not revert back, as to adhere to 3 revert rule."
    3. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"Undid revision 656223115 by Xtremedood (talk) Illegitimate source. Nothing to back it up in the article or source. Does not even disclose the source of the data."
    4. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    5. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"*Source is legitimate academic source"
    6. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"Undid revision 656141936 by Ghatus (talk) Sourceless is legitimate academic source."
    7. 14:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)"rv 4 edits. Baseless source and the page can not be accessed."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656235749 by Ghatus (talk) Source is legitimate and respected publication. It has been utilized in a variety of academic sources. Do not revert back, as to adhere to 3 revert rule."
    Comments:

    Editor Ghatus has been warned for not reverting, however he has refused to adhere to the three revert rule. He has also been edit warring on a variety of Mughal-Maratha war articles and has been warned in the past. His latest comment on the 1971 history page shows his lack of respect for Wikipedia's rules. Xtremedood (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghatus also deleted my recent warning on his page. Xtremedood (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghatus's Reply "Xtremedood" is told to discuss on the Talk Page of the relevant Page. He did not do it. A discussion is open there already to solve it out. He has a past history of doing such things in other pages. I have also called on three other editors to look into the matter. I just reverted his undiscussed and dubious sounding edits. Three other editors are @Lakun.patra:, @Myopia123:,@Chris the speller:. Thank You.Ghatus (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note. I was about to warn both Xtremedood and Ghatus because they were both at three reverts when Ghatus reverted a fourth time. Therefore, I have Blocked Ghatus for 36 hours and Xtremedood is Warned that if you continue to revert, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the warning Bbb23, however I have reviewed the edits and I believe that I was only at 2 reverts (please correct me if I am wrong). I made my initial changes on April 11, at around 11:15-11:30. However the first revert was done by Ghatus, on 06:45, 13 April 2015‎. I reverted for the first time on 04:30, 13 April 2015‎ ‎ and the second time on 07:09, 13 April 2015‎, which makes for a total of two reverts. Ghatus on the other hand reverted 3 times. Xtremedood (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xtremedood: I counted that first edit as a revert as it undid another editor's actions, even if those actions did not immediately precede your edit. That's a strict interpretation of policy, and some administrators disagree with it (meaning they won't count it). That said, I don't count any change as a revert. I take it on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, the change you made to the article was significant and formed the basis of the war. Therefore, I count it. As an aside, adding brand new material to an article is not a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification, Bbb23. I guess it is a subjective measure. I did not see my first edit as a revert and I would not categorize it as such. I see it as an introduction of new materials based on the reading of a verifiable and legitimate academic source. Xtremedood (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lumia930uploader reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Template:Microsoft Windows family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lumia930uploader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656257530 by FleetCommand (talk) Reverts without a reason given are not permitted, also try to watch your language as you are the one reverting my edits without giving any re"
    2. 07:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656173882 by Codename Lisa (talk) You said that RT is a client version because it's on mobile devices, W10M isn't Windows Phone so it should be treated the same as RT."
    3. 20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656024555 by Codename Lisa (talk) If Windows RT is a client and mobile devices are clients, why isn't W10 mobile? Microsoft doesn't treat RT differently from W10M"
    4. 08:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "RT is also not a client OS"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC) to 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
      1. 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Template:Microsoft Windows family */ Warning"
    2. 11:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Template:Microsoft Windows family */ *"
    3. 11:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Template:Microsoft Windows family */ Added reply. [Thanks God Wikipedia has a <code>~~~~</code> script. This keyboard does not a tilde key.]"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    A discussion on Template talk:Microsoft Windows family already exists. Codename Lisa asked the user to "study it". See User talk:Lumia930uploader § Template:Microsoft Windows family.

    Comments:

    WP:3RR violation. Combative editor edit ninja evading consensus-building process in a highly visible template. He is using revert+edit summary for communication instead of taking the discussion to the talk page. Or at least visiting it. There is a discussion there already. Codename Lisa explicitly invited him to come with a message in his user page.

    His last edit summary is a clear act of denial, having forgotten every communication he has received thus far. Fleet Command (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not edit warring or 3RR violation. Hi. This is Codename Lisa. Thanks God I saw this. If one disregard the edit summary that reads "Undid revision [...]", one can see that Lumia930uploader is evidently attempting to improve based on objections that I register. He is not repeatedly restoring a certain revision. At least, I think the first questionable revert was the counter-revert against Fleet Command; I am afraid Fleet Command's own edit summary was questionable. He used to ambush me in the same way when I was new here, when I was practicing bold, revert, improve.
    I think the solutions is not to block someone, but to calm down. Lumia930uploader must start replying in talk pages instead of within edit summaries and Fleet Command must stand down from Template:Microsoft Windows family. At this stage, I don't think even a page protection is necessary, per WP:ROPE. This template is not that high-profile anyway.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dmcq reported by User:HughD (Result: Stale)

    Page: The Heartland Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dmcq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1] illustrates reported user's preferred, WP:CRITS nonconformant section layout "Incidents"

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 3 April 2015 [2] re-instates WP:CRITS issue
    2. 11 April 2015 [3] re-instates WP:CRITS issue
    3. 13 April 2015 [4] re-instates WP:CRITS issue
    4. 13 April 2015 [5] ownership of section and subsection headings
    5. 13 April 2015 [6]
    6. 13 April 2015 [7]

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [9] plea for collaboration, offer of GA nom
    2. [10] plea for collaboration, offer of GA nom
    3. [11]
    4. [12]
    5. [13] request feedback

    also at WP:NPOVN:

    1. [14]
    2. [15]
    3. [16] reference highly relevant project-specific section layout guideline
    4. [17]
    5. [18] request principle behind "Incidents" section fork
    6. [19] ping request principle behind "Incidents" section fork

    Comments:

    Pattern of edits frustrating WP:CRITS issue resolution and in defense of personal idiosyncratic subsection ordering scheme seems to exhibit ownership tendencies. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported user persisted in preserving a personal, nonconformant, non-neutral section layout scheme despite multiple clear talk page references to highly relevant guidelines and best practices including WP:CRITS: "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" and a project-specific section layout style guideline WP:WikiProject_Conservatism/Style_guide#Article_structure "Organizations". Hugh (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

    Three people disagreed with you about your section ordering and nobody agreed. Four including me. I gave plenty of time for you to respond to the comments but you didn't. I even said if you could just find one person to agree with you I wouldn't do anything about it. Dmcq (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale The last revert was over 40 hours ago, so it is not possible to take action against any editor at this remove. I suggest you continue discussion on the article's talk page, use dispute resolution where necessary and note that the article is under discretionary sanctions. DrKiernan (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lurker1589 reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: blocked 24h)

    Page
    Brooklyn Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lurker1589 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656179753 by Howicus (talk)"
    2. 06:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656199316 by Dismas (talk)"
    3. 06:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656236479 by Lurker1589 (talk)"
    4. 02:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656345236 by Morbidthoughts (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    "Result": Blocked – for a period of 24 hours--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.246.11.235 reported by User:JaconaFrere (Result: No violation)

    Page
    List of military occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    24.246.11.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC) "Removed reference due to lack of evidence and international opinion on the subject."
    2. 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC) "Removed reference"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 13:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
      1. 13:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656033327 by 24.246.11.235 (talk)"
      2. 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC) "Parts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts have not been seized by the Russian army. The territory is occupied by ethnic Ukrainians."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    I believe that the ip edits are perfectly valid: Thy were removing unsourced and badly sourced pov. My suggestion is to warn both warriors.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 3 edits. Consecutive edits are considered one. This is not a violation of 3RR. [20] Here You'll see where the IP has taken this to the talk page prior. [21] Here the IP went to their talk page. [22] Here I went to their talk page asking questions in regard to the page. There was good call for this removal by the IP. The IP isn't in violation of 3RR. The IP has taken action to discuss this. There's no reason for a warning for this IP.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation – Technically there was no violation of 3RR at the article and no warning was posted to the IP's talk page. IP has posted to the talk page of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dr. Blofeld reported by Fut.Perf. (Result:No action)

    Page: Flame of Peace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [23] (blanket rv to old version, reintroducing large amount of dubiously sourced material and (accidentally?) removing several maintenance tags and an AfD tag)
    2. [24] (removing an "unreliable source" tag)
    3. [25] (removing a "failed verification" tag)
    4. [26] (removing yet more maintenance tags)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Dr. Blofeld#3RR warning (warned after 4R, refused to self-revert)

    All of the maintenance tags in question were explained and justified on talk, see Talk:Flame of Peace#Unreliable resources.

    Comments:

    Dr. Blofeld has been aggressively trying to bolster up an apparently self-promotional vanity article to prevent it from deletion, using multiple poor sources and warring against maintenance tags marking the source misuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Great, I ask a neutral commentator to assess if I've used "multiple poor sources" on this, nobody is going to agree. I removed several tags during my expansion work which were blatantly false and placed there in haste by yourself. The info is there in Italian and the source does say that it's his wife. Childish, pointy stuff over my good faith actions in improving an article to avoid deletion. The real issue is that Future is gutted that I've now proved it's notable and he knows it won't be deleted so I'm the target. I'm off to bed, yawn yawn. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If Blofeld makes a number of separate edits to separate aspects of the same article, edits that Future Perfect clearly disagrees with, then that's still not edit warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I only reverted him once. He reverted twice and has subsequently reverted my tag removal in places so technically he'd be over 3RR too if he's going to claim my edits were reverts. I made one revert and the others were mainly constructive article changes as I was expanding it but being impeded by him plastering tags on most sources and generally being irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem seems the reverse. The article is about a dull but worthy Austrian charity that tries to promote World Peace. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has got it into his head that it is spam, made a deletion nomination that verges on slander, and is frantically trying to prove his case by removing content, tagging extremely solid sources as unreliable and so on. This behavior seems bizarre. A topic ban might be kind. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. Frankly, I don't know what to do about this report as it defies the usual edit-warring analysis. I'm not going to take any action but will leave it to another administrator to do so if they wish. That said, my opinion is neither party has behaved well, but Future Perfect at Sunrise's conduct is worse than Dr. Blofeld's. Dr. Blofeld keeps adding sources, Future Perfect keeps tagging them (sometimes also removing material), and Dr. Blofeld comes up with more sources and removing the tags or in some instances just removing the tags (it's a bit hard to follow and I'm at the end of my day), and the back-and-forth goes on. The article is at AfD. The community is able to assess the reliability of the sources added, and Future Perfect is free to comment on the reliability at the AfD, but to remove material from an article up for deletion when the removal is not compelling (e.g., vandalism) is not an appropriate action and, even more so, when it's the nominator who's doing the removals or tagging or whatever. But I don't feel like blocking two very experienced editors, or even one of them, based on this squabbling; nor do I feel like locking the article while it's at AfD. So I'm punting and hoping it sticks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since when is tagging bad and misused sources inappropriate? We are dealing with four distinct removals of maintenance tags. In each of these four cases, the reason for the tagging is out on the talkpage. One revert was a blatantly inappropriate edit removing the AfD tag. Two cases were of blatantly misused sources that simply didn't say what they were claimed to be saying. Have you checked them? Are you of the opinion that this Italian page is saying that Roberta Pinotti received an award? (if you don't read Italian, let me tell you: it doesn't). Are you of the opinion that this newspaper text is calling somebody an "archduke" and "prince"? It plainly doesn't. In what way is the removal of the necessary maintenance tags for these not abusive editing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Future Perfect at Sunrise, I'm just going to respond to your comment about the removal of the AfD tag. That was at best a comedy of errors, exacerbated by you and Dr. Blofeld. An IP edited the article to add a lot of new material and removed the AfD tag. Rather than simply restoring the tag, you reverted the whole thing. Dr. Blofeld, rather than restoring only the material also restored the tag removal. You did the same thing you did before in your first revert, and then the battle continued over the material and your tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh for fuck's sake. That IP was one of the usual attacks of banned harassment vandal "Wikinger" (really not that difficult to find out if you look at their contribs, is it?) He wasn't "adding a lot of material"; he was just randomly blanket-reverting to an old version from before I had touched the article, as he always does when randomly revenge-reverting anything I do; of course his edit had to be rolled back, just like all the rest. It was entirely Blofeld's fault that in his following edit he was blindly repeating the edit of the banned vandal without looking what he was doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Actually, I am going to reinstate that tag on the aefi.it source right now, as my explanation of how Blofeld was misreading the Italian in that instance still stands uncontradicted on the talkpage [27]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Actually, I am going to reinstate that tag " – if you don't read ItalianFuture Perfect , let me tell you: that's more edit-warring by you.
    The basis for all this seems to be, "I am right, you are wrong, and as I'm an admin, that means I'm Very, Very Right Indeed." This is characteristic of Future Perfect's editing style. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The source says it's her husband and who his father is, yes. And I've also supplied other sources supporting his heritage and the Archduke thing, yes. And you're wrong about the Italian source and your claim "Blofeld was misreading the Italian". The source says "Le serata, organizzata dal Consiglio regionale del Veneto, ha visto tra le presenze più illustri il ministro della Difesa, Roberta Pinotti, il vicepresidente della Regione Veneto, Marino Zorzato e il presidente del Consiglio regionale, Clodovaldo Ruffato, al quale gli Arciduchi d’Austria, Principi di Toscana, Herta Margarete e Sandor Asburgo Lorena hanno consegnato la Fiamma della Pace" in English means "The evening, organized by the Veneto Regional Council, included illustrious participants such as the Italian Minister of Defence Roberta Pinoti, the vice-president of the Veneto Region Marino Zorzato and the president of the Regional Council Clodovaldo Ruffato, to whom the Archdukes of Austria, Princes of Tuscany, Herta Margarete and Sandor Asburgo Lorena gave the Flame of Peace."♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing as no action. Two users in good standing, each of them having over 50K edits and many years of experience, should be able to sort this out, especially since both of you are willing to talk.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Axxxion reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

