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:LittleDipper reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Western world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Let's stop this bullshit and talk"
2. 20:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Do you even know what is going on? "Make a sacrifice" is clearly part of my sig. Also, please see my talk page. basedon your edit summaries, it is clear you have antisemitic views; if you continue this obnixious behavior again-ignoring scholarly edits based on your autistic feels-I will report you."
3. 14:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "I am not "focusing only on the Hebrew Bible". If you wish, we can talk about its position on the talk page, but please do not remove it from the lead."
4. 02:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "All of Western ethics (all the way from "make a wish foundation gifts" for people dying of cancer to not letting disable people die in the forest) were first practiced by the people of Ancient Israel. Also, it is patently not true that Western culture was born in Europe, the Greeks took their mathematics and science and even symbolism (gold, silver, bronze, iron) from the civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Sumer, Egypt, Babylonia. "Alpha" came from the Middle Eastern letter "Aleph", "Beta" from "Beth", and so on."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "/* POV-pushing in the lede */ new section"

Comments:

Brightline 3rr vio, diff 1 is a revert of this [1], diffs 2-4 are a revert of this [2]. Edit summaries are troubling, especially this [3] and this [4], gives impression of being a WP:POVWARRIOR here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Broke 3rr after I warned him. Khirurg (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Especially disturbing are you ignoring what scholars say and pushing your POV, and you thinking it is okay to revert edits even without discussing them on the talk page first. YOU are the one violating WP:NOTHERE (what my edit summaries contain I just took from scholars) by accusing me of POV-pushing just because I added an image representative of Israel (see my argument on my talk page discussion with LuigiPotaro69, another antisemite who is also alt-right; Luigi himself is, like Khirurg, violating WP:NOTHERE, accusing me of Jewish propaganda without any evidence other than my edit being something he hates) on the lead, indicating that you are expressing your anti-Israel sentiment here. i should be the one accusing YOU of edit warring for forcing your way that your new edits should remain in place even though they are the one that should be reverted until consensus says otherwise per WP:ONUS. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 08:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Talkpage edits like [5] aren't too pretty either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I just felt I was being bullied by Khirurg's dishonesty and ironic accusations.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 13:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

LittleDipper: Cool. An apology for a personal attack, followed immediately by an excuse and another personal attack. That's really not how it works, guy. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely The edit warring is blockable, the repeated personal attacks (even here!) makes it an indef. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mujdeda reported by User:Impru20 (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Forza Italia

1. 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
2. 13:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
3. 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
4. 01:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
5. 20:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
6. 16:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
7. 23:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
8. 23:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
9. 17:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
10. 00:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
11. 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
12. 15:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Forza Italia (2013)

1. 15:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
2. 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
3. 00:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
4. 13:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
5. 23:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
6. 17.59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
7. 00:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
8. 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
9. 15:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC) and 09:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See both Talk:Forza Italia (2013)#Anthem and Talk:Forza Italia (2013)#Flag in infobox

Comments:
User keeps edit warring on both Forza Italia articles despite warnings from other users and a personal attempt to tell him on his behaviour constituting violations of WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. User fails to engage in any attempt of real discussion; he only tries to impose his view unilaterally (despite having been warned repeteadly and having been told there was no consensus for his edits), even resorting to unpolite and, sometimes, uncivil comments (as seen here or here). Impru20 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not true, actually they are started edit war without any reflection of the discussion at Talk:Forza Italia (2013), where were actual consensus of users to have flag there, as it is normalised by the wikipedia habits, only not to include anthem. --Mujdeda (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for blatant edit warring — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:NatGertler reported by User:Mhym (Result: no violation)

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

Removal of a well sourced and referenced negative material of a politician Daniel Biss already reached consensus on talk page. The editor made no attempt to dicsuss on a talk page, opting for a blank removal. Mhym (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

1st: [6] 2nd: [7] 3rd: [8]

• Well, let's count the falsehoods here.

