Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 14.198.220.253 (talk) at 10:29, 13 January 2014 (→‎User:14.198.220.253 reported by User:DVdm (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Asifiqbal80 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Warned)

    Page: Karachi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Asifiqbal80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: 2 January

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 5 January
    2. 8 January
    3. 9 January

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit warring warning

    Comments:
    Asifiqbal180 edit warring with LanguageXpert 's socks. I asked for semi protection of the page but it was declined yesterday. And this is an edit warring report. -- SMS Talk 15:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In reply to EdJohnston 's question: The sock I referred above is actually the user using the dynamic IP range 39.32.x.x who is actually a sock of LanguageXpert. As you might see this IP along with registered socks (Macedonish, Edwarddz, Bbb02) have been reverting to their preferred version. The dispute here is about the second largest ethnic group in the city that whether it is Punjabi or Pathan. I have seen LanguageXpert socks at more than dozen articles in recent months and its always Punjabi vs some other ethnic group dispute so I am a little burnt out and don't look into the content issue on each article much thoroughly. About this report I think a much clearer warning would suffice now that it is semi-protected. -- SMS Talk 15:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure whether it is appropriate to mention here but something needs to be done about LanguageXpert's socking and disruption along with User:Bhural (SPI). Both are edit warring now for some months on Saraiki language related articles. A number of them were semi-protected but to no avail. -- SMS Talk 15:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Asifiqbal80 is warned. Continued reverting without getting any support on the talk page may lead to a block. Consider asking User:ElHef for advice, since he is the only person to comment so far at Talk:Karachi#Karachi about your idea. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Stick Man reported by User:HappyLogolover2011 (Result: Protected)

    Page: File:SpecialMelee.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: The Stick Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: legitimate file replacements

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Reverted file back to the old revision when replaced for a better revision: [1]
    2. Same thing the 2nd time: [2]
    3. The third time he does it just to give me a headache and because he likes it that way, but there's no reason to revert just because he loves the old image that way: [3]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:31, 10 January 2014

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None right now

    Comments:
    The user keeps reverting the image after I uploaded a new image in a widescreen quality, but he keeps reverting it because he likes it that way. There are reasons to replace an old image that has been here for years and needs a new better quality image. He keeps doing this just to make me violate the edit war policy while trying to avoid it as best as possible. If he would stop trying to give me a bad day by doing this, I would be able to contribute without any issues like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLogolover2011 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, I am not reverting it because I "like it that way". I have given my reasons on my talk page (the closest thing there is to an attempt at a resolution between us, which HappyLogo never addressed before this) and in edit summaries (which HappyLogo also has yet to address). Before I realized that he had done this, I was in the process of going to him directly a second time to discuss. I'm not trying to force him into breaking edit war policies, especially since that would result in me breaking edit warring policies, too, something I would be unlikely to do given my two close calls I've already had (which can be seen on my talk page, as I have not deleted stuff on those incidents). HappyLogo has already been in trouble for trying to upload pictures, and his rationale for keeping his versions are shaky at best. I've welcomed him to begin a discussion on article/file talk pages, which he never did. (I guess I should have done it instead of twiddling my thumbs and waiting for him, but it's too late now.)
    As mentioned before, I have already made attempts to discuss with him, which HappyLogo did not take advantage of. In fact, back in September, he tried to ask another admin to delete an old version to stop me from reverting him again instead of bringing up the issue with me. I get the feeling that he has deliberately avoided discussion with me, something that is usually done before making accusations in ANI.
    That's all I have to say. I get that HappyLogo means well, and that I have not handled the situation as best as I could have. But I hope what I have said helps the admin dealing with this make the correct decision. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 06:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created a discussion about the image on the article's talk page, to help facilitate discussion on these issues. It is somewhat silly that HappyLogo filed this considering he seems to be reverting just as much as Stick Man. If action were to be taken, it would only rightfully be towards both of them. That being said, I'd prefer neither be sanctioned, and instead we just discuss it out on the talk page like we supposed to. Doling out blocks to both is only going to get both sides more riled up, not help solve this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be fine/understand if I do end up getting blocked. Obviously I don't want it to come down to that point, but if you guys must, then I'll take it. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you broke WP:3RR, it'd be hard to argue not to have you blocked, its pretty cut and clear...but that doesn't appear to be the case, you stopped before breaking 3RR. And he seems to have reverted an equal amount of times, so its kind of frowned up that he be the one that reported you. He also skipped the "discuss on talk page" step as well, as evidenced in his initial report. That's why I'm saying this wasn't a great report, and instead, lets just work this out rather than blocks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:1241edit reported by User:Minimac (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Tar (lute) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    1241edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    [4]
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. [5]
    2. 07:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589765499 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
    3. 01:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC) "Tar is an Iranian music instrument[1][2]"
    4. 04:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC) "Tar is an Iranian music instrument[3][4]"
    5. 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC) "Please look at my message about that. Thanks"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [6]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Not involved in this, but in a short period of time he's done five reverts on the same article. This might not be 3RR, but the fact that he reverted again after being warned gives me no choice but to report this matter. Minima© (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:1241edit has also done three reverts on List of Persian poets and authors (original deletion here (15:43, 9 Jan 2014), first revert here (02:05, 10 Jan), here (15:33, 10 Jan) and here (19:37, 10 Jan) without giving a valid reason for deleting content. I didn't think it necessary to report it until I saw Minimac's report. In the Tar/lute article it is a sort-of content dispute (i.e. there is a legitimate question to be asked about the origins of the instrument) but several editors disagree with 1241edit's assertion that the word "Persian" needs to be in bold font even though it isn't the subject of the article and that all reference to other countries/cultures should be removed. 1241edit seems intent on the same removal of other countries/cultures on the list of poets/authors. Green Giant (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – Two weeks for disruptive editing and nationalist edit warring. See him warring against ClueBot at Ghazal to enforce deletion of some material. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:93.86.34.205 reported by User:Marek69 (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Dubica (Bosnia-Herzegovina) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    93.86.34.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590249052 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) No we are not at the same level... i dont deleting sourced material."
    2. 18:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590248282 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) Poor man deleting sourced material, just because he dont like Serbs... i feel bad for you."
    3. 18:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590248063 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk)"
    4. 18:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590247293 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) Thanks."
    5. 18:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "I live in my country and i dont need to speak good english, and you escaped like a dog from your belowed Bosnia.."
    6. 17:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590245841 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) Yes i am,"
    7. 17:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590245381 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) There is no such thing as Bosnian language..."
    8. 17:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590244821 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk)"
    9. 17:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590244335 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) There are pictures and names of killed people.. Jesu li to sve Srbi izmislili bolesnice."
    10. 17:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590243598 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) This is not talk page."
    11. 17:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590242332 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) Bla,bla,bla bla... there is an article about this on 2 wiki... so please dont spread your lies here."
    12. 17:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590240738 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) Why are you deleting sources?"
    13. Consecutive edits made from 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC) to 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      1. 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590225989 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) This is Republika Srpska"
      2. 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590226053 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk)"
    14. Consecutive edits made from 14:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC) to 14:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      1. 14:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590221419 by DemirBajraktarevic You are talking about unsourced material.. every your bullshit lies are unsourced."
      2. 14:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "This is Republika Srpska... here we dont have "Bosnian" language"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning about Edit warring"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This edit war has broken 3RR by a factor of 4! Marek.69 talk 18:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DemirBajraktarevic reported by User:Marek69 (Result: Blocked, see other report)

    Page
    Dubica (Bosnia-Herzegovina) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    DemirBajraktarevic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "well in that case I feel bad for you too... you're reverting me as well. I guess you and I are on the same level - the lowest of the low. I "feel bad" for us :)"
    2. 18:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590248205 by 93.86.34.205 (talk)"
    3. 18:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590247560 by 93.86.34.205 (talk)"
    4. 18:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590247172 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) You are a very immature man"
    5. 18:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590246391 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) Are you sure it's bad that you're feeling? I think it's MAD and INADEQUATE (go translate... I can tell your English is not so good)"
    6. 17:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590246068 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) ... and you're admission cancels out your argument as INVALID AND CLOUDED BY PREJUDICE"
    7. 17:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590245664 by 93.86.34.205 (talk)... and that sentence proves you're a nationalist Serb."
    8. 17:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590245156 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) I speak Bosnian though maybe you could write in Bosnian what you want me to know"
    9. 17:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590244556 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) I don't speak Serbian so I didn't understand what you wrote there at the end, nor do I wish to know. Provide reliable SOURCES (plural)"
    10. 17:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590243765 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) then take your argument to the talk page instead of reverting edits and adding unsourced material"
    11. 17:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590242899 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) it stays if you can provide a few RELIABLE sources. what you posted was a link to the ramblings of a delusional Serb man"
    12. 17:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590242130 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) first of all: you added A SOURCE (not plural) and that website is hardly reliable"
    13. 17:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590239310 by 93.86.34.205 (talk)"
    14. Consecutive edits made from 14:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC) to 14:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      1. 14:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590225258 by 93.86.34.205 (talk)"
      2. 14:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590224884 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) "Bullshit" is not a professional term. I can't take your argument seriously when you behave like a child"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning about Edit warring"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This edit war has broken 3RR by a factor of 4! Marek.69 talk 18:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DemirBajraktarevic reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Blocked, see other report)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [7]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8]
    2. [9]
    3. [10]
    4. [11]
    5. [12]
    6. [13]
    7. [14]
    8. [15]
    9. [16]

    Plus 9 more identical reverts in just the last half an hour (and he keeps going on)... Please see revision history.

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

    Comments: This user has been warned about edit warring on the article, diff but he ignores it. He is a well established user who is thinking that no one will bother to make the report, so he seems to be having fun by reverting and keeping a dialogue with some IP and other users on the edit summaries. Yesterday I left him a message at his talk page where I said that he should thank me for not having reported him until now, because he has made over 50 reverts at that same article for the last 10-15 days. Also, yesterday he has been reverting a consensus edit in a number of other articles. Oh, while making this report he has just receved another warrning for edt-warring on another article: diff FkpCascais (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Your belief that I am "having fun" reverting Serb nationalist POV edits is ridiculous. The individual that I was edit warring with on the Lepa Brena and Dubica articles is an IP editor who proudly admitted to being a Serb nationalist in one edit --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You are feeding the trolls then. But anyway, you have been reverting other established users and me as well, before. You need to learn that edit-warring is not acceptable at Wikipedia and you need to taje the warnings seriously. You broke the 3RR rule duzens of times for the last couple of weeks. Sorry. I even told you yesterday on how I didn´t bothered to report you, but coming here today and seing over 15 reverts in one hour in just one article, plus reverts on other articles, you just leave no option. FkpCascais (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 20 reverts (20!!!) in one article in less then 4 hours! diff. Oh, and in the same time you made 15 reverts at another article diff. Come on... FkpCascais (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Was it only 20? It felt like a lot more--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RupalDel reported by User:Drmies (Result: Disruptive sock indefblocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [18]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [19] (reverting Gryffindor
    2. [20]
    3. [21]
    4. [22]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

    This concerns a section that is poorly written and improperly verified; RupalDel seems to think that a two-thousand year old text (the Natya Shastra) is a proper reference to use on the more recent development of this dance--see this edit summary. Discussion is found on my talk page and the user's talk page, though "discussion" is a bit of a misnomer. Editor seems to suggest I don't know my classical Indian dance, that I don't have an art form to be proud of, and that my "subpressing" (yeah) their unverified and grammatically challenged text was a "cowardly act". For the record, part of this is also a YouTube link to some dance performance, which RupalDel apparently thinks of as a "citation".

    A different editor, Rogblr has just come by to restore some other ridiculously poorly verified content (that something is a "recognized classical dance" is here verified by a scholarship form--no joke). Interesting: note that the text that RupalDel restores here (originally added by an IP) is pretty much exactly the same as the text added by Rogblr to Indian classical dance, here. Noteworthy also is that the two editors have the exact same poor syntax in English, and both like to lard their edit summaries with double exclamation points--here is Rogblr (cussing at Spiffy, of all people) and here is RupalDel cussing at me.

    To cut a long story short: besides edit warring and 3RR, we have some personal insults, incompetence in terms of language and reliably sourcing, and socking. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

    • RupaIDel indefinitely blocked as an obvious and disruptive sock of User:Rogblr. Oh, and edit warring, no doubt. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
      • Thanks. Hey, Bbb23, Bishonen is taking over your board. What are you going to do about it? Drmies (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    She's always been a pushy sort. It's nice to see her alive and blocking kicking. It's like riding a bicycle; you never really forget how to wield those tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:185.35.164.107 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Potential superpowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    185.35.164.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "fixing errors and citations"
    2. 19:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision Antiochus the Great"
    3. 20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "There's already talk on this subject. The revert that was done, was done without talk prior, so I reverted back."
    4. 20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "NeiN, there was 15 edits done from Jan 1 to 4, there was no talk on those edits. I placed discussions on talk. I asked the edits before Jan 1 be discussed first. Editing was done in bad faith on Jan 1st and I am protecting the article"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. using TW"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    See [24] and [25] NeilN talk to me 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I placed a dicussion on talk here[26] I reverted because there was no discussion[[27]] since January 1, it was only on population. One editor moved content out and never used talk, sources were deleted and taken out without making a discussion about that content removed. Sources were removed without talk, that should be discussed first.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is exhibiting the same unconstructive behavior as User talk:62.73.7.84. The IP was using proxies (according to the administrator Acroterion) and has a history of editing under various different IP addresses. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Copied from your talk page: "Given there was no objection to the Jan 1 edit until now, it's up to you to further discuss on the talk page why your reversion improves the article and wait for other editors to weigh in." Will you do this instead of changing to your preferred version of the article a sixth time? --NeilN talk to me 21:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look, there was two editors, one changed this much with here[28]. Why isn't this person being questioned? There was no discussion what that person did? I placed a discussion on talk, I am doing the right thing by questioning and asking to use talk first. I think this article is being bullied by one editor and that isn't fair. I understand you see I reverted but please look what I am saying as well. One editor that changed this content here[29] spends about 6 to 8 hour a day on Wikipedia, that's his right but when I look at the history on this editor, they are also making article changes without using talk. There is a lot of discussion on this article and really there is not a whole of people using talk like they should but my opinion I think one editor is taking this article to another level without using talk. How do you defend that? How do you use talk when one doesn't and edits without talk?

    If you look on talk now, who replied? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Potential_superpowers which I reverted the article one hour ago, why aren't people replying this to but they revert back? Look on the talk history and see here[30] There was no discussion from Jan 1 to Jan 11? Why but when I revert back, one editor comes in to revert back the same editor that changed it without using talk? Why? Who's stepping in when that changed the content? What am I doing wrong and makes them have power over the article? --185.35.164.107 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    From User_talk:Josh3580#Potential_Superpowers_was_edited_without_talk_January_1_to_4:
    So let me get this straight. You have a problem with a previous user making changes without gaining WP:CONSENSUS, and your solution is to make changes without gaining WP:CONSENSUS? Give the discussion on the talk page some time. Putting a note in the talk page is not the same as gainingconsensus. —Josh3580talk/hist 21:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When one editor notifies the other, look the article was changed and then goes back without single discussion. Talk doesn't doesn't get the attention at all, what do you do? You can't advertise on Wikipedia, so what do you do to get people to talk? Second if the editors handing out in part of a team to edit the same without discussion what do you do there is still no discussion?
    If you look, there was two editors, one changed this much with here[31]. Why isn't this person being questioned? There was no discussion what that person did? I placed a discussion on talk, I am doing the right thing by questioning and asking to use talk first. I think this article is being bullied by one editor and that isn't fair. I understand you see I reverted but please look what I am saying as well. One editor that changed this content here[32] spends about 6 to 8 hour a day on Wikipedia, that's his right but when I look at the history on this editor, they are also making article changes without using talk. There is a lot of discussion on this article and really there is not a whole of people using talk like they should but my opinion I think one editor is taking this article to another level without using talk. How do you defend that? How do you use talk when one doesn't and edits without talk?--185.35.164.107 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding "I felt there no proof on the article was done in good faith as good sources were removed without using talk...." and then breaking WP:3RR right after is not exactly working collaboratively. I still don't know why you think your version is better. --NeilN talk to me 21:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, it is my (strong) suspicion that they are one and the same, based on behavior and exact same area of interest. I'll briefly explain the background to the situation.
    • The IP initially started editing as User talk:27.121.111.201, being disruptive and pushing for nationalist Russian POV on the Superpower article. An administrator (Acroterion) got involved -after a brief edit war- and warned the IP against his disruptive behavior, harassment and personal attacks towards me. The IP soon went silent.
    • Not long afterwards (~12 hours), another IP User talk:62.73.7.84 started stalking, harassing and reverting my edits on other articles. The Administrator Acroterion swiftly got involved and suspected that the IPs 27.121.111.201 and 62.73.7.84 were in-fact the same people (but using proxies). After continued disruptive behavior from the IP, Acroterion blocked the IP for the following reason: "I have blocked this IP, as review indicates that this IP has been used to edit-war to insert a nationalist Russian POV and to stalk the edits of another user who has been harassed in a similar fashion in recent days."
    • The latest IP, User talk:185.35.164.107, showed up as soon as the page protection at the Potential superpowers article expired, and started edit-warring for the exact same nationalist Russian POV as the earlier IP. The IP 185.35.164.107 also exhibits a similar language/writing style.
    In summary,(Wikipedia:The duck test) the same disruptive behavior, edit-warring for the same nationalist Russian POV material and the same language/writing style. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that if it's the same person, they've become a little more cautious and while they exhibit a similar POV, they aren't obviously related and have avoided stalking your edits. That's why I specifically cautioned you not to see sockpuppets under every IP, and to avoid being drawn into revert wars. Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LiberalMindset reported by User:Zero Serenity (Result: Declined)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34]
    2. [35]
    3. [36]
    4. [37]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Daily_Kos#Basic_Site_Description

    Comments:

    I've been trying to explain that a source from 2004 is not current while the owner's about page is. Daily Kos is not a democratic (as in the party) party site, but is rather a progressive mindset. After the most recent talk page allegations I suspect LM's edits are not in good faith. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined. I see any "blame" being shared fairly equally between the two of you. Both of you have reverted three times. Thus far, neither of you has violated WP:3RR. This is a content dispute and should remain on the talk page or in dispute resolution. Given your admitted bias, I don't see why an outside editor would suspect LM any more than they might suspect you of bad faith. Just focus on the content and drop the rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:109.148.147.177 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Fairytale of New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 109.148.147.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [39]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [40]
    2. [41]
    3. [42]
    4. [43]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Comments:

    The 4 reverts in the past 24 hours follow 3 reverts on 10 January 2014. The IP continues to refer to other users' edits as vandalism, despite having been told by a number of editors that this is not the case. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Joetri10 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Declined/locked)

    Page: 2014 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Joetri10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: 12 jan 2014 01:17 for Prisonermonkeys , 12 jan 2014 00:32 for Joetri10

    Diffs of the users' reverts:

    1. 12 jan 2014 06:50‎
    2. 12 jan 2014 06:53‎
    3. 12 jan 2014 06:59‎
    4. 12 jan 2014 07:01‎
    5. 12 jan 2014 07:24‎
    6. 12 jan 2014 07:38‎
    7. 12 jan 2014 07:43‎
    8. 12 jan 2014 07:54‎
    9. 12 jan 2014 08:02‎
    10. 12 jan 2014 08:44‎
    11. 12 jan 2014 9:23‎

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2014_Formula_One_season#Explanation_of_the_system_being_used

    Comments:

    Bitter edit war between two users. Prisonermonkeys has already displayed similar behavior in the past. Tvx1 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined. This matter was brought to ANI, and I locked the article. This report should not have been filed. We're done here for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think that the reported behavior is completely acceptable? The page has already been put under full protection less than a month ago as an measurement against edit warring resulting from a content dispute involving the same groups (I hate to admit that I myself was involved in the content dispute) of users as in the current content dispute. This proves that the attitudes fueling them are not temporary. I have refrained to take sides this time. I have initially given my opinion which content I prefer but have not involved myself in the bitter dispute. I have unsuccessfully tried to resolute the dispute on the Talk page by searching a compromise. Now it has descended into pure edit warring. Furthermore, if you take the time to take a look at Prisonermonkeys' talk page you will notice that the user has been reported for edit warring on 4 occasions within the last 7 months. All of this made me decide to report both users. Tvx1 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Over the Orwell reported by User:Blackberry Sorbet (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Stuart Andrew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Gavin Barwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Guto Bebb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Alan Beith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Richard Benyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Paul Beresford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Over the Orwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    1. [45]
    2. [46]
    3. [47]
    4. [48]
    5. [49]
    6. [50]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [51]
    2. [52]
    3. [53]
    4. [54]
    5. [55]
    6. [56]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [58]
    2. [59]
    3. [60]

    Comments:
    Over the Orwell originally drew attention to themselves as a possible WP:SPA targetting the page of his/her local Member of parliament, Ben Gummer ([61]; [62]). They have ignored invitations to discuss their tendentious editing of this particular BLP ([63]). Recently they added material about how this MP voted on a single issue ([64]). They then decided to select an apparently arbitrary number of coalition MP's (not all 296 MPs who voted in this way) and added the same material. This was without any context, was undue, and was without discussion or content about voting on any other issues. They have been asked to discuss their editing, editors have gone out of their way to accommodate them, and they have been warned about edit warring. The user is a net negative to the project, is disruptive, is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and their behavior indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ohconfucius reported by User:Lihaas (Result: )

    Page: Death and funeral of Ariel Sharon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [65]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [66] (and bunch of other edits that are continous
    2. [67]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68] + yesterday I said on other pages that he should discuss the removals first. Also per BRD he needs to discuss, not re-assert his being bold as in the 2nd link above.

    Comments:

    The article is under 1RR sanctions per the talk page, and it says there to report incidents here. So I followed the protocol per "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.".Lihaas (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:14.198.220.253 reported by User:DVdm (Result: )

    Page: Richard Feynman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 14.198.220.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: " I doubt Feynman himself shares this speculative POV, removed"

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. "it is not just doubt, It is so doubtful that is not worthwhile quoting." (upon my invitation "Better take your doubts to the talk page")
    2. "If an edit is legitimate, then talk it to talk page? I will confess if you can turn BRD into policy." (upon my "Then take it to the article talk page. See wp:BRD")

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Invitiations to go to article talk page in edit summaries

    Comments:

    Technically not 3RR, but behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

    DVdm (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    but behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

    Look, one quote is missing, during the discussion I didn't tell you that I refuse to talk, instead I (implicitly) ask you to present your dismay.
    So, your "but behavior clearly indicates.." indicates that you feel that I refuse to talk, then make me do it, so you can prove. I want to report you too if you waste administrator time and harass good-faith editor. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/583250/tar
    2. ^ http://www.orientalinstruments.com/oriental/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49
    3. ^ http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/583250/tar
    4. ^ http://www.orientalinstruments.com/oriental/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=590490135"