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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎User:Staszek Lem reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: ): The edits of this article may have settled down
Line 566: Line 566:
*'''Result:''' Semiprotected one month. [[User:Panyd]] has entertained some discussion of the [[Igor Janev]] issue on her talk page, but she also stated (in December) "Oh dear god people please go away". She hasn't been recently active, but can certainly lift the semiprotection if she doesn't want it. For the possible source of the IPs, see [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Semiprotected one month. [[User:Panyd]] has entertained some discussion of the [[Igor Janev]] issue on her talk page, but she also stated (in December) "Oh dear god people please go away". She hasn't been recently active, but can certainly lift the semiprotection if she doesn't want it. For the possible source of the IPs, see [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


== [[User:World's Lamest Critic]] reported by [[User:VQuakr]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:World's Lamest Critic]] reported by [[User:VQuakr]] (Result: Two editors warned) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia)}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia)}} <br />
Line 603: Line 603:
::There is no "funny business afoot". The situation can be summed up very simply - Ottawahitech is simply not a competent editor. I had the misfortune to see a comment he made in relation to a Signpost article. You can see in [[Talk:Amanda_Filipacchi#Controversy%20being%20rehashed]] that our very first discussion was about Ottawahitech edit warring. You can also see that despite that discussion, Ottawahitech has returned to that article to make the same changes against consensus. I am sure that Ottawahitech has only the best intentions, but their edits often result in degradation of quality and the need for other editors to repair whatever damage was done. Ottawahitech's user page is a running total of the ''deleted'' articles and categories they created. Take a look. [[User:World&#39;s Lamest Critic|World&#39;s Lamest Critic]] ([[User talk:World&#39;s Lamest Critic|talk]]) 21:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
::There is no "funny business afoot". The situation can be summed up very simply - Ottawahitech is simply not a competent editor. I had the misfortune to see a comment he made in relation to a Signpost article. You can see in [[Talk:Amanda_Filipacchi#Controversy%20being%20rehashed]] that our very first discussion was about Ottawahitech edit warring. You can also see that despite that discussion, Ottawahitech has returned to that article to make the same changes against consensus. I am sure that Ottawahitech has only the best intentions, but their edits often result in degradation of quality and the need for other editors to repair whatever damage was done. Ottawahitech's user page is a running total of the ''deleted'' articles and categories they created. Take a look. [[User:World&#39;s Lamest Critic|World&#39;s Lamest Critic]] ([[User talk:World&#39;s Lamest Critic|talk]]) 21:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
:::A couple of weeks ago I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearcat&diff=next&oldid=758662995 asked] an admin to help me with Ottawahitech's editing. Nothing came of it. [[User:World&#39;s Lamest Critic|World&#39;s Lamest Critic]] ([[User talk:World&#39;s Lamest Critic|talk]]) 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
:::A couple of weeks ago I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearcat&diff=next&oldid=758662995 asked] an admin to help me with Ottawahitech's editing. Nothing came of it. [[User:World&#39;s Lamest Critic|World&#39;s Lamest Critic]] ([[User talk:World&#39;s Lamest Critic|talk]]) 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' [[User:World's Lamest Critic]] and [[User:Ottawahitech]] are both '''warned'''. If they add or remove the disputed talk page material again (prior to consensus) they may be blocked. [[User:SuperMarioWikiEditor]] who filed an AN3 report above has been indef blocked by a checkuser. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


== [[User:Kas42]] reported by [[User:Tenebrae]] (Result: Protected) ==
== [[User:Kas42]] reported by [[User:Tenebrae]] (Result: Protected) ==

Revision as of 02:18, 26 January 2017
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Grayout reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Already blocked)

    Page
    Blackout (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Grayout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760746714 by Kellymoat (talk)"
    2. 20:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760732694 by Kellymoat (talk) read the AllMusic review it says robo-R&B beforehand you get trigger happy"
    3. 19:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760677044 by Kellymoat (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
    2. 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has been adding an unsourced music genre --- please note, he is then linking that genre to a page he created that redirects to another genre. Kellymoat (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Explain how you aren't also edit warring? Even if you believe you are correct, you should be discussing, not repeatedly reverting the other editor. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely correct on that. All I can say is - I sent him a warning. I sent a 3rr warning. I tried the edit summary. And now I am here taking it to a higher power. I may be just as guilty when it comes to 3rr, but I have at least given him ample opportunity. Kellymoat (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Max Rays reported by User:Akld guy (Result: Warned)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:
    User:Max Rays added a new section that pointed to a suspect named in a 2002 book. His/her edit was originally reverted by User:EEng on 16 January here. In the past few hours, Max Rays has persistently re-inserted the same content, despite being reverted and told on the article's Talk page that references are needed for statements that are presented as facts. In an attempt to accommodate the editor, I rewrote the section here, stating in the edit summary that this version got around the need to provide references by attributing the statements to the author of the book. Even this edit was reverted by User:Max Rays, so he/she is clearly edit-warring in order to force his/her version into the article. I ask here for some kind of censure of Max Rays, who is an SPA account with fewer than 20 edits, virtually all of them to the Sam Sheppard article. Akld guy (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not blocked User was not warned prior to violating 3RR, and may not be familiar with our policies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Posting to keep this open, because he's back at it, though let's see what happens next. If I don't come back here we're OK. EEng 13:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mojo3232 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Meredith Kessler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mojo3232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: (2014) or (2016-17)

    A single purpose account is edit-warring to remove mention of a hit-and-run offence from a biographical article.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:55, 16 November 2014
    2. 20:52, 29 December 2016
    3. 18:55, 6 January 2017
    4. 00:03, 11 January 2017
    5. 21:59, 17 January 2017
    6. 05:06, 22 January 2017

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:31, 18 January 2017

    Diff of response when User:Barkeep attempted to seek help on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: 08:13, 7 January 2017

    Diff of attempt to persuade Mojo3232 to discuss his/her objections on the article talk page: [5]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Meredith Kessler#Hit and run case and Talk:Meredith Kessler#Hit and run - Part 2

    -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked – 31 hours. Long term edit warring to exclude well-sourced material. Mojo3232 only edits this one article, but has never posted to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Duqsene reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: No violation)

    Page
    Medri Bahri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Duqsene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. [6]
    2. [7]
    3. [8]
    4. [9]
    5. [10]
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    I just found this active discussion on ANI about this editor: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_Editor_on_Ethiopia_related_pages Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:982:8200:4790:FD34:96C1:7D4E:BC38 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 48 hours)

    Page
    Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2601:982:8200:4790:FD34:96C1:7D4E:BC38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761395266 by Tymon.r (talk)Hitler's Table Talk"
    3. 19:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
    4. 19:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761394536 by Tymon.r (talk) In the body of the article, most historians mentions that."
    5. 19:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. (TW)"
    2. 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "add"
    3. 19:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    This edit on the talkpage [13] doesn't indicate that there is any genuine interest in discussing sources or content, but I did add a note on their talk page [14] to which there is no response.Acroterion (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear 3RR, was warned. Kuru (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:97.106.151.168 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Bob's Burgers (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Bob's Burgers (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Bob's Burgers (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Bob's Burgers (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 97.106.151.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Season 2, Season 3, Season 4, Season 5


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Season 2
    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]
    4. [18]
    5. [19]
    Season 3
    1. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]
    5. [24]
    6. [25]
    Season 4
    1. [26]
    2. [27]
    3. [28]
    4. [29]
    5. [30]
    Season 5
    1. [31]
    2. [32]
    3. [33]
    4. [34]
    5. [35]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37] - Briefly discussed on user talk page

    Comments:

    User has a number of warnings on their talk page (some of which were deleted by the user). Since January 10, they've been edit warring over the image on the season pages for Bob's Burgers. The other involved user is Grapesoda22. User insists the MOD cover art is not acceptable for the infoboxes (for some unknown reason). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 31 hours. The IP has never posted to any of the talk pages relevant to Bob's Burgers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be aware that this may be the logged-out IP of active user S hannon434 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I posted these warnings about editing while logged out on December 14 ([38][39]), and again on December 15 ([40][41]). I came to know this when they posted on my talk page under the IP ([42]), and then changed the signature three minutes later to that of the registered account ([43]). I would also note that this is further supported by the fact that the media releases that the IP editor is edit-warring to add to the fact were, in fact, also uploaded by the registered user in question. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked User:S hannon434 to reply to the suggestion they are using multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:94.5.104.222 reported by User:Class455 (Result: Semi)

    Page
    London Underground (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    94.5.104.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted. You are getting into an edit war not me. I gave proof. A link and a mat that Watford is served by the Overground and partially the Underground."
    2. 22:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted: proof on Talk Page."
    4. 16:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Bakerloo line extension to Watford Junction */ Removed section as this is completed"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on London Underground. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    Discussion on talk page

    Comments:

    Violating the three revert rule by reverting edits without consensus formed on the talk page. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Page semiprotected two months. Wait for agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:‎Hertha=Strong and User:Secret Agent Julio (alt) reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: Both warned)

    Page: Hertha BSC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported: Secret Agent Julio (alt) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hertha=Strong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: this (at least for the two editors reported)


    Diffs of Julio's reverts:

    1. diff 1
    2. diff 2
    3. diff 3
    4. diff 4
    5. diff 5

    Diffs to Hertha=Strong's reverts

    1. diff 1
    2. diff 2
    3. diff 3
    4. diff 4
    5. diff 5
    6. diff 6


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link for Hertha=Strong link for Julio


    Comments:
    For the past two days, these two have been reverting each other regarding the "correct" name for this club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I originally assumed the user was an unconstructive editor trying to remove content from the article, including alternate names. I was unable to verify that "Hertha, Berliner Sport-Club e.V." was the official name, so I restored the article. Once a source was provided, I cleaned up the reference and then decided to provided citations for all the different name variations of the club. Apparently "Hertha=Strong" does not agree that the club is sometimes referred to as "Hertha Berlin" or "Hertha BSC Berlin", even after I provided this reference from the European football governing body, and this reference from the official English language website of the Bundesliga. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What is this here ? I´m irritated. Let me explain: I tried to correct the article several times. The old version had a false club name on many fields in the article. I gave official sources to make my argument. Here [44] and here [45]. But somebody keeps introducing false names. The German Wikipedia article also says in its introduction that sometimes, wrongly, terms like "Hertha BSC Berlin" are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hertha=Strong (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is clearly an edit war, and it looks to me that both parties are risking a block. I suggest they each promise to make no more reverts until agreement is reached on the talk page. (Hint: Neither of you has made any effort to use the talk page). EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I now opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss the issue and hopefully reach an agreement. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.148.70.9 reported by User:D Eaketts (Result: )

    Page
    X-Men: Days of Future Past (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    82.148.70.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 11:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761521401 by D Eaketts (talk)"
    2. 11:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761512460 by Hotwiki (talk) So they have the same misconception as you, big deal.. lol"
    3. 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761419219 by D Eaketts (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on X-Men: Days of Future Past. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 10:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ Added answer to Edit warring question."
    Comments:

    This IP keeps editing Warring on the X-Men: Days of Future Past article, Several editors reverted it back including me. D Eaketts (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    One World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    WelcometoJurassicPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Look at that damn link: http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/one-world-trade-center/98/ it says 541.3 m, not 541 m."
    2. 00:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Look at that damn link: http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/chrysler-building/422 it says 541.3 m, not 541 m."
    3. 20:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC) "Correction based on the source."
    4. 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Resuming edit war of height/format corrections to Burj Khalifa, One World Trade Center and World Trade Center (1973–2001), within 24 hours of a previous block for apparently the same kind of edit war on Chrysler Building. McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please also see the comments on this user's Talk page. This "editor" seems obsessed with trivial detail, does not use Talk page to explain and is again edit warring - in spite of previous block(s). Further admin action is needed. David J Johnson (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The user continues to insist on trivial details of building heights. For example, while this report was open he has changed the height of a certain building from 426 meters to 425.5 meters. This is after I warned him that a longer block was possible if he didn't stop. I assume that his last block, by User:Acroterion, was for making this change at One World Trade Center. (He wants the height shown as 541.3 meters not 541 meters). Since he appears to ignore all feedback and he's already been blocked twice, I suggest one month. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 1 month Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Robsinden reported by User:TonyTheTiger (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Robsinden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: my initial change or a a more recent one with a grammatical correction


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [46]
    2. [47]
    3. [48]

    On January 19 and 20, at User_talk:Robsinden/Archive_11#Interwikis_links, I attempted to hold discussions on whether there was ever a consensus for this 2015 change by Moxy, When it became clear that there had been no consensus for the change, I reverted it and opened an RFC. When after 14 discussants considered the matter in the first 3 days of the RFC and User:Robsinden noticed that consensus for the change was not developing the way he had hoped at an RFC, instead of awaiting consensus, he decided to restore the change although it was clearly controversial with an even split of support and oppose. There were 7 supports and 7 opposes at the time he finally Opposed the RFC. Nonetheless, he subsequently restored the change to the guideline. I reverted his restorations twice. He responded with reverting me twice. Once he became aware that I was going to take an edit warring action, he archived his talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • This policy change should have never been made without some consensus. I opened a discussion to see if there was such a consensus. There does not appear to be consensus for it. Nonetheless, he is insisting on restoring the change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • More time should be given tO see what more people hAve tO say. Would like to point out the addition way back in 2015 was simply for clarification....as the page already said these templates should not have external links. Not sure why an addition from years ago that simply clarifies what the guideline already said is now a problem? Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates. Sources may be included in the template documentation (a section that is visible only after viewing the template itself, but not upon its transclusion). Was someone adding external links all over....or was someone removing them? Is the point of the removal of the addition from 2015 because some belive we should have external links or that an exception should be made for other WikiProject pages. Not sure how removal makes anything more clear consideing what we say about external links. Thoses wishing to add external links to these templates should be asking for just that...an exception to the rule. Basically we have a debate about the wrong thing...one word...not a concept.--Moxy (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically, you are insisting that the change you made makes sense although the current tally is 9 against your change and 8 for it. If it were so clear the RFC would not be so active and would probably have a count in your favor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current RFC is the discussion that should have been held 2 years ago before you made the change in the opinion of the many who oppose your change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for replying. As metioned before I dont care eitherway on what is done with that old edit. But I am not sure you understand the problem. Removing 2 words added years ago with zero problem till now will not change the external links guideline there on that page. It's a 2 plus year old edit for clarification being distupted now ...thus the bold edit is yours. As I said I don't care if the words are removed or if we have external links. What should have happened is a proposal for an exception to the external link guide over editwaring over 2 words that were added years ago. --Moxy (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all very well, but shouldn't the page be protected at the status quo (the stable version which has been in place for two years) rather than Tony's preferred version? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I resent the bad faith accusations by Tony - note that I don't generally edit at weekends - he started the RFC on Friday night UK time, and edited the guideline at this point, I reverted his edit and contributed to the discussion on Monday morning UK time... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:89.160.219.247 reported by User:D Eaketts (Result: )

    Page
    X-Men: Days of Future Past (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    89.160.219.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761565382 by D Eaketts (talk)"
    2. 22:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761365988 by Hotwiki (talk)"
    3. 02:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761272676 by Hotwiki (talk)"
    4. 15:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761131943 by Bong009 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 10:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on X-Men: Days of Future Past. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 10:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ Added answer to Edit warring question."
    Comments:

    This IP address keeps on Edit Warring on X-Men:Days of Future Past article as 4 people have reverted his editing quite alot could be using IP address: 82.148.70.9 also. D Eaketts (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Materialscientist reported by User:128.40.9.164 (Result: Warned)

    Page: Abundance of elements in Earth's crust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Materialscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [49]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [50]
    2. [51]
    3. [52]
    4. [53]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not possible as the user has protected their talk page.


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

    Comments:

    I made a couple of edits to an article, to remove a whole lot of verbiage which boiled down to the word "estimated", and to remove blue links from bolded text as suggested by the manual of style. My edits were undone without explanation. I can see that the undoing user's edits consist almost entirely of undoing other people's edits, and that they seldom leave a reason. Of their last 50 edits as I type this, 28 are unexplained reverts. Quite why they are undoing my edits to this article, I do not know. They have not left an informative edit summary, and their contribution to the talk page indicated that they were ignorant of certain guidelines. Due to a mediawiki bug I cannot edit the talk page - it reports an internal error whenever I try - so I left links to the relevant guidelines in an edit summary. The user promptly undid that edit to bring their total to four reverts in a little over 12 hours. I am thus reporting it here. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Warned The edit warring has stopped today so no further action required. I have warned Materialscientist Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Staszek Lem reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: )

    Page: Neopalpa donaldtrumpi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Staszek Lem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: First edit in edit war, but other content has been included besides this dispute since then.


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:23, January 23, 2017
    2. 13:46, January 23, 2017
    3. 13:22, January 24, 2017
    4. 13:31, January 24, 2017


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


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

    Comments:

    This is an article about an insect named after Donald Trump's hair, so it's bound to attract some controversy outside normal insect editors. This could potentially be under the the American politics discretionary sanctions with that in mind. Staszek Lem has four reverts in a 24-hour period (or 25-hour, but this is considering gaming according to WP:3RR) against multiple editors (not counting sequential edits). There's a mix of behavior associated with the edit warring above, so while I don't think we need page protection at this minute as the current version is the rough talk page consensus (and everyone else has been contributing content in a WP:CONSENSUS fashion excluding Staszek Lem), Staszek is exhibiting behavior that needs to be addressed before it gets worse and disrupts the page further in the future if this current incident is any bearing.

    In short, there has been ongoing talk page discussion linked above about the content in question, and Staszek Lem in addition to violating 3RR, has been extremely combative with comments like "Tired of this preaching to the deaf, despite being a non-expert in biology. . ."[57] while addressing editors knowledgeable in entomology, not focusing on content while misrepresenting editors, and interjecting comments about Donald Trump and "small hands".[58][59] Meanwhile, the rest of us were trying to flesh out the main components of species description as described in the discussed source. Issues with ignoring the source include multiple editors mentioning the source's species key that both wing and genital structure size as important characteristics, followed by Staszek edit warring back in their version ignoring that key while turning around asking editors for a reference for the very information they were already told was in the key,[60] which is extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS at best.

    For those not familiar, genital differences in insect species are one of the first things described for species differences (see talk page for various comments on this). Staszek has been extremely combative with the comments that they are not an expert in biology, while still claiming that genital size is not an important characteristic even though that violates WP:OR according to the source while bringing in side comments about Donald Trump. Mix in the 4 reverts and the combative behavior while they ignore multiple editors on the talk page telling Staszek that they're not understanding key entomological details here, and we've got a bull in a china shop effect going on. I'd appreciate if admins could help address this tangle of behaviors even though this goes beyond just 4RR. There's a lot of behavior issues that mired what should have been a simple content discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Without commenting on other aspects of this complaint, I feel that trying to invoke Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 on an article about a moth is perhaps the most startling example of Wiki-lawyering I have ever seen. DrChrissy (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refrain from carrying over similar battleground disputes as the GMO topics where you are topic banned (but with me being one of the editors you don't have an additional interaction ban with from that case). As I stated above, Donald Trump has been specifically mentioned by Staszek Lem in this species article multiple times, which makes the claim of wikilawyering frivolous. Had that mention not happened, I would have considered the DS borderline at best in this case, but the Trump comments being used to exclude scientific content crossed that fine line awhile ago if admins choose to act on DS instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is incredibly provoking for you, especially an editor who is so experienced and should know better, to raise a topic which you know perfectly well I am unable to comment on. I am requesting an admin to remove your post above and issue you with a warning, if not a boomerang. DrChrissy (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DrChrissy, I mentioned the continuation of battleground behavior that I experienced in my interactions with you in the GMO topics (and that you popped up extremely quick here even though we basically don't interact now that you are topic-banned) as a reminder (nothing more) that you could land yourself in hot water by engaging in comments like you did above. What you choose to do with that advice is up to you, but it requires no response from you or even the insinuation that I'm goading you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are attempting to invoke discretionary sanctions on this thread. Let me remind you that if they are applicable here, they apply to you just as much as they do to any other editor. I accused you of wiki-lawyering on this thread. That is hardly the worst accusation on WP, but you reply immediately in an extremely battleground mentality by bringing up my topic ban and interaction ban from a topic totally unrelated to this thread. How can my topic ban and interaction ban have any relevance whatsoever here - unless you are attempting to goad me (which is actually classified as uncivil behaviour, so you need to tread extremely carefully here) or you are deliberately cast aspersions? I'm sure I do not need to remind an editor as experienced as you that sanctions can be imposed for such behaviour. DrChrissy (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read my reply. I explicitly said there was no intent to goad, but that I was pointing out the same kind of battleground behavior that resulted in the GMO topic ban is being resumed here in a different topic when we practically haven't had interactions since then. That was my caution to you as that could cause you more problems sanction-wise down the road if you keep doing that. In no reasonable way should it be considered baiting, threat, or anything like that.
    As for American politics DS applying to linking disparaging comments towards a political figure to a content discussion, that should be self-evident. Plus, those DS are meant for dealing with situations where politics unduly influence content discussion (even interjecting "small hands" comments to remove content). How or if admins want to use the DS is up to them. The main thing is to nip their behavior in the bud so it's not a problem in the future. Generally, that's the intended purpose of these boards instead of calls for boomerangs, etc. when someone brings attention to it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingofaces43: You might like to frame your edits in fallacious terms that you are not intending to goad, but I will state clearly that I feel like I am being goaded. An apology here might get you out of trouble. I repeat, there was absolutely no reason for you to bring up my topic ban and interaction ban in this thread unless you intended to provoke a response from me or you were attempting to publicly discredit me. Either course of action is unacceptable and is extreme battleground behaviour and I hope an admin takes action against you on this. A direct question - why did you mention my topic ban and interaction ban on this thread? I expect an answer or we may be going to AN/I regarding WP:casting aspersions on this. The ball is in your court to show some contrition. DrChrissy (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it weird to blame me for speaking about Trump in an article about Trump. My argument about excluding sci content is WP:UNDUE. It was uncontested, because it was falling on deaf ears, because my tongue-in-cheek mention of a couple running jokes about Trump was equated with censoring. The OP seems to lack the basic understanding that "genitals" and "genitals size" are two subjects of rather different prominence. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's bullshit. Normal progressive improvement. Especially the last diff, which is a disingenious cut of the full edit, which is a clear improvement over the previous content, which incorporated the best of the previous versions. Also the edits were thoroughly discussed in talk page. I would like to invoke WP:BOOMERANGand urge teh OP party to stop spreading falsitudes about the essense of my edits and of my arguments in the article talk page, namely, I DID NOT exclude information about genitals from the article; in fact I significantly expanded it eventually, see the last version. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. You blustered up the talk page opposed to these very edits you mention while edit warring in the process. Now you have this most recent content into your 4RR edits and say everyone was ignoring this (exactly the opposite problem), so you went ahead and summarized it (described more in-depth here). You're telling a very different story than how you were actually behaving. You're still not seeing how disruptive your behavior has been on the talk page or by edit warring, which is why we're here to get an admin to figure out how to get you to improve your behavior or at least minimize disruption. Again, please take the time to slow down and read what people are saying. That in combination with your boomerang comments are beginning to look like an indication of battleground behavior, which we don't need at the article at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am sorry, it is your behavior which is disruptive. You keep ignoring and misrepresenting my arguments and my edits. Instead of addressing my argument you keep repeating that I am deleting information about genitals, which I am not. You keep repeating that I am edit warring, while I am replacing a nonnotable trivia with a progressively more detailed information, which can be easily demonstrated by snapshots of final versions of the series of my consecutive edits. Unlike Kingface, who was reverting expanded version to a piece of trivia, I was actually expanding the content. If actually writing an article is called revert warring in your book, then you have serious troubles in understanding wikipedia work. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to try to let an admin comment at this point so this doesn't become a wall of text, but I again need to ask you to slow down and reread what editors there had been saying to you. The topic under discussion was species genital size, not deletion of mention of genitals entirely. Please don't mischaracterize it as such. That's a very key detail you've kept skipping over in these comments. The combination of this rushing ahead in reverts and talk page comments and missing key details along with the use of mentioning Donald Trump as "an exercise in airbrushing science articles to pussyfoot around societal issues."[61] according to another editor at the talk page is why we're trying to get this issue of taken care of here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, false representation of the discussion. Not to say that information about size was restored in my expanded version, where it was in proper context. Contrary to your claim, I was repeatedly accused of "censorship" of genitals. While I kept information about genitals. I can easily quote from talk page. And yor call for "slowing down" is disingenous as well. I slowed down long time ago, with this version. Pray tell me what is wrong with it? If you are willing to slow down beating the dead horse yourself and come to mutual understanding, then I am all yours. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to the admin. I think I know why diff #4 was listed, I believe, erroneously: The pop-up view of this diff is truncated and does not show that the disputed "genitals size" text is not deleted in my version, i.e, version #4 is not even close to a revert. So I may see now the persistent calls to "slow down" come from this misunderstanding. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue with that particular revert is that you reinserted redundant text after it had already been removed once, so there is nothing incorrect my linking of it (genital size is irrelevant in that one). You've also been told this a few times on the article talk page while completely ignoring it and reverting it back in. Below, Elmidae is correct that the content as it is (aside from this redundancy) is what editors generally agree upon. That's why I've suggested there isn't an urgency for something like page protection, but the edit warring behavior and the need to tell you to slow down for missing major details is why I'm asking for an admin to at least give you some outside guidance on how to better handle these situations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment For what it's worth, I think the current version is accurate, neutral and well phrased: The most conspicuous differences between N. donaldtrumpi and the other species in the genus, N. neonata, are the yellowish-white scales of the head, the orange-yellow coloration on the forewing dorsum, and the structure of both male and female genitalia, with N. donaldtrumpi male genitalia being smaller and female genitalia possessing very few small setae. So if we could stop here content-wise for now, I guess that's the main thing sorted.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits of the article on January 25 and 26 don't look bad, and I don't see policy violations. Unless there is a sudden turn for the worse I don't even think that full protection is worth doing. This might be ready to close. There are at least two editors who appear to know entomology, and whatever wording they recommend should be listened to. Though admins might be able to use discretionary sanctions they are unlikely to do so unless there is a big problem that needs solving. For those curious, this article has already been at DYK on 21 January. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ottawahitech reported by User:SuperMarioWikiEditor (Result:OP blocked for block evasion/socking)

    Page: Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ottawahitech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_28_(British_Columbia)&oldid=761736184


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [62]
    2. [63]
    3. [64]
    4. [65]
    5. [66]
    6. [67]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]


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

    Comments:This user has insisted on keeping a very large list of references on the talk page. Multiple users have either reverted or archived this. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @SuperMarioWikiEditor: a few comments here. 1. you reported the editor with fewer reverts on that page. 2. You never notified Ottawahitech of this discussion, which is mandatory. The diff you posted in that field is not a diff and is not an AN3 notification. 3. You didn't attempt to discuss the talk page content until after your posted here, [69], instead ignoring the user's request for explanation. 4. You haven't cited any policy or guideline for your claim that potential news references must go in user talk (as opposed to article talk). VQuakr (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See also a complaint against User:World's Lamest Critic below for edit warring on the same talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm closing this as I've blocked the OP for abuse of multiple accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.248.28.108 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Block, Semi)

    Page
    People v. Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    70.248.28.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 00:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Sorry. I have made too much progress to just roll over and die. The article is "People v. Turner". That stuff you are using as an excuse is still there in the body."
    2. 00:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "rm cites that got moved to Judge's BLP"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 23:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC) to 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
      1. 23:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "I did not remove material. I MOVED it from the lead to the "Aftermath" section. I did move Persky stuff to Perksy BLP. Look: every activist editor wants to stage-hog the lead section. It is natural but inappropriate."
      2. 23:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "whitespace"
      3. 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "move "official reaction" to under "aftermath" section"
      4. 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "more sorting: it is very important to finish up with the case before we let the flood of public reaction pour in"
      5. 00:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Indictment and charges */ Classical: we have ZERO on the trial itself (in particular the EVIDENCE presented at trial)."
      6. 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "comment"
      7. 00:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Trial proceedings */ That is ALL we have for trial: beginning and ending dates. No evidence. No nutin. Just rape, rape, rape, rape, rape 62 times."
      8. 00:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Incident details */ rm ex statement about what happened on jan. 28"
      9. 00:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Trial proceedings */ attys involved"
      10. 00:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Sentencing */ move"
      11. 00:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Appeal and release */ move to new section"
      12. 00:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Join sections. Mention appeal last."
      13. 00:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Trial proceedings */ shift section boundary"
      14. 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Trial proceedings */ sort sections. Victim impact statement occurs after verdict but before sentencing."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC) to 23:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
      1. 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Sentencing */ keep mention that Persky was in sports at Stanford"
      2. 23:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "let the edit war begin with the feminist sociologist prof. This is an issue about evidence, emphasis on what prestigious civics-minded journalist have to say rather than about popularity and kidbitzing non-case elements have to insert."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 22:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC) to 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
      1. 22:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "Reduce excessive distance between verb and verb modifier in second sentence. Add wikilink for consolidated clause to appropriate article."
      2. 22:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "It is important to highlight that the dropping of the rape changes were not part of some plea deal. They were dropped because of lack of evidence."
      3. 22:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "sum it up"
      4. 22:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "due to"
      5. 22:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "wikilink"
      6. 22:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "remove rape as an infobox keyword"
      7. 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "The assertion belongs in the lead because it is a point of confusion"
      8. 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "ref"
      9. 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "One journalist"
      10. 23:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "based"
      11. 23:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "/* =Aftermath */ = balance"
      12. 23:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "Move the whole blob of Persky stuff over to Persky BLP"
      13. 23:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Incident details */ resolve cite warnings"
      14. 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Incident details */ whitespace"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 00:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 22:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Did not use penis and therefore is not a "rapist" in the State of California */ Responded to edit request (EPH)"
    2. 18:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Fingered 2 */"
    3. 20:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Fingered 2 */ what does Survivor have to do with this?"
    4. 23:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Fingered 2 */"

    See also

    Comments:

    The state of the article was atrocious. It did not even bother to mention who the arguing attorneys were. It did not mention ONE WORD of the trial itself (that is TDB). Why bother having such an article title if the article itself has to be such a joke? There are many adequate such article, say Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health for starters.--70.248.28.108 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that there are issues with the content this user is adding, and that the user has continued with the content addition despite multiple warnings, as well as the warning for edit warring. Since I've reverted his changes, I'll leave to another admin to look into this and take action. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:178.222.73.177 reported by User:Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Result: Semi)

    Page
    User talk:Panyd (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    178.222.73.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 02:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761838191 by Sro23 (talk)"
    2. 02:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761838032 by Sro23 (talk)"
    3. 02:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761831592 by Sro23 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 02:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "General note: Harassment of other users on User talk:Panyd. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 02:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 178.222.73.177 (talk): Khmer. (TW)"
    Comments:

    attacking on other users. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 02:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Semiprotected one month. User:Panyd has entertained some discussion of the Igor Janev issue on her talk page, but she also stated (in December) "Oh dear god people please go away". She hasn't been recently active, but can certainly lift the semiprotection if she doesn't want it. For the possible source of the IPs, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:World's Lamest Critic reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Two editors warned)

    Page: Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: World's Lamest Critic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12/8
    2. 12/9
    3. 1/4
    4. 1/8
    5. 1/19
    6. 1/19
    7. 1/19
    8. 1/22
    9. 1/22
    10. 1/24

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWorld%27s_Lamest_Critic&type=revision&diff=760795234&oldid=760792266

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70] (last section at the bottom, added in the same diff as the page restore)

    Comments:
    Possibly the world's lamest (slow motion) edit war here, but I can't see how the repeated blanking and pushing around of another editor's notes is particularly excusable (or anything other than bullying of an editor who, based on WLC's other edits, they just don't like much). I included the two IP reverts under World's Lamest Critic's edits per WP:DUCK; given that WLC's third edit was to add an IP address to a sockpuppetry investigation they obviously understand the repercussions of trying to log out to WP:GAME our rules. Full disclosure, I did suggest talk page archival as an alternative to pushing them to a user talk space subpage, but that wasn't an invitation to keep edit warring if Ottawahitech didn't agree with the idea. Notified here. VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you have this a little bit backwards. Ottawahitech is the one edit warring, as is his habit. I first moved Ottawahitech's notes to a page in his userspace. I explained why I did that on his talk page. He did not reply to my post there. I left him a another note on his talk page when he continued to edit war on Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia). Again, no reply. I took VQuakr's suggestion and created an archive, but Ottawahitech has simply continued to edit war. For the record, I am not the IP who has reverted Ottawahitech, nor am I User:SuperMarioWikiEditor who has also reverted Ottawahitech on other articles, nor am I any of the many other editors who routinely revert Ottawahitech's poor edits. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look at another Ottawahitech editwar in its early stages here. This is the pattern. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit warring warning placed 1 minute before this was filed. I have filed an edit warring complaint about Ottawahitech above. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SuperMarioWikiEditor: no, the warning was placed 6 days before this was filed. The notification was placed 1 minute before this was filed, which is normal. VQuakr (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: FWIW, I hadn't noticed the existing inverse report above when I posted this section. I did consider reporting both, but chose not to because Ottawahitech had attempted to discuss on the article talk page (a discussion which was repeatedly removed by WLC though he seems to have stopped that now) and because Ottawahitech had fewer reverts overall. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite honestly, I did not at first notice the topic Ottawahitech started on the talk page. I had already tried (twice) on his talk page to discuss my reasons for moving his notes. He did not respond either time. The suggestion to archive the page instead came from VQuakr and, although I did not agree, I went with it because I hoped it would end the edit war. @EdJohnston: I promise to stop reverting. I tried from the very start to discuss this, but with no success. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from uninvolved non-admin - First of all, the content being removed was lengthy, but is directly relevant to the improvement of the article, which is what the talk page is for. It could be collapsed, or there could be a polite request to clean it up, but if it's actively being used to improve the page it's a pretty clear violation of WP:TPO to just remove it. To then edit war over it is just egregious. Ottawahitech deserves a trout/warning for repeatedly restoring rather than going through proper channels, but in the matter of the actual edit looks to squarely be in the right. Furthermore, there is some funny business afoot. Both SuperMarioWikiEditor and World's Lamest Critic have very short editing histories and yet have a substantial amount of overlap with Ottawahitech. I'm on my lunch break right now so don't have time to check to see the chronology, but the editor interaction report indicates a problem worth looking into, in addition to whatever block the closing admin deems appropriate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "funny business afoot". The situation can be summed up very simply - Ottawahitech is simply not a competent editor. I had the misfortune to see a comment he made in relation to a Signpost article. You can see in Talk:Amanda_Filipacchi#Controversy being rehashed that our very first discussion was about Ottawahitech edit warring. You can also see that despite that discussion, Ottawahitech has returned to that article to make the same changes against consensus. I am sure that Ottawahitech has only the best intentions, but their edits often result in degradation of quality and the need for other editors to repair whatever damage was done. Ottawahitech's user page is a running total of the deleted articles and categories they created. Take a look. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of weeks ago I asked an admin to help me with Ottawahitech's editing. Nothing came of it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kas42 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Protected)

    Page: Clint Eastwood in the 1970s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kas42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [71]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [72] - 02:53, 25 January 2017
    2. [73] - 03:35, 25 January 2017
    3. [74] - 03:51, 25 January 2017
    4. [75] - 04:00,25 January 2017

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

    Comments:
    This editor is congenital edit-warrior who as you can see in a previous version of his since-blanked talk page was blocked for edit-warring in November and was given warnings by an editor other than me in December. [78]. He has been edit-warring on more than one article today, and I gave warnings and urged him to discuss his issues on the talk page. [79]. He declined to do so, and chose to break 3RR instead.-- Tenebrae (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected for a period of 24 hours. Tenebrae, you also broke 3RR, so be thankful the boomerang didn't whack you on the noggin'. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Glad you recognized it was inadvertent, since I've had to bring editors here in the past. It was late at night and I clearly was tired. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kellymoat reported by User:Somethingwickedly (Result: )

    Page: 13 Reasons Why (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kellymoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [80]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [81]
    2. [82]
    3. [83]
    4. [84]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85] Somethingwickedly (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. Did it. Totally guilty. Unfortunately, so did you. At least I showed stated a reason/policy as to why I was reverting yours.Kellymoat (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mr.User200 reported by User:MordeKyle (Result: )

    Page
    Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2017) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761955618 by MordeKyle (talk)"
    2. 20:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761954967 by MordeKyle (talk)"
    3. 13:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "m rv"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2017). (TW)"
    2. 20:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2017). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Keeps adding self published twitter source. Was given warning for edit warring, disruptive editing and a warning for 3RR when he/she was at 2 reverts. User shortly after committed another revert, violating 3RR.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The WP:SPS does not apply to this case. Since "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim";

    "it does not involve claims about third parties;","it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;", "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;" and finally "the article is not based primarily on such sources". I recall those were the restrictions for not using a SocialNetwork as a Primary Source.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is mostly irrelevant. As an outside observer, all I see is your reverts here, here, and here with no explanation, when the other subject is giving you explanations to why they are removing this information. You are then putting multiple warning templates on the user's talk page for being disruptive, when from the outside perspective, it was you who was being disruptive. You must first WP:AGF, with other editors and myself. I assumed good faith with you, left you a message on the user's talk page, even pinging you, giving you an explanation for the revert I made in relation to the disruptive claims you made against the other user. You then reverted again and again, after warnings were given, with no edit notes, and no explanation. This is why this is here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=762001548"