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 Murza-Zade (talk | contribs) at 21:37, 2 September 2016 (→‎User:222.71.88.222 reported by User:Murza-Zade (Result: )). 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:Giorgi Balakhadze reported by User:Turnless (Result: Protected)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]
    5. [6]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Turnless#Tskhinvali Region

    Comments:
    This user is removing valid information of transliteration of the name of the region to the relevant name in Armenian, as the majority of the region is Armenian. Yerevantsi provided sources of why the name is relevant, but that did not stop the user from continuing to edit war and removing that information. I am no longer going to revert as that would lead me to breaking the 3RR policy as well. The user is also edit warring on South Ossetia by installing his preferred name for the region which is not nearly as common and usually only used by Georgia for official reference to the region. Everywhere else on the article the region is referred to as South Ossetia as that is also the article's name. He was the one who started a discussion on my talk page by telling me to use the talk page for his POV information that he is adding, that is the discussion that I linked above. In that discussion, I also mentioned his edits on Javakheti, and warned him that he will be reported if he continues removing valid information and edit warring however, that didn't stop him from doing so. His last revert also says to stop changing the information until a consensus has been reached despite the fact that he was the one who made the new changes by removing the information that was already present on the article. This user has been blocked before for edit warring (see block log [8]) not only on the English wikipedia but, to my recent realization, also on Commons, where he was indefinetely blocked until not too long ago [9]. The user has also just started a discussion on Javakheti after once again removing the information from the article. Starting a discussion is good however not when it is paralleled by the user's continuous push for his preffered version of the article, despite already being given arguments and sources. --Turnless (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've explained to you to use talk page but instead you were reverting, so if you report me and you have good faith you should report yourself as well. I asked you but you can't provide why we should bold neighbor country used name and show it as common name when it is not common in English speaking world. I've removed only bold text and no single source, you can't provide any proper argument why you want to promote that uncommon name and now instead of reaching consensus try to act unfair and report me here (you should report yourself too). Now about Tskhinvali region interested persons can read this discussion User_talk:Turnless#Tskhinvali_Region, you are providing your view instead of fact, Tskhinvali region is a common name and used not only by Georgia but by many international organizations. --g. balaxaZe★ 20:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You started the discussion after your continuous reverting. Both Yerevantsi and I have clearly said why your removal of the information is invalid. I still commented on your discussion anyway regarding the relevancy of the name. As for the Tskhinvali region, I have already provided a link to the discussion, and explained the situation. I don't see why I should report myself as I have not broken the 3RR policy and have responded to your comments, despite your obvious ignorance to them as you are continuing to revert to your edits anyway. --Turnless (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My reverts were because you were reverting so you were engaged in edit-war, also I was first who mentioned that we were near of edit-wars but you decided that only me is edit-warring. No my only will was to leave things unchanged to discuss, to reach consensus and only after that to make changes, but you were simply reverting my edits I didn't saw any attempt to compromise, after Yerevantsi's edit I made compromise because his sources proved that thing what I've left.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really wanted to reach a consensus you would do that without continuing to revert to your edits, as once again you were the one who removed the information that was already on the article. Your will was not to leave things unchanged as you continued to revert. Your "compromise" was still removing the transliteration and only leaving the sources which makes no sense as that is still what you were pushing for. --Turnless (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The one who first reverted other users edit it was you. I made a change in the article since there was some wrong details, your edit were controversial to mine and instead of consensus you tried to achieve yours by reverts, I know this stuff and that's why I asked for discussion and consensus (also warned that it was close to edit-war), you had no single attempt to consensus this says everything.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided links to all of your edits and reversions. It can be clearly seen that you first made an edit of removing valid information, which you just called wrong details, which I have reverted providing an argument in the description. That followed with you reverting me once again, then Yerevantsi reverting you and providing another argument with sources for why the name should be used, you have reverted that too. That lead with me reverting you once again, however you kept being consistent with pushing your version. We went back and forth another time and that is when I stopped as I did not want to go against Wikipedia's 3RR policy. You had a total of 4 reversion plus the edit that you started with. I also once again want to point out that you only started a discussion after your reverts and still pushe for your version being in place. --Turnless (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah now I see that you have no single drop of Good faith since you are lying, I didn't reverted Yerevantsi but after his edits made compromise you still didn't provide appropriate argument why you want to put that name as common in English. Before the report you could reach a consensus with me as I am ready to add transliteration after Armenian name but no you want to do everything like you wish.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not have a compromise, it was just you reverting back to your change but with the sources provided by Yerevantsi, so no I am not lying. I warned you not to continue edit warring before I reported, but that followed with you reverting once again, which is why I reported you. --Turnless (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you believe but I missed your warning (believe or not up to you). Yerevantsi provided sources which say Armenians use this name and that all, the main issue was untouched why we should bold that name and to put it equal to common name, both of you had no argument regarding to this. I was ready and I am to put transliteration of Armenian name (without bold) we could reach consensus but you didn't left any chance. You looked at the talk page only after revert and report that shows your attitude, I opened talk page at 18:44 you appeared at 19:44 after everything. I was ready for discussion before your last revert but you preferred revert. Also I want to mention WP:HOUNDING issue because you appeared in both articles after my edits, having no single contribution before.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, I did warn you, the fact that you did not see that only implies you were ignorant to my comments, which also shows by the fact that you keep repeating yourself. You still continued to revert and push for your change on the article even when you started a discussion, despite the fact that it was you who first started removing information. I already commented on your accusations of me hounding you. I have paid close attention to the Georgia and its two breakway regions articles after the two discussions we had, which once again you abandonned. You are always active on those topics so don't be surprised if I notice your edits there. --Turnless (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Giorgi Balakhadze's editing is disruptive to say the least. His POV-pushing is very apparent. --Երևանցի talk 22:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What is my POV pushing when I am editing with argument and try to receive your counter-evidences, as I said above I was open for discussion and for compromise. I can say the say about POV pushing of Turnless, it is clear from his talk page discussions. At this moment my view was the same as in Wikipedia policies so don't call it POV. If you put something as equal to common name that you should have good explanation why (not just because there is Armenian majority).--g. balaxaZe★ 06:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You kept reverting and pushing your changes. The fact that the region has an Armenian majority is a very valid explanation for including the Armenian name in the article. Since you brought up my talk page discussions, there are two titled POV pushing. One has a question mark after it as it was me who called the user out for POV pushing, nevertheless a long discussion went on and the issue was resolved. The second being odd as it was quite short and random and I received them after the opposite of POV pushing but changing to more neutral wording. All that can be seen in the discussion. Either way, those discussion are quite irrelevant to this issue. Your view is definetely not the same as Wikipedia polcies as this is why you were reported for violating the 3RR policy and continuing to edit war. It's a shame you still refuse to see that. --Turnless (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not try to represent everything like you wish, you also kept reverting and pushing your changes. The fact that the region has an Armenian majority is a very valid explanation for including the Armenian name but not for bolding it making as second name, and common name of the article see differences?--g. balaxaZe★ 08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Shame is that you see only your opponent's "edit-war" (to achieve your goal) while you are hiding yours.--g. balaxaZe★ 08:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The quotation marks around "edit-war" in the above comment demonstrates Giorgi Balakhadze's attitude towards edit-warring: one of continual denial or a lack of understanding. Their statement saying "I am not edit warring :)" is further demonstration of this. This is despite a block just one month ago. CMD (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    CMD what would you say if I report Turnless as well? I knew that we where close to edit-wars and warned him and I opened talk page but no one appeared there. So who is real edit-war maker me or him? I was ready for discussions instead of reverts!--g. balaxaZe★ 14:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That previous issue was in connection with you and that's why you mentioned it, I can repeat my words that, that time you reverted not only copyvio text but other information as well. And I wrote down everything there but I will not comment admins decision... I know where are lines of edit-war and I try to not cross them, I had big experience with that and in this case I warned the user to not stat edit-war. No need in more comments, I wrote everything now I'll wait for result, if admin read all this and will have more questions I'll answer to him/her.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Turnless' actions are up for scrutiny here as well, as are those of every participant. Your unwillingness to contribute more than one substantial comment in Talk#Georgia (country)#Military image is not a positive indicator for your readiness for discussion. CMD (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I try to be very careful with edit-wars and never break the 3RR rule, which Giorgi Balakhadze did break, which is why even when he continued to revert another time I exited the conflict. I also did participate in the discussions he made however, he still pushed for his edit despite of making them by continuing to revert. His continuous blame for my actions rather than understanding why this report was made really shows his attitude to this issue and his lack of willingess to cooperate. Even in his last comment, he talked about wanting to report me as well, despite not having reached breaking the 3RR policy, rather than understanding his personal fault in this conflict. --Turnless (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: The Javakheti article has been fully protected one week. Use the talk page to try to reach agreement. Consider opening an WP:RFC. Armenian topics are covered by the WP:ARBAA2 arbitration decision. If there is a pattern where a user will always edit in favor of a particular nationality, we may ask if they are capable of neutral editing in this area. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lamg123 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)

    Page: Philippe Cousteau Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lamg123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: diff


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff Aug 14
    2. dif Aug 14
    3. diff today
    4. diff today
    5. diff today
    6. diff today


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and see content above that here from their Aug 14 visitation. Comments:
    The above "attempt" at resolving the content dispute lacks any good faith attempt at resolving it. I think a boomerang block may be required here. Edit wars are two sided, in this case both parties are in the wrong. EditorDownUnder (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have an obvious stalker: Special:Contributions/EditorDownUnder. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please discuss content not contributors. Rules apply to you as well. EditorDownUnder (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A "boomerang block"? You cannot be serious. It is clear that Jytdog's actions are justified; they appear to fall under the 3RR exemption for BLP. Specifically, Jytdog was trying to remove promotional, unsourced content from a BLP page, and indicated that in the discussion he initiated on the article's talk page. Furthermore the editor under discussion here, not Jytdog, is the one who both initiated the edit war and completed it by instating the content the fourth time. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article still has policy violating content; I left off after three reverts; Lamg123 kept going and has added yet more policy/guideline violating content while this is pending. The content includes PROMO violations including for example "an Emmy-nominated TV host, author, speaker, social entrepreneur, producer, and a prominent leader in the environmental movement." in the lead, and for example violates RS by using IMDB as a source, and other issues. The editor is not open to learning how WP works. A newbie editor had taken over an article by edit warring; I am looking for a block on Lamg123 so they learn to respect the policies and guidelines and the article can be restored to a policy/guideline compliant state. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: User:Lamg123 is warned they may be blocked if they restore material to the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scottperry reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Content Dispute )

    Page: LaVoy Finicum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject US Active Armed Movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Scottperry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Notice: I notified Scott about this filing here
    Action requested: (A) one-week block and (B) posting DS notice for US politics on Scott's talk page

    EVIDENCE

    Edit war at article "LaVoy Finicum"

    Warning 11:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Custom EW and GAMING warning at Scott's talk

    Edit war at article "Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge"

    Warning 11:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Custom EW warning at Scott's talk

    Edit war at "Wikipedia:WikiProject US Active Armed Movements"

    Warning Aug 28 22:22 Scott reminded that a single undiscussed re-revert is an edit war
    Warning and Request 00:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I asked Scott to self-revert to keep me from filing this complaint and again reminded him that a single undiscussed re-revert is an edit war
    Scott's refusal (verbatim) Aug 29 01:00
    Childish...
    Per your own definition, an edit war is when you revert someone's stuff without any explanation on the article talk page. You have now reverteted my edits three times without any such explanations on the article talk pages, and you reverted my edits before I restored them. Who is edit warring. If you would like to engage in a logical discussion about the edits, instead of all of this puffery about edit wars, please, by all means, I am awaiting your logic on the talk pages in question. And please do not delete the Project page rules until you agree to the rules themselves, which boil down to Transparency, Honesty, and Collegiality. Attempts at coercion via procedural maneuvering instead of true logic and reason in a friendly manner.... how sad. Scott P. (talk)
    Example of anti-AGF attack Aug 29 01:13
    ...I generally find little integrity, with most editors preferring to attempt to use procedural maneuvers to make their voice the "loudest" in any given article, rather than listening to simple truth and logic. Due to the general lack of Transparency and Integrity, I also find little Collegiality, just like your attempt just now to maneuver me into silence by repeating the "edit war" mantra over and over again on my talk page, instead of actually talking logic and reason in a friendly manner with me. Please don't try to squelch this project page just because you may not like it or the values it stands for. Or do you? Thanks, Scott P. (talk)



    DISCUSSION and CONNECTION TO PAST HISTORY
    My initial attempts to "discuss" were to provide short and substantive reasons in many edit summaries, maybe not all, but many. These were ignored. We could Discuss on the talk page, but first Scott needs an admin to teach Scott how BRD works. In my view, past words have fallen on deaf ears. Only a block will register (maybe). The problem is that Scott's acts and comments treat WP:BRD in a way that is best described as WP:Gaming the system

    1. B = Bold Edit

    2. R = When others revert without first getting consensus they are cheating, but no matter....

    3. D = Just start a discussion and immediately restore the reverted text before anyone has a chance to reply

    Scott is a long time ed who has never been blocked, but has presented troubling behaviors in the past. For example, Scott was warned about gaming the system like this in April 2015. He was warned about edit warring by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at EW noticeboard Oct 24, 2014 14:22 and Scott reacted rather badly. He believes that 3RR means he gets 3 free passes and today he's apparently still under that impression even though he was told otherwise last year.

    In addition to the above examples, Scott incurred a (failed) community community ban proposal in June 2015. During a pending ANI, Scott apparently made a series of edits at another user's talk page and these were enough to invoke the proposal. While it was being discussed, Scotts remarks were WP:Suppressed, and so with disappearance of the DIFFS the proposal was withdrawn.

    I only bring up the past problems to highlight the fact that Scott hasn't been blocked before. Someone even noted that fact when opposing the community ban. It is my hope that a first block now will go a long way towards education for the future, which is consistent with "prevention, not punishment".

    And we need prevention. In the present instance, Scott is on a mission to inspire discourse that changes US politics (see last paragraph of the DIFF). His mission is based partly on OR and confirmation bias, where he interprets a work of fiction, a turn of colorful rhetoric from a WP:PRIMARY source, does a bit of WP:SYNTH involving some dates, and comes to rootin' tootin' conclusions, yet somehow I am the bad guy when I insist on quality independent RSs. To purge his universe of the likes of myself, Scott has taken WP:OWNERSHIP of a new wikipedia project that he created, and he is only admitting certain people after they apply and he emails them.

    Ironically, as I put the final touches on this posting, Scott added a comment to LaVoy Finicum

    16:48, August 29, 2016‎ EditSum - "apologist" Text: " Are you an apologist for armed takeovers of federal property then? You are certainly acting like one here, in so far as I can see. "
    16:53, August 29, 2016‎ To his credit, he replaced that text, but the fact that he posted it in the first place is further evidence of a deeper issue here.



    CONCLUSION
    Help please. The project would be improved, and hopefully Scott will get the message, if he is blocked for a week. Also, I know this is the EW board, but would some uninvolved admin please give Scott the DS alert for US politics? I already gave one to myself.

    PS I am posting as Scott says he has to get to work, so please give him plenty of time to reply before taking any action.

    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Perry's reply to NewsAndEventsGuy (News Guy)

    I will attempt to summarize News Guy's sizable 6-page treatise just above. (Yes I printed it out so I wouldn't miss anything and it came to 6 pages!) It appears to me that the entire treatise primarily revolves around two fairly simple sentences which I added to the LaVoy Finicum article here, and which sentences News Guy appears to strongly disagree with. I must apologize, but all of the other 98% of his treatise appears to me to still primarily be an attempt on his part, to remove these two sentences from the article. Answer the question he raises about these two sentences first, and the rest will probably fall into line. As I understand it, due to the fact that News Guy has a personal theory that Lavoy Finicum did not intend to start any kind of a revolution, he feels that no mention should be made in the background section of the LaVoy Finicum article regarding Finnicum's recent apocalyptic novel, or of his news release regarding the "Oregon Freedom Revolution." In Finicum's news release, he described the Malheur occupation as a "revolution." In Finicum's novel he also described an American "revolution" which seemed to parallel the Malheur occupation in many respects.

    It is my understanding that Wikipedia is designed to present the best information possible with as little editorial bias as possible. It seems to me that News Guy instead prefers to withhold the best information possible, and instead to present our readers with his undocumented theories (thus editorial bias) about what News Guy believes Finnicum must have "really meant" when he described the Malheur occupation as a revolution.

    I do not fully understand why News Guy has preferred to write a six page treatise on why these two sentences should not be allowed in Wikipedia, when all he would have had to do, as I have asked him to do, would have simply been to have documented and supported his own personal theory (that Finicum didn't really mean what he said), rather than attempting to inject his own unsupported theory (which theory appears to myself to be almost directly supporting and strengthening Finicum's odd belief system) into the article without any documentation whatsoever. I have yet to know why News Guy is so concerned to seemingly try to get WP to effectively support a man who essentially wanted to start a revolution, by his own recorded and documented admission.

    Scott P. (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (A) Absent from Scott's reply is any mention of the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, which is the cornerstone of this filing. Indeed, it is his lack of appreciation and comprehension for BRD that begs for an educational one-week block to benefit the overall project going forward.
    (B) On the back side of an educational block, I hope to see Scott's other problematic behaviors (GF and NPA vios) abate, but would not be surprised to find ourselves at AE.... but first someone needs to give him the DS alert on US politics.
    (C) The scope of the content dispute is much broader that Scott has described, and I'm prepared to talk at article and project talk about those matters. This isn't the place and since that's all he said above, I don't plan to reply here unless an admin asks.
    (D) Once back at project and article talk, the BRD process can only be expected to function if Scott understands how it works and why it is vital. Hence my request for a block to wake him up on that score.
    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BRD states that one should only resort to "reverting" another editor's work after having attempted to consider whether the information in question could be modified instead, which you have not yet anywhere considered, and that afterward you should attempt to engage in a discussion with the other editor. I have repeatedly asked you to provide even the smallest amount of evidence to support your theory that Finicum didn't really mean what he said, and my request for discussion on this lack of citations on your part has been consistently ignored. BRD was not meant to be a license for anyone to delete anything with which they disagreed, without having to provide any supporting citations, supporting why they disagreed with any given edit. Scott P. (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. That sort of thing is for an admin to evaluate because.....
    2. Excusing your own non-BRD by concluding my reverts were in bad faith or somehow unqualified for BRD is the stuff of WP:Wikilawyering.
    3. These three articles were playing out at the same time, and you moved the debate to the project page, where I reverted a ton of unfixable stuff per the principle that even project pages must comply with policy. You restored all of that without discussion in a blazing display of project WP:OWNERSHIP.... and when I asked you self-revert to prevent this filing you replied quite colorfully with the quote in my opening post.
    4. You've tossed out several NPA and AGF vios my way
    5. Paradoxically, you're complaining about my reverts on the basis that we're not communicating. Gee, I wonder why that is?
    6. ADMIN: I'm not attempting to fold the NPA and AGF problems into this. Maybe later at another venue. I still think Scott needs a BRD wakeup call first and am hopeful that will also reduce the other behaviors.
    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should just wait for a neutral party's observations concerning our obvious difficulty in communicating with one another? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Admins? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that perhaps either you, or I, or both of us could stand with a little better understanding of the intended application of our BRD policy. I have just gone over to that policy page, found the last major conbtributor to that policy, who is User:WhatamIdoing, and invited him to come over here to help us through our little disagreement here. I don't believe I have ever intereacted directly with this user before. He appears to post on WP on a nearly daily basis these days. Apparently this Admin-discussion may take a few days to get resolved. I am hoping that this user might be able to help us both to gain a better understanding of this policy. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can join us, but we really need an admin to explain to you that there is only one R in BRD. And by the way, I am what you call "a BRD editor" myself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @NewsAndEventsGuy and Scottperry: this is a content dispute. I highly doubt any admin is going to find the related behavior on either side odious enough to merit use of tools. The bickering here reflects poorly on you both - you are both experienced enough to know better. Please re-read WP:EW, WP:EDITING, and (most importantly) WP:DR, then come back to the article talk page and discuss like adults. And WP:BRD is an essay, not policy. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be; I am quite proud of my BRD at the super hot page Talk:Global warming and intend to bring the same integrity to these other pages. That's hard to do when another ed does BRRD. I'll be glad to use the article talk pages when we're all on the same BRD page. I might even be persuaded and might even compromise. But we need a commitment to BRD first, not BRRD. There's a heap of NPA and AGF stuff here too, I figured BRD was the low fruit to try first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited policy in earlier days too. But I am looking forward to WhatamIdoing's input. If I am proven to be mistaken in my understanding of the way WP policy has changed over the years, then all the better. In my 13 years of editing here, I've never seen it applied the way you are wanting to apply it now. At least for myself, the main thing is for both of us to have the best understanding possible of this policy. Scott P. (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, since I've been invited to express an opinion, then I will say:

    • BRD is not a policy.
    • BRD is strictly optional. You do not have to follow the BRD method. The first paragraph of that page says, "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus.... In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach."
      • Normally, I'd add here that in BRD, there are no rules about who has to start the discussion. BRD says that the person who engages in discussion is the person best following BRD. That discussion can be started the person who did the first revert. But in this case discussions have already been started, and the fact that the discussions started shortly after the re-revert rather than shortly before it is truly unimportant.
      • B-R-R-D-ANEW is not "following BRD" either.
    • There are other alternatives to BRD, and sometimes they are more effective than BRD. See WP:BRD#Alternatives if you don't know what they are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks What. FYI, please see the comment I left at BRD talk page regarding Bold-Revert-Revert, and my belief that it is an WP:EGG. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a comment just to delay archiving, in case an admin wants to handle this report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute. I don't see 4 edits in a row to the same page to the same version within 24 hours (tho it is admittedly difficult to read with the commentary, and needlessly long explanation). Scott - please be warned however - you do appear to be pushing the boundaries, and could be subject to a block regardless of the number of reverts in a day should you continue edit warring. SQLQuery me! 04:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bgc7676 reported by User:James Allison (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Big Brother 18 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Bgc7676 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
    2. 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
    3. 17:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */Leave it omg"
    4. 17:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */Don't test me rn"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Big Brother 18 (U.S.). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The user continues to ignore all warnings and discussions in the Talk Page. They also continue to make edits that have been reverted by numerous editors Chase (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    User appears to have stopped reverting nearly 24 hours ago. Continuing this behavior will result in a swift block, however. SQLQuery me! 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Etsybetsy (Result: Both warned)

    Page: Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Genocide of indigenous peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [10]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14]

    also older diffs of the same matter

    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

    Comments:

    I'm starting by noting that three editors oppose his edits and that concensus against him has been pointed out to him. The main matter at hand across both articles is mainly about a fringe case of Amherst. Two smallpox blankets were given to natives with the intended purpose of infection. The edit warrer tries to paint this singular case as the cause of the smallpox epidemic which has raged on from times of Columbus, completely fringe. Pretty much all sources cast heavy doubt on the effectiness of the two blankets. I could have pointed that out as well but tried to instead just point out two testimonies of the native encampment already having been infected. The edit warrer keeps removing a mention of this.

    The second matter is the syphilis splashback. As the natives were infected by smallpox, so was a strain of syphilis brought back to Europe which killed millions. Pretty much all sources support a brought strain being the cause. It's not 100% clear that syphilis never existed in Europe before, but it's clear the killer strain was brought. This is a tiny mention only to illustrate the Columbian Exchange and to point out the unintended epidemics on both sides. Etsybetsy (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, about that warning, Ed, I'm unsure what the takeaway is supposed to be for me. It is common knowledge that (paraphrasing Wikipedia policy): any editor who reverts any edit at any article with or without consensus on a Talk page may be blocked for edit warring, depending on the circumstances. I'm already keenly aware of that risk whenever I edit (no additional warning needed), but I always edit with trust that "the circumstances" will be carefully reviewed by any admin considering blocks. Anyone taking a cursory look at the above complaint will find it obvious that Etsybetsy has: (1) ignored Talk page discussions since June (and I initiated them); (2) has inserted the same problematic content at least a half-dozen times using multiple IPs, which have been reverted by multiple editors; (3) has linked to an "attempt to resolve dispute" (above) which actually shows consensus against Etsybetsy's edits. It's so obvious, I didn't feel the need to even comment here. So Ed, if the "warning" (to me) is just superfluous rubber-stamp routine, then consider it acknowledged. Matter closed. If, however, you intended to spark a change in my editing practice, I'd appreciate it if you'd be more specific. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prestbury+2000 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Warned)

    User being reported: Prestbury+2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Page: Zombi 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Previous version reverted to: [20]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [21]
    2. [22]
    3. [23]
    4. [24]


    Page: Il coltello di ghiaccio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Previous version reverted to: [25]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [26]
    2. [27]
    3. [28]


    Page: Don't Look Now (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Previous version reverted to: [29]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [30]
    2. [31]
    3. [32]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

    Comments:

    This is a newly registered editor (4-day old account) making sweeping unilateral changes to plot/cast sections across multiple film articles. So far he has reverted three editors (myself, Grapple X and David J Johnson across three different articles. He has also continued the edits at other articles.. The editor is doing this on the pretext that it is "established practice" (which it is not) and all three of us have pointed out it is counter-productive to remove the names from the plot summaries (where they are useful) and group them together as a bare bones list. MOS:FILM only advises this as a solution in the case of stub class article. I tried to discuss this with him at the talk page of one of the articles, but he has been extremely antagonistic there and on my talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am tied-up with personal matters at the moment, but would just like to add my support and agreement with Betty's comments above, also the reported "editor" is engaging in personal abuse, as well as 3RR. David J Johnson (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor has declared his intention to "quit" Wikipedia: [35]. If he carries through on that it will be a waste of time investigating the case. I suggest keeping it open for 24 hours and if he returns and starts edit-warring we can can resume the case, and if not it can just be closed. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: User:Prestbury+2000 is warned for breaking 3RR at Zombi 2 on August 29. They appear to have a special interest in cast lists and their changes don't seem to enjoy general support. They may be blocked if they make any further revert on cast lists before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Declined)

    Page
    DreamWorks (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
    1. 17:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736906536 by 88.87.168.110 (talk) a part of Amblin"
    2. 15:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736898645 by 88.87.168.110 (talk) did not form NBCUNI"
    3. 18:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "/* External links */ not a predecessor to NBCUni"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Continuing worrying long-term pattern of edit warring with other users. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I agree with Spshu's edits. The category Predecessors of NBCUniversal is seemingly for individual companies that comprised NBC Universal when it was first formed. DreamWorks was not owned by the company at the time it was formed, so nothing DreamWorks related should be in there at all. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @ViperSnake151: Regardless, his activity could still amount to edit warring. Take a look at his block log, if you will, which includes seven counts of edit warring. That, my friend, is troubling. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on IP editor's talk page
    The whole category should be deleted (only predecessors of NBCUniversal are MCA, Inc. and Vivendi Universal Entertainment) and I have been reading up on how to do so. This is a form of vandalism adding a category that doesn't apply or was incorrectly definite. Spshu (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – 3RR was not violated. The filer of this report, User:Electricburst1996, is reminded they have not yet used the talk page at Talk:DreamWorks while Spshu and ViperSnake151 have done so. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ryecatcher773 reported by User:Sfo1980 (Result: Declined)

    Page: Brecksville, Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ryecatcher773 (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. [Brecksville is a city in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and is a suburb of Cleveland in the Northeast Ohio Region, the 15th largest Combined Statistical Area in the United States. The city's population was 13,656 at the 2010 census.]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]


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


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

    Comments:
    The reporting editor (Sfo1980) has not responded on the article's talk page (where the edit I made was explained clearly), nor has this editor weighed the opinion of other editors who concurred with the edit I made to the article. This editor is exhibiting serious ownership issues and is perpetuating the edit-war by not attempting to engage in constructive discourse on the Brecksville, Ohio talk page Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Indeed, he has edit-warred against two seasoned editors, even after being advised by a completely uninvolved editor that their edits were unhelpful. This report is after a vengeance-seeking ANI report. Muffled Pocketed 17:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined Sfo1980, you are very close to being blocked for edit warring. NeilN talk to me 17:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Manning954 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page
    David Carr (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Manning954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "consensus has been reached. Refrain from disruptive reverts. Thanks"
    2. 17:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "consensus was reached"
    3. 17:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "sources are in the body of the article. Isn't the intro supposed to be a summary, where sources are necessarily required, especially if it is included in the body of the article?"
    4. 16:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "dispute has been resolved. The only other guy disputing this has given up his dispute. Take a look at the NFL wikiproject talk page, my own talk page, and the talk page for this article"
    5. 12:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 737037343 by Crash Underride (talk)"
    6. 10:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736963600 by Crash Underride (talk)"
    7. 14:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC) "added info to intro"
    8. 10:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC) "removed information not pertinent enough for the intro"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on David Carr (American football). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The editor was blocked on 19 August for edit warring on the same article. As far as I can see no consensus has been reached. The editor also decided to give me a vandalism warning for reverting his edit. Marianna251TALK 18:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright where do we begin. The dispute here is what information is relevant enough to be included in the intro of David Carr (American football). Several users including an IP user and Crashunderride have insisted on Carr's Super Bowl ring information to be included. I don't believe that is relevant enough to be included in the intro. I still maintain it is not relevant. Despite that, I let it go AS LONG as the information regarding his draft bust legacy is included as well, which is far more relevant information. I make an edit including that information in the intro and apparently it was the equivalent of throwing kittens into the river. I've had no less than 5 people reverting that edit. I decided to hold my ground and reverted those edits. As a result that was the cause of the temp ban earlier this month. Lizard, as noted in his comment on the NFL Wikiproject talk page, said that ban was bullshit. I got "strong armed." Plain and simple. I got banned for adding a relevant piece of information to the intro of that article. You can look at my talk page, the NFL wikiproject talk page, and the article's talk page to see the discussions we've had pertaining to this dispute. Lizard was one of the guys reverting my edits and even we've come to an agreement on the issue. We either include both pieces of information or remove both. Either option is fine with me. The only other person disagreeing was Crashunderride. He abandoned his argument once he could not dispute the fact that the draft legacy was far more relevant that the super bowl ring information. Well at the very least it is 2-1 in my favor and really it's 2-0 since crashunderride abandoned his argument. Looks like a consensus to me. Now after it appeared it was all over, I added the draft legacy info to the intro and then UW Dawgs and Marianna251 come and engage in an edit war. They revert my edits which were the result of a consensus. Unlike those two, I'm not a baby and I don't ask for people to get a timeout in the corner. I don't want any of them to get a ban. All I ask is they respect the consensus and not revert my edits. Manning954 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also note that the earlier ban was for "edit warring." If that were the case, why was I the only one that got banned, when there were a number of people that were also reverting my edits who were also participants in the "edit warring." I've posed this question on my talk page and in appeals for the block and have not received an answer for that. Manning954 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we have an further example from 14:49 today (EDT), following the 3RR warning, to restore his preferred version over a compromise edit which received at least one other editor's support at the article Talk page -
    14:49 today. JohnInDC (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Missed this one at 14:41 today] as well. JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Possible sock of User:Edday1051 who has multiple (2?) blocks long ago [36] for editing the same article (David Carr (American football)) with thematically identical content edits ([37], [38], [39]). Special:Contributions/Edday1051 recently stopped editing on 23:04, 29 August 2016 and Special:Contributions/Manning954 then resumed from an absence on 09:19, 30 August 2016. Note, outside of this 3RR context, many editors can reasonably be in thematic agreement with the content of these edits and should work towards consensus on language and location. Only raising a question narrowly about socks and WP:GAMING, with no negative aspersion directed towards Edday1051. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Sockpuppetry concerns should be raised at WP:SPI NeilN talk to me 19:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edday1051 (for editors who were also considering filing). UW Dawgs (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kostja reported by User:Hittit (Result: Not blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: Content of article before revert warning


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Revert 1
    2. Revert 2
    3. Revert 3
    4. Revert 4
    5. Revert 5

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


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

    Comments:
    User:Kostja has on five occasions bluntly reverted sourced text by well known source Zahari Stoyanov, describing the original planning, agreed tactics and rebellion targets by the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee. Source is based/refers on the actual meeting protocols of the Revolutionary Central Committee and signed by the main rebel leaders. Argument of User:Kostja for deleting is that content of protocols is not true, however he has not provided any facts to counter his claims. Sourced text provides NPOV and describes the background planning of the rebellion, where use of violence against local Muslim population is agreed and accepted. The rebellion was suppressed thus could not achieve what was planned, however does not remove the fact of the intended actions to achieve its outcome. Deleting this section is POV and tries to hide important element of the rebellion and that also the other side suffered as well. Hittit (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let's see. Neither of you has breached 3RR. Both of you have been edit-warring since August 23. And Hittit has not notified Kostja of this report. I think that covers it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. SQLQuery me! 04:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:169.1.210.115 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    GcMAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    169.1.210.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 03:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 03:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
    5. 03:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
    6. Consecutive edits made from 03:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC) to 03:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      1. 03:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
      2. 03:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Repeatedly adding bogus health claims, random characters &c. Alexbrn (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:37.186.42.93 reported by User:ThE~fUtUrE~2014 (Result: Semi)

    Page: Hero Alom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 37.186.42.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. No. 1
    2. No. 2
    3. No. 3
    4. No. 4


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


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

    Comments:

    Repeatedly keeps removing content for absolutely no reason at all.

    • Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP has been removing various bits of content from the article but it is hard to guess what his objection might be. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kendall-K1 reported by User:Mercadix (Result: Declined)

    Page: Roosh V (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kendall-K1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User Kendall-K1 is war editting RooshV page, giving all pro-RooshV quotes, adding partisan pro-RooshV stuff without any 3rd party reference, writing at the end <ref=Everything> which are simply his pro-RooshV beliefs.

    Also user Kendall-K1 keeps on adding spam links to commercial website rooshv.com and returnofkings.com which are commercial websites owned by exactly RooshV, where he sells his sex guides Bang.

    Kendall-K1 deletes third party neutral websites as Anti Defamation League, and instead adds more links to rooshv.com commercial website.

    Kendall-K1 is obviously either RooshV, either a commercial employee of RooshV, considering his obsession of daily editing partisan pro-RooshV stuff.

    Please restrict or ban Kendall-K1, as he turns wikipedia in a commercial, money-making business redirecting the traffic from Wikipedia directly to RooshV's commercial websites where he sells his sex guides

    Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercadix (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only find two places where I reverted, you: [40] [41]. Are there others? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mercadix: if you have concerns about the content or sourcing of an article, you should bring those concerns to the article talk page. This page is for reporting violations of WP:3RR, which doesn't appear to apply in this case. clpo13(talk) 16:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can report insertion of commercial links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, and concerns about whether I represent Roosh at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. General concerns about neutrality of biographies can be reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – 3RR was not violated. If you have other concerns about User:Kendall-K1 see the above suggestions. At first sight, this appears to be normal editing rather than spamming. When you file at this board, please list the diffs that seem to show an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guccisamsclubs reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: )

    Page: Fall of Saigon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Guccisamsclubs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [42]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [43]
    2. [44]
    3. [45]
    4. [46] This diff is also a revert: the user continue removing the number of casualties of 1,200,000, same number he removed in previous edit.

    Warning about edit warring on another page was removed by this user from his talk page.

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

    Comments:
    This user also edited using two other accounts (this and this). This is something he admits and not an issue here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll not opine on whether this was a violation, but talk more generally. It's generally advisable to at least talk to the person to let them know that they have violated WP:3RR and give them the chance to self-revert. It is my practice to self-revert in such cases whether or not the complaint is correct. In this instance, Guccisamsclubs self-reverted their last edit in response to this complaint, and actually their interlocutor reverted them, agreeing that they were probably right. I fail to see what MVBW hopes to achieve with this complaint, since they have never edited either the talkpage or the article. Actually I suspect the answer, but I will leave it to others to evaluate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am thinking why exactly this user (an IP and two named accounts) refrain from making any comments on administrative noticeboards, even after a complaint about him like that one. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I don't care—and neither do the people I was "disputing" with. And you're the one accusing me of stalking? Guccisamsclubs (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you care about 3RR rule? Are you going to comply with this rule in a future? My very best wishes (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Given no response here (although this user is currently active), I would expect the same behavior to continue, i.e. violation of 3RR rule and self-revert if reported on this noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Piha ilman sadettajaa reported by User:Moira98 (Result: )

    Page: Talvivaara Mining Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Piha ilman sadettajaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [48]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [49]
    2. [50]
    3. [51]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

    Comments:
    Edits are unsubstantial and do not warrant discussion, imo. Moira98 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Coconutporkpie reported by User:Softlavender (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [53]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [54]
    2. [55]
    3. [56]
    4. [57]
    5. [58]
    6. [59]
    7. [60]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62] (NOTE: User has repeatedly deleted that thread in its entirety.)

    Comments:

    • User is repeatedly attempting to remove threads from the article talk page -- either his own faux pas or comments on his faux pas (see related inappropriate ANI if desired [63]) -- by extremely prematurely archiving threads and/or closing his own RfCs and archiving them, and by removing entire threads and replacing them on user talkpages instead. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The thread that was moved to User talk:DionysosProteus § Archiving of talk page was a thread of entirely personal commentary that had no bearing on the content of the article, and so clearly didn't belong on the article talk page. It was a relatively innocuous conduct dispute between two editors, which reached a natural end with this edit. Why User:Softlavender wants to insert himself or herself into that dispute, I'm sure I can't imagine. But I do find it curious that in scolding me for removing other users' comments, he or she has now thrice deleted my comment explaining the move, here, here and here. Looks like a clear breach of the three-revert rule to me.
    As for ending my own RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment explains, "An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator [...] The question may be withdrawn by the poster". I was the originator of the RfC, and I removed it. So, guilty as charged there. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't remove or move threads from any talk page except your own. Don't archive threads prematurely without consensus just because you don't like them. Each time I replaced the thread you repeatedly deleted, I added a note at the bottom as follows: NOTE: This discussion has also been copied and continued at User talk:DionysosProteus. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC), to note that fact that the thread had been copied to DionysosProteus's talk page and had further comments there. WP:3RR is not breached unless there are more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Per talk page guidelines, "At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page [...] Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion". The talk page in question had several instances of such distracting, off-topic commentary. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the latest episode in a long line of antagonistic and disruptive editing at that talk page by Coconutporkpie. Having attempted to argue in this forum that the editor had experienced incivility, and received many responses that clearly didn't validate that sense, Coconutporkpie decided to archive it all away, despite having occured very recently (stretching back over the past two months with a sequence of other editors). So far, the most recent action has been objected to and reverted by three different editors, each of whom Coconutporkpie has chosen to ignore.  • DP •  {huh?} 01:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing another editor of "antagonistic and disruptive editing" is pretty serious; this would be the place to show some concrete evidence of it. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A perusal of the material you are archiving confirms "antagonistic and disruptive editing" easily enough. Once again, I encourage you to rethink your priorities and focus on actually improving the article in question.  • DP •  {huh?} 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Coconutporkpie, the thread was an instruction to you not to prematurely archive the article talk-page threads; you moved it without consensus and edit-warred to keep it removed. You also omitted the rest of that TPO guideline: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." -- Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I agree with DionysosProteus that Coconutporkpie has been extremely disruptive on that talk page, having made 90 edits on it since July 4 [64], and also having filed an extremely time-wasting ANI about the talkpage: [65]. I don't know if this is the correct forum, but I believe he needs some sort of sanction to prevent further disruption -- say, a topic-ban from that article and its talk page. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm inclined to close this with no action taken per my note on Coconutporkpie's talk page [66] and with the understanding Coconutporkpie realizes that they'll be blocked for disruptive editing if the same behavior resumes. Topic bans need general community input and cannot be enacted here. NeilN talk to me 14:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:X4n6 reported by User:Safehaven86 (Result: )

    Page: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: X4n6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [67]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [68]
    2. [69]
    3. [70]
    4. [71]


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


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

    Comments:
    Editor has repeatedly removed well-sourced content from the article. A 2:1 WP:CONSENSUS exists on the talk page, and in article history, for including this material. Have made significant attempts to engage editor and hash out policy disputes, but even in the face of a talk page consensus, editor has an WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality which has unfortunately led to edit-warring. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

    Response:
    This is a clear case of BOOMERANG. Safehaven86 was warned about edit warring here. And warned these edits violated WP:POV and WP:UNDUE here as well as on the Talk Page here and most recently here.

    Instead of working collaboratively with editors of opposing viewpoints to reach consensus, Safehaven86 responded with the following edit-warring filibuster:

    I should also point out that, contrary to Safehaven86's claim, my mass revert was fully explained here.

    I should also note Safehaven86's mass edits were done while 3 editors were actively working on a consensus of the wording for this section. I should also point out that this occurred after Safehaven86 "warned" me about warring! So Safehaven86 knew full well what this massive, non-consensus edits were doing. But just like the honey badger, Safehaven86 don't give a ****.

    It's also important to note that Safehaven86's response to violations of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE is always that they are reliably sourced. Which only proves that, despite repeated requests, Safehaven86 refuses to submit to either policy, which notes that sources aren't the sole concern in these cases. Again, Safehaven86 meets honey badger. Further, Seahaven's sources themselves are frequently either outdated; or themselves violate WP:IMPARTIAL. Safehaven86 also ignores WP:BALASP. But again...

    It's also worth noting that Safehaven86 edit-warred at the very moment the user was filing this "edit-warring" complaint against me! Safehaven86 also intentionally ignored the fact that I had already noted that my explanation for the mass reverts was already on the talk page. And again, here it was.

    But it's also very important to note that Safehaven86 has been POV pushing this same, single issue on this article for over a year. Since June 2015 on the talk page alone. See here.

    And this series of edits follows a pattern of this user's POV pushing on this article, which goes back over a year. Here is Safehaven86's June 2015 filibuster, which starts out harmlessly enough, then abruptly changes:

    So it is seems likely that there may even be some OWNERSHIP issues with Safehaven86 regarding this article. But even as far back as 2015, other editors complained to Safehaven86 about the POV pushing edits. See here.

    It did not go well then either, as can be seen:

    So this is not Safehaven86's first rodeo. Safehaven86's POV pushing on this article has been objected to by several different editors over more than a year - and still, Safehaven86 persists. So I'm not sure if a BOOMERANG block would be effective here. After all this time, it seems more likely that only an article and its talk page topic ban of Safehaven86 on this article will finally end this. Unfortunately, given Safehaven86's long history of flagrant disregard for policies - even after being repeatedly advised of them, over a year - by multiple editors. So I would have to support such an article and the talk page topic ban. Otherwise, we'll just be here again with the next editors who try to fix Safehaven86's long-term and determined, POV pushing on this article. X4n6 (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool story, but nowhere in this large wall of text do you deny edit warring or address your own behavior on this article. If you had concerns about my editing on this article, which it sounds like you've had going back a year now, you should really bring that up in the proper form (probably WP:ANI). The fact that you've chosen to air these apparently very serious, honey-badger related concerns only after I've filed this report against you seems suspicious. All of your many diffs above only show the validity of my original report: me and User:clpo13 are in agreement on the talk page, and you're continually reverting both of us. Your reason for reverting this edit is not sound. Consensus was reached, and it was to include the material--that's why both clpo13 and I added the material to the article. The fact that you reverted both of us--two editors who had built a consensus on the talk page--because you didn't like that consensus, is edit warring. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It speaks volumes that you don't deny anything I've addressed. I even tried to warn you about BOOMERANG when you launched your ill-conceived "warning" on my talk page - which was apparently easier for you than just editing collaboratively in the first place. But everything I said was accurate. As I've already shown and linked to in my response:
    • 1) You were wrong when you claimed I had not explained my mass revert. I had.
    • 2) You also knew you were wrong, because I had already noted in the edit log that the explanation was on the talk page in the edit immediately prior to yours. Yet you reverted anyway.
    • 3) You even continued edit-warring after you lodged your complaint here.
    • 4) And as the edit log clearly shows, you have been POV pushing this same claim - with your outdated and biased sources - since June 2015.
    • 5) Other editors have also complained to you about your POV pushing - and you ignored them as well - just as you ignored me.

    So you have no answer for anything I've presented. But there's more:

    • 6) As to my behavior - the edit log is also clear that with each revert you listed: I either expressly asked you not to edit war; or I specifically cited which policies your edits violated.
    • 7) What's more, you forget - it also takes two to edit-war. So you've ignored that in every case where you cited my reverts, your own reverts either preceded them - or followed them:

    Also, I need to discuss your clear misunderstanding regarding CONSENSUS. Consensus is not defined as two editors who agree ignoring the opposing view of any other editor(s). Consensus is "marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." While determining consensus is "ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Your arguments failed on their own merits; and they failed to follow Wikipedia policy. So you never had consensus. Instead, you had WP:TALKDONTREVERT, which states: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." What you also had was an example of tendentious editing, explained as: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."

    But the additional fact that for over a year, other editors have repeatedly told you that these exact same edits - either violated policy; or were just factually wrong - indicates that, if any "consensus" exists, it is against you. And for over a year, you have repeatedly ignored that consensus.

    Finally, as to your claim that I didn't address these concerns before your report here? Once again, not true. I tried to warn you here. But honey badger just didn't give a ****. And now that you've made it clear that you'd rather litigate than collaborate - your longstanding tendentious behavior on this article is finally being addressed - and should be addressed. X4n6 (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is really TLDR, and I doubt any passing admins will have a desire to weigh in here. It's not actually too complicated, though. You removed longstanding material from the page. Clpo13 reinserted a version of it. You then removed the original content and more. I reinserted it per WP:BRD. You removed it again, saying it was "pretty clear" why you removed it, but declining to discuss on the talk page. I reinserted after me and Clpo13 had a discussion about it on the talk page. You removed it again, ironically stating "please do not edit war" in your edit summary. I made a series of edits, some relating to the content in dispute, but most not relating to it. You undid all of the edits. It would be one thing for you to tag or remove the disputed content, but I do not understand why you would also undo a variety of housekeeping type edits (adding archived links, correcting redirects, WP:MOS copy edits). Clp013 reinstated my edits, calling them "clearly beneficial" (this editor also used the "thanks" log to thank me for making these edits in the first place). You undid these edits again. I reinstated them because you had not, in fact, explained why you had undone all of the edits, and two editors were in agreement that the edits should stand, while one editor, you, was not. Even if you believe you have consensus on your side, there is no justification for edit warring per Wikipedia:Edit warring. I brought this complaint here because you didn't give any indication that you were going to stop reverting me and another editor. I'm glad you now seem to have stopped. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Soundwaweserb reported by User:Serialjoepsycho (Result: )

    Page: Novak Djokovic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Soundwaweserb (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. [74]
    2. [75]
    3. [76]
    4. [77]


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


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

    Comments:
    A Consensus was established via RFC Talk:Novak_Djokovic#RfC_Novak.27s_mother. All reverts were done to undo the consensus. The justification seems to very much be a nationalistic sentiment[78]. The Editor has been twice before banned for edit warring on the very same article[79] about a month ago. I can't see any reason that they should continue to be allowed to edit this article. With them attacking Croatian and Chauvinists without any realistic justification it's clear that this article and subject matter is far to personal. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of 3RR at Skanderbeg

    User:MARSELIMADHE reported by User:Antidiskriminator (Result: )

    Page: Skanderbeg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: MARSELIMADHE (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. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link


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

    Comments:
    My edits were reversal of reversal of others' edits of my additions which are fully referenced. MARSELIMADHE (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Basque&Roll and User:79.167.10.188 reported by User:TastyPoutine (Result: )

    Page: Victoria Libertas Pesaro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Spirou Charleroi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: BBC Etzella Ettelbruck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:Basque&Roll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is not a WP:3RR violation but is turning into an edit war on several pages. The editor and the IP have made several page moves without seeking consensus. In addition, the page moves were being performed via a cut and paste.

    The changes were reverted by other editors and warnings given to User:Basque&Roll about both the move and the cutting and pasting.

    • [80].
      After the first round of reverts, User:79.167.10.188 entered the fray and started making the same page moves as before, and in the same fashion. The user has not replied to any talk page messages so wanted to file this report in an effort to stop what ultimately will be an edit war over these pages.TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 09:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments:

    User:Claudevsq reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: )

    Page: List of current world boxing champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Claudevsq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [81]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [82]
    2. [83]
    3. [84]
    4. [85]
    5. [86]


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


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

    Comments:
    In the space of a month, and now within a few days, User:Claudevsq has reverted my edits five times—slow edit warring, with no edit summaries. The edit I have tried to introduce is regarding Jesús Cuellar, a boxer whose full name of Jesús Marcelo Andrés Cuellar is not used on the title of his WP article, per WP:COMMONNAME. User:Claudevsq is nonetheless adamant that his full name be used via piping, which is completely unnecessary as the article title in question only uses a two-component name, as do most search results: "Jesús Cuellar" brings up around 64,000 more Google hits than "Jesús Marcelo Andrés Cuellar".

    Have left four messages on User:Claudevsq's talk page, to no avail. I don't wish to sound petty by dredging up the past, but he does have a history of doing this before, so this isn't anything that surprises me. Furthermore, rather than communicate via talk pages, he has used one lone edit summary to dismiss me as having "threatened" him—I have done nothing of the sort. A bit of pestering, sure, but that's just my style when someone chooses to be non-communicative. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:222.71.88.222 reported by User:Murza-Zade (Result: )

    Page: Foreign relations of South Sudan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 222.71.88.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I do not know exactly where to go with the request.

    Anonymous variable-ip. On the talk page is not going to answer. Anonymous introduces false information. Removes confirmed by sources information. [88] Threatened on my talk page. [[89]]--Murza-Zade (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=737451682"