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)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:89.110.19.176 and 91.122.6.3 reported by User:Nightscream (Result: stale)

Page: Alan Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.122.6.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 89.110.19.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First edit by 89.110.19.176, which is traced to the Russian Federation
Revert by Nightscream
Revert by 91.122.6.3, which is also traced to the Russian Federation
Vanamonde93 reverts 91.122.6.3's revert and leaves a message on that IP's talk page
91.122.6.3 again reverts Vanamonde93
Nightscream reverts the article again, and try to caution 91.122.6.3 in his edit summary and on 91.122.6.3's talk page about edit warring.
91.122.6.3 reverts my revert, and makes no acknowledgement of my message or the policies and guidelines I linked him to.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Record of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (actually the reported user's talk page): diff

Comments:

Stale. I think semi-protection can be forgone for now, but post to WP:RFP if this changes. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:177.104.88.198 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Stale)

Page: 2014 FIFA World Cup Group F (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 177.104.88.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

12:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Nigeria vs Bosnia and Herzegovina */"
17:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614530178 by PeeJay2K3 (talk) I am not saying about quarter-finals but the previous round. Also, I'm saying about NO debutant teams, all the others had"
18:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614658871 by PeeJay2K3 (talk) Sure, I'm not blind, so I could check and affirm this. Or should I pay a website to post it and then you can be pleasured by a ref tag?"
18:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614664917 by Walter Görlitz (talk) The source is my own research I have done in all World Cup articles here."
18:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614666648 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Stop being lazy and prove that this information is false. It's already saying that needs a citation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2014 FIFA World Cup Group F. (TW)"
18:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "please source it"
18:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "+"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Result: Stale. The IP broke 3RR on 27 June but there have been no more reverts since then. If this resumes then a block or semiprotection should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:177.125.112.14 reported by User:Takinzinnia (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21 June 2014: [3]
26 June 2014: [4]
27 June 2014: [5]

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

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

Comments:
Since 11 June [8], three IP editors have repeatedly added a certain game to the List of Wii U software without citing any source, reliable or otherwise. After failing to find any confirmation of the game's existence, I have reverted most of these edits while inviting the participants to discuss on the talk page in my edit summaries [9][10], on the article's talk page [11], and the most recent IP user's talk page [12]. So far, none has responded to these invitations and each one simply reverts without comment. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for one week. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Shadow Treasurer reported by User:DMacks (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Fraternity Vacation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Shadow Treasurer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

02:28, 29 July 2011‎ (UTC) "That scene is the most notable of the entire movie and it is not unimportant."
23:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC) "Undid revision 441980025 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
01:34, 29 October 2011‎ (UTC) "Basically there is no other reason for people to remember this movie than that scene."
22:51, 14 November 2011 UTC) "Undid revision 457915761 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)" + "Trailers shows the prominence of that scene plus Roger Ebert's comments about it"
07:25, 11 June 2012‎ }(UTC) "Undid revision 495055105 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
05:01, 18 June 2012‎ (UTC) "That previous remark is abusive and I request that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be thrown out of Wikipedia."
01:52, 25 July 2012‎ (UTC) "This is the resolution of the matter and there should no more excuses for its removal."
03:26, 25 July 2012‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 504054413 by DMacks (talk)"
01:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) [no edit-summary]
02:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC) "IMDb has spoken on this and DMacks leave me alone."

Note: many of these are old, because the same situation keeps flaring over many years (I can't find centralized list of the diffs from previous behavior-discussions).

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

‎June 2012: new section

Note: editor has made it clear via edit-summaries and talk-page comments that he does not wish to be contacted by (specifically) me or certain others who participated in talk-page/AN discussion of (generally) or others regarding his edits.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Fraternity Vacation#"Classic nude scene"

Comments:

There's consensus on talk-page, including discussion of reliable sourcing, and we already had a trip to WP:AN (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Edits by User:The Shadow Treasurer) regarding behavioral requirements for collaborative editing and discussion of disputed edits. Editor was not willing to accept this outcome when it occurred 2–3 years ago, has now come back after little or no editing of WP and immediately returned to the same WP:EW and non-WP:DR behaviors. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE. I must admit that when I first looked at this report, I was surprised to see an allegation of EW based on a couple of reverts after such a long spell of nothing. However, following the links DMacks put in above, I saw that although the user edits sporadically, they almost never do anything constructive when they're here, and they don't listen to anyone or collaborate with anyone. Essentially, they see themselves as an island at Wikipedia and subject not to the policies and guidelines of the project but to their own inner compass, which wouldn't be quite so bad if that compass weren't so fundamentally flawed in so many ways. I then saw no middle ground in terms of sanctions, and an indefinite block seemed to be the most appropriate result.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:99.46.209.18 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Warned)

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

Diffs of the IP's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [18]

Comments: The IP kept changing the date contrary to MOS. When I reverted, their edit summaries got more and more aggressive. On one of my three reverts, I put MOS:DATEFORMAT in the edit summary. When that didn't work, I went to the trouble of explaining it all to the IP on their talk page (see diff above). Clearly, the IP was having none of it. The IP's 4th revert occurred outside the 24-hour window by about 1.5 hours. Actually, I prefer that the IP "get it" rather than be sanctioned, but I'm not sure if that's possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Warned. No more reverts since 03:08 on 28 June. If he continues a block would be logical. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jersey92 reported by User:Wikiweb10011 (Result: Wikiweb blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:

Abusive tagging from user jersey92 without any the actual improving of the article (all tags and no actual writing or benefiting for the article) -- Edit warring and abused tagging reported for user Jersey92 (talk). Also, vandalism reported for user Jersey92 --

Noted abusive tagging warning to: Jersey92(talk) -

Reported Vandalism: Jersey92 – actions evidently indicate vandalism by user Jersey92 for article: [1], Abuse of tags. Repeated inappropriate tags without any actual contributing to the article. ignored warnings. talk 06:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reported by Wikiweb10011 (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiweb10011 Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by DangerousPanda.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousPanda - It looks like User:Wikiweb10011 might have a WP:COI (per prior editor comments) and might be creating sockpuppets to keep on vandalizing. Please see the actions of new user User:Webmastermeyou (Deleting my comments on AfD and violating Wikipedia policy) and new user User:Stevejohnsonhere undoing my tags as discussed above and adding a non-notable article with a lack of references and questionable edits all related to the original article that I tagged Madison McKinley. All while this discussion is going on. Can you block by IP or lock somehow? Thanks. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've indeffed the two new accounts and increased the master's block to one month. More socking will result in an indefinite block for the master. I'll watch the article, but please let me, Panda, or some other administrator know if there's further trouble. I haven't semi-protected the article, but that, of course, can be done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still going on with another new account... User:Usercatch... --Jersey92 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you semi-protected the article and addressed the sock puppetry. Thanks. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:DavidJac123 reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Race Differences in Intelligence (book) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DavidJac123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

08:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614114531 by Vanamonde93 (talk)"
08:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614610522 by Vanamonde93 (talk)"
12:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614627212 by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk)"
15:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614636754 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
17:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614660953 by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk)"
18:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614668204 by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk)"
07:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614714568 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
15:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614757990 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned here by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Again, I have not made such an attempt, but attempts have been made, by the other editors involved, such as here (Although the attempt was in fact initiated by Davidjac themselves.

Comments:

By my count, this user has seven reverts on this page. They also are going against consensus, and appear to be tag-teaming, if not socking, with a couple of IPs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another revert, here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and warned about DS on articles relating to Race and Intelligence. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ifinteger reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, although much of this material has been discussed before.

Comments: This is a clear breach of WP:3RR by a new SPA editor. Several editors have reverted the user, including me. There are WP:BLP issues involved, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, and arguably WP:BLPCRIME. There's an outstanding request at WP:RFPP brought by another editor for pending changes. The reported user is autoconfirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one day and PC protected for one week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:RGloucester reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC) ""Krasnyi Lyman" is the proper spelling, WP:CLAIMED, copyediting, avoid WP:LABEL "rebels", WP:NUMERAL"
2. 02:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC) "They didn't claim anything, they said it. We provide both views, and we say who said them. WE do not say they "claimed", implying falsity or guilt. There is no "military" of Ukraine, which only refers to ground forces anyway. It is called the Armed Force."
3. 04:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC) "WP:CLAIMED our MoS is clear. We do not copy the commentary of the sources, only the facts. We use "said", because they "said" that. We do not imply that they claimed "anything. Military is incorre..."
4. 04:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC) "I will not tolerate your corruption of the English language. "Military" is incorrect, and you are violating WP:ENGVAR. The correct translation is "Armed Forces". Report me all you like, I will always be a crusader for good language."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

I warned him during our discussion at his talk page User talk:RGloucester in the section Ukraine Views that he was about to break 3RR. He in essence said he didn't care, told me to report him and that he would revert me until death.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Made attempts to talk to him at his talk page User talk:RGloucester in the section Ukraine Views. I even went so far as to drop one of the two problematic issues since I saw he was not going to compromise. However, he continued to push his POV on the second issue even after I pointed out that per Wikipedia definition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine that they are the military of Ukraine he continued to claim that there is no military of Ukraine, proceeded to make borderline insulting/hostile comments and called himself the crusader of the English language who will die before he lets me make a mockery and corruption of the English language and that I will be haunted for eternity.

Blocked – for a period of one day User:RGloucester's comments in this section of their talk page as well as the edit summaries almost resulted in topic ban as well the block. Given the incivility and battleground approach evident in that section I've decided to block for a day and not sanction User:EkoGraf (only an alert to the discretionary sanctions). However I will be keeping an eye on that article and further edits from both of you, any incivility or other breaches of conduct policies will result in appropriate sanctions. A general message to both of you: discuss it on the talk page, don't keep reverting especially on pages covered by discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:Mosesben (Result:No violation )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Here he calls Scheduled castes who are considered as Untouchables calling them CRIMINAL CASTES.

[29]

He removed the sourced quotation and removed Dr.Ambedkar's Image.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, although much of this material has been discussed before.

Comments: ONE USER HAS ALREADY TRIED TO HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THIS USER BUT HE REFUSES EVEN TO GIVE A REPLY.This man is anti-Dalit user and an Orthodoc Hindu. Dalits are those who are socially backward classes. Various editors have tried to seek consensus from this man but he never responds and when he responds he responds in a negative manner.

Comment You might want to be very careful about labelling a group of people as socially backwards if for no other reason than WP:Boomerang. Amortias (T)(C) 11:05, 29 June 2014 (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. I note that Bladesmulti's mention of criminal classes is misrepresented, the sentence was " Because nothing new is coming out at all now. "criminal caste", "Schedule caste", "tribal castes", and many others, these castes never exists, they were created by british." And that was 5 months ago. Bladesmulti's edits to the page in question were in December last year and were clearly not edit warring. I have removed a blocked editor's name from this report as that editor doesn't seem to have anything to do with this report. User:Mosesben I think you need to read our policies and guidelines more carefully and refrain from name calling. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But he has been removing the sourced content. Regarding the Social Backward class called Dalit, they are backward class in India and that is considered in Wikipedia too. He has been removing the sourced content. He has been in Edit warring SOME FEW DAYS BACK User:Dougweller. Mosesben (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Bladesmulti hasnt made any edits in almost a week eveidence for his recent edit warring is going to be pretty much impossible to find. Also its worth having a look at MOS:ALLCAPS with regards to your writing style. Amortias (T)(C) 12:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:220.245.146.235 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: Semi)

Page: Doctor Who (series 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 220.245.146.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

05:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614845399 by 80.6.172.150 (talk)"
05:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614845237 by 80.6.172.150 (talk)"
05:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614845043 by 80.6.172.150 (talk)"
05:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614844702 by 80.6.172.150 (talk)"
04:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614844007 by 80.6.172.150 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The first IP to start the warring was 80.6.172.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.146.235 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected 3 months. Constant addition and removal of unsourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise reported by User:TheIPInfo (Result:No violation; blocked TheIPInfo)

Reverts:

Warning: [30] Had to report him here as his talk page is protected

Comments:

Future Perfect at Sunrise has been reverting comments from Bulgaria talk page a number of times, he has been insulting other editors calling their posts "blathering", attempting to bully other editors with aggressive language like: "This will not be tolerated, full stop" and "Debate over." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIPInfo (talk • contribs)

You've only provided evidence of one edit and two reverts to restore that edit, not more than three reverts. You did not warn nor notify the user on his talk page, nor did you even try to have a discussion about it. That no one else has bothered to uncollapse your comments indicates something like consensus that the comments are in bad faith, unnecessary to discussion, and should be collapsed. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2014 (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. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked TheIPInfo for 72 hours for making personal attacks and for trolling. Besides the contributions to this board, the only edits the user made were to that one talk page, and they consisted of attacking Future Perfect and edit warring over their comments being hatted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:190.102.28.173 reported by User:4idaho (Result: Semi)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:

The IP keeps adding a disputed section template to a certain section. At first they claimed the information wasn't in the source, then they claimed the source was wrong. Continued to edit war after being asked to stop and being warned on the talk page.

They did eventually post on Talk but continued to edit war while doing so. Also, if you check both IPs are the same the person. They changed the IP after receiving the 3RR warning. Cheers. --4idaho (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected two months. IP-hopping edit warrior, violation of WP:SOCK. The first IP, 190.102.28.173 is publicly advertised on a list of proxy servers. Not sure whether the second one is a proxy. User:4idaho should try not to violate 3RR even if he is warring against socks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. I was careful not to break the rule. Thanks for the semi-protection. Cheers --4idaho (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4idaho, you should be more careful about being careful. Your fourth revert was about 2.5 hours outside the 24-hour window. Although there is no hard-and-fast time frame, "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." Your assertion of being "careful" could be construed as an admission of gaming the system. I'm not advocating that you be sanctioned. Just friendly advice for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sepsis II reported by User:Kipa Aduma, Esq. (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[38]
[39]

This is an article subject to 1RR

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

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

Comments:

I've given the user the option to revert herself. She declined.

I made a faulty complaint late last night (Kipa made two quick edits, the first reverted, I opened the same diff twice which made me think it was two reverts in breach of 1RR, we all know I was wrong). Seeing as this account is well aware this in not a breach of 1RR but filled anyways I would suggest a block for being pointy/disruptive/battleground mentality. Sepsis II (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This has a bit of a tortured history. The reporter brought Sepsis II to WP:ARE. You can read the "result" there, but it was closed based on a report being filed at WP:SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kipa Aduma, Esq.. The CU found no technical relationship between the claimed master and the other accounts. The SPI is awaiting "administration and close". I personally have not looked at the history of the article itself to see if Sepsis II breached WP:1RR, and, if so, whether he is exempt on some basis. I'll leave it to others as I have to go off-wiki shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I did not bring Sepsis II to WP:ARE, it was the other way around - a false, baseless allegation that was quickly closed. There are 2 diffs there - all you have to do is click on them, Bbb23. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, Kip Aduma. User:AmirSurfLera brought the report against Sepsis II. Sepsis II brought a report against you.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The second edit is by no means a revert. Sepsis II (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course it is - the article used to say 80% because some editor put that in, and you undid that, and changed it to 87%. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that Sepsis II removed two WP:ARE warnings on his talk page, which he is not entitled to do. Besides, in return for respectful talk page discussion, detailed sourcing and lots of patience, he always responds with reverts, silence, reverts, disruptive editing, and occasional personal attacks on edit summaries and talk pages. In my opinion, this extremely POV user should have been blocked or topic banned long time ago.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OH NOES!!! I deleted your precious message off my talk page! I should be arrested at once! I need an anti-static strap, socks keep sticking to me (I'll be filing an SPI in a minute). Sepsis II (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you keep accusing other users of sockpuppetry without evidence, also breaking basic civility rules. Only for this you should be blocked. You already filled SPI against me, but you didn't provide any convincing proof. Keep in mind that Sean.hoyland, a respected editor with much more experience and intelligence than you, was blocked exactly for doing that. I suggest you to learn from his experience instead of being so arrogant and aggressive.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have so far encountered Sepsis II on several occasions, dealing with similar behavior of his involving harsh edit-warring, inability to follow community consensus and highly uncivil approach to other editors, often accusing others on sockpuppetry and canvassing, and rarely supplying any evidence - there have been perhaps 10 cases filed by Sepsis II in the last few weeks, making his ARBPIA complaints into a weird kind of "sports". I would like to emphasize that recently (21 April) it was specifically pointed out by administrator Sandstein that "Sepsis II engages in the inappropriate casting of aspersions by alleging sockpuppetry without any evidence" and that regarding Sepsis II and Plot Spoiler, it was added by the administrator that Sepsis II is a single topic editor and "On this basis, I favor a lengthy topic ban for both editors, with the instruction that, after the topic ban ends, they must edit in this topic area in such a manner that an outside observer would not be able to tell from their article-space edits which if any side of the conflict they favor". I doubt that think single topic editors, who are so deeply emotionally involved in the topic are helping to make wikipedia better.GreyShark (dibra) 21:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of ideological editors here on wikipedia hate me. Sepsis II (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Sepsis II, please explain why you think the second listed edit in this report is not a revert. I'm looking into the latest report you filed at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmirSurfLera.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be edit warring, I have no clue how many years ago an editor wrote the wrong number there. Who could I edit war with? I don't know.

I let stand the poor edits made by Amir and Kipa per 1RR, (they were of course in the end properly reverted by another editor). I'm careful with 1RR, if I thought it was a revert (and if I had remembered that I had made a single edit to the page 21 hours ago (A day ago in human terms), I wouldn't have made the correction. Sepsis II (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sepsis II, that's not a good answer. Anytime you make a change to an article, you should assume that it's probably a revert. Someone, sometime put in the information you changed. The only exception is when you make a brand new addition (never been added before). There are, of course, changes that are in an administrator's discretion to overlook, but those are usually minor and insubstantial. Changing 80% to 87% is hardly minor. And although it's not strictly relevant to edit warring, the cited source seemed to me to support 80%, not 87%, but I'm hardly an expert in these matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, nothing personal but what you have done there is collaborate with an obvious sockpuppet/advocate who should be blocked on the basis of WP:DUCK. And yes, just to make it crystal clear, I have just done exactly the same thing there that recently resulted in my being blocked for 48 hours by Sandstein for describing a sockpuppet as a sockpuppet. I made it as my very first post-block edit. You are welcome to apply another block. I don't mind. It will serve as another example of admins collaborating with sockpuppets in ARBPIA through poor judgment when they should have the experience and common sense to know better.

Who is the sockmaster in Kipa Aduma, Esq's case ? It doesn't matter and filing an SPI report won't help if the sockmaster knows what they are doing. Furthermore, the cost to the community of trying to figure out the sockmaster and processing a request at SPI far outweighs the near-zero benefit derived from blocking an account as a result of an SPI report when the person can and will simply create another account. Obvious socks should be blocked on sight at zero cost to the community by admins using their judgment.
This is something like the 3rd time I've seen experienced and reasonable admins effectively collaborating with sockpuppets in recent weeks. A pattern is emerging. It sends a message to the community that admins lack the competence and common sense to provide adequate protection for the topic area and its editors.

Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I don't know what can be done, but the sock situation is out of control and established editors on the other side are being purposely harassed with nonsense. No one can identify the sock master because there are dozens of candidates. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree 100% with both of the two above. This is driving away content contributors. Huldra (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Der Grammarkönnig and User:Curly Turkey reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Grammarkönig blocked 24 hours)

Page: Split infinitive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Der Grammarkönnig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Curly Turkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts: DG

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614875946&oldid=614873537

CT

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614874523&oldid=614197692

DG

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614878224&oldid=614875946

CT

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614929179&oldid=614878224

DG

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614962138&oldid=614929179

CT

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614962138&oldid=614929179

DG

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=615006598&oldid=614965412

CT

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=615006598&oldid=614965412

DG

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=615009629&oldid=615008735

[43] [44]

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

Comments: User: Der Grammarkönnig is already blocked. User:Curly Turkey, who reported this at WP:ANI, was also edit warring and needs a warning. If the edit warring resumes, page may need protection for two days. Really more appropriate for here than at ANI, since purely an edit war.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammarkönnig already blocked. The reaction from CurlyTurkey wasn't great, but I would tend to consider at least the material reverted the first three times to have been so blatantly and self-evidently unacceptable that I would be extremely reluctant to apply sanctions against them here. Seriously, should we get rid of involuntarily the freedom to correct obvious glaring errors? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has made it clear they have no sources and have no intention of ceasing to push their POV, including removing sourced material without even bothering to explain why in an edit comment. Context is everything, Robert McClenon, and if you're going to split hairs over the letter of policy you should ensure that you follow the letter of those policies yourself—as in the big red notice at the top of the page: You must notify any user you report. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Grammarkönig blocked 24 hours by Future Perfect. No action was taken against Curly Turkey. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.4.93.100 reported by User:Benhen1997 (Result: Both IPs blocked)

Pages: Oona King, Baroness King of Bow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Jerry Dammers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Kevin Rowland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
Users being reported: 64.4.93.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 85.211.113.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

(see above page links for more)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Oona King, Baroness King of Bow. (TW)" (First IP)
20:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Oona King, Baroness King of Bow. (TW)" (Second IP)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

"Not Wikiquote"
Discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.96.50 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

85.211.113.180 (talk · contribs) is stalking me and undoing my edits for no good reason. They have continued to re-add unsourced and unencyclopedic content to this WP:BLP and others as well. They should be blocked instead. They have also used 85.210.106.160 (talk · contribs) to stalk me and possibly others too. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to report other users here, then you may also do so. I will check on other 3rr violations by other user after I finish this post. In the meantime, I have found a multitude of edir warring/3rr violations on several pages by this IP and others. Ben^Yes? 20:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the other IP is stalking me and restoring inappropriate content for no reason on many BLP articles. They are continuing to do so even now, including on the article you reported. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both IPs' activities are not limited to one page, and are in fact spread across multiple (example). Recommend both be blocked. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 20:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's not my fault they are stalking me and restoring bad content on BLP articles. They are also removing sources and doing other bad edits [45]. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's just establish something. "Stalking" is not a technical violation. Anyone on the internet can see any contributions that you made to any page on Wikipedia. That's what I did to find all the pages on which there was an edit war between the two parties. The "right" party (as you claim yourself to be) is just as wrong as the "wrong" party when there is a question of a WP:3RR violation, except in cases of vandalism, about which you did not inform the other IPs. You also made no attempt on any article talk page to resolve the dispute, hence the empty sub-section above. Ben^Yes? 20:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking like they do IS a technical violation WP:WIKISTALKING. Also BLP is a WP:3RR exemption, plus this edit [46] is vandalism and you don't HAVE to inform him. What article talk page? They don't give any reason to undo my edits, I give them policies that explain what doesn't go on Wikipedia. If they don't give anything to discuss but still make bad edits what can I do? 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes it is a violation for the disruptive behavior, but it would not ordinarily be. The quotations look sourced to me. Ben^Yes? 20:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[47], you saw above my edit-summary WP:BLP WP:NOT Wp:QUOTE because there is a citation needed tag so WP:BLP and the quotation belongs on Wikiquote so WP:NOT WP:QUOTE. But then the other IP re-adds the content without a citation [48] and you report me for removing it. I have found the article talk so I can discuss what doesn't belong on Wikipedia but the other IP gives no reason for edits, just "undo, undo, undo" stalking me so what can I do about that? 64.4.93.100 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with 64.4.93.100 on this one. While edit warring is never a good solution to solving any dispute, I think the removal of the miscellaneous quotes section is justified as per WP:QUOTE and the other IP should have tried to resolve things on a talk page, like 64.4.93.100 tried to, instead of continually reverting. There was hardly any communication from the other IP. I just think both anon editors need to cool down and get consensus from other people before making any further edits there. I do however agree with Velella, and think that 64.4.93.100 needs to consider how much information is being lost when bulldozing down every single quote they find, and be a bit more careful in the future. Just my two cents -BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have also had a run-in with this IP's editing where a perfectly sound quotation which added value and understanding to an article was removed. In the end I had to spend some time embedding the quote in the article to persuade the IP to leave it alone - work that she/he could have more profitably done rather than simply going for a mass deletion policy. I suspect that some of this may stem from a belief that WP:QUOTE is a rigid policy. It isn't. It is a guideline to assist editors and should be interpreted with care and discretion to retain value and depth of coverage in Wikipedia article. I despair when I see some very useful information being lost, even though much of the pruning may be justified. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're having a little chat about it here. 85.210.96.50 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the comments of Velella above. I too have had a run-in with this IP's editing on the Ann Druyan article. Several important quotes were deleted twice with no proper explanation, except for WP:QUOTE. This unregistered IP seems to be on a mass deletion policy, without any thought of the result of a mass of information lost. I fear that this vandalism will take a long time to put right. David J Johnson (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Both IPs blocked three days for edit warring. Consider getting talk page consensus about the quotes. Mass addition or mass removal of quotes is likely to be considered disruptive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.87.81.15 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: )

Page: List of Grojband episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.87.81.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 19:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC) to 19:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
1. 19:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Episode list */"
2. 19:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"
19:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
19:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
19:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
20:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
20:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
20:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
20:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
20:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

19:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"
19:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"
19:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"
20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is getting tiresome. AIV is being slow Also see User_talk:EvergreenFir#List_of_Grojband_episodes EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 66.87.81.15 (talk · contribs) for one hour and asked him to reply to your talk page. Let's see what happens after that. Please don't keep reverting - is it really so important that the IP's version isn't allowed to be there for a short while? It isn't 100% obvious vandalism (unless/until we can show that it's a known vandal/sock). —SMALL JIM 21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

Page: 1982 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615022057 by Uishaki (talk) totally unnecessary"
16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615038154 by Walter Görlitz (talk) why? what's so good about the template?"
19:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615045546 by Walter Görlitz (talk) there is absolutely no need to ever edit these tables ever again, so again, what is the benefit of the templates?"
20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615063437 by Walter Görlitz (talk) stop it now, dude"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Seasoned editor who knew that he was violating 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was abiding by WP:BRD. User:Uishaki was bold, I reverted, and no one ever made any attempt to discuss the issue in good faith except me (although I admit I should have done that on the article talk page rather than via edit summaries). Intentionally or otherwise, Walter Gorlitz misinterpreted my concerns and was, in fact, the instigator of this edit war. My feeling is that he deliberately goaded me into this situation and I respectfully request an apology. – Pee Jay 20:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The revert, revert, revert and attitude you always have, goes against the "discuss" element you claim. I’m sorry. if you were in discuss mode, I didn't see it on the article talk page or mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biruitorul reported by User:Remus Octavian Mocanu (Result: )

[49]

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

[50]

"Deleting Repeatedly Large Block of Text that is Abundantly and Verifiably Sourced - Probable reason: simply being critical of historical figures"

Still waiting the reply after my objection (to deleting text heavily sourced) expressed on the user page User_talk:Biruitorul (Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

As in the equivalent article in Romanian language, many Romanian users still feel very uncomfortable with Wikipedia articles containing in addition to some flattering (if frequently unsourced) descriptions, also the sourced critique of national historical figures as it appears in the more objective Western academic historiography:

Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at UFC Fight Night: Te Huna vs. Marquardt

UFC Fight Night: Te Huna vs. Marquardt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, there is currently an edit war going on at UFC Fight Night: Te Huna vs. Marquardt, I am not naming anyone because I am NOT getting involved. I have been blocked for edit warring my self in the past but have since changed my ways, I am merely letting it known because something should be done. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:MJJFFF reported by User:Dwpaul (Result: )

Page: Angus Taylor (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MJJFFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC) to 01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
1. 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ Please do not continue to reinstate information that was not a part of the original entry. I am restoring the page to it's original form."
2. 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ Please do not continue to reinstate information that was not a part of the original entry. I am restoring the page to it's original form."
3. 01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Opposition to Wind Energy */ Editing the content"
Consecutive edits made from 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC) to 01:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
1. 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Opposition to Wind Energy */ This is political information and needs to be removed. This is a biographical page ONLY"
2. 01:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Publications */ This is the original content. I've removed the inserted content"
01:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ Just placing the original content back into the Wikipedia profile"
01:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ Removed irrelevant information and keeping paragraph as was in original form."
00:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Views on the Wind Industry */ This content is"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

01:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Angus Taylor (politician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* This continuous edit-warring has got to stop */"

Comments:

The edit warring on this article is ridiculous, and while neither MJJFFF or the pro-wind energy editors have been terribly helpful in working towards consensus, at least the other side shows up on the talk page. MJJFFF has been previously blocked for 3RR, and doesn't respond to any talk page discussions, either on his own talk page or the article talk page. He's still blindly conducting revert wars and it's getting tiresome to say the least. Also, to make things clear: while I've reverted him in this instance of removing information, I'm not part of the broader edit war on this article besides trying to whack both sides heads together and get them to talk to one another. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct - I am user MJJFFF and I say that the edit warring is ridiculous. This is a biographical page, NOT a political page. I am simply editing the content and restoring the information to it's original form. Please refrain from editing the page further. Take note of other similar pages, and you will see that they are kept to a biographical form only. Please refrain from making further political insertions into a page that is biographical only — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJFFF (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Honey, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as an "original form" that editors have to "refrain from editing further", and most articles on politicians contain some information about their views where this is notable. You need to discuss these things on the talk page instead of consistently reverting. You also seem to have some fairly significant misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works, but this is something that again, could be solved if you actually used the article talk page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MJJFFF, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia, and as such any article on a politician is going to include political content. And furthermore, the 'original form' of an article has no special status - any edits need to be considered on their merits, and cannot be reverted simply because they weren't in an earlier version. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia policy and guidelines before you find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I suggest that MMJJFF read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has two hard line editors, each welded to some particular point. Minor points, in my view, and I really wish that there could be some give and take, some meeting of minds. I'm concerned that any blocks handed out - and well-deserved blocks - are just going to amount to a temporary ceasefire, with hostilities resuming as soon as the clock ticks over. I don't think that there's any real solution beyond a willingness by both ends to listen to the middle, because neither is going to get all they want here.

Thanks to DW for her efforts at diplomacy and mediation. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:DaveSmythe (Result: Reporter blocked as sock)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

This is self-evidently a sock of the banned antisemitic former contributor User:Mikemikev. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of indefinitely as obvious sock Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChrisP2K5 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: )

Page: Bob's Burgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ChrisP2K5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 03:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC) to 03:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
1. 03:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 03:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Hallmarks */"
Consecutive edits made from 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC) to 02:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
1. 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Loren Bouchard is the creator of the show. I'll take his word over yours any day of the week. reverted to my edit."
2. 02:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Characters */"
04:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615105170 by EvergreenFirAgain, Loren Bouchard said directly the show is not set in any particular place. Unless you can find me an RS that states he said otherwise, your edit is OR and invalid."
05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615111211 by EvergreenFir (talk)stop making unconstructive edits."
05:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Loren Bouchard said it does not take place in any particular area. Your sources are not reliable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

05:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"
05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

03:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Location */"
05:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Location */"
05:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Location */"
05:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Location */"

Comments:

User has a history of this behavior. Refuses to discuss changes despite previous local consensus. Only argument is "I am right and my source is the only one". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the argument is whether or not the show is set anywhere and I have cited this interview series creator Loren Bouchard gave to Entertainment Weekly as proof that EvergreenFir's position is incorrect. The exact quote that invalidates the theory that the show takes place in New Jersey: "It’s a semi-Springfield. It can’t be San Francisco, which is what many people think. It has all that Victorian architecture from San Francisco because I was living there when we developed the show, but we set it firmly in the Northeast because of the way Linda sounds, and Teddy. There’s just so much East Coast in those voices, we just couldn’t take it out. It would’ve been too weird to have her doing that voice — you’d have to constantly be explaining that she’s a transplant or whatever. And because it’s this seaside, past-it’s-prime, dusty old town, we kind of felt like that puts it pretty close to those Coney Island, New York-New Jersey shore parts. I grew up in the New England area, and there were lots of beach towns like it, though we don’t want to be in New England party because Family Guy has Rhode Island sewn up. But basically I picture it somewhere in the outer boroughs or on the northern Jersey shore.” As far as I'm concerned, that makes the case pretty open and shut: the word of the show creator vs. three questionable sources, one of which is the episode itself (which if I remember correctly is not automatically an RS). I don't see what the big deal is. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note this editor has reported me to AIV under the same circumstances, and stress again that his sources are largely non-RS and that my source is an RS and contradicts all three of his sources- and since it is an RS, it is therefore not vandalism. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is a funny place - why would Evergreen Fir block anyone for war when they .....

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=614967742&oldid=614967484 Revision as of 03:53, 30 June 2014 EvergreenFir (Undid revision 614967311 by ChrisP2K5 (talk) it's clearly NJ.)

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=next&oldid=615100719 - Revision as of 03:37, 1 July 2014 (edit) (undo) (thank) EvergreenFir (Reverted 2 edits by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=next&oldid=615110400 Revision as of 05:00, 1 July 2014 EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=next&oldid=615111308 Revision as of 05:02, 1 July 2014 EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realized my error and self-reverted to ChrisP2K5's version why this plays out. I should have reported sooner but was treating this as vandalism (hence my report on AIV) and not edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I did not report the extra revert fifth war removal you took down yourself - only the four you did not take down. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=615112166&oldid=615112033 Revision as of 05:11, 1 July 2014 EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the edit reason, I self-reverted while this plays out. I am unaware of how to get Twinkle to transfer edit info without reverting. My edits are in good faith. Note I also tried to engage the edit warrior in discussion multiple times. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are ChrisP2K5 edits in good faith - do please stop referring to him as an edit warrior when you are an edit warrior also - Chris has as much talkpage efforts at chat as you - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob%27s_Burgers&action=history - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mosfetfaser Only after violating warnings. Made no effort to discussion before templating. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What templating? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChrisP2K5 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me templating the user on their talk page after initiating discussion. As I said already, their only discussion was to say they are right and it's not edit warring if they are right. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - you User:EvergreenFir are the only templater - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisP2K5&diff=prev&oldid=615111247 - Chris never templeted you even once - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes... that's how it works usually. I fail to see the issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you were warring and wanted another writer banned for warring - hello - Mosfetfaser (talk)

Which is exactly why I initiated discussion on two talk pages first. Makes sense. Good night. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:EvergreenFir Your attempts at discussion in all this are no more that Chris's - you were warring your position, plain and simple - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, timing and intent. Good night for reals. Way past my bedtime of 2AM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"timing and intent" are no excuse for your warring - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is the reporter being engaged in the edit war and the unconstructive editing. Especially when he says "it's clearly NJ" when the man who created and developed the series said otherwise. Even if you consider the episode as an RS, there still is no clear indication that the show is set in New Jersey because the car scene (which I have to believe he's citing) just shows the car starting from some point in the New York metro area. How can you decipher it as New Jersey when the car is touching Long Island and southern Connecticut, not to mention eastern Pennsylvania as well? I think it lends to the ambiguity of the setting as well and refutes his argument further. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I offer 3 sources more current than the one you offer. You offer no newer sources and continue to revert despite consensus for its inclusion. You claim you are not in the wrong because you're right (which I disagree with), but you still edit war and initiated the edit war. Your first edit was itself a revert to old wording (see here). You claim, without backing or discussion, that an old interview with the show's creator trumps the reality of the show, more current episodes, and more current sources. I will again point to the fact that you have a very very long history of this behavior (which I wish I had noticed earlier and would not have treated you as a vandal, though your behaviors are unconstructive, as I mentioned above). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I point, again, to what the creator of the show has clearly put on the record. And his exact words, which are posted here and on the talk page of the article, state that the show is not set in any particular state. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as I discussed it appears to have changed. But it would have been nice if you started discussion after your first edit or 2. I am done making my case here and done defending myself from boomerang. I did my best to engage you in conversation on your talk page and the article's talk page. You refused until the last two edits after violating 3RR and 4im. This is no longer about your source's quality, it's about your actions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is also about your action User:EvergreenFir and you have been at war also as the links above clearly show - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't an edit war. This was you (EvergreenFir) disregarding a sourced edit that clearly contradicted your position, that came from the source of the show itself, and that has not been refuted by him. There wasn't anything to discuss, your information was not correct no matter how current it was. And no matter how many times you bring up my past edit history or claim I did something wrong, it doesn't change that. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:101.0.94.153 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61] (Removed by the user here: [62])

Comments:

A few days ago I started a request for comment to resolve a content dispute on this article. I included a separate section for uninvolved editors to comment, which I understand is standard in a RFC. (See this earlier RFC on the same article.) After the first uninvolved editor commented, disagreeing with TheRedPenOfDoom, TheRedPenOfDoom removed this section heading so that his own comments would be in the same section as those from the uninvolved editors. His reverts have not been all identical, but they all have the same effect of erasing the distinction between involved an uninvolved editors in the RFC. (Despite classifying himself as an "outsider", TheRedPenOfDoom is one of the original parties in the dispute, as can be seen in the article's edit history.)

Also note that his edit summaries notwithstanding, I have not actually altered his comments. He has altered mine, however, by changing/removing the section headings that I added when creating the RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.0.94.153 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 July 2014

You appear to be refactoring in a way by moving TheRedPenOfDoom's comments to the section of your choice. Why did you not just reply saying that you felt they were not "uninvolved"? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) While there does seem to be a bit of an edit war here, it seems to me there might be a bit of violation of the talk page guidelines here as well, all reverts were to restore the user's comment to where he originally placed it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I wasn't the first to point this out either ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

Note: Notified user in accordance with policy. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: apart from his user talk where he immediately removed my comments, I tried to discuss this with him in my own user talk. [63] His only response there was that I can't make other editors follow divisions between involved and uninvolved, although I know this is done in RFCs all the time. In any case, his comments make it clear he doesn't care whether classifying himself as an "outsider" is inaccurate. 101.0.94.153 (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@101.0.94.153: This case is not so quite clear cut as there are violations of WP:TPO involved. If he is moving himself and labeling himself as a non-party, he is free to do so. Rather than move his comments, it is much better to just leave a note saying that he is in fact involved under that comment, but he has the right to place his comment where he wishes within guidelines. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a 3RR exception for a user's own userpage/comments, unless covered by other policies? Or am I imagining seeing that somewhere? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What talk page policy did I violate? In Wikipedia:REFACTOR, one of the legitimate types of refactoring is "Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion". Moving a comment by an involved editor so it isn't in the "comments by outsiders" section seems like it's an example of that. 101.0.94.153 (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is a speedy close possible here? The whole issue of race and intelligence is under discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBR&I) and an IP should not be using this page to report that they have been unsuccessful in their attempts to refactor another editor's comment or to impose certain RfC procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2014 (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