Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Sbharris reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No action)

Page: Familial amyloid polyneuropathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 23:37, 12 September 2018. Sbharris added content that is WP:Biomedical information based on a recent primary source.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 05:02, 13 September 2018, restored, no edit note
2. diff 05:54, 13 September 2018 restored edit note Perfectly good NEJM info restored. Just because other editors don't do what you like, Jdog, does not mean it's edit warring. You're the one under multiple topic sanctions and with many blocks for edit warring, not I. This is 2R.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• diff given by me, at 05:19, 13 September 2018.
• copy/pasted to my page by Sbharris at 05:48, 13 September 2018, with additional note I was here on WP years before you got here. And the person recently and repeatedly sanctioned for edit-warring and topic-pushing, would be YOU. Do not warn me about your own editing problems. I'm fine. It's you who historically rub people the wrong way on WP. and with edit note Do you see a list of people angry at me, and admins blocking me? No you do not.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Time to play the fake secondary source game opened at WT:MEDRS by Sbharris at 01:32, 13 September 2018. Please do read that.
• I placed a link to that discussion at Talk:Familial_amyloid_polyneuropathy#Sort_of_a_discussion and have asked for more eyes on the page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Familial_amyloid_polyneuropathy

Comments:

I am a frequent participant at this board. The spirit with which Sbharris has edited and responded, is probably the most pure expression of edit warring that I have encountered. Their edit notes and talk posts are a) personalized; b) full of disdain for P&G and other editors; and c) convinced of their own righteousness. There is no discussion possible. There is also no acknowledgement that MEDRS has deep and broad consensus. Please block this person to help them see that this behavior is not OK here - not in spirit nor in letter. (Please note that they are counting reverts - the gaming of the letter of the policy is very clear). Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• By default, I'm inclined to err on the side of leniency regarding highly established users with a clean block log. However, Sbh is reverting after being warned, and while discussion is ongoing, plus engaging in unambiguous personal attacks, which puts me on the fence. I looked him up in the archives and there doesn't appear to be any significant history of complaints against them. I'd be leaning more towards a warning and page protection than a block. However, I will leave this open to see if anyone feels differently about the block request. Swarm ♠ 21:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Answer from S B Harris: Apologia pro scripta sua

I’m actually new here in any major way to WP:AN3. In my 13 years on WP since 2005 I’ve never brought anybody to the 3RR board nor had anybody bring me before. Golly, it’s strange in the docket, I’m not an edit-warrior, as user:Swarm has already so perspicaciously (but somewhat precipitately) pointed out.

However, when user:Jytdog says he is a frequent participant on this board, he is being overmodest. He has been here 85 times, some 60 of them (plus or minus—I had to hand count) complaining about somebody else, and some of the rest of the time with others complaining about him. So, when he says that I’m the “most pure expression of edit warring that I have encountered,” I fear for the state of his memory. He himself has been in some ugly situations right here:

For example: here is the great GMO edit war that eventually got various people interaction or topic banned. The problem is that the “bright line” 3RR rule was simply disregarded in the case of Jytdog, even symbolically. User: DrChrissy, who complained about Jytdog’s subject bias, was told to move on, and the page fully-protected. There’s a lazy-man’s way of resolving a WP:AN3 dispute! The problem is there was no justice in that case, as frequently happens on WP.

Here is a very similar case involving an undoubted edit war between Jytdog and user:Prokaryotes, so tangled and nasty that rather than untangle it, the oversighters on 3RR again just full-protected the page rather than untangle it (they admit this—read it). But did nothing to either Jytdog or Prokaryotes. Not even a warning. Okay, again laziness. Doing nothing THERE, is why we are HERE. With me being hounded by Jytdog, who has no case, in any way.

But never mind. It takes a bold man to bring somebody to AN3 when you have exactly the same number of reverts as they do (in this case, two). I remind you that in similar situations when Jytdog has been brought here by somebody else, he is quite capable of arguing the “letter” (not the spirit) of “the law”. Want to see?

In this case, here Jytdog who had been accused of 3RR violation said in his own defense: “First of all, nobody has broken 3RR so this is a non-actionable filing.” Wow, a “non actionable filing.” Jytdog, you legal beagle, you! And in that case, as well as another brought against Jytdog [1] here, the action here by admins was simple: “No violation, so no action.” (again, if you don’t believe me, read the cases). Nobody bothered to speculate about whether or not Jytdog might be harboring evil thoughts or intent. Or was not pure of heart. Or might actually be COUNTING (and why not? Clearly he was counting at some point before writing). Or might be trying to “game the system” (gasp.)

Apparently the WP:AN3 action of throwing up hands and locking articles, applies when Jytdog is guilty of violating the letter of the 3R law. Then we judge him on spirit. But when he’s NOT guilty of letter violation, he’s be glad to tell us, and he will be listened to, and THAT given as accepted defense. You can have it both ways.

Jytdog is capable of being overly concerned with the future, and disagreeing with 3R rules he doesn’t like: [2] a good case (humorous, too, except I’m angry now): Jytdog was so zealous that he went into somebody’s user space and kept reverting them because he said they were PLANNING on launching the article later in main space. User:Canoe1967, the 3RR defendant hauled here by Jytdog, complains it’s in his own user space (for god sake) and is exempted from 3RR and gives the cite where it is exempted. Quote from Jytdog (over an hour later): “More of the same ABF accusations. I disagree with the user-space exemption, as Canoe is specifically developing this article to be relaunched as an unmerge, as discussed above.Jytdog (talk) 10:51 am, 4 September 2013, Wednesday (5 years, 10 days ago) (UTC−7)”

He is then reminded pointedly that a problem arises THEN, not now. To be sure, Jytdog later apologizes and thanks all for “education” -- but it’s not “education” when somebody points out 3RR policy in their defense, and the editor bringing the case against them simply responds by saying they personally disagree with WP 3R policy. That’s obstinance, not ignorance. It took an admin’s input to change Jytdog’s mind. Don’t take my word for it—read it above.

As for whether or not my edit and TALK posts are “personalized” , I don’t know Jytdog personally. The only “personality” he leaves on WP is his past history here, some of which is above. I’m not impressed with it, and that’s the “personalized” part. How can one not get that? You all can form your own opinions and I’ll provide FURTHER evidence of Jytdog’s battling on WP if you want or must have more (do you really?). His note bringing me here is certainly personalized— apparently I’m the worst edit warrior who ever graced WP and he wants you to block me on general principles even if I haven’t been here ever, or technically broken the rules. That’s personal.

Now, look at it from MY perspective as an editor of 13 years and many edits. I don’t want to be here, dealing with this! I woke up this AM only to find that part of one of my own comments on a TALK page had been actually been redacted today by Jytdog, on grounds that you can’t add anything to your own comments on a TALK page after they’ve been answered, and that I’d violated WP:REDACT and this was WP 101 stuff [3] Then (alas), he realized my comment edit was to Doc James and was FOUR MINUTES after my earlier one, and Doc James hadn’t answered (still hasn’t) and that it was fine per WP:REDACT. Rather, what Jytdog had done was a bad violation of the first line of WP:TALKO. So he had to undo it all, but couldn’t fix the edit summary. Gee, what is WP 101? I can’t say, but I can suggest somebody who has had WAY too much coffee. At best.

So my defense? I made a good solid bold edit on the Familial amyloid polyneuropathy article. It’s info on an excellent clinical trial that comes right out of the New England Journal sitting on my desk along with my white coat and stethoscope. I agree with much of WP:MEDRS, but not all of it, but I’ve won my spurs and the right to use them. Jytdog has a problem that I don’t kowtow to it, but why should I? I do medical epistemology for a living. The only thing that was possibly wrong with my edit, actually, per WP:MEDRS is that a still-unapproved drug could have reasonably been split out into a separate “experimental treatment” section. But no matter, since all of this has since been reverted and totally removed by a Jytdog acolyte [4] so you’ll all have to live with that. The FDA will soon approve the drug (for serious and rare diseases, their standards actually don’t come up to WP:MEDRS) and you’ll have to add something like it back. I’m not going to. I’m done with this matter. I might come back to the subject to heckle you just a little, for the good of WP. Jytdog thinks I'm too righteous. No. Let us see if I am RIGHT. That's better. Place your bets, people. I edit under my own real name, so take personal responsibility for my predictions and actions. (How many of YOU do?)

So: my defense isn’t that I’m a subject matter expert (SME) although I do have 35 years of medical practice, FDA experience, drug patents in my name, and certainly am a SME (though one without COI; I have nothing to do with THIS drug). That doesn’t count on Wikipedia. My defense is that I broke no rules and was certainly doing nothing but altruistically improving WP. Something which the people here removing good information (in a very entrenched way) are not. Doc James has been silent. **Crickets**.

I suggest, in turn, that you block Jytdog for another good long stretch for having a general WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and history, per the (perhaps overlong) argument above. I want you to block him for not only having broken both spirit and letter of the law in the past, but also for generally being tendentious. Again he’s been here on AN3 now 85 times and will be here again, soon. I haven't. It’s up to you. SBHarris 04:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sbharris, hello. Firstly, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia over the years. Editors like you add significantly to the wealth of knowledge that exists here, and your contribution is as valuable as those of other committed editors here. So at the outset, don't let this thread, or Jytdog's report against you or my assessment of this situation, give you any impression to the otherwise. If you believe that this reply is in good faith, and to your benefit, please do read on. It's quite normal for very experienced editors at Wikipedia, like you, or like some of my very good friends here, to be bold and add material that is true, if not properly verifiable. It's as normal for other less experienced editors, like me, or Jytdog, to revert such additions for various reasons – ranging from editorial challenges to plain-old citation complaints. The appropriate procedure would be for the editor adding the material to follow the dispute resolution process; in essence, if I were you, and if my edit had been reverted (twice), I would have gone to the talk page of the said article and started a discussion to gain consensus for my addition. It's not about how righteous you rightly are, or how wrongful Jytdog's revert or report seems; like FDA, like hospitals, Wikipedia works on certain broad policies, guidelines and commonsense procedures, with BRD fortifying the essence of editorial interactions and discussions. Your mistake, in my opinion, was continuing to revert without initiating talk page discussions. I really don't care whether Jytdog is wrong in his assessment of the material or you are right (which, in all probability, is how it is); if you don't follow the BRD process going forward, you will start getting blocked, of course, with due consideration to your contributions. I would strongly suggest you to start reading up on how dispute resolution works. It's quite simpler than how FDA approves drugs; and more successful. Please, again, I'm not attempting to patronise you. This is to ensure that we don't end up losing or demotivating one of our more committed contributors. The summary is, Jytdog is procedurally right; you're procedurally wrong. Warmly, Lourdes 16:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Lourdes for their apt summary. A discussion thread is in fact open at WT:IRS (medicine). A complaint was opened here at AN3 by Jytdog presenting only two diffs, which falls short of a full edit war. But since the war appears to have stopped, this complaint could be closed. If you think there are examples of POV-pushing or personal attacks which need attention, they can be discussed elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Stale - re-report if necessary. 𝒮𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝒳 21:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, user:Lourdes. The problem here is that I am procedurally right also, if the procedure you follow is WP:MEDRS. It has a section at the beginning which addresses just this kind of problem:

Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as original, primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted (see recentism). Determining weight of studies generally requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on such sources). If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study: (example given) Given time a review will be published, and the primary sources should preferably be replaced with the review. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability: (example given) If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed. bold added by sbharris

Now we have exactly that kind of study here. Cardiologists have been praising it in several places on the internet, but since the study came in print only last week, and since this is a rare disease which is very expensive to study in this way, we do not have time yet for any sort of published "review" to be published. Certainly no "reasonable" amount of time has passed, yet two editors overrode me and removed it anyway, citing WP:MEDRS.

Now, Jytdog is in violation of this policy, and so is the editor who agreed with him and removed my contribution for the THIRD time (instead of finding a better place for it-- which I myself would have done except I was, and am, being scrutinized). Doc James was silent. Nobody else said anything, except you, and you're wrong, too.

My own editing on WP is full of places where I thank other editors and they thank me, and where I back down when shown to be wrong, and basically I'm usually pretty collegial. But in this case I'm right and you-all are wrong, and the problem is you can't admit it, and you can't back down, and here I am on WP:AN3. I won't put up with that. If you want to WP:LAWYER me, I'm going to make you own it. And I'm not going to make it pleasant for you, when you put your foot in it, in the process of wikilawyering. Why should I? If you'd thought about this for more than a minute, you've have done some more reading instead of coming at me.

WP:MEDRS has many problems, and we can begin with what "a reasonable amount of time" to wait for a review is. Who is to judge? Not the literature, because it's not going to say. WP editors who know nothing of the subject or the medical publication world? Who don't have any medical publications themselves, or any experience with the process? WP editors lack exactly what a review (absent any new evidence) brings to the table. You see the problem. In any case, whatever you decide, a week is not long enough, and certainly a day is not. The devil is in the details. SBHarris 01:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Cypresscross reported by User:Smalljim (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: (various)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4
5. diff5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ligand_Pharmaceuticals#NPOV_tag

Comments:

Editor has a clear COI regarding Emmanuel Lemelson who is involved in the breaking news (here) regarding Ligand Pharmaceuticals. As GreenC has suggested on the talk page, this set of reverts appears to be a panicky attempt to mitigate the problems facing Lemelson.  —SMALLJIM  19:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a totally baseless attack to justify blanking a tremendous amount of high quality work. The other editor involved in this disagreement has already conceded on the Talk page that the new content needs to be added. In the process, that editor made just as many reverts. At no time was 3RR violated, as each revert involved different sections and content. See talk page discussion here. Cypresscross (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cypresscross: 3RR is for three reverts cumulative in a 24-hour period on one article; I reviewed the page history and agree with the assertion that you have reverted the article five times in the last 24 hours. Further, this appears to be a content dispute, so there are no exemptions to 3RR that you can claim. Would you care to self-revert—undo your own most recent set of changes—and then discuss the matter on the talk page to avoid a block? —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred Thanks for clarifying, I thought 3RR referred only to the same edit, otherwise I wouldn't have done it. However, this is not a content dispute, as myself and the other editor involved (meatsgains) both agree on the content. The only dispute here is that smalljim is making a COI accusation and has also not raised any issues with the content. Can you chime in on this issue first - thanks. If I violated a policy, I will self revert with your guidance. Thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Note that editor was given a templated 3RR notice here (April 2017) and indicated an understanding of it. (Section since deleted).  —SMALLJIM  20:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cypresscross: If the issue were just COI, he would've just asked you directly about your connection. The fact that he reverted the text indicates that he objects to the text and that the objection is at least in part due to conflict-of-interest concerns. (I don't want to put words in his mouth, but my read is that he fears the article is being whitewashed, and he reverted to a version that is written from neutral point of view.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

And the self-revert would be to roll the article back to this version from before your last revert and edits. If you'd like technical assistance in doing that, I can assist. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

C.Fred: As you deduced, behind this report lies Cypresscross' obvious COI and the consequent negative bias he's injected into the article. A clean-up has been initiated by another editor (and I'm about to assist), so I don't think a self-revert is now a viable option.  —SMALLJIM  22:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm closing this with no action, since it's been a day since Cypresscross edited. Obviously, if the user were to resume edit warring, that would necessitate a block. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, C.Fred. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to ask you to look at this again here after you have closed it, but after just a few hours Cypresscross resumed editing the article with several reverts:

1. here (adding back content removed in this edit),
2. here (I had removed the content in this edit),
3. here and
4. here, restoring content ("however in September 2016...") that was removed just 8 minutes earlier, here.

In fairness I should mention that he has been engaging on the talk page too, but he's very determined to havehis own way.  —SMALLJIM  19:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Declined (just tagging for archiving purposes) 𝒮𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝒳 21:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Isananni (Result: Wrong venue/no violation Reporter blocked for edit warring)

Page: False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [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:False_accusation_of_rape

Comments:
I recently made an edit in the lead on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape that was merely aimed at encompassing the broader range of percents emerging from the perfectly reliable sources that had already been added and approved in the article, as had been suggested by other editors on the talk page.

I feel my edit contributes to curbing what was perceived, in my opinion rightly so, a possible biase, encouraging the user to read further in the article to discern the different studies that have yelded the different rates. My edit does not state that either the lowest or the highest rate is better than the other, it does stress that the lowest rates are generally agreed on without dismissing considerably higher rates as urban legend. I feel my edit perfectly complies with WP:NEUTRAL

I feel the discussion on the talk page with editor Roscelese has taken a nasty turn, I feel I am being personally attacked without assuming good faith on my part, and I personally find Roscelese’s comments to my edits like “nonsense” or accusing me of being unreasonable or inviting me to leave encyclopedia editing to others to be downright offensive and bordering on harassment and threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isananni (talk • contribs) 07:06, September 15, 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni:, wrong board, insufficient cause (imho). Please carefully read the instructions at the top of this (or any) Noticeboard you use. At the very top of this one, you will see: This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. It does not sound like your complaint above has anything to do with edit warring, hence, this is the wrong venue.

Secondly, bringing something to any administrator board is kind of a last resort, when you've exhausted yourself trying everything else you could think of, starting with talking it out on Talk pages. I don't see that any of this has happened, therefore imho it would be premature to raise this on this, or any, Admin Noticeboard. In my interactions with Roscelese, including some where we disagree, I have found them to be here to build the encyclopedia, to have good faith, and always to respond to reason.

Now, I'm not an admin, just a user like you, but may I suggest you withdraw this report, and do some due diligence first, starting with talking it out with the user involved: on the article talk page if it is a content dispute, on the user talk page if you believe there is an editor behavior issue (such as edit warring). If you decide to continue your report here, then make sure to read the rest of the instructions at the top, and fill out the required information, including the diffs. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: you seem not to have read the “percents in lead” section on the talk page. Does it look like the reported user is acting civilly or has stated his/her real objections to my arguments for neutrality regarding the edit on the article? Could you please at least read that section and give your opinion? And no, I’m not taking down this report. I have used the talk page, extensively at that, and have actually only given consensus to the imo reasonable edit request of other users. For that I have been traded insults and am not taking it anymore. Isananni (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: If you ping me from that Talk page section, I would be happy to give my opinion about the content dispute there, but it would be off-topic here. I can only reiterate that the decision whether to withdraw this report is yours, but it will very likely just end up being closed by as wrong venue. As an aside, please check out WP:THREAD for how to use colons for indentation in order to maintain an orderly discussion among multiple editors on an article or user talk page. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I opened a WP:DRN, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Percents_in_lead please consider this report closed. Isananni (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I managed to open a notice ticket in what I hope is the correct venue, I also pinged you in the talk page of the False Accusation of Rape article. Thanks for your suggestions. I may not be exceedingly good with formal issues, but I am in good faith and am here to contribute with honesty too. Isananni (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

So far, the only edit-warring is being done by User:Isananni:

• 07:33, September 13, 2018
• 09:04, September 15, 2018
• 10:24, September 15, 2018‎

• Wrong venue/no violation, though I note that the reporting editor is at 3RR now, and needs to desist. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• (2RR actually; the other reverts were around 2 days ago... Lourdes 11:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC))

• NOW User:Isananni is up to three reverts. And yes, he was officially warned about the three-revert rule:

• 12:57, September 15, 2018‎

User Calton is lying. I did not thrice revert my edits including the 80% rate in the lead. Following user Martinevans123's suggestion on the talk page I made a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EDIT where I left out all numerical details in the lead as I understand is common practice on Wikipedia. So the truth is that both users Calton and PeterTheFourth are edit warring against me regardless of the opinions expressed by other editors on the talk page, let alone mine, with Calton refusing to engage in a discussion on the article talk page. PeterTheFourth expressed concerns of neutrality about my edit including the 80% percent in the lead, what exactly is not neutral in my latest edit?!? What consensus do I exactly fail to meet when I follow another editor's suggestion that numerical details are best left out of the lead as is common wiki practice?!? Isananni (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that you are already blocked but the part that you seem to be missing is "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. Policy. No one lied; you messed up.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

User Calton is lying. I did not thrice revert my edits...

Uh huh. The three reverts and their edit summaries:

• 09:04, September 15, 2018 Undid revision 859631363: try using the talk page yourself before reverting edits on a page you have never contrubuted on I have given consensus to the edit request of other users)
• 10:24, September 15, 2018‎ Undid revision 859643394: yes I do know, so far it’s 2 to 1 in favor of my perfectly neutral rephrasing
• 12:57, September 15, 2018‎ Common wiki practice is NOT to go into numerical details in the lead as stated on the talk page. Please revert only when YOU have consensus to the contrary. (in response to Undid revision 859651988 by Isananni (talk) "Please try to establish a consensus on talk before continuing to make these changes..."

Tell me, what does "undid" mean? --Calton | Talk 14:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: , 15 September 2018 (UTC), 14:07 Black Kite blocked Isananni (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) ‎(Violation of the three-revert rule) [5]

• Nominating editor blocked 𝒮𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝒳 21:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Garageland66 reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: )

Page: Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Garageland66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14 September 17:39 - multiple reverts to different changes of this version.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6][7][8] - consecutive reverts (so - 1 for 3RR) of user:GizzyCatBella (2) and Icewhiz - 15 September 08:25-08:28
2. 10:28, 15 September 2018 revert of 09:26, 15 September 2018 by user:Slatersteven
3. 06:53, 16 September 2018 - revert of Icewhiz.
4. 07:03, 16 September 2018 + 07:07, 16 September 2018 (which reverted the intervening edit by Icewhiz at 06:53 - so this is not an oversight in regards that there were intervening edits).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:55, 16 September 2018 - warned when he hit 3RR - not acknowledgement of response at 07:05 [9] before the second revert in the 07:03-07:07 revert chain.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is a bunch of different changes - some of them being new. The mural title (part of reverts 1 & 2) is discussed at [10]. Lipstadt - part of revert 4 (other experts being new additions today) discussed at - [11] (and attempt of re-titling section was a result of K.e.coffman's comments. The intro section (modified, not removed) in revert3 is newly added from 15 September. Other talk page content may also be relevant.

Comments:
I myself made precisely 1 revert (in an edit chain in 0616-0646 on 16 September) in the past 24 hours, my previous edit being on 14 September (and not a revert).

per WP:3RR - "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. While Garageland66 did not repeat the exact same revert (though he has reverted changes to the same sections) - he has made reverts (which are easy to ascertain as they all used the "undo" button) to different material (by 3 different users I might add) - thus this violates the "different material" provision of 3RR. Furthermore, these aren't inadvertent slip ups with intervening edits - as in each case in revert chains 2,3 and 4 - at least one of the reverts is a revert of an intervening edit.

I had mentioned to the user violations of ARBPIA 1RR (relevant in part to this article - though the edits to the sections above are probably not conflict related) in the past - [12][13] and 3RR [14] - but chose not to report since I got a positive response and I thought the user was newish (returning from a wikibreak on May 2018, and not being involved in ARBPIA before). However, the response I got to the 3RR warning today - 07:05, 16 September 2018 - "I'm not involved in an edit war. I'm involved in protecting an article. Editors are entitled to revert edits. Especially edits that have not been discussed and agreed. - in my mind exhibits WP:OWNERSHIP - the user seeing himself as a gatekeeper (protecting the article), and seeing reverts as an entitlement - this response was followed by another revert.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It does look like a 4RR. Although some may not technically be reverts. But I am not sure about all this 1RR stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

1RR (ARBPIA) is irrelevant for this report (in the two headsups I cited above - this was clear Israel/Palestine content - however in this case we have the antisemitic mural, holocaust denial, etc. - not clearly ARBPIA). All of Garageland66 diffs above were performed with the "undo" button (edit summary beginning with Undid revision X, tagged with undo) - and thus are unambiguously full reverts. Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet this one [[15]] is not in fact a straight revert, as the page never said this (at least not at the start of this latest spat). And the ARBPIA ruling was for pages that could be reasonably said to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict, not sections of an article. As the actual people who are the subject of this article (from both sides) have all said this is not about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but about antisemitism in the UK, it is hard to see how we can say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

There's also a pretty clear WP:BLP implication, the removed material supports a long-standing campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. I would say the default should be to remove the material pending consensus on Talk, multiple reverts notwithstanding. That article is ... not great. A lot of he-said-she-said content. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made this very point myself (more then once), it is far more of a BLP then an article about the Israel/Palestine conflict, and it is a BLP violation to accuse an artists work of antisemitism in Wikipedia voice when RS are not that unanimous it is clearly antisemitic. But I am not sure all of his edits did tackle BLP issues. Example how is this [[16]] addressing any BLP concerns?Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Garageland66 has continued to revert the article while making no response to the complaint here. His last block was for six months, ending in May 2018. The last blocking admin, User:Tedder, stated in the block message that Garageland66 was "clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. See also WP:TEND". Garageland66 was advised in June 2018 Hi, after a six month block you appear to be straight back to the same single focus contributions that got you all your previous blocks - six months should have told you something.. I'm planning to issue one final warning, and if no response, will consider an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag- I still watch the user's page, so I saw things were coming up. I have no problem with an indef if there's no attempt at engaging in discussion. tedder (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really sure what the problem is. I did ONE revert today. Reverting a change to a paragraph in the introduction that had been in place for weeks. [17] There had not been any discussion on the Talk Page about this and so I feel I'm entitled to revert it. Garageland66 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Livelikemusic reported by User:Yoryla (Result: Declined)

Page: Days of Our Lives User being reported:User:Livelikemusic

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/858861682

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Livelikemusic&action=view#/talk/9

Comments: The edit that was reverted was FACT, as based on the credits of the show. There is absolutely no credence to the edit being reverted. There was not even a summary of the basis of the edit, which is always a sign of a weak, unwarranted edit.

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

User:76.9.74.127 reported by User:Sakaimover (Result: Page protected)

Page

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

• [18] - original edit, removing sourced information

Diffs of the user's reverts

• 1.[19]
• 2.[20]
• 3.[21]
• 4.[22]
• 5.[23]
• 6.[24]
• 7.[25]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[26]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• IP has been asked to discuss on talk page in edit summary [27], but refuses to engage: "I will not" [28]
• Inviting IP to participate in discussion here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakaimover (talk • contribs) 23:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Likewise on their talk page: [29]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Appears to be a POV editor. "There is no vandalism, only truth" [30]
• The IP is continuing to edit war despite my attempt to involve them in discussion. I believe a block is in order to prevent further disruption. Sakaimover (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I've decided to semi-protect the page for 4 days instead of pursuing a block, in the (perhaps overly idealistic) hopes that they will engage in discussion. RFPP request Airplaneman ✈ 02:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Airplaneman ✈ 02:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

comment: the IP has shown that they don’t intend to engage in collaborative discussion, so I believe they will register an account in order to continue the edit war. I believe a block is the best way to prevent this from happening. Sakaimover (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection also prevents new accounts (not autoconfirmed) from editing, so this should not be a problem in the near future. In this way, protection functions in the same way as a block in disabling the editing of the page. Airplaneman ✈ 02:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Leadsoprano reported by User:Flat Out (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Northwestern High School (Indiana) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859918453 by Flat Out (talk)"
2. 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859918310 by Flat Out (talk) Will continue to undo. No listed accomplishments for music program, very different from athletics."
3. 04:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859918060 by John from Idegon (talk) You are unfairly deleting major accomplishments. Will continue to undo your deletions."
4. 04:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859917771 by John from Idegon (talk)"
5. 03:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859917422 by John from Idegon (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Northwestern High School (Indiana). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

see edit summary here and attempts from other editor

Comments:

2 reverts following level 4 warning Flat Out (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

And with edit summaries like "Will continue to undo..." along with IDHT attitude exhibited at their talk page, Leadsoprano's disruption is only bound to continue. In my opinion, this is perhaps an apt case for an indef-block unless the editor confirms they will not disruptively revert after being unblocked. Lourdes 11:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Normally, I might conclude this as stale, but I have a feeling when / if Leadsoprano next logs in, they'll start edit-warring again, so a block is still necessary, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Ilovetopaint reported by User:RivetHeadCulture (Result: No violation)

Page

Dark wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_wave&diff=859894574&oldid=859680919

Comments:

Like months before, User:Ilovetopaint permanently vandalizes the article and removes sourced content under the pretext of 'article improvement'. I don't know what this guy is thinking. It's definitely not his field of expertise. That's for sure. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

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. While edit-warring over musical in genres in infoboxes is unconstructive, it's not vandalism (and never has been). Furthermore, Ilovetopaint is a prolific writer on the project, with multiple good articles under their belt, so the odds of them committing vandalism are extremely low to non-existent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Ergzay reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

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

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

Comments:
@Ergzay: insists on their version of the article when 4 out of 6 editors in the discussion oppose their arguments, and does not seem to be okay with just leaving the status quo while discussing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: insists that a consensus exists when no such consensus exists. We are currently still in the process of discussing. The actual status quo was the article with the changes made by user Audacity. I probably should have reported Jasper Deng for engaging in edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Secondly, you list 4 reverts, but I only count 3. The first revert was not a revert but a partial restoration of partial changes and would count as an edit, not a revert. I have made 3 reverts (and reverted my own changes afterwards in good faith, assuming you will engage in further discussion, which you don't appear to be doing). Ergzay (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Consider this report to be withdrawn as the editor has self-reverted the last revert. But for future notice, the first edit listed above does count as a revert.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please point to the documentation that describes what a revert is, for official records. An edit where some portion of the edit partially restores part of a previous edit while also adding additional edits is not a reversion in my opinion. Ergzay (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)