Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:17, 1 September 2015

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple more example reversions:

Also a fake formal warning, and another

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

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

He's back as : User:Supervisor635

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

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

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

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

User:Benjil reported by User:Debresser (Result: declined)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25] [26] Proof warning was acknowledged and willfully ignored: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mizrahi_Jews#Ovadia_Yosef

Comments: Please note that I am not reporting a violation of the 3RR rule here. I am reporting an edit warrior, who made an edit which I contest, and who has specifically stated his intent to continue editing despite my warning that his edit goes against previously established consensus. Not to mention WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. A picture was changed on the page in September and I saw it only now. The discussion to change it involved two people, when one asked to change the picture based on false and unsourced information. I reverted the change when I saw it (only now, sorry) and provided a source to prove that Ovadia Yosef, being one o the most important figure in the Jewish world over the last century and the most important Mizrahi Jew of the period had to be on the pictures gallery, in particular when he is by far the most influent and well known figure among all the people who appear on this gallery. Debresser opposed for the sake of opposing, providing no argument, no source, and insulting me without trying to resolve the issue. Benjil (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was that talkpage section not there to solve the issue?
The discussion involved Mr. Sort It Out, me, Off-shell and ran over a month, from September 28, 2014 till October 31, 2014. So if Benjil comes now, he is close to a year too late, and he will have to show a change of consensus before he has the right to undo my revert of his edit.
Just saying that his edit is incontestable is not enough, and shows he is simply pushing his POV.
I infer from the Hebrew on his talkpage that he is a staunch supporter of this rabbi whom he is adding to this collage, however, he must come to terms with the fact that not all are of that same opinion.

Please notice that it is Benjil's behavior I am reporting here, while I am perfectly willing to continue the discussion on the talkpage, but Benjil must be made to understand that while that discussion is ongoing, he must not repeat his edit. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You "infer from the Hebrew on his talkpage that he is a staunch supporter of this rabbi", that's the most interesting I must admit. Speaking Hebrew means being a supporter of Shas now ? Since I specifically said in the talk page that I do not particularly like this rabbi (nor dislike him), it proves once again that you are not reading. And you omit any discussion about sources, a very interesting point also. By the way an important point I forgot: before I made any change, I made a call for discussion and waited almost a week before implementing the change. Debresser did not answer then but only after I reverted to the previous situation. He also did not try to solve the situation in the discussion, just opposing any change for the sake of opposing and a fake consensus of two people, and in fact only one since Mr. Sort It Out is the only one who had any opinion on the subject. I gave a sources (and can provide as much as needed) and no counter-argument was made, I was in my right to proceed with the change, or more exactly, reverting to the previous situation. Benjil (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though 3 editors is not much, it is still consensus. Not to mention that the edit stood unchallenged for almost a year. Even at this moment, after you raised the issue almost a year later, you are the only editor who wants this rabbi in the collage.

In any case, you have no right to insist on the edit after you see it is being opposed. Again, it is your behavior in the face of opposition and the not unfounded claim of a lack of consensus, that brings me here. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And still not a word about sources and no argument. "Consensus", you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. There was no consensus. There was one editor who wanted Ovadia removed, you who had no clue on the subject and believed what he told you, and a third who did not discuss the issue. So no, no consensus. And a consensus based on false information and in contradiction to sources has no value. It seems this is just an issue of your pride here and nothing to do with improving the article. Benjil (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should hear yourself: I had no clue on the subject and believe whatever editors tell me, false information. Why don't you throw a conspiracy claim in for good measure, or say that I am a nitwit? I have a clear opinion on the subject, and it is the same as the consensus opinion. My pride is no more involved than yours, so let's not go there (WP:NPA). Anyways, your arguments are typical of POV editors, sorry to say.

What was that about sources? Man, we are talking about adding a picture to a collage. What do sources have to do with that? Debresser (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2015 (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. @Debresser and Benjil: be advised that if this continues, both will end up blocked. Seek dispute resolution (perhaps a third opinion to start?) --slakr^\ talk / 00:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr. Edit warring is not the same as violating 3RR. If you don't know that, then don't edit this noticeboard, please. In the mean time, you can read up about this on Wikipedia:Edit warring. Or perhaps you didn't notice above, that I stated specifically that the problem is edit warring without a 3RR violation. Therefore, there was nothing to decline. I ~~changed~~ would like you to change the result to "closed without administrative action".

Please also notice, that I not happy with your warning. I don't think you should give out warnings about a block to editors who are trying to stop others from making non-consensus edits without violating 3RR. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr, since Debresser refuses to discuss (see here: [28]), he even erased my post on his talk page ([29]), I ask for his blocking. Benjil (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss the right course of action on the talkpage, where I am actively replying to your posts, and any behavioral issues are being discussed here. I am perfectly within my rights to erase your post from my talkpage, see Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings.

At the same time, let me remind you that if you try to enforce your opinion by editing the article, that would be disruptive editing, and you would be almost guaranteed to be blocked. As I suggested on the talkpage, your best course of action is to open an Rfc to see if perhaps consensus has changed. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

there you go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've had occasion to wonder about Prokaryotes' self-centred edit behaviour. Here he adds material previously removed as controversial, in the middle of an RfC on this material, long before any sign of consensus or closure. As he was participating in the RfC discussion at the time, he can hardly have been unaware of the due process taking place. In discussion about his unilateral adding of disputed content he gave no indication of regret at ignoring procedure, apparently feeling that his own opinion was reason enough to over-ride a spirited RfC. Perhaps he could count to ten or something before jumping into edit-warrior mode. [Behaviour-related comment retracted] --Pete (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I have had occasion to wonder about Jytdog's edit-warring and stalkerish behaviour. Very recently, he sent me an Edit Warring template for edits on Colony collapse disorder which was quickly judged to be inaccurate by another editor.[30] Jytdog, an editor who claims their main involvement is human "health and agriculture" followed me to an article on magnetic senses in animals which they had never edited before and began edit-warring removal of similar material.[31] Indeed, Jytdog is sometimes in such a great rush to edit war that he clearly does not even read the edits he is deleting[32] and is thereby highly disruptive; his competence in this regard might be questioned.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're already at your talk page. [33]. FYI, pings won't work unless they are accompanied by the four tildas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:N0n3up reported by User:Calidum (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: N0n3up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678390672 by Calidum (talk) Reverted to original version. Lets take this to the talk page"
02:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678376362 by Calidum (talk) Not redundant, less specific as a matter of fact. Please explain why it's so"
23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678363821 by JuanRiley (talk) I don't see anything wrog with it.. why delete it?"
06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677361960 by JuanRiley (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See Talk:British_Empire#Eroded.

Comments:

N0n3up also attempted to WP:CANVASS two other editors to join in the edit war [34] [35] and ascribed a hidden agenda to the attempt by myself and JuanRiley (talk · contribs) to remove redundant phrasing. Calidum 04:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to vex you to the point that you had to take it to the notice board. But if you reffered to my actions and my summoning of other users.. I summoned Sitush and Twobells since Sitush was familiar with me in a previous discussion in the same article and Twobells just happened to be the last person to edit the talk page to get an outside opinion, not to "canvass" or use backup to my advantage as you accused of doing. And saying: And don't get me wrong if you are one of those staunchly patriots whose edit was patriotic-oriented is not a personal attack whatsoever, I was trying to give a figurative concept of someone who edits out of patriotic purpose and there is nothing of a personal attack in that, and notice the And don't get me wrong part which would make your claim of a personal attack more invalid than it already is. And also, I'm not denying that America was catching up to Britain economically, I simply stated that removing the some of part of the sentence would be too general, that's all. And to think it would all be a short talk. (N0n3up (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

My two cents (no bells): Truth be told, the issue was a nuanced one about connotation of "eroded" vs "eroded some of". On the other hand, Non3up did violate reversion policy. Moreover this is not the first time he did so. He escaped blockage for that past performance. Worse is that his ad hominem attacks (as discussed above by Calidum) were also similar to prior instances. At the very least I would hope he be told to take it the talk page quicker...and not indulge his imagination about others motivations. Juan Riley (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Riley Apart from the reached consensus.. It was never incorrect from the start. Your edits here and here are the same types of edit that started this discussion from the start. Even though the sentence are well placed with their meanings, you rearrange the words as you see fit and replace them with other words that might seem to you correct but are incorrect in reality. Thats the problem with making edits like these like you always seem to do. Not to mention you stalking my edits like here after our dispute here. Either way, consensus was reached in the talk page that it stays as before, the correct version you repeatedly tried to rearrange. (N0n3up (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JuanRiley#Recent_edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JuanRiley#Recent_edits Juan Riley (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Riley Exactly. Shall I bring our discussion here instead? (N0n3up (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Talk page reversions now? Juan Riley (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Riley What? (N0n3up (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

If you want to say something, say it. Its beginning to be hard to understand you. (N0n3up (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

[36] Juan Riley (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really shouldn't ask it here..but exactly how does one link to another's revert of ones own comment/edits on this board? Juan Riley (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a diff, just like for any other edit, Juan Riley , e.g. in this case. [37]. See Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 08:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours And don't talk like this about users in the future, please. Comment on the edit, not the editor, and don't discuss editors' motivations, which you can't know. Bishonen | talk 08:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User:Davefelmer reported by User:Jmorrison230582 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

User has been advised to use reliable sources (e.g.[39]).

Comments:

Comment: I warned [40] the user again about using reliable sources. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 09:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Dan56 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There does seem to be a technical violation of 3RR by Parrot. I am not sure what Cassianto is on about, Dan clearly made an effort to discuss this and was met with a response of "It isn't a claim that requires verification"[46] and a few unhelpful comments to boot. Chillum 02:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

User:Ankhsoprah2 reported by User:Anders Feder (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Khamenei&oldid=678525844

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
Editor is clearly in bad faith. After they broke WP:3RR, I specifically requested that they self-revert, to which they responded that they would "WP:BOOMERANG" me. They cite an undo I did earlier today[53] which was completely good-faith and constructive, and for which the person who I undid (BlueSalix) thanked me.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm the one here who is in good faith. This is not part of editwarring, it is where I added more sources after Anders Feder asked for more sources. And this is new editwarring regarding different content, started by Anders Feder. Also, I have not reverted for the same content three times. Anders Feder have broken WP:3RR: [54][55][56]. And also Anders Feder editwarred in this article with others recently too:[57][58]. Anders Feder is very pro Khamenei, he keeps a statement in the lede saying that Khamenei issued a fatwa against nukes, but refuses to keep the sourced info that his nephew Dr.Mahmoud Moradkhani claimed that Khamenei is lying with regard to nuke fatwa, practicing the Shia doctrine of Taqiya.(sources: [59][60][61][62][63][64]). I didn't initially add this info, and the sources may not be reliable, so instead of editwarring, I moved it to talkpage for discussion and consensus. I added that some media sources refer to Khamenei as dictator (sources: [65][66][67]), and Anders Feder immediately removed it and threatened to report me.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I made any effort to "keep a statement in the lede saying that Khamenei issued a fatwa against nukes"? As is obvious from the talk page, you did not start the talk page discussion, even though you were obliged to per WP:ONUS.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started the talkpage discussion here, even though you were obliged to start the discussion on talkpage, as you started the editwarring to remove this content with another editor here.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trolling even the admins on this noticeboard? Anyone can see on the talk page that you did not start the talk page discussion. As for me being obliged to achieve consensus for disputed content you want to include - have you even read WP:ONUS? You also have failed to establish consensus that the sources are reliable in the first place. In total, you have flaunted both WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN repeatedly as well as WP:3RR.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comment that I started the discussion. And it's not about you being obliged to achieve consensus for disputed content I want to include. It's about sourced content added by someone else, not me, that you want to remove without consensus, potentially disrupting the article's neutral and balanced view.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing disputed content does not require previous consensus - it requires you to form consensus for putting it back in. How hard can it be to understand?--Anders Feder (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just can't delete all of the sourced contents of Wikipedia, and then ask for consensuses on the talkpages.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the content is disputed and there no evidence that the sources are at all reliable, of course I can! That is the whole point of WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. What did you think the point was?--Anders Feder (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no source that says that the content is disputed or Khamenei's nephew didn't say that. I did not revert when another editor reverted me, as that would make me cross 3rr & also due to WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. I started talkpage discussion. This reporting is due to the new editwarring regarding different content started by Anders Feder.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your wishful thinking, you have flaunted WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN four times over the course of your edit warring, and WP:3RR as well, and you didn't start the talk page discussion at all as anyone can see, even though you pretend you aren't aware of it.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the new comment you just edited one of your comments above to add[68], what is "neutral and balanced" about your adding WP:BLP material that is only supported by fringe conservative websites?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who first started to retroactively edit your comments here--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for even the slightest shred of evidence of your trolling accusation that I have made any effort to "keep a statement in the lede saying that Khamenei issued a fatwa against nukes".--Anders Feder (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for your baseless accusation of me being "very pro Khamenei", that is just deeply ridiculous, and only adds to the picture that you are a troll. Here, for instance, I explicitly characterize his rule as a military dictatorship predicated on Khamenei's cult of personality.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an IP also accused Anders Feder of being pro supreme dictator Khamenei here--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an obvious lie, and only more evidence that you are a bad faith, trolling editor. Do explain how my comments e.g. here are "pro-Khamenei".--Anders Feder (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of the personal attacks. Just focus on content. Despite your repeated personal attacks and threats of reporting me, I said in good faith that I didn't want to report you, but if you reported me,that would be WP:BOOMERANG for you. This whole thing that will get you blocked was totally unnecessary, and that could be avoided.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't said or done a single thing in good faith as anyone can see. Your casting aspersions in an attempt to incur chilling effects against efforts to stop your disruption only compounds matters.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly not someone in goodfaith, but someone with an axe to grind and a point to push.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, Anders Feder violated 3rr: [69][70][71]. And also Anders Feder editwarred in this article with others very recently too:[72][73][74].--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, [75] isn't edit warring in any way as the editor who I partially undid completely agreed with my action, as can be seen from their thank log. The last of your links is an edit by another user, and has nothing to do with me.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:MusicAngels reported by User:Neuroxic (Result: No violation)

Note: The Talk page for Birdman (film) has been subject to many recent disruptive edits from IP-hopping disruption and is currently page protected by User:Drmies. After I tried to address some of this by hatting the disruptive text, stronger measures were then taken by User:Drmies to protect the page. Several IP-accounts have now been blocked and if a further list of the IP-hopping addresses are needed then I can provide them if requested. I am creating a subsection here for reviewers of this page to help track the disruptive IP hopping which appears to have extended to this page. MusicAngels (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts that begun edit war: reverting undos

Further reverts from the user.

Evidence for poor conduct from user not directly relating to article additions:

MusicAngels removing someone's notice that MusicAngels has had a (recent) history, and is under scrutiny, and that I should take my complaint to MusicAngels' talk page.

MusicAngels ignoring a notice on their talk page, claiming it to be a single purpose account.

Recent notice by another editor on MusicAngels' talk page, that MusicAngels needs to stop disruptive editing. (Bgwhite's comment at the bottom of the page.)

posting warnings on my talk page

Recently (24 Aug) being told by ANI to stop disruptive editing.

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the penultimate sections

Comments:
I present an outline of the editing events on the article page and talk page here, in chronological order.

MusicAngels creates a new section to expand information about the ending.
I undo the edit, saying that a new section is not needed, and the additional info could be incorporated into what's already there.
MusicAngels then does this, and also adds significantly to the plot section, claming to "remove WP:OR as stated in delisting GAR. Adding Riggan's interaction with his daughter which the director and writers have indicated are essential to the plot."
I undo the plot expansion edit, noting that it has incorrect details, that it is too long, and looks out of place. I then take issue with the newly merged writing details, reverting reverting the edit and leaving comments on the talk page.
MusicAngels then undoes my revert of the writing section, claming that a "Rewrite of the entire Plot section has been requested by the delisting review editor," and that MusicAngels is "in agreement & consensus with the delisting editor to remove the WP:OR issues. Establish consensus on Talk prior to further reverts." MusicAngels then also undoes my revert of the plot section, saying "No reason given on Talk for this undo. Make consensus on Talk prior to further reverts."
During this time, MusicAngels justifies his/her edits on the talk page, but ignores my comments, instead writing "The article you have written was delisted because of defects enumerated at the last review of your article and your issues with poor research WP:OR."
I then undo the reverts, and respond to MusicAngel's comments. I say that MusicAngels should look at the article sources and properly read the delisting reassessment (and the DYK nomination that started it), since I was one of the people who wanted it to be delisted. Note that at no stage in either of these is it suggested that the plot section needs a rewrite, (contrary to the clams of MusicAngels) and that the issue with 'WP:OR' was simply the interpretation of one source, not generally poor research. (As a general comment about the article as a whole, during the reassessment process Blethering Scot said "The article is clearly well written and on that front I can't find much fault at all.")
MusicAngels then undoes my reverts again, and in terms of reasoning basically repeats the same stuff as they said the previous time. I now choose to look for outside help, rather than try and reason with MusicAngels for yet another time and be ignored.

Note that at many times, MusicAngels claims that I'm not following WP:BRD, despite the fact that under the 'Discuss' section of this policy, it says "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made," so in fact by reverting my undos of the bold edit, MusicAngels is not following the policy which he/she's quoting.

I'm not sure what to do. Since the editor's been disruptive with regards to editing before, I'm inclined to request a page pan, but I wouldn't disagree if you thought this measure is too harsh. I simply want the page to be of a good quality, and don't want MusicAngels bullying people on Wikipedia to keep his/her poor edits as permanent additions to articles without even listening to feedback when it is provided.

Cheers,

Neuroxic (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, an IP-hopping editor appears to have started some sort of retribution for my edits outside of the normal edit process as they have done on the Talk page for Birdman (film) which is now page protected. In reference to the Birdman (film) article, I would like to prepare that page for renomination to GA status following the delisting of the article by another editor over a month ago. I am in agreement and consensus with the delisting editor at Birdman (film) that the WP:OR problems need to be fixed in that article. Another editor, User:Going Batty has now started further contributing to the refinement and improvement of my edits in the article. My edits have requested that Neuroxic participate in Talk at the Birdman page and establish consensus before edits. Neuroxic is apparently upset about comments made by the delisting editor at Birdman about his article made about a month ago which delisted his article. Neuroxic is now deleting material from the article which I added in agreement and consensus with the delisting editor and User:Going Batty has now started to further refine some of my edits. Neuroxic, however, keeps deleting without establishing any prior consensus on the Talk page. All he needs is to establish consensus for his edits on the Talk page prior to deleting text on the article. Neuroxic appears also to be asserting that he has somewhere an "FA" version of the Plot section but he has not shown it to anyone. If he has such a section then let him show it to us, and any one of a number of editors would be pleased to add an "FA" Plot section to the article. But he hasn't shown us any of this new version. The article is currently listed as a "B" article with multiple issues requiring attention by the delisting editor. I have enumerated the list of items needing further attention on the Talk page there to at least keep the "B" status for now, and then start preparing the article for renomination to a GA article. I am in agreement and consensus with the delisting editor calling for needed improvements to the article and with the recent edits on the article page made by User:Going Batty there. If User:Neuroxic does not know how to start an RFC for his concerns, I can offer to do this for him since the article deserves the attention called for by the delisting editor. On the IP-hopping issue noted above, if there is a need to supply some of the further IP-hopping addresses mentioned above I can try to supply them as requested. MusicAngels (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identify subsection for disruptive IP-hopping account for subsequent investigation

Starting two more cents: MusicAngels continues to use bullying and falsehoods despite repeated warnings from admins:

When someone else reverts an edit by MusicAngels, MusicAngels reverses the revert and insists that BRD requires that consensus be reached before the other person's edit can be allowed. This wrong in so many ways: First, BRD is not a policy that anyone is required to follow. (See the second paragraph of the comment by User:MusikAnimal here: [76]). Next, MusicAngels has BRD backwards, because consensus is recommended for the bold edit, not the reversion. Third, MusicAngels seems to think that their own edits do not need consensus, but other peoples' edits do need consensus. This can't be right.
On the other hand, MusicAngels says that consensus has been reached for their own edits when this is simply untrue. MusicAngels simply makes it up. For example, see MusicAngels' edit summary here: [77] and similar examples from MusicAngels' contribution history. MusicAngels used the same technique when restoring improper hat notes, even after AN/I told them these hat notes were improper. See the warning by User:Bgwhite here: [78].
MusicAngels also deletes or objects to IP editors, even after a warming from User:MusikAnimal that WP:IPs_are_human_too.

End of two cents.

86.175.175.128 (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No violation. Neuroxic's points 1 through 8 do not justify any admin action. Both User:MusicAngels and User:Neuroxic are warned against trying to win by reverting. User:MusicAngels has suggested opening an RfC; I hope he will go ahead with that. The IP-hopper does not seem to have anything useful to contribute and User:Drmies' semi-protection of the talk page appears correct. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks EdJohnston--that IP, or those IPs (there's probably three or four distinctly different sets), are trolling the hell out of my talk page. They claim to be anonymous academics here to save the world. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Mr. Robot (TV series):

User talk:AlexTheWhovian:

User:AlexTheWhovian

[90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [92]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97], [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:

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

Previous version reverted to: [100] Here I removed a templated warning and replied in prose.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[101] 22:34, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
[102] 22:39, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
[103] 22:41, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
[104] 22:47, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
[105] 00:08, August 31. Reverted to restore warning text.

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

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

Comments:

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

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

Comments Part. 2:
Hi,

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

Binksternet has been warned several times in the last 12 months for edit warring on his own on several pages, including the Planned Parenthood Talk Page. These actions have been performed by other editors.
Binksternet and I have been on opposite side of the political spectrum when it comes to proposals over the Planned Parenthood Talk Page. He has been warned also there over blanket deletions of comments instead of contributing by adding or modifying.
Binksternet has followed my edits, per his oft deleted messages on his own User Page, supposedly to "make sure" I don't make malicious edits. This provokes a very ??? reaction on me.
I have made several contributions, albeit small, on a host of other articles and my first contribution was definitely not the one Binksternet is trying to portray [106]. This goes against Binksternet's charge of WP:NOTHERE
I did post on the Humberto Fontova Talk Page about how one RS showed or at least purported to show that Redthoreau has exhibited total WP:OWN behaviour over a specific article. When I checked said articled I noticed that several other editors had made the same accusations but nobody had posted on said Talk Page for close to 4 years. I then posted the following: ""I'd just like to chime in, though very late, that User:Redthoreau has been the subject of ample criticism regarding his ownership of this page and his vehement defense of Che Guevara [107]. This requires the attention of an unrelated Editor so as to make give this page a neutral one. We cannot allow the average Wikipedia reader to fall under User:Redthoreau's power. Remember, WP:TIAC".
Then User:Redthoreau archived everything AFTER the deletion so as to not leave a trail that you have been seriously criticized both here and on reliable sources. Let's note that nobody had even edited the article recently and the Talk Page had been without any new posts for close to 4 years.
User:Binksternet reverted my edit and called me a troll. Nothing else. No message, no constructive posts. Afterwards him and me go into an apparent edit war while being the ONLY editors on said Talk Page yet he posted several warnings on my User page that I was/am edit warring there. He also posted a threat of blocking and banning over this same issue and whenever I posted on his User page that we are both part of this "edit war" and that he cannot be an involved editor he just reverted it all, always, and only posted the comment that I am troll.
I also fail to see how mentioning the geographical location I am in contributes on this. This is clearly an attempt to denigrate the IP poster, me, for being located on a developing country. This is quite troublesome to notice.

