Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpacemanSpiff (talk | contribs) at 08:09, 4 December 2017 (→User:40.134.67.50 reported by User:EEng (Result: ): blocked 1 week (using responseHelper)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:David Eppstein reported by User:MakinaterJones (Result: A warning (but not for David Eppstein)

    THERE IS NOT BLOCK FOR EDIT WARRING, CERTAINLY NOT FOR DAVID EPPSTEIN SINCE THEY WEREN'T EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO EDIT WARRING. (Is that clear?) The person who started this, MakinaterJones, is indeed WARNED for disruptively filing needless report that take up valuable time from administrators and editors. (Is that clear?) Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User being reported: David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Page: Mikhail Blagosklonny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Oncotarget (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    My name is Stacey. I have been doing small edits on wiki for a year or so now. When I saw this issue on the BLP noticeboard (which I mainly pay attention to) I saw Mikhail Blagosklonny BLP page needing the most serious attention. After I made a contribution to the BLP noticeboard, I made some small edits based on wiki policy and they were reverted with little or no explanation (one was reverted because I had an IP and no account)

    So, I created an account ;)

    I have put considerable time into this and I would like to have the discussion on the talk page and noticeboards rather than constantly edit war with this editor.

    I am making every effort to simply make the pages more explanatory - as the publishing frequency was wrong, the MEDLINE delisting comment was very short, and not even a complete sentence - I am monitoring all pages connected with the BLP under attack.

    He refuses to cite wiki policy and on other occasions makes no edit summary what-so-ever.

    Dear David, I would you rather you just engage in the discussion on the talk page and notice board I have provided.

    https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Oncotarget

    https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mikhail_Blagosklonny

    I am worried that this editors interest in this issue prevents them from remaining neutral, follow policy and willing to engage in finding consensus. David Eppstein is on a bit of a run adding, reverting, arguing in an extremely biased way, and not citing wiki policy to keep negative information on articles related to Mikhail Blagosklonny and specifically content sourced to Beall.

    MakinaterJones (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)65.244.36.158 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • This report is nonsense, and the OP's idea [1] that Jeffrey_Beall should be deleted suggests a complete misunderstanding of... everything. EEng 04:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two reverts in two weeks (and then letting the user's edits stand unreverted for the third time) counts as edit warring now? Also, MakinaterJones is merely the latest in a sequence of single-purpose accounts seemingly focused on whitewashing Oncotarget and Mikhail Blagosklonny; see Talk:Oncotarget for more. And I suppose it's pointless to note that MJ failed to follow the you-must-notify instructions here; thanks EdJohnston for the heads-up (I did see this from the Oncotarget talk page but it's helpful to have a talk page link). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:MakinaterJones, please make yourself more aware of our guidelines. This report is spurious. If you would like to remove Beall's article from Wikipedia, that is fine, but I warn you that it will likely be laughed out of court and might lead to a block for either disruption or lack of competence. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah there everyone!

    Lets not get confused here this is a conversation about David Eppstein and edit warring.

    My comments on the lack of proper application of Wiki policy have been placed in the respective areas for discussion (including proposed deletion and split to event page for Beall @EEng) please comment there and not in the discussion about edit warring. My interpretation of policy regarding Beall as a reliable source was posted on Oncotarget page this afternoon.

    So on point, the editor here has reverted 6 times in the last 30 days 3 of which had no edit summary. Moreover, he is treating me (as a new editor) with extreme contempt as one of the edit summary he left was describing his personal viewpoints of the edits, not the change that he made..."primary sources, mealy-mouthed attempt to water down the delisting, and bad faith attempt to shut down reversion of these bad edits"

    I vehemently disagree with this statement, I have made all edits in light and spirt of wiki policy and gone above and beyond to make my interpretation of how these facts apply to the policy perfectly clear and available (including comprehensive edit summaries).

    I have asked the editor 3 times to bring his concerns to the talk page, I have made two comments on the talk page - he has ignored requests and my talk page comments and continued reverting.

    I am the one that stopped reverting and I am now trying to get a legitimate discussion started here.

    However, David Eppstein is clearly ignoring the requests and is on a bit of a run adding, reverting, showing bias, and not citing wiki policy in an effort to to keep and add negative information on articles related to Mikhail Blagosklonny and specifically content sourced to Beall.

    Overall, I have explained how I got here, what my interests are and I have made posts on all appropriate talk pages, and noticeboards - It is okay to disagree, it is not okay to attack - I want to talk about the cold hard policy facts - Wiki and myself deserve you to take your time and engage the discussions instead of trying to bully me into accepting your position on these issues or act like the decisions have already been made.

    I am asking for independent outside administrator evaluation of the issues on the talk pages and noticeboards - and in the meantime, it would be nice to stop reverting every edit I preform. We might also need independent evaluation here (seems like Eppstien keeps calling friends over to help and support him rather than relying on policy application and consensus from neutral parties)

    Drmies I am not making a statement about his edit warring, I am here looking for consensus and evaluation of the facts and actions of this senior editor in light of the page changes and discussions I am asking for as a new editor. ALSO THO How is it disruptive to think differently about this topic than you, am I not allowed to raise concerns? Are we not in a world of eventualism where all things are open for discussion? Why are you acting like you know the end result before we start the discussion ? MakinaterJones (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please help me find independent review of the issues I am dealing with here and at these places -[[4]] [[5]] [Beall Split]

    Is it possible to call in other people with an interest and/or expertise in policy?

    I believe some of the editors, specially Eppstien are too close to the issue and might not be able to properly engage in discussions to seek consensus with 1. a new editor and 2. someone who disagrees with him from a policy perspective, not the perspective of Academic Journals.

    MakinaterJones (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first thing you need to understand is that when you raise a complaint about another editor, your conduct will be reviewed as well. You need to read and think about what people are telling you. Right now what you're doing is called WP:FORUMSHOPPING – raising your complaints in multiple places until you get the result you want. And this [6] shows how confused you are – this page is swarming with admins, including Drmies, who is a member of the Arbitration Committee. So stop saying you're being mistreated and go back to the article talk pages. EEng 08:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Eng

    I am comfortable being reviewed.

    I have only raised this issue here because I was told to. - I have, however, brought this issue up in response to allegations that I am edit warring.

    I have been told to bring this to a dispute resolution noticeboard - are you going to accuse me of WP:FORUMSHOPPING if I do that now?

    Is no one going to actually respond to my last message above in a proper analysis as to edit warring?

    MakinaterJones (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To the matter of edit warring, I don't see anything that rises to the level of edit warring at either reported page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear C.Fred,

    Thank you of your attention on this - I appreciate and respect your response. As we (the other editor and I) do not agree, do you also suggest bringing this to dispute resolution?

    MakinaterJones (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @MakinaterJones: If you've discussed the matter at the articles' talk pages and cannot agree, then your next step is a process like third opinion, RFC, or formal dispute resolution. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear C.Fred,

    Great contribution here, I have been seeking information about how to properly invite a RFC - this helps!

    As I mentioned above, I am not getting engagement from the editor on any talk page or noticeboard - they just want to continue reverting and I do not want to approach a third revert (I only revert once)

    Overall, I am satisfied with the suggestions here and appreciate all the insight - I understand David Eppstein is not currently edit warring (Drmies are you warning me for edit warring? It is not quite clear the "result" you had indicated before the discussion was had)

    I will take middle action and RFC before going to dispute resolution.

    Sincerely, MakinaterJones (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmies please do not archive until you can make overtly clear the "result" you had indicated before the discussion was had. ...are you warning me for edit warring? MakinaterJones (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, for disruption, for being a time since, and...I don't know, filing a report for edit warring when you don't know what edit warring is. And please stop inserting all these line breaks here. And listen to those who you are asking to be in charge. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Agricolae reported by User:D1gggg (Result: )

    Page: Chicken or the egg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Agricolae (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. [7]
    2. [8]
    3. [9]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: before 3rd revert: [10] after 3rd revert: [11]

    Discussions:

    Statements by Agricolae after warnings at their page:

    • "sorry no - play your games somewhere else" [12]

    Comments:

    • This is not a surprise to me: Agricolae is obsessed with such unimportant article and uncollaborative as before
    For the last go-round of this dispute, see User talk:D1gggg#Edit warring at Chicken or the egg. There is also some discussion on the article talk at Talk:Chicken or the egg#latest edit by Agricolae and in the section below that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just finding that this case has been opened in spite of there being no 3RR violation (not that one is necessary for it to be edit warring) and substantial though rather unproductive Talk page activity prior to the report. As EdJohnston pointed out, this is Act 2, and the article Talk page pretty much speaks for itself regarding the breakdown in communication, but that is not for want of me trying, both there and on my Talk page, to get the editor to engage over content [13] [14] [15], [16] [17] but the reporting editor seems more interested in re-litigating Act 1 and complaining about my edits (example: reporting editor twice condemned my removal of a specific See Also link [18] [19], which they couldn't be bothered to notice was actually still in the article at that time - since removed by a different editor). The editor also took to inappropriate template- and policy-bombing of my User Talk page [20] [21] [22] (and the article Talk page [23] [24]), my removal of which from my Talk page was accompanied by the edit summary quoted above. I tried to explain my edits: [25] [26] [27] [28] (all before this report), all the while wrestling with this editor's borderline-incoherence [29] [30], and what I get for my trouble is attempted brow-beatings [31], accusations of incompetency, bad faith [32] [33], vandalism (above and [34] [35], and obsession (above), culminating in this report. At a minimum it belies the suggestion above by the reporting editor that they consider this to be an "unimportant article". Anyhow, a combination of an overly-pusillanimous attitude, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and some clear difficulties with English-language communication, and a precipitous decline in my willingness to subject myself to more of same have resulted in what could have been a simple content dispute ending up here, again (sigh). Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DENY "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and some clear difficulties with English-language communication, and a precipitous decline in my willingness"
    1 December 2017 [36]:
    "Explanation about "chicken" word ambiguity in any form you would accept"
    You had month to answer: [37]
    Other users stopped such edits like Deacon Vorbis with Aristotle quotation and removal of Sorensen. D1gggg (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User was reported because as before he doesn't create discussions after their edits are contested WP:BRD
    Blaming other party for starting a discussion is WP:LAME
    WP:DENY D1gggg (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [38] D1gggg (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm asking previous editors @Math and Katolophyromai: to have a look on what person does
    and make their decision D1gggg (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was really hoping that this whole dispute was over and that I would not get pulled back into it. I will clarify right away that I do not know what the full situation is between D1gggg and Agricolae, but, based on what I do understand of it, I am going to side with Agricolae. I see no evidence that he is acting in bad faith and, although I do not doubt D1gggg's good intentions, I think that he is being ridiculously monomaniacal over this whole issue with Aristotle and the "chicken-or-the-egg" question, which started off on November seventh (almost a month ago) when D1gggg deleted a mention of Aristotle discussing the issue at Moralia#Origins dilemma, because the statement was cited to a secondary source rather than Aristotle himself. This resulted in a bit of an argument between the two of us, which involved me determining that the source cited was outdated anyways and digging up a large number of references to include in the article as replacements (see the changes that were made to the article here: [39]). None of these satisfied D1gggg because he kept insisting that we needed the actual quote from Aristotle. I traced it back to a passage from Aristotle's Metaphysics, which seemed to be discussing the same basic philosophical question, but did not specifically use the words "chicken" and "egg". The conclusion of the argument was essentially a consensus that the argument was going nowhere, followed by a mutual agreement to stop arguing. That is the full extent of my involvement in this issue. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate if we would discuss changes and finish it ASAP.
    > to a secondary source rather than Aristotle himself.
    Difficult to count secondary-tertiary when we don't have exact quotes between them.
    In modern papers it can be wrong quote from François Fénelon (no quotation of Aristotle)
    > actual quote from Aristotle
    > but did not specifically use the words "chicken" and "egg"
    That's whole point of suggestion from Math [40]
    It felt wrong to me to leave it without reflection in article: WP:PRIMARY don't have evidence for such claim WP:V
    It was clearly Plutarch who actually wrote chicken-egg in their works - we don't know if he was first ever to say this.
    QUESTION III.: Which was First, the Bird or the Egg?
    PLUTARCH, ALEXANDER, SYLLA, FIRMUS, SOSSIUS SENECIO, AND OTHERS
    http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1213#lf0062-03_label_477
    It is strange to attribute it only to Aristotle based on Moralia
    D1gggg (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC):[reply]
    • What news say: "For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg," wrote Aristotle (384–322 BC), according to an 1825 English translation of Lives of the Ancient Philosophers by François Fénelon.
    • can we actually find these words in his works?..
    D1gggg (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    D1gggg, this is not the place to carry out a content dispute. The discussion that you initiated here is for one reason, and one reason only. To decide whether my actions yesterday constituted edit warring. This is not the place to try to win the disagreement over what should be on the page, and nothing of value to the question that this noticeboard cares about can come from you summoning people here in this manner to metastasize the content dispute to yet another venue. It is entirely inappropriate. Agricolae (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just yesterday, you were unassertive in providing references about Aristotle (or not Aristotle). I don't have inters in anything else WP:HERE. Discussion could be moved afterwards. D1gggg (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    D1gggg is accurate in one respect: "Not just yesterday" (now several days back, the day this report was made). The three reverts listed didn't even fall within 24 hours. This wasn't a 3RR violation. It wasn't even a 2RR violation (were there such a thing, and the article was not under 1RR sanction), and I had already explained my rationale on Talk, both the article's and my own. This whole complaint, like the more recent vandalism4-templating of my Talk page [41], amounts to nothing more than a cynical attempt to suppress opposition or extreme cluelessness. Agricolae (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: Warned both)

    Page: Australian rules football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Joefromrandb (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. [42]
    2. [43]
    3. [44]
    4. [45]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

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

    Comments:
    User's justification for reverts made within 24 hours is not valid. e.g. saying: 1) "Restore consensus version (and no, 2 IP socks do not count aa "others")", when they are seemingly not socks. 2) Revert made without explanation. 3) Also Saying: "Others obviously disagree. That's why there's a talk page." User when requested refuses to get consensus by using talkpage, even though they know as I've openly stated: "Others obviously disagree, now 3:2. That's why there's a talk page, and use it to gain consensus please.'Opinion' is not good enough."

    Previous reverted edits by Jenks24[47] and HappyWaldo[48], especially User:HappyWaldo who dismissively says: "condense material, rm pure conjecture and details on cancelled tour (never happened so who cares)" The editor adding the text has explained there position here[49], whose logic seems justified. They also added "And others also agree. And I've already reached out and explained why it's vailed. And it doesn't matter if you disagree, because it is a fact that games were of Australian rules were played in the 1888 Rugby tour & other things I mentioned, and sourced."[50] Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note. That fourth diff is not by Joefromrandb, it is from the IP/new editor, and the warning was given after his last revert. Joe probably needs to be a bit more careful, but he has not broken 3RR and I can understand his irritation (I also made a revert to the version Joe supports). Just because something is verified does not mean it must be added to the article, Australian rules football is a large topic and there are millions of things written about it that we don't include in our article. I can understand why the new editor/IP didn't know about our WP:BRD process and edit warred but I'm not sure why Arianewiki1 has supported them in this – once it was reverted once it should have gone to the talk page to discuss inclusion. Who knows, there's every chance there would have been agreement to add it, or maybe suggest a more appropriate article like History of Australian rules football or Origins of Australian rules football. Jenks24 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.. Arianewiki1 and Joefromrandb you both look like you are edit warring. Joefromrandb, asking for page protection is the correct way to go. Arianewiki1 your fourth link is actually an IP reverting to your preferred version. I also note that several editors reverted you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @CambridgeBayWeather: @Joefromrandb: A very poor decision IMO, that could have broader ramifications towards ignoring WP:GF. If anything, when an IP newbee posts material that is even sourced, but they are accused of being a sock with have zero attempts by those reverts then refuse to go to the article's talkpage nor reasonable explanation. What I question is especially Joefromrandb own behaviour here and in light of this cowardly action.[51] Considering the 'attitude' especially this.[52] it is clear "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule (they did), and they have used exemption "3. "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." as justification. Also stated "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached."
    As for CambridgeBayWeather saying "IP reverting to your preferred version." I have no preferred version. There seems no justification for the original revert, especially User:HappyWaldo who says: "condense material, rm pure conjecture and details on cancelled tour (never happened so who cares)" Worst Jenks24 (above) in saying "I can understand why the new editor/IP didn't know about our WP:BRD process and edit warred.." verifies Joefromrandb is ignoring "Don't bite the newbees."
    As for my own "warning" in saying "I also note that several editors reverted you.", clearly I have reverted only twice with two editors regarding the contentious text here. There is absolutely no justification to bully others - especially newbees - into submission via the tactics displayed here. Joefromrandb IMO in not acting in a manner conducive to editing articles here. Technically this may or may not be 3RR, but it is sure avoiding the principles of having such rules.
    To answer Jenks24 "I'm not sure why Arianewiki1 has supported them in this" This is why, and considering their own position, they should know better. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TaylanUB reported by User:80.6.59.134 (Result: No violation)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [53]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [54]
    2. [55]
    3. [56]
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    User keeps reverting to include paragraph deemed unfit in talk: "The use of the term was associated with a physical assault by transgender activists on a woman partaking in a feminist gathering in at Speaker's Corner in London on September 13, 2017.[83][84][85] Meghan Murphy, founder of Canadian website Feminist Current, opined afterwards that "TERF" is not only a slur but a form of hate speech.[86] The London Met have since began looking for three suspects related to the assault, one of whom is described as a man and the other two believed to be transgender.[87]"

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

    Comments:

    The user appears to be inserting content into the article to serve a political purpose. They claim that the people saying that the content should not be included are themselves being political, but in reality every other editor in talk has agreed that the inclusion of this content is non-neutral pov pushing. Despite this the user keeps re-inserting the content instead of arguing their case in talk. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The three edits were (coincidentally) over a 25-hour period, but thanks for letting me know about the rule before I actually broke it. :-\ As for the accusation that I'm being politically biased: everyone can see in Talk:Transphobia and the edit history of the article in question that every time my additions to the article were removed, it was either due to a misapplication or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's rules, or due to the personal bias of those removing the content, judging by how emotional they ultimately became (calling me a "hateful bigot" etc.) and hastily reporting me before I even broke this rule. Let this go on record as (further) evidence of how biased people editing transgender-related articles can be against those trying to make the article more neutral... Also, I shouldn't even need to say this but I fully support the humanity and dignity of transgender-identifying people. I just think they shouldn't assault feminists, and that they shouldn't try to pretend it didn't happen when three major British news outlets (Times, Guardian, New Statesman) have reported on it. TaylanUB (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool story. Still doesn't mean that we should include random paragraphs about it in unrelated articles to do with trans people. If your best response to the edit warring rule is "actually it was over 25 hours instead of 24" then I think that you're practically admitting that a problem does exist in your conduct here. Everyone but you has said that the inclusion is unfair emphasis. This isn't contributing to a more neutral point of view any more than including references to biblical creationism in science articles is. You also admit that you would revert further, and besides, none of this should matter, because again, there has been a consensus in the article talk that your contribution here does not belong in the article as it violates neutral point of view. Your continuing to re-add the content despite this is in itself misconduct. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation Over the last 24 hours, you each have two reverts. Now that you're both clearly aware that the change is disputed, please resolve your discussion on the article's talk page before reverting again. Kuru (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chernobog95 reported by User:SamaranEmerald (Result: )

    Page: Hwasong-15 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Chernobog95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [58]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [59] 12/2
    2. [60] 12/2
    3. [61] 12/2
    4. [62] 12/2
    5. [63]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65] by Python Dan, seems to be accusing another user of inserting misleading information and lying.

    Comments:
    Is attempting to revert several edits made by numerous users in an attempt to defend a citation he or she has inserted, often times providing harassment or aggression in his or her edit summaries. When confronted about these edits, he or she becomes notabilty hostile, accusing these users and previous ones of vandalizing, censoring, or lying. I don't know why exactly this user is so defensive of this citation or what exactly stirred up this behavior of his or hers, but what is known is that he or she is hell-bent on protecting this citation. This user has previously, been reported before under the same circumstances a little over a month ago [66], which ended up getting him/herself blocked for 1 week [67]. There is some pattern with this user tending to revert a number of pages of North Korean-related topics, which should also be noted. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another revert I just caught him/her making. [68] SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got a message about this in my message box, afterwards I found this

    [69]. Python Dan (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here’s a third one, I’m starting to think this user may be resorting to do anything he/she can just to protect this source [70]. Python Dan (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He or she did it once more, this time Kirliator caught him or her reverting their edits back [71]. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m also noticing that Chernobog95 is beginning to combine the source with others on the page as though they are suggesting they are falsely related. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn’t realize that Chernobog95 was reported for edit warring until now. I would’ve done it personally, but I appreciate the reporting ahead of time, thanks SamaranEmerald. Anyways, here’s one of the reverts Chernobog95 just made: [72] Kirliator (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here’s yet another revert I’ve noticed, this time directed to an anonymous IP, claiming it was “vandalism”: [73] Kirliator (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He or she is still continuing to show bad faith and is continuing to mock the users who revert his/her edits, here’s yet another link [74]. Python Dan (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And here’s another two reverts, both within four minutes of each other, Chernobog95 is starting to use the words users say against them: [75], [76] Kirliator (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I found yet another two reverts made by this user, [77], [78]. SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And here’s yet another one [79], it seems this user has crossed the point of no return well too long ago. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another revert [80], if I’ve counted the number of reverts above correctly, this should be the 17th time he/she has reverted on the provided page (or 17RR), like I said, this person is very persistent. SamaranEmerald (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also add that if you look at Chernobog95’s contributions within the past, it shows signs of not being here to build an encyclopedia, most notably the rules of treating articles as battlegrounds (via his or her hostile behavior shown above) and virtually no interest in working collaboratively. SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP:91.125.132.178 reported by User:Doc James (Result: )

    Page: Trichinosis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 91.125.132.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [81] (Dec 1 21:27)
    2. [82] (Dec 2 11:55)
    3. [83] (Dec 2 13:14)
    4. [84] (Dec 2 20:18)
    5. [85] (Dec 2 20:54)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

    Comments:
    What the hell is going on here? This could be a newbie good faith error - maybe it makes some sort of sense for "Epidemiology" to be at the top - and there's self-reversion going on as well as the obvious. There doesn't seem to be any real attempt to explain the problem to the user. The mentions on talk pages don't provide any real guidance. --Pete (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kulprit001 reported by User:Ifnord (Result:Blocked)

    Page
    Mersenne prime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Kulprit001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813330969 by Anita5192 (talk) Please understand what is written before removing."
    2. 03:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813327889 by C.Fred (talk) It is not necessary to cite a source for alt text of an image that verifies the fact. please understand before undoing."
    3. 02:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813315399 by PrimeHunter (talk) It is a physical property of the universe that is immediatly verifiable by anyone who creates a pyramid chart. Stop"
    4. 00:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813308826 by PrimeHunter (talk) There is no source. It is obvious with a series of simple images. if you really want i can create a source but is unneccessary."
    5. 00:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813202602 by PrimeHunter (talk) This is a literal use of the theorum. if you dont understand it, try drawing some pyramid charts. This is useful for programmers."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mersenne prime. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    [88] Meters (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    I opened a talkpage discussion after this AN3 was opened, Meters (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And another revert (RR6) since the AN3 was opened [89] 04:33, December 3, 2017‎ "Undid revision 813336998 by Meters (talk) Please stop undoing, i talked to everyone, i created a talk page. if you are not going to prove me wrong (which is impossible) then do not undo this." Meters (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Two more reverts by Kulprit001 have occurred. Kulprit001 does respond to edit summaries and talk page comments (not always in a civil manner) but continues to edit war, and appears unwilling to obtain consensus. Gap9551 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Kulprit001 has made 10 reverts in just over 5 hours now. Gap9551 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2.87.53.178 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: )

    Page
    Template:2017 AFC standings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2.87.53.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 18:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ""
    4. 18:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Template:2017 AFC standings. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    • IP refuses to discuss.
    Comments:

    IP continues to edit war their preferred version of an NFL ranking against WikiProject NFL's procedures. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Signedzzz reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: )

    Page: Roy Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Signedzzz (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. [90]
    2. [91]
    3. [92]
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94]

    Comments:
    {{subst:void|OPTIONAL: User:Signedzzz reverted a consensus edit of "dated older teenagers" by removing "older". I reverted his edit and left a message on his talk page to please not revert without discussing on the talk page, because a consensus had been reached to use "dated older teenagers". (See [[Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 5#"Sexual Advances" should not be used for asking for a date BLP). He then reverted it two more times, and each time I reverted, asking him again on his talk page to please discuss in Talk:Roy Moore. His last revert had the edit comment "fuck off". Since I was warned of 1RR, I reverted my last revert, leaving the text as the non-consensus version Signedzz wants.}}

    After the first diff, with the summary "unclear", the filer reverted claiming consensus, although there was no consensus for using the word. So I repeated the edit with a better explanation " "older" is unclear (and unsourced), useful only as WEASEL". This edit was not ideal, arguably, however it was not a 1RR violation. The filer, on the other hand, did in fact violate 1RR: 05:54, 3 December 2017‎ + 18:00, 3 December 2017 zzz (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to see here. There was no 1RR violation by either party. zzz removed the word "older" twice but the edits were separated by more than 24 hours. The nominator self-reverted his second edit. The only outcome I can see would be to remind zzz to be more civil. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he removed the text three times. The first was on Dec 1. I reverted it and asked him on his talk page to please discuss in talk, because there was a consensus to use "older" rather than "above the age of consent". (See the archive, linked above.) Then he reverted on 2 Dec. I reverted again, on 3 Dec. Then he reverted again, on 3 Dec, and I reverted again, again asking him to please discuss in talk before making changes. He then erased my request on his talk page with the note "fuck you". If this is acceptable behavior, then I will stop editing on Wikipedia. Txantimedia (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But there were more than 24 hours between each time he made the change so it doesn't violate 1RR. I agree that he should be more civil as I said, but it is actually you who would have violated 1RR had you not self-reverted. Lard Almighty (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also but, I never made any edit on the page on December 1, and in total I removed the word twice, not three times. Are you positive you want to dispute that, Txantimedia?
    The article is subject to sanctions so it is ONE revert, not three, in any 24-hour period. 1RR, not 3RR. You don't seem to understand this. You made two edits, and only saved yourself by self-reverting.
    zzz only reverted once in any 24 hour period. Do you understand? 04:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask the admins. What is this? [95] Txantimedia (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think it is? zzz (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to participate is this childish back and forth. Let the admins decide. I'm done commenting on this. The admins will decide what to do. I would ask you to please be more civil in your dealings with other editors. Txantimedia (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, I hope you enjoyed your "childish back and forth". zzz (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:40.134.67.50 reported by User:EEng (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    Page
    Mikhail Blagosklonny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    40.134.67.50 (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 22:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC) to 22:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      1. 22:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "What consesus?"
      2. 22:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "All I see is WP:ILIKEIT"
    2. 22:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Discussion on Talk:Oncotarget does not apply here. This entire article is protected by WP:BLP. Undid revision 813525160 by Pengortm (talk)"
    3. 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "No discussion necessary to remove violations of WP:BLP. You need to take to talk page to restore. Undid revision 813522987 by Pengortm (talk)"
    4. 21:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "WP:NOT3RR"
    5. 21:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, Onus is on the editor restoring contested material. YOU need to go to WP:BLPN. Undid revision 813520691 by Johnuniq (talk)"
    6. 21:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "WP:BLPSPS makes no exceptions for experts. Per WP:SPS, "NEVER use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.""
    7. 21:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "WP:BLPSPS makes no exceptions for experts. Per WP:SPS, "NEVER use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    • This is WP:NOT3RR. I have been trying to remove the use of a self-published blog on this biography of a living person. (WP:BLPSPS makes no exceptions for experts. Per WP:SPS, "NEVER use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
    Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, Onus is on the editor restoring contested material to establish consesus. 40.134.67.50 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Those would be acceptable defense if not for the fact that it is the consensus of four five six seven other editors that you're wrong about this. EEng 23:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is NOT A DEMOCRACY. Not a single argument against WP:SPS has been made. How do you justify using a self-published blog written, edited, and published by an expert to add contentious material to a BLP? Wikipedia policy makes NO exceptions for experts when it comes to living people. That is because even experts are people. They have personal biases, they hold grudges, and sometimes LIE. This is exactly why WP:BLPSPS exists. 40.134.67.50 (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.174.133.249 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked and protected)

    Page
    Abomination of desolation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    71.174.133.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "still waiting for you to enter the "discuss" portion of the "revert/discuss" cycle same for Mr.New Engalander"
    2. 21:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Still waiting for someone else to post something on the talk page in order to have a civilized discussion - how about you? are you willing?"
    3. 20:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "please use talk page in order to have a civilized discussion"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 19:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC) to 20:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      1. 19:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "please use talk page for a civilized discussion before continuing this"
      2. 20:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */"
    5. 19:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "not original research - vast majority of material comes from skolfields book used as a reference. Please use talk page to discuss."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ Warning 1"
    2. 21:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ spam warning"
    3. 21:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ notification"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 09:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ about sealed"
    2. 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ not WP:RS"
    3. 21:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ expanded"
    4. 21:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SPAM"
    5. 21:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ fanciful"
    6. 21:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:BURDEN"
    7. 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SCHOLARSHIP"
    8. 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ WP:BLOGS"
    9. 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ not a real person"
    10. 22:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ WP:PAGs"
    11. 22:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
    12. 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
    13. 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ typo"
    14. 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC) on User talk:71.174.133.249 "Warning 1"
    Comments:

    Also very much WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP, maybe WP:SPAM, too. Sock of 71.174.129.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.174.129.238 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked and protected)

    Page
    Abomination of desolation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    71.174.129.238 (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 16:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC) to 21:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
      1. 16:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813233087 by Mahveotm (talk)"
      2. 16:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */"
      3. 16:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */"
      4. 17:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ fixing page number- I was looking at the pdf. The printed page number is 17"
      5. 17:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */"
      6. 18:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ typo fix"
      7. 21:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ added a reference from Jeremiah showing that some sort of ceremonies took place up to the time of the murder of Gadaliah"
      8. 21:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */"
    2. 16:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ added a reference"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ warning"
    2. 09:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ spam warning"
    3. 21:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ notification"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 09:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ about sealed"
    2. 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ not WP:RS"
    3. 21:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ expanded"
    4. 21:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SPAM"
    5. 21:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ fanciful"
    6. 21:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:BURDEN"
    7. 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SCHOLARSHIP"
    8. 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ WP:BLOGS"
    9. 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ not a real person"
    10. 22:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ WP:PAGs"
    11. 22:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
    12. 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
    13. 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ typo"
    Comments:

    Sock of 71.174.133.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.192.15.151 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: )

    Page: Steve Carell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.192.15.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/813261815

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [96]
    2. [97]
    3. [98]
    4. [99]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User is a thoroughly unreasonable edit warrior. I'm not going to try to politely have a discussion that's guaranteed to both immediately stack a ton of consensus against them and, in terms of curtailing their bad behavior, accomplish nothing.

    Comments:
    They've also edited as 174.192.14.7. Is a range block possible?

    Also just vandalized Talk:Steve Carell as 174.192.0.196. Gotta love these underpatrolled noticeboards.

    CityOfSilver 01:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=813604308"