Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Merphee reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Stale)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Original four reverts from previous report.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

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

Comments:
Merphee has broken 3RR twice before, once warned and once blocked. About 24 hours after the last incident, the duration of the block, they have begun to make the same revert edits again. Notifying Swarm, the admin who resolved the previous report. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is complete rubbish Onetwothreeip and I served my block. And I had no intention of reverting you again today. Apology to administrators for posting this here as well as under the last notice. You and PeterTheFourth were both Wikipedia:Tag teaming and edit warring. Multiple editors have agreed and have made comments. It aint just me who's observed it. It's there in front of anyone who cares to read the thread. Here are just a few other editor's assessment of their daylight tag teaming, bad faith editing and edit warring. This one [8] and another editor's same conclusion here for the edit warring and bad faith and provocative edit made during the discussion [9] and here [10] and [11] and then here from yet another editor, saying how they thought it odd that the notifier PeterTheFourth, was also clearly edit warring and each of us should have received a block [12]. I mean it was absolute classic tag teaming no doubt about it. Twice. Two weeks apart. I've served my block, which was fair enough because I breached the 3RR rule. But why are these two tag teamers getting away with their tag teaming to circumvent the normal process of consensus by coordinating their actions to sidestep the 3RR policy? And if no sanctions are applied to these editor's edit warring, further disruption and a compromised article will continue on Talk:The Australian as they both have now jammed in a bold bad faith edit right in the middle of the 'consensus building process'. Not cool. I have made this edit today [13] over at Talk:The Australian to help us move toward a long term resolution to this ongoing debate and one that another editor has pointed out has been going on for 10 years. ::However before a resolution can be reached can sanctions be applied to Onetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth @Swarm:? Merphee (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here is Onetwothreeip edit warring once again @Swarm:. Thankfully another civil minded editor has just put a stop to it and restored the article to the version it was before Onetwothreeip/PeterTheFourth jammed in their contentious preferred version in bad faith. [14]. I was certainly NOT going to revert Onetwothreeip so I'm glad they did. Onetwothreeip also refuses to discuss the possibility of using dispute resolution which I've suggested multiple times or tell other editors if they are in support of a very reasonable proposal made by another editor earlier this month. Here is my latest attempt to try and resolve this long term dispute over at the talk page [15]. Merphee (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this, reverted the reporting user, and generally endorse the equally persistent reported user (except the 3RR, for which they have already been blocked). The reporting user shows more interest in 'discussion', which continues well after the matter is resolved and consensus is found. I regard the contributions I am aware of as edit warring, vindictive and drama-mongering. I am not aware of significant improvements they may have made to other content, I am merely speaking about the contributions I am aware of, which seem to avoid legitimate content and favour solutions that keep the discussion going. cygnis insignis 11:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with that assessment of Merphee but more importantly they clearly believe that a sanction for breaking 3RR is merely the price one pays for making repeated reverts when they feel it necessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your tag-teaming buddy has a mouth on him Cygnis insignis Let me be brief - consulting a thesaurus and switching every second word to a synonym makes you look stupid, not smart. I've tried to be nice about this habit of yours - just stop it. PeterTheFourth 11:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC) twenty minutes ago cygnis insignis 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stale Looking at the most recent contributions, Merphee has stopped reverting and is discussing on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: and @Ritchie333: the edit war is continuing at The Australian. Today Pinkbeast has reverted 3 times within a half hour here [16], here [17] and here [18]. I assume if I had not withdrawn from trying to restore the status quo at least while we try and discuss the edit they are trying to jam in against consensus, Pinkbeast would not have stopped reverting. The tag team comprising Pinkbeast, PeterTheFourth and Onetwothreeip refuse to engage in constructive consensus building or answer me when I've politely asked if they would like to use dispute resolution. They are forming an active and obvious tag team to circumvent. There is certainly no consensus for a single label of The Australian. This edit is therefore made in bad faith. Multiple editors have opposed any single descriptor/label and this is obvious to any editor who reads the month long discussion on the talk page. There has also been some extremely nasty and insulting comments made by PeterTheFourth toward another editor which is beyond uncivil. This comment [19] is entirely unacceptable and I'm asking an administrator at least ask PeterTheFourth to stop this type of abuse toward a good faith editor. Much bullying and intimidation typical of a tag team actively operating at this article page. Merphee (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Merphee: You won't tell us what your objections are to the content, you just keep claiming there isn't consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

warming

The games continue. This article was more or less stable for years, and now it's a hotbed of editors trying to stay one jump ahead of 3RR. I'd like to see someone take a look at a random recent week, count up the reverts various editors are making, and chuck them out of the game. For some reason, they don't want to talk about journalism and wikiprocess, they want the article to say one set of two words over another set, and the continuing nonsense is disruptive. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian is now fully protected three days by User:Jayjg. It would be surprising if nobody can find a large set of opinions from middle-of-the-road sources as to the political position of The Australian. If people object to summarizing its views as 'right wing' then maybe a more detailed and nuanced description is possible. Charges of tag-teaming (as above) aren't very believable when the topic by its nature is likely to attract strong opinions from numerous editors. The topic seems open to the collection of a broader set of sources and to more effort at summarizing them carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:RuthSmith95 reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: 09:23, 26 March 2019‎ (I am already at 3 reverts so I am showing the last good version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:23, 26 March 2019

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

Comments:

The user is also treating 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs, Stanley Cup playoffs, and File:NFL100th.png as a battleground. This might not be the place, but it appears that this user is the same person as Ruth Smith 101 (talk · contribs) (simply looking at the user page it is evident that it is the same person since both user pages have the same content) and the disruptive pattern is evident in both users' edits. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The reported user has moved its old user to a new namespace by itself, which I believe is forbidden. In addition, reversions are continuing at File:NFL100th.png when the wrong and obsolete logo is reinstated. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly something strange going on with user and talk pages. The original talk page now seems to be User talk:Ruth Smith 95, and there is a redirect at User talk:Ruth Smith 101. That certainly complicates the User: and User talk: namespaces, having pages around without corresponding accounts. It also happens to lose the edit history for the user's talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the editing history of the original user and the reported user, I assume that he/she just is not competent enough to be here. RuthSmith95 was created several hours after Ruth Smith 101's last edit, which indicates that user might have wanted to have a clean start, but there are bigger problems than that. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to get this user to discontinue their behavior after they had confronted me on my talk page in regards to their edits being reverted. I gave them a simple explanation based on what I believe (not sure if my ~~reason meets the standards of those that participate on the WikiProject:Ice Hockey page~~ explanation would be an actual reason that a participant on the WikiProject:Ice Hockey page would provide an inexperienced user with). But, it seems that my explanation appears to have made the user "understand" (for now) the reason for their edits being reverted. Yowashi (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user pages are now again at User:Ruth Smith 101 and User talk:Ruth Smith 101. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and also at User:RuthSmith95 and User talk:RuthSmith95! --T*U (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. This user has two accounts, though they appear to have stopped using Ruth Smith 101 (talk · contribs) as of March 9. The moves of their user page are confusing. It sems that Anthony has straightened those out. It would be helpful if RuthSmith95 (talk · contribs) would communicate more on talk pages. And stop edit warring, of course. EdJohnston (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Epipelagic, User:Velella, User:Anna Frodesiak, User:Geoffreyrabbit reported by User:Ɱ (Result: No violation)

Page: Fish as food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
Epipelagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Velella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Geoffreyrabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

List of diffs. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Special:Diff/876004325 Special:Diff/876136767 Special:Diff/876287567 Special:Diff/876288759 Special:Diff/876416605 Special:Diff/876434476 Special:Diff/876454269 Special:Diff/876454320 Special:Diff/876454526 Special:Diff/876702240 diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, link 2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Fish as food#Lead image

Comments:
I recommend protecting Fish as food and perhaps even a topic ban for these users displaying WP:OWN over the lede image. There has been a complete breakdown in communication between editors here, with completely no regard for each other, and almost a month full of edit warring here by multiple users, spanning from December 30 to March 26. Only Anna Frodesiak had actually used the talk page, a little late, on January 4. None of these other users had even commented until I attempted to stop the edit warring and resume discussions on talk. $ɱ$ (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's always fascinating when an otherwise rational editor says they attempted to "stop the edit warring" by... wait for it... edit warring themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected the page for 24 hours to stop the warring. The discussion at the talk page looks promising and I suggest that all parties (including Ɱ, who has dived in head first and joined the war themselves) cool down and discuss the thing rationally there and come to a consensus. Other than that I don't see any need for action. Most of the edits concerned were 1-2 months ago. — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chill, I merely wanted to return to what I had found was consensus and have everyone take it to talk, and warned of escalation if you all continued edit warring. Epipelagic especially shows signs of OWNership of this article, having even been reverting users over the lead image in 2014, and hadn't even discussed this on the talk page once before I really had to go in and stop nearly a month of edit warring.

ɱ

(talk) 15:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What rubbish you talk ɱ. Go and find something useful to do. – Epipelagic (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No violation. @Ɱ: This report is an abuse of process at a minimum. If I see you do it again, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see how many diffs there are there? There was no discussion going on for months, it was pretty blatant edit warring. Don't attack me for utilizing the proper channels to stop this, and don't threaten me.

ɱ

(talk) 18:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And clearly even though you have a nice little AN3 template, you're incorrect, Amakuru already found a violation and thus protected the page. Stop attacking me, take Epipelagic's advice and go find something useful to do.

ɱ

(talk) 18:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do tell, how reporting clear back-and-forth between users' preferred images, with little-to-no use of the talk page even is "an abuse of process"?!? That's literally textbook edit warring.

ɱ

(talk) 18:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, between 1 February and 24 March, there had been 1 (ONE) revert by 1 of the four named editors. Then, Ɱ starts edit warring, reverting to a version of 5 January which had stood for less than 2 hours, without at that time even having joined the talk page discussion. When reverted, they again revert to their preferred version, with edit summary "Longstanding consensus version. Now that this is in a talk page discussion, please let's discuss. Any further actions and I will pursue blocks and page protection for edit warring." The version they reverted to was not a longstanding consensus version though, this is the version from before the edit war of January. They made similar claims at the talk page discussion: "Stop edit warring and do not keep adding back your favored image over the longstanding image, ignoring my and others' warnings." They are berating Anna Frodesiak on their talk page, clearly without knowing or understanding anything of the history and of what steps Anna took. I would support a final warning for Ɱ that any similar reports in the future will lead to a block. This is a frivolous, uninformed, time-wasting exercise where their own actions are the main cause of the current problems. Fram (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see 32 different edits back and forth as not edit warring, okay. But I took this here to stop it literally right after my final warning to stop edit warring. The image they were pushing was not the longstanding consensus version (neither was the one I added back, but it appears none have that much consensus behind it). Literally, once again, AN fails me and perpetuates the system of blaming those who report others. Really freaking sad.

ɱ

(talk) 12:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said that there wasn't an edit war in January. However, that edit war had long since ended, until you restarted it with false claims about consensus versions or longstanding images (which you now at least admit was a false claim). 3 of the 4 people you dragged to ANEW had not edited the page the last two months, and you had not made any effort to discuss this before you decided to revert to a disputed version. Basically, you first restarted a long-finished edit war, you did this with incorrect claims of consensus and the like, you then started warning people for behaviour you continued just as much, and then you dragged people here even when they had done nothing remotely wrong in the last 2 months; and then you are surprised that people are not applauding your action? If you don't want to receive blame for your report here, then think about what you report here and who you drag here. The first line at the top of this page is "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.": you reported three inactive edit warriors who had no recent violations of any rule, and one editor who reverted socks and one user who was basically for that sock, you. What you could have done was ask for page protection (though this was hardly needed before you stepped in), and/or preferably join the discussion on the talk page. Everything else was just stirring up trouble, causing a lot of wasted time, an unnecessary protection of the page, and unhappy editors. Fram (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Otaku 48 reported by User:Debiit (Result: Indef blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

The user shows an obsessive fanaticism towars the person and keeps adding irrelevant/unreferenced information, even after warning. The article is about a living person, but the user adds information and facts about the band which the artist used to be part of. Not to mention that adding "half asian, half white" is not only totally inappropriate for Wiki standars, but for the person himself. Debiit (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User had not been specifically warned about 3RR. I just warned them. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved to indef them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:91.169.1.118 reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: Semi)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk-page situation started in a bad place, with an IP editor promising to go around the community consensus by reinstating material that had been found unsuitable. I replied, trying to strike a firm note without being confrontational, though my impatience doubtless showed through. The anon IP came back with a demand, which I tried in good faith to meet, despite being pretty confident it would be pointless. And indeed, despite my evaluating a whole heap of spurious sources, they claimed in an edit summary that I don't want to discuss on Talk page. Believe me, I'd rather be having a cordial chat over there than making a report here, but I don't think any further conversation there would be cordial at all. And since I was warned for edit warring by a diligent page patroller, I recognize that my exasperation might well lead me over the line on this one, so I'd rather take it to a noticeboard. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and over on Talk:Bimetric gravity, the anon IP has accused me of vandalizing the page out of a personal vendetta. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
An anonymous IP-jumping editor has been trying to own the page bimetric gravity, so much so that an AfD had to decide whether the article could be salvaged from their promotionalism. I requested community input from WikiProject Physics, but the anon IP kept pushing their edits before a discussion could even begin. They edited, with a misleading edit summary; I reverted; they went on to revert again. That is, in a nutshell, what WP:BRD says not to do.

Other IPs that I strongly suspect resolve to the same individual: 145.242.20.220, 80.214.73.185, 80.215.96.179, 80.215.97.25 and 80.215.224.16. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And also 2A04:CEC0:1052:2832:4259:8326:B8E:44AE. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:Dlohcierekim. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick Thorne reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: No violation)

If discussion needs to continue, it should do so on the article talk page. User:Black Kite has now fully protected the article for three days. Consider opening an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

~~Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page~~ Diff of talk page discussion: [36]

Comments:
I know that 3RR hasn't technically been violated, but it's clear that the user isn't going to stop. Of course, I could have restored the original version first and waited for the edit to get reverted, but I don't see much point in doing that.

As to the talk page, one user (user:Nunh-huh) has proposed the change, and two more users (me and user:1990'sguy) have agreed to make the change, while no one has objected. Furthermore, it is a clear grammatical error, which is not too hard to spot, and which I have explained twice in my edit summaries. I have then implemented this change and added the word "thus". However, Nick Thorne kept reverting the edit without starting a discussion on the talk page, and when the discussion was eventually started, after 3 reverts, it just told me to justify the change ([37]) and insisted there was no error.

I believe these reverts were definitely not made in good faith, as my version is also acceptable (in that it doesn't have any grammatical errors in them), and a good-faith editor would never start edit-warring over an acceptable edit, especially such an insignificant one. However, even if they were, they were still not constructive and persistent, which is why I believe Nick Thorne should get a temporary ban.^Ol^Ja 12:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Firstly, I have not violated 3RR and I clearly indicated on the talk page that I would not. The OP posted this report while I was writing my last response on the talk page here. My reverst have had edit summaries explaining why they were being made and pointing the OP to the talk page. Their responses have been cambatitive. The diff for the "Attempt to resolve dispute" was to a discussion I was not even involed in. The reporting editor's recent history on the page in question shows a pattern of battleground behaviour and disputes with multiple editors. If anyone is involved in an edit war it is them. This is all I have to say on this subject. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No violation. I note the comment "one user (user:Nunh-huh) has proposed the change, and two more users (me and user:1990'sguy) have agreed to make the change, while no one has objected". Even a cursory look at the talkpage would reveal this to be flat-out false. At least four other editors apart from Nick Thorne (User:Roxy the dog, User:Rhododendrites, User:Doug Weller and User:Dave souza) have objected to all or some of your various changes. I would strongly suggest that you go back to that talk page and try to form a consensus for your edits, rather than attempting to edit-war them into the article without one. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Thanks for your explanation. However, you are misunderstanding the gist of this report: yes, I have failed to reach a concensus on my original proposal, which did not even concern the clause I am addressing in this report, instead concerning the following clause. For this reason, I have not tried to implement the change I have proposed. However, concerning the clause 'which rejects...' and the change to 'and rejects...', there was only one small discussion, which involved only three editors, me, 1990'sguy, and Nunh-huh. The following comment in that discussion addressed my original proposal, not the proposal addressed in this report. Please reconsider your conclusion.^Ol^Ja 13:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More falsities, this is not what the change was at all. this revert was for a change that was not trivial at all, it changed the meaning of the whole sentence with some bogus imaginary grammar error as the justification. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Nunh-huh, "Change "which" to "and", and problem solved". Not sure if you are trolling or not.^Ol^Ja 13:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on there with this edit the OP has changed his original post after I had replied to it, in direct contradiction of the norms of behaviour on Wikipedia. This is not acceptable. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that this is not allowed, and if give me a link to a Wikipedia policy which says that such behaviour is indeed prohibited, I will restore the original proposal. The edit was done with the sole intent of clarfication.^Ol^Ja 13:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:REDACT - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All this talk from James about "trolling" and grammar no better than a ten-year old is unhelpful. User:Rhododendrites only s few minutes ago suggested to James that he try to get consensus and not edit war. Good advice. There really is no need to continue this conversation here in a report which should never have been made. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, looks like the OP is at 4RR now. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wasn't a revert. Instead, I copied exactly what one of the reverters of my edit (Rhododendtrites) proposed on the talk page. See WP:BRD#Use cases.^Ol^Ja 16:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldstone James: FYI, that would still be a revert. You should probably reread the comment by Rhododendrites that you are relying on: "James, an article like this can indeed be a slog to make even minor edits sometimes, and I dare say you'd have a much better time of it if you did take pains to find consensus on the talk page first and refrained from edit warring." Seems like good advice. --Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: Actually no, that wouldn't be a revert at all, but I appreciate your desire to help.^Ol^Ja 02:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldstone James: WP:REVERT Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion. --Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: Which is exactly what I haven't done, and instead used Rhododendrites's version. I won't reply to any of your further comments as this has already turned into a WP:WALL OF TEXT. If you want to continue this discussion, leave me a message on my talk page.^Ol^Ja 02:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wikiedro reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: No violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Series of 2 edits:
1. 13:47, 27 March 2019 review for reference in spanish about mexican numbers, see: https://www.conapred.org.mx/documentos_cedoc/21_Marzo_DiaIntElimDiscRacial_INACCSS.pdf (page 3) & https://www.conapred.org.mx/userfiles/files/Enadis-2010-RG-Accss-002.pdf (page 43) current [rollback: 2 edits] [rollback] [vandalism]
2. 13:42, 27 March 2019 review for reference in spanish: correction of percentages, see: https://www.conapred.org.mx/documentos_cedoc/21_Marzo_DiaIntElimDiscRacial_INACCSS.pdf (page 3) & https://www.conapred.org.mx/userfiles/files/Enadis-2010-RG-Accss-002.pdf (page 43)
23:21, 28 February 2019 agreed here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demografía_de_México#Composición_genética_y_fenotípica_de_México; and here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediación_informal/Solicitudes/Archivo_2018_10 Tag: Undo
19:57, 28 February 2019 Undid revision 885107129 by Pob3qu3 (talk): you edition is not the average; you only show references with high percentages, ignoring the low percentages (correct references) Tag: Undo
21:03, 25 February 2019 Undid revision 884762588 by Pob3qu3 (talk): not, agreed here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demografía_de_México#Composición_genética_y_fenotípica_de_México; and here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediación_informal/Solicitudes/Archivo_2018_10 Tag: Undo
20:39, 23 February 2019 Undid revision 884740469 by Dhtwiki (talk): the references are debated in es.wiki Tag: Undo
13:26, 23 February 2019 →‎Genetic research: added: (Martínez-Cortés et al, 2017), (Ruiz-Linares et al, 2014) & (Noris-Santana et al, 2012), dna ancestry studies about mexican genetics. White representation: 25,4%-37%-39%
15:55, 21 February 2019 →‎Genetic research: quito en obras
15:51, 21 February 2019 Undid revision 883978055 by Pob3qu3 (talk): usted no es neutral, está esquivando referencias válidas, mostrando sólo una parte de la verdad Tag: Undo
14:45, 19 February 2019 las referencias que añadí las hemos probado y están consensuadas en la Wikipedia en español Tag: Undo
12:43, 18 February 2019 repongo algunas referencias; Pob3qu3, al menos tenga la dignidad de colocar todo el rango de referencias, de lo contrario me da la impresión que usted está siendo proselitista; a propósito, dejaré los carteles puestos, porque estoy preparando una traducción para todos los artículos en cuestión en la enciclopedia inglesa, a fin de que no se den estas situaciones de redacción engañosa
Series of 6 edits (entire diff)
1. 15:44, 17 February 2019
2. 15:43, 17 February 2019
3. 15:41, 17 February 2019
4. 15:40, 17 February 2019 →‎Genetic research: México no es mayoritariamente blanco, qué mentira más grande es esa
5. 15:34, 17 February 2019 →‎Mexico: añado esta plantilla porque no están señaladas todas las referencias habidas para el caso mexicano, y además, la redacción es proselitista a mostrar a México como un país blanco, cuando no lo es
6. 15:30, 17 February 2019 →‎Genetic research: imagen incorrespondida
11:37, 16 December 2018 Undid revision 873942387 by Pob3qu3 (talk): not delete cientifics references Tag: Undo
Series of edits:
1. 13:10, 15 December 2018 →‎Genetic research: references
2. 13:03, 15 December 2018 →‎Genetic research: references

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38], removed by user here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user was blocked by Materialscientist on 02:36, 8 March 2019 for 24 hours for edit warring.

This user appears to be primarily edit warring with Pob3qu3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The user was indeed blocked on March 8, so all diffs in this report before that are irrelevant, you can't get double jeopardy blocks! Since then, the user has not reverted at all. On the other hand, EvergreenFir has reverted quite a few times, though not enough to get a WP:BOOMERANG. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I'm surprised you did not take the time to review the page's history or the talk page (unless I'm somehow missing something obvious). Clearly the edits today are aver the block 3 weeks ago. And they are clearly on the same material as before. This user, along with Pob3qu3, have been edit warring back and forth other the percent of Mexican whites. This nonsense spilled into logged out edits which resulted in page protection and has been happening with various accounts on Mexicans. That you'd "not" suggest but mention BOOMERANG seems ridiculous for a page plagued by disruptive editors. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a good Spanish speaker communicates with them; when somebody did previously, they were responsive. I don't think they were being deliberately disruptive. The disruptive edits from IPs, which have spilled over to discussion on the talk page, have been resolved by page protection. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 Alrighty. Maybe I can find someone through userboxes who can help. Thanks. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needed information for White Mexicans in White Latin Americans: Nearly 10 of sources used to support the text of Mexico are unavaible or privated, but half of these sources where used to support directly the percents of white people in Mexico: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. The Genetic and some Historical paragraphs contain better references, although there are sources that not especifies in what part of page shows the specifically information that provides the paraghraph. Only with the first data its very disturb imaginate what is the real purpose for the editor pob3qu3. There are other fails that Wikiedro and me mentioned in the Talk Page. Greetings. --186.151.62.200 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aclaración: La IP que hizo el anterior mensaje es de Guatemala, mientras que yo soy de Chile. Saludos. Wikiedro (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respuesta de Wikiedro

Estimados. Quiero decirles que soy un usuario de Wikipedia en español, especializado en demografía y etnicidad, con 27.000 ediciones, licencias de reversor y autoverificado, y 2 artículos buenos. Lo primero que quiero decirles es que es impresionante la diferencia que existe entre la edición en inglés y la edición en español, sobre la etnografía mexicana. En la wikipedia en español hay citados muchos más estudios y referencias en artículos científicos sobre el caso mexicano, que en la wiki inglesa.

En cambio, en la edición en inglés, yo y al menos dos editores anónimos (de Guatemala y de Chile), es decir tres usuarios diferentes, notamos cierto sesgo en la selección de referencias, y en algunos casos la entrega de cifras adulteradas (ver), que hemos pretendido corregir, pero hemos recibido a cambio la negativa editorial, sin siquiera comprobar esas ediciones, y que en mi caso, muy constructivamente he tratado de añadir, a pesar de mis limitaciones idiomáticas. Yo lo que distingo en la wiki inglesa es cierto sesgo a reproducir referencias con altos porcentajes europeos en estudios genéticos mexicanos; sin embargo, los estudios con bajos porcentajes de aportes europeos hechos en México son sistemáticamente revertidos o ignorados, cuando son tan válidos como los primeros, y de hecho, están validados y disponibles en la wikipedia en español. Véase por ejemplo este artículo: Demografía de México en Wikipedia en Español, trabajado entre mí, Açipni-Lovrij y Pob3qu3.

PD: Debo decir también, que en Wikipedia en español, Pob3qu3 perdió una mediación-resolución que se puso al respecto de sus ediciones, que han sido cuestionadas por sus aparentes proselitismos eurocentristas, ver: mediación establecida, zona de discusión, resolución. Saludos. Wikiedro (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedro (talk • contribs) 17:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Objective3000 reported by User:TheMemeMonarch (Result:Objective3000 warned)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889785047&oldid=889740342 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889785047&oldid=889740342
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889736977&oldid=889734016
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889727252&oldid=889726686
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889723878&oldid=889723549
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889723220&oldid=889723156
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889723100&oldid=889722641

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Objective3000&diff=prev&oldid=889788201 [diff]

Comments: I tried to make a compromise between the groups, but objective3000 accused me of vandalism and reverted the compromise. There were also more reverts, but I linked 6 of them, which is already double 3. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t this be posted on the WP:Spanish Inquisition Noticeboard? O3000 (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, Objective3000 has crossed 3RR, edit warring on an editorial issue. So the first step out here Objective3000 is to step back and stop reverting – till you file an SPI, which should be your immediate next step. What I see are a lot of ducks operating on the page to edit war with you and other editors. However, you need to be sure about that. So stop reverting (the world is not going to end), file an SPI with checkuser requested, and wait for the results; and once it is proven, I'll block all the editors who have been reverting the article from your preferred state. However, till then, you're on thin ice and would be blocked by me if you undertake one more revert. Lourdes 00:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. But, I was just one of five editors reverting these edits today, including an admin (Muboshgu, NorthBySouthBaranof , Mikemyers345, MrClog, and me). I considered an SPI request for (Isothermic, 143.179.74.26 , TheMemeMonarch , 35.21.6.79, 2605:6000:1b0a:8199:594f:d28d:3d6b:6608 , 2607:fcc8:9dc4:fe00:e4c0:adab:6431:8740 , 99.13.89.124). But, CU work is difficult, particularly with IPs using avoidance techniques. I asked for and got page protection, which is when the non-IPs with little history showed up. Besides, SPI may have failed as some may have been different folk pointed here. There has been a large uptick in vandalism on multiple articles today. As this is a highly watched article, we all did our best to remove the contentious edits. Thank you for full protection – it’s been a long day. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was the complete removal of the word "false" by others, I would say O3K was in the right to break 3RR for obvious vandalism. But the difference between a "false" and "unproven" conspiracy theory is a content issue (they are reasonably close terms and neither erodes the fact that most consider the Spygate a conspiracy theory), and definitely subject to edit warring concerns, even if there's strong suspicion that User:Isothermic is a sock. No sign of talk page discussion by anyone involved. But that said, if the SPI check is positive, TROUT on O3K who should know better. --Masem (t) 01:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000, as mentioned rightly by Masem, you should have known better. File an SPI; and stop reverting. The page is on my watch list; any editor who breaks 3RR from hereon for editorial content issues will first be warned and then be blocked. Please be careful. Thanks, Lourdes 03:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- MrClog opened an SPI this morning on one of the users and one of the IPs which was quickly closed as probable but moot as the user has been blocked. I've opened a more extensive SPI. [47]. O3000 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:216.211.107.59 reported by User:creffett (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_America_Great_Again&type=revision&diff=889810594&oldid=889784462

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.211.107.59&diff=889810552&oldid=889810377

Comments:
I concede that my talk actions were more "paste a boilerplate warning" than "discuss the issue," but the user in question vandalized the article and has twice reverted my reverts of said vandalization. This seems like a straightforward issue to me. creffett (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiedro reported by User:Pob3qu3 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

this one is off by a couple of hours but would make for 5 reverts

[53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I've given no warnings because is an issue I just got to but the editor has previously been blocked for edit warring [54] and has previously been warned about it [55] (me and other 2 regular editors have had a months-long issue with this editor as shown in the article's edit history [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

Theres rather strong evidence of this editor abusing multiple registered accounts, IP accounts and also using proxies to make it seem as if more people supported his points (I filled a SPI on this editor last month [58]), compare this two edits for example: [59] & [60]. Thanks in advance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respuesta de Wikiedro

Pido disculpas por el caso, me faltó una hora para hacer la reversión, y el error se debió a que suelo confundir la hora de mi país, Chile, que uso cotidianamente, con la hora UTM, que es la hora que tengo por defecto en esta Wiki (soy nativo de la Wiki en español). Prometo no volver a caer en el error de las tres reversiones. Espero sean atendidas mis disculpas.

PD: Yo no hago ediciones en anónimo, ni con otras cuentas. Soy muy respetuoso y franco en eso. El usuario Pob3qu3 me confunde con una IP de Guatemala, que incluso en reportes de verificación aquí en Wikipedia en inglés han dado resultados negativos, lo que es evidente, porque somos dos personas distintas. Saludos. Wikiedro (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Running through google translate: I apologize for the case, I missed an hour to make the reversal, and the error was due to the fact that I usually confuse the time of my country, Chile, which I use every day, with the UTM time, which is the time that I have by default in This Wiki (I am a native of the Wiki in Spanish). I promise not to fall back into the error of the three reversals. I hope my apologies are answered.

PS: I do not make editions in anonymous, or with other accounts. I am very respectful and frank in that. The user Pob3qu3 confuses me with an IP of Guatemala, that even in verification reports here in English Wikipedia have given negative results, which is evident, because we are two different people. Greetings. (google translate from --valereee (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I would block for five days, since this is a repeat violation. Don't see any merit in the sock charges. Wikiedro might avoid sanctions if they will agree to permanently withdraw from this topic area. They have 27,000 edits on the Spanish Wikipedia and it's too bad they are off to a bad start here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Topic is a waste of time, because we’re not the same person, I’m from Guatemala, Wikiedro is Chilean. Actually the problem here is that both Wikiedro and me mentioned several problems in the page White Latin Americans (specifically in Mexico) in the Talk Page with the title “The Fake of White People in Mexico” but the users DHTWiki and Evergreenfer were not capable to respond our signalments and only acused us to make violations or contents, Wikiedro putted another figure of white Mexicans with a reference or link, but DHTWiki started an edit war acused against Wikiedro (in the talk page, I mentioned the problem that in a reference the suvey consisted of 500 persons, that’s not representative because it’s lower than 1000 persons, Evergreenfer only answered “a survey of 1,000 persons could be good if they used a correct method with low margin of error), Pob3qu3 just start to this issue, but he was involved in troubles relationed of this topic in the past not only here (he lost a resolution in Spanish Wikipedia). He was also blocks recently .So the real problem here is obviously not Wikiedro. Thanks and Good Night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.62.200 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC) --186.151.62.200 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:146.90.125.54 reported by User:Quail Armor (Result: Blocked)

Page: Rootless cosmopolitan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.90.125.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

00:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889944840 by Quail Armor (talk)"
00:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889943799 by Chris troutman (talk)"
23:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889940699 by Chris troutman (talk) rv vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

00:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Fixing basic grammar errors like missing definite articles is not any kind of vandalism. Nor is removing unreliable sources like blogs. So why are people undoing these common sense helpful changes? Who knows. They certainly haven't attempted to explain themselves. 146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and note that the reporting editor's account is less than 24 hours old. 146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and note the conspicuously empty "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page".146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP CU-blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roscelese reported by User:Slugger O'Toole (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Among several other additions, Roscelese added "It therefore holds that homosexuality is inherently a tendency towards sin." in the Church Teaching section here:

[62]

The material was disputed, and I tried to adjust the wording on several occasions, including adding additional sources to give greater support to my proposed language. On each occasion, I was reverted by Roscelese who has been unwilling to allow any changes to her original wording. The difs are below.

The third revert was accompanied by the following edit message: "...don't be absurd. this attempt to bury the point beneath strata of apologetics is a waste of everyone's time."

At this point I recognized that there was WP:NOCONSENSUS. In an attempt to gain consensus on a version that could be included, I moved the disputed text to the talk page in accordance with the policy that states "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Roscelese then reverted again:

[66]

The latest reversion was accompanied by this edit message: "rv removal of cited material; removal of something you've been gunning to remove for weeks is not a "temporary compromise"." On the talk page she added: "Your attempts to obfuscate this point over the past couple of weeks (months?) are a waste of everyone's time."

Note that I have never tried to remove the material, nor expressed an interest in doing so. I only wished to clarify it. Roscelese has been unwilling to compromise, however, and refuses to allow any edits to her preferred version. I believe it is worth noting that Roscelese has been under ArbCom sanctions since 2015 after an incident on the related Christianity and sexuality article. They include requiring her "to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." Aside from her last reversion, when I created a section on the talk page, she has not discussed any of her reversions. I recognize that I am not a disinterested party, but believe her saying my good faith edits are a waste of everyone's time and that my goal is to obfuscate is a violation of the sanction to not cast aspersions, or personalize disputes.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:

Sadly, Roscelese and I have clashed on a few related articles. I take responsibility for all the times when my actions have not been what they should have been, and apologize to her and to the other editors. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what your reason is for bringing this here? What I see is several reverts by Roscelese over a period of several weeks. What behavior are you objecting to? This seems like a content dispute that should be handled at article Talk. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "addition" Slugger links as his first diff here is my restoration of sourced material removed from the article. The bit cited to Linacre previously said that homosexuality is an objective disorder in that it leads to an immoral activity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aviartm reported by User:2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado_Democratic_Party&oldid=889964056

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado_Democratic_Party&oldid=889964056
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colorado_Democratic_Party

Comments:

The California Republican Party article was vandalized in a way so that the Ideology section included "Nazism". This is well documented on that article's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Republican_Party As a result, it appeared important to checked the references/citations of other state level Republican and Democratic Party articles. The Ideology section on the California Republican Party talk section was discussed at length and it appears the ideology of the California Republican Party is something that isn't really published or citable. So why include the section on Wikipedia? It appears many are without citation and I began removing the Ideology section on a handful of state level articles altogether to avoid future issue. I often start a talk section on the article and link to the California Republican Party talk section for reference, as I had done so with the Colorado Democratic Party. For some reason, two users have reverted my edits without contributing to the discussion. I started a talk section on Aviartm talk page and they suggested I stick to the article's talk page for discussion. I pointed out I had already started one and let them know I'm reporting them. The ideology section of these article's is completely unfounded. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aviartm has only made one edit to this article ever. That's not edit warring. Notifying Aviartm since the IP did not. Meters (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meters I was notified of the page when the user made this inquiry. And thanks for your position on the matter. If you go to my Talk Page where the user made a section, you will see his concerns... Aviartm (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, did you look into the Colorado Democratic Party talk page and the California Republican Party talk page? I did let Aviartm know about the report. And I did start a discussion on that article page. I reported it here to avoid future edit wars as I had already started a discussion on the Ideology section after the edit was reverted once and Aviartm ignored participating in it before reverting my edit. Aviartm seemed annoyed that I brought the discussion to their user page but since Aviartm ignored the discussion on the article, I saw no other option. Aviartm further alleges that I need to provide a citation that discredits the ideologies listed on the article of the Colorado Democratic Party. My point is that the responsibility of the citation is the burden of the person making the allegation that those are their ideologies. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I looked at it. I think you are correct, but it's irrelevant to this report. This is a content dispute. Right or wrong, one edit by Aviartm cannot be edit warring. This should never have been brought to 3RR. We do not preemptively open 3RR reports to prevent possible future edit wars. I suggest that you retract this report and continue the talk page discussion. Wait of other editors to comment. Meters (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it's gone to edit war status at this point. 108.252.124.176 (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same editor as the OP? Meters (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:73.239.192.63 reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75] (from IP to me before their 4th revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:
IP editor is repeatedly inserting material that seems non-notable and poorly sourced onto a BLP. After the first time I reverted their edits and asked them to use the talk page, they responded on my talk page like this [77], and they have repeatedly accused me of acting in bad faith [78] [79]. They also filed a report on the NPOV NB [80], before contributing this one comment to the talk page [81]. What should I do? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wallyfromdilbert has filed this complaint in retaliation for one that I filed earlier. The user has been systematically scrubbing all criticism from the pages of Seattle City Council members. There is criticism of his behavior (from user Jwfowble) on the talk page for Debora Juarez, which he dismissed. User is a repeat offender of edit warring, reverting every legitimately sourced criticism (e.g., from local radio/TV outlets). I used a bad word when I got mad. I do apologize for that. But I do not apologize for adding legitimate content to Wikipedia only to have it removed repeatedly for no good reason. Criticizing politicians is part of our democracy, and the removal of such criticism makes me wonder if the user has a conflict of interest.73.239.192.63 (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards