Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Maurice Flesier reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: stale)

Page

Mesut Özil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Özil is Turkish origin German."
2. 12:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Some fixes?? To remove ethnicity, not an satisfactory explanation."
3. 15:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616913338 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Before the back, please discuss on the talk page!"
4. 18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616939465 by 64.251.94.5 (talk)"

• 09:03:25 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617233155 by Malerooster (talk) reason?"

This is three days later, but there is still no consensus here.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mesut Özil. (TW)"
2. 02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "/* July 2014 */ +"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is aware of 3RR, WP:OPENPARA, WP:MOSBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A solution to this problem was "German-Turkish footballer". I agree that the user has breached openpara, mosbio and 3rr. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note. There is an ongoing report here at ANI about Walter's behavior generally. Regarding the 3RR report here, it's a bit hard to evaluate other editors' conduct on the page because there's so much activity on the article, both by named accounts and IPs, and some of it involves content disputes, whereas some of it is just obvious vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a single revert there over the time period so please do not cloud the issue Bbb23. The issue is simple: the editor made four reverts here trying to impose a specific version of the article against four separate editors: two registered and two anon. The editor then singled me out on the talk page as I was the only editor involved. This is a clear-cut case. If the editor is not blocked I would expect a detailed explanation as to why this editor can get away with violating 3RR even after being reported, and "stale" is not detailed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Stale - 2/0 (cont.) 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't you dare! Block him. I get blocked for making four edits with guidelines to support my edits with an anon who doesn't explain the edits being made, while this editor makes four reverts against two editors and two anons, and the latter three were all clearly explained. I engage in talk page while this editor make personal attacks on talk page. This is another reason why it's obvious that edit warring is fine in the eyes of some new editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity (Result: Both warned)

Page: Ramadan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Hajj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please speak with User:Inayity about his edits on Ramadan and Hajj. He is edit warring on both. The main discussion is at the talkpage of Ramadan, where he has been active in the last 4 posts. So far only 2 editors have posted in them, disagreeing. He is aggressive and unpleasant, and simply misunderstands WP:WEIGHT. Please see his userpage that I suspect him to be less than neutral on the subject, as in WP:LIKE. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The cheek, so If I am edit warring what exactly are you doing. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG Here is your history history of reverting it is strange that you come and say they should talk to me. I did my fair share but my friend you are hiding behind 3rr to WP:WAR reverting on the line you have not used the talk page to settle anything, only to edit how you want, and then hold a discussion (reminds me of a certain country) See Your own user page, talk about Pot calling kettle black LOL. --Inayity (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am active replying to you on the talkpages of those 2 articles, with over 20 edits today. Is that how you proof all your arguments?