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

Further proof of WP:HARASS might be this [108]: 6 posts from him on my User page just today alone.

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

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

User:74.130.113.160 reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Anatta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.130.113.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "dont remove DOCTRINAL citations,............doing so deprives others of ORIGINAL SOURCES."
23:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "REMOVED NON-DOCTRINAL NONSENSE AND REVISION BY PEOPLE WITHOUT EVIDENCES, OR CITATIONS"
23:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678680943 by JimRenge (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 23:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC) to 23:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1. 23:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "removing commentarialist garbage which has nothing to do with doctrine"
2. 23:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Relation to Vedic and Hindu philosophy */"
3. 23:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678679623 by 20040302 (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 22:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC) to 23:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1. 22:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "correcting lies in this passage with actual doctrine"
2. 22:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 22:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "fix error"
4. 23:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Views on self */"
5. 23:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Views & speculations on the Soul rejected by Advaita & the Vedas also */"
6. 23:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "fixing commentary and opinion with doctrine"
7. 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC) ""
8. 23:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Anatta. (TW)"
23:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Anatta. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Allcaps commentary on our lies and insults galore Ogress _smash! 23:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spshu reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the current report, Mdrnpndr jumps in with an

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

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

User:90.50.182.253 reported by User:McSly (Result: Semi)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compressed_sensing&type=revision&diff=678443467&oldid=678412596

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

Comments:
The IP has been adding a link to an unknown company for months now. The diff provided are just for today but a quick look at the article history shows that it has been going on for months. The article was semi-protected in February to stop them and that when their only attempt to communicate occurred by just asking the link to be re-added. I filed a separate report earlier today on the spam blacklist page to have the url blocked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#lablanche-and-co.com here) since it's the only thing the IP adds. --McSly (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See a previous complaint from January of 2015 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#Continued spam in lede & edit war at Big data. This is a very-long-term problem, and I'd suggest indefinite semiprotection for the article. IPs from the 90.50.* range have been constantly active over the past year during whatever periods the article was open for IP editing. No IP from that range has ever posted on Talk. If somebody from the Lablanche company was willing to discuss matters with us, things could be different. The founder of the company can be seen in this Youtube video and you can form your own opinion on whether this is a serious company. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Indefinite semiprotection. The war continues. Even after the above comment, the same article edit was made by a different 90.50.* IP. If someone from the Lablanche company has advice for how Wikipedia can improve the article, they can use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sara M. Davin reported by User:Vrac (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: Nova Science Publishers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sara M. Davin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: WikipediaNOVA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [115]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120], [121] (Note that user created new account after notified that WikipediaNOVA ran afoul of COI username policy.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122]

Comments:
Trying to get this COI user to engage on article's talk page without much success, could use a little help. They just keep reverting to keep their edits. Vrac (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

31 August 2015 diff
31 August 2015 diff
31 August 2015 diff
25 August 2015 diff removes content with POV and argues against consensus (see talk page [123], then goes on to make claims about other editors, SageRad and Jusdafax, that they steer drama)

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

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

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

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

First addition by Prokaryote today. Not related to my edits, but their content was reverted.[124]
Second set of changes by Prokaryotes:[125][126]
My reversion (as one revert) of the above.[127] Note that my edit summary said, "Undo edit warring per WP:STATUSQUO. Doesn't appear to fit WP:WEIGHT for this article and will need consensus at this point to re-add." and "No indication this is OR and no consensus for this specific change." respectively.
Prokaryotes reverts [128] saying: "Per OR and per No Consensus of RFC"
My last edit (and second revert)[129]: "No consensus at the linked other page for edit. As already mentioned, please gain consensus for the edit at this point per WP:STATUSQUO"

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

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

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

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

Please do not mischaracterize my actions. You're engaging in drama, then turning around and accusing anyone who tries to civilly respond to it as the problem. There were never "several" editors, only you and I at this specific article. The edit warring is the problem with you before we even get into counting reverts. The diffs clearly show that you did not provide support for your specific edit when the only links you did provide showed ongoing discussion about what to potentially do with the content. There's a huge difference between linking to ongoing discussion about changing something and saying here's an edit we agree on. Finally making a somewhat concrete reference to some sort of editing consensus at a different page[130] after opening this board is indicative of disruptive edit warring behavior that I'm asking the reviewing admin to examine so we can curtain this kind of behavior on your part in the future. On my part, I still plan to ask people to use the talk page if their edit doesn't get initial support as I've always done per our talk page policies and guidelines. I've suggested you do the same, but the lack of that is why we're here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

User:Ism schism reported by User:Ankhsoprah2 (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136], [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have been working on this article's talk page and am waiting until I get feedback from other editors before continuing to edit the article. I made only one edit in the past 24 hours on this article and do not plan on anymore until there is consensus or until a good amount of time has past. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also editwarring on Hassan Rouhani [138] [139], and on Propaganda in Iran [140] [141] --Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeeeelllll it's about dinner time here, and I got sidetracked by a couple of other POV/sock/alternate/disruptive accounts in this subject matter. I looked at the Khamenei article and the BLP concerns that Ism schism claims are valid, and there's discussion on the talk page. If I have time later tonight to look more closely, I might end up blocking User:Ankhsoprah2 for tendentious editing and edit warring. Doh. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(My reply is above.) FYI- This editor is strikingly similar to User talk:Ferschais. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all related to User:Ferschais. @@Drmies:, instead of getting pissed, I'm actually happy that you're attempting to fight off the massive Jewish propaganda on Wikipedia, that already plague Twitter (e.g. [142] & [143] etc)--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ankhsoprah2, thanks for the reminder. I like to think of myself as an equal-opportunity offender, having the same aversion for propaganda from either side. Ism schism, you may want to start an SPI or two (or a half dozen), not because I think that Ankhsoprah2 is Ferschais, but because there's plenty of socks around, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I approve! @@Ism schism:, first get the Jewish socks. The Shia/Sunni thing should rest until the Jewish socks are wiped off Wikipedia.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. You just came back from an edit warring block and you're here again? You're walking a very thin line here, and you may well end up with a POV/disruption block. Also, congratulations on your quick learning process here on Wikipedia. I'm closing this: the report is not actionable. Ism schism was reverting obviously POV and likely bad-faith edits, including one by you, Ankhsophrah, and by a couple of IPs. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

@@ Line 788: / Line 788: @@
 *'''Update''' The original author of the edit now supports my edit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGenetically_modified_organism&type=revision&diff=678845607&oldid=678842930 in this dif] at teh related discussion.[[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 ::These mischaracterizations of the situation are getting extremely frustrating. Prokaryotes was the original author of the edit at this page in question, yet their post implies others were involved. Their sloppy edit warring behavior instead of directly linking to consensus on a specific edit (on another page) led to all this drama. The page content seems to have been settled, but this still leaves the question of what to do about this trend of edit warring behavior by Prokaryotes. It looks like neither of the recent AN3 boards involving them have gotten it through that this kind of editing is not ok from an edit warring standpoint, so I would at least like someone uninvolved to try to guide them on editing and talk page behavior since we have an ongoing trend of this. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' - the diffs provided clearly show three reverts by Kingofaces43 to the same area of the article in less than 24 hours. Prokaryotes also has made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours, though one covers a different area of the article. temporary page protection may be in order to stop this ongoing issue.[[User:Dialectric|Dialectric]] ([[User talk:Dialectric|talk]]) 02:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 == [[User:Ism schism]] reported by [[User:Ankhsoprah2]] (Result: No action) ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards