Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive349

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:Adam4math (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Doklam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2017 China–India border standoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gipmochi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796403989&oldid=796349186

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796318312&oldid=796307961

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gipmochi&diff=795903679&oldid=795901534

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796573789&oldid=796573668

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796444471&oldid=796443221

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gipmochi&diff=795971706&oldid=795970985


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011
  2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796429011&oldid=796425725
  3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796425725&oldid=796405783
  4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795815437&oldid=795814112
  5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795790828&oldid=795753596
  6. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795735751&oldid=795735269
  7. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795724364&oldid=795724095
  8. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796444471&oldid=796443221
  9. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796375690&oldid=796318312
  10. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=795906080&oldid=795904731
  11. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=795896729&oldid=795892307
  12. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gipmochi&diff=795971706&oldid=795970985
  13. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93India_relations&diff=795729151&oldid=795720810
  14. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93India_relations&diff=795963719&oldid=795889123


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


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

Yes, I did try to resolve the issue with Kautilya3.

Please see my communications with him on the following talk pages for topics on Doklam, Gypmochi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam4math

But he removed some of my warnings on his edit war. They can be recovered from the histories of these pages.


Comments:


Dear wiki Administrators:

Kautilya3 has been engaging in edit war on the following articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doklam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gipmochi


Kautilya3 has constantly removed and/or changed my edits to distort the truth contained in these three articles.

Some other times I could not figure out exactly what he did to my edits. But after he skillfully modified my work, links to some references magically disappeared or changed so that the reader is either not able to find the link, or get mis-directed, or taking many clicks to find the correct link.

For instance, in the article on Doklam, for the Revision as of 16:20, 20 August 2017 for the following

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796403989&oldid=796349186

reference [6] linking to the important text at the end of the article directed correctly to the official TV link at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSr0w6hD2Bg

However, after Kautilya3 made some magic changes, the link does not work any more at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011

Also, he changed the short and crystal clear statement here into an vague one to lead the reader into confusion about the dispute at Doklam: from "China asserts that this is Chinese territory based on the 1890 Convention of Calcutta and that border inhabitants of Bhutan needed to pay tax to the Chinese side in order to herd in the area before 1960 with tax receipts still in its Tibet Archives" to "it is also claimed by China".

I am a US citizen interested in truth, but I only told Kautilya3 that I am a third party other than India and China and can see the picture better than him who is a party in the disput with China on Doklam. I have tried to talk with him and educate him on how to be truthful on these topics. But he constantly harrass me with weird statements, and misuses wikipedia policies to bully me. I noticed that Kautilya3 behaves the same way in other wiki articles, such as those on Kashmir. Kautilya3 needs to be blocked permanently for his behaviors.

Other editors in India also destroyed my effort to tell the truth. Form the histories on these articles, it is very easy to tell that these articles are overwhelmed by editors on in India. As a result, they have hijacked these articles and do not allow complete story be told.

I did try to resolve the issue with Kautilya3.

Please see my communications with him on the his talk page and mine on Doklam, Gypmochi below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam4math

But he removed some of my warnings on his edit war. They can be recovered from the histories of these pages.

Knowing that I will be a lamb among wolves by bringing any issue unfavorable to India to the talk pages on these articles, and pretending to be following Wikipedia's policy, Kautilya3 constantly urged (pestered) me to take my issue to the article talk page. But it will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on Doklam. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time, having already sacrificed several full days working on the related articles. The current Wikipedia policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change. If it were a non-controversial issue, I would be glad to bring this (and all the articles related to the current dispute on Doklam) to the talk page.

I took more than two days to figure out how to report edit warring to wiki Administrators, and several days for me to do my edits on these articles, because as I'm not good at computer skills and my vision is poor. Kautilya3 destroyed my hard work, and Wikipedia readers all over the world are being mislead in his one sided stories on the dispute.

With more than three times more population than the rest of the English speaking population, India's hijacking these wiki articles in order to portrays its narratives as truth and not allowing complete story be told must be stopped.

People all over the world have used Wikipedia as a trusted source. I understand that ARBIPA sanctions policy is in place. However Wikipedia should be able to better this. In order to preserve its integrity and continue to develop it as a trusted source, in order to avoid constant unnecessary edit wars and disruptions related to these three articles on the current standoff between China and India, I suggest Wikipedia adapt a Court Like Policy similar to the following.

(1) Block all editors with computer ip addresses in both India and China, though I do not see obvious disruptions on these articles from China since Wikipedia is blocked therein according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_China

(2) Create a page that allow the disputed parties to submit their supporting documents, clearly labelled and organized.

(3) Editors from the rest of the world will serve as a Court Judges and work together to produce these articles, not limiting their resources from those submitted by China and India in (2) above.

When two parties have a dispute in a court, it is obvious that the parties themselves cannot be judges on their case. Wikipedia's current policy in dealing with disputed issues are exactly letting disputed parties to be judges, and in the case of articles on Doklam, letting India alone to be the judge since it has hijacked these articles.

Wikipedia may consider to adapt similar policies for other disputed topics, but the current standoff at Doklam should take priority to at the least have an ad hoc policy similar to the above, as the conflict could very likely lead to a devastatting second round of India's China War, as Neville Maxwell predicted.


I hope Wikipedia will change its policy so that all wiki editors will have enjoyable experience in editing its articles in a friendly collaborative environment, rather than an adversarial or even chaotic one.

I look forward to receiving your decision on permanently blocking Kautilya3 and your respond on my proposal to adapt a Court Like Policy on the articles related to current standoff between China and India.

Adam4math (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I look at what is said above about changing policies, but this all sounds like politics to me, and I don't think such a change would yield anything useful. It's far better to get disputes sorted out between Wikipedians who are involved in them, rather than a vast 3rd party, since it feels unlikely that would solve the issue. GUtt01 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Response: Indeed, I believe it is a content dispute rather than a conduct issue. The editor reportee was recently blocked for edit-warring, and when he retuned he started giving me WP:POINTy edit-warring notices [1] [2], [3] for every edit. Few of them are "reverts". Whatever reverts I might have done are policy-based and carefully considered and never crossed 3RR. RegentsPark is continuing to give guidance to the editor reportee. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? If you are referring to the reportee, surely that should be in your response? GUtt01 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment:Kautilya3 shouldn't be coming close to edit warring already. K3 came close to breaking 3RR already. This is clearly a disruptive user. Evenif not breaking the letter, it is breaking the spirit of wikipedia collaboration. [4] # [5] # [6] # [diff] He has been warned previously: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&direction=next&oldid=741455773#User:Kautilya3_reported_by_User:SheriffIsInTown_.28Result:_Warned.29 ] 223.225.141.7 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Who's sock are you? —MBlaze Lightning T 15:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
User to Admin Suggestion: I will not be taking sides, but I do think that there is evidence here that the reportee is not acting in a civil manner at all, and seems to be directing a personal attack against the reported because of disagreements over certain information that the pair are in dispute upon. To actually ask for them to be indef blocked and request policy changes to block people of another nationality from making edits or being able to sort out disputes in a civilized manner is totally unacceptable. This encyclopedia is worked on by many users; yes, we have problems by some who are disruptive purely and not constructive, but those who get into disputes who realise their behaviour is wrong and are willing to settle manners calmly and rationally, with a good discussion, should not be stopped from doing so because of their nationality, their race, and their beliefs (political, religious, etc.). Only for being disruptive, uncivilised, and having no interest whatsoever to constructing articles, amending them and so forth, like other respectable editors.
As for the other user, the reported, I think a simple warning should suffice, as they clearly do not intend to really edit war; they've been struggling with a user who is just being disruptive against them. GUtt01 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi GUtt01: Thanks for your comments. I admit I'm new to wiki editing, but the chaos and disruptions on editing disputed issue completely caught me off guard. That made me to think of the situation in a Court, in which disputed issues can be handled in a orderly and lawful manner. I'm suggesting that kind of a system/policy be adapted. This has nothing to do with nationalities, but it is about parties in disputed issues should not be judges, and I suggested blocking editors IN BOTH China and India (probably Bhutan too since it is also a party) not to prejudice any side. I did not suggest to ban disputed parties from presenting their cases, but suggested in part (2) to "Create a page that allows the disputed parties to submit their supporting documents", just as in a Court that allows disputed parties to file briefs but not to write decisions or Court orders, because that is the job of the judge(s).
Wikipedia currently has ARBIPA sanctions policy in place. This policy authorizes discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan because of hotly disputed issues regarding these three countries. This policy is not interpreted to be discrimination about nationalities. The policy/system I'm suggesting for all disputes seems to be better since it is really about parties in disputes, not about specific countries, though I urged start with such a system on the dispute on Doklam. Adam4math (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) re-sent Adam4math (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Declined: User:Adam4math, See the instructions at top of this board for how to submit an edit-warring report. If you have a disagreement with Wikipedia policy, your statement belongs elsewhere. Neither Kautilya3 nor any administrator are in a position to grant what you are requesting:

Taking this to the article talk page will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on Doklam. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time. The current wikipedia policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change as I told you before.

EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:115.248.26.61 reported by User:Cpt.a.haddock (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Buranji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
115.248.26.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "There is no evidence of your claim too. So, until the matter is cleared the information cannot be put up"
  2. 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "There is ample evidence available for my claim, so until the issue is resolved, misinformation should not be published."
  3. 06:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "The information is incorrect. The Assamese used in Ahom court and Buranjis was the Gargaya variety which was spoken in Upper Assam before the arrival of Ahoms. This variety was developed in Sadiya during Sutiya rule by assimilating Kamrupi Prakrit and..."
  4. 05:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Buranji. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

He has repeatedly removed a reference from the article without modifying any content stating that he's provided "ample evidence". He has been asked to provide his evidence on the talk page; this has not happened and does not look like it's going to happen. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

He is still edit-warring, but has hopped to another IP. This case can be closed. An RPP has been filed instead. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I've also blocked the other IP that this user seems to have changed to. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:82.49.34.193 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Thirty Years' War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
82.49.34.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Catholic reform.Britannica reference"
  2. 18:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "The aftermath was its majority in Germany,Poland,Czech R,Slovakia,some baltic states,Belgium and Ireland."
  4. 16:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Catholics are majority also in Germany,Czech R. and Slovakia."
  5. 15:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797039865 by North Shoreman (talk) Catholics are majority in Ireland,Poland,Belgium,and some baltic states.Church had its reform in Trento"
  6. 15:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 796527582 by BilCat (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Thirty Years' War. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Decline */"
  2. 18:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Decline */"
Comments:

The IP immediated deleted the 3RR warning after it was posted on his/her talk page.

  • I have no involvement in this at all but I noticed this diff from them on a User Talk page on my watchlist and then found my way here. The comment "Are you all protestants here?So good feith" shows a battleground attitude, poor literacy and seemingly a touch of religious bigotry. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:Oshwah. North Shoreman should consider reporting again if reverting continues after protection expires. The IP user doesn't seem to be persuading anyone else on the talk page, but they revert anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Jarek1101 reported by User:Random86 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Red Velvet discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jarek1101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797096791 by Random86 (talk)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 22:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC) to 22:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. 22:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797072040 by Random86 (talk)"
    2. 22:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797071437 by Random86 (talk)"
    3. 22:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797071186 by Random86 (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 14:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC) to 14:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. 14:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797017062 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
    2. 14:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797017029 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
    3. 14:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797016884 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
    4. 14:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797016759 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
    5. 14:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797016690 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
  4. 12:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797006327 by Nahnah4 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Red Velvet discography. (TW)"
  2. 23:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "/* August 2017 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user keeps reverting edits for no reason or non-valid reasons. The song "Rebirth" is a single and they keep moving it to Other Charted Songs. They also keep removing the name of an MV director, their reasoning being "its better for RV to not using this trash". Random86 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm 03:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Spem Reduxit reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Jason Kessler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spem Reduxit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [7]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [8] borderline WP:LEGAL
  2. [9] with personal attack in edit summary
  3. [10]
  4. [11]
  5. [12]
  6. [13]
  7. [14]
  8. [15]
  9. [16]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]. Another warning for concurrent edit warring on another article along with a discretionary sanctions notification [18]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]. Since he's reverting multiple users like a gatling gun this all happened fast and talk page discussion limited. Reasons for disagreement were articulated in edit summary.

Comments:


Spem Reduxit was warned about edit warring at ... his fifth revert. They refused to self revert. They also claimed that they were done for today, but then proceeded to make four more reverts. They clearly knew they were edit warring and chose to do it anyway. They are edit warring against multiple editors.

Concurrently with carrying on the edit war on the Jason Kessler page, the user was also involved in another edit war on the Michael Signer article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm 03:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics reported by User:Brythones (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)[edit]

Page
  1. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  2. South Ayrshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported

Sport and politics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:47, 23 August 2017, South Ayrshire "this is non notable information and should not be on this encyclopedia. Wikipeida is not a repository of council workers to be contacted. Being able to identify officers of the council is not a purpose of wikipedia."
  2. 15:59, 23 August 2017, South Ayrshire "Undid revision 796845378 by Goodreg3 (talk) no reason for inclusion justify the inclusion of list and cruft dumping"
  3. 11:20, 24 August 2017, South Ayrshire (after me reverting back to the original consensus) "this is a horribly worded article"
  4. 14:03, 24 August 2017, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (UK Parliament constituency) (after me reverting back to the original concensus) "Undid revision 797024276 by User:Brythones (talk) wrong place and wrong article"
  5. 14:04, 24 August 2017, South Ayrshire (after me providing a warning to Sport and politics on the South Ayrshire talk page one hour prior and reverting back to the original concensus once again) "Undid revision 797022264 by Brythones (talk) this is notice of the discussions going on do not remove until resolved"
  6. 14:11, 24 August 2017, User talk:Sport and politics "Edit warring on South Ayrshire: do not engage in hypocrasy"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:07, 24 August 2017, talk: South Ayrshire (warning) "User:Sports and Politics complaints and potential edit-warring: new section"
  2. 14:10, 24 August 2017, User talk:Sport and politics (warning) "Edit warring on South Ayrshire: new section"
  3. 15:03, 24 August 2017, User talk:Sport and politics (notice of this report)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 13:07, 24 August 2017, talk: South Ayrshire "User:Sports and Politics complaints and potential edit-warring: new section"
Comments:

It may be worth keeping in mind that this is the third time that this user has been involved in an edit warring report. (See here and here). Brythones (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: It should be noted, that it wouldn't do to include the reported's Talk Page, in the Page list, because a User has the right to remove messages, notices and warnings. They lose that right to edit their own Talk Page, only if an Admin believes so. GUtt01 (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I did not realise that was allowed! I'll strike that one off the list then. Brythones (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
As for the comment by Єl Cid of ᐺalencia should be seen in the context of the history with this user. This is very much pot kettle black commenting. Sport and politics (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Simply it takes two to tango, the reporting user is just as bad here. This is a non-issue, discussions are on going and WP:boomerang applies here. This should be speedy closed as a non-issue. The fact the reporting user did not know the procedures on user pages shows this reporting user needs to go away and mug up on the procedures, before throwing around wild claims. There is no violation here. this is simply a content dispute and I suggest the discussions opened by myself are used as the forum to resolve this dispute. Running to reporting 3RR is not the way to resolve a content dispute, that is a form of forum shopping. The issues at hand need discussing, jumping around and going stop stop leave the articles the way I want them and don't touch, which is the behaviour of the reporting user here is close to a WP:ownership.
I would also like to point out that the removal of a clean up tag is disruptive editing and and an attepmt to ignore the fact that a discussion is present on the talk page regarding those issues, so if anything the user removing the clean up tag who happens to be the reporting editor should be warned for the removal of that tag.
This report is wofuly deficient and should be speedy closed or withdrawn.
I would like to draw attention to this Talk:South Ayrshire where the issue is being discussed. I invite the reporting editor to withdraw this before they are hit in the face with a boomerang. Sport and politics (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
So once again you are deflecting the blame to anyone but yourself. Removing sourced content because you don't like it has become a pattern for you. And over-tagging articles you don't agree with because your removals were reverted is disruptive and falls directly under WP:Point. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: A few of points to counter Sport and politics own:

• Clearly Sport and politics is well aware of wikipedia's 3 revert rule given the number of disputes and warnings they have been involved with in the past.

• Regardless of how disruptive Sport and politics finds the reversion of clean-up tags to restore an article to its original state while in dispute, the fact of the matter is that this user removed more than 12,000 bytes from the article and continued to do so despite having their edits reverted by two users in the process. They decided to revert more content from the article despite being told to take it up with the talk page by two users instead.

Sport and politics has also taken an unhelpful and confrontational approach throughout all of this, describing the article as s*** in their user page, seeking out problems with the article which just aren't there (for example telling me to delete unlicenced material when there is no unlicenced material in the article?), calling me a hypocrite on my talk page for providing her with a warning and generally being unhelpful towards others (here for example). Brythones (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not a character assassination. Leave it alone, The two editors who have ganged up here are missing that point and that this is not the place to resolve a content dispute. no point engaging with this nonsense any further. This is nothing more than I don't like your edits. Sport and politics (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg 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. This is obviously a good faith content dispute in need of dispute resolution, and there's virtually no way to view this as an actionable edit war without blocking the other side as well. Please refrain from rushing to report good faith content disputes, as edit warring will most likely be met with equal action on both sides. Sport and politics's conduct does not seem to be unreasonable or disruptive, but if the removal of content is indeed a genuine behavioral concern, WP:ANI would be the appropriate venue. I will remind everyone that there's nothing wrong with removing content, so long as an explanation is provided. Swarm 03:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:I am the state reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 48 hour block )[edit]

Page
Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
I am the state (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC) "There are people who want me to have ECT, electrical brain stimulation, or be incarcerated somewhere or supervised by the police and/or other people who work for the state. That's just another belief, not a certainty. See talk page for reasoning."
  2. 17:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC) "I am a human editing the English Wikipedia and I desire the full truth, and don't want to play fake games. Canada's in the northern half of North America, the Earth is not flat, and the Wikilink is needed. I am not leaving the United States."
  3. 17:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC) "This isn't completely relevant but I believe there are people who want me to leave the United States and move to Canada. That's just a belief, not a certainty. Anyway, we need to focus on the real truth and not just edit war for pointless reasons."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 16:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC) to 16:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. 16:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC) "Why can't we focus on the real truth? Use the most accurate words. The truth is important. This is geometrically accurate."
    2. 16:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC) "Needed wikilink"
  5. 00:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "What is the problem with geometric accuracy?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Canada. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "/* New additions */ reply"
Comments:

At least three editors have reverted I am the state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Blocked 48 hours, and a fairly stern warning to knock it off left on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam:User to Admin Suggestion: As far as I can see, the edit they are making is harmless and not really disruptive; in fact I don't see any reason against there being a wiki-link to the article on North America at all. The only thing I am rather perplexed with, is the user's bizarre edit summaries. Apart from an admin striking their edit summaries out, I don't think any action was really needed here, only that the other users should have thought carefully about whether there was any need to revert the reported's edits in the first place. GUtt01 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but I've been doing this for a while now, and I'm pretty comfortable with the decision. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The stated of the term on the Canada article was achieved by several discussions. A unilateral decision to change, while not egregious, goes against WP:CONSENSUS. The original revert should have referenced that. It didn't. I simply reverted because WP:BRD was not followed. I am the state opened a discussion before the fourth edit and so hopefully, that will spawn a new discussion over the next two days. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Luckycat092710 reported by User:Prcc27 (Result: )[edit]

Page: United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luckycat092710 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [20]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [21]
  2. [22]



Comments:
Luckycat092710 made an edit to the article without any explanation in the edit summary, I reverted them and then they reverted me shortly after. This is a violation of WP:1RR. Prcc27 (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: I think it can be noted that their edits raise questions over why they were made, since no edit summaries for such large volumes that are either added or removed, makes it questionable whether they are being constructive or disruptive. However, they have indeed breached WP:1RR with their recent edits. I think the user needs to be questioned about what they are doing on this article. GUtt01 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Saqib reported by User:SahabAliwadia (Result: Nominator Blocked for 1 month)[edit]

Page
Najiba Faiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Saqib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC) "Added {{BLP sources}} and {{unreliable sources}} tags to article (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Not assuming good faith on User:SahabAliwadia. (TW)"
  2. 10:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* August 2017 */"
  3. 10:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Not assuming good faith on Talk:Phosphatase/GA1. (TW)"
  4. 10:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Najiba Faiz. (TW)"
  5. 10:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Hira Salman. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Why is he attacking every my page that is actually reliable. Remember that he is blocked for this reason is the past. (See this). SahabAliwadia 10:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: As for as I can see about that block, the reported didn't realise they had been edit-warring when they got that, and so was given a second chance when they made a reasonable Unblock Request. As far as can be seen, they are concerned over the sources being used on people, per WP:BLP. I also have to question two things about the reportee -
  • Is the reportee maintaining a neutral point of view, per WP:NPV?
  • If this is what they said on Talk:Phosphatase/GA1 - "This article is well-written, with original research..." - is this a possible sign they may be breaching Wikiedpia's policy about no original research?
User to Admin Suggestion: Before you look at whether the reported has done wrong here, check the reportee's edits, particularly in regards to WP:BLP. GUtt01 (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
First of all, May I ask if these warnings on my talk page are justified and legitimate? he left three warning messages between UTC time 10:09 and 10:24 - during time I was not even editing (see Special:Contributions/Saqib) Second, I merely tagged the BLP's because they contains non RS. After I noticed that User:SahabAliwadia is adding non-RS to BLP's (for instance, see source # 2,3,6,7,8,9, at Hira Salman and 1,2,,4,5,6,7,8,14 at Najiba Faiz) and saw this edit, I objected to his review at Talk:Phosphatase/GA1, however he went on to take it personally. Anyone is welcome to scrutinize my edits. As for my edit warring block, I don't think it has anything to do with User:SahabAliwadia. --Saqib (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Saqib: After taking a look over the evidence that the reportee put forward, I think this person is personally attacking you for no reason whatsoever, and that this report fails to provide firm evidence of Edit-Warring at all. After all, the link to the Talk page shows no signs of edit-warring by you, and you put forward legitimate concerns over possible BLP issues with the other articles. I would suggest contacting an Admin and letting them know of the reportee's behavior. I think you have strong ground to complain of receivng a possible personal attack against you by SahabAliwadia. GUtt01 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@GUtt01: I hope an admin will take action against the user so that his problematic contributions be stopped. Given the user's history of creating hoax articles and socking, I seriosuly don't think he should be continue to harm the quality of articles. --Saqib (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked. This report is a nonsense. Saqib made exactly one edit to the article, so there was no edit warning. This report is obviously bad faith. I gave SahabAliwadia a second chance [23] two weeks ago. But, I see to many bad faith edits in the last few days, that I think the user deserves to be re-blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the bad faith warning left by this user from my talk page. I hope there is no issue with this? Second, I wonder if this review should be closed? --Saqib (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Wilkn reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [24]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [25], reverted by Deacon Vorbis
  2. [26], reverted by DVdm
  3. [27], reverted by DVdm
  4. [28], reverted by GUtt01

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Infinity#Infinity - Unsupported Reports

I have provided valid sources, particularly a book by Dr. Sarvapalli RadhaKrishnan, the second, Honorable President of India and a renowned international scholar of vedic texts and the actual text which is about 3000 years old. There are no counter arguments provided to the validity of the cited texts, but only forceful reverts. The edits were reverted without valid reasons. I am counter reporting the editor for edit warring. Other sincere attempts by other users were also forcefully reverted without valid reasons. Wilkn (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
Note, this is actually more a case of persistent addition of unsourced content: user is adding an analysis of a blog [30]. - DVdm (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Note, this is actually more a case of persistent reverts of sourced content without any reason. If one does not know even the meaning of the 'concept,' upon what basis can you revert an edit? The poorna is not a concept it is a word like any other word in English or any other language. Please read the cited sources by Dr. Sarvapalli RadhaKrishnan. The editor can remove the erring citation if it does not confirm to Wikipedia policy, but reverting the whole edit and other valid citation is very improper for an editor. 13:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talkcontribs)

User to Admin Suggestion: From looking at the history log for Infinity article, the reported has made a number of bad edits with it over the past few days that are not very constructive. There is justification in reverting their recent edits, because despite what they state in the talk page and above, they have provided a source that is not reliable. It may be best that someone kindly advises them that, if they wish to include the information, to find someone who can help them find proper citations, rather than persist in returning the information with a citation that is not acceptable. GUtt01 (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:97.117.16.185 / 97.117.54.205 reported by User:RexxS (Result: IP editor warned)[edit]

Page: Scuba set (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.117.16.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
97.117.54.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version before reversions: [31]

Diffs of the user's edits/reverts:

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

Warnings given:

Comments:
The first edit to Scuba set made by the IP user made around 20 changes, many minor, but one broke the link to Diving regulator#Demand valve and others in that paragraph changed the tense from past to present, despite the item described being a 1990s prototype which was only of historical interest. I restored the original paragraph with edit summary "restore previous version of one paragraph : section links are case-sensitive", and left a message on his talk page explaining: If you're making a dozen edits, then make them in batches, so that it's easier for other editors to review and correct your mistakes. The change of tense in that paragraph was unnecessary anyway.. However the IP user reverted it back, once more breaking the links. He was reverted by Pbsouthwood, but he reverted again. I restored the paragraph once more, only to be reverted by the IP yet again. In the process he has called my edits to the article and his talk page "vandalism" three times 1, 2, 3, which breaches WP:NPA.

I don't believe that this IP editor has any intention of discontinuing their edit-war against two other experienced editors in good standing, so the only way I think we can fix the damage to the article is to block this user. If they return with a different IP again, I may have to ask for semi-protection, but I'd prefer to keep the article available for other IPs to edit constructively. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, "buddy," thanks for just assuming I'm "not experienced" too just because I'm only an IP. And I wasn't trying to force my broken version back into the article. I was just using the same tactic you were using to redo the GOOD edits, which happened to redo the bad ones, which is the same irresponsible tactic you were using on me to undo the bad edits, so that you can see that you were making the mistake of ruining good, unrelated edits while fixing bad ones. So if you have no problem with my other changes (adding the needed hyphens and removing the stray quotation marks), then why do you keep reverting them along with your reversion of the broken links? How do you figure that the onus is not on you to make the repairs and then leave the edits you have no problem with alone?
And then you say, "In the process he has called my edits to the article and his talk page 'vandalism' three times." Really, you're going to be hypocritical by complaining about my having done the same thing you did by summarizing your reversions of my warnings with "rvv" ("re------vert vandalism" [not that "rv" even makes sense for "revert," since it's like trying to multi-initialize parts of the same word])?
97.117.54.205 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
User to Admin Suggestion: This is getting messy. There's a bit of an edit dispute going on within the article, yet this IP User is being considerably troublesome, as his last Revert had an edit summary that sounded aggressive, and they have since decided to retaliate by nominating the reportee for edit-warring. It may be best to block them for this, disregard the report below, and put the article into protection for a few days so that the editors can determine whether it should use past or present tense for the information in dispute. GUtt01 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Uh, NO, GUtt01, it's rexxs who was being troublesome. This started with his stubborn insistence that he revert some of my perfectly good edits for no good reason while trying to correct some links that I accidentally broke. Okay, fine, so I broke the links. Then he should fix only those links; not several good, unrelated edits. So my putting them back was only using the same method that he thought was so "okay" to use on me: "Uh, yeah, let's just make sure that none of this editor's edits get through even though all we're really worried about is broken links." Since when is that an okay attitude to have? Is it not his responsibility to change only the things that really should be changed, rather than reverting a bunch of unrelated stuff just for the hell of it?
And where did you get the idea that they should disregard the report below just because it came in second? Where did you get the idea that just because a report comes in second that it's "retaliation"? What are you saying: there has to be a race to who makes the report first, because if it's not first then it's "retaliation"? What kind of absurd attitude is that?
97.117.54.205 (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@97.117.54.205: First and foremost - How can RexxS be the troublesome one? You got reverted by him and two other editors, which means he's not troublesome, but you are. Even when you took it to the article's talk page, there is a clear concern from what I read, that you are reverting information back to your style, and thus not in a neutral manner, per WP:NPV. The way you responded to my comment shows me that you aren't being civil, and are giving off a hint of aggression. A reported editor doesn't make a report against the reportee at all, because it just shows that you are in dispute with someone else and acting childish because "you aren't getting your own way". Don't drag me into this, and leave this report up to an admin. GUtt01 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I must also condone the IP for believing the warnings they received were a form of vandalism. They are not; warnings given that have no basis, may be considered as a personal attack, but the IP should not claim that, as, although they have the right to remove warnings and messages from their talk page, these were made because of their edit war they have engaged in. GUtt01 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: The IP editor is warned for edit warring using more than one IP address (See WP:SOCK). If you revert again before consensus is reached, blocks or semiprotection are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS reported by User:97.117.54.205 (Result: Filer warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [36]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

We have these two, but remember, as it says above: "edit-warring has no such strict rule" (as 3RR):

  1. [37]
  2. [38]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39], [40], and [41].


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

And then he's being uncivil by telling me that he will report me just IF I revert my improvements back into place again (which happened to rebreak the links, but I told him he should correct the links WITHOUT reverting the unrelated material for no good reason), and even though I did NOT do that since his warning, here he is, still reporting me anyway. Why tell someone that you will just report them IF they do the thing again (implying that you won't do it if they don't), if you're just going to do the report even when they have NOT done it since the warning?

97.117.54.205 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: The filing IP is warned for using multiple IPs in an edit war per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:WikiEditCrunch reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiEditCrunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 20:19, 24 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)
  2. diff 09:47, 25 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)
  3. diff 22:41, 26 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, removed by them here with edit note, Uneccessary threat..Cheers.


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Investment#Scope where this was agreed to by WikiEditCrunch twice (the first time before the content was added) here, and again here after their first reverts. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Investment#Major_scope_change.3F where someone else asked a process question.

Comments:

Not over 3RR but I find the agreeing but then removing-without-edit-notes tactic to be dishonest at best; the "cheers" when they removed the edit war warning notice, pointy. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And they have now misrepresented their own behavior, here, writing The reason is that we never agreed to adding it.I agreed with you on what certain things not going into the scope but did not agree to keep the scope restriction (I once said it can stay temporarily) My advise to you:Move on.There is no actual issue here that is worth disscusing mate. Cheers!. In addition to being dishonest, this misrepresents the fact that there is a dispute at all, and thwarts the DR process. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog:Not this again.Here is the thing;You are actually being disruptive by adding these things to the scope.I agreed that certain things have no place in the scope, but I never agreed to your edit.
WikiProjects define their scopes and since you are not a member/participant you adding to the project scope without consent is disruptive.
I nicely asked you to revert your edit on the talk page ("We have also disscused this so it does not need to be mentioned in the scope.Could you please revert the edit?I would appreciate that.").
Also I end almost all my comments with "Cheers" as it is friendly.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You are still not threading your comments competently. argh. You appear to be unaware of how that "cheers" comes across. Both of those are not exactly relevant to this matter.
Trying to argue "members only" is invalid, and so is reverting on that basis (if that is what you are saying, and it appears to be). I am participating, so I am a "member". You tried to make that claim on the talk page as well (diff); it is not how Wikipedia works.
What you quote from yourself there, is not an actual disagreement to restricting the scope, and you consented to the restriction after you wrote that, in the second agreement that I provided a diff for, above. Please be aware that both you and I mistook Sphilbrick's diff in their new section on "Major Scope Change?" - they were actually objecting to your changing of the scope back on August 11, here is the diff they presented.
Again, you need to state your objection to the edit; if you don't we cannot work out the disagreement.
Edit warring without edit notes, and not stating an actual disagreement, thwarts the DR process. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
And... on the talk page, still not actually stating a disagreement. diff Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog:Cheers is a nice word mate.Anyway again;I did not agree to you adding your input on the scope.Here is the bottom line on the issue and my objection:
WikiProjects define their scopes.What you are doing is creating too much information.For the project to be easily navigated and successful things have to be made simple.The disagreement is that you are not allowed/supposed to add or re-add things to WikiProjects since you do not participate.
Also your edit does not improve the use of the Projects main page
You need to understand:It is time to move on.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Still not threading comments competently.
What you write above, is not relevant. You are again making the "members-only" argument, which is not valid. You also appear to be discussing the content issue here, but this board is about your edit warring behavior.
You agreed twice. You need to state your own reason for your edit. You still have not done so but have continued to revert. There is no way to work dispute resolution with this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not going to reply here further. I think it should be clear enough to patrolling admins, that WikiEditCrunch is edit warring here. They seem unaware of the fundamentals of how we work out disagreements, and not responding directly when this is explained to them. The continued claim of "members only" is troubling Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I am still trying to understand if you are trying to help or disrupte.The members argument is part of a policy and is valid.Also you made the edits and followed to revert as well so I suppose you are edit warring.If you do not want communicate then I am not the issue here and this discussion should be closed.
Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
A last response. No. This is a notice board where admins will evaluate your behavior, and decide what if any action to take. I have not withdrawn this thread; you are edit warring, and you are thwarting the DR process by not giving valid reasons for reverting (again, nothing in WP is "members only" - that is absolutely not policy) that we can negotiate over.
I am not writing here further, as there is no more evidence I need to provide. I gave some, and you have done the rest by what you have written here.
For patrolling admins, WikiEditCrunch appears to be referring to an outcome similar to the ANI they filed on me, which boomeranged and they withdrew. That ANI is here. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to take action myself as I commented in the ANI thread mentioned above, but this looks absolutely clear-cut. WikiEditCrunch is not a new user and (given the number of people who've tried to explain things) can't reasonably claim ignorance of policy; every indication given by WEC's comments here, at ANI and on talkpages (particularly WT:WikiProject Investment) is that this is someone who's misunderstood WP:IAR to mean "I can do whatever I like without consequence". ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: I used the WP:IAR once.Also in this case I am following the policies, which Jytdog is not doing.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding material to a wikiproject is surely participation. I commented on WikiEditCrunch's talk page about his archiving material only a few days old at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Investment[43] unnecessarily. His statement that "The threads were too long and it would be hard to navigate the page otherwise" wasn't satisfactory, as it's been restored and the page is now longer but still easy to naviagate. Note that in the end he agreed witih me. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring on a project page. The user continued to revert the disputed sentence from WP:WikiProject Investment that excluded individual investment opportunities after appearing to agree that specific investment opportunities should be excluded from the scope. Issues have also been raised about WikiEditCrunch being unwilling to follow normal talk page conventions and engaging in premature archiving of still-relevant threads from talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I used the WP:IAR once.That does not mean I understand the policy as "I can do whatever I like without consequence".

Also in this case I am following the policies, which Jytdog is not doing. The policy in part states:"A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project." What is lacking her in my opinion is patience, calmness and maybe moving on perhaps. I literaly just started getting this project active again and Jytdog is being extremly aggressive, demanding, unpatient and unhelpful.

If I am right he was once even blocked for disruptive editing?So he has a history with this problem perhaps.

Additionally he reverted my edits as well so he is also edit warring. It took my quite some time to revive the WikiProject Investment.Jytdog has not been helping me. I do not see why Jytdog is unable to move on.

In the AN/I I mentioned multiple occurences of being hounded.This behavour is continuing. Jytdog quite early on in the discusion said that he would also to nominate the project for deletion if I would not stating "that is what happens here" [44]


Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Nihlus Kryik reported by User:Legacypac (Result: declined)[edit]

Page
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Fibration of simplicial sets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Nihlus Kryik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Legacypac (talk): WP:TPO stop being disruptive. (TW)"
  2. 21:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Legacypac (talk): WP:TPO Disambiguating or fixing links. (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User reverted my warning on talk. Insists on modifying my posts in a way that fundimentally changes the meaning of the post. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. This user has been nothing but disruptive, unwilling to communicate, and quickly seeks to get anyone blocked who disagrees with him. Please block him. Also, I suggest you read WP:TPO before you open ridiculous threads in WP:ANEW again. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
i've communicated plenty. This user has not participated in any discussion about Taku's efforts until right here. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
How would that be relevant? You edit warred because you said a page couldn't be deleted because it had a lot of links to it (which is wrong on two levels), then I suggested you change the links if it is that big of a deal. Taku did that, then you edit warred again. So obviously you have no interest in discussing. So you should be blocked for being disruptive. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
unfortinately that is in inaccurate summary, starting with the part I'm trying to preserve is page with a necessary redirect from a page move. You, not me, suggested changing all the links. You, not me, have violated WP:TPO by changing my signed posts. Now go away please because you are making the Taku situation worse. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Now you make personal attacks by calling AGF edits vandalism. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Legacypac:@Nihlus Kryik: Okay, can you guys please take a breather and calm down here? This isn't helping, having you two arguing like this. Legacypac, you should just leave these reports alone, and let them be handled in time, because the way you are behaving isn't going to help you here. And Nihlus Kryik, I wouldn't continue replying to his responses, because you'll be just inflaming the matter if you do. You guys need to calm down, or an admin may not look favorably over this display of behaviour. GUtt01 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
And you don't need to respond to every edit war report that comes through here as it's not needed. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Note to Closing Admin: check recemt user history for more Reverts across multiple pages after filing this report and warning user. Better if my signed posts were left alone. Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined @Nihlus Kryik: Please see WP:TPO; this sort of completely-avoidable disagreement is why it says "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." (emphasis added). @TakuyaMurata: I'd strongly recommend when doing things like this in the future to instead simply add an additional comment below it or at least annotate the change in some form (so that it doesn't look like like someone said something they didn't; again, see WP:TPO). Apart from all of this, I don't see a clear violation of the three-revert rule, though better behavior could have been had all around. --slakrtalk / 01:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:RFN98 reported by User:Echoedmyron (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Tampa Bay Rays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RFN98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [45]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [46]
  2. [47]
  3. [48]
  4. [49]
  5. [50]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51] Warned by another user.


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] Discussion created on article talk page.

