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:DoubleChine reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Warned)

Page

Wonder Woman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "i did not gut the lead. there to much in it"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC) to 18:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "removing unnecesary fluff"
   2. 17:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "lead to big, timming unnesecary info"
   3. 17:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "simplifying lead. no need to describe every tv shwo ovie and actor involved with the character. that's the job for the main article"
   4. 17:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "this is a wonder woman article, this belongs on the marstons page. lead to big as it is already"
   5. 18:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "adding links"
3. 14:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "re adding relevant information"
4. 08:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "lead to big. rearanging"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC) to 18:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC) "lead is simply too large, with a lot of trivia and worse, unsourced content"
   2. 18:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC) "re adding relevant information"
   4. 18:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) "re shuffling lead"
6. 15:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC) "lead to big. rearanging"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wonder Woman. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Lead to big. */ sanger mention should stay"

Diff of 3RRNB notice on user's talk page

1. 14;33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Also edit warring on Hyperion (comics). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• leads are massively bloated with too much data(every tv show, every actor who played the character, etc) and trivia, some not even relevant to the characters. in the case of hyperion article, the lead is used as the bio section with every minor character having it's bio in it making the main page reduntant. lead is for summary, not a main page duplicate or for trivia information. thank you. DoubleChine (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

While SarekOfVulcan was typing out this report, I was also filling one out. Have attempted to engage this user, have advised them of the edit warring guidelines, repeatedly (as they are also at 3RR on Hyperion (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) but they just continue reverting-at-will. They also received numerous warnings from multiple editors, but just ignored it all and continued pushing their "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" edits. This disruption needs to stop. (And their continued defence of their edit-warring here shows no intent to change) - wolf 18:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• DoubleChine, being reported for breaking WP:3RR with less than 200 edits here is not a good start. How are you going to change your editing practices? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Result: User:DoubleChine is warned. They may be blocked the next time they remove material from an article lede unless they have previously got consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And they have already violated this warning, went right back to edit-warring and again removed significant content from an article lead. FYI (also, something tells me they are more familiar with WP then their "less than 200 edits" suggests) - wolf 14:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:HistorianM reported by User:Moxy (Result: Editor advised)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

see here

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Economy photos */ too the image spammers"

Comments:

Edit war over the past 5 days.... Editor warned....zero attempt at further talk since last revert and warning.Moxy (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• HistorianM, do you intend to continue with your reverts at this article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • First of all, I have to say that Mr. Moxy is lying, as I have created a section at the article's talk page and contacted the editor that keeps reverting my edits giving no reason. Also, he was warned too, after all, he who started to undo ALL of my editions - explained - in the article simply exclaiming "Ugly Image! Ugly Image!" while uploading images or too old or of poor visual quality. One of them at least tried to talk so I get his point and we're reached an agreement. Anyways, I do not intend to violate wikipedia rules, so I'll won't revert the edits on this article. But I intend to continue editing this article, and I hope they are not simply undone to the personal taste of some editors without at least an explanation, since I explain the point of my editions and I do them very willingly, hoping to contribute. HistorianM (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Result: User:HistorianM is advised to wait for consensus on Talk before making further image changes at Brazil that may be controversial. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Cparev reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Is Genesis History? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Added a more descriptive synopsis"
2. 15:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "A more accurate synopsis of the film’s content"
3. 12:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "A more accurate synopsis of the film’s content"
4. 05:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "Provided a more accurate synopsis of the film’s content"
5. 21:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC) "A more accurate description of what the film’s content was. Not a partisan review."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [1], [2]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Cparev is new to the Wiki edits and has no desire to be involved in an edit war over this page. I just want it’s description to be accurate: without prejorative commentary by Wiki users who have countless thousands of posts each. The revert edits to my original edit took place only a few minutes after I had posted. My edit was designed to accurately describe the film, not hype or promote it. The film claims to be a biblical and scientific examination of the history of the natural world. Even if a reader who sees this article disagrees with the film’s content, they shouldn’t be allowed to misrepresent its content or provide personal commentary on its value. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide access to information, not pass judgment on it. To claim that this film doesn’t have science in it is wrong. The bona fide scientists in the film might come to conclusions that some editors (who seem to be atheists that are hostile to the Christian viewpoints in the film) appreciate, but that’s no reason to mischaracterize it.

I believe that a simple, non partisan, descriptive synopsis (without voluminous, irrelevant citations) adds the most quality to this article.

I would respectfully ask that my edit is left to stand and that the page receives full protection to keep people from editing it with prejorative commentary. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cparev (talk • contribs) 00:57, August 3, 2018 (UTC)

@CParev: the editors, whom you so rightly describe as having countless thousands of edits each, are far more experienced at editing an encyclopedia than you. Doesn't that make you want to stop and think for a second? When multiple people with thousands of times as much experience as you all keep telling you that you're doing it wrong, doesn't that even hint at the fact that you may, actually, be doing it wrong? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Son of Kolachi reported by User:Accesscrawl (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Human rights abuses in Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Son of Kolachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4] 28 July
2. [5] 17:49 - 2 August
3. [6] 18:23 - 2 August

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

Comments:

Violation of 1RR. This account was has worked enough to edit war on this page over the same content over which socks were edit warring and ‎EdJohnston had protected the page.[8]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. This looks like a clear sock of someone, created only for disruption. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Codo2411 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Warned)

Page: Millennials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Codo2411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:
Granted, Codo2411 has not violated 3RR but under the circumstances he is disrupting the article and an ongoing RFC on the talk page. The crux of the issue is that there is no set date range for when millenials were born, with different sources giving different dates. These are given in the Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions section. Codo2411 has repeatedly elevated his preferred date and source in the article lead. This violates WP:NPOV and it also means the lead now fails to give a sufficient overview of the dates given in the date range section. The dates are a point of contention and are currently the subject of an RFC at Talk:Millennials#RfC_about_the_editing_the_lead_on_the_Millennials_article. Apart from the fact that it is extremely disruptive to alter a section subject to an RFC (because the responders ideally need to see what is being contested) Codo2411 has failed to participate in the RFC despite being asked to twice. The RFC will settle this issue, so we don't need Codo2411 making unilateral changes. BTW, I have no investment in the article: I was a neutral responder at the RFC and my only participation has been to revert Codo2411 while the RFC is taking place. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Codo2411 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert about the definition of a millennial again, unless they have obtained previous consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Maxim3377 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Southern Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maxim3377 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16] ( 2018-08-02T13:11:57)
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]
6. [21]
7. [22]
8. [23]
9. [24]
10. [25] (2018-08-03T03:10:24)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

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

Diff of 3RRNB notice on user talk page: [28]

Comments:
Straight forward edit-warring/ 4RR++ vio. 10 reverts in approx 14 hours. (FYI- I am a non-involved party).

Note: 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 also appeared to be inloved in a edit war with a series of edits interspersed with Maxim3377s, but after a closer look, they do not appear to have violated 4RR.

- ^theWOLFchild 07:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• FYI - for a few more details, please see the duplicate report below. It is about the same editor, same page, same edit war. - ^theWOLFchild 08:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The IP has only made one series of consecutive edits, which is not even a revert, but what looks like an attempt to clean up a bit. Maxim3377 has also lots of consecutive edits which should be counted as one. They have, however, continued after the warning and have by now clearly broken 3RR. They are fairly new, and they have also made a number of good edits, so I would suggest not being too heavy-handed. On the other hand, they need to be explained how Wikipedia works, not only 3RR, but also WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR etc. --T*U (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Maxim3377 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Southern Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Maxim3377 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Click to view diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Diffs of the user's reverts Consecutive edits made from 07:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC) to 07:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC) 07:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Valid ref." 07:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "" Consecutive edits made from 07:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC) to 07:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC) 07:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853187967 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)" 07:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853187745 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)" 07:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853187656 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)" 07:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853187496 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)" 07:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853187454 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)" 07:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853187433 by 2600:8802:500:EF00:A161:73A1:1E3B:C7B4 (talk)" 07:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853152979 by WikiDan61 (talk)" Consecutive edits made from 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC) to 17:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC) 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853132642 by 96.55.23.253 (talk)" 17:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853132587 by 96.55.23.253 (talk)" 17:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853131747 by 96.55.23.253 (talk)" Consecutive edits made from 12:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC) to 13:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC) 12:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853096667 by TU-nor (talk)" 12:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "ref." 13:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC) "Classification" Consecutive edits made from 18:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC) to 18:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC) 18:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC) "Ticino is southern Europe" 18:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Population */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps adding Switzerland to Southern Europe. Will not stop despite warnings. Dr. K. 08:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Also please note: This report deals only with the named account and not the IP and it covers a little over a 24-hour period. --Dr. K. 08:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Manlorsen reported by User:Velella (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Societat Civil Catalana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "The entry of our organisation was vandalised."
2. 17:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "The entry of our organisation was vandalised."
3. 17:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "The entry of our organisation was vandalised."
4. 13:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "I revert to the former version due to vandalism"
5. 13:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "I would like to report an abuse by the publication of Filiprino. This person is trying to damage the reputation of our organisation Sociedad Civil Catalana. As representant of this organisation I would like to claim it."
6. 13:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "I would like to report an abuse by the publication of Filiprino. This person is trying to damage the reputation of our organisation Sociedad Civil Catalana. As representant of this organisation I would like to claim it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Societat Civil Catalana. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Advice given in edit summary to discuss on article talk page  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Aṭlas reported by User:MWahaiibii (Result: No violation)

Page: Template:Historical Arab states and dynasties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aṭlas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:
My first edit ([35]) was a restoration of the pre-vandalism/wp:or version. Then Fofo2325 started edit warring and telling me to stop acting like kids. He's in his fifth revert now with another editor. This is not his first time edit warring against multiple editors-Aṭlas (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• No violation At three reverts, not four. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Kevin McE reported by User:1990'sguy (Result: Kevin McE warned)

Page: The Handmaid's Tale (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]

Comments:

Despite other editors reverting Kevin McE, he continues to edit war on the article, removing referenced information. The attempts to reason with him on the talk page have been in vain as Kevin McE persists in his stubborn behavior. In addition, please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kevin McE. After KevinMcE received a couple of warnings, a new account was created just today, in order to support KevinMcE on the talk page when at least four users have opposed their edits (DynaGirl, Anupam, MBlaze Lightning and Accesscrawl); if that new account’s reversion is to be counted, that can be added to this list. [46] A block is needed to slow him down. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• I highly doubt Kevin McE is socking. That being said, Kevin McE, what are you doing here? Do you really want to be blocked for breaking WP:3RR? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What am I doing? Well firstly one of those is 2 weeks prior to the others, and the second one entails edits to a totally different part of the article, so I would ask 1990'sguy (who also launched an entirely wrong sockpuppet investigation against me without even the courtesy of making me aware of it) why he has included it here. I know the answer, his ally Anumap included it, perhaps initially in genuine error, in the talk page, and although I have pointed that out, has not had the basic dignity to apologise, acknowledge the error, or remove it; and the complainant here has probably been either too lazy or too driven by some unspoken motive to do so. After that, there was a degree of reverting edits that claimed they were doing one thing while doing another, or removing edits that re-introduced an undisputed factual error. Since then there has been the revelation of an unseemly cabal, who amazingly all want exactly the same words and seem to have absolutely to divergence of opinion in anything at all. Hmmmm. Kevin McE (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Warned @Kevin McE: The fact remains that you have four reverts in under 36 hours. And labeling whoever opposes your changes as an "unseemly cabal" isn't going to get you very far. Any more reverts that involve the material under dispute without getting consensus first will likely result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And meanwhile, that group are intransigent in refusing to explain why they have collectively removed other material, referenced in the citations that they constantly refer to, and despite being asked for their explanation several times. 36 hours is not 24. And if wanting exactly the same thing, while all the time mutually congratulating each other and showing absolutely no sign of difference in opinion, even to the extent of restoring each other's clear errors, is not indicative of a cabal, how would you describe such a group? The facade of justice here is paper thin. Kevin McE (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How would I describe such a group? Simple. Editors who are in consensus with respect to disagreeing with your edits. Happens thousands of times a day here with different articles and editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• This NeilN guy is clearly a biased editor or admin whatever he is. I clearly see the accused has not broken 3RR. And exactly, Wikipedia will become a fake newshub if admins like these are allowed to thrive. BTW I'm not related to KevinMcE. Accusers should stop with their "off-wiki" agenda! Thanks! Cliveplug (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Fofo235 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Template:Historical Arab states and dynasties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fofo235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Rv #1 19:13, 3 August 2018
2. Rv #2 20:06, 3 August 2018
3. Rv #3 21:55, 3 August 2018‎
4. Rv #4 23:45, 3 August 2018‎
5. Rv #5 00:09, 4 August 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
New account created in late June 2018, ~ 90 edits in total. Sole purpose: cross-article edit-warring and inserting unsourced pro-Arab content. Doesn't seem to be here to build this encyclopedia. Pinging @Aṭlas: @Wario-Man: and @Kansas Bear:. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

GoosebumpsUk1Fan reported by theinstantmatrix (2) (Result: Page protected)

Page: Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GoosebumpsUk1Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:GoosebumpsUk1Fan#Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween#Can we lock this page

Comments:

See last report. After his block expired, he returned to revert Scriptboy12's edits, which were changing Slappy's voice actor to Jack Black. Also involved are GoosebumpsArt and Ambandicoot but appears to have stopped editing the article after they were both warned about WP:3RR by Oshwah. theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:BrightR (Result: BMK will voluntarily refrain from reverting on the article for a week)

Page: Exhibitionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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. 853348853
2. 853364073
3. 853364498
4. 853372348

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 853373259

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 853364609

Comments:

User:Beyond My Ken repeatedly edit-wars to put tags at the bottom of the article and to move images above their section's header. He accused me of hounding him, but he's done this on many articles which I have not participated in. Currently he's doing that in at least three other articles. He's going to argue that because of our previous interactions (most of them are about MOS:IM and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR reverts) that I'm hounding him; see the other articles where editors are telling him the exact same thing: MOS:IM is consensus and if you want to implement your own style the onus to achieve a new consensus is on you. Bright☀ 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Can I point out that less than 4 months ago, when BrightR was being considered for an indef block, they pledged that "I will not cite WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and request that editors give a non-owner reason for their reverts.". [53]. Unfortunately, as a voluntary statement made while an indef-block discussion was being held, [54] I don't think this is enforceable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Cite" as in "post excepts from", not "cite" as in "name a policy and ask people to follow it." As discussed in the very discussion you linked, using Wikipedia policies to explain your edits is advised. I was talking about posting large excerpts from policy, as in Talk:12 Monkeys. How is this relevant to your edit warring, though? Bright☀ 20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Let the Wikilawyering begin! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: You've already had your annual block for edit warring. This year's block was cut short with "time served" but it's expected that the behavior won't repeat, yet here we are, less than four months later. Is there a good reason why you shouldn't be blocked, this time for a week? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• NeilN: Take a look at the edit summaries, please. I was upholding the strictures of WP:BRD, while the OP -- who has a habit of following me around and provoking disputes with me -- was totally ignoring them. Yes, he started a discussion on the article talk page, but he completely ignored that articles are intended to remain in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing.
  If you check my editing history, you'll see that I'm always willing to discuss editorial disputes on the talk page (just hadn't gotten around to responding on this particular one), and I always abide by a talk page consensus, but, on the other hand, I do not accept that simply citing an editing guideline is a "get out of BRD free" card. Except for BLP and copyvios, all editorial disputes are subject to discussion and consensus, and that is simply the path I was urging the OP to take, as opposed to reverting to their preferred version over the established status quo version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: There's no 3RR-exemption for "upholding the strictures of WP:BRD". I recall probably saying this to you before, but cannot remember exactly when or where so you're escaping a probably deserved block right now if you voluntarily agree not to revert again on the article for a week (you can still use the talk page) and realize if you use BRD to excuse breaking 3RR again, you're probably looking at a week's block at least. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Neil: I cannot recall you saying that, but if you think you did so, then I'm sure you did. I probably would have replied something on the order of "There should be one". My larger question -- beyond whether I am blocked or not -- is how can one insure that BRD is followed when the other editor adamantly refuses to do so?
  Yes, I have already removed Exhibitionism from my watchlist, so I won't be tempted to wade back in again, and will probably keep it off the list for much more than a week, as I find tussling with the OP to be a trial, and to considerably reduce my enjoyment of editing the encyclopedia - so I willingly and voluntarily agree to your conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Neil, if you let this go Beyond My Ken is just going to do the same in striptease, lapdance, ogopogo, and other articles where he is currently edit-warring. A block would prevent the continuation of the current edit wars, and ever-increasing blocks will eventually discourage Beyond My Ken from article ownership behavior, just as standing up to him now discouraged him from his against-consensus no-discussion article ownership of exhibitionism. Bright☀ 18:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And what, if I may ask, will prevent BrightR from using my contribution list to follow me around to harrass me, as he just did at WT:EW? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I was in good faith answering your question. You asked if BRD is a get-out-of-edit-warring-free-card. I replied, per BRD itself, that BRD is never a revert reason. This is intimately related to this discussion. Your frame of mind suggests that you intend to use BRD as a revert reason, despite BRD explicitly stating it is not a valid revert reason; more importantly, Wikipedia policy states that reverting to "status quo" is not a valid revert reason. Perhaps you would edit-war less if you accepted that. I also suggest that, after ten years of trying to force your own against-MOS image position and cleanup tag position, you accept MOS, as it represents consensus, and all of your attempts to reverse it has failed. Bright☀ 18:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

To quote a perhaps not very wise, but still stalwart editor of Wikipedia: We're a project based on consensus, and discussion is a necessary part of the process of reaching consensus -- but consensus means nothing if random changes can't be undone to restore the staus quo.

If everyone involved is (hopefully) going to agree to abide by the eventual consensus of editors, then the only question is which version of the article should be maintained while consensus is being established. The only one which makes any sense is the status quo version, because it is the version that represents prior consensus, whether actual or de facto. The changed version represents only one editor's opinion, and therefore does not have the weight of the previous versions.

Those who wish to ignore BRD and take matters into their own hands are fond of tarring BRD-upholding editors with charges of exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP behavior, but it's not "owning" an article to wish it to stay as it was until editors decide on the talk page which course should be taken, it is, in fact, the best conservative choice. If the changing editor is correct, then consensus will likely support their version, so all they need to do is wait, taking part in the consensus discussion in the meantime. When that is reached, the article will be changed (or not, depending), and there is no longer any dispute. Not following BRD prolongs the dispute, and removes it from the realm of consensus determination, which is more akin to "ownership" then is preserving the status quo while discussions are talking place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You still got it all wrong. You can't use BRD as a revert reason. You can't use status quo as a revert reason. I don't know how you got it in your head. The BRD essay itself states it is not a revert reason. The consensus policy doesn't talk about a "status quo" version but a consensus version. The ownership policy explicitly cautions against reverting to a status quo version.

None of what you're saying is valid on Wikipedia. You claim to support BRD but ignore that BRD says not to do exactly what you're doing. The changed version represents only one editor's opinion This is perhaps the worst of your reasoning. Your above-heading image placement represents your opinion. The MOS below-heading image placement represents consensus. Your bottom-of-article tag placement represent your opinion. The RfC top-of-article tag placement represents consensus. If you revert the placement of images and tags for no reason other than "to uphold BRD", you are acting against Wikipedia policy.

The fact that you use BRD to justify edit-warring, when BRD explicitly warns against using it as a revert reason, should tell the admins that you intend to keep edit warring. In order to prevent that from happening, you need to be blocked. Bright☀ 19:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The entirety of this discussion is well worth reading, for an indication of what an encounter with BrightR is like. It seems that nothing much has changed since April, when he made grandiose promises to reform his editing behavior, and by doing so avoided an indef block. Maybe some beneficient admin can just put me out of my misery and impose an IBan between the two of us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You can self-impose an IBan on yourself if you'd like. You still need to be blocked to prevent you from further edit-warring. As Neil said, you were unblocked with the expectation that you will cease edit warring. But you keep edit warring. Bright☀ 20:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If BrightR is agreeable to a two-way IBan, then I am as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's more important that you learn from your mistakes than run away from them. Bright☀ 20:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Or, you know what? If you just acknowledge that BRD is not a valid revert reason, that your image placement directly above headers is against consensus, and that your tag placement at the bottom of articles is against consensus, you would become a better person and less of a detriment to Wikipedia. Bright☀ 20:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Less of a detriment to Wikipedia" Come, come, you can do better than that. One editor called me "The worst thing to ever happen to Wikipedia." You really must try harder to disparage me! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

But I'm not trying to disparage you. I'm trying to better you. Admit that putting images directly above level-2 headings is against consensus, and admit that putting cleanup tags at the bottom of articles is against consensus, and admit that BRD is not a valid revert reason, and you will become a better Wikipedian and a better person. Bright☀ 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh pish tosh, that's completely disingenuous on its face, and I'm surprised you expect anyone to believe it. Now, how about the 2-way I-Ban? We could be out of each other's hair forever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Why won't you admit those things? Are they not true? Bright☀ 21:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask you one more time, in the hope that I'll get a straight answer instead of sanctimonous twaddle. If not, then I'm through talking with you.

Will you agree to a 2-way Interaction Ban between us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I already answered: no, I'd rather you face your mistakes than run away from them. An IBan will allow you to ignore everything and continue edit-warring. If you admit these three things—

• that placing images below (and not directly above) level-2 headers is the consensus
• that placing cleanup templates at the top of articles (and not at the bottom) is the consensus
• that BRD is not a valid revert reason (and not an excuse to edit-war)

—then you will become a better Wikipedian. Otherwise, you'll just continue edit-warring, and you'll have to be blocked as a preventative measure. Bright☀ 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I don't know why I expected you to do the reasonable thing. I guess, the next time you follow me somewhere, I'll just go to AN/I and ask there for a one-way IBan, from you to me, as I've never followed you around or attempted to interact with you, the impetus has always been on your side. It'll be easy enough to provide the necessary evidence.
  As for your "concern" for my being a "better Wikipedian", I really can't see that as anything but complete and utter bat guano. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion -- at least the part of it between you and I -- is over.
  Outsiders looking in on this conversation should read this pledge made by BrightR in April 2018, and then re-read the current discussion (if you can bear to), to judge just how well BrightR keeps his promises to the community.
  BrightR, you may have the last word to sanctimoniously trash me to your heart's content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"bat guano" - I guess that means you're going to continue edit warring. If you don't accept consensus and keep using BRD as an excuse to edit war, you'll have to be blocked. Bright☀ 22:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here -- this is the War Room!" Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Obvious violation of 3rr. If I wasn't involved in that exhibitionism mess I would issue a block, but 'twas my image size edit that sparked the reverting. Vsmith (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BRD instructs that editors take the dispute to the talk page. If somebody BRD's me in an edit summary I expect them to start a discussion, or at the very least join the existing one. In other words invoking it without observing it strikes me as a tad disingenous. Personally I think Neil is being very lenient here (five reverts in a 24h period and no attempt at resolution on the talk page), so if BMK is going to be let off froma block I would like to see a firm commitment here that he will start or join a discussion on the talk page if he intends to invoke BRD in the future. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• I guess there's no particular reason for you to believe me, except that I rarely lie about matters such as this, but I had every intention of joining in the discussion on the talk page, and if BrightR hadn't continued to revert to his preferred version, I would have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• I do actually believe you, because you do often participate in discussions. The problem here though is that you notched up five reverts before joining the discussion. Whenever I invoke BRD in an edit summary I always make sure I have commented in the discussion first and then either link to the discussion (if I have started it) or refer the other editor to my reply if they have started it. The problem here is that you have made it very difficult for the admin not to block you because your reverts have not been accompanied by a realistic attempt at resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a valid point, and a consideration I should hold onto for the future -- I'll try my best. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

BrightR has quite the history of hounding. They have no business coming here to report editwarring on one of the people they like to follow around. This should be closed with no action. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor) At this point, a block would be punitive rather than preventative. Let's put the pitchforks down and allow all involved parties to cool down and move on. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering Beyond My Ken has been edit-warring about the same image placement and tag placement issues for ten years, I doubt he'll stop now, especially since he ignored my requests to admit that he's editing against consensus. Bright☀ 22:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have recently had similar exchanges with Beyond My Ken over placing images above headers. At Otto von Bismarck he has shut down attempts to change his layout by at least three editors, generally reverting without providing a reason. Two threads on the talk page protest and detail reasons the MoS style layout is preferable. He answered one to say that the MoS is optional, and proclaimed that his version is “superior” (despite other editors disagreeing). At Nazi Germany, he reverted me twice over the same layout issue, then used BRD to impose the status quo. Again I gave substantive reasons why the MoS layout is preferable at that page, but he demands I gain consensus without further reasoning – gain consensus, to institute a MoS style layout. (Ironically, he also has an IAR banner on his talk page.)

Beyond My Ken shows a clear pattern of imposing his unique, non-MoS image layout on pages, then edit warring to impose it even against talk page discussion. Do MoS policies – developed by consensus, as pointed out above – apply to everyone? Or can IAR and BRD be used alternatively to steamroll others off of pages? And if he gets an “annual block,” yet is back after a few months, how is one week off going to change anything? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I guess I must have dropped off to sleep there for a few days, and in my absence MOS became a mandatory policy, instead of what it has always been, a guideline, a suggestion about to how to edit in the absence of other circumstances, to be understood and followed whenever practical, but be interpreted with common sense and editorial discretion. I guess all those MOS hardliners who never understood that finally stormed the palace gates and raised MOS to the exalted status of policy. ... What? You say that never happened? MOS is still a guideline? Well, then, that pretty much invalidates most of what these folks have to say here, doesn't it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And thus it is BRD for everyone else, IAR for Beyond My Ken, whatever keeps his version in place. While he sidesteps the fact that there is a clear consensus against his layout at Bismarck. He never gives any reason why his version is better, even though there are clear substantive reasons why it is not (like putting an image in the pertinent section when there is room). This sort of behavior has a chilling effect on other editors. When I see BYK is active on a page, I move on because it isn't worth the strife. This does not create a collaborative atmosphere and precludes potential improvement of pages. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well, this discussion has progressed, hasn't it? Beyond My Ken up above you ask how to ensure BRD is followed. The short answer is, you don't. BRD is not a policy or guideline but an essay on an optional method of reaching consensus. If other editors don't want to follow it then you'll have to find another way to reach it. You also need to pay particular attention to the first five points of WP:BRD-NOT. Just reverting and parroting BRD or "status quo" in your edit summaries is not acceptable and is in fact in direct opposition to our content creation philosophy. I can see there are a lot of editors watching your reverts and I'm pretty sure they won't hesitate to drop me a "told you so!" note if you continue this type of reverting. If that happens, then I'm going to agree with them and look at a block. Follow the advice you've prominently placed on your talk page: "Let shit go." (I would add, "before you get dumped in it.") --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:A.Musketeer reported by User:Editor General of Wiki (Result: )

Page

2018 Bangladesh road safety protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

A.Musketeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 20:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "The report of rape are there in the videos shared by Dhaka Tribune in the link, you are violating wp:EDITWAR"
3. 20:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "reorganizing under a new subsection"
4. 20:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on 2018 Bangladesh road safety protests. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Adding a news of rape of 4 female students with a fake source, which do not mentions anything about rape of 4 students. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Editor General of Wiki reported by User:A.Musketeer (Result: )

Page

2018 Bangladesh road safety protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Editor General of Wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 20:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC) to 20:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Attack on protesting students */ This source does not say anything about rape of four girls. Please don't add WP:OR"
   2. 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 853440690 by Editor General of Wiki (talk). (TW)"
   3. 20:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Government response */"
   4. 20:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Government response */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC) to 20:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 20:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Government response */ This source does not mention anything about rape of 4 students"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on 2018 Bangladesh road safety protests. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is repeatedly reverting all the edits and expressing an ownership over the article. The user is disputing the source of a news which is already explained in the edit summaries. A.Musketeer (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)