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


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [28]
    2. [29]
    3. [30]
    4. [31]
    5. [32]

    That's just the move-warring. The associated reverts of text are:

    1. [33]
    2. [34]
    3. [35]
    4. [36]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]. The editor is well aware of the 3RR/no-edit warring rule as they've been warned before [38]. In fact, their entire user talk page is pretty much all warnings about disruptive conduct. Additionally they've been warned about disruptive behavior [39], discretionary sanctions in this topic area [40], and POV pushing [41] (none of these by me).

    Additionally after this dispute arose, the editor began making "revenge edits" on other articles which they had never edited before [42] (warning: [43])

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    The editor in question is ignoring the talk page discussion, even after being specifically mentioned. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

    The debated move is a textbook example of WP:COMMON NAME please see discussion. The fact that an experienced user (Axxion) decided not to discuss this question, but continued reverts a few hours after the beginning of discussion and made a retaliatory revert on another page is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lightbreather reported by User:Faceless Enemy (Result: No action)

    Page: National Rifle Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Lightbreather: Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [45]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [46]
    2. [47]
    3. [48]
    4. [49]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] / [51]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] / [53]

    Comments:

    Essentially there are 4 points of contention at the page, all related:

    1) Is Walter Hickey at Business Insider a reliable source?
    2) Should we lead the NRA's finances section with its funding from the firearms industry or with its total budget?
    3) Should we lead the gun industry contributions paragraph with "A considerable amount [of money] comes from the gun industry"? (LB says that it is, because we are paraphrasing Hickey) Or should we jump right into the numbers?
    4) Is it WP:SYNTH to follow that with a statement about the size of the NSSF?

    LB prefers 1) Yes, 2) industry funding, 3) "Considerable amount", and 4) No. She reverted the page back to a version with those decisions 4 times in a row between 00:09 and 17:59 14 April.

    NB: The last one was a partial revert; she edited some of my other edits back in, but not the 4 sticking points. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had a broken elbow since March 30, when I fell down while I was out of state helping a hospitalized friend. I have since returned home and I had surgery on my elbow on April 8. My arm is in a cast, I am in pain, and my waking and sleeping patterns have been disrupted - and my ability to type has been restricted to my non-dominant hand. After weighing my options, I have decided to respond at Talk:National Rifle Association#Edit warring to the various discussions Faceless Enemy has started on different pages.
    This problem goes back weeks, and I have made good-faith efforts to resolve it. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Lightbreather (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like an acknowledgement of the editwarring but not an apology or a promise to cease edit warring. I am sorry for your personal health problems but that doesn't resolve the issue. It would be best to agree to cease edit warring and find other ways to resolve the content dispute. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Closing this with no action/warning. Discussion is ongoing and a block would not be conducive to discussion. Lightbreather and Faceless Enemy, it takes two to tango. I've watchlisted the page and will block both of you if any further edit warring occurs. Your instinct should be to discuss first, not edit war and then begrudgingly discuss. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Epigogue reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [54]
    2. [55]
    3. [56]
    4. [57]
    5. [58]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

    Comments:
    The user DrKiernan keeps inducing grammatical errors in his revisions. I encountered him while helping to edit the page on Elizabeth II, where he was reverting the article without much explanation. He did that in triplicate, so this complaint against me is quite vexatious.

    I am happy to discuss my reasons for revision in terms of fact or grammar; but when another user is arguing against that on a subjective basis, they do not also have an objective complaint.

    Epigogue (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Epigogue[reply]

    Comment Oh boy, Epigogue complains here that DrKeirnan "keeps inducing grammatical errors in his revisions". (Note "inducing".) Look at this edit from Epigogue and his summary "fixed subject-verb agreement". As for his comment that he is " happy to discuss my reasons for revision in terms of fact or grammar" he never commented on this talk page comment. I have edited Microwave so am involved, but I can still express my opinion which is that whether Epigogue is a troll or incompetent, he is a definite disruption and needs admin attention. Moriori (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danacloud8 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Danacloud8 blocked 24 hours; Nedrutland warned)

    Page: Mark Bostridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Danacloud8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Also edit warring / reverting possible vandalism: Nedrutland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [61] Not really sure...

    Diffs of the user's reverts: Page history says it all 20-30 reverts in the past eight days.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Doesn't seem to be any.

    Comments:

    Jim1138 (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Danacloud8 Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Nedrutland warned by Jim1138. DrKiernan (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: )

    Page
    Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656473938 by Alexbrn (talk) don't be ridiculous - ANP is naturally occuring amino acids, even the Dr's contrarians do not assert cytotoxicitys"
    2. 06:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC) "generally understood (by all sides) to be noncytotoxic chemo, not cytotoxic (traditional) chemo"
    3. 06:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656569383 by Alexbrn (talk) restrore needed clarification what kind of chemo this is understood to be"
    4. 09:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ it is a fair-enough source (and you deleted it!); help by finding a better source; this clarification isn't even disputed in the literature - only by you 3 tag-team POV warriors"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 06:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Burzynski Clinic. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 06:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Lede bombing */ new section"
    Comments:

    User:Eaglestorm reported by User:174.141.182.82 (Result: 72 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [63]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [64]
    2. [65]
    3. [66]
    4. [67]—Not a 3RR vio

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69][70]

    Comments:
    I’m not sure whether the best place is here or WP:ANI, or whether I should try WP:RFC/U. This user has not violated WP:3RR, but is definitely edit warring against consensus and policy. I posted to the article’s Talk page and to his own Talk page, hoping to get his side just in case he had a point, but it seems he rarely uses Talk pages at all (and even then, mainly to complain or to inappropriately delete content from article Talk pages). He clearly has no interest in discussion, reverting my requests on his Talk with the edit summaries “desperation play” and “my talk page my rules. get lost”, and proceeding to re-revert against otherwise unanimous consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I blocked for 72 hours to save everyone (including Bbb23, who's probably living it up in Gatlinburg, and EdJohnston) some of their precious time. Note that Eaglestorm has been blocked for edit warring before; it's time they start to learn how to play the game properly. My one revert of this editor was done on formal grounds, for edit warring and lack of talk page discussion, which is a violation of our policies and guidelines. I have no interest in the article and do not consider myself involved. Thanks to the IP for reporting this. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yagmurlukorfez reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Alerted under ARBAA2)

    Page: Pan-Turkism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Yagmurlukorfez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [71]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [72]
    2. [73]
    3. [74]

    And over a similar issue in the same article:

    1. [75]
    2. [76]
    3. [77]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79][80][81]

    Comments: Due to the edit-warring by this user, the revision history of this article is a mess. Even with an ongoing discussion at the talk page, the user unilaterally continues to revert and edit-war over this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is not a current edit war report, It seems I accidently violated 3RR 2 days ago, I was responding to an another user's irresponsible restoration, but suddenly User EtienneDolet involved in it. I also made my point at the discussion page, but he/she didn't make a comment on it. So I added a sourced info, but User EtienneDolet removed it back too with the reason of "this article isnt about Nihal Atsiz, this is about Pan-Turkism." In this case, this can be considered as Vandalism. If there is an edit war, then all of us (Me, User EtienneDolet and user Athenean) involved in it.

    I came here after User:EdJohnston's massage on my talk page, but I didn't understand what he is actually meant with his offer.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aergas reported by User:Alon12 (Result: )

    Page: Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Aergas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [82]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [83]
    2. [84]
    3. [85]


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

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

    Comments:

    The User:Aergas has engaged in edit warring multiple times on this particular wikipedia article, and was banned accordingly in the past, in addition. The conclusion of the community a few months back after the original dispute was to maintain the article in the state before he decided to unilaterally make such edits once again. In fact an entire sub-section on the talk page, was specifically created in reference to warn against such edits. It was in fact, a senior wikipedia user User:Robert McClenon, who also had previously acted as an intermediate party in a dispute resolution regarding this article, who decided to create this sub-section, regarding his edits. So, not only has he shown a blanket non-response to community approaches to dialogue and standards on wikipedia, but he continues to engage in a one-sided edit war. Alon12 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While filling this case, the User:Alon12 left out some important points that I will write here: Alon12 was, indeed, banned for edit warring in the past, on issues related to the article linked in this case. He is also making up the resolution of the community, in fact, what he says didn't ever happened, if he thinks so, i'd like to se a diff to a discussion proving it, what the actual resolution said and what happened was to leave the article as it was before the edit war with Alon12 started, which actually was MY VERSION OF THE ARTICLE (and I can prove it if requested to do so). In his report above Alon12 is, using the most proper word: lying). Then we would see if third editors shown interest on the article, but that's something that barely happened. The section Alon12 refers to was created to discuss edits regarding the article, and so I did, and everything was going smoothly until the users involved on said discussion stopped replying (manily Alon12, who is the only one who actually cares about these edits), after that, I waited for more than two months to see if Alon12 could reply to the suggestions I made regarding edits to the the article on said talk page (which are competently sourced). So, given that two months passed with nobody giving input on my suggestions I supposed that to go on was the right thing to do (because have someone had a problem with my edits then they would have said something about them in the talk page, specially Alon12). Then today, Alon12 noticed that I have edited the article in question and rushed to revert it without even discussing his reasons in the talk page (and continues to not do so, claiming a consensus that has never existed), when I ask him about his motives and about explanations regarding the way he acts he fails to give a good response, and just proceeds to accuse me of edit warring when I waited more than two months to get a response from him regarding my edits in the article. Behavoirs like this one, that he have shown to have double standards and bias regarding the sources used on said article before (things I'm confronting him with in the talk page right now) and that he filled this report with a premeditely incomplete and distorted version of the events from the last months (for all the reasons I explained above) to paint himself as a victim leads me to strongly believe that Alon12 acts on bad blood. His credibility has also been called in question by an administrator and the same administrator has pointed out that Alon12 is a single purpose account, who has made edits to only a pair of articles on Wikipedia and hardly sum up to 20, with the rest being edits done in multiple noticeboards and talk pages. 00:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Aergas (talk)[reply]

    User:Hohenloh reported by User:Wuerzele (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [88]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [89]
    2. [90]
    3. [91] edit summary "incorrect English"


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

    Comments:
    --Wuerzele (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=656763190"