Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: )

Page: Southern strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Getoverpops (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Southern strategy#Neutrality Dispute and the seven or so sections under that

Comments:

This editor originally posted as an IP. After a 3RR warning, a referral was made for edit warring with the result of semi-protection. See [[5]] he IP was also blocked for 24 hours for uncivil edits (see [6]. The IP obtained a registered account and has generated a great amount of text on the article's discussion page. Four or five editors have responded and all disagree with every point raised -- nobody has agreed with him. Today he started editing against consensus on the main article. He reverted the first sentence to a different version (which was the main focus of the IP editing), deleted a paragraph that had been discussed at length with no agreement to change, and added sources that had been rejected on the discussion page. The third deletion above (this is not a 3RR referral) came after the new warning that I issued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This accusation of edit war is unfounded based on the three included references. I made two changes to the article only one of which was disputed. The first change (see as links 60 and 61) was the inclusion of additional references in the opening title. The first change was not a revert but an original edit. The second was a revert based on the one revert rule [[7]]. In other words it was undoing the removal of material I added. The last claim of reversion is unrelated to the first two. I had previously removed a single sentence paragraph that was in the opening section because the same sentence also exists in a later section. Hence I was not removing content from the article but making a simple style edit. I did that style edit twice because the revert of ref 60 added back that change as well as undid my changes to the first sentences. Thus the revert of link #60 was more than a revert of a single edit of mine.

For reference and in case things change the links to my edits in question are currently #60-62.--Getoverpops (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The first change listed in the diffs above reverted this edit [8] that I had made on March 18. After my edit the first paragraph read:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.

After Getoverpos first edit listed above the first paragraph read:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to an Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States. Some sources claim the strategy specifically appealed to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5] Other sources dispute that there was a strategy to appeal to racism.[6][7][8][9] Regardless of the dispute over the facts and origins of the term, the "southern strategy" has come to imply an appeal to racism in the Republican Party.

This change was the central focus of the discussions on the article talk page.

As to the other edit, he made a material change to the lead. Saying that he was just reverting the elimination of a repetitive sentence is disingenuous. Material in the lead is often (always?) repetive of material in the body of the article. Two editors had reverted his elimination of this material from the lead and Getoverpops, after he received the edit warring warning, still eliminated the material. This material was mentioned throughout the discussions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The March 18th change and the more recent change are not the same. The objection to the March 18th change was based on the use of "alleged" as a leading word. I attempted to address that concern in the later edits. It is also important to note that the editor did not move the conversation to the Talk page after undoing my changes. That you disagree with the changes I made in the talk page does not make it an edit war. Your claim regarding the final edit is true in that I removed it from the opening section but it stylistically does not fit in the opening and it means the same sentence appears twice in the article. How is that problematic? Furthermore, that is not the same edit as #60 and #61. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Slight rebootage here:

Revert 1: 13:45, 24 March 2015‎, edit summary "Removed unsupported, inflammatory entry."

Revert 2: 16:41, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Per one revert rule I am re-reverting. Move to talk."

Revert 3: 17:06, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Removed sentence that was nearly identical to one in later section (Recent comments on Southernization and Southern strategy)"

Revert 4: 20:51, 24 March 2015, edit summary "This article has been submitted to the neutrality review board. I am adding the neutrality tag for the time the article is under review." Note this reverts removal of POV template by a previous editor here.

Four non-consecutive reverts in (much) less than 24 hours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Per Boris this now looks to be a plain old WP:3RR violation, besides a long-term pattern of warring. Normally this calls for a block. If Getoverpops will promise to stop warring on the article and wait for a talk page consensus, it would help his case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

First, what exactly is meant by non-consecutive reverts? My understanding of the 3 revert rule is three reverts of the same material. That is not the case here. It was 1 revert of disputed material which is allowed per 1 revert rule. The redundant sentence was only reverted because it was re-added with an unrelated revert. That is I made two separate changes but an editor incorrectly reverted both while only talking about one (the other was not a subject of discussion). Finally, the warning tag was one that I originally misunderstood the use of. However, it was re-added after I submitted the article to the correct board. That is, it is not a revert at all. I would also point out that my IP address based reverts included requests (which was per BOLD even if I didn't realize it) to move the discussion of the removal to the talk section. The editors who were removing those section were not responding to the request to move to talk. I don't think consensus will be easy to reach given the nature of the article and the way the editors have not been open to addressing the issues I have seen. That said, I have opened a dispute to avoid further 3RR issues. Please take that as a promise to not revert with out discussion. I would hope in kind North Shoreman will promise to engage in an open discussion regarding issues in the article. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I want to point out that the rebootage claim #1 was a revert that should be seen as undoing vandalism. This should qualify as a revert exception under [[9]] rule #4. Thanks. --Getoverpops (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing admins are requested to review the 3RR violation in the context of a larger pattern of behavior that includes not just edit warring but forum shopping and canvassing for support. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Could I request to have this review closed. I seem to be the only case that was started with just 3 cited reverts (my reading of the rule is that 3 is the edge but not over the edge). I think North Shoreman acted incorrectly when citing the first revert. That one was removing vandalism and it's notable that no editor disagreed with the removal nor has the removed text been added back. That revert is one of the ones Boris cited. With that removed North Shoreman has cited only 2 reverts which I think would put me more comfortably back from the edge. Boris cited a 4th revert that North Shoreman didn't. However, that was an editing error on my part. I didn't realize I needed to post to the neutrality dispute board before posting the notice to the article. Thus it was proper for the editor to remove the tag. However, after the tag was removed I did post to the neutrality board thus it was proper to add the tag. Thus I would argue that was not a revert at all. As a new editor I was not aware that I shouldn't appeal the general neutrality of the article at the same time as requesting moderation on a specific change. The Neutrality discussion is still on going. Regardless I feel there were only two reverts that would be subject to the 3RR rule and thus would ask that the case be closed. Thank you.--Getoverpops (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:124.82.32.57 reported by User:Denniss (Result: Page protected)

Page

GeForce 900 series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 20:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "There is no false advertisting, stop trying to slander and smear campaign"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC) to 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "No such thing, stop your lies and slander & smear campaign"
   2. 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 21:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 08:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 124.82.32.57 (talk) to last version by Weegeerunner"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

multiple edits to remove valid 'false advertizing' category, attempts to talk with this user have not been successful. Seems to be a nvidia fanboy or associated with them. Denniss (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Add-on - user keeps blanking his talk page (removed warnings from me and two other users), obviously not interested in any discussion, did also not start discussing cat removal on article talk page. Don't know if that's just trolling/vandalism or paid editing. In his reverts he called me a liar and starting a smear campaign, the false advertizing cat is valid for the Geforce 970 issue with falsely advertized specifications. --Denniss (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be an unsourced claim which Nvidia denies. Perhaps the controversy, accusations, and ongoing can be mentioned somewhere in the article, but unilaterally labeling it as a matter of categorization seems to pretty obviously go against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And while the IP received templated policy notification, I don't even see any real attempt at discussion from either side. Don't see a one-way block as a solution here. Swarm ^X 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read GeForce_900_series#GeForce_970_specifications_controversy - it's really hard to believe the specifications on their website (also communicated to and via their board partners) were 'accidentally' wrong. No serious hardware-related source believes this claim. If users hadn't questioned and investigated the strange performance issues shown by 970s, nvidia would still show the original (known wrong) specification. --Denniss (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing the false advertising category when it is well sourced is just plain vandalism. This report would have been better taken to WP:AIV after the required vandalism warnings. I just won't use my administrator tools to block this vandal because I have been in a conflict with the same user, who edits from some Malaysian IPs. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree that this is vandalism. The controversy section in the article is well-written and sourced, and it could probably even be expanded. However the article itself makes no claim of false advertising. I understand the accusations completely and they're probably right, but in the spirit of NPOV and RS, the article shouldn't take a stance unless the claim is supported by reliable sources. Regardless, Page protected until April 2 by MelanieN, which I agree with. Swarm ^X 20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Vivi243971 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: 72h)

Page: Malcom Filipe Silva de Oliveira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vivi243971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10] This

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11] On March 12, this was his first disruptive edit.
2. [12] 12 days later he comes back once again with disruptive updates.
3. [13] He was asked to stop.
4. [14] He was warned about edit warring after this one.
5. [15] This was after the warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

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

Comments:
Pretty simple situation. We have an editor doing disruptive updates based on his own will. He was asked to stop, warned and still kept on going with incorrect updates. There's no good faith there as the section is pretty clear and the data is "obvious". Looks like he won't stop until he gets blocked. Might keep doing it more if he gets blocked for a small period. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Not sure what this editor's deal is but if this behavior continues after this block expires I would recommend an indef as a vandalism-only account, per Occam's razor. Feel free to let me know if future action is needed or refer another admin to this report. Swarm ^X 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:174.113.44.178 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: 24h)

Page: Higgins (dog) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.113.44.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Since the original report, the IP Editor has twice made changes to the same text in the article:

1. [22]
2. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This is a quite simple case, and edit summaries have communicated the need for sources adequately, equating to short discussion

Comments:
First Diff, IP editor reverts long standing figure of 163 appearances to 195 without source or edit summary. I request a source in my edit summary, and restore the original value.

Second Diff, IP Editor reverts, and replaces the figure of 163 to 147, again unsourced. Again, I restore the original data, and request a source in my edit summary.

Third Diff, IP Editor uses original research and claims to have watched all episodes on YouTube, and reverts to the 147 value. (Note that it is impossible to actually watch six season of a half hour program, ~90 hours, in less than a day) This time, I actually research and find the appropriate number of episodes (184) via IMDB and reference that in my edit summary with the appropriate change. Yes, I do know that IMDB is not an RS for biographical data, but it is accepted for credits.

Fourth Diff, IP Editor reverts to their Original Research figure of 147. Subsequently, I stopped editing and came here.

Since the initial report, the Fifth and Sixth Diffs presented have been made, again changing the values of that data.

As this is my first time posting to this board, I trust that I will be informed if I have malformed this request, or have somehow misunderstood the rules. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Pretty straightforward case. FYI your report was filed perfectly and your clear explanation of the situation is very much appreciated. Feel free to return if the problem persists. Regards, Swarm ^X 20:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Am I permitted at this point to restore the sourced content, or would that be a continuation of the edit war? ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

By all means, restore the correct info! Swarm ^X 23:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:77.238.221.199 reported by User:DVdm (Result: 24h)

Page: General relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.238.221.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none. User is non-responsive and was blocked before for same edit in another article. See sock 37.208.33.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmerishs reported by User:Zad68 (Result: indef)

Page

Cerebral palsy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) to 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
   2. 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC) to 13:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
   2. 13:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Respecties, This is not a vandalism. Its a true document of Siddha Medicine. This the Evidence of Traditional Indian Medicine. We are following the Procedures here. We cure lot of childrens. If you need to see, you can come"
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) to 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653771699 by Zad68 (talk)"
   2. 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "welcome"
2. 13:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "/* rsplease */ new section"
3. 16:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cerebral palsy. (TW)"
4. 16:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Edits at Cerebral palsy */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor keeps re-adding unsourced or poorly-sourced material. Latest edits re-added same material and threw in link to source that does not support content. Warnings and direction to Wikipedia sourcing standards unheeded. Zad68 18:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this editor be indef blocked as a spam-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That would certainly require their attention before they could continue, I'm OK with that approach. Zad68 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Concur with Ed completely for obvious reasons. No contributions to the project whatsoever except for the promotion of a pseudoscientific belief system in an important medical article. Swarm ^X 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:D-Pro22 reported by User:Kareldorado (Result: No action)

Page: Eden Hazard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: D-Pro22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on his/her talk page #1: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on his/her talk page #2: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: [37]

Comments:

• This user refuses to participate in a proper discussion and carries no arguments why his/her source would be reliable.
• The article's talk page is neglected even though I emphasized time after time that this user should use it.

Kareldorado (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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. I have commented on the articles talk page regarding policy-based guidance on the matter. Swarm ^X 21:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Broadmoor reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24h)

Page: Texas Southern University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Broadmoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43] (among several other warnings and notices from different editors)

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

Comments:

This editor has been edit-warring with multiple editors across multiple articles with little productive discussion in Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 00:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kharkiv07 reported by User:98.193.95.34 (Result: IP blocked)

Page: Jordis Unga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kharkiv07 (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] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653818837
2. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653817997
3. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653817932
4. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=651843368

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

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

98.193.95.34 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• IP Blocked for 48 hours for WP:BLP violations. Last edit by IP reverted by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Castncoot reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Both warned)

Page: Forest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Castncoot (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. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:

User has a history of tendentious editing in this article. There was lengthy discussion of this material involving multiple editors, and consensus was reached on the material to be added and the wording to be used. The material is well-referenced in the appropriate section of the article. There is no consensus that this material needs to have the references repeated in the lede, in fact the references were at one point in the lede, and were removed by editor Hike395[[51]] as being unnecessary. To the extent that we have consensus, it is that the references do not belong on the lede. There is certainly not the "case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" required for inclusion of the references required by WP:LEADCITEMark Marathon (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually not so. No consensus was reached, as I've noted on the talk page, just that this editor declared one had been reached. In fact, other editors actually had significant problems with his wording. Not only that, but I started the sequence by undoing Mark Marathon's edit today, not the other way around. Most importantly, Mark Marathon is the one who partially reverted himself recently and added a citation-needed tag, and now he wants to take back his edit on his preferred terms. The whole issue here is silly, because all I am asking for is a citation in the lede of an extremely contentious statement. Ultimately, WP:LEADCITE defers to WP:CITE and WP:RS, otherwise one could write anything in the lead section under this pretext; and in any case, WP:LEADCITE also demands WP:Verifiability. Why fight? Just cite! Castncoot (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that you are edit warring. You have no consensus for your changes and refuse to gain consensus on the talk page. That is in blatant violation of WP:BRD, WP:STAUSQUO and WP:LEADCITE. Consensus is not gained by repeatedly reverting. That is an edit war.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, 1) the initial changes today were yours, not mine, and 2) no consensus was reached by you either for these changes or the recent previous ones you had claimed consensus for.[52][53] So aren't you technically the edit warrior here? Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. The next revert by either party may lead to a block. Neither of you have posted on the talk page so far in 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:JasonNolan64 reported by User:88RRRR88 (Result: No violation)

Page: American Ninja Warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JasonNolan64 (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Ninja_Warrior&diff=653831083&oldid=653817332
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:

• 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. Try discussing the issue with this user. Swarm ^X 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Filer was indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet per a case a WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightning Sabre reported by User:Veggies (Result:blocked indef)

Page

United Airlines Flight 93 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lightning Sabre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Memorials */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned in the past [54] about his behavior under the pain of an indef block. Veggies (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely No indication that the warnings against disruptive behavior have been taken seriously (i.e. leaving a block notice on OccultZone's talk page). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Editors should also note that this disruptive user has also edited under IP: User:92.97.208.37, as well as another sockpuppet account - now blocked. They have also left block warning notices, when not authorised to do so. They have had multiple warnings and have taken no notice. I totally support an indef block. David J Johnson (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

After all the discussion and warnings, this user is still asking for the block to be reviewed again - with further promises that disruption will not happen again. Frankly this is nonsense, as they have taken absolutely no notice of requests and warnings previously. I would remind admins and editors of the following:

• Deleting numerous warnings from many editors to stop vandalizing articles through March 2015.

• Ignoring warnings regarding taking credit for, and downloading, copyright images on March 24 and March 28.

• Removing legitimate Talk page comments on March 24 and March 28.

• Creating sockpuppet accounts: User:Kind Dude and IP:92.97.208.37

• Creating unauthorised "Block Warning" notices on March 28.

• Account blocked on March 25 and again on March 28.

With this extremely poor history, I urge the community not to lift the latest block. Wikipedia can well do without this constant vandalism. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:77.238.217.48 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)

Page

Kepler's laws of planetary motion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Newton's law of gravitation */"
2. 14:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 14:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring - March 2015 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User appears to be single purpose account spamming/soapboxing the same edit across multiple articles - Standard gravitational parameter, Orbital period, Newton's law of universal gravitation, Portal:Physics/Intro, Force, Mechanics. Also appears to be involved in an edit war at Bosnia and Herzegovina. Appears to be related to User:77.238.231.199 reported recently. FyzixFighter (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That IP is banned User:Sevvyan reinserted the same edits he got banned for. Most probably Omerbasic promoting himself in physics and with his trone pretension of Bosnia. FkpCascais (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours IP blocked, semi-protections underway. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Littleboyck reported by User:Vuttamarr (Result: reporter blocked)

User:Littleboyc is constantly warring on a number of articles and has now violated our wonderful 3RR policy right here on New York. See

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th

Then after final warning[55],

he did fifth[56].

He is not willing to discuss his changes all of which go against consensus. --Vuttamarr (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

All of those links are to an edit made in 2013 in which Littleboyck did no reversions. Proper evidence and differences of edit warring will be needed. Also, have you warned the user that you've reported them on here? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be simple trolling; the reporter has been blocked for other activities. Kuru (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kb333 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: 24h)

Page

Linux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kb333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653925283 by BethNaught (talk) stop it"
2. 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653899799 by Dsimic (talk) if such consensus will affect the truth of information, then being against it is obligatory"
3. 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653899270 by Dsimic (talk) Why you not stop first?"
4. 15:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653757638 by Ahunt (talk) consensus shouldn't affect the truth of information"
5. 14:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653756540 by Ahunt (talk)"
6. 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Linux is considered a kernel until someone else prove the opposite of that. if you have any thing against that just discuss it and prove it."
7. 13:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Linux is just a piece of code, so prove me how it's an os."
8. 12:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653740382 by Haminoon (talk) explain why you did that revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is trying to put article into their preferred version despite standing talk page agreement and being reverted by several other editors. BethNaught (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 20:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:162.212.107.47 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Page protected)

Page: The Raben Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 162.212.107.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

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: section

Comments:
Editor is edit warring and not talking. Likely a sock. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Raben_Group and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Richie1Thoa Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I also requested page protection. I did this as the IP has exceeded 3RR now. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

note, an admin from pp came through, and has protected the page. thanks Swarm!

• Page protected, as I saw the RFPP request first. By all means return to either board if future action is needed. Regards, Swarm ^X 02:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:1.47.41.20 reported by User:DiscSquare (Result: Page protected)

Page: Evelin Banev
User being reported: User:1.47.41.20 User:1.47.166.103 User:101.99.43.253

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evelin_Banev&diff=651356904&oldid=650461367
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evelin_Banev&diff=653726110&oldid=653333412
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evelin_Banev&diff=653899231&oldid=653881485
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
Using multiple IP addresses, this user repeatedly changes the summary of the page without confirmed sources - the edits by this unidentified user are disruptive, inaccurate and also biased - while this living person is under criminal investigation, he is NOT a convicted criminal since his trials are ongoing with multiple acquittals and reversals of convictions.

• Page protected. Swarm ^X 03:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:OccultZone reported by 72.196.235.154 (Result: IP blocked)

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 28 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OccultZone (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]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_28&diff=654047474&oldid=654047297
2. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_28&diff=654047153&oldid=654046750
3. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_28&diff=654046499&oldid=654045966
4. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_28&diff=654029424&oldid=653963867

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

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

Comments:

He keeps revet a topic I am bringing upo to delate. I tried to revert a couple times but he keep changing back with no comment and tries to call myself the vandal.

Any admin can read the recent WP:AIV report[57] and consider blocking this sock. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've cleaned up the formatting here... but I'm pretty sure this should WP:BOOMERANG back on an IP who has a previous EW block, and who kept adding back in a non-existent AfD into the log. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually its hard to make a prpper page when all the work kept getting delated. 72.196.235.154 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note. The IP was blocked for one week by Kuru.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Irondome reported by User:194.187.250.204 (Result: Semi)

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

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

Manual removal by attemting to push POV, by assert the Source as Unreliable and the major Edit as "poor"

1. 15:11, 29 March 2015

1. 15:45, 29 March 2015 - tagging
2. 15:47, 29 March 2015

User Irondome does not showing any good faith in his recent edits. He left me an unpleasant comment with the immediate demmand (talk page, 15:42) to remove and comment my revert. 3 Minutes after that, he used an very guileful tactic by calling: "No consensus talk attempted by IP", 15:45 as main reason, to push his own POV and to remove my add.

There's no way that we could have made any consensus or that I could express myself within 3 Minutes after the demmanding command on my talk page

User Irondome seems also involved in other reverts, 24 hrs:

1. Revision as of 00:07, 29 March 2015
2. Revision as of 00:25, 29 March 2015 failed attemp to revert
3. Revision as of 00:28 manual revert

Its seems that Irondome have made 6 reverts (3 manual) within 24 hours.

As a new User, I'm very alienated by such behavior. could somebody please take some actions? Thanks

Comments

You completed ignored my comments on your talk section, which were perfectly reasonable, and refused to discuss. Your "sources" were inferior which I have amply explained on the relevant Talk page. You now run to the boards without attempting to communicate in any way whatsoever. You appear to be extremely knowledgable about the mechanics of the drama boards. New user? I doubt it. It is a pity your obvious knowledge and experience of Wikilawyering does not extend to the Tiger I. Irondome (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignored? You revert my add in less than 3 Minutes before I could comment upon your demmand. There's no way i could have convince you, that you're wrong! You dont have explained anything to me, you just making pure assumptions! The report clearly states "the vehicle's desgin for such a powerful gun is excellent accomplished" - written straigt on the entry of the Report. As next, the Lone Sentry article provides the press release of the "Aberdeen Trials", althought very controlled for such wartime publication it still elucidates how exceptionall well the internal mechanical system was made. Please stay on subject, and keep personal attacks aside. You getting nowhere with your pretentious behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no "demmand", but a request to communicate. Only now are you interacting with me on content, here of all places. 3 mins was actually 24 minutes. You have had nearly 4 hrs to communicate with me, but you chose to come here. Now. Lets drop this crap and go to the talk page, where we can discuss the weakness of your sources and their context. Withdraw this, and go to the talk page. I take WP:BRD very seriously, (I left you the link on your talk page). Editors who refuse to discuss but merely revert are not a plus to the project. Now, withdraw and discuss at the Tiger I talk page. Irondome (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I wont drop this 3RR warring report. Stop twisting it. You clearly demmanded on my talk page: "Please can you revert your most recent edit. Both your sources are unreliable in the context of being primary sources and Lone Sentry is shaky as a source. Please revert your edit and take it to the Tiger Talk Page" 15:42, 29 March 2015 . 3 Minutes later you did it by yourself, without giving myself the opportunity to convince you, that you're wrong! See edit on Tiger I page: No consensus talk attempted by IP Revision as of 15:45 , 29 March 2015. You gave me no time to start any discussion on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk)

Your technical abilities are excellent for a "new user" also. Hmmm. You had 24 minutes between those reverts. NOT 3. Dropping off a 1 line message on my T/P would have taken 30 seconds. Your refusal to drop the stick, indicates a potentially problematic temperament. And your err, economy with the truth is not helping here. I would watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. Irondome (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You gave me 3 minutes (!) from the comment of my talk page to the revert on the Article. I was already writting a lengthy comment on my talk page before you interupted me again by calling me: No consensus talk attempted by IP Revision as of 15:45. So i droped and searched for some possibilities to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Your 6 reverts in 24 hours are still on subject. No WP:BOOMERANG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ummm. Your interest in those is "interesting" too. Even though they have nothing to do with the case in hand, as I was dealing with a very similar situation. If I screwed up, I hold up my hand, but to the community, not to you certainly. Irondome (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. You have attempted no communication with me in over 4 hours, but "searched for some possibilities to report you". I think that speaks volumes. Irondome (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Why I should? You stigmatized me after 3 Minutes! You didn't let me to express myself on my talk page, before you took prejudicial reason No consensus talk attempted by IP to make the revert again. Of course I dont want to attempt any communication, with such behavior. You simply could wait more, I could have send you the report in pdf and you would have seen that you are simply wrong. But yeah, keep on twisting anythin in your favor with your biased POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave you a polite note on WP:BRD, you were not "stigmatised". In other words, you refused to communicate and you are using that as a rather weak hook. I have no POV on a piece of inanimate metal. I do have a POV on editors who refuse to communicate. It is the worst behaviour pattern on WP and causes the most stress, and directly leads to crap like this. Irondome (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected due to edit warring by IP-hopper from Manchester. Cf. WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:PBS (Result: )

Page: Robert Hastings Hunkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (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. Revision as of 22:54, 28 March 2015
2. Revision as of 01:44, 29 March 2015
3. Revision as of 01:57, 29 March 2015
4. Revision as of 02:29, 29 March 2015 (the removed this addition: 02:28, 29 March 2015)
5. Revision as of 02:44, 29 March 2015

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

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

Comments:

See user:WordSeventeen exchange with User:Winkelvi at User talk:WordSeventeen#Biography MOS diff

After I read that, I placed advise in the section Talk:Robert Hastings Hunkins#WP:UNDUE with a list of the edits that had been made by different editors since 22:00 yesterday. In that list it was clear that User:Winkelvi had broken the 3RR on five or six occasions. As User:Winkelvi was blocked for 24 hours by user:Swarm on the 13 March for 24 hours for breach of the three-revert rule, I expected User:Winkelvi to show contrition and promise not to repeat the behaviour. I did not think it necessary to report it to this notice board at that time because the last edit by User:Winkelvi to the article had taken place at 02:44, 29 March 2015‎.

However User:Winkelvi reply to my posting shows that User:Winkelvi still has no idea what this rule means (diff):

"How is it possible an administrator doesn't know that reverts of disputed content are not what makes for edit warring when it comes to 3RR? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"

I will leave it to an uninvolved editor to decide what to do with an editor who has recently been blocked for breach of 3RR who writes "reverts of disputed content are not what makes for edit warring". -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comments Interesting how I have been discussing the disputed content on the talk page (here [58] and here [59]) and have not edited the article in question for about 18 hours (the reporting party has edited there 6 times since my last edit there, and the latest just 6 hours ago - see here [60]) but I'm being reported for edit warring, at this time, almost a day later. I've even been trying to get opinions on this content dispute from other parties (see here [61]). The intent by the reporting party seems to the hope for punitive action rather than prevention as well as silencing me in the content dispute and keeping me from editing the article further. I smell serious ownership issues along with dishonesty in this report. Pretty shameful behavior coming from an administrator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate that PBS took the time to make this report regarding Winklevi edit warring at the Robert Hastings Hunkins article. I was a bit shocked when Winklevi tried to tell me that all of my edits on that page (7 at the time) were reversions when I pointed out he had done four reversions in a very short period of time.

From here [62] Please learn what 4 reversions in less than 24 hours (between 02:44, March 29, 2015 ‎and 22:54, March 28, 2015‎ means on the article Robert Hastings Hunkins. WordSeventeen (talk) 9:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Is that a threat? Because, if it is, I see seven reversions at that same article for you [1]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 9:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

While you are please trying to learn please read over the difference between an edit and a reversion. LOL WordSeventeen (talk) 10:00 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

I posted a warning about edit warring on the talk page of Winklevi here [63] but he quickly deleted the notice from his talk page. At that point Winklevi had been warned about edit warring by myself and the admin PBS. I would like to point out as illustrated n the chart listing of reverts at the article Winklevi had six reverts in a very short time like 4-6 hours. I did do a warning on the talk page on Winklevi hoping they would understand that their edit warring was wrong. I was not sure how to do a report here since I have never filled one out before. If I had known how to do the report I would have done one at the time. I really had no idea that Winklevi had a history of edit warring until I read the report above. The comment above by the user Winklevi that " I smell serious ownership issues along with dishonesty in this report." is false the report was not dishonest at all. It was true and accurate. As for ownership issues, I believe they belong to Winklevi. Thank you. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wester reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]
5. [69]
6. [70] (further revert after this case was started)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71] (now removed)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Max Verstappen#Nationality of drivers

Comments:
Talk:Max Verstappen contains two sections where today I and other editors have attempted to explain why F1 driver Verstappen races under the Dutch flag, but Wester maintains that Verstappen is a Belgian national holding no Dutch passport, and has edit-warred persistently to that effect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, those were not simple reverts and NOT an edit war but a constant reworking of the text based on real sources. I have sources, Bretonbanquet has not. Also it's a bit bizar that Bretonbanquet makes this report now since the edits were from this after noon with no threat on escalation. --Wester (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Consistent, repeated reversion (both straight undo-style and more subtle alteration of text) to support their own poorly-supported claims regarding Verstappen's nationality despite overwhelming weight of evidence that Wester is incorrect. Highly disruptive, and reversions far in excess of 3RR. Pyrope 23:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have clear sources. An interview by his mother and other factual sources such as the FIA rule book. For the interview: [72]. You on the other hand have no sources and you dare to say that I am incorrect?! You don't even speak Dutch to READ the sources.

I even started a discussion on the talk page.

Also point out that in this edit Bretonbanquet even agrees. But wrongly since he implies that Verstappen has dual passport. That's not true. That's why I corrected it in the next edit. Than Bretonbanquet boldly reverted it based on absolutely nothing. Than I made the following edit that is no reversion but more a factual correction of the text based on sources. Also not that I tried to make a compromise: I for instance did not revert the Belgian flag in the infobox. So no, this is not a 3RR case and it's a bit pointless that Bretonbanquet made this request other than silence me to win the discussion based on force rather than arguments. --Wester (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly do not need to "silence" you because you lost that argument a long time ago. But you continue to edit war. You call refraining to make an utterly incorrect edit "a compromise", and you fail to understand that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." (my bolding). You've disrupted this page, and arguably the talk page as well, all day. I turned a blind eye to 4RR but 5, 6 etc, forget it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

1.There is no edit war since it's not a reversion but an evolution of the text. 2.I stopped editing that page long ago. 3. There is an ongoing discussion which I started on the talk page. So it's not that I'm unwilling to discuss. That did not withhold Pyrope to edit the page and making false and on-sourced statements. 4. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Three users against one does not mean you are right. --Wester (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:66.190.249.214 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: )

Page

Talk:Abiogenesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 21:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) to 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086434 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
5. 21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086734 by BatteryIncluded (talk)"
6. 21:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086914 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
7. 21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
8. 21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088045 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
9. 21:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088239 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
10. 21:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088380 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
11. 21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088612 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
12. 21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088948 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
13. 21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654089243 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
14. 21:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654089413 by Apokryltaros (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Two editors warring over the talk page. The ip was amply warned, and kept warring. Not really sure what to recommend be done, so I'm reporting here and to RfPP.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence does not meet the standards of Wikipedia core content policies

Wikipedia was founded on the fundamental principle that its content must fall under certain criteria to be admissible. One criterion is that it must submit to a neutral point of view ( see WP:NPOV ), another is that it must be verifiable. (See WP:VER ) "Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does not meet these standards, whereas "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does. Since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes, saying so is not a neutral point of view and therefore not acceptable.66.190.249.214 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Users Apokryltaros and BatteryIncluded continually deleted a suggestion I made on the abiogenesis talk page regarding the statement of a simple, objective fact. Upon resorting to their respective talk pages for further discussion, they also chose to delete rather than discuss it there as well. Even going as far as to claim harrassment for me calling them out on their personal bias.66.190.249.214 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment

The only scientific debate regarding abiogenesis is not "if" it happened, but how. While the proposed chemical mechanisms are hypothetical, it is not so for abiogenesis, as life is factual, an evident empirical phenomenon. The continuous demands to label abiogenesis a "hypothesis" are a chronic recurrence in this scientific WP article. Multiple and similar discussions have happened in the past years regarding the labeling of abiogenesis a "hypothesis": ([73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93].

