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:Simba383 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: EC protection)

Page

Aziz Ahmed (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Simba383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Family background */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC) to 04:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Family background and controversy */"
   2. 04:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Family background */"
3. 04:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Family background*/"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Aziz Ahmed (general). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Result: Article is EC protected 3 months. There is a steady stream of new editors, some autoconfirmed, who appear to be either sock or meat puppets. Use the talk page to get agreement on whether information about the general's family belongs in his article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has done anything about the rather obvious socking here, so I have opened an SPI case. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:2003:cd:3723:2450:c052:f02c:e88a:75cc reported by User:Igor Balashov (Result: No violation)

Page: 2018 WTA Finals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2003:cd:3723:2450:c052:f02c:e88a:75cc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]

Comments:
It was from two empty accounts, but clearly one person, may be considered as vandalism. Stephens is very likely to qualify, but formally she's not yet, no official report, slight chance that Svitolina will receive wild card and three players will overcome Stephens, wikipedia should not predict events even if very likely. Here is proof that not yet [2].--Igor Balashov (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• No violation – Nobody broke WP:3RR. As to the disputed matter about Sloane Stephens, it was recently confirmed that Stephens has qualified to play in Singapore so there is no further need to keep this assertion out of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Great job, next time when someone will add results of a football match two days before it happen - you should also act like this, to wait for a result and if it will turn out to be right, just do nothing and said there were no violations.--Igor Balashov (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:An actual biological woman reported by User:Jake Brockman (Result: Page protected)

Page

Daniel Küblböck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

An actual biological woman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864167276 by Serols (talk)"
2. 14:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864167067 by Serols (talk)"
3. 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864166438 by Serols (talk) Being trans isn't about surgery. Educate yourself. Unlearn your transphobia."
4. 14:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864164015 by Jake Brockman (talk) i think it's better to respect what it seems her identity was"
5. 14:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864158910 by Jake Brockman (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Help Daniel Küblböck */ new section"
2. 14:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Honestly, I'm done reinstating the info about Kublbock being a woman(which she was) for the time being. I get the verifiability thing. It seems really jobsworth-like to me, but I guess I get it. Also, there was no warning. nice try tho An actual biological woman (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected. I completely understand what the reported editor is doing here; if there was clear reliable sourcing that the subject identified as female then they would be abolsutely correct. However, that sourcing isn't there at the moment; as User:Jake Brockman pointed out, there's hearsay. This is something that needs to be hashed out on the talkpage - either there is reliable information, or there isn't. A note to User:Serols - gender identity is completely irrelevant to surgery - see WP:GENDERID. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: thanks for this. However, are we keeping the protected article with the undersourced female personality and not the base version until there may be further conversation? Thanks. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, The Wrong Version Problem. I suggest that if no relaible sources can be found within 24h that xe identified as female, if someone lets me know, I will revert it to the stable version. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry Black Kite, I didn't see this discussion before reverting to the stable version. Feel free to revert me. Regards SoWhy 17:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User:John Dick 78 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

Page

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

User being reported

John Dick 78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "You think that Kastellorizo is in Europe???"
2. 00:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "You think that Symi is in Europe??"
3. 23:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "You think that Samos is in Europe?"
4. 21:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "So, you think Lesbos is in Europe?"
5. 19:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC) "Some of its islands are much closer to Asia than Europe."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Just returned at Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to repeat the same CIR edit-warring for which he got blocked in March and April 2018. