Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

---

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

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Click here to create a new report

User:Andiar.rohnds reported by User:Vice regent (Result: 60 hours)

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andiar.rohnds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] In this version, it can clearly be seen that in the section "Muslim reactions", the sub-section "Condemning the attack" is higher than "Supporting the attack".

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:30, January 13, 2015
2. 16:48, January 13, 2015
3. 22:48, January 13, 2015
4. 03:14, January 14, 2015

In each of these reverts, the user moves the sub-section "Supporting the attack" above "Condemning the attack".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

Comments: The user has made 4 reverts in less than 24-hours. I recall reverting the user only 2 times, meaning the other 2 times the user has edit-warred with some other user. The user doesn't seem to have engaged in any discussion during the first 3 reverts. Even though during that time, I had posted messages on the talk page. (Here's the section: Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Condemnation_higher_than_support). I posted a message to the user's talk page, pointing out to them that they had been reverting without discussing. After that Andiar.rohnds did post on the talk page, but immediately after that reverted me again (making it the 4th revert in <24hours). I also found their comment on the talk page somewhat unhelpful, esp since they started off with "Wikipedia is not your personal agenda device..." Since then, another user has posted on the talk page, and seems to also disagree with Andiar.rohnds. Coupled with the fact that others have reverted Andiar.rohnds' reverts, it seems clear to me that Andiar.rohnds' position is in the minority here.

After the 4th revert, I warned the user and asked them to self-revert. The user responded back by saying I was "confused" and I should go read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

I'll gladly take this report back if Andiar.rohnds self-reverts and agrees to resolve this matter through discussion.VR _talk 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussions were had, and previously archived. Discussion still continues on main talk page. User simply will not listen and is reporting falsehoods. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since I reported the user, they are continuing to make the exact same reverts. Andiar.rohnds didn't revert me, but rather someone else. It seems Andiar.rohnds is not willing to stop reverting.VR _talk 17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Andiar.rohnds' usual revert is to simply swap the order of Islamic sources supporting the attack versus those condemning the attack, to put those supporting the attack first. Andiar.rohnds often cites Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 2#Muslim response as his reason for reverting, but I am unclear on whether that talk thread reached any conclusion. Maybe the submitter of this 3RR, User:Vice regent, wants to comment? I confess that Andiar.rohnds comment at the beginning of the thread suggests that his motivation is personal POV and does not show a desire to reflect what reliable sources have written: "This information is not relevant to the current event and serves an extraneous social agenda, and should be removed immediately. --Andiar.rohnds (talk)" It is unclear how Wikipedia policy justifies Andiar.rohnds' reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

At no point in the section (Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 2#Muslim response) does Andiar.rohnds give an explanation for changing the order of the Muslim sources, except for one comment on 13:52, 10 January 2015. Whereas the edit-warring happened Jan 13-14. By the time the edit-warring happened, that one comment had been archived anyway. On the other hand, 5 minutes after the edit-warring above started, I posted a comment. Andiar.rhonds didn't discuss at that section while continuing to edit-war, until much later.

You're absolutely right that it is unclear how their reasoning is in line with wikipedia policies. I actually have a hard time understanding Andiar.rhonds' arguments at all, which are often aimed at attacking a particular user (like myself or someone else) than at justifying their edits.VR _talk 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that there are several users who disagree with Andiar.rhonds viewpoint (for example this user). Meanwhile Andiar.rhonds continues to revert and say things like "Sources are not always correct, even in abundance", undermining basic wikipedia policy that tells us to rely on sources and not original research.VR _talk 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• I just blocked the editor for 60 hours, after an ANI thread and the occurrence of yet more edit warring (over a fair-use photograph). Drmies (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:PuffinSoc reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: Warned PuffinSoc)

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PuffinSoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] << I'm sorry, I honestly have no idea what this is. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]
6. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10] (the response was "If the Islamists on here had their way, the entire "Charlie Hebdo shooting" article itself wouldn't exist. Don't engage or appease them.", followed by an immediate revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the user has resisted attempts by several invitations to join the discussions on the talk page

Comments:

Note: please see the following notice; PuffinSoc has also been edit-warring with MoorNextDoor. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned PuffinSoc. The restoration of the disputed section was a clear 3RR violation at the time but the dispute is now 24 hours old. He seems not to be continuing the struggle. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MoorNextDoor reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: Declined)

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MoorNextDoor (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. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

And a separate edit war with PuffinSoc:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19] (followed immediately by another revert).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: several ongoing discussions on the talk page over several days.

Comments:

MoorNextDoor and PuffinSoc are on opposite extremes of a battle over the background material in the article—PuffinSoc (and others) wants to greatly expand it, MoorNextDoor (and others) wants it effaced. Neither is seriously engaging discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear, this is not about PuffinSoc who's been at it for ages without ever bothering Curly Turkey (his talk page will show who tried to contact him more than once), it's about the fact that User:Curly Turkey:

• Reverted what I've deleted and when I added a relevance template, he removed that too [20][21].
• Falsely accused me of trolling.
• Attacked me again personally, instead of answering the question.
  • Neither an attack, nor a justification for editwarring. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Thinks that the three-revert rule (3RR) does not apply to him (I can provide diffs of the his reverts if needed). MoorNextDoor (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please do. I've ceased, while you've continued to revert both me and PuffinSoc after receiving a warning. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor Comment: I just spent some time looking at the underlying dispute here after seeing it at ANi. I also just evaluated parts of this report. The first 4 diffs against MoorNextDoor do not prove edit warring. The first is the deletion of a paragraph being fought over. The next three are insertions of dispute tags, which keep getting removed. No violation by MoorNextDoor. The counter accusations by MoorNextDoor against Curly are also without much merit in my estimation, although removing the relevance template and the linked comments are not really helpful to deescalate the situation. The second set of diffs 71-74 is indeed 4RR on the same issue by MoorNextDoor. Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen the ANi page, and suggest that the page becomes a 1RR article with all relevant editors warned of this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy, attack was related to ISIL we can slap the ISIL 1RR on it. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think-the charlie hebdo shooting by the kouachis is directly related to ISIL, but AQAP AQ in the Arabian peninsula, - ISIL is different.Sayerslle (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's disputed [22] but the 3rd gunman at the supermarket did pledge to ISIL, and there are doubts about AQAP. I'm not going to argue one way or another or a third way about AQ's role, I'm just looking to use the existing 1RR policy and community sanctions for ISIL on a somewhat related article. Legacypac (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the three-revert rule (3RR) does not apply to User:Curly Turkey ?

On top of the 3 I've already listed, you have to add some more reverts to his account (more could be found if necessary):

The Issue was and is still being debated, there was no consensus.

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
  • Nor was there consensus to remove. You've forgotten to mention that I opened a discussion myself on the paragraph---your reaction was to remove it entirely an hour after the discussion was opened, and did not join the conversation until after I'd reverted you. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• He removed a reference template that was added by Vice regent. When Vice regent asked him why, he falsely accused me of adding it (as if that was a good excuse).

MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Template:Ping:UserMoorNextDoor I only looked at the accusation, not if it should be boomeranged. Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Notes:
  1. MoorNextDoor's final revert was after receiving a 3RR notice
  2. all such edits were to the same paragraph
• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Declined – All the listed reverts are more than 24 hours old. The language being removed by MoorNextDoor in the second set of reverts was "Franco-Algerian Muslim brothers". The words he was removing can't be justified from sources, since the brothers were born in Paris. The French Wikipedia states that "Les frères Kouachi sont français de parents algériens," and our sources here agree with that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Eraserhead822 reported by User:Noyster (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Kader Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Eraserhead822 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:48, 5 January 2015
2. 16:39, 6 January 2015
3. 08:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC) "/* January 2015 */ notification"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user insists on changing a date of birth contrary to the only source given. The user has been asked to provide an alternative source , but has not done so or made any attempt to communicate : Noyster (talk), 15:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours seicer | talk | contribs 15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Антон патріот reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Indef)

Page: Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Антон патріот (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has twice been blocked for edit-warring, and each time has continued making the same edit/revert once the block ended.

1st report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive266#User:Антон патріот reported by User:Herzen (Result: Blocked) Diffs of the user's reverts in 1st report:

1. 18:30, 23 December 2014‎
2. 10:18, 24 December 2014
3. 07:02, 25 December 2014
4. 07:24, 25 December 2014
5. 07:42, 25 December 2014‎
6. 08:46, 25 December 2014

2nd report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive267#User:Антон патріот reported by User:Vanjagenije (Result: Blocked) Diffs of the user's revert to the same article in 2nd report:

1. 07:41, 31 December 2014

Diffs of the user's revert to the same article since the block ended:

1. 09:02, 15 January 2015

Block log: [26]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#How many infoboxes the article should have, and which one should it be -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Comment: Two further reverts, user has now broken 3RR (again). I'd suggest an indef block, user is just here to push his pro-Ukraine POV, as evidenced by his contributions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely I've left a note on their talkpage offeriing unblocking contingent on a topic ban on Russia-Ukraine-related topics, but their behavior to date doesn't offer grounds for optimism. Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: declined)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Burhanuddin&diff=642749355&oldid=642747764

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Attempted to discuss

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:
please note that the all the edits, ever done by user:summichum is criticism of Dawoodi Bohra and its related articles.though this is not the 3rr but even after having being blocked before he is continuing to do so. Allowing such user consistently vandalize this article, questions the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. please also notice that this user is cherry picking the sources.

The User is unduly promoting the dissident minority viewpoint as the main matter giving WP:WEIGHT to his negative view as in 'Criticism'.Rukn950 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Your complaint here is against the criticism section which appears to be sourced. Yet your discussion attempt is regarding the section called Quote of Dignitaries. On a general note; please try to assume good faith when you try to resolve an issue. You start off your discussion attempt by accusing Summichum of having a POV and ask him not to revert your edits; and them ask him to "give other editors their due respect". He has raised an issue regarding sources used in the section being discussed; please respond to his arguments instead. If you have an issue with the criticism section, please start a discussion with him. Bjelleklang - talk 22:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Saint91 reported by User:TParis (Result: blocked)

Page: Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saint91 (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. Saint91 adds content
2. Sayerslle reverts
3. Saint91 reverts (Revert 1)
4. Sayerslle reverts
5. Saint91 reverts (Revert 2)
6. I revert
7. Saint91 reverts (Revert 3)
8. Sayerslle changes a different peice of content
9. Saint 91 reverts (Revert 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19 hours before 4th revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Dieudonné_M'bala_M'bala#.22I_am_Charlie_Coulibaly.22

Comments:

• By my count, the four reverts are within the 24 hour window by a slim margin of 15 minutes (20 hours between first and last revert). Saint91 has been pushing a POV supportive of comments made by the subject, Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, that sources describe as having been controversial, racist, and under investigation. He's relied on quotes from the subject themselves to dispute the mainstream viewpoint. His edits create a WP:WEIGHT problem by giving the subject's minority viewpoint 60% prominence in the section. This has been explained on the talk page and in edit summaries. He was also warned on his talk page. His replies have been that we should 'add more negative information' after he's written a suitable rebuttal.--v/r - TP 17:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bjelleklang - talk 20:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:AureaVis reported by User:Kingston28 (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. AureaVis adds content
2. Alessandro57 reverts and warns
3. AureaVis reverts (Revert 1)
4. Alessandro57 reverts and invites the user to discuss in the talk page
5. AureaVis reverts (Revert 2)
6. Alessandro57 reverts and invites again the user to discuss
7. AureaVis reverts (Revert 3)
8. Kingston28 reverts and invites the user to discuss for the third time
9. AureVis reverts (Revert 4)
10. Kingston28 reverts and warns the user
11. AureaVis reverts (Revert 5)
12. Alessandro57 reverts and warns
13. AureaVis reverts and finally writes in the talk page (Revert 6)
14. Kingston28 reverts, explains and warns
15. AureaVis reverts (Revert 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: several times before his 7th reverting

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32] and [33]

Comments:

Kingston28 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bjelleklang - talk 23:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MaranoFan and User:Lips Are Movin reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Two editors warned)

Page

Title (Meghan Trainor album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

User being reported

Lips Are Movin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 5 edits by Winkelvi (talk): Rv stubbyfying of paras. No peacocking at all. also adding back material reliably sourced. (TW)"
2. 07:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 9 edits by Winkelvi (talk): Please don't reword things to be grammatically incorrect. All things you removed from lede are sourced in the body. (TW)"
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Collaboration */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page

1. [36]

Comments:

Tag-team edit warring to avoid violating 3RR and signs of WP:OWN at this and other articles related to Meghan Trainor. Will not allow others to edit their pet articles. The Trainor article was locked for one week on 1/10/15 because of his edit warring there along with his friend, User:Lips Are Movin. Lips Are Movin has just tag-team edit warred by blanket reverting my edits after I left a message on MaranoFan's talk page about his edit warring. It appears that because another revert would have been 3RR for Marano, Lips took the reins to keep him from violating 3RR. MaranoFan did a tag team edit warring move for Lips at another Meghan Trainor related article earlier today as seen here [37], he even admitted to doing so in his edit summary, "If Lips can't revert, nor can you. Since I am uninvolved, I am keeping this revision." The non-sourced and WP:PEACOCK content reverted by Marano was eventually removed later today by User:NE Ent.

Lips has been reverting my edits at other Meghan Trainor articles as well for the last several days. At DRN (here [38]) and other talk pages, both have been told by admins and an non-admins alike to stop edit warring, stop discussing editors, start talking about edits, and begin to work collaboratively as well as use the article talk page to discuss.

Both editors appear to have ownership issues and are being more disruptive than productive. At this time, after looking at the edits of both through the eyes of the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool, I'm starting to think we might have a sockpuppet situation with both working the same articles and backing each other in tag team edit warring, content disputes, and awarding each other barnstars and other forms of support. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note MaranoFan has just started edit warring on this page by reverting out edits I have made to this report. See here: [39]

• Update It seems at least one of the edit warring editors, Lips, is finally taking advice regarding the article bloat and is recognizing that it needs to be trimmed down. This advice was given on the article talk page [40], along with this [41]. Lips responded with this [42]. If both editors reported here for tag-team edit warring can agree with policy that others beside themselves are welcome to edit the article and that edits from those other than these two accounts (Marano and Lips) will not be discounted and reverted, they will cease edit warring, and cooperative editing will start taking place, I will ask that this report be closed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This report is redundant as the reporter himself has made over 17 reverts (visible in his contributions) over the past day, has been derailing Meghan Trainor-articles, adding unsourced content and removing sourced content without consensus on the talk page, see also: All About That Bass. Winkelvi has also been currently reported by a number of users at WP:ANI for edit warring, disruptive editing, abusing and contradicting Wikipedia policies, harassing other editors. He has been edit warring not only on Title (Meghan Trainor album) but All About That Bass, Talk:List of best-selling singles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs and several other articles pointed out on the current WP:ANI - Lips ^{are movin} 08:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also note that I did not violate WP:3RR and should not be blocked due to this request.- Marano ^fan 08:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go with complete honesty and without a bias. To start, yes, they have awarded each other Barnstars, but only one each. And really, do they matter all that much? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:The similar edits are a result of similar musical choice. Seriously?, My only barnstar to Lips was actually in itself asking him to expand a section. And Lips' barnstar to me was a teamwork barnstar. I was fine with your edits till now as you were only vandalizing namespace articles, but now accusing me and Lips of sockpuppetry? I did not think that you would sink so low to defend your personal arguments. If we were the same person, why would I "ask" him to expand anything? Marano ^fan 09:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• If you want to accuse someone of socking, do it at the Sockpuppet board only. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi has a habit of accusing editors of sockpuppetry unwarranted - this has been discussed on the WP:ANI. He also has a habit of lying (also discussed at WP:ANI), the only warnings me and User:MaranoFan have received were by him, and one editor warned me, no admins whatsoever. All warnings have been unwarranted as we have not violated WP:3RR. Winkelvi's contribution history, persistent reverting, history of edit disputes and being reported by other users on WP:ANI suggest that Winkelvi himself is an edit warrior and is abusing and contradicting Wikipedia policies. All of which is under discussion in two new reports of the user regarding completely unrelated articles at WP:ANI. - Lips ^{are movin} 10:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:MaranoFan and User:Winkelvi are warned for edit warring. These issues are so important you need to revert immediately, but they are not important enough to discuss on the talk page? If this continues, blocks or protection may be needed. 03:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Aergas reported by User:Alon12 (Result: )

Page: Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aergas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47] Multiple warnings from Multiple users: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

The user Aergas has repeatedly ignored all forms of civil dispute resolution through the talk page, even against other users such as myself, and has engaged in multiple edit wars against multiple users, even when it is agreed on in talk page consensus what the standards for content should be. He has even resorted to calling all people who oppose him on the talk page as 'one person' in some sort of bizarre ad hominem, in the talk page. Alon12 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only made two reverts, who were around 10 hours appart and were to keep in line with Wikipedia's codes of conduct, which state "Do not revert, discuss" the other edit (middle one) was the merging of one section within another and didn't meet protest of any of the users involved in the discussion. There is no existent talk page consensus yet, we are working on it right now with good results, and both parties involved (Me and Jytdog) have agreed to not revert anything. There is convincing evidence of a sockpuppeter currently involved in the whole "Mexicans of European descent" affair, it involves two accounts, not all of the editors who have participated there, but this is for another noticeboard/place. Aergas (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Do not revert, discuss": You have already violated this concept many times, for removing sourced data, which I inputted into the article. Here is a diff, which spawned multiple diffs in which you engaged in an edit war [50] You were warned by third party users as well, not to engage in an an edit war.[51] You have nonetheless continued with edit wars against multiple users on this page. Alon12 (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Explained simply: when there is a dispute, you shouldn't add new material if said material is related to the issue at hand that wasn't there before the dispute begun and you shouldn't remove material that is related to the dispute if it was there before the dispute begun. That's what the "don't revert, discuss" lineament is about. Aergas (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about separate material. That was not what the controversy of potentially removable disputed material in the section was talked about in the talk page. I added new data on another subject. You repeatedly violated this rule of '"Do not revert, discuss"', and removed my sourced data, all I did was add additional data from numerous sources, and you engaged in an edit war to undo those edits. Alon12 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:31.19.210.13 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Page protected)

Page

Scientific Research Publishing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "For all who do not have much time. Just read the title of the reference. This case has nothing to do with what is reported by Abrahams or Sanderson."
2. 18:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "You can revert as much as you want, but 2010-1=2009 will still be correct as I explained before!"
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC) to 02:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 01:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "Abrahams published in 2009. Sanderson wrote in 2010: "Late last year"."
   2. 01:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "I put the 244 in and had a reference for it. Now I found a better one not a blog entry, but a page from a respected organisation. Just keep it, ok!"
   3. 02:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "What Beall states has nothing to do with his list of criteria! We can not write this, because it would be OR. So, I just want to separate these separate things with a blank line. Just leave it! Ok?"
   4. 02:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC) ""its journals" means "all of its journals". Abrahams collected prove for one. Sanderson wrote "at least two". Maybe more, but prove is missing. Let's just get these statements correct. May one more edit stay? Thanks."
4. Consecutive edits made from 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC) to 01:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "Better reference for "244""
   2. 01:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC) ""The company has been included" does not say who did it. Now it is clear."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Scientific Research Publishing‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Very likely a COI issue that is getting out of hand; in any event, warning ignore, so this user needs a break. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I also reported this yesterday at WP:RFPP (requesting indef semiprotection) but there has not yet been time for a response there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am glad we start to discuss how the page is being edited. The NPO is defined to a certain extend by the majority of the editors involved. Not many are in favor of the Chinese publisher. The page was started reporting about something controversial - not because someone got the idea to report about the existence of the publisher. I tried to bring in a little general material and I had to teach myself how Wikipedia works. I had only started two other pages before, nothing controversial, easy. One page was pushed by others nicely. It was always difficult to edit this page here, but a very small percentage of what I tried to bring in stayed over the long time. There are just very few reliable sources available. Blog entries against SCIRP are not deleted by the other editors, but a PDF from the publisher's page or a blog entry at the publisher does not stay (even if it shows the publisher's view defending the company from maybe exaggerated critique given on Wikipedia's page and references included). Most of the controversies section is based on one person Jeffrey Beall and his concept of "predatory open access publishing" (a concept used against open access publishers) which is much debated on the related Talk page. I think we have made use of the Talk page sufficiently. The other editors seem to have given up discussing there. Maybe too much work involved, or no good arguments left, I do not know. I explained my edits at length, too long for some editors ("TL, DR"). I always give reason in the Edit summary for every edit no matter how small. There is not much argument included in return - I mean something I could learn from. What can I learn from "Nonsense"? A problem is also that it is not possible to change 5 lines in a structured way. Things get reverted by "undo" faster than you can think. So, I have to limit myself often to single word changes, see if they survive (mostly not) and continue form there on. As they mostly do not survive and I do not want to change in the same place again and therefore just take another piece of the text that needs correction and change a little thing there. 10 steps forward (with references, Edit summary, Talk page) and 9 back is about the ratio of advancement. I was asked to go by Wikipedia rules and tried to list the violations by those who constantly revert my edits. Please find it on the Talk page: Talk:Scientific_Research_Publishing#Is_wikipedia_really_neutral.EF.BC.9F. Yes, I know: "TL, DR". --31.19.210.13 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Edit requests can be made on the talk page. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:166.170.14.78 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: )

Page: Pyramid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.170.14.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Pyramid#Obligatory_talk_page_section

Comments:
Inserting obvious errors, apparently trying to defend it by saying it's an opinion. Either incompetent or a vandal. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Leftcry reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: )

Page: Buhas bus attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leftcry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63] (this is revert to previous version with wording "alleged" preferred by this user: [64])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65] - by uninvolved administrator; the user was also warned of discretionary sanctions in Eastern Europe subject area, where this article belongs

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see [66]

The fourth revert wasn't bringing back any major information, and it isn't my "preferred word" it's a fact as there were allegations. I mentioned all of that on the talk page of the article. --Leftcry (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)