All the dicussions listed above concluded to dismiss it, on the grounds of the cited scientific publications. Several of the requests of labeling it a 'hypothesis' had the ulterior motive of including religion/creationism as an alternate and equally valid scientific explanation for abiogenesis, but were dismissed by the WP community because such religious and philosophical arguments are best presented in non-scientific articles. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

My point is that since abiogenesis itself is a hypothetical processes like you just stated, the lead sentence needs to be changed to reflect this. The statement "abiogenesis is the natural processes..." is not a neutral point of view since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes in the first place. The statement "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process..." IS a neutral point of view AND a true statement, unlike the former, since no model of abiogenesis at this point in time has been empirically verified.66.190.249.214 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:24.168.220.179 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: )

Page: South Carolina Gamecocks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.168.220.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [95]
2. [96]
3. [97]
4. [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments: Anonymous IP user has been repeatedly asked over the past week to stop tendentiously editing this article without engaging in a discussion on article Talk page to attempt to gain consensus for an edit that does nothing to improve a previously stable article. This leads up to today's edit warring by anon IP in which further warnings were given to cease reversions of article without discussion. Anon IP finally engages on Talk page, but continues to revert, demonstrating no real effort to gain consensus for edits. Anon IP was informed about 3RR, and blatantly reverted afterwards, while still refusing to reasonably discuss on Talk page. Anon IP has also removed 3RR warning from their Talk page, demonstrating that the warning has been noticed, and apparently ignored. Temporary page protection may also be required, as it would appear we are dealing with a stubborn and combative anon IP user.
GarnetAndBlack (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of you are edit warring, both of you decided not to discuss issues, and when I finally did start discussion, y'all argued about each other and did not bring up the manual of style, policies, or guidelines. The IP posted three times as often as you have in the thread I started, and you completely ignored a neutral third party's reasoning and failed to provide a policy-based reason for your content preference.

Were I an uninvolved admin, I would give both of you the same treatment, be it warning or block. Both of you have shown serious WP:BATTLEGROUND problems, and you may have shown WP:BITE problems. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP has posted NOTHING of relevance in the Talk thread, but comments about me, and "I know I'm right" statements about their tendentious edits. I have no inclination to waste my time dealing with an anon IP editor whose tone in those comments and in edit summaries thus far has been one of stubborn indifference to Wiki policies or any sort of compromise. But if you want to go to bat for this type of editor here, have at it. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mostly true (though this one at least directly responded to my third-party findings), and your single post on the talk page ignored my third-party MOS-based argument and made a vague WP:OR argument that football is more important without providing sources.

Technically, once I made an MOS based argument, and you failed to provide any policy, guideline, or source to support alternative arrangements, the consensus became alphabetical order. Both you and the IP were edit warring, both you and the IP used the talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND instead of discussing things, and both you and the IP need to back away from the article and let people who have more level heads handle it because neither of you is capable of playing well with others on this topic. It does not matter that he is an IP and you have an account, both of you are in the wrong. As someone with an account, you should actually know better. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As someone with an account, and years of helping to maintain articles dealing with the University of South Carolina, I've seen far too much of this type of behavior from anonymous IP editors, and I've had my fill. Editing from an anonymous IP is no excuse for not approaching this project with an open, helpful approach, and learning the policies and procedures used here. This IP editor has done neither, and in fact, only chose to parrot back my attempts to elicit some sort of discussion. Like I said, if you want to bend over backwards for this type of all-too-common disruptive editor on Wikipedia, be my guest, but don't expect the rest of us to fall in line behind you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose that both the IP and User:GarnetAndBlack should be blocked. They are both over WP:3RR and neither party appears willing to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose that you are wrong. I was more than willing to discuss the edits in question here, but anon IP editor showed no inclination for a solid week to do so even when prompted. That's not the basis for me to assume good faith toward an IP that does nothing but revert and claim in edit summaries that their opinion is the only one that matters. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion either party could avoid a block if they will agree to wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Which I clearly did, after posting a 3RR warning on the anon IP's Talk page. What was the response of anon IP? Why to post the template to my Talk page in retaliation, and immediately revert the article. And here we are. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of you were edit warring without meaningful discussion.

(edit conflict × 2)GarnetAndBlack: If you were willing to discuss matters, you should have started discussion and left a message asking him to discuss it there. If you were willing to discuss matters, you should have made a response to third-party feedback that indicated you actually read said feedback. It is your duty to assume good faith from the IP if their edits could possibly be an attempt to improve the site. Not "only if their edits were an obvious improvement," but "if their edits could possibly be an attempt to improve the site." You have ignored everyone else's feedback in this, which is at least as tendentious as the IP's possibly-ignorant behavior.

(edit conflict × x3)GarnetAndBlack: The account isn't a badge, it's a responsibility. One of those responsibilities includes teaching IP editors how things work here if they don't know. Another responsibility is to pay attention to third-party feedback and gauge responses accordingly. Another is patience, instead of just lashing out with reverts.

Ed: Yeah, blocking both is starting to look necessary, because both of them seem convinced this as a zero-sum game and think that the other's misbehavior excuses their own. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Page: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haberstr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [102] this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 [103])
2. [104] this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 [105])
3. [106] this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 [107]
4. [108] - again

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109] - there is discussion on article talk page, however this user does not take part in discussion

He came today and repeated his previous edit war conducted on the same page on March 25. This user was previously blocked for edit wars in similar pages and warned about EE discretionary sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)