1. Not "well sourced" material, but rather material sourced to a self-published blog and a site of user-edited content, and thus in violation of our BLP sourcing standards.
2. Talk page discussion had not covered the BLP problems with the sources (not that local consensus can override BLP standards anyway)
3. Claim of "no attempt to discuss on talk page" is ignoring, well, this section I started on the talk page about this very matter

Yup, that seems to cover everything. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Decline to act this time as there do seem to be concerns over the reliability of the sourcing and 3RR has not been exceeded. But both editors would be strongly advised to defer to the consensus at RSN and not to persist in this edit war. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There is also a discussion of the material at WP:BLPN. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Libertas et Veritas reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: warned)

Page

Cheddar Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Libertas et Veritas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830956399 by Thomas.W (talk) none of your re-verts are valid, and do not correspond with the information in the studies; no explanation for removal of additional study I posted"
2. 22:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830954547 by Thomas.W (talk)yes it does, which is why it is included in this article; Cheddar Man has to do with ancestry of indigenous Anglo-Celtic Britons"
3. 22:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Genetic change since the Mesolithic */ "indigenous" is not contestable at all; that is who the studies are referring to - those descended from the populations who arrived thousands of years ago and have been largely isolated since, not those of recent foreign origins and migration in the past two centuries"
4. 20:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830929591 by Thomas.W (talk) No they aren't ,and certainly not in the section about the source of other genes in modern indigenous Britons; Haak study also discussed the Mesolithic WHG percentages in modern British and other Europeans"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cheddar Man."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring to get irrelevant material into the article, in spite of having been reverted by multiple other editors, both as this user and as an IP. Because this account is with all probability (per WP:DUCK) the same person as Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3:A11B:66BB:891C:781F, who made multiple reverts on the same article, since the user account was created just minutes after the IP made their last edits, and continued the IP's edits, adding the same material, so they're at well over four reverts... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Libertas et Veritas: can you comment here please? You are on the verge of being blocked on your very first day of editing Wikipedia. Have you stopped edit warring now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 00:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware this rule applied to this page because each edit had to be reviewed before being applied as a permanent change to the article. Furthermore, the user above who reported me has himself violated the rule, as has one other user. I have not added "irrelevant" material whatsoever to the article. The fact he is claiming this is ridiculous. I have made edits to the article supported by authors of the studies mentioned in the article with regards to Cheddar Man. I have also added peer-reviewed, highly accurate and respected scholarly studies to the article's section on the genetic contributions to modern indigenous Britons from prehistoric migratory waves after the Mesolithic period. How can "Thomas" above seriously question me adding scholarly material to a section specifically titled "Genetic change since the Mesolithic" (i.e. Genetic changes after the Mesolithic)? The latest study I included specifically deals with the genetic impact of Bronze Age and Neolithic migrations, and the genetic continuity (and very little change) in modern indigenous Celtic Britons since the Bronze Age.Libertas et Veritas (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The range contributions from Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3::/64 have many similarities to the work of User:Libertas et Veritas. If Libertas et Veritas is the same person as a prior IP, as suggested above by User:Thomas.W he is continuing the same edit war under two different identities at Cheddar Man. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is my current IP. I created an account. Again, I did not think my edits violated 3RR for Cheddar Man because the article has all edits in a pending review process. It was my mistake. Future edits at the article will be preceded by discussion and mediation on the talk page.Libertas et Veritas (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please note that 3RR applies no matter how "correct / appropriate" you feel your edits are. I see you have now posted on the talk page. Please do not make the contested edits again until/unless supported by others. I am closing this report now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Prasath94 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: no violation)

Page

Tamannaah filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prasath94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) to 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"
   3. 09:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"
   4. 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He continuously adds announced films to the table, when there should only be those films that are in production, thereby violating WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL in the process. This is all happening despite him already being warned once. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation as many of the diffs presented above are consecutive. However if the problematic edits persist, then a block may be required. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:122.106.100.42 reported by User:EdChem (Result:Blocked 31 hours )

Page: User talk:Bidgee (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.106.100.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looking at the history of user talk:Bidgee, you can see that Bidgee has asked the IP to stay away in direct terms and at least three times and reverted additions from the IP on 20 occasions in the last hour. The IP has also reverted posts from Bidgee on the IP's talk page. I suspect Bidgee would appreciate some relief. EdChem (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Doug Weller talk 13:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Sredina reported by User:Number 57 (Result: warned)

Page: Slovenian parliamentary election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sredina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sredina has repeatedly reinserted patently incorrect and error-strewn text into this article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Amends text so that the section now starts with an incorrect assertion ("The 88 members of the National Assembly are elected by two methods" – there are 90 members, and 88 of them are elected by one of the two methods) and contains numerous spelling and grammatical errors
2. Reinserts problematic text with claim that "it's correctly written"
3. Reinserts again
4. Reinserts again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Discussion on user's talk page

No 3RR violation, but reverting patently incorrectly information into the article (especially after being told their text is contains numerous errors) needs addressing. Number 57 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
There are in fact 90 members of the NA, but the first paragraph is about the elections of 88 MPs who are elected differently, than 2 representatives of national minorities, elections of which are explained in the second paragraph of the section.

The last paragraph is written as it is written in the law, which does not state that there must be 35% of female, but 35% of candidates of each gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sredina (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not able to comment on the merits of Sredina's edits, but they are clearly edit warring. @Number 57: are you asking for a temporary block of Sredina or would a warning suffice at this stage. @Sredina: do you agree to stop edit warring on this (or any) article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Just a warning for future conduct will do. Cheers, Number 57 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing. Editor has been formally warned — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Gekaap reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Katy Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 01:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC) ‎

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Sexists and rape culture enablers need not comment."
2. 17:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Okay. Here's your source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault It is absolute idiocy to deny that this is sexual assault. Your sexist attitudes do not change the facts."
3. 17:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "The contestant does not deny she kissed him against his will. To the contrary, the contestant said he would not have given permission if asked. Just because a 19 year old doesn't know what sexual assault is, does not mean it ceases to be sexual assault."
4. 12:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "This is no mischaracterization. A twitter feed does not define sexual assault."
5. 21:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830807381 by General Ization (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Katy Perry. (TW)"
2. 17:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Katy Perry. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor refuses to discuss on the article's Talk page and repeatedly inserts improperly sourced claim reflecting their personal POV. General Ization ^Talk 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Gee, how do I report your for edit warring? You are continually deleting well sourced information, for no reason other than trying to enforce a personal POV, which is FACTUALLY UNTRUE!!!! I've sourced the Washington Post, and have even directly copied statements from other wikipedia entries (along with sourcing). If the info is poorly sourced when I include it on one page, you should be going to delete it from other pages. But that's not what you care about. You only care about enforcing a particular POV in once specific instance, despite the fact that it plainly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaap (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Edit warring + BLP issues + attacks on other editors NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:LICA98 reported by User:RafaelS1979 (Result: blocked)

Page: Template:2017–18 Serie A table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:LICA98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 9:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC) ‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:42, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎
2. 14:23, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎
3. 14:05, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎
4. 9:51, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎

Comments:

LICA98 has added unsourced material on Template:2017–18 Serie A table. I asked him on his talkpage here to source what he adds to the template but he hasn't replied. He has reverted four times in less than 24 hours and the current revision on the page is his as of 14:42 UTC 18 March 2018, located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2017%E2%80%9318_Serie_A_table&oldid=831095432. I can't revert to the old version because I have already reverted three times; an administrator or another wikipedian must revert to the old version. The informations that LICA98 added are assumptions and are unsourced per WP:SOURCE and should be deleted or sources must be added. RafaelS1979 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. LICA98 was warned a week ago about edit warring and the 3RR rule, so no excuses there. You were correct to stop reverting and wait for assistance from others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Olonia reported by User:Crook1 (Result: both blocked)

Page: Italian destroyer Espero (1927) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RegiaMarina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:04, 18 March 2018‎ (UTC)
2. 14:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
3. 14:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
4. 14:39, 18 March 2018‎‎ (UTC)
5. 16:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC) - after a request to stop war-editing was posted on user's Talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
2. User_talk:Olonia#3RR policy

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. User_talk:Olonia#Stop adding your personal website as a reference
2. User_talk:Olonia#3RR policy

Comments:
User:Olonia as well as User:Regia Marina is the same person, not sure if this is legal here but my guess it's not or definitely should not be. I suspect the Special:Contributions/93.144.170.9 is him too judging from the stylistics of the message left on my Talk page. User contributes nothing new, just editing slightly paragraphs and removing perfectly fine references and trying to promote his own personal website instead. As far as I know he is not a renowned historian so not only this unacceptable practice but simply immodest. From his last message he left om my Talk page it is clear he is only here to pick up fights and not to contribute anything productive. After I left a message on his page asking him to stop, he immediately edited the article again. And then again.

Admits he copies and edits out of spite. In response to My message he admits spite. Crook1 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Both editors Olonio and Crook1 have been blocked 24 hours for edit warring. No violation by RegiaMarina although if you can present any evidence (when your block expires) that they are the same person as Olonio (preferably at WP:SPI then the situation will be assessed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2A02:A03F:4A20:1A00:4C63:1CBD:1688:954F reported by User:Fcrary (Result: blocked)

Page: Skylab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:A03F:4A20:1A00:4C63:1CBD:1688:954F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm afraid I'm new at this and can't get the links to previous versions and difference pages to work. This is over Skylab being the "first" versus "only" US space station, as described in the first sentence of the lede.

This editor in question has changed this back six times today and a couple of times yesterday. The description of an early revert of his changes requested moving this to the talk page, but he seems to have ignored that suggestion. Fcrary (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/89.115.121.50 reported by User:N1CK3Y (Result: blocked)

Page: Cantus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.115.121.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Comments:
This has done nothing else than reverting the same edits on this article 8 times on a single day. Need I say more? N1CK3Y (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm getting the strong impression that Mad_Duke, FGordillo, and 178.148.162.199 were brought by offsite canvassing, that their only purpose is adding the material to promote an organization they're involved in. Yes, the 89.115, did violate WP:3RR, but we don't tolerate this sort of organized WP:ADVOCACY, either. This is why I protected the page instead of blocking.

@Mad Duke, FGordillo, and N1CK3Y: What is your involvement with Board of European Students of Technology? There's no pretending that Mad-Duke and FGordillo are uninvolved, so don't even try it. N1CK3Y, you do have prior edits in unrelated topics, but they're so few and rare that it's unusual that you knew to file a report for some apparently "random" content dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, you are correct. We are alumni of the aforementioned organisation. I think. At least, I am. I do not know if one, both, or neither of the two other named contributors are currently members. I do know, though, that the IP that just got blocked is very much a current member. That member is not trying to prevent promotion but, rather, to ensure censorship. Whether the "controversial" statement stays in the article or not does not actually matter much to me. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@N1CK3Y: see WP:YESPROMO. It's very clear that alumni are trying to "make people aware" of that organization, which is promotion. If there was an independent source that established that BEST was noteworthy for their cantus activity, and the intro of the article mentioned noteworthy cantus-hosting organization, it'd be different. But as it is, it's just holding up BEST and only BEST as equivalent to entire countries. That is promotion, plain and simple. There may be some potentially comparable problems in the article, but that doesn't justify adding more. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:Fair is fair. I see you have protected the article. I agree with your decision. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, Mad_Duke here. All I've done was to put back the mention that they keep on deleting because from their PR standpoint (as an organization which organizes Cantus events) they don't want to be associated with this practice. That is censorship pure and simple. If you take a look, this started on 21:15, 15 May 2017‎ Dragosgaf who is a member of the organization. There is ample evidence that in this huge organization which covers whole of Europe Cantus is regularly taking place. My only involvement is thus adding back the content which was previously deleted @Ian.thomson:. So basically, you got this whole thing backward. Members of the organization are the ones who wish to delete the mention because they don't want to be associated and a few alumni are the ones who keep adding it back because it's a fact that it exists. I don't personally care for the mention of BEST in the article, but I became active after I've found out that the reason why they went and deleted something was because it doesn't work with their image which they are trying to promote. Organizations are not physical individuals and the Europe "right to forget" does not count.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad_Duke (talk • contribs)

See WP:YESPROMO. The edit war started when 178.148.162.199 added the mention of BEST to the article. It was not there originally. 178.148 was promoting the group, which goes against our policies. This has nothing to do with censorship or "right to forget." Honestly, the idea that you were called in to fight "censorship" of something the article didn't even mention until today is honestly really hard to believe. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Nichts0176 reported by User:Zanhe (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Wu Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nichts0176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831138938 by Zanhe (talk)"
2. 16:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831066875 by Kanguole (talk)"
3. 14:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831059101 by Kanguole (talk)"
4. 13:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831025517 by Zanhe (talk)"
5. 06:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830679433 by Kanguole (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "/* "Uesian" */ comment"

Comments:

New single-purpose account edit warring to add poorly sourced WP:NEO to article, despite warnings and explanation of policies by Kanguole and myself. Zanhe (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

A cautiously editted information about an alternative name of the key word of this title has been deliberately deleted again and again. Should it not be me to blame but you? my completion was added according to the original structure of the text and it belongs to a paralell information to the others. It reflects a new knowlege about this entry word and has its source. Zahhe asked for source, and I showed one. I see no reason why he still blame. Kanguole blamed of its neogism, but he should open his eyes to look and understand, that it is a new knowledge, not a new term to be inserted.

they think I am alone and they can bully me!

Nichts0176  —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:PZP-003 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 1RR for two weeks )

Page: Alliance for Securing Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PZP-003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Ok, this has gone long enough. Today:

1. [19] (edit summary displays clear WP:BATTLEGROUND approach)
2. [20] (edit summary contains false [[WP:NPA|personal attacks)
3. [21]
4. [22]

Slightly outside of the 24 hour window: 5. [23] 6. [24] 7. [25]

Edit warring on a related page:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [29] First discretionary sanctions notification
• [30] First warning about edit warring.
• [31] Second discretionary sanction notification
• [32] Discretionary sanctions block
• [33] 3RR warning
• [34] warning about personal attacks

The user was blocked just two days ago. They resumed their disruptive behavior immediately after the previous block expired.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35] (though there are other issues)

Comments:
PZP-003 received numerous warnings, advice and suggestions. They did not heed any of these. They continued with edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND even after getting blocked for it. They also started making personal attacks and attacking other users: [36], [37], [38] and has continued making these despite being asked several times to stop.

This isn't just a edit warring or even a discretionary sanctions problem - it's pretty much WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

notification [39]

• Not sure how to respond to all of this (I am relatively new here, been editing for about 2 months). All I can ask is that any user/admin who may want to block me read through Volunteer Marek's posts/edits and it will become pretty clear what is going on here. He exaggerates and literally just makes things up because I am adding factual NPOV/RS information into articles that he disagrees with politically. Other users have backed me up on this claim (if you need to verify that just read through my talk page and other talk pages I have posted on). PZP-003 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I am done making any more edits for today (besides here or on talk pages) so I will not be reverting any controversial edits (even though all of the edits I have made are RS and NPOV contributions intended to add balance to articles which are heavily slanted in one direction) for at least the next 24 hours. I never thought that other users would be able to bully and censor editors by constantly (and selectively) saying "take it to talk page for consensus" or "obtain consensus first", but apparently in the age of Trump this kind of thing is allowed to flourish on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZP-003 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved in the content issues. Have tried to counsel the editor on their UTP and mine, and I've seen no actual evidence that my words have had any effect. Without looking any deeper at the situation, the thing that jumps out at me is I do not "lack competence" above, from an editor with 146 edits. Of course they lack competence, they have 146 edits. I have stressed on both UTPs that it takes years to become even halfway competent, so apparently they didn't believe me. I would like to see them say convincingly that they understand that they do in fact lack competence in virtually every Wikipedia area except the basic operation of their editor of choice. Without that understanding, there is little chance of significant improvement in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Propose site ban.

• • This editor has behaved very badly, and it has not responded to a boatload of guidance and advice (see its talk page). It seems to lack the interest or competence to read Policies and Guidelines. This account is an SPA only interested in POV-pushing edits. I suggest it be banned, and if this user reconsiders and wants to come back with a new ID and a fresh start, good luck next time. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• • • The same exact things could be said about editor SPECIFICO (esp. in regard to POV-pushing and SPA). Also I have read through the WP guidelines. And I do not "lack competence"...I'm simply frustrated and outraged at the blatant censorship going on here which is being perpetuated on numerous articles by users like yourself, Volunteer Marek, and a few others. PZP-003 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR violation here but it's difficult to tell because the diffs are out of order. PZP-003's edits, in order, with timestamps:

1. 14:43, 18 March 2018
2. 20:23, 18 March 2018
3. 00:23, 19 March 2018
4. 01:23, 19 March 2018

The Previous version reverted to has timestamp 00:55, 19 March 2018 and appears to be a revert of PZP-003's 3rd edit. Did you link the right version or was this an addition followed by 3 reverts? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither article is under discretionary sanctions yet so we won't be talking about topic bans here. Trying to decide between a strong warning or block. Volunteer Marek, the earliest diff was part of two edits - one that added info and one that removed accidentally added info. The content that remained seems to be new, yes? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming that by "earliest diff" you mean this one. The content is not new. Rather it's a restoration - a revert - of the same material, just slightly changed in wording. The original content was added here by an account called User:POLITICO. The text was removed by User:Calton here. It was restored, in slightly altered form by PZP-033 in the diff provided. The text under dispute is basically the same - it specifically mentions Bill Kristol and Clinton advisors.

Strangely, even though the original text was added by a different account (and then restored by PZP-033), the person being quoted, Matt Taibbi, was brought up on the talk page by PZP-033, not "POLITICO" [40]. Check user maybe needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I see a different sources and different content. POLITICO's (sourced to The Intercept and Rolling Stone) is:

• Journalist Glenn Greenwald criticized the ASD, calling it "the ultimate union of mainstream Democratic foreign policy officials, and the world's most militant, militaristic, neocons." Matt Taibbi criticized the organization saying they "represent an unpleasantly unsurprising union of neoconservative Iraq war cheerleaders like Bill Kristol and Beltway Democrats like would-be Clinton CIA chief Michael Morell."

PZP-003's (sourced to The Nation) is:

• Other advisory council members include neoconservative political analyst and commentator William Kristol and Hillary Clinton foreign-policy adviser Jake Sullivan.

James J. Lambden (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

James J. Lambden is correct. What Volunteer Marek posted about my edit is untrue. The edit I restored throughout today is not the same edit that a different user POLITICO restored yesterday. Volunteer Marek seems to be obfuscating things again. PZP-003 (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003, for the purposes of edit warring, the text does not have to be identical. We look for similar content. You understand that, right? For example, "Mary had a little lamb" would be considered the same as "Mary owned a lamb when she was 13.". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand that however the 3 edits I reverted today[41] are not the same as the one from yesterday. The one from yesterday[42] dealt with critcism of ASD and the one from today was simple RS info on current advisory board members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZP-003 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@PZP-003: You've had a pretty rocky start in this area. You say you're done for today. How are you going to change the way you edit tomorrow so we don't end up here again? Will you agree to a voluntary WP:1RR on articles for two weeks? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and several other users I can name (who are all very aggressive and biased with removing NPOV/RS info properly inserted into articles) also agree to it, then I am OK with it. If that is something you are unable to do what are my other options? PZP-003 (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A warning that any more reverts without gaining consensus on the talk pages may result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying - that if I revert w/o consensus on ANY article I will be automatically blocked? How long will the block last? The warning on discretionary sanction pages states "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article". So are you saying that I can't revert even once? That seems extremely harsh if that is what you mean. PZP-003 (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@PZP-003: I'm saying you may be blocked. The admin handling any future reports (and it may be me) will take into account this warning when deciding to block and if so, for how long. There are no options here that will allow you to edit the way you have been doing. If you don't want to accept any solution that will curtail your reverts, there's always the option of a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

How long will the block last? PZP-003 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to understand that your belief that other editors are "very aggressive and biased" has no relevance. If other editors object to your edits, you need to open a talk page discussion and explain why you believe your edit improves the article, and work to reach consensus that it does. If that consensus rejects your proposed edits, you're not entitled to keep reverting them because you disagree with their conclusions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

72 hours. That should give you enough time to closely observe how discussion progresses with these types of articles (one of which I've added 1RR to). But really, a voluntary WP:1RR on all articles for two weeks (observing any extra restrictions already present on an article of course) is probably the best option for you here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

OK I will agree to the voluntary 1RR for 2 weeks I guess if you think that is more helpful. PZP-003 (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, the now-blocked (for name reasons) POLITICO restored the same text that PZP-003 added and then edit-warred (and was blocked for) [43] [44] [45]. This was POLITICO's second edit ever, and was done while PZP-003 was blocked. So maybe a checkuser should weigh in if PZP-003 is going to claim its not him. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record what Calton is claiming above is incorrect (he/she lies and obfuscates in a similar way that Volunteer Marek and SPECIFICO frequently do). As James J. Lambden clarified, the POLITICO revert text was different than the text I reverted prior to that during an edit war. PZP-003 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Drop the personal attacks. Your reaction makes the need for a checkuser's attention imperative. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

They are not "personal attacks". Calton literally lied/obfuscated...the same way users like you do throughtout WP - you bully and threaten people (like you just did again right above this edit) and you remove any NPOV/RS info you disagree with and that doesn't suit your political agenda (you even admit to this at the top of your own talk page) PZP-003 (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks is exactly what they are. Calton didn't lie about anything, and neither did I. Calton pointed out that a similar edit was made by a different account during the time of your block. What exactly is untrue about that? Similarly, I've asked you several times to either stop accusing me of lying or provide diffs which prove it - you haven't done that and continue to persist in your attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Here it is, please don't ask me again: Calton wrote that I: restored the same text, he did not point out that a similar edit. You all lie in order to further your agenda. PZP-003 (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

BS. Your failure to absorb, understand, and believe what I've already explained shows you are not AGF. I already explained to you that it is what RS say, not my personal political POV, that drives my editing. If an edit is proper and based on RS, I'll fight to help the editor trying to include it, even if it differs from my personal POV. You don't seem to understand how that works, and I doubt it would do any good to explain it again. You are a classic edit warrior, treating Wikipedia as your battlefield. You won't last long. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003 agrees to a two-week WP:1RR restriction on all articles. This does not negate any other restrictions (e.g., consensus required) that have been placed on articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)