Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 23 June 2015 (→‎User:RHB100 reported by User:Siafu (Result: Voluntary restriction ): Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Zack90 (Result: No action on Kwami, concerns about Zack90)

    Page: Luri language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Zack90 (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Zack90 edit-warred over several related articles, including this one, a few weeks ago. He also did not notify me of this report. (Actually, I warned him, twice, and he responded by reporting me here, indicating a rather egregious lack of good faith.) The edit he's pushing is unsourced and contradicts our other articles and the sources we do have, and what little discussion there was went against him.
    Zack90 is currently also edit-warring at Northern Luri language, Southern Luri language, Eastern Baluchi language, Southern Baluchi language, and Western Baluchi language. (He might actually have a case for creating N & S Luri if he would engage in discussion and provide RSs.) — kwami (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with kwami on the potential WP:BOOMERANG issue here. Zack90 is certainly warring and is just continuing to do so without engaging in Talk page discussions to constructively explain their reasoning and attempt to resolve disputes. As noted by EdJohnston, Zack is even warring with an anti-vandal bot. Even when filing a report here, no explanation was given (and kwami was not notified). Please note that some of the same and similar articles were the topic of a recent dispute here on the noticeboard regarding warring by Mjbmr reported by Kwami (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive283#User:Mjbmr reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: No violation)) that was closed as "No violation" despite a WP:3RR violation by Mjbmr, who subsequently said they were retiring, but who has now reappeared as an ally with Zack for the war. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, similar edits and behavior. (Sorry, I may have mixed up the two in my comments above.) When looking for sources to discuss Mjbmr's edits, I discovered that a couple of them might be worthwhile (with some extra work required), but they quit in disgust when they had to actually discuss and justify their edits. Now they're back, but their only editing strategy still appears to be to edit-war. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Kwamikagami's page blanking at 3 Baluchi language articles is not constructive, especially when he has not explained his edits and there are move discussions in progress in all the 3 pages. Khestwol (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth mentioning that this "blanking" of "articles" was not a mere out-of-the-blue blanking of longstanding content. Rather, in all three cases, it was a revert of a very recent conversion of a redirect into an article (in the midst of other related disputes). Ordinarily, the burden of justification for a major undiscussed content change (such as creating a new article where there was previously only a redirect) rests on the person who wants to make that change, more than on the person who wants to revert it. Zack90 and Mjbmr don't even seem to be bothering with edit summaries, much less explaining their perspective on Talk pages. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Zack90 hasn't edited since 01:03 on 18 June. Let's hope he will choose to respond here. Perhaps he can say if he has any connection to User:Mjbmr who has amazingly similar interests in a small set of language articles. I'll notify User:Mjbmr that he was mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that User:Mjbmr provided a (somewhat ambiguous) reply at User talk:Mjbmr. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This page states that Mjbmr has been blocked indefinitely in the Persian Wikipedia. Per this Google translation it seems likely to be the case. He had an indefinite block on meta.wikipedia.org which lasted for three years and was only lifted in 2014. The meta block was for using socks to impersonate someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems interesting that during the discussion of the request for CentralNotice adminship submitted by Mjbmr, Zack90 was the only editor that voiced support for the request, and it was one of only four Wikimedia edits ever made by that user. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action against Kwamikagami. There is a possibility that User:Zack90 is a sock of User:Mjbmr. Though I haven't submitted an SPI, someone else could. At the moment there doesn't seem to be enough behavioral evidence for a block, though that could change if either party makes more edits. User:Mjbmr has previously been blocked for socking on the Persian Wikipedia (see the above links). EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is closed, I restored the original versions of the Luri and Balochi articles, only for them to be reverted by Zack90. He's even changing the name in the Balochi article to conflict with the title. — kwami (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjbmr/Archive, Zack90 has been indef blocked as a probable sockpuppet, and Mjbmr has been blocked for a week as a probable puppetmaster. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Site banned)

    Page: Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Z07x10 (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. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is the article talk page, User:Z07x10 is counter-arguing my reasoning for my RFC vote, turning it into an unreadable mess

    Comments:
    This is the article talk page, User:Z07x10 is counter-arguing my reasoning for my RFC vote, turning it into an unreadable mess Mztourist (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It was an unreasonable mess from the start. I simply broke your concerns up into sections to allow them to be answered more clearly. It is a talk page not an article, hence I was trying to discuss your concerns. The first of those was the initial edit, which was not a reversion, you then reverted this twice, so I reverted it back twice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=667475535&oldid=667473692
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=667475535&oldid=667473938
    I have now moved the responses into the threaded discussion section.
    It should be noted that User:Mztourist lodged a complaint of OR against my article edit, which a 3rd party moderated and judged it to be a flawed complaint.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#A_Summary.2C_and_Thoughts_to_Go_Forward
    Mztourist then went WP:FISHING to justify his WP:I just don't like it. He then moved to source reliability, but the sources are used thousands on times in Wikipedia already. So he quickly moved back to WP:I just don't like it and began an RFC in the form of a vote, having rejected an opportunity for formal mediating that would actually look at policy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2
    I'm currently having an article edit blocked by cliche mentality with no sound basis in policy. The behaviour displayed has been a disgrace to Wikipedia and discourages editors from participating.Z07x10 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A few comments from an involved editor.
    First, the reported editor, User:Z07x10, appears to have violated talk page guidelines by refactoring the comments of the reporting editor, User:Mztourist.
    Second, the reported editor has altered the wording of an RFC to make it non-neutral by this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEurofighter_Typhoon&type=revision&diff=667459592&oldid=667458243
    Third, the reported editor is misrepresenting what I said about synthesis. I said that I thought that the paragraph in question was not synthesis, because it was sourced. The claim that I "judged it to be a flawed complaint" is wrong.
    Fourth, the reported editor has been pushing for eighteen months to add a particular paragraph to Eurofighter Typhoon, and is continuing to forum shop to try to find ways to lock in a particular addition. There is and has been consensus against the addition. Different editors have different reasons for opposing it.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How on God's green Earth does asking for a policy-based reason make it non-neutral? I was merely trying to prevent a case of WP:I just don't like it.
    By changing the wording of the survey question from one asking whether to include to one asking whether to exclude, you rendered the existing !votes incorrect and meaningless. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There were no existing votes when I made the change.Z07x10 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Third, the reported editor is misrepresenting what I said about synthesis. I said that I thought that the paragraph in question was not synthesis, because it was sourced. The claim that I "judged it to be a flawed complaint" is wrong. - I really mustn't speak English anymore or something. Alleged synthesis. You judged it not to be synthesis. But it wasn't a flawed complaint??????
    Where do you get 18 months from?
    A little more than eighteen months, actually.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZ07x10&type=revision&diff=583349929&oldid=582061973

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=579486889#Eurofighter_Maximum_Speed

    Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a different content issue, so no it isn't 18 months for this subject.Z07x10 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no reasons other than WP:I just don't like it, hence why the mention of policy in the RFC wording is opposed. That's right the complainants are actually opposing the use of policy! Cliches have ruined this project!Z07x10 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Z07X10 has shown himself to be very stubborn regarding this article and he's been reported to admins several times. I've proposed on his talk page that he accept a voluntary ban from this article as a condition of continuing to edit Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear God, the cliche is here in full force now. This is a real encyclopedia problem - cliches that sit on articles and prevent any content they dislike, regardless of how well source it is. They simply get in contact with each other every time, so nobody can add any well-sourced content giving a certain POV. It's pretty damn bad when one gets accused of making a question 'non-neutral' simply because they asked for a policy-based reason. Then they get accused of edit warring because they added comments on a talk page in a discussion and another user removed them. Is that against policy anyway.
    All I did on the talk page was exactly what User:Robert McClenon did above when he broke my edit into several pieces to respond to it. Should he be reported too?Z07x10 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=667492783&oldid=667492514
    Surely if I removed his edit, wouldn't I be the one in the wrong? Yet that's exactly what User:Mztourist did. Massive hypocrisy and double standards at large here!Z07x10 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like Z07x10 is vandalizing random articles in order to slander other users. Spotted these 2 revisions (667607396 and 667607533) while browsing Wikipedia. This may warrant at least a temporary block from editing articles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enumclaw_horse_sex_case&type=revision&diff=667607533&oldid=666540696 Mechordeus (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mechordeus thank you for spotting that, he has been blocked for 72 hours, personally I think an indefinite block would be more appropriate. Mztourist (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KHLrookie reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Stale)

    Page
    American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    KHLrookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) to 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "clarifying"
      2. 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Continuation of edit warring (within 24 hours of previous block expiration) after 24 hour block by C.Fred for 3RR violation on same page for same reason. Past AN3 filing can be found above (link to section). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Very clear that the user has been repeatedly told by other editors to discuss the matter on the talk page, Which in fairness he did do on the page in question. However he did not contact the users making the revisions to discuss the matter in question and even though credit is given for raising the matter on the articles talk page, He however continued reverting instead of discussing the matter which doesn't earn him any favours. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale. Had I seen this when it was a fresh report, I likely would have blocked the user 48 hours. However, as it happens, the user hasn't edited since the diffs above anyway (and that 48h block would have expired by now). —Darkwind (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tigerboy1966 reported by User:Dr John Peterson (Result: Filer indeffed as sock)

    Page: Golden Horn (horse) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tigerboy1966 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Tigerboy1966 has gone way beyond the 3RR (about 6 or 7 times) and ignores the Talk page.--Dr John Peterson (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    please view the edit history of the page. It's pretty obvious what's happening. Tigerboy1966  15:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have filed a relevant SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr John Peterson. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP User talk:2.123.6.113 has also be antagonistic [4] and is probably also a sock. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.11.33.86 reported by User:TripWire (Result: Already blocked)

    Page: Balochistan, Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Apart from the above reverts, foll diff shows the info IP has been constantly adding in clear violation of the discussion at the Talk Page (he simply refuse to accept that the edits are beyond the scope of the article especially when a dedicated page (Balochistan conflict) already exists on the info he is trying to add:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff —TripWire talk 20:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st warning (uw-disruptive2), 2nd warning (uw-disruptive3}, 3RR

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    There's a long discussion at the talk page, The IP has been explained and discussed with many times that the info he is trying to add does not fit the scope of the article. He alone Vs 5 x other editors have said the samething, but he simply fails to pay heed to the discussion at the Talk Page.—TripWire talk 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I only have one revert, all infos I add is new. Only one user on talk is against the edit, and he is no being honest here. See here [5] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you want to say is that all the following discussions are fake: [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. And all the other editors (Human3015, Cyphoidbomb, Faizan, TopGun and myself) have been saying and telling you is wrong? —TripWire talk 19:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyphoidbomb says violations belong in article[11] Human3015[12] Faizan have no commented Top Gun has only just. So you're not being honest. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let the Admin be the judge of that. —TripWire talk 19:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Making changes in content that is already a part of the article is called a revert. Regardless of whether you change one part of the article or the other, as far as you are modifying edits of other users, you are reverting. You have been doing this since Jun 13 and all I see is editwar - which is the case regardless of any discussion you ought to have started. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have only added new info, I did only 1 revert. Even Paksol/TripWire says consensus on human rights violations and adding he facts.[13] so you delete against consensus. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to mislead by lieing:
    Not a lie, consensus for edit so not revert new infos new infos stop insulting by calling liar. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let the admin see who is in the habit of lying and accusing. —TripWire talk 20:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean you saying on your userpage[14] you in Pakistani army and linking you blog and then saying on use TopGun page[15] you blog? 82.11.33.86 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SansBias reported by User:Keri (Result: 60 hours)

    Page: Pam Reynolds case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SansBias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [16]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [17]
    2. [18]
    3. [19]
    4. [20]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

    Comments:
    SansBias has made one comment to the talk page, and preemptively reported the article at DRN [23]. They have made no effort to discuss the changes, and seem intent on steamrolling their preferred content into the article. Their behaviour indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues to edit war [24]. Intends to continue reverting without discussion and game the 24 hour period [25] Keri (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He’s socking now [26]. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SansBias. Keri (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:CA:8000:2100:6CFF:EBA3:7A81:74BA reported by User:AirWolf (Result: 36 hours)

    Page: Nemanja Gordić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2601:CA:8000:2100:6CFF:EBA3:7A81:74BA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nemanja_Gordi%C4%87&oldid=666872300

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [27]
    2. [28]
    3. [29]
    4. [30]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:2601:CA:8000:2100:6CFF:EBA3:7A81:74BA#Nemanja Gordić

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nemanja Gordić#Nationality

    Comments:
    Continued deletion of referenced part of the text-content. Also, one another user tried to revert his disruptive edits-got reverted too.--AirWolf talk 06:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.11.33.86 reported by User:TripWire (Result: No violation)

    Page: Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 82.11.33.86 (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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    link

    diff

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

    Comments:

    User:Concord hioz reported by User:MilborneOne (Result: Blocked)

    Page: List of most-produced aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Concord hioz (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. [31]
    2. [32]
    3. [33]
    4. [34]

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

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

    Comments:

    Lots of discussion on article talk page and a Request for Comment was raised to provide inputs from others. User:Concord hioz continues to argue his position on the article talk page even after be asked to drop the stick and suggestions that they should use use other dispute resolution methods. The user has decided to edit war rather then use other dispute resolution methods. MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stemoc reported by User:Calibrador (Result: Both blocked)

    Page: United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Stemoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [37]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [38]
    2. [39]
    3. [40]
    4. [41]
    5. [42] (fifth revert made after report)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Comments:

    User is a serial WP:Wikihounding offender that is taking it upon themselves to single handedly revert nearly every contribution I make, and regularly uses threats, insults and caps to make their point. Reverted the third time with no explanation, and reverted a fourth time just outside the 24 hour window (about 3 hours, so I believe 3RR still applies according to guidelines) with a false charge of a policy that does not apply to my revert. Calibrador (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See here, user realizes he was caught for WP:SELFPROMOTION and is thus now claiming i'm edit warring when all I'm doing is REVERTING his vandalisms..--Stemoc 14:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job proving my point. Calibrador (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which point would that be? all you do is add your images to articles to propagate your own personal and financial interest using wikipedia Gage Skidmore..reverting a SPAMMER is neither wikihounding nor vandalism..--Stemoc 15:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    None of what you stated is true. Calibrador (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user being reported has reverted the article for a fifth time (after an edit by another user), seems to have some very serious ownership issues, either his way or the highway. Fifth revert. Calibrador (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ownership issues? my friend, read the article you posted, I'm not the one with ownership issues as neither the images i replaced your poor/outdated images are mine nor do I have any direct interest in american politics..though on the other hand, your contribution history suggests otherwise..You even reverted another photographer who used his images on those articles and his post on your talkpage asking why you removed his images, so thanks for the link, not only are you self-promoting but you are also violating the ownership policy...--Stemoc 15:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing images is not self-promotion. Stop lightly accusing people of vandalism when all they're doing is changing images. --TL22 (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToonLucas22: Calibrador recently changed his name from Gage Skidmore and if you have actually read the other thread i linked above, the user is "intentionally" removing other people's images and replacing them with HIS...and when people started complaining, he had his name changed so that it won't look "obvious" ..--Stemoc 15:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So the reporter is engaging in sockpuppetry, huh? --TL22 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the link on my first post on this thread, the user has "intentionally" changed his name so that it won't look obvious that he is being involved in self-promotion..even I didn't realise it was him until i saw the changes he started making once he was renamed 2 days ago..--Stemoc 15:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is yet another one of their false claims. I requested a name change last week for reasons unrelated to this. Calibrador (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    19th june was less than 3 days ago..and please do NOT remove your previous name from the title again, Let users be aware of who you are as you are trying to make yourself look like a new users with no history/connection to the person's whose images you are promoting when you are the person himself.--Stemoc 15:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a 3RR rule for the 3RR page itself? That would certainly be fun... Calibrador (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A 3RR for what? telling users who you are by restoring your previous name in the title which is Gage Skidmore as you can see above, even TpoonLucas22 was confused because he wasn't aware of who you were....you know, you intentionally changed your name so that you could "vandalise" the wiki articles without anyone finding out ...and I'm the one that is supposedly violating 3RR? ..3RR does not apply to vandalism reverts.--Stemoc 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. Calibrador (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Stemoc, I have been doing some research and there is no user called Gage Skidmore or GAGE SKIDMORE. Furthermore the user you are accusing of selfpromotion is registered since 2011, so there is no way they are a sock of Gage. Please provide evidence that this user was previously called Gage Skidmore. If you just blatantly say that he is Gage Skidmore without evidence you may be blocked for harassment (i'm not an admin but there are patrolling admins out there). And please do not refactor legitimate comments (titles count). --TL22 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My previous username was GageSkidmore, unfortunately I picked a bad time to decide I no longer wanted to use my real name as my username, as it has provided fodder for a certain someone to use against me untruthfully. Link to name change request. Calibrador (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Your user page and talk page from your former username had been moved to your new username. Stemoc - S/He did not change his name to avoid scrutiny as far as I know, S/he just changed it because S/he no longer wanted to use his/her real name. The next time you assume bad faith without good reason on him/her, I will report you for harassment/personal attacks. --TL22 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToonLucas22: uhm, dude, please read this this link, let me caps this since people can't read, CALIBRADOR IS GAGE SKIDMORE< this is why i use caps and bolds in my messages as most people ignore my comments completely without actually following the story..... Gage Skidmore a.k.a is Calibrador and once a user is "renamed", they are no longer associated to their name, its a FLAW of the new Meta:SUL and next time you decide to involve yourself in a thread, try to do a "proper" research, just by going to the user's userpage history, you would have seen what his previous name was...OK, I'm tired of this, can an admin who is aware of who Calibrador is come and comment here? I'm tired of this cat and mouse game..I have been on this site for nearly 9 years and I feel its about time i leave because it looks like this wiki has already lost all of its intelligent and good admins... and NO, please GO READ the thread on WP:ANI as i do not have the time to go over all this AGAIN..--Stemoc 16:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The instance you're referring to involved someone using a photo they took to replace an official portrait. Why is there no admin intervention on this discussion yet? I'm really sick of these personal attacks that this user continues to propagate. Calibrador (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Could we please get an admin response? Calibrador (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)  Note I will be getting out of this discussion as it seems too heated to even be able to deal with. Good luck for you guys. --TL22 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a 3RR discussion, right? The user being reported likes to create a lot of noise to distract from their own wrongdoings. A clear violation of 3RR has been made, so I hope that that can be addressed rather than unrelated matters. Calibrador (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a "heated discussion", its so silly that no admin wants to be part of it, Toon, I urge you to go thru every edit of this user for this month only, and then come tell me there is no "self promotion" or conflict of interest" or ownership of articles"..Gage. the only one deflecting here is you, not me and please stop REMOVING your previous name from the TITLE..you have already confused one editor with your lies..and by removing it, you are ONLY proving what i'm saying--Stemoc 16:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I've removed the name from the subject header. Don't re-add it. Also, enough with the back-and-forth accusations. You've made your points ad nauseam. Any more from any of you in the same vein will be reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23 Perhaps take it to WP:HALLOFLAME? --TL22 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.11.33.86 reported by User:Faizan (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Gulf War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "I post on talk, now you must"
    2. 16:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "No, they sat in Saudi Arabia"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Gulf War. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 16:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ re"
    Comments:

    Clear violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies. Long history of non-stopping and incredible edit-warring. Faizan (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bbb23: Can have a look please? Faizan (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I started talk page discussion, I revert 2 times only, as Pakistan did not fight in war, I even gave source on talk. All I get here is attacks and false warnings. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't cry wolf. --TL22 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [45] Another user says they harass 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.199.36.73 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    List of Jessie episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    68.199.36.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "Nothing's wrong with"
    3. 17:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667955572 by MarnetteD (talk)"
    4. 17:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 17:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "" (this edit appended to list, coming after the report filed)
    6. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jessie_episodes&diff=next&oldid=667962218 17:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667962218 by Callmemirela" added by AussieLegend (✉) 18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page
    Comments:

    User has issues with another editor's proper use of tone in this article ("children" instead of "kids", and spelled out words for contractions), and insists on using the less formal wording. User has also attacked another editor on this [48]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL, that DEFINITELY belongs in WP:LAME territory. --TL22 (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mar4d reported by User:82.11.33.86 (Result: Three-revert rule not violated)

    Page: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mar4d (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. [49]
    2. [50]
    3. [51]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

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

    Comments:

    Use is deleting my comments, I read WP:CANVASS, says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Use has now deleted this report 2 times.[54][55] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that this IP has been reported thrice above already. This one is the latest. Faizan (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note [56] Ignored as No violation [57] Closed by admin as No violation 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No opinion on this case, I just wanted to point out to Mar4d that our edit warring policy is not limited to article space, nor do you need to perform 4 reverts to be considered to be edit warring. Chillum 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chillum: Thanks for your comment. I would still like to maintain my original position, which is that this wasn't edit warring. The IP in question has made several disruptive edits, some of which were obvious cases of POV-pushing, and that can be gauged from both their talk page as well as contributions. What I meant is that this is not an article under content dispute (where 3RR usually stands out), but rather an unnecessary WP:CANVASS post at an unrelated noticeboard, for which the IP had been told. The removal was justifiable and as the IP chose not to cooperate, they were in the wrong. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mar4d: I agree with Chillum. Although I'm not going to take any action either, your repeated removals were not justifiable. Even if the IP was in the "wrong" - and that's just your contention - you're not entitled to battle over it. Report them for canvassing if you wish, but don't edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. However, as above, WP:CANVASSING is not okay so if a post gives an impression of canvassing, it will cause contention. FYI, a second user had reverted the IP in line with WP:CANVASS following the IP's 3 reverts. Mar4d (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dentren reported by User:Keysanger (Result: Both warned)

    Page: Economic history of Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dentren (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. [58] Dentren deletes the tag "fringe"
    2. [59] Dentren deletes the tag "fringe" again.
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

    Context

    On 27 May EdJohnston blocked me and Dentren because a edit war: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:Dentren_reported_by_User:Keysanger_.28Result:_Both_blocked.29

    We tried in the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_116#Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile.23Causes_of_the_War_of_the_Pacific but no agreement could be reached.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile#Dispute_Resolution, and also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_116#Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile.23Causes_of_the_War_of_the_Pacific

    The three tags must stay there until an agreement is reached.

    Comments:
    Please, reinsert the tag "fringe" and warn user Dentren not to make (relevant) changes without consens.

    --Keysanger (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This dispute was handled at WP:DRN, but it was closed with no resolution. The comment by the closer User:Kharkiv07 was:

    Lack of adequate participation, as well as a conversation that did not progress much when it was (semi)active. A lot of that conversation was also reduced to attacks, and comments out of line of the moderator's requests.

    I interpret this as saying that the negotiation failed due to poor behavior by the parties. After this failure, the edit war began again on 20 June when User:Dentren removed a FRINGE tag from one section. The reverting went on from there, with Keysanger choosing to restore the tag, and Dentren removing it again.
    It's fine if the two of you refuse to come to agreement, but if so then neither of you should touch the article before agreement is reached. You both need to wait patiently until you can get a talk page consensus in favor of your change. If not, you are edit warring.
    My plan for closing this is to notify both editors that whoever reverts the article next, prior to getting a talk page agreement, will be blocked one month. Assuming this causes them to stop reverting, this will have the same benefit to the article as an indefinite page ban on both parties. The 'ban' expires whenever agreement is found on Talk. Before closing this AN3 I'll wait to see if anyone wants to comment on the plan. An alternative to this plan would be a long period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For those unaware of Keysangers track record must take not how Keysanger accuses me of doing changes without consensus when he begun unilateral changes in February 2015 that evolved into disruptive editing. –Dentren | Talk 21:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I support Eds proposal to bury the hatchet and to return to the talk page. Tomorrow, 23, I will offer in the article talk page a new wording for the disputed paragraph and hope the best. In my opinion the problem is that Dentren says "it is a Chile article, we have to write solely about facts concerning Chile". I consider it a wrong approach that leads to biased descriptions: "Some X were involved in business crimes. Several X were pimps. Many X didn't pay taxes. In this circumstances occurred the X-genocide" --Keysanger (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: Both Dentren and Keysanger are warned, with the terms given in my comment above. Whoever reverts the article next, prior to getting a talk page agreement, may be blocked for a long time. Both parties are encouraged to use the talk page, and should consider an RfC. This dispute about the economies and reasons for war is opaque to outsiders. Both parties are encouraged to explain their concerns better in terms that everyone can understand. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aaabbb11 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Aaabbb11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [61]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [62]
    2. [63]
    3. [64]
    4. [65]
    5. [66]
    6. [67]
    7. [68]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page section link

    Comments:
    This was originally filed at WP:ANI by STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I moved it here as this is the proper venue for the complaint and there does indeed appear to be edit warring occurring. (Link to closure of that ANI). Below is a copy-paste of the original complaint:

    Click to see original complaint
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Aaabbb11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently removed the Wikilink to "cult" in the article Falun Gong.

    [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]

    My warning to him/her [78] was to no avail. An intervention is needed. STSC (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 24 hours. Long-term edit warring about the phrase 'evil cult'. The revert war on the wikilinking of 'cult' has been going on for 4 months. Aaabbb11 seems to be declaring himself the winner of a talk page discussion that he began in February where he only ever left one posting. It would make sense for him to wait for a clear consensus. Aaabbb11 has already been notified under the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBFLG and it wouldn't take much more poor behavior to justify a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Solhjoo reported by User:Samak (Result: )

    Page: West Azerbaijan Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),Piranshahr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Iranian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Solhjoo (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 to edit warring Remove entries and the inclusion of the entries of arbitrary
    2. diff Iranian Official ‍Province renaming (Kurdish Nationalism name)
    3. diff diff Iranian Official ‍City renaming (Kurdish Nationalism name)
    4. diff diff Iranian Official ‍County renaming (Kurdish Nationalism name)

    Seeing her contributions Had the wrong editions especially move the article in Iran cities to Kurdish nationalism name.

    SaməkTalk 09:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) -->[reply]

    User:Fsfolks reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Blocked)

    Page: see below
    User being reported: Fsfolks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    This user has resumed edit warring on the same page, and another associated article, immediately after the expiry of his last block for edit warring. Technically 3RR has not been breached, though the edit warring across multiple pages is clear cut, and particularly disruptive because the material he's introducing breaks the template markup. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The reporting user has clearly shown his bad faith in many comments: he did a personal attack describing me as "rude" [79] for my comment on his edit [80] in which I described it as "vandalism" as been explained in the talk page of the GNU article : he didn't stop at that, and now he is reporting me under 3RR reason while what I did is only reverting his unconstructive edits. Fsfolks (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fsfolks has a free software agenda, a battleground mentality, and has clearly resumed edit warring. Does not appear to be here to improve Wikipedia. 22:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs)

    Blocked indefinitely – It appears that User:Fsfolks is here on Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. He wants to remedy the neglect of the term 'Gnu/Linux' which he believes people should employ, instead of 'Linux'. He uses the term 'vandalism' to describe reverts of his own changes, even when his changes have questionable grammar. A block appears necessary until such time as he expresses willingness to follow our policies. Until now most people were unaware that Linux was severely misnamed. We do have an article called GNU/Linux naming controversy which goes into the matter. A sample of their attitude may be seen at User talk:Fsfolks#Accusations and personal attacks.EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:165.112.98.48 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    Jaws (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    165.112.98.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    [81]
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    2. 16:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    3. 15:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    4. 14:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "Please stop edit-warring. Discuss at Talk page."
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    IP edit-warring after warning, previously edit-warred on a different film article despite multiple warnings DonIago (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:107.178.46.170 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Rangeblock)

    Page
    Justinian I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    107.178.46.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "You are not sure if I am sock let the investigation show it, please explain with valid edit summaries. Please avoid tendentious edits, this is a Greek source claiming he didnt speak Greek check it"
    2. 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "That is a sourced information by Greek author claiming that he didn't even spoke Greek!"
    3. 15:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "this is as unofficial form for administration and emperors at that time and hence for the person as he didnt speek greek, orthodox is multinational how about including russian?"
    4. 14:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Leo I the Thracian. (TW★TW)"
    2. 17:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW★TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Longterm edit-warring across many Byzantine Empire-related articles. Sockpuppet of Miss Paris Slue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss Paris Slue. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Febin ABD reported by User:Davykamanzi (Result: )

    Page: Petr Čech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Febin ABD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: This version

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. First revert
    2. Second revert
    3. Third revert
    4. Fourth revert

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit warring / 3RR warning

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82] (First edit to his/her talk page)

    Comments:

    Tried reasoning with the user but my message and the warning I posted afterwards were simply disregarded and reverting continued. Technically he/she hasn't been reverting the edits, but has been constantly reintroducing unreferenced and unconfirmed information related to the article after being asked not to do so. I think a short ban (24–72 hours) would be appropriate here. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 19:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RHB100 reported by User:Siafu (Result: Voluntary restriction)

    Page: Global Positioning System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: RHB100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [83]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [84]
    2. [85]
    3. [86]
    4. [87]
    5. [88]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90],[91],[92]

    Comments:

    This is a repeated dispute between RHB100 and all other interested editors at Global Positioning System. Every 6-12 months, RHB100 returns and attempts again to force an inaccurate and unsupported interpretation of the GPS problem solution onto the article. For the most recent iteration (before this one), see here. RHB100 has been informed multiple times about the requirements for sourcing, no original research, consensus, and 3RR, and continues to ignore all of them. Currently he/she is in violation of 3RR, but a more extensive solution may be called for. siafu (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned the user at User talk:RHB100 that the most practical response to sporadic but tenacious POV-pushing at wide intervals is an indefinite block. So far there has been no response that would justify a different outcome. A promise from him to wait for consensus would be enough to avoid this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    siafu is stating outright lies. The edits I have made are sourced and are quite accurate. siafu does not know what he is talking about. RHB100 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    siafu is stating outright lies. The edits I have made are sourced and are quite accurate. siafu does not know what he is talking about. RHB100 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree to stop edit warring even though I believe I have done nothing wrong. I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer. I know that I am right but I guess if these people are going to force their incorrect views, I guess I cannot stop them. So I will not do any edit warring. RHB100 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have told you that I have concluded that it appears useless to try to educate these people on how GPS works. What more do you want me to do. I did nothing but try to make the GPS article correct. I didn't know that normal editing was counted as reverts. Other people were far more guilty of edit warring than me. Is there anyway to change an incorrectly written article. I will keep in mind that what I thought were normal edits is sometimes considered a revert. I will refrain from making changes until I understand the difference between normal editing and reverts better. RHB100 (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The deal, if you accept it, requires that you wait for a clear consensus on the talk page before making any change to the article. This means you won't do any change unless others support it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I will accept it. Will you please place the same restrictions on others so as to avoid further degradation of the article. siafu is more guilty of edit warring than me. RHB100 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In diff 2 [85] at [93] and diff 5 [88] at [94] I have not in any way changed, modified, or reverted anybody's edits. I have only added new material. I have therefore made at most 3 reverts and I am not guilty of violating 3RR. RHB100 (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: No block of User:RHB100. He is accepting a voluntary restriction, to make no further change at Global Positioning System unless it is first discussed on the talk page and it gets consensus there. RHB100, please follow this restriction carefully because, if not, an indefinite block is just around the corner. In a long-term war like this one we are not counting up to three reverts, we are just observing that you constantly make article edits that nobody else supports. You might be more satisfied with Wikipedia if you simply give up on this article and choose to work on something else. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YHWH's Right Hand reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Indef by Kww)

    Page: God in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: YHWH's Right Hand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [95]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [96]
    2. [97]
    3. [98]
    4. [99]
    5. [100]
    6. [101]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:God_in_Islam#Regarding_recent_edits_by_User:YHWH.27s_Right_Hand. I've also explained relevant policies and guidelines on their user page.

    Comments:
    Edits are closer to 26 hours than 24, but it is obvious that YHWH's_Right_Hand is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia, they are here to advocate for a WP:FRINGE position (see this draft of theirs). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, they've made a fifth revert, unambiguously putting them past 3rr. The fifth edit repeats their anti-Arabic/Anglo-centric WP:FRINGE claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be an indef due to WP:NOTHERE. Take a look at the wording of Draft:Allah is not God, an exercise in personal POV that the user wants to add to the encyclopedia as an article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we've got yet another, which only confirms the WP:NOTHERE. They've been asked to take their rants to the talk page, but that clearly wasn't what they wrote them for. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I had already indefed the user on the basis of WP:NOTHERE before noticing this discussion.—Kww(talk) 04:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:siafu reported by User:RHB100 (Result: )

    Page: Global Positioning System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: siafu (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]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Positioning_System&type=revision&diff=668227154&oldid=668227077
    2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Positioning_System&type=revision&diff=668226444&oldid=668226348
    3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Positioning_System&type=revision&diff=668224274&oldid=668223329
    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:Global_Positioning_System

    Comments:
    User:siafu made these 3 reverts in less than an hour. This shows how irresponsible he was. He could not have read the references and talk page with comprehension in that short a period of time. He appears to be unable to comprehend fundamental principles of GPS. He promotes an incorrect interpretation of GPS geometry. RHB100 (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Saifu has only reverted three times. WP:3rr requires making more than three reverts, as you did ([103], [104], [105], [106]). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please respond to comments to reply to them instead of just editing old comments. Wikipedia really doesn't care about expertise, we only care about summarizing published professional sources -- no original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian.thomson, I have only made one revert and that was after siafu had reverted me 3 times. I made responsible editing changes which involved adding new material and changing old material, but it was in no sense a revert. RHB100 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Manually repeating the contested edit, even if varied in its presentation, is counted as a revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is another report of the same dispute above. User:RHB100 could avoid a block if they will promise to wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.82.196.11 reported by User:Tefkasp (Result: )

    Page
    Cheesesteak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    75.82.196.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to

    [107]

    Diffs of the user's reverts

    [108], [109], [110], [111]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [112]


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    [113]


    Comments:

    User:Mattnad reported by User:BoboMeowCat (Result: )

    Page: Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mattnad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [114]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [115]
    2. [116]
    3. [117]
    4. [118]
    5. [119]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned on article talk page twice (see links below)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120],[121]

    Comments:


    User:ABEditWiki reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: )

    Page
    Caste system in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    ABEditWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Reverting POV push"
    2. 15:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "undoing contested edits by JJ"
    3. 07:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668252980 by Ogress (talk) Do see talk page, This was not part of article before the disoute began. It was inserted byuser JJ despite a consensus."
    4. 06:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668245027 by VictoriaGrayson (talk) Please refer to talk page"
    5. 05:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "POV pushing"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Caste system discussion */ new section"
    2. 07:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Caste system in India. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The user has previously violated 3RR, and was let off with a warning by EdJohnston. In retrospective, a block at that time would have been valuable service to the user. The tendentious behaviour only got worse with time. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind my convenience Kautilya. :) Any admin take view after checking out ANI here. Please refer to article talk page as well. Cheers ABTalk 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=668309663"