Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

User:Surajkrishna1 reported by User:Mathonius (Result: No action)

Page

User talk:Astronaut (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Surajkrishna1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 24 2013 6:50 PM ""
2. Jun 24 2013 6:51 PM "Undid revision 561383646 by Mathonius (talk)"
3. Jun 24 2013 6:53 PM ""
4. Jun 24 2013 7:10 PM ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 24 2013 6:57 PM "/* Your edits on User talk:Astronaut */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Jun 24 2013 6:58 PM "Undid revision 561384004 by Surajkrishna1 (talk): please see your talk page"

Comments:

After I posted a message on his talk page telling him to stop editwarring, he replied on my talk page, saying he would stop and ask Astronaut to remove the section himself, but instead he decided to continue the edit war by reverting once again. Mathonius (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mathonius. Indeed, an apology from Surajkrishna1 for his incivility, would go a long way. Astronaut (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This report might also have discouraged Surajkrishna1 from continuing the edit war, so maybe/hopefully further action isn't necessary. Mathonius (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since the war is not continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Gavanzo reported by User:M.O.X (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8] - Falsely labelled the edit as vandalism
8. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

Basically consensus has established that Spanish Catalan is what the lead should display, but this user persists in reverting any attempts at restoring the text as agreed upon in past discussions. I have made 2 reversions to undo vandalism and 3 to restore the compromise text. I should note that this is the second time this user has been warned for 3RR violations, the prior incident being last month on two articles. James ^{(T • C)} • 10:04pm • 11:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As i already mentioned on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Antoni_Gaud.C3.AD_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Cprotect.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 i suggest to revert this issue to the stable version of yesterday which was already discussed in Talk:Antoni_Gaudí/Archive_1#Spanish_Catalan_2, we will continue the discussion on the talk but out of the edit war. Gavanzo (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see this consensus you speak of. I see two years of various users bickering about "Spanish Catalan". Good thing there's nothing more important to do on Wikipedia, eh? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Warned Well this is pretty stale, as the reported editor hasn't been around and the no one has answered my comment that I can't find consensus anywhere. I'm going to warn Gavanzo about being an SPA. Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: )

Page: Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
War on Women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Rape and pregnancy controversies

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

War on Women

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Rape controversies War on Women

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

Comments:
The two articles are closely linked and Arzel has been edit warring in both. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I really wish everyone would simply follow WP:BRD, but if not, it takes two to edit-war. And in this particular case, it appears that we have several edit-warriors.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The bit about Nikki Haley on "War on Women" is a serious BLP issue as PolicyMic is basically Examiner.com and the article's author is a "freelance writer" whose real job is being a barrista. Seems that article is getting hit with BLP coatrack material. Rape and pregnancy controversies is getting edit-warring from all sides so going after one editor there would be inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Any WP:BLP issue must be taken seriously as a specific exemption from 3RR, and, when in doubt, it is up to the person adding the contentious claims to get a consensus first - I have not looked at who wrote what here, as I wish the principle to stand here, regardless of who the personalities are entirely.Collect (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a little ridiculous. The 4th revert to which CD is complaining is duplicate information to which CD has put into the article several times. When I informed him that it was already in the article his response was that "controversial both for rape and abortion". edit. It is really irritating to have editors insert BLP crap into articles on flimsy sources and include the same information multiple times. Arzel (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

CD alleges that they have "attempted to resolve"; this is impossible to take seriously. The empty motion that CD links to happened yesterday, the diffs alleging EW were days before- this motion could not possibly have affected the changes being complained about.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So in one article, the complaint cites 3 reverts. How does that exceed 3RR? In the other article, it cites four reverts, with the first occurring on June 20, and the last on June 25. I'm sure there is a good faith reasoning under which that exceeds three reverts in 24 hours -- perhaps the person who filed the complaint misread the dates.William Jockusch (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: )

Page: Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anonymous209.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Cartoon Diabolo has made NO attempts to resolve or even speak to anyone. Cartoon Diabolo has merely seen ANs on editors they do not like and decided (after this one got hatted by an admin) to re-post them. Both this and the above are duplicates of posts by Casprings on AN, reformatted and re-posted ALSO on ANI.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
Per request at ANI Anon's issues have been moved here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

On the administrator board, I was simply going down his edits here. I think he has also shown a clear pattern of edit warring and POV pushing. But I don't think the problem is over four reverts in 24 hours. It is just constant POV pushing and edit warring. Its a long term problem with POV pushing I was trying to report. Casprings (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013

Cartoon Diabolo has posted an allegation of 3rr that has no conceivable foundation, and no diffs or links--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also point out I have tried to address the issues with him. In fact, I have a whole section of his talk page dedicated to me.Casprings (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no ALSO about this (aka CD attempt). There also is no TRY(aka Caspring attempt). Casprings has made minimal, pro-forma contributions to Talk, and INSTEAD of making arguments, repeatedly files empty motions, that have the effect of confusing discussion, never adding to. Already warned about tendentious filing of RfCs INSTEAD of engaging editors on Talk.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As I explained above, I really wish everyone would simply follow WP:BRD, but if not, it takes two to edit-war. And in this particular case, it appears that we have several edit-warriors.[12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Casprings is unique in doing repetetive BLIND reverts (aka unjustified). --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

\ The word "stale" applies here with 8RR in 10 days (counting every example given as a revert, to be fair to the OP), and nothing to indicate that any block would be other than simply punitive (as well as late). Going to the drama boards about every "opposing editor" has been one of the single greatest weaknesses of Wikipedia, and we likely ought to discourage this "post complaints about everyone" syndrome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is seeing revert-warring between multiple editors on both sides as noted above in the request regarding Arzel. CD is one of the edit-warriors, with Casprings and Roscelese being the most determined reverters opposing Arzel and Anonymous.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

TDA; Arzel makes arguments, and justifies most reverts. I have justifications and Talk page arguments for just about every action, and both Arzel and I have several WP:BLP deletions that are exempt. In fairness, I would not include Roscelese, as they often edit, not revert, and often justify. Casprings, on the other hand has no or few (if you can make sense of any) arguments on Talk, just motions, and has justifications like POV that are not adequate for the edits; in fact, without explanation (and none have such followup), blindly tagging other editors' with POV is considered WP:PA

Also forgot to add - CartoonDiablo, while I agree is making only unconstructive edits, really hasn't made that many on the Article in question, so blocking for Edit Warring in this case would be premature. Looking for other people fighting with an editor (presumably Arzel) with whom you have a beef, and doing nothing but trying to aggravate those, and inflame conflicts, as the edit history and these two spurious and unsupported reports show, however IS a really, really good reason to block the filer.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Diff number 4 above # diff appears to me to be more a clarification than a revert. That said, I haven't been following the article lately; is there a reason I'm missing why this is incorrect?William Jockusch (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Vuzor (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimensionaut&oldid=561470602

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dimensionaut&oldid=561632069

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

An editor, Winkelvi, has been undoing the edits of multiple users on the page, Dimensionaut. Over the past twenty-four hours, said user has made five revisions, and has clashed with users Spanglej and myself, Vuzor. This same user, Winkelvi, has been known to revert our work on this article as well as other related articles, often approaching with an authoritarian and uncompromising demeanor. When multiple editors disagree with Winkelvi's edits, said user resorts to foul language, unfounded accusations and personal attacks, and much hostility, as is well-documented on the Dimensionaut talk page. Negotiating and collaborating with Winkelvi has been difficult, though said user has been corrected multiple times on various topics, and has been proven to still be learning how sources are properly used.

The material in contention is in regards to a concert tour in relation to the Dimensionaut album page. The tour is part of the promotion for the album and is quite closely related; Winkelvi, however, refutes this, and has reverted multiple edits, in the process being quite hostile on the article's talk page. In the past, I have asked that a fourth user intervene and decide on the appropriate action -- Winkelvi did not even want the article page to be posted. I have attempted to work with Winkelvi and have offered to collaborate, but said user has remained hostile and quite impossible to work with, reverting many edits and contributions by other editors, and imposing his/her authority despite disagreeing with the consensus. He/she even told me to work on another article rather than this one, demonstrating a sort of daftness that simply is not appreciated. After reverting Winkelvi's last edit, said user posted a warning on my talk page. Unbeknownst to me, he/she had already reverted the article four times in the past twenty-four hours, reverting the edits of both Spanglej and I in regards to the same material. I reverted the material again, and a three-edit warning was posted on my talk page. I quickly became aware that he/she had reverted the page five times in the past twenty-four hours, extending beyond his/her limits and reverting despite knowing the consequences of his/her actions. This screams of hypocrisy, which only adds to said user's sense of entitlement in trying to revert every contribution others have made without any sort of repercussions. Action must be taken to prevent this authoritarian imposition on this article and its related pages. Vuzor (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor Vuzor has had WP:Synth and WP:NOR pointed out to him at the article talk page, both violations that he chooses to ignore and continues to insist his reasoning is enough to include the unreferenced content in the article, Dimensionaut. The article is about a music album, however, Vuzor insists on inserting content that is about the band and already included in the band article. The content he keeps re-adding was compiled via both synth and OR. he has been unable to provide a reliable or complete reference. I pointed out all of this out several times to him and the other reverting editor on the article talk page. (take a look at the section "Not a promotion tool" you will see the how this whole thing played out) The other editor didn't engage in discussion but stopped reverting. Vuzor, however, took a stance of WP:IDHT and proceeded to use WP:LAWYER, all the while ignoring the advice he was given. He then completely ignored the policy pointed out to him re: synth and OR and began reinserting the inappropriate content multiple times. For whatever reason, he doesn't seem to want to understand the content he has compiled via synth and OR just doesn't belong in the article. I have no desire to edit war over this issue. I think it's time for someone else to explain to him about synth and OR and how they have no place in an encyclopedia article. Further, there will be no more removal of the contested content on my part until consensus is sought and reached. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since Winkelvi has agreed to stop removing the disputed tour information. See his comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Faizan (Result:Withdrawn by Faizan as per discussion at the article's talk )

Page

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 26 2013 1:09 PM "Undid revision 561642883 by Faizan (talk) The genocide is the primary cause, don't edit war now"
2. Jun 26 2013 1:05 PM "Undid revision 561642328 by Faizan (talk) the genocide was the main cause don't remove that"
3. Consecutive edits made from Jun 26 2013 12:54 PM to Jun 26 2013 12:55 PM
   1. Jun 26 2013 12:54 PM "/* Causes */ the genocide against the Bengalis was a major cause, it should be there"
   2. Jun 26 2013 12:55 PM "This is not an Anti-Muslim violence"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 26 2013 1:02 PM "Warning: Ownership of articles on Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. (TW)"
2. Jun 26 2013 1:08 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Jun 26 2013 1:04 PM "/* Ambiguous article in Causes section */ new section"

Comments:

This user has been edit warning on this article before two. Recently he again violated the 3RR rule. Despite attempts of reaching a consensus on his talk and the article's talk, he is not cooperating. He compels me to get him to the ANI. He opts to revert instead of consensus in the talk. Despite several messages in the talk, he does not adhere to discussion there. He has also opted for an AfD in the article, is not ready to yield consensus at its DYK nomination too. Faizan 09:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Again, User:Faizan has been harassing me by continuously reporting me here without proper reason. I have made only 2 reverts, User:Faizan has made 3 reverts in the article, [19], [20], [21]. The user keeps bringing on meaningless disputes and starts edit warring. He has been doing this in 1971 Indo-Pak war as well and was warned by an admin before. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The diffs u provided prove nothing. Just concentrate on the article concerned here. Let the admins decide the number of your reverts, and act accordingly. Faizan 09:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The admins don't need your suggestions and guidance. Today, on 26th of June, you made four reverts, they are provided above. Faizan 09:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And I made two reverts: They Are: Undid revision 561641586 by Kmzayeem (talk), that article is about the whole of genocide, not about causes of persecution, get a better link and get consensus in talk. Faizan 09:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:REVERT Faizan 09:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, my comments are for the admins, leave it to them. And I guess it's you who first need to know the meaning of "Reversion", misleading others won't help. I have made only two reverts [22], [23], that too when you started reverting. You have actually made 3 reverts in that article, [24], [25], [26]. You have been indulged in edit wars in a number of pages even after being warned by admins. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the request, I hope that the conflict is solved as per discussion at the article's talk. Faizan 12:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Faizan reported by User:Kmzayeem (Result: )

Page: Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Faizan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
The user is continuously edit warring in many articles. He was also previously warned by an admin, but still continues to do so.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• No justification. I did report this user earlier above, but I withdrew it in hope of agreement. I even gave him A bowl of strawberries to get out of the episode but in vain. As I have reverted myself even before this report, there is no justification for this report. He is wasting his time here, instead of getting consensus at the article's talk. Faizan 14:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You have reverted me 4 times (or even more), so it's definitely a violation. Moreover you just self-reverted when I reported you here. No wonder if it gets closed you'll start removing the hatnotes again.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Lol. The edit history justifies it. I revert myself at 14:29 whereas you reported me here at 14:46. Funny. Faizan 15:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, you have violated the 4RR, I can see there is another user started to help you in edit warring in that article. You'll start again pretty soon.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

He self reverted so not really any violation. If an admin wanted to be real fussy here you have also violated 3RR. I suggest a close on this and slug it out on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Carly3737 reported by User:superfly94 (Result: )

Page: World Mission Society Church of God (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carly3737 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: # [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:
This section (History - 1985) seems to be a point of contention as dispute resolution was used in the past with a different editor User:Nancyinthehouse. This current dispute seems to rely on inside knowledge of User:Carly3737, as evidenced by their latest comment in the talk section. I have asked for a reference but suspect it will not be forthcoming as I have already researched the WMSCOG website. Also, if such evidence was there, User:Nancyinthehouse would have found it and used it already for that same portion.

The initial edits done by User:Carly3737 in the History section were reverted and I explained in the talk section that this portion had already been agreed upon using DR. I also deleted a reference to a prophesy in the Bible as there was no actual passage ref'd. User:Carly3737 deleted the portion again at which point I reverted it back to its original and explained that, if User:Carly3737 had an issue, that perhaps 3O or DR would be the way to go and they should initiate such a procedure. This hasn't been done. Instead User:Carly3737 deleted the portion once again and, in the Talk section, explained why the portion shouldn't be included. Unfortunately the information included does not cite any reference and thus is unreliable.
If it weren't for the time lapse between edits, this could be considered classic 3RR.
My argument for keeping this section is simply that the founder of the WMSCOG and NCPCOG is the same person and both churches were one until shortly after his death in 1985, at which point they split. The references for both churches support this as there is a huge overlap on both their histories on their websites. User:Carly3737's argument is that they are two completely separate entities and that the NCPCOG is lying in their history. Superfly94 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Carly3737 has edited the portion in dispute after notification of this process. Superfly94 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

From Carly 3737: I did list a reference website as requested but then was blocked from editing anymore. So, the evidence is there. Just because one user didn't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Here are two website references that explain the history as I had mentioned. http://www.thetruewmscog.com/ncpcog-vs-christ-ahnsahnghong/ http://wmscog.org/index.php/the-church-of-god-sectarianized-after-christ-ahnsahnghong-ascended/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Therefore, please refrain from using the claim from the NCPCOG website on the history section of the WMSCOG wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The first website provided by User:Carly3737 is a blog and thus unreliable. The second belongs to the US branch of the WMSCOG. This editor has outed herself as having a bias with this organization, as described here Note and I believe should not be providing input to controversial edits. There is most certainly a conflict of interest as per Wikipedia:COI with User:Carly3737 editing anything to do with WMCOG, its founder ASH, and any persons who are associated either positively or negatively with the organization such as Steve Hassan. My argument remains that the NCPCOG and WMSCOG were one in the same until 1985 and as such this information and the link for the NCPCOG as a ref, should be included in this article. The history pages of both organizations have just way too much overlap for it to be a coincidence. See NCPCOG here and WMSCOG here. And, contrary to User:Carly3737's view, I do not believe the NCPCOG is lying. Superfly94 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Superfly94 stated that the second website belongs to a US branch of the WMSCOG... Does this mean it shouldn't be used as a reference then? If so, why is the official WMSCOG able to be used as a reference? On the otherhand, if it should not be used as a reference because it is a church website, then why is it plausible to use another church's website, the NCPCOG website, as a resource, which clearly contradicts the WMSCOG's take on this history? The argument at hand is based on opinion, not on fact. Superfly is still holding onto an opinion - "the history pages of both organizations have just way too much overlap for it to be a coincidence." This is an opinion, not fact, therefore it is not reliable as a reference. If the NCPCOG website is considered a strong reference stating that the two branched out, then also second WMSCOG website is also a strong reference stating that it did not occur this way. Clearly, there is a dispute and difference of opinions, so it should not be included as "fact" on the wikipedia page. It's fine if Superfly94 believes the NCPCOG is telling the truth - welcome to have that opinion of course. But since it is an opinion it should not be stated as a reference on the WMSCOG wikipage. Superfly94 is also welcome to have an opinion on who should be or should not be allowed to have input on controversial edits. I do not think Superfly94 should have input on this edit either, as he/she does not appear to have a pure motive, but is trying to stir up trouble. Regardless of what we think on this matter, anyone is able to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I never said the WMSCOG.org site could not be used as a reference. However, upon closer look, this site also seems to be a blog that is determined to contradict anything and everything that the NCPCOG says, which really doesn't help to provide a NPOV. Superfly94 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Both of them are not blogs but are websites. It is an opinion to say "it seems to be a blog that is determined to contradict anything and everything that the NCPCOG says,". Well, I believe that the NCPCOG's website is seeking to contract anything and everything that the WMSCOG says. Again, these are opinions. We are both more than welcome to have them and agree to disagree. But the wikipedia page is not for opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If this argument were valid, then someone would have also used Examining the WMSCOG site, however that is a blog, like the pages you have listed, and it is also heavily slanted, and contrary to Wikipedia:NPOV. Superfly94 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is why the NCPCOG site shouldn't be used either, as it is also heavily slanted, contrary to [[Wikipedia:NPOV]. This is proving my original point that I was trying to make from the beginning. None of the sites should be used as references - the ones I listed, as well as the examinecog site, as well as the NCPCOG site, because they are ALL slanted and SUBJECTIVE. The wikipage should stick with facts. Women in the WMSCOG wear veils - this is a fact. WMSCOG believes in God the Mother. This is a fact. No one would dispute this matter, whether it is along the same line as their own personal beliefs or not. However, regarding the history of NCPCOG vs WMSCOG that has been claimed on the NCP website - this matter is not a fact. It is not a fact that one church was split in 1985 into NCPCOG and WMSCOG. This is an opinion of one church and some editors. According to WMSCOG and their websites and some other editors, this is NOT what happened. Therefore, because it is an opinion, shouldn't it not be included as part of the history? BTW, your previous posts were definitely a personal attack: "This editor has outed herself as having a bias with this organization, as described here Note and I believe should not be providing input to controversial edits. There is most certainly a conflict of interest as per Wikipedia:COI with User:Carly3737 editing anything to do with WMCOG, its founder ASH, and any persons who are associated either positively or negatively with the organization such as Steve Hassan." Would you please delete this information written and save us the hassel of opening another dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• They are not blogging websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

An additional point - the NCPCOG site is slanted negatively towards the WMSCOG and its teachings, so listing it as a reference violates the wiki policy so should not be used, just as examinethewmscog site should not be used for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please show an example of where the NCPCOG site is in any way biased against the WMSCOG. I have looked all over the English site and found nothing. As for showing that you have a conflict of interest, how is linking to your edits a personal attack? There is no link to your personal information, who you are, where you live, etc. whatsoever, just what you have written that shows you have a direct association with the WMSCOG. Superfly94 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

To the Admins invigilating over this, I need to step back for a bit from the merry-go-round above. If you require any further info I will be monitoring this page, but have had enough with the circular logic being provided by User:Carly3737. Superfly94 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a personal attack. It was stated that I shouldn't be editing for the reason that I have a direct association with the church.. which doesn't make any sense because someone who would have the most knowledge about the WMSCOG and its history would be someone directly associated with the church. It was also stated that I have outed myself as being biased, which is completely twisting my words. I said that the NCPCOG website is biased towards their church, as is the WMSCOG website biased towards there church. Therefore, information linking the two should not be on the page.

You requested a reference stating the history of the relationship between the NCPCOG and WMSCOG, and I listed 2 of them. So good, I'm glad the issue is solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the point that I have made for the History section for WMSCOG is that the NCPCOG's site that Superfly94 used is a blog and not an official website. Moreover, the NCPCOG clearly violates all the copyrights of the books of the founder Ahnsahnghong, which is currently owned by the WMSCOG. Why would you cite a source that violates a copyright???--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Bardrick reported by User:SchutteGod (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:
The lede on the article Anglosphere has been subject to repeated reverts and edit-warring. In particular, Bardrick, who rewrote the lede (and in so doing, tried to change the definition of the term as discussed in the article text) and has proceeded to undo every single attempt to revert it. Just your typical edit-warring/3RR user. Please address this problem. --SchutteGod (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who this is meant for, as I'm not a Wiki editing "expert", but I see this weirdo character "ShutteGod" appears to want to start a fight with me. The situation is thus - I created a (I believe) high quality preamble to the article on the Anglosphere some time back. Recently some1 came, left a vaguely patronising note as to how in their view it was poor & scrapped it, replacing it with something that was far inferior in my view. I then reverted it (without leaving an edit note giving the reasoning as I didn't know how to do that at that point), & then got into an immediate editing spat with 2 other wiki users over it who suddenly appeared from nowhere & both began automatically deleting my text, for what appeared to be v. weak reasoning & excuses. I then left a message on the article's discussion page giving my reasons & trying to engage these other 2 users in a debate about the content, & then this "ShutteGod" character began saying to another guy "let's all club together & get me blocked, get control of the article so we can decide what it should say" - apparently to little effect.

Some1 has created a compromise text which - whilst not as good as the 1 I created in my view - is at least better than the poor 1 that I opposed, so reluctantly I left it at that ... & now this from "ShutteGod" following up on his 1st creepy attempt to get a gang behind him to control Wikipedia

"ShutteGod" appears to have some control-freak bullying tendencies, & I'm a target for it today.

Bardrick (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC) -->Bardrick

No matter how much you dislike me or think that I've hatched some secret plot against you, it does not give you the right to break site rules. You cannot engage in edit-warring or disrupt the normal editing process -- not matter how much better you think your own version of the article is. --SchutteGod (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:130.204.188.120 / User:130.204.186.230 reported by S-B (Result: )

Page: Largest cities in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 130.204.188.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 130.204.186.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]
5. [46]
6. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: [49]

Comments:
Requests and warnings in descriptions of changes and user discussion do not help, user 130.204.188.120/130.204.186.230 created edit-wars (also in article of Cuman people [50]), remove large amounts of data without discussion and consensus and introduces controversial changes. S-B (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:DrEdna reported by User:Yzx (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]
5. [56]
6. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This was my first edit about this matter: [59], full discussion is at Talk:Goblin shark#Removal of size comparison image

Comments:

The disputed edit is the placement of File:Goblin shark size.svg in the infobox. I and User:EVula have reverted DrEdna's changes with edit summaries telling them to stop, and EVula has warned them on their user talk page about 3RR. DrEdna has refused to wait for consensus and repeatedly misrepresented the talk page discussion as support for their edit while continuing to revert. -- Yzx (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Stmannew reported by User:Collect (Result: )

Page: Russell's teapot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stmannew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61] 16:10 26 Jun
2. [62] 3:10 27 Jun
3. [63] 12:02 27 Jun
4. [64] 13:00 27 Jun

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65] Notified at [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67] discussion at his UT Talk page, and he understands there is an issue per his edit summary of Instead of just complaining and making accusations, why don’t you show how and why it isn’t true, after all, wouldn’t Russell’s teapot fall in under philosophy

Comments:
This editor has an Idée_fixe to present on this article (putting it in 5 times now), and does not seem to understand why EW is a problem, and why unsourced claims in articles are likely to be reverted - in this case by three separate people. Collect (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

User: Nickst reported by Brudder Andrusha (talk) (Result: )

Page: Template:Ukrainian Cup Seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

• Diff of warning: here

Original edit was made for 5 days before user NickSt started edit war. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

—Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• No 3RR violation on my part (3 reverts in 24h). But Brudder had 4 reverts. BTW I only reverted unconsensus edits. Another user also revert it. NickSt (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That other user is from Ukraine where NickSt is located using an IP rather than a WP username. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it was another user, you can use sockpuppet check. You done 4 reverts in 24h, not me.NickSt (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:75.172.12.104 reported by User:Hasteur (Result: )

Page: Talk:2013 in UFC (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.172.12.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:
User came on to the talk page to make a "The current article sucks" complaint. I had contributed over a month ago, and based on the recent additions, I felt that the conversation had seriously devolved from the purpose of the talk page "To Improve the article" to a soapbox where editors who were in the vocal minority of a policy based consensus continue to call the exact same points that have been dismissed for rule/policy/guideline before. I dropped a WP:GS/MMA warning on the user which only enraged the user further. User quotes only the template's rules, whereas I quote WP:TPNO WP:TPG which clearly say that soapboxing should be shut down. IP Address has only recently edited and jumped immediately into the troublesome area of MMA with a very oblique interpertation of the standard operating procedure to the point that I suspect that this is a user who is either editing logged out to avoid scrutiny or a user who has been blocked/banned and is editing anonymously to avoid scrutiny. Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur is pretty clearly violating the rules of that template by trying to shut down all discussion here by a dozen or so users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_in_UFC#Straw_poll:_the_current_format_is_less_useful_as_an_encyclopedia_than_the_previous_individualized_format. Hasteur's opinion on the matter is opposed to nearly everyone there, so it's not hard to guess what's going on. Of course, when I pointed out it was illegal both on the page, and also on Hasteur's page, he quotes unrelated nonsense instead of addressing it to try to end that discussion, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hasteur#Don.27t_abuse_wikipedia_templates. He also tries to remove my comments many times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_UFC&oldid=561963044 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_UFC&oldid=561977974

It's clear what's going on and hopeful the admins stop this attempt at abusing power. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)