Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 01:51, 28 August 2018 (→‎User:72bikers reported by User:Waleswatcher (Result: ): Blocked 72 hours (using responseHelper)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:Zulu1963 reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Hellenistic Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Zulu1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 10:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 856236510 by MPants at work (talk) I would argue your statement is illogical. The reason the page became unstable in the first place was because the dating format was changed to BCE-CE without seeking consensus or providing an article specific reason for the change. Secondly I would point out this page has been stable since I edited it a month ago and the current instability not my doing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)"[reply]
    2. 19:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 856230706 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) The original change i.e to the BCE-CE style was done WITHOUT CONSENSUS. I am therefore changing it back to it original style prior to this. Please discuss in the talk page if you want to argue the case for BCE-CE. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)"[reply]
    3. 19:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 856085228 by SarekOfVulcan (talk)See my initial explanation regarding this issue. It should have been changed from BC-Ad in the first instance as that was its original accepted format. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)"[reply]
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC) "/* MOS:ERA */ new section"
    2. 19:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    See also Split, Croatia and the discussion on its talk page. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: User:Zulu1963 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they change the article dating unless they have previously obtained a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. Note that MOS:ERA provides, "Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change". EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:103.92.42.191 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: blocked 1 week)

    Page
    SSC Combined Graduate Level Examination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    103.92.42.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC) "Never mentioned CGL in my edit of WEBSITE LAUNCHED. [1]Undid revision 856354542 by AngusWOOF (talk)"
    2. 15:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC) "Proper Linked claim. Check citations! Undid revision 856344325 by Ravensfire (talk)"
    3. 06:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC) "You're the MORON of the Millennia ANGUSWOOF!"
    4. 06:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC) "That Link Stays, delete the Last one. Undid revision 856293256 by AngusWOOF (talk)"
    5. 05:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC) "Government websites are enough about their own delays!"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on SSC Combined Graduate Level Examination. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Including new Subsection */"
    Comments:
    • Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Page also protected for 2 days. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Idazmi reported by User:EEMIV (Result: Blocked)

    Page: USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Idazmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [2]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: In addition to the diffs below, a few days ago across a couple of days Idazmi and another editor (StarHOG (talk · contribs)) had a bout of back-and-forth about the same content -- I initially got involved supporting StarHOG's excision of most of the content, and then began working on the article as a whole. Idazmi was rejected all the other edits to restore his preferred version.

    1. [3] 11:51 23 Aug - anchor version reverted back to
    2. [4] 21:17 23 Aug - ignoring inuse banner
    3. [5] 09:12 24 Aug - refers to my good-faith edits as "vandalism"
    4. [6] 18:46 24 Aug - refers to my good-faith edits as "vandalism"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:@StarHOG: - other involved editor

    Blocked – 24 hours. Idazmi seems to have found no support for their changes on Talk. They accuse the other editors of vandalism with no justification. Wall-of-text on the talk page is not helpful for reaching agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avangion reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page
    White genocide conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Avangion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 856450058 by Wumbolo (talk). The edits follow Wikipedia guidelines. Neutral words in WP:SAID were substituted in place of the word "reported". Additional context was added for the timing of the accusations about Trump."
    2. 07:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) "/* United States */ Changed words to neutral words listed in WP:SAID. Added information about what Trump retweeted to add context."
    3. 07:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC) "The sources do not say Trump believes in white genocide, only that he believes many white farmers are being killed in South Africa."
    4. 06:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC) "Reverted to previous version. The sources cited do not describe Trump believing in the first paragraph of this wiki."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on White genocide conspiracy theory. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 08:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Trump edits */ new section"
    Comments:

    If it's not completely clear, this edit is a reversion of this edit. Other reversions are straight-forward. wumbolo ^^^ 08:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I'm not sure diff n:o 2 is a clear revert. But it doesn't matter, as Avangion has in any case made at least four reverts in the last 24 hours. This, for instance, at 04:20 — 04:30, 25 August, is a revert of one of Perspex3's recent additions. And Avangion has ignored exhortations to come to talk and discuss. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    User:201.219.249.68 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Kung Fu Panda 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    201.219.249.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    4. 15:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kung Fu Panda 3. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Khirurg reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Page protected)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [8] This is removed by Moxy on Aug 6th. The removal has been stable and unchallenged until this round of reverts.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [9] - the "strong consensus" was an informal discussion that was closed by the editor who opened it almost one year ago
    2. [10] - reverts Moxy saying there was a "binding RfC" (there wasn't)
    3. [11] - restores the same content, edit summary with personal attack
    4. [12] - same content again without significant participation in talk page discussion (which has been open since July 20th)
    5. [13] - again here continuing to revert the same content without participating in the talk page discussion.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Comments:
    This is not 3RR but the editor is continuing to revert the same content without participating on the talk page. At least three editors have expressed concern that the content is overly detailed for the lede in the discussion that has been open since July 20th. The previous informal discussion from last year (which was closed by the editor who opened it) did not resolve any kind of strong consensus on a final wording or for the entire paragraph. Between that discussion and the one currently open power~enwiki,[16], User:Dr. K.,[17], User:Moxy,[18] User:User:TU-nor [19] and myself[20] have all expressed that the current version is unsatisfactory. These editors most likely are not all talking about the same thing, but there is no consensus for the current version of the content and there was no formal close to the discussion by an uninvolved editor. As such, there is no exemption from the usual consensus process of participating in talk page discussions. What put this over the line for me was ignoring the last question I posted on talk asking for input to find a place for the sentence about Kurds and continuing to revert tclaiming there is a binding RfC. This seems like escalation for the sake of escalation. I don't want to keep reverting but most of the contributions from this editor to the discussion have been personal attacks/assumptions of bad faith [21] and reverts ignoring input from other editors/claiming a binding RfC (where there isn't one) [22].Seraphim System (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I'm not sure which of the two versions I prefer. This may be better suited to WP:DRN than this board; I haven't looked just now but I don't think there is a clear consensus for what should be in the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have stated that I think there is too much detail in the current presentation. That does certainly not mean that I support to remove the whole paragraph. On the contrary, I think the mention in the lede of Kurds as a large minority is pertinent and important. If you are not happy with earlier discussiona, how about opening a RfC yourself? --T*U (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I think this can be resolved without an RfC by discussion on the talk page. As you said early in the discussion, an RfC question has to be formulated carefully. Based on the discussion I don't have a clear RfC question yet. I agree with you that Kurds being a large minority should be mentioned. The last question I asked was where it should be added, because that seems to be the part that most editors are agreed on including. The point of RfC is to request comment on disputes that actually exist on the talk page, not guesses based on year old comments from editors who are not actively participating. If we can reach agreement on that, an RfC won't be necessary. If there is a dispute about what else to include, it may be. But we aren't there yet, and it is only one editor who continues to revert without participating in the discussion (plus personal attacks, etc.) Seraphim System (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Frivolous, bad-faith report by editor with unclean hands [23] [24] [25], a long history of edit-warring, and a correspondingly rich block log [26]. Two of the diffs are from August 20, almost a week ago, in a dispute with another user that was since resolved. There is a long-standing consensus to include the important Kurdish minority in the lede of this article per this discussion here [27]. This user on the other hand is hell-bent on removing the mention of the Kurdish minority in the lede, and has been at it for months [28]. This report is merely their latest system-gaming attempt to win the content dispute, this through block-fishing. Consider WP:BOOMERANG Khirurg (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In a further indication of the level of credibility of this user, they say I have not been participating at the talkpage. This is patently untrue [29] - I had just happened to have stepped out and didn't get back in until now. However, my attemtps at discussing have been met with WP:IDHT and WP:LAWYER. Khirurg (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And if it wasn't already obvious this is bad-faith, WP:GAME block-fishing, this user left a 3RR template on my talkpage [30] and then filed the report 6 minutes later [31]. What's the point of warning someone if you have the report already ready to be filed? It's a clear indication that this user was just going through the motions and technicalities so they could file the report which they had already drawn up. As clear an attempt of WP:GAME as could be. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since that first edit to the article we have had discussions where multiple editors have offered input and I generally have agreed that Kurds should be mentioned. I also agree that the "largest minority" language should be kept. This is because I'm capable of changing my mind and using talk pages to have civil discussion to try to reach a consensus. More to the point about conduct, even power~enwiki, who opened the discussion last November, and closed it, has said here I don't think there is a clear consensus for what should be in the lead but even after that you commented again on the talk page (only after this complaint was filed) [32] arguing There is a clear consensus to include this material in the lede. That is not engaging with the substantive arguments being made on the talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sure, you "agree that the Kurds should be mentioned", so that's why you are edit-warring like mad to remove them. For months now [33]. Saying one thing and doing another. And then you talk about "engaging with substantive arguments". WP:BOOMERANG. Khirurg (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected indefinitely. @Khirurg: I'm tempted to block you for personal attacks, though it's clear this is a content dispute and you're both in the wrong for repeatedly reverting rather than attempting to resolve the dispute through formal methods. Swarm ♠ 09:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Colonestarrice reported by wolf (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

    Page: Vice President of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Colonestarrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [34]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [35]
    2. [36]
    3. [37]
    4. [38]
    5. [39]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

    Diff of 3RRNB notice on user talk page: [42]

    Comments:
    Straight forward 4RR vio; 5 revert/edits to the same content in 26 hours, the last 4 edits are within 16 hours. This is despite 3 different editors all repeatedly advising this user of BRD and encouraging him to go to the talk page and discuss. This is not the first time for this kind of behavior, or difficulties collaborating. User just came off a self-req indef block 3 days ago. - wolf 06:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Discussion seems to have been initiated on the talk page. Hopefully the user will engage there. Swarm ♠ 09:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:BrightR (Result: )

    Page: Ogopogo (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: 856504931

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 856504931
    2. 856568355
    3. 856605144

    Diff of edit warring warning: 856747712, 856721553

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 849150001

    Comments:

    First, Beyond My Ken will again claim I'm hounding him. The clear indication that this is not hounding is "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", which is what I'm doing. For example I did this with other editors who posted their own research in blatant conflict-of-interests across multiple articles.

    Beyond My Ken is participated in discussions of established community consensus on a wider scale in several topics. These discussions are reflected in RfCs, guidelines, and policies. For example tag placement, image placement, and sourcing pop-culture examples.

    Beyond My Ken chooses to edit-war on these topics, against community consensus. He reverts with the ownership-indicating reasons of "better before", "status quo", and others. Some examples: Otto von Bismarck, Nazi Germany, striptease, lap dance, toplessness, and going back ten years of edit-warring to force his own style against consensus. Some examples with my involvement: exhibitionism, swastika, leggings, Irvington, New York.

    Recent block and repeated 3RR violations:

    Beyond My Ken was recently unblocked at the recommendation of administrators TonyBallioni, Fish and karate, Dlohcierekim, and Bishonen after edit-warring on holocaust denial. He then violated 3RR on another article, but was let off the hook. Similarly he frequently manages to avoid blocks despite "long term pattern" of article ownership.

    This is a recurring, long term, frequent tendency to edit-war, and I didn't even mention some of his other-than-edit-warring disruptions. Bright☀ 13:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean if Beyond My Ken said you were hounding them, they might be able to demonstrate some evidence of that lately [43] Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The link to sourcing on pop culture additions goes to a RfC from three years ago that "in popular culture" lists do need sources that not only show that an entry actually exists but that it is significant in relation to the subject. Is BMK still adding unreferenced trivia to articles? Completely unacceptable if so.Smeat75 (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs in this are related to tag placement, moving a "more references needed" from the top to the reflist section repeated, but the 2015 RFC appearently had a clear conclusion that these type of messages should be at the top. BMK's attitude in the talk page discussion to resolve shows they are not likely going to follow this RFC result. --Masem (t) 13:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have removed Ogopogo from my watch list, and will no longer edit it, in perpetuity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) from the diffs, I can see 1 2 and 3 reverts to relocate a template and beyond 24 hours period. WP:3RR is not violated as such. This is a silly judgement on both parties to keep reverting. Talk it out on the talk page guys. If hounding is an issue, post it on WP:ANI with evidence, claiming hounding without solid evidence is a WP:PA. no comments on other articles. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there is no 3RR vio and BMK has already bowed out, this can probably be closed with no action. Swarm ♠ 22:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gabriel HM reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [44]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [45]
    2. [46]
    3. [47]
    4. [48]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

    Comments:
    It deleted my comments for some reason when I posted. I also want to note that the user is not just disregarding the fact they are editing against consensus, nor are they disregading the recently started RfC, they are also mis-characterizing editors who disagree with them as vandals. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: they are now up to their fifth revert. [51] Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ETA: That was only a partial revert and it was just re-inserting a reference, not commentary so it might not count. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See User talk:PaleoNeonate#Poodles and User talk:Doug Weller#your constant cancellations on the poodle article. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also seeUser_talk:Simonm223#Revert_proper_edit Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    10,000 byte rant by blocked user

    Gabriel HM: Dear arbitration commity since this is the first time that have to deal with such a procedure, please be indulgent in my defensive request. First of all please let me put some of the exchanges of the subject to lighten you on that matter: But in a nutshell, this contributor keeps erasing the fact that in the section of the origin of the poodle I states with many ref that 93 countries out of 100 kennel members including France and Germany state that the poodle is of French descends. I never ever cancelled the ref of my opponent that use the refs of the only three kennels club, theA KC, theAKC and the ukc stating that the poodle comes from Germany. I always let the two version available on the article. I really don’t understand why this well documented fact represents such a threat for them to keep erasing the sentences and some of the ref.

    Exchange with :The user User talk:Doug Weller, keeps deleting all the overwhelming references stating that the poodle is of French origin. Not the 95 countries members of the FCI, nor the history of the breed, and neither the official statement made by Germany in 1936 when the country joined the FCI (the main international dog association) stating that the poodle is solely a French breed is enough for him. It looks like he is in cruisade against the French origin of this dog as if being French was a shame.... for encyclopaedic purpose I let the assertion saying that only three kennel club worldwide, the akc, the ckc and the English kennel club are stating the opposite. But he can’t erase the fact that the rest of the kennel clubs are stating the poddle as a French breeed. He is acting like a censor that erases all the pertinents info that displeases him. For god sake, this is an article about the poodle and its origins, we are not dealing with any political or sensitive issues. Even the German article states the poodle as being French origin and cancelled his previous edits on this matter. I am tired to keep replacing the correct and documented info in the article. S’il aime tant les races allemande qu’il se concentre sur les spitz ou autres schnauzers...--Gabriel HM (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The same users cancelled again the edits and threaten me of blockage, even though he his the one keeping erasing the well documented facts of the article. He is acting like a bully that does not use the talk page, threat the contributors and ignore simple plain documented facts. This is not the proper way to act in Wikipedia. The threats, and the cancelation by force should not be admitted. I am a member for several years without any problems, I have always be patient and understanding but his actions are more related to threat and intimidation and “passage en force” than anything else. On dirait que le simple fait de dire que 95 pays reconnaissent le caniche comme race française le rende dingue et s’évertue systématiquement à l’effacer et me menacer en plus de POV alors que c’est lui qui s’obstine sans aucune discussion à effacer des faits avérés. Please intervene to stop this constant threat against my edits. Cordialement --Gabriel HM (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And with the other “contributor:bHi, on the poodle page you have reverted 2 factual documented ref. Before doing so, you must explain why the fact that saying the 93 countries out 100,are recognising the poodle as a French breed is none of interest. Motive your cancelation on factual, scientific and probant ref. Furthermore why have you cancelled the ref from the America’s. Kennel club saying that the Bichon is descending from the Barbet and thus the poodle? Did you at least took the time to read the ref or just cancelled it by dogmatism? before engaging in a POV? Otherwise this is just vandalism. Prove that my ref are wrong, not pertinent and let’s go to an arbitration commity. This is childish and absolutely not in the compliance with the wiki rules. This is absolutely ludicrous to try to prevent by any mean to let in the article the fact that the overwhelming countries worlwide are considering the poodle as a french breed especially in the origin section of the breed I can't believe that all this mess is for this sentence which is by the way right, pertinent and documented I would add that erasing a ref stating that the poodle descends from the Barbet in not in accordance with the rule of wiki relating to the veracity of the info--Gabriel HM(talk) 16:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Well, let’s go to the arbitration commity and we’ll see who is keeping erasing pertinent, documented and neutral references. We’ll discusse how you have erased another ref from the american kennel club stating that the bichonn descends from the Barbet and thus the poodle. Let’s got to the arbitration committee and we’ll see who is not their right by keeping erasing the simple sentence That 93 counties worldwide asserts that the poddle is a French breed. If you are not afraid to make them lose their time, let’s go and expose your actions. There is a absolutly nothing wrong in this assertion especially that I never EVER cancelled the refs of the other contributor contrary to him. As far as I am concerned, the one that keeps erasing the ref of the article is not me. So if you wish, let’s go to the commity, and we’ll se what they think about your threats and perpétuel cancelation of a simple facts. Two man does not make the reality nor the truth. --Gabriel HM (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC) I never ever had any issue with any contributor by the past during t’ose 4 years, and I really really can understand of the fact to say with solid ref, that 93 countries in the world recognise the poodlevas à French breed can lead to an arbitration commity.this is a waist of time for you guys and intake it as personnalisable unfair, because ingphave always contributed with the greater respects for my fellow contrinpbutor, took the time to find the proper and factual ref and facts, and I never ever tried to erase or cancel the pertinent edits of the others. Seriously what can lead someone to persecute me and erase and threat me for this simple sentence that is right and factual.[reply]

    Another intervention to find a solution with another contributor that through the arbitration comity Is following:

    @PaleoNeonate:, please as ludicrous as it might be can you intervene in the subject of the poodle breed. They keep erasing proper and factual facts. I never ever touched they ref nor depreciated their assertions. Why on earth stating that the majority of the kennel clubs worldwide describe the poodle as a French breed intice systematic cancelation with threats. Since when accurate, pertinent and documented facts are CENSURED? My contributions does nort harm nor decredite any of their assertion, and this just pure intimidation and edit warring without real justification. Thank you --Gabriel HM (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And in a nutshell thisthe object of their obsession it is this sentence that is well documented “On the other hand the origin of the poodle is disputed amongst only 3 countries out of 95 worldwide [1]. The British Kennel Club states that the breed originates in Germany,[2]. Does this pertinent and we’ll documented sentence deserves this avalanche of cancelation and threat of an arbitration commity. Since when the,susceptibility of some contributors can overcome the reality of facts. I never ever altered their ref, so why are on a cruisade for this rightful affirmation. All of this does not deserve your time nor your attention. Thanks you for your time, and please forgive me for my English I am not a native speaker--Gabriel HM (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://www.fci.be/fr/members/
    2. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

    User:Nicomachian reported by User:Lorstaking (Result: )

    Page: University of Chicago Law School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nicomachian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    There hasn't been 4 reverts in 24 hours, nor I would wait for that because this editor is an WP:SPA who is focused on edit warring to retain his WP:BROCHURE on this article.

    He continues to edit war[52] even after receiving a warning for that.[53]

    He believes his promotional content needs to be retained because he has spent a lot of time writing it than adhering WP:BRD and WP:NPOV. His recent talk page message further confirms he is not willing to write neutrally.[54]

    This article was put under ECP by Kudpung on 9 May,[55] because of this SPA who avoids discussion of any of his edits as evident on the talk page itself.[56] After 1 month of ECP, this SPA returned and started his edit warring again.[57] This page has been evidently subject to similar promotional edits before.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58][59] (both times I was the one to start discussion)

    Comments:

    Since there can be no reason to protect the page to retain his WP:PROMO version, I would say that this editor needs to self-revert himself and consider reading WP:BROCHURE and WP:NPOV before making any more edits. A better alternative is to put this article under ECP for another time. Lorstaking (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • By OP's own admission there's no 3RR violation here, it seems Lorstaking has been on a one-person mission to defend this article against Nicomachian's edits, citing what Lorstaking has decided is promotional. It should be noted that Lorstaking was the first to revert in this dispute and only did so after three months of Nicomachian working on it, did so in a single 25kb revert, and continues to revert to that version even after the page has been full-protected. There's been some discussion on the talk page, in which most editors seem to be of the opinion that the edits were not so unduly promotional as to warrant Lorstaking's mass revert actions. I'd be interested in hearing what WP:RSN has to say about the sources being used, as a next step to determining whether or not the edits should be retained, rather than edit warring and blocking. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no 100% necessity to report only after 3RR violation. It seems that you have now planned to follow me wherever I go but you need to stop this harassment. It is completely misleading to say that I reverted after "three months" because Nicomachian made his first edit on 6 May[60] and I reverted him on 7 May,[61] there is no "three months" gap but less than one day. This is an SPA who's main focus is to edit war and retain his WP:BROCHURE and he is doing that since his first edit ever.[62] Even if his brochure was 50k bytes it has to be completely removed from here. I should not even highlight that a number of edits made by this editor are not even supported by the source, including the infobox edits which echoes that he has WP:COI with the subject, though I am just assuming good faith for now. Lorstaking (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not assuming good faith at all, you assumed they're editing promotionally (in bad faith) and then all your arguments of wrongdoing are based on that assumption. The diff you provided for "confirms he is not willing to write neutrally" is the editor appealing for you to actually review the source, which they assert is journalistically independent of the subject, a concept that's normal for university presses. That's why I suggested you should try having that source reviewed at RSN, as that does seem to be the core of the dispute. And if their edits are not supported by the sources they're providing, then yes, absolutely you should mention that, why would you not? And yes, I agree that the editor is likely in a COI position, and perhaps has an undisclosed relationship. I'll follow up on that.
    As for your accusation that I'm hounding you, that seems a bit hyperbolic. Another editor mentioned the poodle edit war to me as an example of silliest edit wars, while reviewing that I happened to notice it was on this page (section directly above, unless it's been archived), and I was reading through that when I saw your name here. I had also noticed earlier today that you queried Kudpung about this same page (I watch a lot of admins' talk pages), and I had opined yesterday (after being pinged) that I think you're making a habit of admin-shopping when you don't get your way and warned you about it, and so when I saw you had raised the same issue here as on Kudpung's page I decided to have a look and offer my input. To be fair to you, I had not noticed that Kudpung directed you to make a request at RFPP and I don't know if you did; like I said you really weren't on my radar until I saw your name here. Other than that, our only interaction was at SPI, where I'm a clerk. I'm not following you around, you just have happened to keep appearing in places I look over the last few days. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can see how the user’s edits come across at first glance to be promotional, but there’s also positive changes made to the article such as long overdue updates. I’m not entirely convinced that it is appropriate to fully revert them as a spammer. Why don’t you attempt to restore their changes and remove only the bits you think are blatantly promotional? Even if you think other content should be removed for other reasons after, start with that. If they are unwilling to tolerate even restrained attempts to remove promotional content, then that would be a clear problem and clear evidence to block them for promotion. But, it’s also possible they’re just a proud alumnus or student with a slight bias that’s reflected in their editing or something. If that’s the case, then you’re reverting good faith edits that somebody spent a lot of time on. I get where you’re coming from, but I’m inclined to agree that it’s hard to definitively tell who’s in the wrong here. Swarm ♠ 20:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see they claim they have no connection to the subject and are just an admirer; this would explain why their edits come across as being positive, and that does not make them a spammer. This would best be dealt with if you stopped blanket reverting and separated their positive edits from the problematic ones. Swarm ♠ 20:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Samsonsegg reported by User:Justlettersandnumbers (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/855864974

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/856810424

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/856814299

    Comments:

    Please see also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tim Flach. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • This user strikes me as an SPA whose only purpose here is to promote Tim Flach, and I'm inclined to block indef. Requesting a second opinion. Swarm ♠ 22:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2409:4070:2213:3615:ec69:d5c5:270f:ac3b reported by User:Hwertyu (Result: )

    Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
    User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Adams&diff=prev&oldid=856855980 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Abrams&diff=prev&oldid=856855881. This IP address belongs to disruptive editor user:Bonadeaphone . https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Abb%C3%A9ma&diff=prev&oldid=856855835,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Adams&diff=prev&oldid=856855980,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Abrams&diff=prev&oldid=85685588

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

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

    Comments:

    User:72bikers reported by User:Waleswatcher (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page: Mass shootings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 72bikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [63]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [64]
    2. [65]
    3. [66]
    4. [67]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69] [70] [71]

    Comments:


    72bikers has previously been restricted and blocked for edits on gun-related pages. For instance see the first entry on [72], the current case on the DS notice board here, and the 1RR on gun control articles imposed by User:NeilN here.

    Edit warring seems to be an ongoing pattern, and what's worse is a continuing refusal to accept the norms of wikipedia editing. 72bikers continually makes edits that are ungrammatical, poorly formatted, riddled with errors, and simply confusing to the reader. When challenged, they post walls of text [73] [74], aggressively berate other editors [75] [76], and generally display battleground behavior. They have forbidden other editors from posting on their talk page [77] [78], which creates a situation where their behavior can only be discussed on talk pages (where it doesn't really belong) or on noticeboards like this one. Personally, I think a topic ban is due. (I also posted this at the AE board). Waleswatcher (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours @Waleswatcher: I don't see how the first diff you list is a revert. However, both this and this are reverts, in the same 24-hour interval, so that's nevertheless five reverts. Bishonen | talk 01:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=856869150"