I know WP:BOOMERANG, but I also know that I edit according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which you are misunderstanding and misusing, supposedly to make a point connected with your personal opinions. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure your point, Are you not engaged in the edit war you are reporting? Or am I edit warring with your twin? Do you know what this space is for? So why are you discussing WP:LIKE here? there is a dispute or request for comments for that kind of stuff. And I also have "suspect" about you per your colorful userpage. Anyone can make accusations, making mature points is another thing. So per your contributions you have done more edit warring than me, and on two articles got your version inserted, yet you tell me about Edit warring.? --Inayity (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You can not remove sourced information without good reason, and your reasons are challenged by 2 editors. They actually have been proven wrong already. That leaves us with you edit warring for the sake of edit warring. So why shouldn't I tell you about edit warring? Debresser (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If my reasons were so wrong why then did you have to go and change this edit? So you were reverting me and never check out my objections. Clearly I was not wrong. Now Two editors means nothing, what counts is the ability to make a case using Policy. We do not WP:VOTE and the talk page shows clearly who started the off key remarks, imagine lecturing me about what I know. I never did that, I simply copy and pasted policy for you to see. This nonsense of "You do not know what you are talking about" is for teenagers, it is only you saying so, argue by rationale not "You are wrong", that is just below me. Now the question for bonus prizes, Since you know about Wikipedia, What does wikipedia say about handling Disputes? Did you follow that? What is Wiki policy for avoiding Edit war show the people here the steps you took to avoid it.If I am guilty you are equally so. --Inayity (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record this is the remark that started the whole thing going South: Up until this point no issue No idea why this remark was made? Who is this guy to talk for so many other editors?--Inayity (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Debresser and Inayity, you are both warned that if you continue this battle in the article, you may be blocked without any further notice or warning, regardless of whether you breached WP:3RR. The only reason you're not being blocked now is because you both skirted 3RR by the skin of your collective teeth. Debresser, if you want to report disruptive conduct, take it to another noticeboard. If you want to report edit warring, then file an appropriate report with a proper header and diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 (or other willing editors) I posted this way because I wanted somebody to explain to Inayity what he is doing, not to have him punished. He should be stopped from removing information he doesn't like. He continues with this edit, which is so wrong because 1. it was discussed 2. the info is well sourced 3. he is censoring Wikipedia. Can you explain this to him? If not, where should I take this? Debresser (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to raise Inayity's conduct but not have him sanctioned for edit warring, then take it to WP:ANI. Make sure you're clear what you're asking for. I make no prediction as to whether such a report will be received favorably.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, raising his conduct was my specifically stated intention. I have some experience at WP:ANI, and am not favorably impressed with that forum. I was convinced the edit warring noticeboard should be the more logical venue for this issue. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mario252 reported by User:Damián80 (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Lo que la vida me robó (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: La malquerida (telenovela) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mario252 (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 La malquerida, Editing Mario252
2. diff La malquerida, my edition
3. diff Lo que la vida me robó, Editing Mario252
4. diff Lo que la vida me robó, my edition

Comments:
Hello, sought to punish this person, because I'm tired of explaining about their issues, all it does is ignore my messages and delete them, which seems to me a lack of respect by the user, the same user if read messages but ignores them. On the issues generated wars and explain my reasons, but he did not seem to care nothing and continue with the same, nor cares to reach consensus. I have placed a complaint here, but I see that so far no decision was taken, and as time passes the user continues to fall in edit wars with me and as I have tried to explain in his discussion but is useless.--Damián (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey someone can address my request, please?.--Damián (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalusi reported by User:Shrike (Result: decline)

Page

Operation Protective Edge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Casualties and losses */ remove opinion and OR" this revert of this edit [1]
2. 17:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ partial revert of Irondome's change" revert of this edit [2]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Operation Protective Edge. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and under 1RR. I have asked the user to revert himself. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

An edit war? Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to revert yourself?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And which edit is that? I'm asking because myself and the rest of the involved editors have not been part of a dispute let alone an "edit war". Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You made two reverts of two different users.You may undo your last revert [14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC) and then I will retract this report--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The last one is in agreement with BRD. I fail to see the issue here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is you made two reverts to WP:ARBPIA article .--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Shrike, could you do me the courtesy of examining the 4 cases I cited here? I'm still not certain I understand this rule, but since you do, tell me why (a) those are not examples of what you consider to be edit-warring on the same page (b) if they are, why did you ignore them? Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD.If you think that someone else broke 1RR please report him.Don't ask any one to do you your job for you--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no. I don't want to stain my excellent record as someone who refuses to take people to arbitration. I didn't ask people to do my job. I did the work, and asked for a judgement. 3 major breaking news articles were written because editors from different POV, once on my suggestion, agreed not to use the IR as an instrument to gain editorial advantages. All the article builders broke it on those three pages, and no one was reported because we peons committed to the composition of articles, and not I/P warring games, know you just cannot write those articles and not break the rule, because it means that after an alteration, everything else all editors can do for 24 hours is just pile in more information regardless of the dissonance and unreadability this would cause. I don't chase 1R infractions or aste time combing someone's contribs to find if I can get him off the page, and make life comfortable for one of two POVs: I look to the merit of each edit, and if it is good or sound, I approve. If it is lousy, I mark it for correction, hoping someone else sights it if I can't revert it. The rule exists to enable article creation, not to create obstacles and enmity among collegues.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note. This is getting tiresome. On a narrow technical level, if Al-Andalusi had not stated in the edit sumary that the first edit was a partial revert, other than the change of the word "claimed" to "announced", I wouldn't even notice it. Plus, I don't even know which edit of Irondome's, Al-Andalusi is partly reverting. The second diff is clearly a revert. So, thee may not even be a 1RR violation here, not sure. There is no exemption from 1RR because an article is a current event that is being heavily edited by many, many users with an eye to improving the information and the sources. For one thing, it's hard for an administrator to sort out that kind of content analysis. God knows I'm relatively aggressive when it comes to blocking editors for violating 3RR or for violating 1RR in contravention of ArbCom sanctions, but even I am not favorably impressed by these reports. I strongly urge anyone who wants to file such a report about this particular article to go to WP:ARE. Again, I'm not taking any action here (I officially alerted Al-Andalusi of the sanctions), although another administrator is free to do whatever he or she deems appropriate as I'm not closing the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the report.

• Declined. Bbb23 says everything I would say. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:FactStraight reported by User:Remus Octavian Mocanu (Result: No violation)

Page: Ferdinand I of Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FactStraight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Talk:Ferdinand I of Romania
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

The "editing war" turns grotesque in my opinion. I think it is due time that you put an end to such destructive attitudes which scare away in disgust any decent editor: already 10x time spent waging editing wars than usefully editing...
Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked the page (nor does it appear that I will have time to), but I don't see any diffs. (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

FactStraight has only made one edit to the article since it was created. DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Therock9998 reported by User:Falcadore (Result: Blocked)

Page: 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
also
1980 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1981 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1982 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1983 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1984 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1985 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1986 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1987 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1988 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1989 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1990 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1991 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1992 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1993 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2014 International V8 Supercars Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therock9998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts (just on 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship the others are much the same):

1. [5] 01:45, July 17, 2014
2. [6] 00:01, July 18, 2014
3. [7] 01:13, July 18, 2014
4. [8] 02:56, July 18, 2014
5. [9] 07:31, July 18, 2014
6. [10] 08:19, July 18, 2014

and now

1. [11] 09:02, July 18, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Therock9998#Edit war warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Therock9998

Comments:

On going attempts to get involved user to cease damaging table coding. Evaded a block when applied as an IP editor by establishing this User ID. I hesitate to say Sock Puppetting as this is plainly a new user and would not understanding either the terminology or that it is considered poor etiquette. Refuses to communicate with other editors. Am at a complete loss, and I have probably overstepped the line myself attempting and tender my apologies. Falcadore (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No he or she is just being disruptive and a vandal. On going vandalistic edits across a couple of dozen Australian motorsport articles. --Falcadore (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. I also blocked 110.174.5.183 (talk · contribs · count) for two weeks who is obviously the same person. The named account was created just shortly after the IP was blocked before.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jhakeyborras reported by User:AlanS (Result: Page deleted and salted)

Page

Jake Borras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 12:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 12:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 12:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Jake Borras"
2. 12:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Jake Borras"
3. 12:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Jake Borras. (TW)"
4. 12:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Jake Borras"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Constant removal of templates when user is creator of page that is being templates. AlanS (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected A user trying to persistently create an autobio. The article has been deleted three times in rapid succession and now salted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:2601:9:8180:E85:5977:B6:354C:5E2F reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:9:8180:E85:5977:B6:354C:5E2F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617271067 by Bbb23 (talk)"
2. 13:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617282169 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
3. 15:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 01:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617364972 by Gamaliel (talk) Please stop edit warring Gamaliel"
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC) to 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jose Antonio Vargas. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has been edit-warring to put similar material into this page for a couple of days. He's reverting against multiple users, including me. The material has WP:BLP issues and sourcing issues. Although one solution is to semi-protect the article, the IP is the only one who is battling; thus, that seems unfair to any other non-autoconfirmed user. Although I did not include even earlier edits to the article, the IP is a WP:SPA. Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Let me or this board know if they IP-hop. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mfs104 and User:92.225.129.161 reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: bb 24 hours)

Page: International Young Democrat Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mfs104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 92.225.129.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The nature of this battle is too complex for individual difference links. I refer the reviewer to International Young Democrat Union: the edit summaries alone indicate a failure of the two editors to try to reach WP:CONSENSUS.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned the IP; warned the registered user.

I am not involved in this edit war, and have just observed it as a third party. No evidence either party has tried to resolve the issue through any type of discussion.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both are clearly edit warring, thank you WikiDan61. Wikipedia is not the place for an external group to hash out their internal differences. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:67.193.18.194 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Shawinigan Handshake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Here's the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aline_Chr%C3%A9tien Instead of deleting relevant, factual information how about helping out!"
2. 02:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Just add the friggin footnote. I don't know how. Never donating $ again to wikipedia."
3. 16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Here's the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aline_Chr%C3%A9tien I do not know how to add it as a footnote in the article. Helping rather than undoing would seem to be benificial."
4. 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "It's worth noting because an attempted assassination is going to affect your state of mind when a protester breaks your RCMP security detail. It's obvious a piece relevant to this situation."
5. 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "The link is good enough for this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Dallaire Deletionists are the bain of casual editors like me."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shawinigan Handshake. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Proposed addition is synthesis */ new section"

Comments:

Also edit warring on Donald Trump NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Harmony944 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Harmony944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Section break */"
2. 18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "If we can't remove your list, you can't add a section break. Keep it all together"
3. 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Section break */"
4. 18:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Section break */"
5. 18:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617487780 by Ryulong (talk) You're more focused on minor stuff than providing an actual argument. Grow up"
6. 19:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617488125 by Ryulong (talk) "Refactoring improves nonfunctional attributes of the software" Stop edit warring"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce. (TW)"
2. 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617487926 by Harmony944 (talk) stop refactoring my talk page contributions"

Comments:

I added a section break to an extremely long thread on this article's talk page. Harmony944 has repeatedly removed this section break because he claims it disrupts the flow, despite my constant requests that he not modify my contributions to the talk page per WP:TPG. He has kept at this. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

First, it takes two to edit war. His section break was him putting half of a comment on top, then the section break, and then the second half. It was part of THE SAME DISCUSSION. Unless removing a section break and removing a redundant signature is a "drastic change", there is no base to these claims. It's a 21 character removal. That's MINISCULE--Harmony944 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to start a new line of discussion with my edit, and there were two separate lines of discussion going on. One to Shadowbird and the other asking why it was such a big deal. And a section break is needed for these long and winding threads. You refactored my contributions to the talk page without my consent. That's not allowed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No you didn't. It was the same discussion, don't kid yourself. It was the same line of discussion. The three of us were in the same discussion. It doesn't matter how long the discussion is, it has to be kept together unless you want to screw with people so they can't pick apart your argument bit by bit so it can look like you're "winning". You're not, and this report is a sham.--Harmony944 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The section break was solely for the sake of Ryulong's complaining about the fact that Harmony944 and I were debating his call for a change. It did not serve a purpose except to separate the complaining from everything else, and I personally consider the section break unnecessary. It had nothing to do with actual discussion of the requested change; it merely existed for Ryulong's complaints. Deleting the section break would then be justifiable. I believe this report to be unwarranted.--Shadowbird712 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The page has expanded by 3 times since I began the discussion. A break is necessary to make it easier to keep contributing even though it's likely going to end soon. There is no reason to refactor mine or anyone's contributions to a talk page, particularly when you merged two comments made an hour apart in one of your edits. I meant for them to be separate. You have no right to merge them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And now Harmony944 is edit warring with me on my user talk by pasting one of the warnings I gave him that has no basis when applied to me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? No basis? You disrupted the conversation when you put 2 successive warnings on my page because you didn't like what I was saying on the Megaforce talk page. You couldn't handle being wrong so you started threatening to get me blocked. That's why you're here, isn't it?--Harmony944 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I gave you the warnings because they were applicable to your modifications of my talk page contributions without my express consent, regardless if it's just a new section header. I told you that wasn't allowed when you cut out the lists twice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, of all the WP:LAME things I have seen on Wikipedia, this has to be in the top 10. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit war or the discussion that led to it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The blocks are for edit warring. However, the moves discussion on the talk page is appalling.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jcam6 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

Page

Aaron Craft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jcam6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) to 03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 03:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Aaron Craft. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was blocked as a vandalism-only account. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24 reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Blocked)

Page: Oathkeeper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: a, b, c and notice by User:Donlago on Darkgfrog24's usertalk

Comments:

Darkfrog was blocked by Nyttend less than three weeks ago for edit-warring within the same article. Darkfrog24 refuses to discuss in talk without reverting in her preferred version of the article first. Every other editor, with the exception of DonQuixote, Donlago and myself, have left the article due to her tendentious nature. She keeps insisting that our consensus is wrong, that the RfC closure opinion rendered by FormerIP was wrong and incomplete…the list goes on. It doesn't matter what any of us say, she just reverts her version in and tells us we are all wrong in article discussion. This has been going on for almost two months, and it has to stop.

The rest of us just want to stabilize the article and ensure that the content added can help it get to GA- and FA-status at some point. Traditionally, I'd be here requesting a block to protect the article. That said, Darkfrog has already stated on her talk page that the initial block by Nyttend wouldn't really have affected her, as per her claim that ("I've taken multi-day breaks before to absolutely no effect"). So, a block would have no effect on her behavior. She'd come off the block and continue edit-warring, as she has done here. I think a topic ban regarding any Game of Thrones series articles is called for at this point. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week Due to the continued disruption, if you believe a topic ban is necessary you'll need to raise it on WP:AN with evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I'll take a wait-and-see attitude after she returns to the Project. Maybe the break will add some perspective for her. Fingers are crossed. And thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Technophant reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Page protected for 10⁴⁸ Planck times)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Restore removal by User:QuackGuru and added second paper from Journal_of_Pain with impact factor of 3.24, add NPOV tag"
2. Consecutive edits made from 07:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC) to 07:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 07:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ add RS secondary "synthesis" statement from abstract"
   2. 07:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ ce"
3. 11:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ QuackWatch doesn't meet MEDRS, or even RS, rm"
4. 15:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "clarify AMA's position"
5. 06:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617489583 by QuackGuru (talk) restored with corrected url (copy/paste error)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Acupuncture. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

• Previous warning by another editor diff removed diff. Notice of discretionary sanctions diff. Discussion of edits link. Discussion at ANI link. MrBill3 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• This editor looks an awful lot like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. Exact same behavior, paranoia, topics, assumptions of bad faith, attacking other editors, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• If that's what you believe, BullRangifer, then add the editor to the SPI, along with diffs, of course, backing up your assertions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• User:Technophant restored the text again. See 16:29, 19 July 2014. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Could someone clarify what material the diffs above labeled #2 and #4 are reverts of? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the original addition of substantially similar text in diff 2 was added by Technophant 12:39 07-17, then wholesale reverted 05:54 07-18 before trying the text above. The text in link 4 appears to have originated 15:03 07-18, then been edit warred 06:57 07-19 and 16:29 07-19. This is probably better treated as a case of tendentious EW than as a simple 3RR. Thank you for taking a look, Adjwilley. Note that I am WP:INVOLVED here. Also note that the article is under discretionary sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3, this doesn't look like a 3RR violation to me, because as 2over0 says, there's too much time lag. That, combined others' active reversion of Technophant's edits and with the active discussion at the talk page, makes me think that blocking anyone at this point will be counterproductive; I'm going to impose 86400 seconds of protection. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 2/0 for the analysis. I agree that it is tendentious...hopefully the user will take this as a warning. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:TheAirplaneGuy reported by User:John (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheAirplaneGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

User appears to have reverted 13 times in the past 24 hours.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

Just going out and don't have time to add all thirteen (!) diffs. Please talk nicely to this user and block if necessary. John (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reported you as well for personal attack. Wasn't edit warring as well, just taking out bad edits TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one day and I've notified both of discretionary sanctions. The block as for the 3RR violation only no prejudice on the result of the ANI discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja reported by User:Wujastyk (Result: No violation)

Page: Victoria Nuland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iselilja (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. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

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

Comments: I have been trying to report on a matter of public interest regarding multiple versions of the famous leaked phone call between Nuland and Pyatt. A number of users seem to have little or no problem with this, or sought only reasonable tweaks. But a determined group of users including Iselejla, NazariyKaminski, and TheRedPenOfDoom have systematically and repeatedly deleted all reference to this information, using a variety of questionable appeals to WP editorial policies that have been explicitly addressed after each deletion. The most recent reversion took place in less than 60 seconds after I posted a newly-edited version of the information together with a friendly appeal in Talk that we should discuss any further edits and agree a joint version, in Talk, before further editing the main page. This had no effect, and produced no discussion or justification for the instant deletion. Since this is a matter bearing on the Ukrainian war, it is hard to remain confident in the "good faith" policy of WikiPedia when posts about presumed spying activity ("tradecraft") are being reported. DomLaguna (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. One revert? You're kidding, right? Perhaps you should listen to the other editors about the content, although I express no opinion on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Heins and User:Markdabner reported by User:Solarra (Result: Stale)

Page

List of people who have run across Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported

Mark Heins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Previous version reverted to

Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts

[19] [20] [21] [22]

The entire page history can be viewed here

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Mark Heins: [23] Markdabner: [24]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[25]

Comments:

Give me a minute, TW won't load the reverts, going to have to manually add them. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Got it built, this edit war has gone on since 10 July, I was going to request page protection, but neither user seems willing to communicate to build consensus on this article. This has been reported at ANI but this is the proper venue for this issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: )

Page: 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. deletion at 17:35, July 19, 2014
2. deletion at 17:52, July 19, 2014 (article under 1RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of warning of 1RR restrictions and discretionary sanctions: here

("The article 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers ... is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:

All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related....

Editors who ... violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.... ")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments: In a clear breach of 1RR, on a contentious article, IjonTichyIjonTichy deleted the same material twice. Within minutes. That is unacceptable.

He is also I believe incorrect (and for example equates attributed non-quote statements with "quotes"). But that is a secondary issue.

This is just the sort of problematic 1RR violation that makes the editing of articles in this area so difficult, and the reason they were subjected to 1RR in the first place.Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I was under the (possibly incorrect) impression my first edit did not constitute a revert, and thus I believed (possibly incorrectly) that my second edit was the one revert I was allowed.

I have no intention to revert that material again within at least the next 24 hours, or 48 hours (and extremely likely much, much longer than that). This particular article does not interest me that much (although I am sad for the losses of all the families involved, on all sides of the conflict). Instead, I'd like to explain my view. Just because something appears in a reliable source, does not immediately imply that we are obligated to cite it in the encyclopedia. We (WP editors) are not automatic robots - we are supposed to, indeed we are required, to exercise judgment. (Otherwise we could all be replaced by artificial intelligence software that would edit WP harmoniously and peacefully without any [human] editorial disagreements.) Please read very carefully the WP policies on WP:Weight and WP:V. So-called "off the record" statements attributed to "anonymous officials" should be treated, in my view, with extreme suspicion, to the point where they deserve zero weight, regardless of the nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, race, socio-economic status, geographic location (or any other factor) of the "person" who is alleged to have made the statement. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You suggest here that you did not understand that your first deletion of the text added by another editor was a "revert".

First, that's pretty basic. When an editor adds material, and you delete it (or hit "undo), of course that is a revert.

Second, you are an experienced editor, with thousands of edits.

Third, you seemed to understand perfectly well that a "first revert" is in fact a revert, when you brought this complaint to the AN/I noticeboard two years ago.

Fourth, the 1RR tag clarifies, with an inline link, what "revert" means. Epeefleche (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I've formally alerted Ijon of the discretionary sanctions. I've also formally alerted User:Catherine Curran. Indeed, given the number of reverts Catherine has made to the article today, it puzzles me, Epeefleche, why you are not reporting her. I'm not taking any other action at this point, but I'm leaving it open to another administrator to take action if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 -- thanks. As to your question, the answer is that I had only today gotten as far as looking at the 1RR problem with Ijon. And one of his two reverts was a revert of material I added.

But looking as you suggest at the further edits in the article, I see that those of the very active Catherine appear to be a complete mess -- whatever other problems they include, they also appear to include insertion of whole blocks of text that are uncited, which is problematic in an article of this nature. I support whatever action is deemed appropriate vis-a-vis Catherine (I'm off to grab a bite right now, so I won't have the time to parse here changes/additions, but hopefully my endorsement of your suggestion that her edits be scrutinized closely will move things in the right direction). Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche, who said you were allowed to eat? Although I have the authority to block someone without warning, I generally prefer not to, particularly, as in this case, I would have had to do so spontaneosly. Let's just hope now that she's been warned, her contributions will be more carefully monitored by those editors active on that and other related pages. Although I didn't fully analyze them, they appeared to be very disruptive above and beyond the number of reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I should add, IjonTichyIjonTichy, a self-revert of your second revert would go some ways to showing good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23 for the friendly suggestion. I wish I would have thought of it myself. I appreciate your feedback here and on my talk page.

Dear Epeefleche, the diff that you provided to my edit from two years ago was (a) made under entirely different circumstances and context and is entirely irrelevant to the particular circumstances and context under consideration here, and (b) made two years ago, and thus ancient history. In other words, you'll need to try harder to bring more recent evidence (much more recent than two years ago) that shows that I am prone to edit warring. Good luck with that, because such evidence does not exist.

Furthermore, Epeefleche, your edit summary reverting my edit appears to accuse me of editing in order to push a POV, and now you appear to be accusing me of lying. In both cases, it appears you (a) may have failed to assume good faith, and (b) may have rushed to make some serious accusations based on flimsy (actually, non existent) evidence.

Additionally, you appear to be conveniently ignoring the view that statements attributed to "anonymous officials" speaking "off the record" are highly detrimental to the encyclopedia and make a complete mockery of WP. And especially when such statements are made in highly controversial articles. And especially when they are made in the lead section. And especially when these citations may also be in violation of the BLP of the persons who have been accused by some conveniently "unnamed" source to have committed very serious crimes.

Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:AdmiralMeow reported by User:Lesser Cartographies (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Yank Barry (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AdmiralMeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported: 71.169.164.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP + SPA adding same WP:BLP violation to talk page 6x times. Note the subject of the article recently filed (and then dismissed) a lawsuit against 4 wikipedia editors.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: IP

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]

AdmiralMeow

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] (Warning was for BLP vio)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion for BLP vio.

• Blocked AdmiralMeow and his IP for one month. In the future, please post the required notice of this discussion to the talk pages of the reported accounts. I rarely block without that notice, but I made an exception in this case.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)