Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:83.77.136.150 reported by User:Wumpus12 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] and [8]

Comments:

This user keeps on taking the dates out of the Joint Matriculation Board article. He/she has now broken the 3RR in just over an hour.

This user appears to post from many different IP addresses, including User:83.77.136.150, User:46.127.136.172 and User:92.23.28.246. The user seems to be systematically taking the dates out of many articles about qualifications (example, example, example). Often, these removals are 'buried' within other edits to the article, though sometimes they occur on their own. They are never referred to in the edit summaries, which are sometimes entirely misleading (or just rearrange the content being referred to as a front to remove the dates).

I have tried to discuss this with the user on the Joint Matriculation Board's talk page (links above) and draw the user's attention to this (here), but the user has ignored this.

Reverting back is made complicated by the other edits the user does at the same time as removing the dates. To rectify this, my most recent revert was for the dates (and their references) and nothing else (link). This was reverted nine minutes later.

This sort of tiresome behaviour is reminding me why I barely bother with Wikipedia. I only got dragged into this because I saw the Joint Matriculation Board article linked to elsewhere and wondered why all the dates had been taken out since I'd read it (I'd never edited the article until now).

Wumpus12 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user is also currently edit warring at General Certificate of Secondary Education. EdwardH (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's less edit warring than outright vandalism. This user is very persistant. I've given up on Leaving Certificate (Ireland) (for now), where the vandalism started Nov 2014. See also User:85.3.139.236. —WOFall (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the support. I'm only just discovering the scale of this user's destruction. He/she has, over the last year (and under many different IP addresses), destroyed all the historical information in any articles about British and Irish qualifications and the exam boards that offer them. This deletion is usually buried within other edits (often of dubious quality). Dates are often replaced by phrases like 'recently' or not at (meaning changes happening decades apart appear to be co-current. The user ignores all attempts to discuss the issue, but often says 'you need to provide a solid, credible source for every single statement and number/figure you write'. Despite this, he/she often removes referenced dates (along with much other information). Right now, none of the pages for any of the qualifications have basic information like when they were introduced or the dates of major changes. Similarly, exam board articles have no foundation dates. I have tried to fix a few articles tonight (notably, Joint Matriculation Board, WJEC (exam board), NEAB, Midland Examining Group and Associated Examining Board). The dates I have added back in have been heavily (over)referenced. Time will tell whether they will be reverted right back anyway (that does appear to be this user's usual style). Is there anyway of flagging up this vandalism elsewhere? Right now, there's a whole area of Wikipedia that is of limited use. - Wumpus12 (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help! The user has now created a brand new account, User:Supervisor635. His/her contributions show that he/she has just gone round and removed all the referenced dates I just added back into the articles (JMB, AEB, MEG, NEAB, SEB and WJEC). All edits have misleading summaries.

To add insult to injury, he/she then gave me a 'formal warning' for edit warring on my talk page. He/she accuses me of editing warring on NEAB – an article I have edited twice ever (with the second edit correcting typos in the first). Supervisor365 has done the same to another user because they restored the 3,000 characters Supervisor365 removed without justification.

I do not know what to do. How does one report a sockpuppet. More to the point, how does one stop this destructive and bullying behaviour, especially as it is coming from multiple IP addresses and accounts. I have replied on my own talk page, but do not feel able to do anything else.

I cannot put up with this. – Wumpus12 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - User:83.77.136.150 attempted to contact me yesterday after, I asked him not to remove the dates / alter (vandalise) the statistics I was trying to add to the GCSE, CSE and O-Level (UK) pages, he left an email address in this post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:83.104.51.74&oldid=677977939 83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more example reversions:

Also a fake formal warning, and another

Alternatively if a responsible adult has a few min's to spare, and fancies starting their own revertion war, could they please address any of the following issues with the qualification pages, I've left a partial lists on the relevant talk pages.

83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's back as : User:Supervisor635

83.104.51.74 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this user has been temporarily blocked, I've got back restoring the dates that this user (under many different guises) had systematically removed from articles. The affected articles (that I've found – there's probably more) are:

All this destruction has happened since last November. The articles – for now – all seem to have dates back in them (some added by me, others by different editors). – Wumpus12 (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found more date-removal destruction at AQA Baccalaureate, Higher (Scottish), School Certificate (Mauritius), State Examinations Commission, UCAS and UCLES. I've not attempted to fix any of this. It's too much -– Wumpus12 (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is still at large, now creating new accounts for every single edit to remove the dates from a selection of the articles linked to above. – Wumpus12 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Page protected)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

00:43, 26 August 2015 diff First edits, adding block of content about glyphosate (which is not GM food per se; was reverted and under discussion on Talk.
05:51, 26 August 2015 diff This series of edits aggressively edited contested content about the "scientific consensus" on GM food which has been under discussion for a long time now
00:14, 27 August 2015 diff This series of edits edit-warred back in content about glyphosate that was still under discussion and made other changes to "consensus statment" section
11:58, 28 August 2015‎ diff This series of edits introduced incorrect content (about broccoli that is not GMO but created by traditional breeding, and health content sourced from non-MEDRS source) and aggressively edited the "consensus statement" which is highly contested, and included this dif that removed significant sources with a very misrepresentative edit summary included additional dif info via REDACT Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
12:45, 28 August 2015‎ dif restored controversial edits to "consensus statement"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see this section on editor's talk page where i asked them to please slow down. There are many long discussions on talk page trying to address their edits including here on the Glyphosate edits, yet another RfC and this new, strangely titled section: Talk:Genetically_modified_food#Readding_of_OR_reference.

Comments:

This is a highly controversial article. We have so far successfully avoided arbcom and to a great extent, drama boards, but Prokaryotes has been editing very aggressively (and often adding incorrect content), without regard for discussion on the Talk page. There were two mega-RfCs recently and as mentioned above, there is sprawling talk page discussion. Prokaryotes aggressive editing is destabilizing the article - especially their edits to the "consensus" statement which was the subject of one of the mega-RfCs. If everyone who cared about this article edited like Prokaryotes we would have been at arbcom ages ago. Please lock the article to force discussion and please consider a short block for Prokaryotes.

As an aside, if you check their contribs, Prokaryotes has gone on a tear since August 26, aggressively editing other, related articles, raising risks about glyphosate and GMOs or "pro" organic, and arguing vehemently on article talk pages. Each bullet is an edit to a different article (not cluttering this with their Talk comments):

dif
dif + edit war restoration of edit
dif
dif
dif This one added back content that had been removed and was under discussion via yet another RfC, while the RfC is still underway

I understand that people get passionate about GMOs etc but that is all the more reason for people to exercise restraint, per WP:Controversial articles. This is very clear advocacy editing.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jytdog's claim i broke 3RR is in error. Yesterday, Jytdog claimed i broke 3RR. When I and another uninvolved editor(SageRad) asked about his 3RR claim and Difs, he did not replied but later retracted his claim. But then another editor(Kingofaces43) came to my talk page and claimed i broke 3RR, in this edit. Then both continued, Kingofaces started to make various claims, that i do advocacy or edit with an agenda. Then another uninvolved editor(Jusdafax) mentioned that Jytdog and Kingofaces are bullying me for my edits. Then Jytdog claimed i do advocacy. When I then asked Jytdog on his talk page to provide Difs for his accusations he made more claims, i would "promoting the goodness of organic or emphasized the risks of GMO stuff", as he put it. It appears to me that Jytdog is acting to much like WP:OWN, and is intimidating other editors who do not agree with his edits. Actually Jytdog did like 6-8 reverts since August 26 at Genetically modified food, some of them questionable and currently discussed on the talk page, examples:

Yeah, this quick draw on the 3RR is kinda messed up. I suggest that we should talk as grownups on the talk page and decide what content belongs in the article through a rational and civil discussion with integrity. SageRad (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog is removing content without consensus, and without discussion
Here he reverts to what can be described per WP:OR
Here he removes content which had been part of the article for month. (Discussion)
Here he removes something, again without discussion.

The various discussions on the talk page at Genetically modified food all involve Jytdog, and most of the time he argues with other editors about his reverts.prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I will add here, that I have functioned as a steward of this and related articles for a while now. Some consider me a whore of Monsanto etc. They consider as they will - I try to keep POV-pushing from all sides tamped down, and as mentioned, so far have helped keep these articles clear of arbcom and from wasting the community's time with too much drama board action. I am not happy to be here but Prokaryotes has not heeded the requests of me and others to slow down.

That said, here are all of my own edits on that page after Prokaryotes started editing. This shows what I mean by the article "destabilizing" - so many strange edits...

* 10:31, 26 August 2015‎ series of diffs didn't fully revert Prokaryotes's change to "scientific consensus" statement but used compromise language that had been worked out on talk after a looooong discussion. Also removed old content made redundant due to new adjacent content added by a third party (sagerad)

* 15:09, 27 August 2015 diff removed inaccurate and redundant content added by yet another editor (drchrissy)

* 01:14, 28 August 2015 diff removed off topic and POV content about patenting of biopharmaceuticals and methods to make them using transgenic animals (??) added by yet another editor (praeceptorIP) - nobody on anyside of the debate has objected to reversion of this strange edit to this article. Also removed pre-existing off topic content on use of GM animals to produce drugs which was hook for that strange edit. others on talk page had noted that this was off topic.

* 12:37, 28 August 2015 diff reverted Prokaryotes 2nd change to "consensus" statement

* 13:11, 28 August 2015 diff fixed broken link in source.

there you go.

My primary "ask" here is that the article be locked to drive discussion and stop the recent streak of just weird edits, and secondarily that Prokaryotes be blocked for aggressive editing on this and related controversial articles -again, if everybody edited like Prokaryotes has been doing, we would have been at arbcom ages ago. What ~seems~ to have gotten Prokaryotes all fired up, is that he/she just learned about the IARC re-classifying glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen" back in March and just freaked. (see here - it was right after that, the aggressive editing began. We dealt with the IARC reclassification across the suite of articles back in March) In any case, if a reviewing admin thinks I should be also blocked, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog's claim my edits are weird or aggressive are in stark contrast to what actually has been done to the page by me (added WHO authority link, removed OR, added study per RS), and how i done it (After his revert went to discuss and RFC, how it should be). Additionally there are several editors who welcomed my edits(1,2, or here in response to Kingsofaces43 editing my addition 3). This self proclaimed steward of Wikipedia has trouble with almost any other editor who tries to improve the page (here, here or here). Jytdog is to attached to the topic of GMO's and Monsanto articles in particular and should be blocked from editing these articles.prokaryotes (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are showing no self restraint, Prokaryotes. I and others keep saying to you that if everyone edited with your aggressiveness we would have been at arbcom ages ago, which you keep not replying to and you just keep on going, as though you are the only editor in WP. I did not call your edits weird - I called some of the other edits weird. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a related discussion which begun first at GMF article, GregJackP stated, "Jytdog, please focus on the content, not the creator. Stating that PraeceptorIP is abusing WP falls close to a personal attack". And later "You have three different editors saying that it belongs in the article, while you are the sole editor opposing its inclusion. Please stop edit warring the article to your preferred version. If their is an opposing POV, please provide sources, as Praeceptor has done, so the community can properly evaluate this. Second, this is nowhere near COI editing." - -Hence, recent problems with editor Jytdog are very common. Maybe the editor should make a break from Wikipedia and ask himself why he has so many issues with others. Jytdog also writes "I am too angry to write more now." This guy clearly need to make a break, not pick fights with everyone. prokaryotes (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

entirely separate (and yes very frustrating) issue related to the edit about patenting biopharmaceuticals and methods to make them using transgenic animals) and one that was ongoing before your disruptions. Nice reference to your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior though. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that an admin looking at this Jytdog-filed case needs to take a wide view. As Prokaryotes notes, this filing is strongly slanted, leaving out anything that reflects poorly on Jytdog. I urge a thorough reading of the article in question's talk page, at Talk:Genetically modified food which includes my warnings to Jytdog to stop his bullying behavior, along with concerns regarding Jytdog expressed by other editors. The short version: Jytdog has de facto claimed ownership of the page, and many other related pages including Pharming (genetics) where he is at this moment involved in an edit war, and Glyphosate and other Monsanto-related articles. My history with Jytdog has been such that I banned him from my personal Talk page several years ago, and I have largely made an effort to avoid him since that time, but his recent edit history calls for a preventative block, as I see it, as he is a self-admittedly angry editor lashing out in a number of areas, and clearly in violation of WP:TEND. Thanks. Jus da fax 05:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had occasion to wonder about Prokaryotes' self-centred edit behaviour. Here he adds material previously removed as controversial, in the middle of an RfC on this material, long before any sign of consensus or closure. As he was participating in the RfC discussion at the time, he can hardly have been unaware of the due process taking place. In discussion about his unilateral adding of disputed content he gave no indication of regret at ignoring procedure, apparently feeling that his own opinion was reason enough to over-ride a spirited RfC. Perhaps he could count to ten or something before jumping into edit-warrior mode. [Behaviour-related comment retracted] --Pete (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I have had occasion to wonder about Jytdog's edit-warring and stalkerish behaviour. Very recently, he sent me an Edit Warring template for edits on Colony collapse disorder which was quickly judged to be inaccurate by another editor.[21] Jytdog, an editor who claims their main involvement is human "health and agriculture" followed me to an article on magnetic senses in animals which they had never edited before and began edit-warring removal of similar material.[22] Indeed, Jytdog is sometimes in such a great rush to edit war that he clearly does not even read the edits he is deleting[23] and is thereby highly disruptive; his competence in this regard might be questioned.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, what a mess. I'm not seeing a technical 3RR here (more than three non-consecutive reverts within 24 hours) but it's clear that the editing environment at that article is fraught. Suggest declining the present case and pursuing action elsewhere. I regret to say that we're almost certainly headed for Arbcom on this topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is now stale, and I withdraw it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris we are currently going through a difficult time at the article due to a lack of self-restraint and some HOUNDING going on, but I remain hopeful that we can avoid sucking up community resources and that we can work things out locally. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when can an OP suddenly declare that a thread is stale in an obvious attempt to close it? Jytdog, you have raised a serious complaint against another editor. Just because there are edits being posted about your own behaviour that you do not like does not mean that you can try to close this thread. If you really want it closed, strike your comments and apologise to the community for wasting their time.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow-up - I would not call 4 edits from 4 different editors in the past 24 hrs as "stale". Maybe Jytdog is more used to the flurry of aggressive activity from his "friends" that usually accompanies any criticism of his editing?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are now into WP:BOOMERANG territory. Jytdog first threatens to report an editor he clearly wants to intimidate, Prokaryotes, who is editing an article Jytdog has WP:OWN issues with, then Jytdog says he won't report, but then does anyway, and when the 3RR is shown here to be spurious and merely more evidence of Jytdog's ongoing violations of WP:TEND, Jytdog suddenly withdraws the filing as "stale" - his attempt at damage control, I gather. I again urge a reviewing admin to take a thorough look at Jytdog's recent edit history both at the page in question and elsewhere. We have a serious problem with Jytdog, and this time-wasting filing at 3RR is a small part of a much larger problem. Thanks. Jus da fax 00:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors here calling for boomerangs, etc. are highly involved in various aspects of content or behavior issues. Prokaryotes has had a myriad of other behavior issues relating to personal attacks such as immediate accusations of bias, being a shill, etc. in addition to the plowing ahead type of editing that was an appropriate conversation for this board. I think page protection could be useful, but how they seemed to show up editing hard from a particular viewpoint seems to suggests advocacy problems not really suited for this board. DrChrissy is topic banned from human health topics yet continues to follow around drama related to these topics. Jusdafax has been an odd case of turning a blind eye to the various tendentious behavior of other editors in the GMO topics and going after only select editors who aren't attempting to villify GMOs/certain companies and who have tried to civilly respond within reason to the original behavior issues. Diffs can be provided on all those if need be, but I'm heading out for the night. There does appear to be a WP:GANG mentality going on here, and it has come to a head as Prokaryotes definitely started stirring things up. In the end though, I'm not sure there's much this board can do about all these underlying problems that led to this posting. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make again accusations, "issues relating to personal attacks such as immediate accusations of bias, being a shill", please provide the difs. prokaryotes (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're already aware of what you said, but comments like these are prime examples. Others such as constantly accusing others of bias are also on the page, but this is not the board to address such problem comments from editors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though always in alignment with Jytdog, KingofAces' opinion can be wildly out of step with the community and their take on PAGs. petrarchan47 คุ ก 03:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of you Kingofaces but not needed. DrChrissy and Jusdafax are just making themselves look vindictive. The 3RR filing was valid. And as I noted above, this is stale and no longer a matter for this board. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the crux of the matter, Jytdog: if this 3RR filing was so "valid," why has no action been taken? This was a bad faith filing, and you have withdrawn it when you saw the writing on the wall. I repeat again, you are trying to intimidate people with threats and tendentious filings, and your larger history, even that of the past week, shows an ongoing pattern of bullying. I again call on an administrator to take firm action. Jus da fax 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jusdafax on my talk page, Jytdog wrote "You are not thinking straight", See Personal attacks: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. This again underlines the long term pattern of intimidation of editors who disagree with Jytdog.prokaryotes (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pro, as I had not seen his latest insult. So now Jytdog questions my sanity, another blockable offense. The closing admin here, in assessing if a WP:BOOMERANG should be put in play by preventing further disruption and blocking Jytdog should weigh Jytdog's community warning for protracted insults and harassment, only a few months ago. I submit that Jytdog's Wikipedia gaming career be halted here and now. Jus da fax 04:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you seems to understand this board and its function, nor its spirit. This board generally addresses acute disruption as was happening a couple of days ago. The article has settled down so it is very unlikely that any admin is going to take action now. Also, generally action is taken when the edit warring is very clean on one side; this one was messy b/c there was so much going on. Because this had become stale, I withdrew it. I'll also add that neither of you seem to understand the spirit of Wikipedia, which is not vindictive; dragging up stale stuff that has been dealt with, only makes you look bad. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continued personal attacks and accusations are certainly not stale. And none of the issues involving the content disputes with you have been resolved, and this literally includes all disputes where you interfere. Your replies show that you do not understand that actions by you are bad for community relationships and article quality. The right place to write and edit your views is a personal blog, not Wikipedia.prokaryotes (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Stale" suddenly seems to be the word of the day. If Jytdog's community warning for WP:Incivility is "stale", then why does KingofAces bring up my Topic Ban - is this "stale" or "fresh"? By the way User:Kingofaces43, you stated "DrChrissy is topic banned from human health topics yet continues to follow around drama related to these topics." - please provide the diffs supporting this accusation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're already at your talk page. [24]. FYI, pings won't work unless they are accompanied by the four tildas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are misleading the community yet again. The diff you provided shows very recent discussion about my topic ban. It does not show that I continue "...to follow around drama related to these topics." Please provide the diffs showing this, or I can only conclude you are further misleading the community and attempting to discredit me by unnecessarily drawing attention to my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we can the personal attacks by all parties here, please? Other boards are the place for other behaviour discussions. 3RR is a bright line, but edit warring, especially if there is a pattern by an editor or editors over multiple articles stopping short of 3RR can attract sanctions. I'll withdraw a behaviour-related comment I made. If others do the same, it might help an closing admin look at the edit-warring issues raised and decide on a result. Otherwise this is a can of worms that is just going to get worse with every rock flung by the participants, and that's not good for anybody.

Except those sitting back with a tub of hot popcorn, watching the show, maybe. --Pete (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that Pete currently disrupts page edits at Talk:Monsanto legal cases, he will likely be reported here or at ANI in the near future.prokaryotes (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question to admins: Is it allowable to seek a boomerang Topic Ban for an editor on this page which relates to the editor's behaviours other than (but including) edit warring?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I'm no admin but my reading of WP:GAME, which is a bedrock behavioral guideline, indicates that Jytdog is in violation in various areas, but particularly the final section, "Abuse of Process," which (to quote):

"... involves knowingly trying to use the communally agreed and sanctioned processes described by some policies, to advance a purpose for which they are clearly not intended. Abuse of process is disruptive, and depending on circumstances may be also described as gaming the system, personal attack, or disruption to make a point. Communally agreed processes are intended to be used in good faith."

Jytdog knew when he brought this here that he was subject to scrutiny, as I and others had already warned him on the article talk page, but his desire to "get" Prokaryotes, since Jytdog is in major and multiple content disputes with Prokaryotes, got the better of him. When 48 hours or so went by and Jytdog didn't get the result he wanted, he tried to pull back, by calling it "stale." Jytdog's abuse of process, intended to "send a message," is blatant and obvious. Any admin can make a ruling on said abuse by Jytdog, and issue a preventative block on this one issue alone. I urge this be done without further delay. Jus da fax 23:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafex, thank you very much for this. I would like to see confirmation of this from an admin and I agree, this should be done without delay. Please would an admin respond.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for a week. Despite this being an old report, the edit war was still going on as of yesterday. Swarm ♠ 03:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Jytdog continues to edit war here[25] and here.[26] DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And with this revert here[27], Jytdog is clearly at 3RR - ~~an admin must take action here, please~~.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A separate thread has been started below.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davefelmer reported by User:Jmorrison230582 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:47, 29 August

User has been advised to use reliable sources (e.g.[29]).

Comments:

Comment: I warned [30] the user again about using reliable sources. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 09:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another revert after your warning! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 19:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 03:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Dan56 (Result: Warned user(s))

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did not warn the user because their talk page heading stated "Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it ... Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue" I didn't feel a formal warning would do any good at their talk page. So instead, I reminded them in the discussion I opened (pinging them there) that they had performed three reverts and in my last edit summary reverting them and pointing them to the talk page to discuss it instead. Dan56 (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened this discussion at the article's talk page. Dan56 (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
I posted two comments in the discussion I opened, one asking the editor what their issue was with my citation of a reliable source to an unsourced claim and another comment offering a compromise, which was responded to with dismissive replies and the editor reverting the compromise, which was simply the addition of a footnote at the end of an unsourced sentence they felt was self-evident. Dan56 (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56, you should've adhered to WP:BRD. You were Bold, PoD Reverted, therefore the onus would've been on you to Discuss. Unfortunately you didn't and you instead either reverted back or accused PoD of ownership issues. I can't see anything grossly wrong with your edit, but it was clearly a bone of contention and it should really have been discussed on the talk page. I would advise you in future to never plaster {{cn}} tags to a featured article; it takes a good editor to source the citation out for themselves but a lazy one to pin tags all over the place in the hope someone else will do it for them. That kind of editing just pisses people off. Rather than being helpful, {{cn}} tags in a featured article are, in my opinion, quite the opposite and are tantamount to vandalism. If you can't find the reference yourself, a featured article, by its very nature, will have watchers who might be able to address such concerns on the talk page; failing that, my advice would be to find the FAC nominator and see if they can help find a source. Cassianto^Talk 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto:, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you reviewed this report haphazardly, and ask you to carefully look at all the diffs, along with the discussion I started, which the other editor dismissed. Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56, defer to my previous post. I read the diffs, I find it puzzling why you think I might not have done. Cassianto^Talk 11:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto:, you focused on one of the diffs showing a citation-needed tag I had added after the other editor began an edit war because they felt the citation I had added was "not required". You said "If you can't find the reference yourself" (I had found the reference in my first edit to the article, which was reverted), to "find the FAC nominator and see if they can help find a source" (I had found the source), and that I "either reverted back or accused PoD of ownership issues" instead of discussing it (I did start a discussion), so your comments seemed aloof and out of touch with what actually happened. And I don't know what to make of your response to Chillum. Dan56 (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you can make of what you like about my comment to Chillum, I couldn't really care. The salient facts are, you shouldn't have gone against BRD by adding the citation tag. That's my opinion. This isn't up to me, it's up to whoever actions it, I'm just an outsider looking in. Cassianto^Talk 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto:, "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." (WP:BRD) Parrot of Doom instead reverted my second edit to the article. His first revert simply said "not required"; WP:BRD says "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary", while WP:OWNBEHAVIOR cites as an example of ownership, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it 'unnecessary' without claiming that the change is detrimental". I started a discussion, to which PoD responded scornfully with "There's no point. A single sentence followed by a long list of examples is it's own citation. It does not need some link to a dubious page filled with god-knows-what" and "It isn't a claim that requires verification. I don't know how I could possibly make that easier for you to understand. Should I write it in big, colourful words?"; WP:BRD says to "adhere to Wikiquette and civility guidelines", and the list he is referring to is made up of only four all-time rankings he claims support the idea that the album has been ranked "frequently" as one of the greatest albums of all-time. WP:BRD says "Be ready to compromise", and I did, bring it up at the talk page and introducing my last edit, which they reverted without consideration for any of the points I had brought up. Soooo... how am I in the wrong here? You don't find PoD breaking 3RR a salient fact? Dan56 (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for your flippancy and as such, I'm taking no further part in this. You don't want to accept wrongdoing, which is illustrative of why you're here in the first place. Cassianto^Talk 23:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

There does seem to be a technical violation of 3RR by Parrot. I am not sure what Cassianto is on about, Dan clearly made an effort to discuss this and was met with a response of "It isn't a claim that requires verification"[36] and a few unhelpful comments to boot. Chillum 02:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, stop stalking my fucking edits? Cassianto^Talk 11:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto I am an administrator and I have been frequenting administrative boards for years now, as hard as it may be to believe this conversation is not about you. Once again if you want to complain about me do it on my talk page, you need to stop trying to restart this argument every place we encounter each other, it is not on topic here. Chillum 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I said this is about me? Go clean the shit out of your eyes and then re-read this thread. Cassianto^Talk 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of time that has passed and the fact that Parrot seems to have moved on to another article I think this can be closed as no action. Though I welcome the opinion of anyone else, and have no problem if another admin decides otherwise. Chillum 00:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warned No block as it is stale, but there was a clear 3rr vio and I have warned Parrot that it would have normally resulted in a block. Swarm ♠ 02:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right 9_9 ... could they be anymore pretentious or delusional? Dan56 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎Winner1256 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: indef)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Mr. Robot (TV series):

User talk:AlexTheWhovian:

User:AlexTheWhovian

[48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User in question has now gone on to vandalize other editors reverting his edits. Alex|The|Whovian 06:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming also vandalized my user page after i rolled back their edits on another users page. Additionally they attempted to remove this AN3 request twice. -Euphoria42 (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His first edits added information that may or may not be true, but...using fake/misleading references, edit warring, and juvenile vandalism, and even trying to blank this report here, leads me to give him an indef block. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He here admitted to paid editing. Maproom (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 03:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ferschais reported by User:Ism schism (Result: Blocked indef)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55], [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely by Drmies. Swarm ♠ 03:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm, they placed an unblock request. If you're bored... Drmies (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:186.120.130.16 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [58] Here I removed a templated warning and replied in prose.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[59] 22:34, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
[60] 22:39, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
[61] 22:41, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
[62] 22:47, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
[63] 00:08, August 31. Reverted to restore warning text.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning regarding Talk:Humberto Fontova. 3RR warning regarding User talk:Binksternet.

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

Comments:

186.120.130.16 is a relatively new editor from Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. His first few edits talked about biased editors on Wikipedia, and he quickly targeted Redthoreau as an example, saying so here explicitly and then reverting Redthoreau on his own talk page. 186.120.130.16 has linked to a FrontPage Magazine source which says that the Left Conquered Wikipedia. The article names Redthoreau as an example. So 186.120.130.16 is here on a mission, apparently, to make life difficult for Redthoreau and to counteract the liberal bias he feels certain must be here. Whatever warring he has done on my talk page is but small potatoes compared to how he is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More curiously, the article that IP 186 is including to show my "bias" is from 4 years ago, and he alleged I was owning an article that I had not edited in 4 years since then. It's obvious they are not here to edit the Encyclopedia, but to attack what they believe is political bias in the project. I'm doing my best to ignore them, as I don't have the patience since I'm not a full-time editor any longer. Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Adding a fifth revert to the list. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which fifth revert?

Comments Part. 2:
Hi,

I am a new editor yes. I have been mostly a lurker and passive supported of Wikipedia. I have noticed Binksternet over the Planned Parenthood Talk Page and have to make notice of the following regarding this WP:BITE, WP:HARASS and WP:HOUND:

Binksternet has been warned several times in the last 12 months for edit warring on his own on several pages, including the Planned Parenthood Talk Page. These actions have been performed by other editors.
Binksternet and I have been on opposite side of the political spectrum when it comes to proposals over the Planned Parenthood Talk Page. He has been warned also there over blanket deletions of comments instead of contributing by adding or modifying.
Binksternet has followed my edits, per his oft deleted messages on his own User Page, supposedly to "make sure" I don't make malicious edits. This provokes a very ??? reaction on me.
I have made several contributions, albeit small, on a host of other articles and my first contribution was definitely not the one Binksternet is trying to portray [64]. This goes against Binksternet's charge of WP:NOTHERE
I did post on the Humberto Fontova Talk Page about how one RS showed or at least purported to show that Redthoreau has exhibited total WP:OWN behaviour over a specific article. When I checked said articled I noticed that several other editors had made the same accusations but nobody had posted on said Talk Page for close to 4 years. I then posted the following: ""I'd just like to chime in, though very late, that User:Redthoreau has been the subject of ample criticism regarding his ownership of this page and his vehement defense of Che Guevara [65]. This requires the attention of an unrelated Editor so as to make give this page a neutral one. We cannot allow the average Wikipedia reader to fall under User:Redthoreau's power. Remember, WP:TIAC".
Then User:Redthoreau archived everything AFTER the deletion so as to not leave a trail that you have been seriously criticized both here and on reliable sources. Let's note that nobody had even edited the article recently and the Talk Page had been without any new posts for close to 4 years.
User:Binksternet reverted my edit and called me a troll. Nothing else. No message, no constructive posts. Afterwards him and me go into an apparent edit war while being the ONLY editors on said Talk Page yet he posted several warnings on my User page that I was/am edit warring there. He also posted a threat of blocking and banning over this same issue and whenever I posted on his User page that we are both part of this "edit war" and that he cannot be an involved editor he just reverted it all, always, and only posted the comment that I am troll.
I also fail to see how mentioning the geographical location I am in contributes on this. This is clearly an attempt to denigrate the IP poster, me, for being located on a developing country. This is quite troublesome to notice.

In conclusion and in my opinion, I only see, as a fairly new Editor yet long-time lurker of Wikipedia, a very experience yet controversial editor who has decided to push all the weight of his knowledge regarding procedures and definitely non-friendly warnings and threats of blocks and bans. He has been performing the very same actions he has accused me of and just intends to silence a dissenting voice that he himself has unpleasantly dealt with on the Planned Parenthood Talk Page. His very experience there and opposing views against me should have been mentioned and disclosed. The fact that he is an involved editor with me over this "edit war" on Humberto Fontova's Talk Page when nobody else has been posting there shows he is either harassing me or dedicating a non-normal amount of time tracking me and my edits.

Further proof of WP:HARASS might be this [66]: 6 posts from him on my User page just today alone.

PS. I do not know if I have to publish links to where he has constantly called me a troll or his blanket deletions without a single constructive comment. I do not know what would be the next step here. I am just trying to help and my edit history shows i. Any un-involved Administrator that reads through all of our comments here will clearly see that. This is just an experienced editor biting (strongly) a new one and (ab?)using his knowledge to try and possibly silence his comments (as imperfect as they might be) 186.120.130.16 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Users are permitted to delete warnings in their userspace, the IP was edit-warring to keep replacing them. The IP is advised to comment on subjects rather than picking specific users as adversaries. Acroterion (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spshu reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Teletoon at Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678788063 by Mdrnpndr (talk) AGAINST WP:USERGENERATED"
16:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678774752 by Mdrnpndr (talk) not good sources -sweetposer.tk/urbmn, personal website, wiki (AAN's Encyclopedia),"
14:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "sweetposer.tk & AAN (Wiki like) self published website"
13:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "improper removal, still an issue"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WP:3RR violation; previously warned for edit warring across multiple articles on repeated occasions; appears to have issues with numerous other editors. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also likely WP:HOUNDING, as this user does not seem to have edited this page until very recently when he noticed me doing so. Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to be honest, you've not proven why you think those sources are considered reliable. Those reversions are, to a degree, justified. The Zap2It source, however, might be acceptable for now. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:ViperSnake151: Excuse me, but a WP:3RR violation is never "justified". (Of course, being a prominent edit warrior yourself, you probably wouldn't know that...) Also, you don't get to decide what is "acceptable" or not; that's up to Wikipedia policy, which clearly states that all of the remaining citations (minus one that I removed myself and that is thus irrelevant despite this user constantly bringing it up) are indeed "acceptable". End of story. Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mdrnpndr has previous been warned about edit warning having been reported before too. He has also attempt to use templates to intimidate me to which i told him to stop doing so for that reason, even another editor that agrees with his position in that argument told him to knock it off. His level of discussion amount to "You are wrong and I am right." He has actually changed his user name. I wonder what reports hide behind that user name.

Diffs 3 & 4 do not go to single version reverted to. The earliest is returning a "Self-published" amongst other tags that were clearly remove without correction. His arguments amount to WP:MYWAY.

For the current report, Mdrnpndr jumps in with an

attacking edit summary: "While the other tags are merely questionable, this one is completely inappropriate. Do not restore it." So, I did not and just remove the unusable sources thus no need to return the Self-published tag.
15:09, 31 August 2015 revert with "DO NOT REMOVE GOOD SOURCES"
16:48, 31 August 2015 "Too bad that's merely your own (incorrect) judgement. Such sources are used throughout Wikipedia." Except I cannot find more than 2 other uses of one of the sources. And incorrect sourcing else where cannot justify incorrect sourcing on another.

I don't even have time to get a talk page discussion started, when notice of the 3RR pops up. Spshu (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 03:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingofaces43 reported by User:Prokaryotes (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

31 August 2015 diff
31 August 2015 diff
31 August 2015 diff
25 August 2015 diff removes content with POV and argues against consensus (see talk page [67], then goes on to make claims about other editors, SageRad and Jusdafax, that they steer drama)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff - instead of responding at the talk page Kingofaces reverted again. Also notified the editor on his talk page per 3RR, here.

Comments:
The user removes reliable sourced content, reverts back to a version which is no longer considered per this RFC here (in particular the words “broad scientific consensus”, have no support), which he ignores. Notice that editor Jytdog, also reverted there, who reported me above. Both editors ignore the RFC decision, and ignore that references do not back up a scientific consensus. Recently editor Jytdog has been reported in those regards for OR, here.

Editor Kingofaces43 previously accused me on my talk page of edit warring, and alleged that I edit with an agenda (Dif) prokaryotes (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I weren't the editor being accused, I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG considering prokaryotes was reported for edit warring here in a still open case in the very related Genetically modified food article and still hasn't stopped the edit warring behavior. I'll leave that up to someone else. Considering I only had two reverts (the first two edits are one revert at exactly the same time in a series of edits), this is looking pretty frivolous and an attempt to edit war in content without discussion as Prokaryotes was the first person asked (a few times) to come to the talk page instead of reverting. The last diff isn't even in the same article or near the same time period and is entirely unrelated here. Let's look at the actual series of diffs:

First addition by Prokaryote today. Not related to my edits, but their content was reverted.[68]
Second set of changes by Prokaryotes:[69][70]
My reversion (as one revert) of the above.[71] Note that my edit summary said, "Undo edit warring per WP:STATUSQUO. Doesn't appear to fit WP:WEIGHT for this article and will need consensus at this point to re-add." and "No indication this is OR and no consensus for this specific change." respectively.
Prokaryotes reverts [72] saying: "Per OR and per No Consensus of RFC"
My last edit (and second revert)[73]: "No consensus at the linked other page for edit. As already mentioned, please gain consensus for the edit at this point per WP:STATUSQUO"

It's looking like Prokaryotes is making a habit of engaging in editor warring in this topic now, and reverting instead of going to the talk page after their content initially didn't get traction. Guidance essays such as WP:BRD or WP:STATUSQUO haven't seemed to help either. Given that this AN3 posting was made only ~~10 minutes~~ shortly after finally posting on the article talk page, it doesn't appear they're actually attempting to use the talk page in content disputes, but stick to edit warring instead. It's starting to become very disruptive to any coherent editing, and since this is becoming a problem across pages, I'm not sure if page protection will do much at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring that the version with an alleged scientific consensus has no support, also you revert then start to post at the talk page, doesn't seem very engaging. Additionally you make claims about other pages, without providing difs. prokaryotes (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your pot calling the kettle black behavior is subject to scrutiny here in terms of edit warring. You proposed the content, and instead of going to the talk page to work out the details, you kept edit warring it back in. Even after multiple times asking you, you didn't even attempt talk page discussion until after multiple reverts followed by posting this board before I even had a chance to respond. Your incivility through edit warring is highly disruptive when others are trying to be civil to you in kind despite that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i did 2 reverts, 1 from Jytdog and 1 from you, stop exaggerating. Besides this you keep ignoring that you defend a article version without support and is misleading. Ignoring and mischaracterizing valid arguments by several editors, that's disruptive, not reverting your POV.prokaryotes (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mischaracterize my actions. You're engaging in drama, then turning around and accusing anyone who tries to civilly respond to it as the problem. There were never "several" editors, only you and I at this specific article. The edit warring is the problem with you before we even get into counting reverts. The diffs clearly show that you did not provide support for your specific edit when the only links you did provide showed ongoing discussion about what to potentially do with the content. There's a huge difference between linking to ongoing discussion about changing something and saying here's an edit we agree on. Finally making a somewhat concrete reference to some sort of editing consensus at a different page[74] after opening this board is indicative of disruptive edit warring behavior that I'm asking the reviewing admin to examine so we can curtain this kind of behavior on your part in the future. On my part, I still plan to ask people to use the talk page if their edit doesn't get initial support as I've always done per our talk page policies and guidelines. I've suggested you do the same, but the lack of that is why we're here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update The original author of the edit now supports my edit, in this dif at teh related discussion.prokaryotes (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These mischaracterizations of the situation are getting extremely frustrating. Prokaryotes was the original author of the edit at this page in question, yet their post implies others were involved. Their sloppy edit warring behavior instead of directly linking to consensus on a specific edit (on another page) led to all this drama. The page content seems to have been settled, but this still leaves the question of what to do about this trend of edit warring behavior by Prokaryotes. It looks like neither of the recent AN3 boards involving them have gotten it through that this kind of editing is not ok from an edit warring standpoint, so I would at least like someone uninvolved to try to guide them on editing and talk page behavior since we have an ongoing trend of this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the diffs provided ~~clearly show three reverts~~ show two reverts (including one set of two contiguous edits) by Kingofaces43 to the same area of the article in less than 24 hours. Prokaryotes ~~also~~ has made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours, though one covers a different area of the article. temporary page protection may be in order to stop this ongoing issue.Dialectric (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments here, I concur. Page protected for one week. Swarm ♠ 02:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to clarify that this is not an ongoing dispute at this page, but part of an issue across pages within a topic. Page protection isn't really needed at this point since the content had been settled before protection as I mentioned above, but hopefully it slows things down if anything happens in the next week. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:95.238.187.142 reported by User:BU Rob13 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Foot fetishism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.238.187.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

01:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */"
01:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */"
00:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */"
00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */"
00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Foot fetishism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated addition of text that is borderline incoherent. This editor also vandalized my user page after I gave them a 3RR warning. ~ Rob^Talk 01:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours General disruptive editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lootbrewed reported by User:Calidum (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Talk:Denali (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lootbrewed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

02:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678863935 by Muboshgu (talk) Because you disagree with the editor's objection does not mean it's not good faith. It clearly is. This thread is perfectly legitimate."
02:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678862733 by Calidum (talk) A clear violation of WP:TPO. The original poster's objection is relevant and on-topic. We do not censor editor's good-faith concerns."
02:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678862116 by Winkelvi (talk) It is clearly an inappropriate close and your opinion about it's helpfulness is irrelevant. We don't censor editors. Another close will be reported."
02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678858178 by Winkelvi (talk)Upon review of all relevant talk page discussions, this thread should not be closed. A "Not helpful" opinion does not override a legitimate objection."
00:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Stop Playing the Blame Game and Reach Consensus */ Although I may agree with closing this, per WP:TPO: collapse or similar templates "should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion". A neutral editor needs to close it. Thanks."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

02:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Denali. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a
Comments:

User is edit warring to re-open a closed talk page thread. Was invited to comment in one of several related threads, but instead refused. Five reverts in a matter of hours is not good. Calidum 02:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 02:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lootbrewed reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Talk:Denali (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lootbrewed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

02:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678863935 by Muboshgu (talk) Because you disagree with the editor's objection does not mean it's not good faith. It clearly is. This thread is perfectly legitimate."
02:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678862733 by Calidum (talk) A clear violation of WP:TPO. The original poster's objection is relevant and on-topic. We do not censor editor's good-faith concerns."
02:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678862116 by Winkelvi (talk) It is clearly an inappropriate close and your opinion about it's helpfulness is irrelevant. We don't censor editors. Another close will be reported."
02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678858178 by Winkelvi (talk)Upon review of all relevant talk page discussions, this thread should not be closed. A "Not helpful" opinion does not override a legitimate objection."
00:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Stop Playing the Blame Game and Reach Consensus */ Although I may agree with closing this, per WP:TPO: collapse or similar templates "should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion". A neutral editor needs to close it. Thanks."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor was warned here by Calidum and asked previous to that warning not to edit war in this edit summary.

Strangely, the editor being reported reverted the discussion collapse with this edit summary "Although I may agree with closing this, per WP:TPO: collapse or similar templates "should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion". A neutral editor needs to close it. Thanks." here, and then when it was closed/collapsed just an hour or so later, reverted the close with the following edit summary "Upon review of all relevant talk page discussions, this thread should not be closed. A "Not helpful" opinion does not override a legitimate objection." found here. Apparently, he was for the close before he was against it? What it appears to me is that he just likes reverting certain editors. He has been edit warring for days at Josh Duggar and Talk:Josh Duggar, too. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours per above. Swarm ♠ 02:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:MugenDarkness reported by User:Krystaleen (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

13:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* 2000s: Backstreet Boys, Westlife, TVXQ!, Jonas Brothers and F4 */"
14:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* 2000s: Backstreet Boys, Westlife, TVXQ!, Jonas Brothers and F4 */"
14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* 2000s: Backstreet Boys, Westlife, Jonas Brothers and F4 */"
16:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* 2000s: Backstreet Boys, Westlife, Jonas Brothers and F4 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

14:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Boy band. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

16:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC) ""

Comments:

Editor refused to have a civil discussion and resorted to name calling. The discussion took place in my talk page which I moved to the article's talk page. Krystaleen 16:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that MugenDarkness is technically only at three reverts (as the first edit of the day wasn't a revert) and not past it, but then I saw this obviously logged out revert. That, the personal attacks, and their attempted deletion of this thread seem to warrant a block IMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and his complete refusal to have a discussion in a civil manner is frankly frustrating. His arguments don't even make sense.--Krystaleen 16:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was using a phone admin anf never intend to deleted that , instead i was trying to reported that user but it got all mess — Preceding unsigned comment added by MugenDarkness (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog reported by User:DrChrissy (Result: protected)

Page: Glyphosate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User reporting: DrChrissy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Glyphosate#Toxicity expansion]

Comments:

These are only some of the reverts that Jytdog has performed today (September 1, 2015) at this article. There is ongoing discussion about recent edits on the Talk page involving multiple editors, but Jytdog's large-scale reversions are extremely disruptive to this process.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is starting to look like the GMO content dispute noticeboard. For goodness' sake, please just full-protect the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the protection just to settle everyone down for a bit. It seems like some of the more recent edit warring cases related to other GMO articles above got other editors active all of a sudden. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh yes, please lock the article. I drafted a case earlier today and withdrew it as I was hoping to work things out on Talk but my RW job ate my day. (still buried and just peeped my head in only to find this)

The aggressive editig continues in the GM suite - the destabilizing started by Prokaryotes is spreading, with DrChrissy unfortunately broadening and deepening his field of conflict with me and other persistent anti-GMO editors joining in. Things are not looking rosy.

But yes today DrChrissy decided to make a significant expansion to the toxicity section, adding loads of WP:TECHNICAL detail in some places like 'In a study of rats and mice fed diets of containing 0%, 0.3125%, 0.625%, 1.25%, 2.5%, or 5.0% glyphosate for 13 weeks, endocrine effects..." or "Pregnant rats given 3,500 mg/kg/day glyphosate by gavage (stomach tube) on gestation days 6-19 suffered effects including both increased maternal mortality and the number of fetal skeletal abnormalities" (3,500 mg/kg/day is a huge amount of glyphosate).

and in other places adding really introductory explanations (eg. explaining what LD50 is) and nonsense babytalk like "Glyphosate can be lethal to non-human mammals." (nonsense because you can put any noun or gerund into the place where "glyphosate" sits and it will be true b/c The dose makes the poison. Anyway here are some diffs but this doesn't come close to capturing today's disruptions

diff and dif expanded Tox section, big expansion without discussion. WP:BOLD yes but reckless on an article like this
diff reversion restoring it after I removed it
diff again
diff expanding yet more after objections already raised on talk

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to DrChrissy: link

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

yes please lock the article so we can discuss. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Looks like DrChrissy doesn't exactly have clean hands here either. I'm counting four reverts at a minimum 1, 2, 3, 4, but they also have eight distinct series of edits in the last 24 hours. It seems DrChrissy was having trouble with slowing down to discuss content and kept adding more content in rather than stop and discuss the weight of the section. This edit stating "You have already accepted and contributed to these edits" seems quite dismissive and a mischaracterization of the concerns brought up on the talk page. Jytdog did violate 3RR here (the first diff is debatable since the next edit was mostly a self-revert of that). However, I tend to look more towards overbearing editors who ignore requests to figure out a problem on the talk page and keep blazing forward with edits instead as the dominate source of disruption in such cases. There's a myriad of edits to consider between the two editors if any action occurs, but page protection would be helpful here either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend arbcom level sanctions implementing 1RR for all GMO-related articles. I also recommend long blocks for Jytdog and Kingofaces43 for disruptively feuding in this topic area for several years. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange comment considering there is no edit warring on my part here. This is part of the general toxicity though in the topic that needs to be locked down that an eventual ArbCom maybe would give some tools to deal with. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your concurrent edit warring in the GMO topic area was documented by multiple users here. I have refrained from addressing your battlefield attitude and tag-team behavior because the evidence against you is already damning. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this is not the place to pursue your personal vendetta against me. In this section, the evidence shows I was not edit warring, and the other section shows a rather more complex case than what you portray. I'm not going to engage you further here and have asked you to voluntarily refrain from following me around. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V, Arbcom will not touch this, until it has been through DR, thoroughly. There has not even been at ANI yet with regard to the current wave of unrest at the article. I have thought about it but have not gone there yet; at this point ANI would just turn into an unproductive dramafest. We need to really try to work things out at the article Talk page; folks need to show restraint as this is a controversial topic. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces, you may continue to deny that you were edit warring and disrupting the GMO topic area, but the link I provided up above shows otherwise. I'm sorry that you feel that contradictory information is a "personal vendetta". It sounds like you and Jytdog are heavily and personally invested in the GMO topic area and that might explain why your names keep coming up on this board and other places. It's probably best for Wikipedia if the both of you step away from this area before you are permanently removed from it by community sanction. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse Viriditas' statement, and found my way here via Viriditas' Talk page, where Kingofaces went to, in my view, attempt to intimidate Viriditas. I have warned Kingofaces and Jytdog on article talk pages regarding their editing, but it is becoming clear that community sanctions are indeed likely for the tendentious tag-teaming they repeatedly indulge in. Jus da fax 02:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 04:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Viriditas, and if Jytdog mentions me here he should ping me at least. I see that Jytdog continues to engage in edit warring and with making up claims. Apparently page protecting is not ending the OWN and EW behavior by this editor. prokaryotes (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OP response to Jytdog

Jytdog's accusation of me edit warring or violating 3RR is misleading to say the least.

The first two diffs Jytdog presented attempting to indicate edit warring he admits himself are simply WP:BOLD. Whether they are "reckless" is purely his opinion, but even that is not "warring".

The first diff Jytdog presented[82] shows that all I did was add non-contentious material using a reliable source that was already used in the article. I also moved a section unchanged because it was clearly in the incorrect place.

The second diff Jytdog presented[83] shows I again expanded the article using the same RS as before, and 2 new RS.

The fifth diff Jytdog presented[84] again shows a perfectly valid expansion of the material. He complains above this was "expanding yet more after objections already raised on talk". One of the objections raised on the Talk page was the environmental relevance of the doses in the studies[85] made at 17.02h. At 17:59h, I introduced this new material complained about by Jytdog, specifically to address the other editor's concern.

Furthermore, Jytdog complained above that I added the sentence "'In a study of rats and mice fed diets of containing 0%, 0.3125%, 0.625%, 1.25%, 2.5%, or 5.0% glyphosate for 13 weeks, endocrine effects...". The material was actually added to the article on March 3rd, 2014 here[86]. I moved the material here[87] with very minor tweaks as this material had clearly been deemed acceptable for a considerable time. Jytdog complained about this sentence here[88] at 15.38h. At 16:00h, I rewrote the sentence[89] with the edit summary "Conciseness as per talk".

In short, rather than edit warring, I have been editing in a demonstrably collegiate manner. With regard to 3RR, Jytdog has presented only 2 edits of mine that might contribute to that.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP comment on comment by User:Kingofaces43

More dirty tricks? Kingofaces43 states here[90], with an ES that raises the question of whether I should receive a boomerang, that I made at least four reverts and then provides four diffs. The first two of these[91] are the same diff! I know we are supposed to AGF, but this is getting more and more difficult to maintain. Perhaps the closing admin would like to consider further action against Kingofaces43 for misleading the community.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the copy paste typo (the correct diff is now included), anyone not engaging in a toxic attitude would expect a duplicate diff to be intended for a separate one instead of some "dirty trick". Common sense is required here. Please stop raising drama instead of attempting to lower it. We have enough at the related pages already, and I've mentioned your human medicine topic ban because it demonstrates a history of these kinds of problems (including edit warring) now shifting to other areas. The diff that was missed was a revert because you were asked to stop adding pieces of content to the section and asked to come to the talk page in order to figure out weight issues. You instead went ahead and kept adding chunks. The diff is a clear sign that the spirit of 3RR was violated at that point, especially since small chunks were added at a time that ran up other editor's revert counts as you kept adding. That's really beside the point now as the page is protected, so I'm just clarifying now. I'm done with this particular section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I really do not follow what you are suggesting at the beginning of this post. If you want to post diffs that I reverted more than 3 times, I would expect to see 4 different diffs. Anyway, I see that you are withdrawing from the discussion, so thank you for your input.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying this to everyone here, and not specifically directing it at anyone. Enough already. The page has been protected. That's all that is going to happen here. Talking about how horrible other editors are is not going to result in any administrative action. But it will reflect badly on the editors doing the complaining, when (as appears increasingly probable) the GMO issue ends up at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry Trypto, but I have to respectfully disagree. Something simply must happen here. Even Kingofaces43 agrees that Jytdog has broken WP:3RR. Jytdog can not be allowed to edit war and violate 3RR with impunity. Action must be taken here or we are sending out completely the wrong message to the community.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are asking for something to happen here, that will not happen here. If you want, you can go to ANI, but the question of you following Jytdog around will also be raised there. I made that comment because I like a lot of the editors on both sides of this content dispute, and I see this ending badly for editors on both sides of this content dispute. My sincere advice: WP:STICK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - But why will something not happen here? WP:3RR is described as "A bright-line rule" which is a "clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation." Jytdog has stepped over that bright-line and must be held accountable. Why should we all follow the rules but not him?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify since my name was mentioned, if there was a lopsided one person at fault, I'd be suggest a block, but I'm seeing two editors edit warring with one engaging in more significant behavior problems as described above. That makes individual decisions difficult when we’ve had mostly involved editors arguing here so much already. While I do think behavior related to edit warring should be addressed at this board more than just protecting the page, I’m sure those uninvolved watching this page are tired of this constant drama to pursue more action. Page protection is the simplest solution right now, and I’m fine with that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed that such an experienced editor as yourself would agree that another editor has breached 3RR and then say "protect the page and I am fine with that". Jytdog stepped over the line and simply must be held accountable for that. If not, what is the purpose of this noticeboard?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP note to closing admin

When I raised this thread, I envisaged it would be a fairly simple count of whether a number of Jytdog's edits violated WP:3RR. This seems absolutely clear to me. However, it appears that editors from many directions are causing these waters to become muddy. I seek closure here, not endless discussion of edit histories. Perhaps the most defining posting is Kingofaces43 clear statement here[92] that Jytdog violated 3RR. I do not wish to cause unnecessary work for already over-worked admins and I therefore suggest the following. I will be happy if only evidence/diffs in this thread are considered - there is no need to go back and check through Jytdog's extensive editing history. However, at the end of considerations, please can the community have closure on this. I believe the usual sanction for a first-time 3RR violation is a 24-hr ban. I will obviously leave any sanctions up to the opinion of the closing admin, but if they feel that all that is necessary at this stage is a clear, formal warning to Jytdog about their behaviour, I will be satisfied by this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC) to 20:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1. 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "BLP - the allegations are false."
2. 20:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC) ""Untrue.""
15:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Questions regarding race */ This was a false claim - King did not misrepresent his identity."
15:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "The claim that King had ever misrepresented his identity was false. If you want to say that the claim about his birth certificate is true, that's a separate issue. This is a BLP matter."
08:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Well, no, we don't leave long-ago discredited claims about people up in articles once they're discredited, without calling them what they are - false and discredited. Revert per WP:BLP in that the claim is a negative statement about a living person."
07:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "revert as per WP:BLP - the claim is false and has been discredited by the article subject's direct response, and is no longer an issue of debate."
04:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "As per WP:BLP, the claim is false; the media frenzy disappeared the moment he publicly and directly refuted the claims, and no reliable source has rejected or disproved King's public statement."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[93]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[94] [95]

Comments:

This has been going on for days with this editor (and a few others) at this article. Possibly these edits fall into protecting a WP:BLP? Not sure, though - it looks like unwarranted edit warring to me, as it has been for at least a week. Hoping an administrator can sort it out. Whatever the case, the edit warring in lieu of productive discussion and compromise/consensus at the article talk page is not the solution. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang: This is clearly a BLP issue. The tendentious reintroduction of arguments that have been widely discredited, and that are traced to a single unreliable and partisan source which even the NY Daily News dismissed as "repugnant", was wrong and contrary to policy. User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Strongjam should be thanked for defending the project against scurrilous and partisan abuse. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- "Boomerang" for whom, MarkBernstein? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I've received no answer from MarkBernstein, I'm forced to assume he meant a boomerang for me (as the filer). Which is a weird suggestion because I haven't edited the article for 8 days. Blocks are to be preventative, not punitive, after all (surely you aren't suggesting I be punished for bringing the edit warring at the article here?). A boomerang block in this case would be preventing what, exactly? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a boomerang against Winkelvi is an unreasonable suggestion here considering that Winkelvi has not edited the article at all recently, let alone edit it disruptively as NorthBySouthBaranof has. I've clashed with Winkelvi in the past, but he has not been disruptive on that article and this is a legitimate edit war report regarding an ongoing issue. As I mentioned on NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page, I do not think repeated reversions to insert "false claim" can be exempted per BLP, when none of the versions ever said or suggested the claims/allegations made were true. [96] This seems to be aggressive editing in violation of 3RR. This has been going on for a long time with this user.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't edit warring. Suggesting an untruth detrimental to the subject is clearly a BLP violation; compare "have you stopped beating you wife?" Scurrilous filings in the hope of securing an advantage in a dispute are contrary to policy, regardless of an editor's activity level. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of reverts in addition to the reasons given for the reverts says: Edit warring. And, if anyone is seeking an advantage based on the filing of this report, it wouldn't be me. As stated above, I haven't edited the article for eight days, so where is this advantage and where is my dispute with the editor reported, MarkBernstein? You've made the accusation, so please back it up with evidence. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited the article in question, but I note that NBSB continues to edit war. Also, I would like to see MarkBernstein back up his boomerang accusation, because I'm not seeing it. If he can't, then Mark needs to withdraw the accusation and cease engaging in what could be perceived to be personal harassment of other editors. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made no accusation. I proposed a response suitable to the situation. The closing administrator will, I hope, agree that repeating false accusations while trying to minimize their falsity is indeed a violation of BLP, and therefore that they should be promptly reverted by any editor. I have no further comment. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When boomerang isn't even applicable, how is it a suitable response? Your suggestion of a boomerang in addition to "scurrilous filings in the hope of securing an advantage" most certainly are accusations: you accused me of edit warring as well as trying to game the system in order to win an argument I'm not even involved in. Neither is true, and there is no evidence that even comes close to what you are accusing me of. Cla68 asked you to simply withdraw the accusation. I won't insist on an apology, I won't even ask for one, but at the very least you could admit your accusations are out of order and completely unfounded. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the biography of a living person. It was created as a WP:COATRACK to spread unsubstantiated, scurrilous and highly-negative allegations about that living person - that they willfully misrepresented their racial background. Those allegations were first published by a scandalmongering partisan blogger, and were publicized by a similarly-scandalmongering partisan website. While those allegations briefly gained traction in mainstream sources, they have been substantively discredited and refuted by the article subject. The subject's heartfelt and privacy-destroying response was so definitive and credible that all mainstream sources immediately dropped the issue, and even Breitbart backed away from the claim. It is fundamentally unfair and inappropriate to the living person at issue here to fill the lede of his biography with discussion of a discredited partisan hack-job attack without clearly stating that that the claim is untrue and that King did not in any way misrepresent his racial background. What the filer of this report intentionally failed to mention was my multiple attempts to discuss and defend the issue through appropriate channels, including a successful request for page semi-protection against anonymous IP vandalism and the initiation of a talk page discussion which clearly states the BLP issue at stake. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intentionally fail to mention anything. You were edit warring today, I reported it. You've been edit warring at this article for days now, I put that in the report, too. From my viewpoint, that's all that needs to be said, really. If, after looking at the evidence, diffs, etc. as well as your explanation, an administrator feels your repeated edit warring was justified for the reasons you think you were justified in edit warring, then the result of this report will reflect that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I have seldom if ever seen a more clear cut case than that epitomized in the two comments above. To others, I commend . NorthBySouthBaranof's writing, which is eloquent , concise, and exemplary. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how the BLP exemption can stand up. If reliable sources report on accusations, there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia putting in that material. If the subject disputes the allegations and that's also reported by reliable sources, we of course should put that in as well. But it remains a dispute unless reliable sources report that the claims were false. Wikipedia does not get to decide the truth of the claims. The closest the article comes to reporting on the falsity of the claims is the sentence citing The New York Daily News, but in my view it's insufficient for us to say in Wikipedia's voice that the claims are categorically false. That said, I believe that NorthBySouthBaranof reverted in good faith. However, the user is Warned that they cannot continue to revert on the article without risking being blocked. I also think that the attacks against Winkelvi are clearly misguided and have zero merit. Finally, there may be some backlash to this closure. Don't necessarily expect that I will respond to it or that any lack of response on my part means anything. I can always hope that users will act against the culture here and actually move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of sources have dismissed the allegations as false and attacks against a persons race. Not to mention that the accusations came from a racist blogger(Vicky Pate) who has been suspended from numerous Twitter accounts for racism and harassing people of color. This is most definitely a BLP exemption, and I implore editors who see this to revert using the same exemption. There is no way the allegations should stand without stating that they are false. They should be removed from the article totally otherwise. Dave Dial (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read, none of what you say is in the article, so as far as I'm concerned, it's pure WP:OR. I'm letting your comments stand, but they are clearly disruptive. Encouraging other users to edit-war based on your interpretation of policy is a dangerous thing to do. My warning is an administrative action. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to incite others to violate policy. I'm going to bed now. I'll let other administrators deal with the fallout.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmichelson27 reported by User:Amaury (Result: )

Page: Henry Danger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmichelson27 (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 01:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) to 01:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
1. 01:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Fixed content, added links"
2. 01:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
21:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2014-15) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This was previously reported here, but it appears it got archived when Bella and the Bulldogs was temporarily fully protected due to the same problem.

Both MPFitz1968 and myself have warned them, but they have again re-inserted their edits going against MOS after MPF encouraged them not to do so and bring it up on the talk page instead.

This user appears to have a known history for this after looking at their contributions/talk page/block log. Back in late June, they got engaged in a war on List of Victorious episodes in pretty much the same nature as now. At this point, it's just disruptive if they're not willing to communicate with other editors. Amaury (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now IP 68.194.218.231 is making the same disruptive edits. I suspect it's a sock puppet, which I created a report about. Amaury (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:MaverickLittle reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Page protected for 3 days)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678995502 by Cwobeel (talk)No. The whitewash of the article must stop. There is a consensus to include. Do not engage in an edit war."
21:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678703235 by Winkelvi (talk)Dear Wikilevi: You are not the arbiter of what is "consensus" or what is not "consensus" Please compromise."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

02:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "/* 2015 comments by Perkins */ Q?"
02:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "/* 2015 comments by Perkins */ ce"
03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "/* 2015 comments by Perkins */ resp"

Comments:

Not at 3RR, but definitely demonstrating WP:BATTLE, WP:WIN, and edit warring behavior. Reverting in disputed content that is under discussion and consensus being sought. A classic case of WP:IDHT as consensus is clearly and strongly against what he wants. This kind of behavior from this editor has been going on for a long while now at more than one article. Enough is enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Enough is enough. The editors Winkelvi and Cwobeel have been tag teaming the Carly Fiorina article by refusing to allow information that puts Fiorina's firing in context in the article. They are whitewashing the article of the information. Tom Perkins was a main figure in the Fiorina's firing. He has now stated that he believes that the firing was a mistake and was wrong. They have refused to allow the information in the article. It is a BLP violation. I have not violated a 3RR. So this is not the right place for this discussion. However, let me point out that Wikilevi gets upset about factual comments. For example, he is NOT the arbiter of waht is "consensus" or what is not "consensus" but that fact bothers him for some reason. There is no 3RR violation but there is a BLP violation.--ML (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in the midst of a POV argument between pro and anti Fiorina editors, User:Winkelvi and User:MaverickLittle included. Both sides are at fault, and neither is working towards NPOV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs, Ism schism. Your open-ended statement implies I am in an argument at the article talk page with the editor I have reported here. I'm unaware of bring in an argument with him, but, perhaps diffs could shed some light on what you see that I don't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you both are part of a tag team edit war, see; [97] and [98]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. A discussion is occurring. Consensus is being sought (and essentially reached). Reverting out content two times two days apart that is still being discussed is not tag teaming (you might want to look up the definition). You're going to have to do better than that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Consensus has not been reached. There are as many editors that believe the info should stay as there are that think it should be moved the campaign article. It is clear that two editors, Winkelvi and Cwobeel have decided that they see a consensus and then just yell consensus over and over and revert anyone that put the information back in. Surprise the consensus that they see agrees with them! It is a classic gaming technique. But there is no 3RR. This discussion does not belong here, but Winkelvi, the editor that brought this discussion here, even openly admits he brought it here to game the system. He openly admits that there is no 3RR. See his admission here.--ML (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look up the definitions of WP:GAME and WP:EDITWAR. One isn't even close to what you are claiming, the other doesn't have to equal 3RR to be edit warring. While you are looking up definitions, WP:CONSENSUS is another you might want to become more familiar with. Specifically, in regard to consensus at the article talk page, there are 6 editors against including the content and 2 for it. Seems pretty clear to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Whilst there may be no technical violation of 3RR, there certainly is a content dispute occurring. Please take the next three days to work out consensus as to how this content should be treated. At this point, it does not appear, at least to me, that there is any consensus about the issue, so please work from first principles. Thank you and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:NE Ent (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

00:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Statement by MarkBernstein */ Redact per BLP as no source supports this claim and it lends undue credence to the harmful characterization of an identifiable living person's actions"
01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679022096 by NE Ent (talk) That source does not support the specific claims of expertise made here so per BLP it is still an unsourced claim"
01:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679023110 by Dumuzid (talk) As explained, the BLP violation arises from the unsourced claim of expertise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See block log for prior violations, and note Wikipedia:Edit_warring#What_to_do_if_you_see_edit-warring_behavior clearly states A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, ; given the user's prior blocks they should be aware of the policy.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Not an article, and talk page is redirected per arbcom motion. Provided reference describing named person as "expert" in edit summary [99]

Comments:

NE Ent 01:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning here is simple enough. Saying "X person is an expert on this and says [negative claim] about Y person" where no source states X person is an expert on the matter constitutes an unsourced negative claim about a living person and thus can be removed on sight as it lends undue credibility to a claim that would otherwise be a mere personal opinion. The mentioned source only claims expertise in other areas.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Devil's Advocate is restricted per the remedies of WP:ARBGG:

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

The 'usual exceptions' is a link to WP:3RRNO, which under the heading of BLP only exempts "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)". The 3RRNO exception is a 'break glass in case of emergency' thing: you are allowed to revert per BLP to prevent immediate damage to someone's reputation due to false information. Calling somebody 'an expert in the area' is not what we would normally consider libelous, to that person or others. (If incorrect, it is subject to correction through the normal process of discussion). In my opinion, the Devil's Advocate should agree to step back from his effort to correct AE posts if he wants to avoid a block for violation of his WP:ARBGG restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like edit warring and a t-ban violation... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are, I think, missing the implications. When you say "X is an expert on this matter and has stated Y engaged in plagiarism" the obvious implication is that X is an expert on plagiarism and used that expertise to determine Y is guilty of that very serious offense. To say an expert has deemed a person guilty of plagiarism would undeniably be libelous if one is aware the person has no expertise on the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I am intruding where I should not be, but I just wanted to quickly convey my thoughts. To The Devil's Advocate--this all seems terribly backwards to me. If we accept that widgeting is a heinous accusation, then "I am an expert in widgeting, and Dumuzid widgets" is certainly libelous, but so is "I like bananas and Dumuzid widgets." Your 'BLP' fixes left the sting of the accusation in place. That being said, I think it would be good form for you to avoid borderline cases such as this. But for what it's worth, I think this merits no more than a warning. Thanks all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except, that isn't an apt comparison. What we have is an accusation from a person mentioned in a reliable source. Absent the part I removed, it is simply one person accusing another person of something heinous. There is no reason to take the accusation seriously as anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Claiming this accuser is an expert on the matter gives the accusation a false appearance of truth.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind "one person accusing another of something heinous" is precisely the sort of issue that has BLP implications. But I might well be wrong. Dumuzid (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree both comments have BLP implications, but since the accusation is mentioned in a reliable source and was phrased as an accusation it would not qualify on its own as libelous, unsourced, or poorly sourced, material. To claim the person making the accusation is an expert on the matter, when that is not contained in any reliable source, would qualify since it falsely presents the harmful accusation as more credible. What I removed was only that which could not be backed by a reliable source.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and all things being equal, I would defend you -- but all things are not equal. Given your history here, and the fact that this was in a statement by someone against whom sanctions are being sought, I would certainly say that discretion is the better part of valor. To my mind, there are far worse problems to be solved on Wikipedia that involve neither the possibility, nor even the appearance, of impropriety on your part. Having said that, it's up to each of us to chart our own course. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa - Dumuzid hold on now. Just last week you talked about your lack of experience here. What would an inexperienced editor know about TDA's "history" hmm? 146.185.25.138 (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am closing in on half a year! And I do recall seeing The Devil's Advocate before. But here when I mentioned 'history,' I meant it as a tactful way to refer to the restrictions noted above. Dumuzid (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specific legal ramifications in an ongoing proceeding exist for the living person accused and as such my conscience in defending this person from wrongful accusation is clear. Other editors topic-banned following the ArbCom case have been allowed even greater leeway on BLP than I am asking for as what I removed is not backed by any source, even a contentious one. The only reason I have not reverted this restoration as well is because an admin is apparently not understanding why it is an issue despite my explanation. Hopefully, should he recognize it is an issue he will do the right thing and revert that editor himself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked TDA for 2 weeks for this clear case of a breach of topic ban, combined with the edit-warring, outrageously lame misapplication of BLP and wikilawyering in defending it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite think this is "lame" application of BLP. To remove names, the situation is thus. We have reliable sourcing that X says Y is Z. We say "The expert X says Y is Z". We have no clear sourcing saying X is an Expert in Z. Therefore we are saying An Expert in Z is saying that Y is Z without having a source that says this. This is a BLP Violation. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP's closure looks correct to me. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. While the subjective label of "expert" might be somewhat generous or debatable, it's certainly not an unreasonable or controversial claim to the degree that it constitutes a BLP vio and needs an emergency ban-violating redaction. Swarm ♠ 05:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Egghead0007 reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: Egghead0007 indeffed; article protected)

Page: Jacob Bragg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Egghead0007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

10:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "Surely you have better things to do with your day?"
12:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Dear the other editor; Please do something better in your time than make disruptive edits. Before you revert these edits talk to me on my page."
00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Fixed the mistakes of the bad wiki editor."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

06:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jacob Bragg. (TW)"
12:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jacob Bragg. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This looks very much like a Sockpuppet of a user banned earlier for similar editing in adding poorly sourced or unsourced information. It may well be the subject himself. I have pointed him towards correct sources needed but to no avail. His username is also a mimic of mine! Egghead06 (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war or not, it is clearly an impostor account that needs indef blocking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've indefinitely blocked Egghead0007 and semi-protected the Bragg article for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:NicholasNotabene reported by user:eduardo.g.harvard (Result)

Page: Chris Bell (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NicholasNotabene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Mr. Eduardo.g.harvard feels personally that truck-accident litigation "has a negative connotation." Mr. Bell also feels that Mr. Bell's profession (that is, how Mr. Bell makes a living) should not be listed at the opening of his Wikipedia article. How do Eduardo.g.harvard's feelings enter into a Wikipedia article?

In any event, Mr. Eduardo.g.harvard's response does not any answer any questions I have posed: (1) Is the entry accurate, or inaccurate? (2) Does it not quote Mr. Bell's own website? (3) Is the following description of Mr. Bell's legal specialty — that he is "an 18 wheeler lawyer" — not the one given by Mr. Bell himself? NicholasNotabene (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His description includes many facets of law that he practices (including truck accidents). It's disingenuous to focus on the type of litigation that has a negative connotation. That lends undue weight to one issue. What's more, this info belongs under "Political Career" rather than →top. I'll continue fixing this issue as NicholasNotabene continues defaming this page.

1. It's inaccurate insofar as it promotes an unbalanced view of Mr. Bell's legal career- lending undue weight to one very specified practice.

2. I'm adding the FULL quote from his website- not a cherry picked section.

3. Though he mentions being an 18-wheeler lawyer, he also mentions a long list of other types of litigation. From the website NicholasNotabene cites "Chris Bell has represented clients in Texas on cases including truck accident law, personal injury, and commercial litigation." Eduardo.g.harvard (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

NicholasNotabene continues to accuse me of being involved with Bell's campaign (which is inaccurate) and disregards the context of the material he cites in the article. Additionally, he has clearly demonstrated disregard for the 3rr. Eduardo.g.harvard (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note NicholasNotabene has been blocked by Xymmax and Eduardo.g.harvard issued a 3rr warning. However, I do not believe this issue has been resolved. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is an open DRN thread found here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 01:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crossswords reported by User:Ironholds (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Domain Name Dispute */ see discussion, no real reason given why it should be staying there and he/shes calling me bold which is flaming"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

16:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "/* name dispute is unnessary information */ re"
17:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "/* name dispute is unnessary information */ re"

Comments:

Crosswords came to Gaijin Entertainment and WP:BOLDly removed information pertaining to a lawsuit against the company. After multiple users reverted them and disputed their rationales, we opened a talkpage discussion and I invited them to, well, discuss things, pointing them to WP:BRD and warning them that if they continued a slow-burning edit war I would take them to the noticeboards, linking to additional policies that explained why this was problematic.

Crosswords' response has been to...again revert, so I'm here seeking a block. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

multiple users? it was only you and an IP adress:76.103.45.146 from oakland, california who edited otherwise. You didnt give enough reason for your opinion to be right you are just talking about having some higher authority right from the start instead making constructive debate.--Crossswords (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Also left a warning that the continuation of the same edit war may result in a longer block being quickly reinstated. Swarm ♠ 05:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DMagee33 reported by User:Trut-h-urts man (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments: User demonstrating a WP:OWN-style mentality on my talk page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 05:12, 3 September 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