Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Largoplazo (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 14 September 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Oliv0, User:Francis Le français reported by User:D0kkaebi (Result: )

    Page: Popular Republican Union (2007) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported: Oliv0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Francis Le français (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: After the conclusion of the edit war and ban of User:Francis Le français, I restored the version before discussion

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 4 hours from edit war conclusion, User:Oliv0 restarts the edit war by returning to Francis le Francais' version
    2. Not a day passed after ban of Francis, re-starting the similar changes without discussion he was banned for
    3. To see the previous 3RR discussion and conclusion
    4. User:Francis Le français did not wait the result of this new Edit Warring incident to revert the page to his own version

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I think the previous case of 3RR of 5 days ago and its conclusion is enough explanation

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    Please note that a case of personal attacks and threat of outing has been opened against User:Oliv0 and his group. D0kkaebi (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See my answer there : no threats or attacks from me. My modification was perfectly justified in the edit summary and goes against no dispute resolution, since the WP:AN/3 case mentioned only blocked the one infringing R3R and did not conclude as to which version is "WP:WRONG". Now the last modification by D0kkaebi, falsely stating in its edit summary that my modification had no justification except private attacks and that he is restoring the state of things to the previous resolution of an edit war, undoes my removal of POV in the article, so the question is: should I or somebody else undo it? Oliv0 (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your diff mentions half a sentence and your comments on the talk page about personal attacks is 4 lines + 20 from your crew. You justified your revert on several topics and summarized by " addition of "gaullism", "centrist" and removal of section about Internet activism certainly goes against NPOV, article improved by undoing this". Just to discuss one claim, Centrism has been extensively discussed on the talk page here and the only undoubtedly neutral user participating in the page, Ravenswing , concluded that the proper translation for English native is "centrist". I did not agree neither as I preferred "syncretic" but since Ravenswing is neutral, I apply his proposal as a proper consensus. I do not understand why your opinion should prevail on previous discussions and consensus reached on the talk page.
    By the way, on a side note to admin, User:Francis Le français did not wait the result of this new Edit Warring incident to revert the page to his own version. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a copy of your answer at WP:AN/I, see mine there: your assertion is false, in the link you mention Ravenswing did not say that "centrist" is a good English word for what the micro-party calls "neither left nor right / above left and right" (that is, focusing on anti-europeanism and not on left-right divisions). Oliv0 (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you say Ravenswing did not say "centrist" is the proper word to describe UPR's political positioning? It does not look like you even checked the link. Rather than interpretation, I'll just quote his words "We need pay no attention to what a Frenchman would call "centrist" -- what matters is what your average English-speaker would think of as "centrist".". This is the best evidence that you just impose your POV without even checking prior discussions and even ignoring others' input. I did not agree with him, but I agree on the logic he brought for the sake of the consensus. This is his input. So who is not neutral here? D0kkaebi (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also a copy of your answer at WP:AN/I (please stop, this is getting off topic), see mine there: here you are being non neutral, Ravenswing only said that the English word is not to be avoided because of the French meaning, which does not say it is the appropriate word in English. In fact, "centrist" and "gaullism" mentioned in my edit summary quoted above and probably even "syncretic" are all a POV attempt at a more positive vocabulary than the sources. Oliv0 (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not off-topic here. Admin needs to understand why you keep reverting and make a war edit supporting the changes of Francis le Francais that had been banished a day for that. If Ravenswing did not think it was the appropriate word, he would not have made this change. It is him who made the change, then I tried to discuss this change as I did not agree that "centrism" would be the proper word. Since I failed to convince him, I accepted the term for the sake of the consensus instead of making an edit war imposing my point of view. You see the difference between me and you? You think you are right and that is not questionable. If someone neutral brings a change, I discuss it calmly. By the way, note that "syncretic" was not my idea neither but a contribution of someone else. I guess everything is said, admins have all info to judge the case. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So far you did not mention Ravenswing wrote "centrism" in the article, the talk page is more important and does not conclude "centrism". Stick to the independent sources, they do not mention centrism for this party. And the "difference between me and you" is that I am neutral and you are the POV-pusher with a WP:COI as a well-known local official of the party who wants to control the article that you think your WP:OWN, while accusing everybody else to do so. Oliv0 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I will have no or little Internet access (in the mountains) for 6 days starting this afternoon. Oliv0 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you finally admit you were wrong to revert without discussion. Yes, I can not mention in the revert summary all the 20 reasons why Francis Le Francais revert is wrong. That is why I keep driving you to the talk page, that you refuse to do and stick to your revert. Refusing the discussion assuming that anyway you are right is a POV and has no justification for Edit warring. I think the case can be judged, everything is said. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    D0kkaebi lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. D0kkaebi don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (WP:NEWSBLOG WP:VERIFY etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable...
    1. [1] he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after.
    2. [2] [3] he calls vandalism everything !
    3. [4] he protects bad sources
    4. [5] WP:OR
    5. [6] & [7] & [8] POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie)
    6. [9] addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject)
    7. [10] removes a critical source
    8. [11] lie and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second lie
    9. all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit [12] & [13] & [14] & [15] & [16] & [17] & [18] removes a critical source, canceling [citation needed], addition of bad sources. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie.
    All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest.--Francis Le français (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Burst of unj reported by User:Robofish (Result: )

    Page: Alan Kurdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:Burst of unj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [19]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]
    5. Another revert by the same user on the same article concerning different material, also within 24 hours: [24]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26] (not by me but by another user)

    Comments:

    This user appears to have disruptive intentions towards this article: after his changes have been repeatedly reverted, he has nominated it for deletion and created a WP:POVFORK, Photographs of Alan Kurdi, which is itself up for AFD. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment I'm wondering if a topic ban may be in order. User:Burst of unj is a single-purpose editor; last time I checked he'd made no edits outside of this topic. He's highly combative and borders on harassing editors who disagree with him. Now that the AFD has been closed, appropriately as keep, User:Burst of unj will either disappear or will continue to push his POV in the article. Obviously we will have to wait and see but those of us with the article on watch list should keep track of his edits. freshacconci talk to me 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block - I've come to agree with other editors. This user seems to only care about disruption, making many unhelpful actions without any sign of stopping. A block is in order. I'd also like to point out that the user is additionally being discussed here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trumpetrep reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Trumpetrep and Drmargi blocked)

    Page: Mr. Robot (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Trumpetrep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [27]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [28]
    2. [29]
    3. [30]
    4. [31]
    5. [32]
    6. [33]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    The user has then gone on to show their low level of maturity by attempting to display the same edit-warring on my own talk page after I've reverted to STATUSQUO, and then once I've removed it, has gone on to continuously revert it to display once more. The user has been reverted on the main article by other users previously, though this didn't stop them at all. Alex|The|Whovian 02:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The article in question, Mr. Robot (TV series), is a derivative work based on David Fincher's 1999 film Fight Club. This fact has been widely commented on by critics at every level, from bloggers and message board users, to mainstream critics at major media outlets like Vanity Fair. It has become such a prevalent mode of commenting on the show, that it warranted its own section in the article. I created a succinct, well-sourced section which documented the parallels between the two artworks. Most importantly, I provided a substantial quote from the creator of the series explaining that he deliberately modeled the show on Fight Club, and he is proud of that fact.
    If Fincher's movie were merely a model for the show, it might merit a mention in a sentence or two. However, comparing the show to Fight Club has become a standard way for critics to engage with the show. Therefore, a somewhat broader explanation was warranted.
    After the first deletion of this section, which made spurious claims of original research and improper synthesis. I reverted to the original version and responded to the charges on the Talk page. I immediately asked other editors for a consensus on the matter. Alex The Whovian and another editor ignored this plea for consensus, and kept deleting the section with objections that moved beyond the original ones, which had been disproven, to the tautological 3x revision rule. As I undid their edits, I realized that I was breaking a rather big rule around Wikipedia, and I apologize for that. However, my rationale was to call their attention to the discussion on the Talk page and to engage them in a search for consensus. Their unwillingness to reach consensus on this point is actually the bigger no-no at Wikipedia, as far as I understand the guidelines.
    My edits have been done in good faith. I don't think the same can be said for theirs. Both of their talk pages have sections on Mr. Robot with users complaining about their heavy-handed tactics on the page. See: User_talk:Drmargi/Archive_5#Mr._Robot and User_talk:AlexTheWhovian#Mr._Robot. Moreover, on the substance of the matter, no one can claim that the section that I created was poorly sourced, represented original research, or did not belong in an article about a work that explicitly derives from a previous work. This is standard encyclopedic material that should be included in the article. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has been reverted by three editors, and is unwilling to stop reverting. He does not see the difference between his long-winded, synthetic analysis of the one influence on an element of the show being drawn from a film and the discussion of a film adapting a piece of classic literature. Moreover, the piece has a strong WP:POV slant. It's too long, too biased, and makes too much of the discussion of an influence, one of many, the producer has acknowledged. It's content for the Mr. Robot wiki, maybe, but not here. --Drmargi (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The assertion of a strong POV is incorrect on the face of the original language of the section, which is archived on the article's talk page. Drmargi demonstrably misread the section, attributing words to me that were direct quotes from the creator of the show. It seems that both Drmargi and AlextheWhovian have been overly hasty in their efforts to purge this page of any material related to its primary source material.Trumpetrep (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocking of Drmargi is exceptionally unfair on him. He was merely following the rules, guidelines and policies for consensus and material on articles. If the block is required, there is certainly no need to make it the same length of time as the original troublesome editor. Alex|The|Whovian 04:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocking of Drmargi was exceptionally in line with WP:3RR, the exemptions to which are objective and explicit. Swarm ♠ 05:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hillandrew reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

    Page
    MxPx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Hillandrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
    2. 21:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
    3. 22:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
    4. 02:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
    5. 17:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
    6. 18:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on MxPx. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Edit warring over this content for six days (since 2015-09-05). Two experienced editors reverting. Argument: the band doesn't see the two albums as "studio albums" while Wikipedia guidelines indicate that they should be considered studio albums. Not sure if locking the page will prevent the editor from continuing the war or if a block is in order. I will let the admin decide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CFCF reported by User:Ozzie10aaaa (Result: Warnings)

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

    • this is not the first time this has happened [37] has behavior of this on another occasion


    the diffs below are from yesterday and today another article(2 more happened while here...with no explanation)...here I ask to take to talk page[38]


    Attempt to resolve ....(no response to either attempt)


    • notified [45]...and individual erased notification from page [46]


    • has shown this behavior on other articles (with other editors)[47][48]
    • here another ediror describes behavior on another article[49] was just going to give CFCF a formal notice for edit-warring at The Pirate Bay. Given he's been edit-warring at other articles as well, I think this needs close scrutiny in case it is a general problem
    I believe he was warned re PirateBay and several other articles. You won't notice by looking at his Talk because he always deletes warnings, often accusing the warner of vandalizing his Talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    • on that edit it has 4 books , and 1 journal for description ([51]...if the individual had a problem with any book then it should have been placed on the talk page...it is for this reason as well as the same behavior on a prior occasion[52]and on other articles/editors [53] was just going to give CFCF a formal notice for edit-warring at The Pirate Bay. Given he's been edit-warring at other articles as well, I think this needs close scrutiny in case it is a general problem I am asking for a block or warning for myself as well as other editors who have not spoken up...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]




    agreed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't hide the evidence, including the evidence of canvassing. There are also concerns of you using primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a poorly argued and then messed up request. I find this unfortunate as the subject of the complaint has edit-warred on so many articles, so many times, and needs to be reined it. I say this because I believe he can be a valuable editor. But, he doesn’t appear to want to collaborate in any sense of the word. In one case, he reverted seven times all attempts to fix an WP:ELBURDEN violation during an RfC, including reverts of at least one (I think two) admins, all the while claiming that all the other editors were edit-warring; but somehow he wasn’t. That’s but one example. Days ago, he reverted all my attempts to remove an unsourced blatant falsehood, again claiming I’m edit-warring; but he isn’t, and threatening me. All the while refusing to discuss. Minor case – but one of so many and a pattern of declaring ownership of articles. You won’t find all the edit-warring warnings on his Talk Page, because he removes them claiming they are vandalism and, at times, threatening the editors that post them. Indeed, he deleted the notification of this complaint. I know that I have not framed this statement with refs, et.al. But, I, and other editors, have lives, and simply do not have the time to deal with people like this. IMHO, he needs an understanding that we all have opinions; but we all also operate under the same rules and need to respect one another to forward the project as a whole. Frankly, a 24hr rip will convince him of nothing. Objective3000 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unclear whether User:CFCF was properly notified of this report. (The 3RR alert was placed on his talk before anything was added to AN3). I've studied the edit history of some of these articles. I didn't see any 3RR violations but there have been a series of borderline cases. There is a pattern of tenacious reverting that causes concern. I've left a more explicit notice on CFCF's talk page and hope that he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Several editors have expressed concern at editing patterns at [58], [59], [60], [61] – with seemingly no improvement. He's been asked to stop adding: images with irrelevant captions, poor sources and drive-by tags (often {{mcn}} after each sentence with one edit/tag) by a number of editors with no change. I reverted the additions on account they were poor quality and used both old and primary sources as well as inserting falsehoods or misinterpretations of source.
    Reverts on the Pirate bay article were made over a period of several months–see the RfC on that talk page. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    EdJohnston...the refs (answered below) really are not reverts, one was taken to Doc James by me, the other, eventually agreed, the other was about "edit count",,,and the other is CFCF again.

    • the first ref is the same individual that I am complaining about?
    • the second ref on my talk page which the editor is ...was in regard to edit count...not reversions
    • the third ref is talk page med to which i answered this on Doc James page[62]....Doc James
    • the fourth ref was answered as follows[63]... the person agreed with me....
    • I however do echo your concern ...have been a series of borderline cases. There is a pattern of tenacious reverting that causes concern. I've left a more explicit notice on CFCF's talk ....(24 hour/ or warning) what ever you decide--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]




    • (Also BTW)...another article/editor..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • . In one case, he reverted seven times all attempts to fix an WP:ELBURDEN violation during an RfC, including reverts of at least one (I think two) admins, all the while claiming that all the other editors were edit-warring; but somehow he wasn’t. That’s but one example. Days ago, he reverted all my attempts to remove an unsourced blatant falsehood, again claiming I’m edit-warring; but he isn’t, and threatening me. All the while refusing to discuss. Minor case – but one of so many and a pattern [68]
    I have looks at Fat embolism. Simply put the article needs work. You two need to find a recent high quality review in a major journal and work to summarize it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: The parties who've been reverting at Hypocalcaemia and Fat embolism are warned not to continue without a talk page consensus. When people fight over medical content, you have to assume that at least the issues are important. But The Pirate Bay and Paul Signac are not medical, and CFCF has engaged in revert wars there. I'm having trouble seeing the need for User:CFCF to make nine reverts at Paul Signac between August 4 and September 2. If you think someone is inappropriately making changes while an RfC is running, report it to admins immediately. A relentless pattern of reverting over many weeks just makes you look stubborn. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • fair enough ...I thank you for pointing out CFCF (behavior)in your last three sentences of the result, ( should the pattern resume your opinion as an administrator is very valuable, thank you again, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He continues his tendentious behavior on the Pirate Bay article. It will not stop. Objective3000 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Abductive reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

    Page: Sulfoxaflor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Sulfilimine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [69]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Sulfoxaflor

    1. [70]
    2. [71]
    3. [72]
    4. [73]

    Sulfilimine

    1. [74]
    2. [75]
    3. [76]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

    Comments:

    The editor has been attempting in each diff, to insert their own original research that the chemical sulfoxalfor is in a different class of insecticides called neonicotinoids instead of what scientific sources currently describe it as (sulfoximine) and later using newspapers not reliable for scientific claims to do so. Additionally, they have been inserting completely unsourced content claiming, "Dow had been attempting to evade classifying the chemical as a neonicotinoid since neonicotinoids are harmful to bees." while also adding while commenting that future approvals, "are expected to be quashed in the near future." completely unsourced and highly editorialized POV. They have also moved over to Sulfilimine doing much of the same.[79][80]

    As of this time, Abuductive has not even attempted to use the article talk page, [81] even after being asked in edit summaries and the talk page itself rather than edit war the content back in (I've run myself up to 3RR trying to get them there):

    • "(Undo editorializing language and misstatement that these are neonicotinoids per source. These are different a different class.)"[82]
    • "(Undid revision 680478982 by Abductive (talk) still incorrect according to source. Please discuss on talk page per WP:BRD if that isn't clear.)"[83]
    • "(Remove WP:OR (please read source and again discuss per WP:BRD instead of edit warring), Also removed editorializing again. Consensus is needed through discussion at this point for these removed edits."[84]

    I'm asking for a short block at this point as the editor seems to be coming in with an extremely strong point of view and is attempting to edit war their unsourced views in across articles. In addition to not using the talk page, they have resorted to personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS calling me a corporate shill on their talk page.[85] Regardless, bringing the pages back to their last stable version would be preferable, especially if page protection is done on either page.[86],[87] This currently is not in the scope of the current GMO arbcom case since we're only dealing with an insecticide here. I can't work with the behavior issues, but the sourcing issues could have been handled if they used the talk page rather than continue to edit war. It looks like there are more behavior issues associated with edit warring with this editor though as opposed to a regular content dispute, so I'm looking for some help here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments like the above are why I'm go so far to look for a block in clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS while using it as a justification for edit warring. While it's true we're definitely trying to weed out some of this behavior at ArbCom in GMOs, we definitely don't allow that in other topics either. The source currently used says nothing of this specific claim for content made here (not to mention not being reliable for scientific claims and in clear opposition to previously cited sources). The problematic behavior related to edit warring should be clear in the diffs though as this editor is personalizing content and edit warring it in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All the wikilawyering in the world isn't going to stop the articles from reflecting the court's finding. Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're here because you've demonstrated clear edit warring behavior and refusing to use the talk page to resolve any content issues, but on top of that you're making up content that isn't in the sources you are using against WP:VERIFY in additional to violating conduct policy regarding other editors. I'm normally one to just opt for page protection and move on to discussion, but the lack of acknowledgement of the various problem behaviors by Abductive seems to indicate something else is needed to prevent this in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Swarm, could you clarify a bit more on your above comment? I'm seeing four distinct times Abductive tried to insert the content within about a 6 hour period, not to mention completely avoiding the talk page when asked to go there multiple times even if one is going to ignore the other behavior issues such as personal attacks associated with the edit warring. That's only on one page, and they went over to another to insert similar content after they got the edit war warning. Even if WP:3RR isn't broken, it also clearly states that it's possible to edit war without breaking it, and we have a pretty blatant case of that here no matter how you cut it. This is serious edit warring behavior that I'm concerned might be emboldened if not addressed directly, and that's all I'm really asking at this point even though I've seen people blocked for less than this here in the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I keep improving the articles and adding sources, which you can't see. Abductive (reasoning) 04:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no attempt by Abductive to use the talk page at this time to discuss the sourcing problems after two more reverts.[88][89] This is starting to get really sloppy with their attempts to only communicate through edit summary, so I really need to ask an admin to step in at this point. I've more than done my part to get things rolling on the talk page to hammer out some finer details, yet we're seeing a very one-sided problem with respect to edit warring here from Abductive. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they've bumped up to 3RR again. [90][91][92]. Could someone at least just return the article to the status quo version [93] before this all started and set up page protection for awhile to at least close this case here for awhile? Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of 3RR (Result: )

    3RR has been breeched by Abductive (in about 4 hours), so can we please either get a block or a return to the status quo version [94] with page protection to stop this constant disruption?

    My original edit that was reverted each time: [95]

    1. [96] 23:51, September 13, 2015
    2. [97] 00:28, September 14, 2015
    3. [98] 01:12, September 14, 2015
    4. [99] 02:07, September 14, 2015

    Thanks to Ebyabe for attempting to bring this back to the status quo before being reverted by Abductive. I'm not going to be able to do it, so we need someone to get it across to Abductive that this is extremely inappropriate edit warring. Others have referred to these actions as vandal-like contributions.[100] Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As has been shown to you many times WP:BRD is not WP:NBRD. It's possible to gain consensus on certain areas, but one needs to work on that at the talk page first before re-adding content after it's clear the initial edit isn't sticking. That's why you are currently sitting at four reverts today. It's extremely clear this user is completely ignoring WP:3RR looking at all the edits they've continued to make after their fourth revert rather than self-revert.[101] It does appear to be a method of gaming WP:3RR by inserting all these edits at this time. I'm not going to get drug into the behavior side of things any further though, so I'll let others here address your behavior at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Boyconga278 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Not blocked)

    Page
    Vietnam national beach soccer team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Boyconga278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1.55.47.198 (talk) to last revision by Boyconga278. (TW)"
    2. 10:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1.55.47.198 (talk) to last revision by Boyconga278. (TW)"
    3. 00:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 42.115.180.176 (talk) to last revision by Marchjuly. (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC) (for edit warring on article 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL))
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This editor accuses others for vandalism, without it being vandalism and he has been warned many times for that and edit warring, but he keeps on in the same pattern. I am very concerned about this editors WP:COMPETENCE and his Englsih does not seem good enough to communicate. Qed237 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have many more examples and diffs of his edit wars and bad edits if needed. Qed237 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry admin, I promised I'd quit dispute on article / 3RR warning. Boyconga278 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RobinHammon reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Labour Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    RobinHammon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "The leader of a party and the members of that party *define* what the party is. 60% voted for a radical left winger. They have the ultimate last word. Stop changing it to something everyone disagrees with."
    2. 13:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "This is what everyone thinks. Ask Jeremy Corbyn if Labour is left wing or not."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC) to 12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
      1. 12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680672455 by Dnm (talk)"
      2. 12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680672545 by Dnm (talk)"
    4. 12:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680672319 by Dnm (talk)"
    5. 12:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Jeremy Corbyn is radically left wing, now the leader of Labour. To say Labour is "centre-left" is quite frankly a joke."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has been pushing the idea that the Labour Party is now suddenly left-wing as the left-wing MP, Jeremy Corbyn, has been elected to the leadership. Dnm (talk · contribs) has also broken 3RR on this page. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours – EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wrabbjr902 reported by User:Starship.paint (Result: )

    Page: Template:WWE personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wrabbjr902 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts: (4 reverts within 5 hours today)

    1. [102] reverts in part edits by HHH Pedrigree, including moving Christian to Unassigned personnel
    2. [103] reverts in part edits by HHH Pedrigree and / or ClassicOnAStick, including moving Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce out from Unassigned personnel
    3. [104] reverts in part an edit by Keith Okamoto, including moving Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce out from Unassigned personnel
    4. [105] reverts in part another edit by Keith Okamoto, including moving Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce out from Unassigned personnel

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by HHH Pedrigree and by Keith Okamoto

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106] Back on 6 September, in response to edits made by Wrabbjr902, I started a discussion on why Christian should not be in Unassigned personnel, but Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce should be. I pinged Wrabbjr902, who did not respond. Wrabbjr902 started an edit war over these items (and others as well) today. starship.paint ~ KO 08:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    Wrabbjr902 has a long history of warnings on their talk page over unconstructive editing, particularly on List of WWE personnel and Template:WWE personnel. There has been at least one level 3 warning for a wrestling / WWE-related subject. Wrabbjr902's customary response is to blank their talk page after receiving a warning. starship.paint ~ KO 08:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Garageland66 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )

    Page: Hard left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Garageland66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Persistent edit-warring over articles on UK left-wing politics. See Talk:Communist_Party_of_Britain#Requested_move_10_August_2015 and particularly [107]. They've now switched to Hard left, a term that is widely applied (usually pejoratively from the right wing press) to a few left wing UK politicians, particularly in the '80s and '90s. This is hardly even a contentious term: those to whom it was applied have proudly embraced it. Garageland disagrees and, as we saw at Communist Party of Britain, only his version is the one true correct version. This is refuted by several other editors.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [108]
    2. [109]
    3. [110]
    4. [111]

    As first stated, these claims were unsourced. That's not a problem to any reader familiar with UK politics (there is no credible challenge that "Red Ken" hasn't regularly been described as hard left). However policy wants sources, so I added sources to each one. Garageland has now seen fit to remove those too, with the utter nonsense claim, "Put these references on their Wiki profile pages first. If they're accepted there, then they can go here. Unlikely to be successful. Wikipedia should not be smearing current politicians." That is not how sourcing works on WP, even when Garageland disagrees. Any discussion at Talk:Hard_left has just seen Garageland stone-walling.

    I'm suspecting that a topic ban might start to be considered (certainly a topic ban on undiscussed POV page moves, such as [112] [113]), given what an ongoing and topic-focussed problem this is. Garageland certainly has no appreciation for collegial editing and consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not engaged in edit-warring I'm trying to achieve a consensus. I'm not sure why there should be a topic ban for me when I have been trying to reach a compromise. Each attempt at this has been responded to with flat rejection. I don't know what it is that gives Andy Dingley the power to respond to my request for compromise with a flat "no". Please read the Talk Page, to see his inflexible approach.
    On other pages my contributions HAVE achieved a consensus. For example on the Communist Party of Britain page it was finally agreed to compromise with Left-wing/Far-left as a compromise.
    After you wore everyone else down with your intransigence and you were blocked for edit-warring. Do not mistake exhaustion for agreement. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked that the reference for Jeremy Corbyn as hard left be removed because the source is a very partisan right-wing newspaper - hardly in keeping with Wikipedia's impartial reputation. I've also asked that the leader of the United Kingdom's opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, be removed from the Hard Left page as it is a smear on a high profile political figure. His Wiki profile page makes no reference to him being Hard left. But Andy Dingley is acting as judge and jury on this and deciding that no change can be made.
    I have tried the compromise of leaving Ken Livingstone on (or 'Red Ken' as Andy Dingley chooses to disrespectfully call him) because Ken Livingstone's page DOES list him as hard left. And then take the other names off. But again Andy Dingley has acted as judge and jury and flatly rejected such a compromise with a "no".
    Can somebody intervene and try to arbitrate? To leave some high profile names on the Hard left page (while Wikipedia does not describe Nigel Farage or other such figures as Hard right) is to smear those names. (Garageland66 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    User:MichaelAdamSmith reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Indeffed)

    Page
    Nova Science Publishers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    MichaelAdamSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680892204 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
    2. 21:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680890042 by Vrac (talk)"
    3. 20:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680887803 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
    4. 20:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "In the cases of public domain material, NOVA always indicates the sources. You can request a book copy to find out."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nova Science Publishers. (TW)"
    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    [114]

    Some kind of game is being played, SPA IP asking for lawyers on talk page. Vrac (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    In addition to the obvious edit-warring, there's also COI here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that we had a similar situation with COI user on same article a couple of weeks ago. Link to 3RR case. Vrac (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

    Page: Anna Politkovskaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [115]
    2. [116]
    3. [117]
    4. [118]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119] [120]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

    Comments:

    I anticipate that User:Beyond My Ken will try to excuse their behavior by invoking WP:BLP policy and argue that the 3RR restriction does not apply to them. This is not the case. The BLP exemption is for cases where the possibility of BLP violation is fairly unambiguous. Here half a dozen reliable sources, including books by scholars, have been provided to support the text under dispute. Beyond My Ken is just choosing to ignore them. Likewise, in the talk page discussion they stated that they will no longer discuss the matter but just revert others. This is unacceptable and BMK should know better.

    Since the article has been protected, at this time a block is not necessary. Beyond My Ken does need to be warned however to ensure that this behavior does not resume once protection expires. Volunteer Marek  00:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I should note that the 3RR page is pretty explicit about this: " What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.". BMK has not heeded this advice. Volunteer Marek  00:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually looking at the situation in more depth, there's a bit more disruptive here. Immediately after violating 3RR with their 4th revert, Beyond My Ken ran to the Requests for Protection page and asked to have his preferred version protected [122]. This shows that the user is not interested in resolving the dispute but rather in "winning". It's also a pretty transparent attempt at WP:GAMEing the rules. Volunteer Marek  00:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting BLP violations is an absolute defense against edit warring. VM and another editor are attempting to add information connecting Vladimir Putin to a murder, because the murder occurred on Putin's birthday, and the murdered woman was a political opponent of Putin. The evidence they present does not show any causal connection between them, it merely shows that some people suspect that there may be a connection, or that conspiracy theorist believe there is be a connection. It is thus unsourced innuendo about a living person, and therefore completely disallowed by BLP policy.
    I have explained this numerous times to them on the article's talk page, until I got tired of repeating myself, but they seem not to understand the difference between sourcing the existence of the suspicions, which they have done more than adequately, and sourcing the actual connection between Putin and the murder. Without a source for an actual connection, the material is in direct violation of BLP and may be removed from the article on sight by any editor -- indeed, it is the duty of a conscientious editor to do so.
    I'd also like to note that page protection was granted by Callanec, an Oversighter and Arbitration clerk, who surely must be familiar with BLP policy. It was not my "preferred version" that was protected, it was the version without the blatant BLP violation. BMK (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not "defending against edit warring". You ARE edit warring. You are the only person to break 3RR on this article.
    There is no "unsourced innuendo". The text says exactly what more than a dozen sources say. We could quote DIRECTLY from reliable secondary sources and it would be exactly the same thing. You are just using WP:BLP as a bullshit excuse. And yes, it was, "your version" which you tried to get protected. Which evidences bad faith. Volunteer Marek  01:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read more carefully. I did not say I was "defending against edit warring", I said exactly what I said to you on the article talk page, that edits which remove BLP violations are immune from 3RR, so that is an "absolute defense against [the charge of] edit warring". What I was defending the article from was unequivocal BLP violations by you and the other editor. Since BLP-violation-removing edits are immune from 3RR, I cannot, by definition, have been "edit warring". As for innuendo, the mention of Putin's birthday in relation to the murder most certainly is innuendo, as it implies some connection between them - or else why mention it at all. I am sorry that you cannot, or do not want to, understand this, but it is absolutely so, per Drmies' argument regarding Desmond Tutu on the talk page. That's all I will say here, since this is not the place for the continuation of talk page disputes. BMK (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no "unequivocal BLP violations" except in your mind. Over half a dozen sources were presented to support the text. The policy explicitly states: " What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." You did not choose to pursue that option but instead engaged in edit warring. The mention of Putin's birthday is made in pretty much. Every. Single. Source. On. The. Subject. For you to demand that we ignore what sources say is about as twisted, backwards-ass, reading of WP:BLP as one could possibly come up with. For you to use that to excuse your edit warring and breaking 3RR merits at the very least a stern warning. Volunteer Marek  03:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to see anyone blocked, and I haven't looked at the history of who reverted who when and how many times. But I do have to say that I believe that the basic statement that "Mrs. X was murdered on Putin's birthday", even if expanded to "Many sources note that Mrs. X was murdered on Putin's birthday", is a BLP violation since it asks the reader to speculate on what the meaning of that possible coincidence might be. I am more interested in an admin acquainted with the BLP confirming this fact (that innuendo like this is a BLP violation) than I am in anyone getting blocked. The talk page section is a bit long by now, but you can skip the parts that I didn't write, haha. (I didn't come up with Desmond Tutu--another editor did that and actually stuck it in the article, as a very POINTy point.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is my edit on this page. As should be clear from the text, authors of every book claim about 'an actual connection and explain why the date of murder was important. However, these sources served only to justify inclusion of the fact noted as extremely important in a vast majority of RS on the subject. There is no way the reverts by BMK can be justified as removal of poorly sourced materials per BLP rules. The books are written by professional historians who are experts on the history of assassinations in Russia, among other things. Unless BMK admits that he did it wrong (including gaming the system and refusal to talk on article talk page after loosing the argument), he is going to repeat the same on other similar occasions in a future. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gentlemen, there will be no fighting in the war room. Marek, My very best wishes, it seems to be obvious that there is edit warring here. (The claim that BMK is gaming the system by asking for protection is silly--if BMK is right that this is a BLP violation, they are doing the right thing.) The only thing, then, that matters is whether BMK can reasonably argue that he can invoke BLP. I think that he can, and I am speaking through my administrative mouth piece. It's for that reason that I earlier removed the claim from the article, an edit reverted by, well, someone. Why this is a BLP violation, I have explained this a few times already. You can disagree, of course, but what matters here is whether an uninvolved admin (who's not being paid by the Kremlin, of course) thinks that BMK reasonably invoked the BLP. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Headtransplant reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: Closed)

    Page
    Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Headtransplant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "see talk"
    2. 01:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 01:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "hi, give me some time to edit this page please. per {{underconstruction}} thanks!"
    5. 02:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "hi, give me some time to edit this page please. per {{underconstruction}} thanks!"
    6. 02:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "please see your talk page, thank you. Undid revision 680921743 by JJMC89 (talk)"
    7. 02:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    8. Consecutive edits made from 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) to 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
      1. 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    9. 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "please give me time to edit the page, per {{underconstruction}} thank you."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Blatant violation of 3RR even after being warned. Makes changes without consensus. TL22 (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am attempting to boldly overhaul the page, and despite {{underconstruction}} template, I continue to be reverted.
    If I was an established editor on wikipedia, this would never happen. But since my user name and talk page is new, I cannot edit this page without constant reversion.
    The irony is this edit dispute is on the Article Rescue Squadron page, and this edit war behavior by editors is the reason why the Article Rescue Squadron exists in the first place. Headtransplant (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that the Headtransplant account's only other editing history consists of creating an unsourced stub article, reading in full "The Hypomanic Edge is a book by John D. Gartner.", and in adding a 'see also' Wikilink to the 'article'. This is clearly someone who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and shouldn't be messing around with Rescue Squadron instruction pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And even after being brought to this notice board, the edit-warring continues: [123] If this isn't trolling, it is a competence issue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, Andy. The reported user should be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. --TL22 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I attempted a dialogue numerous times with these editors, asking them repeatedly to just give me an hour to edit the article, per template:underconstruction. See the edit history of the page.
    We are talking about an obscure policy page.
    If I was an established editor with numerous edits here, this never would have happened.
    In response to me arguing against this 3RR, User:ToonLucas22 escalated this disagreement by WP:stalking my edits, and putting up my template for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_14#Template:Article_Rescue_Squadron_New_article.
    User:ToonLucas22 is now calling for me to be indefinitely blocked.
    1. No civil dialogue,
    2. a steadfast refusal to give me just an hour to edit a page,
    3. edit warring,
    4. threats,
    5. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_14#Template:Article_Rescue_Squadron_New_article retributive deletion requests, and now
    6. calls for me to be banned indefinitely.
    Headtransplant (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim of a 'dialog' is demonstrably false - see the lack of it in Headtransplant's editing history. What we have here is a contributor who refuses to comply with a simple request to get prior consensus before making fundamental changes to an instruction page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (and see also the related thread below 'User:JJMC89 reported by User:SuperCarnivore591') AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you know the passive aggressive way to edit war, does not make your behavior any less justifiable.
    You started this Andy. A minor edit war, and now you are calling for me to be blocked indefinitely.
    Headtransplant (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Headtransplant, WP:BOLD does not apply after editors have reverted your edits. We certainly encourage you to be bold in introducing changes to benefit the wiki, but when there's disagreement about whether they actually benefit the wiki, you need to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle and talk out the problems with editors before continuing your changes. The fact that the page was "under construction" doesn't give you the right to unilaterally introduce changes to a wikiproject's main operating procedures. Consensus is needed for such large changes before you carry them out, but especially when someone opposes the change. Can you see where you went wrong here, and do you have a plan on how to act in this situation going forward? ~ RobTalk 03:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob: I see that you also supported my template for deletion.
    Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14
    Again, underneath the quoting of policy is extremely passive aggressive behavior.
    You will aggressively support the deletion of a template that was barely made. There is policy about this too. You all never gave me a chance to create what I wanted to create.
    Of course, Rob, you will call my behavior wrong, but will you ignore the 3RR violations of the editor below?
    WP:BOLD applies. I attempted to tell this to User:AndyTheGrump and he was adment about not even giving me an hour of time to edit the article.
    I can quote policy too, What about WP:BITE, WP:NEWBIE or WP:CIVIL?
    And of course, you ignore template:underconstruction.
    I am not going to get in a protracted policy argument with you.
    Your like an aggressive pastor, you know the Bible like the back of your hand, and you selectively call sinners to repentance with your amazing ability to quote scripture, but that doesn't make the pastor any less passive aggressive.
    Headtransplant (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    'Newbie'? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you like to discuss WP:CIVIL and WP:Sockpuppets now Andy?
    Also, I have had over 200,000 edits to wikis. Mostly to wikia.
    I host my own 20 wikis.
    What about Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Again, you created this edit war. You refuse to compromise, you call for my indefinite ban, you delete my comments on your talk page. Multiple violations of WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Headtransplant (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I will bite. Lets play the policy game:
    Wikipedia:Negotiation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution:
    Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution.
    Andy violated Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
    WP:stalking
    By putting up my template for deletion, User:ToonLucas22 and Andy violated WP:stalking. Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.
    Headtransplant (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Andy violated Wikipedia:Dispute resolution"! This is getting more comical by the minute. I violate policy by asking Headtransplant to discuss changes before making them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:AndyTheGrump started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and User:AndyTheGrump's response:
    User:Headtransplant: "give me a little bit of time to edit Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list please. thank you. 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)" [124]
    User:AndyTheGrump: "No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Wikipedia works first, and then suggest improvements on the talk page." 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) [125]
    Headtransplant (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Headtransplant (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As been amply demonstrated, you don't have a clue what you are doing - or are under the impression that rules only apply to other people. I suggested you discuss changes - you didn't. And now you are being held accountable for your refusal. Stop whinging like a four-year-old and accept responsibility for your behaviour. Or toddle off back to your personal Wiki's where you can safely be ignored... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:AndyTheGrump started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and User:AndyTheGrump's response:
    User:Headtransplant: "give me a little bit of time to edit Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list please. thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)" [126][reply]
    User:AndyTheGrump: No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Wikipedia works first, and then suggest improvements on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) [127][reply]
    Headtransplant (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JJMC89 reported by User:SuperCarnivore591 (Result: Closed)

    Page: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: JJMC89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)



    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [128]
    2. [129]
    3. [130]
    4. [131]
    5. [132]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]


    Comments:

    This also appears to be a misuse of rollback as well, as the other editor's edits aren't clearly vandalism. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC) -->[reply]

    Stale report, JJMC stopped reverting 40 minutes ago, which is a considerable amount of time. --TL22 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is still edit warring. Five reverts, all within 24 hours, a clear breach of WP:3RR. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with that. I was gonna warn but they seem to have stopped. An administrator still needs to review this behavior, though. --TL22 (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the context, see 'User:Headtransplant reported by User:ToonLucas22' above - we have a new account messing around with an instruction page - and if it isn't simple trolling, it is a competence issue. Either way, removing instructions from the page is entirely inappropriate, and if reverting it isn't an exception under WP:3RR, it should be. There is far too much potential for mischief otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see.
    AndyTheGrump and ToonLucas22 support SuperCarnivore591 violating 3RR but not me.
    Again, I have attempted to boldly edit the article, an obscure policy article that instructions have not been edited in months, maybe years, using the under construction template
    In response, AndyTheGrump, ToonLucas22, SuperCarnivore591 blatantly ignore the under construction template, even when I ask for one hour to edit an article, template me several times on my talk page, report me to 3RR, put my template for deletion, and delete my talk page comments calling them "worthless".
    Again, User:ToonLucas22 escalated this disagreement by WP:stalking my edits, and putting up my template for deletion. Template:Article_Rescue_Squadron_New_article
    Headtransplant (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? "AndyTheGrump and ToonLucas22 support SuperCarnivore591 violating 3RR but not me." Dude, I haven't even edited the article, not once. So how could you say that I'm violating 3RR, and that I'm "blatantly ignor[ing] the under construction template" on an article I haven't even touched? SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said above, if this isn't trolling, it is a competence issue - Headtransplant repeatedly claims to be 'boldly' editing, but either hasn't read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, has read it but doesn't understand it, or understands it, but refuses to comply with the instruction to discuss after being reverted. And then spams multiple pages with personal attacks. [134][135][136] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And your solution User:AndyTheGrump is to indefinetly block someone you get into a minor edit war with.
    You selectively support the enforcement of 3RR. "Block me" you scream, but don't block SuperCarnivore591.
    You started this edit war. I repeatedly ask you to give me some time. I was in the middle of a major edit to the page, and you blatantly refused to give me time.
    Yes, I understand the policy.
    I also understand that editors like yourself use the policy like a club through passive aggressive behavior.
    You started this edit war Andy.
    This could have been avoided by you simply civilly discussing my changes. Headtransplant (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling now, but I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no valid reason to block me as I haven't been edit warring; I haven't even edited the article once. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey andy, is calling someone's edits "trolling" a personal attack?
    Is calling someones edits "worthless" and deleting them all, a personal attack? Headtransplant (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, is calling someone a troll exempt from WP:No Personal Attack? [137] Headtransplant (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Headtransplant (Result: 72 hours--for Headtransplant)

    Page: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:Headtransplant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [138]
    2. [139]
    3. [140]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    User:AndyTheGrump started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and User:AndyTheGrump's response:
    User:Headtransplant: "give me a little bit of time to edit Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list please. thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)" [141][reply]
    User:AndyTheGrump: "No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Wikipedia works first, and then suggest improvements on the talk page". AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) [142][reply]
    Comments:

    Looking at the history of this page, some editors have been blocked for 3RR even when they had "only" 3 reversions. Andy started this edit war.

    WP:CIR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • AndyTheGrump, I don't really think that AN3 is the right place for one-liners, and that comment of yours isn't even a complete sentence, for crying out loud. However, it is spot on. The editor was clearly edit warring and displaying a pretty massive amount of incompetence, besides personal attacks (on User talk:JJMC89) and just generally a bad vibe. I won't block indefinitely for CIR at this time. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: Stale)

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


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pritikin_Diet&oldid=646917490

    1. [145] 03:56, 14 September 2015‎ My edit. Two conflicting cites, one of higher quality. Dumped one, explained why. Research: Undoubtedly a brief diet fad -brief because it's stringent - but "fad diet" is little supported overall, and certainly not by these cites.)
    2. [146] 05:33, 14 September 2015 AB's revert. Does not, to my thinking explain, beyond the obvious that he thinks the other version good. (Reverted to revision 646917490 by 73.164.140.158 (talk): Rv. to good. (TW))
    3. [147] 06:15, 14 September 2015‎ So, I hit the ball back across the net, pointing out... Undid revision 680942659 Follow BRD
    4. [148] 06:26, 14 September 2015 For BRD, I did the R - now you do the D

    As you'll note above, I included actual discussion with each edit, but just to be sure, I add the following on the talk page:


    As you can see, the version reverted to had two very different assessments, one a mention in an introductory level diet text, and one an actual study. The study was largely positive on serious health gains, while the text emphasized...farting. Fails NPOV just on the face of it. When you add in the real question of equivocation -not all sources use "fad diet" to Alexbrn's preferred meaning of "fad diet"- it really is up to him to justify this reversion, not just assert the old version was good. Anmccaff (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Does Alexbrn discuss this? Well, later, but first, there are priorities!

    (cur | prev) 06:27, 14 September 2015‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,351 bytes) (+1,457)‎ . . (Warning: Edit warring on Pritikin Diet. (TW)) (undo | thank)

    ...then the "discussion."

    The source you deleted is a good one. Some of the other sourcing in this article is however dodgy. May get a chance to look in detail later. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The article we were working on is a short one. There is only one other source, aside from the bio/publishing details, which rather implies...

    There is one other source, aside from biographical details. How do you get "some" out of "one?" That strongly suggests that you don't need to "look in detail later", you need to look for the first time, now, before you simply do knee-jerk reverts. Anmccaff (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Do I need to notify him separately, seeing as he's already dropped a warning on my talk page?

    Anmccaff (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: This isn't happening in a vacuum [149] will show a similar pattern, this time tag-teamed, but with the same substitution of papering of talk-pages with warnings for actual discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NotAlpArslan reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: )

    Page: [[<Berbers]] 
    User being reported: NotAlpArslan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • ProKro added an inline comment advising against changing "Latin" to "Greek": [150]

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [152] (as an IP user, claiming that only admins can leave HTML comments)
    2. [153]
    3. [154]
    4. [155] (despite my edit summary noting that MOS:COMMENT doesn't reserve inline comments for admin use)
    5. [156] (with imperious edit summary, "I am not here to discuss")


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [158] Comments: His response: "Try not to reply, i don't really discuss."

    —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=681035798"