Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Page: Bigg Boss 9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dinesh kanwar singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]

Diffs of warnings: [5] [6] [7] [8]

Comments:

• User is edit-warring to remove surnames from an article in violation of WP:MOS, and has continued to do so after four messages from two editors telling them to stop. Psychonaut (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Long-term edit-warring. User's only edit in talk space was here where they didn't acknowledge the surname issue. This comment was left approximately 2 minutes after TPROD warned Dinesh to stop removing surnames. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(undid vandalism by IP 82.132.225.11) Historiador (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Stirling engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Caballero1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]

New GF editor Jcflyer58 (talk · contribs) recently added some new content to the article. For some unfathomable reason, ClueBot took exception to this and reverted it, with warning [13]. I can see no good reason for this. I thus restored it and improved the technical citation of the pre-existing NASA source (presumably ClueBot didn't recognise the prose citation).

This is a good addition.

Jcflyer58 continued to work on it. Caballero1967 then reverted it, with a further warning [14]. I struck this warning through as incorrect, restored the content and invited Caballlero to comment further.

This addition is sourced. It is part of a two line para, with a cite at the end of the para. We have no reason that each sentence must be individually cited, when the cite at the end of a short para covers it.

Caballero1967 has now reverted this three times, as if it were unsourced. They have issued warnings to all concerned:

• User_talk:Jcflyer58
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Stirling_engine
• User_talk:Caballero1967#December_2015

They have not however discussed the substance of this, why they are reverting continually. If it's "because it's unsourced", that's a failure of WP:CIR. If it's because it's unclear, they could discuss it. They have not done this, they have simply dismissed both other editors as if they were idiots adding unsourced content, "Every addition should be explained and sourced. It is simple".

I don't like this addition. It is too close to "close paraphrasing" of the source and the extent of the claim (as is not unusual for Stirling engine material) is "optimistic" to a point that raises eyebrows (Stirling engines have been "the next big thing" for a long time, yet they still have yet to deliver.). I would like to see this claim toned down and put in NASA's voice, not WP's objective voice. However one thing that is clear about this is that it is sourced content. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

They have now added [15] a {{citation needed}}, adjacent to the citation. I think WP:CIR now applies. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Caballero's argument: Three reverts is the maximum for a day. Thus, there is no war edit. Moreover, they were not reverts to the same editor. One was for Jcflyer58 and two for Andy Dingley.

It seems that Andy Dingley is not assuming good faith in my reverts even when at every instance I mentioned that an explanation or a source was needed for additions to the article. These were my annotations:

1- In User_talk:Jcflyer58 I left an automated welcoming message that also informed the user about sourcing new additions. It also invited the user to return to the article to include a source in addition to the change (no source was included with the user’s contribution).

2- “Reverted good faith edits by Andy Dingley: If you bring an argument that's new for the article, explain it in the comments sections, justify it in Talk Page or place a reference. How else would we verify it?”

3- “Reverted good faith edits by Andy Dingley: One more time. Verify, explain, and source. You know how it works, and you know the time it takes to make sure these rules are followed.”

The changes inserted were not clear about the source. Perhaps the editors working on the article presumed the evidence and sources, but from a patrolling perspective, these changes were not sourced and worse, they were not explained. These were the comments left for the changes:

1- [16] None

2- [17] "That thing in the "< ref >") tags? It's called a reference." (note: as explained below, there was no reference (< ref >) attached to the new contribution or at the end of the new sentence)

3- [18] "Rv repeated blanking on sourced content."

To the first attempt for input/change without a comment and from a user that had already been warned by a bot, I performed a good faith revert and only asked for a source. There was no source connected with the new addition and, as you saw above, no comment about how this new addition may have linked to whatever sources had been cited already in the paragraph.

To the second attempt for input/change with an unclear comment, I reverted it and, as shown above, explained what was necessary with the addition of new information to the article. I also went to the user’s talk page and explained the reasons for this action.

To the third attempt for input/change with another unclear comment added to an unfair accusation (unfair because blanketing is meant for changes without explanation), I reverted the change and went, for the second time, to the user talk page and re-explained my case. I also went to my user talk page and commented on the issue since the user had tagged me there.

As soon as I noticed that behind the lack of good communication was a group of dedicated editors working on this article, I went back and undid my reverts and placed the citation tag at the end of the new sentence so the contributors would notice where was the issue that provoked the reverts.

As I explained in my annotations, a comment, a Talk Page explanation, or a citation linked directly to the sentence being added should have avoided all of these problems. A critical step was when user: Andy Dingley, instead of merely explaining that this was an addition linked to the sources already cited in the paragraph, chose to write “That thing in the "< ref >" tags? It's called a reference.” Not only is this comment vague, but also contains a subtle insult, which cast doubts about the purpose of the reverts.

• I wish to set a formal complaint about the gratuitous reference to WP:CIR and for the unnecessary reaction to a work that only asked for explanations to changes done to the article. Historiador (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"at every instance I mentioned that an explanation or a source was needed for additions to the article"

At every instance, even now, you are treating other editors as idiots who don't realise this.

The content is sourced. It always has been. Why are you demanding sources when they're already there? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Contennt needs to be sourced. Why is that so hard for you to comply with? 82.132.225.115 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, you appear to say that your gripe with my interventions take you and the other editors working with this article as "idiots." I regret that. That was never my intention. Your comments on my page, which you posted after I have already reverted your changes for the second time and left a message in your own talk page (things were moving rather quickly), were enough to warn me about the way you were feeling. Taking your grievance to this level is not only a waste of time and an unnecessary investment of energy, but it also leaves adverse tracks of its own, like your gratuitous reference to WP:CIR (when the page clearly warns you against its use for issues of this type) and your accusation of bad faith (on which this entire report is based). I took the decision to leave your input on the page with a tag for citation before learning that you have appealed to this noticeboard. It is still puzzling. Historiador (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The section that was tagged was covered directly in the citation at the end of the paragraph. I duplicated it in place of the cn tag. Why is there no discussion on the article's talk page? Did anyone actually read the source that was provided? My only concern about the content is that the sentence is nearly verbatim from the source. One does not need to cite every sentence in a paragraph, when the section is covered by the source at the end of the paragraph. Scr★pIron^IV 18:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, I should mention that I never received notification of your question in User_talk:Jcflyer58, which you posted at 7am on Dec. 3: "Perhaps Caballero1967 would care to explain further?" My entry on that page was automated (as explained in my edit summary comments and above)-- and you never allowed me time to even get to it. Otherwise, I would have answered it. Historiador (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, thanks. My request were an explanation in the summary comments or in Talk page. If none of these, then a source would have hinted to the purpose of the addition. Again, more impotant was a summary/comment/explanation. None of them were provided, but until the end, when all the reverts were already done. Historiador (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: The edit summary that you referenced yourself, while a bit sarcastic, should have been explanation enough. It occurred at the beginning of the edit summaries. You mean, you did not check the reference, and just continued to revert? I would strongly suggest you drop it at this point, and withdraw the complaint. Scr★pIron^IV 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, I suggest you read this entire thread more carefully. I am not the one making an accusation here. I did read the comments, and as I explained above, did not understand it as an explanation for the change (in retrospection, many things look perfectly clear). Not only because it was unclear, but also because there was no reference linked to that specific change and addition: none!. I took the extra step to read the sources linked to other parts of the paragraph and it was still not obvious to me. And since I was guarding the page against vandalism, and my requested had been unheard, I reverted it back, IN GOOD FAITH, and asked for an explanation, again. That's it. Keep in mind, that at every moment, I explained that I was asking for an explanation, a simple comment that would warn me that this was a collaborative project and that these additions were not random. Following WP about acting bold, I, again asked for explanations (or sources), nothing fancy. I am raising a complaint only as a reaction and linked to the accusation of war editing. The case drops, and as a result, the complaint falls with it too. Otherwise, there is a different place to raise a formal complaint. Historiador (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, let me repeat, as to be as clear as possible (even though I have made it a focal point here), Andy Dingley's first comment to my revert, not only was sarcastic (a bit, because the space only allowed for a bit), but hinted to a reference that was none-existant. There was no < r > in the change being added or at the end of the sentence that I could look at. It was a reversion, an undid, a revert done in a hurry, without a proper explanation. And then, the user accused me of war edit, when I only reverted two of the user's edits (both without proper explanations of my own reverts). I searched for explanations, and as soon as I learned what was going on, I fixed the problem. All of this took very little time, but the accuser jumped to this page as soon as possible. In fact, my fixing of the page was done prior or at the same time that the accuser was writing on this page. No assumption fo good faith and lack of good communication. Historiador (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest you merely apologize for misreading, and be done with it. Read the sources before reverting. I'm done here. No need to ping me any more.Scr★pIron^IV 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I did not misread. The message was unclear. You misread something when the message is clear. And yet, I did apologize. let me quote, "you appear to say that your gripe with my interventions take you and the other editors working with this article as "idiots." I regret that. That was never my intention." The thread has grown, I understand, but it still important to read all the information before making any comment or passing any judgement. Historiador (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above, there was no source to read! No reference linked to the addition. None! And yet, I read further, and the link was not obvious at first. The context, keep in mind, is a persistence of adding information without explanation, and again and again, I asked for an explanation, a comment, something that would make sense.Historiador (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

*Perhaps it is necessary to restate succinctly what I have explained here already in order for this case to get the attention it needs, namely, a result.

Summary: User:Andy Dingley brought my name to this noticeboard under the false accusation of edit warring. Not only did I stay within the parameters of the 3RR rule, but none of my reverts were done in bad faith. Perhaps the entire case is the result of poor communication and of reacting too fast to each other actions (I am also at blame on this last point). User:Andy Dingley explained that my constant request for sources or for explanations made editors feel like idiots. Even when this could have been solved without coming here, twice I apologized for giving that impression while asserting that this was never my intention. Moreover, I did bring the article back to the position it was before I had reverted it. This I did rather fast, as soon as I realized the nature of the problem. In fact, everything took only a few minutes. However, these were unfavorable actions and failures of good practices that should be considered from the user who brought me here:

(the links to the actions referred here are already posted above)

1) It accused me of Edit Warring when there was never more than 3RRs, and not even the spirit of the law was broken: here.

2) It failed to assume good faith WP:GF.

3) In both instances, it failed to answer my requests for an explanation: summary/explanation/comments (WP:RFC) (the first user provided no comment).

4) It failed to establish an effective communication with me before coming to this noticeboard-- a clear pre-requirement stated at the top of this page. (The two links above, which claim to be warnings sent to me, are not warnings at all. One lead to the bot's change and the other to my first change. Not only they say nothing about the user's claims, but they were not placed in my talk page nor on the article's talk page).

5) It failed to warn me about the 3RR rule by posting this tag on my talk page: { { subst:uw-3RR } }, a step that should have been taken before approaching this forum.

6) It failed to follow the steps suggested to avoid edit warring as explained here (this is key if the user felt there was an edit warring in the making).

7) It used the WP:CIR against me in this forum even when at the page's top clearly says: "Be very cautious when referencing this page, as it can be very insulting to other editors." Writers of this page understood how it could be used as a shortcut to gain the upper hand by undermining other editor's standing (even when I was not discussing substance, but procedures).

User:Andy Dingley should have taken in consideration that Edit Warring "is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle...good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism" (quoted from the top of this same page).

Cheers, Historiador (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Star Wars (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC) "no consensus to restore cluttered version"
2. 05:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "I did take this to the talk page, 2 & 1/2 hours before your revert. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Talk:Star_Wars_(film)&diff=693333221&oldid=692866496"
3. 22:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC) "restore easily read version that doesn't clump everything in the predicate, see talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Star Wars (film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Lead sentence word order */ get consensus first"

Comments:

User has continued to edit war over this edit. User has been reverted by several other editors and has reverted again after being warned. Not all of these edits occurred in a 24 hour period, but this user has been blocked for edit warring in the past and should know better. JOJ ^Hutton 14:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I clearly did not violate 3rr. I was thanked for my edit by User:GoneIn60. Joj reverted me here for the second or third time with his first edit summary suggesting that I needed to make a case on the talk page two and a half hours after I had already started such a dicsussion, to which he did not respond for another seven and a half hours after reverting me. His prior reverts were without comment. It appears he reverts first, then issues warnings, and then engages in discussion. I am not wed to any version of the lead, which I have tried in various ways to make more readable. Joj is wed to only the prior version, and reverts to that alone, opposing any improvement. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Originally, I reverted the first edit which separated the terms epic and space opera used to describe the genre in the opening sentence. That was my beef initially. Then in a series of later revisions, μηδείς addressed my concern and reinstated the other changes in a good faith attempt to improve the opening sentence. These additional changes are now being contested by other editors in a discussion on the talk page. While I do believe μηδείς acted in good faith initially, I think at this point it is counterproductive to continue to reinstate the changes while the discussion is ongoing, especially since there are multiple editors that disagree with them. I don't have a preference either way at this point. It doesn't appear that a strict violation of WP:3RR occurred, so perhaps getting everyone on the same page here with warnings instead of a block will be enough to cool the situation. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I made it apparent in my comments that this isn't a 3RR issue, but an obvious problem with habitual edit warring. You were warned, yet decided to continue edit warring. This isn't your first time with edit warring. Obviously the lesson hasn't sunk in with the previous blocks. JOJ ^Hutton 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• As an admin, I'm disinclined to block anyone here. The discussion is ongoing, and my only recommendation is for both parties to leave "The wrong version" (whichever version they think is wrong) to be visible until after the dispute has been resolved. It is always seen as an act of good faith to leave it wrong, and then let the discussion play out. So here is my recommendation on how to proceed, to be applied equally to both parties: 1) If the version is exactly what you want, leave it alone and don't edit it until after the discussion has concluded. 2) If the version is what your opponent wants, leave it alone and don't edit it until after the discussion has concluded. 3) If the version USED TO BE what you wanted, but then your opponent changes it, so now it is what you don't want, ignore this action, don't report them for anything, leave it alone and don't edit it until after the discussion has concluded. Literally almost every single edit war ever would conclude with no one being blocked, and the consensus version of the article eventually being publicly visible if people just left the article alone during discussions even if other people aren't leaving it alone. So, moving forward that's my recommendation to both parties: Do nothing, allow the discussion to play out, and then enact consensus. Also, if your perceived opponent does something, still do nothing. Don't even report them. Just let them be the asshole, and let yourself be the good person for once. --Jayron32 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to admit I am quite confused. I am the one who started the discussion on the word order apart from whatever content is finally settled on. After well over a month, we still have two content disputes (keep or delete "epic" and "space opera") that have nothing to do with my suggestion that "Star Wars (subject) is a 1977 American Epic Space Opera Film written and directed by... (predicate)" is far too heavy in its predicate to be easily read. I will be happy not to ask for a boomerang or even a trouting of JOJ for reverting me before warning or discussing, for reverting me with the advice to discuss after I had started a discussion two and a half hours prior, and for using 3rr warnings as a content negotiation tool, while both quoting himself above as having warned me for violating 3rr 10:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Star Wars (film). (TW) but also "ma[king] it apparent in [his] comments that this isn't a 3RR issue". I really cannot fathom how to avoid being handed half a dead baby under these circumstances.

So I will request instead of JOJ being sanctioned, that User:Jayron32 or some admin close the overlong informal content RfC's on the article's talk page, so we can formulate what's left in a professionally written way. I'll be happy not to take action before an admin does. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Which "informal content RfC's" are you referring to? --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Better to ping me in the future as I intend to unwatch this, but I am talking about the discussions of whether or not "space opera" and "epic" should be kept or deleted. I did comment, only after being asked to comment, that "epic" should be kept, given the bigger than life, far away, long ago, mythic style and various refs that refer to the movie as epic. Again, so far as this discussion goes, my sole concern was that the lead could be a lot more reader friendly than it is, and that my edit simply moved the words around. The response to that seems incredibly out of proportion, and I suspect it has a lot more to do with content concerns than care for the ease of the reader. I am unwatching this page now. So if anyone wants input, please ping me. μηδείς (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

μηδείς, thanks for the response. Since a clear consensus hasn't formed there yet for either part of the discussion, I was considering moving it to an RfC. Besides, the way the poll began is misleading, since it is lacking a clear description; I've seen some reply with oppose when they actually meant support or vice versa. If an admin would like to close that discussion, great, but I think the debate is far from over. Regardless of its outcome, however, I think it is a completely separate issue. Its closure shouldn't be needed in order to move forward in the newest discussion about rewording the opening sentence. The genre will remain in some form, whether or not that's "epic space opera", "space opera", or "science fiction". The only detail we need to adhere to right now is to keep those terms together and not separate them. The rest of the sentence is open to restructuring, should a consensus agree with doing so (so far that's leaning in the other direction). --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the "epic" and "space opera" terms. I think both are appropriate, and in looking for support for the term "epic" I actually found a paper at google scholar that had done an analysis of that very article, and it quoted a 2009 version which used "epic space opera" (not followed by "film".) One problem I foresee with an RfC is that we may get voters saying to remove the terms, not because they oppose the terms, but because at this point the wording is simply too awkward. We'd also be getting into the problem of asking a complex question, whether one, both, or neither of the terms should be deleted, and that will mean confusing the issues, and a lack of consensus. I do think the current discussion by active editors on the talk page is pretty clear. Again, please ping me if there's further comment I should respond to, since If I watch this page it stays at the top of my watchlist, which is a bit annoying. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Vaughan Foods beheading incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.80.175.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]

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

Comments: User repeatedly removes "murder" categories, giving different reasons at different times, but apparently assuming that including the categories is a WP:BLP violation against the person accused of the crime. Same behavior at 2015 Washington, D.C., mass murder and other pages.

Pemilligan (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Better report InedibleHulk as well, because he's been very zealous about this issue and I just caved in with his reasoning. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't blame you. It was pretty solid reasoning. Another guy tried this same passive-aggressive pointy edit game after I schooled him on the topic at a different article. Are you him again? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

As far as this article goes, no, you can't say a killing was murder while the killer has an upcoming murder trial. That'd be presuming guilt, instead of innocence. Whatever 75's intentions, the edits are good. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can say a killing was murder without presuming the accused is guilty of the crime. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

When the question is whether it was the defendant or someone else who killed the victim, sure, no harm done. The Washington one is like that. But when there's a known killer, and the trial is only about whether he had justification or excuse, it's prejudicial to decide he didn't before a jury does. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. This does not convince me that calling the crime murder assumes the accused is guilty even in such a case. I think you offer a distinction without difference. If you want to establish your point of view as rule here, pursue consensus. I don't think you've established one. Still, since 75.80.175.107 (talk · contribs) has been following your reasoning without offering any of his own, I will be happy to see him stop reverting changes to 2015 Washington, D.C., mass murder. Pemilligan (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kendrick7 (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. [26] (see each -23 edit)
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments: I can't find a better place to raise this, so here goes. This user insists on removing the ISIL Sanctions template from November_2015_Paris_attacks. They feel that the WP:GS/ISIL sanctions we all live under don't apply to them or this article. Comments about rouge admins will not help [29] resolve any dispute. While not 3RR, this is edit warring as far as I can tell. Legacypac (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - without getting into the merits of the sanctions, I'd say the repeated re-addition of the template, sometimes repeatedly on the part of the same user, was also edit warring, just as much as removal of it might be. The template was first removed by an admin, User:Fuzheado, and then repeatedly removed and re-added by a number of people. LjL (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment While I still think this article has little if nothing to do with the Syrian Civil War, which was the edit-warring dispute WP:ARBCOM was actually trying to solve with their WP:1RR sanctions, I do live in constant fear of the WP:ROUGE admins. Their name having been invoked, I have decided to drop the matter forthwith. Good luck and God bless, @LjL:! -- Kendrick7^talk 01:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Withdraw on the basis that Kebdrick7 has agreed to drop the matter. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Kuala Lumpur International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pak Lodin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline, it is established"
2. 06:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline, it is established"
3. 06:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline"
4. 06:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline"
5. 06:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline"
6. 06:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline"
7. 06:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "rv, 1MDB Airlines is real"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring across multiple pages:

• Template:Airlines of Malaysia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of airlines of Malaysia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Charles de Gaulle Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

— JJMC89 (T·C) 07:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

2016 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:47, 4 december 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 00:17, 4 december 2015 (UTC) "the source makes it pretty clear that Renault own the team; therefore, calling them "Renault" is most representative for now - after all you said it yourself: they MAY keep the Lotus name"
3. 23:07, 3 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Signed teams and drivers */Even if the team name has not been confirmed, we can reasonably assume that a French car manufacturer is French"
4. 22:21, 3 december 2015 (UTC) "Renault is a French manufacturer - do you really think that this is debatable?"
5. 22:02, 3 december 2015 (UTC) ""

Another two reverts have followed since:

1. 21:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC) (note:this was the first of string of edits that formed one reverted altogether)
2. 20:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:08, 4 december 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:39, 4 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Renault "are not French" */ reply"

Comments:

One of the reverts was accompanied with a personal attack directed at the user who's actions were reverted. Tvx1 15:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

First, let me just tag EdJohnston here; he left a message on my talk page as a response to the above.

Please allow me to apologise for my actions in edit-warring. I have tried to keep my nose clean since April, and I believe that I have largely done a very good job of it. I also believe that in cases like this, self-reflection is an importantpart of the process; by demonstrating an understanding of what happened and why, we can make changes for the future. We are all prone to an occasional lapses in judgement, and that is what I have done here. Confronted with an editor who I believe has a history of consistently low-quality edits, I lost sight of what I have been trying to achieve since April and let myself fall into an old habit that I have been trying to break. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

An update on the events. The user made another revert, which I have listed above, despite the talk page discussion and despite this report. The comment they made here followed their recentmost revert, though. Tvx1 21:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Another, inadequately sourced, revert (which comprised of several edits) has followed since. It has been listed above as well. Tvx1 21:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion it was inadequately sourced. Several users in the talk page discussion alluded to the existence of and supported the position put forward by the source. I simply located it and added it, in keeping with the discussion on the talk page. It is a constructive edit, with a reliable source in support of it. If Tvx1 wishes to characterise it as "inadequately sourced" and tantamount to edit-warring, then I think he needs to demonstrate why the source is inadequate and how it is in defiance of an established consensus. So far, all he has provided is his opinion on the article talk page, and when I made a similar edit to another field in the same table, he characterised it as "sourced well-enough" on the talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys, your last block was for three months and today we have a clear case of edit warring. Per the normal practice at this board you should be blocked. The only reasonable escalation from three months is indefinite. That's not a good outcome. Can you make an assurance which will allow this to be closed? For example, promise to make no more edits on this article that don't have prior consensus on Talk? EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston — I cannot promise that it will happen again. I can, however, promise that I will make every effort to see that it doesn't. It has been eight months since my last block, and in that time, I think that I have demonstrated that I can make that effort. There may be another occasional lapse in judgement in the future, but if so, I will do my utmost to be more conscientious in my conduct. Is that acceptable? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Since this is a hard question, how about you promise to make no more edits at 2016 Formula One season for the next 12 months? EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not difficult at all. I can contribute constructively to articles and talk pages, but it does not fix the problem in the way that consensus is established by the wider community, and I am concerned that in the grand scheme of things, nothing will be fixed. I can only change what is in my power to control. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the sources is inadequate because it doesn't mention a name change having been applied for, let alone one being accepted. Therefore, it's not sufficient to support the changes you have made. I have mentioned that on the article's talk page now as well. Tvx1 00:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked three months, since no agreement could be worked out with User:Prisonermonkeys that would guarantee an end to the disruption. This report shows him making a 3RR violation on December 4 at 2016 Formula One season. Prisonermonkeys still doesn't seem to recognize any problem with his editing there, and he won't agree to take a break from that article. This is the same duration as his last edit warring block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

List of Sam & Cat episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 18:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693759294 by Bluefist (talk)"
3. 18:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693759424 by Bluefist (talk)"
4. 18:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693759579 by Bluefist (talk)"
5. 18:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693759639 by Bluefist (talk)"
6. 18:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693760035 by Bluefist (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Violation of WP:3RR, and user's first edit in the group removed hashtags from episode titles, which is integral part of every episode's title in this Nickelodeon series. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968:Not an edit war, just a vandal, he has been reported and was previously banned 4 days ago for harassment. I have stopped reverting him because it's better to just wait until an admin bans him then revert the page. Though with Huggle it's one button press. Bluefist ^talk 18:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month Ongoing disruption — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:49, 3 December 2015‎
2. 09:02, 4 December 2015
3. 10:20, 4 December 2015
4. 13:50, 4 December 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has warned others regarding article where he is edit warring

Comments:
User:EEng is also under notice that he has violated Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity through his persistent edit warring and various and sundry incivility (e.g., most recently "calm your bowels". This is merely one example. He is well aware of these decisions, as seen here. For now, the issue is edit warring, and EEng's block log includes several blocks over the past year or so, including multiple blocks for edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• The first diff is not a revert
• This appears to be a kind of low-budget retaliation by the OP for my placing a DS notice on his talk page (diff supplied by OP above)
• Discussion opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Persistent_restoration_of_content_not_source_to_an_RS, which OP has ignored.
• OP has formed a tag team with another user, and this section of that other user's talk page is enlightening: User_talk:Inception2010#November_2015.
• OP's civility and other behavior is hardly exemplary e.g. "I don't give a steaming turd" [30]

I could give abundant further examples but I'm on a phone right now with a tiny keyboard. EEng (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment from an administrator familiar with this topic: What you're looking at is one of the disturbingly large number of GRG lackeys pushing useless fluff into an article in contravention of a host of policies, not the least of which is meatpuppeting. They're essentially acting at the behest of an indefinitely topic banned and blocked editor, Ryoung122; removing edits made in defiance of a ban isn't edit warring, and this is essentially what EEng is doing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, this is canvassing. Secondly, User:Alansohn had not contributed in this topic area before a few weeks ago and is one of the most active users on Wikipedia, so stop with the standard GRG/fanboy/sockpuppet/Ryoung122-related complaints. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) It's not canvassing to bring a bad-faith complaint to the attention of an admin familiar with the topic area. (2) Experience shows that even experienced, intelligent editors like Alansohn can find their critical faculties thrown off-kilter by the addictive drug of longevity fandom. EEng (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't get more f$#%ed up on Wikipedia than it does here. (1) admin The Blade of the Northern Lights, with complete and total ignorance of the facts here, has called me "one of the disturbingly large number of GRG lackeys" and accuses me of "meatpuppeting" and "acting at the behest of an indefinitely topic banned and blocked editor", a charge that is completely and totally false. There is no trout large enough to properly slap this dude for this shameless personal attack; (2) his lackey EEng spreads his belief that I have had my "critical faculties thrown off-kilter by the addictive drug of longevity fandom", but that somehow he is completely and totally immune from this disease; everyone else is insane and he's the only one who knows what to do here. When an admin who claims to be "familiar with this topic" actively uses cynical personal attacks to cover up for edit warring by another editor, we've got bigger problems than edits on Longevity-related articles. Alansohn (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As someone who thinks the slapfights over longevity-related articles is bordering on the absurd, I agree that TBotNL's and EEng's comments are obvious and unnecessary personal attacks. There's no call for that. How WOP articles got so heated, I'll never understand. clpo13_(talk) 23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not referring to you but to the army of SPAs who frequent the topic, some of whom have showed up at that article. As you're rather clearly not an SPA, you are not in that group. And now that I've been dealing with this topic area for 5 years, as the 2010-2011 ArbCom case shows, I think I just might have a pretty clear understanding of what I'm looking at here. Although you can't find the discussions now, the people in this topic have many times resorted to off-wiki forums attacking those of us fighting the incessant GRG promotion; I don't take kindly to that sort of thing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, you are completely and totally off base here in attacking me for some imaginary episode elsewhere on- or off-wiki, for which you magically can't find any evidence; I don't care what you are convinced happened elsewhere as it has zero relevance here. I don't take kindly to your personal attacks that seem to be rather clearly intended to cover up for EEng and blatantly push your preferred side of the debate, firmly pressing your thumb on the scale to push your position. To have posted that your remarks were a "Comment from an administrator familiar with this topic" is a blatant abuse of your authority. You have undermined any shred of credibility you have on this issue. Alansohn (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That was kinda my point; you're not the one I'm concerned about, it's some of the others who've showed up there. Your view of my credibility is duly noted, you're not the first and probably won't be the last who's critical of my involvement in the topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment EEng has taken it upon himself, without opening a discussion, to decide what a reliable source is. This RSN discussion concluded that Table E and Table I were reliable sources because of fact checking process (i.e. age verification). Table C was not commented on but contains validated cases, so there's no reason to assume it's not reliable. EEng's edits were therefore unjustified and a case of edit-warring. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one month. During that time, you can use {{Edit protected}} to ask for any changes that are supported by community consensus. Anyone may use {{alert}} to notify editors who ought to know about the discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment May I suggest that someone will keep their eyes on EEng so that other articles won't be threatened in the same way in the future? 930310 (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: User talk:Andy Toes (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Titusfox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk:Andy_Toes&diff=next&oldid=693777542

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk:Andy_Toes&diff=next&oldid=693777602
2. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk:Andy_Toes&diff=next&oldid=693777668
3. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk:Andy_Toes&diff=next&oldid=693777826
4. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk:Andy_Toes&diff=next&oldid=693778167

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk%3ATitusfox&type=revision&diff=693778678&oldid=693778300

Comments:

Harassment warning also issued but ignored: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk:Titusfox&diff=prev&oldid=693778102 Andy Toes (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Reporting user has also removed Vandalism notices [31] and [32]. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely Materialscientist (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Macedonian First Football League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34] 18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
2. [35] 12:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
3. [36] 12:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
4. [37] 22:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
5. [38] 23:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, discussed at other places.

Comments:

This user has been edit warring a while on the article mentioned (Macedonian First Football League), but also other articles like List of Macedonian football champions, after which he got this 3RR and edit warring warning on his talkpage 15:03, 3 December UTC. And the editor keeps on warring.

The conduct of this user, including this personal attack at talkpage of admin User:GiantSnowman led to this final warning and a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alexiulian25, which has not yet been handled.

Discussions has been at

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Macedonian First Football League
• User talk:Qed237#Question
• User talk:Qed237#Vandalism
• User talk:samtar#please where User:samtar has tried to help and discuss with Alexiulian25
• User talk:PeeJay2K3#"By city" with User:PeeJay2K3

This editor does not seem to understand he can not act like this and keeps on despite several strong warnings. Qed237 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours for personal attacks in multiple languages. I have hope but little confidence he won't resume edit warring after the block expires. He seems to have a sense of entitlement. Katie^talk 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Shailene Woodley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:601:8700:6A90:8C95:A423:E5A1:519E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "-__-.....Whatever. I put a link next to her birthplace, which I shouldn't have had to do. But if you're going to be a Nazi, then fine."
2. 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "This shouldn't be a topic of debate. Her being born in Simi Valley is outdated and inaccurate info, which isn't uncommon for celebs. And as I said, there's a source in her "early life" section. Now please don't start an edit war."
3. 03:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693820815 by Callmemirela (talk)My edit is fine. And it is sourced in her "early life" section. If you revert it again, I will revert it back."
4. 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693817353 by Callmemirela (talk)She was born in San Bernardino county, not Simi Valley."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shailene Woodley. (TW)"
2. 03:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shailene Woodley. (TW)"
3. 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shailene Woodley. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP started edit warring to keep a version of the actress' supposed "real" birthplace. NY Times states otherwise and so many other sources state other birthplaces. IP refuses to participate on the talk page to address this issue. I have stopped reverting as I think the last edit as unsourced BLP. I was even classed a Nazi by the IP, which they received an NPA warning for that. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Stale If he resumes, let us know. Katie^talk 17:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WWGB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [43] and the template they removed 2x is itself a 1RR warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44] notification placed in threads of talk page at the same time notice placed at top first time, with no comments by anyone.

Comments: Since this article and its talk page now fall under 1RR (ISIL related), removing the 1RR warning at the top 2 times in far less then 24 hours is a very obvious breach of 1RR. Note I have not edit warred because I added the top notice originally (not a revert) and restored it once (is a revert). I'm not seeking a block, only a declaration that WWGB is edit warring in breach of the 1RR rule. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Response. User:Legacypac arbitrarily adds the ISIL template to an article, and then holds me accountable to 1RR. This despite the fact that ISIL did not claim responsibility for the attack, nor did one perp have any stated interest in ISIL. The other perp indicated on Facebook that she supported ISIL. How does this amount to it being an ISIL-related article? WWGB (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I' e created or edit a number of pages under these sanctions. We don't debate the inclusion of the new page each time it just applies The suggestion the wife only is ISIL supportive while they had a bomb making factory at home is strange. Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just learned that "the one revert rule continues to apply to articles, not all pages, in the scope of the sanctions" (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Amendment). This complaint relates to a talk page, not an article. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand that allows someone to revert once at any given page, then revert once at another given page. So not 1RR across the topic but per page. The enforcement log shows long blocks for edit warring over templates and maps so it is clearly not just related to articles. Legacypac (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Uncivil behavior WWGB has now called me a 'lone wolf' on a terrorism article which makes it sound like he thinks I'm a terrorist. [45]. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I made no allegation of terrorism. A "lone wolf" is someone who acts alone [46], which is what you did in adding a contentious template to an article where its relevance is very dubious. WWGB (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't debate the inclusion of the new page each time it just applies. Actually, that's exactly what we are forced to do until there is some authority (Arbcom?) to rule on very borderline cases like this one. I don't think even "broadly construed" is intended to mean "everything where the letters ISIL appear, regardless of how tenuous the connection". If we are given such a vague definition, cases must be debated and consensus must be reached. I'm open to correction on this - by Arbcom. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:WWGB is advised that if he adds or removes the Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting again before consensus is reached he is risking a block. See the current discussion at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting#ISIL template usage. If consensus decides that the template doesn't belong on the article then there is no more 1RR restriction. All parties should wait patiently for the discussion to finish, and if necessary, for it to be reviewed at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I take it the rule is: If it contains the letters ISIL, the sanctions are in effect unless consensus is reached to the contrary; in other words, the default is sanctions in effect. Ok. But you linked to a discussion about a different template unrelated to the sanctions. The closest thing I can find to a discussion about the applicability of the sanctions in this article is Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting#ISIL related (Inspired or Directed), which hasnn't had much participation so far. It's a big talk page and I may have missed something. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right. The template that WWGB was reverting was {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}}, not Template:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. But if WWGB wants to get the {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}} removed he should wait for consensus to be reached at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting#ISIL related (Inspired or Directed), or at one of the linked discussions. Another unilateral removal is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Ramoshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vinayak579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"
2. 06:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"
3. 06:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 05:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"
5. 05:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"
6. 05:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ramoshi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring to insert unsourced and non-English content — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours – EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Rev. - Clark`s correct ranking in F History"
2. 10:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "rev."
3. 10:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "rev."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 10:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jim Clark. (TW)"
3. 10:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Jim Clark. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked Katie^talk 17:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693697704 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Rv. see mediation."
2. 09:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693804821 by My very best wishes (talk). See talk."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ghouta chemical attack. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "/* same ol' POV pushing which just won't stop */ re"

Comments:

Gaming the 1RR with a 2nd revert at 25 hours. Editor was previously blocked back in June for pushing the same content (literally much of the same text), in the same article. Article is also currently subject to mediation; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack#Item 4 - Deal with the rebel motivation issue and UNDUE in the whole article. Previous warnings about gaming rv rules at User talk:Erlbaeko#Gaming revert rule timelines and User talk:Erlbaeko#1RR VQuakr (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, also evaluate the actions of user VQuakr (talk · contribs). He is clearly trying to avoid the spirit of the consensus policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, etc. VQuakr (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Which, btw, is strictly forbidden. I believe he do so to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that the report below is connected to this case (same article, same content). As I see it, a group of users, VQuakr (talk · contribs), My very best wishes (talk · contribs), Kudzu1 (talk · contribs), Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), Bobrayner (talk · contribs) and Sayerslle, have repeatedly restored their preferred version. Most of them have been edit warring, even if they have avoid breaking the one-revert rule, or even coming close to do so. I believe they all have been playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of the consensus policy. That they lack consensus for removing the content appears from the articles history, several talk page discussions and this mediation. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• User Erlbaeko was previously blocked for edit warring on the same page [47] and warned by an uninvolved admin about general sanctions in this area [48]. He then started was a party in mediation on the subject. It is my understanding that mediation failed to produce consensus to include these materials (I asked mediating admin to clarify this [49]), however Erlbaeko resumed edit warring immediately after during the ungoing mediation [50]. Now, speaking about BRG (a complaint below), this is obviously a WP:Meatpuppet account of Erlbaeko per WP:DUCK, or at least they act as such. Given very small number of their edits, it acts as an account with "a clear shared agenda" as noted here, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I did not start the mediation, nor is it closed, and as far as I know, I have never met or had any previous contact with User:BRG~itwiki. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"As I see it, a group of users..." - Erlbaeko, you know that's just another way of saying "I am edit warring against consensus", right? I mean, you're saying that six users (it's actually more) disagreed with your changes but you decided to edit war anyway. Your only support here is that brand new throw away WP:SPA User:BRG~itwiki. Volunteer Marek  18:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't count blocked users, it’s actually five users that have removed the content (at the moment). It's at least that many that have expressed that they disagree with the removal, but I don't expect them to watch this page. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's at least that many that have expressed that they disagree with the removal - that's demonstrably false. Volunteer Marek  20:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not false, and I can find diffs that proves it. (I will if the closing admin ask for it.) Erlbaeko (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Utterly false. This edit-warring against consensus is intolerable, especially considering there is an open mediation regarding this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer_Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:26, 4 December 2015‎ (UTC) .. →‎Motivation and timing: there was obviously no consensus for inclusion of this highly POV and UNDUE material. Please stop trying to sneak it in.
2. 09:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC) .. I've "seen" the mediation. There was no consensus for these changes, people just got tired of telling you over and over again that they disagree. You then came here and tried to sneak it in
3. 09:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC) .. self revert for now but this is ridiculous WP:GAMING and disruptive behavior. Very much acting in bad faith
4. 15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC) .. yes, per talk and mediation, there's absolutely no consensus for these POV edits which you snuck in while mediation was still on going. If you want to continue the mediation that's fine but leave the article alone for now

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] [53] [54] [55]

Comments:
The page had a "Motives" section since at least September 2013 (the page was created at the end of August 2013) and a "Timing" section since August. As I pointed out in the talk page it is common, if not customary, to have a section about the motivation of a crime or the objective of a military action. In June 2015 an edit war started and there was a vote to remove said section, which failed[56]. The talk to sort out the open problems is ridden with personal attacks and off topic discussions[57]. The only reason given for the reverts is that "there's absolutely no consensus for these POV edits [...] while mediation was still on going", but the section predates the mediation and the edit war that made the mediation required, so, if anything, it should stay there at least until the end of the mediation and not the other way around. BRG~itwiki (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a bad faithed report filed by a new single purpose account whose main purpose appears to be to edit war on the Ghouta Chemical Attacks article. As a few other users have noted on the talk page, the whole thing is fishy and there's a good chance this is a sock of a previously banned user (trying to figure out the sock master).

Also, there's been no 1RR violation here, at least not by me. I did make two reverts on 12/4 but after the second one I immediately remembered that there's a 1RR restriction on the article and self-reverted. User BRG~itwiki very dishonestly presents my self-revert as one of the reverts. That right there tells you what kind of an account this is.

On top of that, there was no 3RR warning either. User BRG~itwiki just includes the diff of the notification of this discussion as if it was a warning.

WP:BOOMERANG please. Volunteer Marek  18:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

• Attempt (my multiple users) to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Zwarte_Piet#Creation_of_criticism_article
• My warning to all involved editors not to edit war.

Comments:

Despite attempts by multiple users to engage Akakios in discussion, my warning (to all) not to engage in edit warring, and even a noble attempt by Constablequackers to compromise by responding to his concerns, the reverts continue. Althought Akakios has not violated the 3RR, despite being in an obvious minority, the user shows an unwillingness to try for consensus before pushing forward edits.

I haven't left difs because I'm not sure whether to link to the original article before Akakios's edits, or to the version where Constablequakers tried to deal with Akakios's concerns. I hope you'll understand. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No diffs provided and no 3RR according to reporter gives pretty much nothing to work with. I'm tempted to do a non-admin close if the reporter does not make a better formed case why there is misbehavior here. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: White Latin Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: H1N111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He was blocked.

Comments:
The user was blocked yesterday [62] and today continues reverting editions. Also he was blocked for personal attacks. [63] [64] [65]

• @H1N111: block him/her longer, he attacks other people. 333-blue 00:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User picked up right where they left off when the block expired. Has this become a case for an indef? Their account was created on November 25. If User:H1N111 will promise to behave better in the future the matter could be reconsidered. I'll leave a note for the editor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Have a good evening gentlemen, for my part, I promise to not say insults and make personal attacks. But first, I want to remind to Mr.Johnson that I explain him why I reversed the edition of Mr.Bleckter, and also what I said the same in the talk page, I want to see what he says about it.--H1N111 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

H1N111, if that's the best you can do I'm planning to go ahead with the indefinite block. You continued the war right after your last block expired, showing you have no intention of following our edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)