Comments:

Up to this point, no edit summaries beyond "correction" by user, and warnings left on talk page have gone unanswered. Also appears to be a SPA based on contributions. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It has since been brought to my attention that the phrasing of the subject matter has been up for debate, and another editor has since come up with a compromised phrasing that suggests the editor in question was on the right track, albeit breaking 3RR in the process and doing it poorly. Just noting this. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: User:RFN98 is warned for 3RR violation. According to the above comments by the filer, it sounds like a compromise is within reach. As of this moment, the article lead says that the team is based in "..St. Petersburg, Florida, part of the Tampa Bay Area." I hope that will satisfy all the participants. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Legacypac (Result: declined)[edit]

Page
User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. . https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts&diff=next&oldid=797552363
  2. 20:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797552363 by Legacypac (talk) you don't own the page; I di"
  3. 20:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "obviously a user is allowed to delete a subpage of his user-page"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Replaced content with 'speedy G8?'"
    2. 19:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Redirected page to User:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage"
    3. 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* All drafts */"
  2. 19:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* All drafts */"
  3. 20:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* All drafts */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Taku is disrupting wikipedia all over the place. Pushing his own userpage that has been used to collect his notes off on another user and then edit warring to delete the redirect is beyond inappropriate. As expained to him, the redirect is necessary because the page is linked from many active discussions. I also understand we need to redirect for attribution. Only a block will stop this madness. He will never stop. And see [53] Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a simple solution. A history merge with the other page can work. It would be like a page move. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason a user is not allowed to request a subpage of the user page? If it is the history that needs to be preserved, I can permit @Legacypac: to store the history in their user-page. -- Taku (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts&limit=500 Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Request reversion to redirect. Many pages point at the Taku page and histories point at it. Reverting/deleting breaks these links. Just annother day in the Taku disruption factory. Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
That's hardly a lot of links. They could be fixed rather quickly instead of focusing on all of this fighting. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
In fact, I think I fixed all the relevant links. So the problem solved? -- Taku (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No one should be modifying my posts. Period. Back to reverting this vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It's hardly the modification; I even left an old link so the change is visible. How else do you fix the links? -- Taku (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Your actions here show you are not working towards a solution and are being disruptive. Please see WP:TPO:

Disambiguating or fixing links, if the linked-to page has moved, a talk page section has been archived, the link is simply broken by a typographical error, etc. Do not change links in others' posts to go to entirely different pages.

If you have moved the page then the links need to be updated. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku moved the page and keeps trying to remove the redirect. Changing the links fundamentally changes the point of my posts which in some cases say he should keep his notes in his own userspace. His change of my posts turns them into an absurd suggestion he keep his notes in someone else's userspace. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the more ridiculous arguments I have seen on this wiki, ever. If you want them out of userspace, then keep them out and change the links. If you don't want them out, then stop your edit warring with one another, close the AN thread, and move on. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined — it's not a violation of the WP:3RR to revert things within your own user space, so long as the content within it isn't overtly violating anything from Wikipedia:User pages. Nothing should be linking to user space from article space, and while it's probably not the "nicest" thing to do, it's entirely acceptable for someone to request deletion of content in their userspace, even if others have linked to it. If you feel contribution history would be lost by a deletion or feel it needs to be collaborated upon by multiple editors without fear of deletion, I'd suggest moving the page to the Drafts namespace or adopting it into your own userspace; both are also valid for requesting undeletion. Similarly would go the solution to the suggestion that the drafts are stale; they'd be better served in the Draft namespace. I don't feel the spirit of user pages implies the ability to force someone to redirect a their userspace pages elsewhere out of convenience. --slakrtalk / 01:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

An Admin unwilling to deal with the problem Taku insists his userspace is not a good place to store his notes and he insults, degrades, attacks and denegrates anyone that touches the notes he put in draft space. A lost opportunity to deal with this circus. Legacypac (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:1:C577:C224:7032:F1D3:1F38:E91A reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Gender dysphoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:1:C577:C224:7032:F1D3:1F38:E91A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797787450 by Funcrunch (talk)"
  2. 05:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797786649 by Funcrunch (talk)"
  3. 05:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "No original content is contained - "typical determination" can be derived from prevalence statistics below. Reposting edit..."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 04:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC) to 05:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. 04:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "The citation involved in this introduction is a reference to suggestive, rather than defined evidence. Suggestive evidence belongs in a secondary paragraph where it can be used to define a point, rather than an introduction or definition."
    2. 05:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Removed suggestive/inconclusive research from prevalence paragraph (1st paragraph). Replaced summarized text with direct text from the research cited (end of first paragraph)"
    3. 05:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC) ""
    4. 05:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC) ""
    5. 05:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Simplified prevalence paragraph"
    6. 05:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */ Removed redundancy ("discontent", "emotional distress")"
    7. 05:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */ Removed definition of GD from "causes" section - redundant"
  5. 04:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Editing introduction for clarity and brevity"
  6. 04:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Editing introduction for clarity and brevity"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC) to 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Does not belong in introduction - should be used as secondary support for a point"
    2. 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Removed an incorrect statement from introduction - "transgender" is a term referring to people who have made distinctive changes in their gender expression, which does not include people at an early stage of gender dysphoria"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[54]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[55]

Comments:

Warning and resolution forthcoming Added. User seems to have their own definition of gender dysphoria that is at odds with the article's. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note Funcrunch's report here which I bulldozed while reverting the IP's blanking of this report. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Your report is better/more complete than mine was anyway. :-) Funcrunch (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: IP removed this EW report diff Jim1138 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Filer warned for going over 3RR too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C5:CF01:501:253D:E9D3:E034:210B reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: London Waterloo station (edit | talk | history | links |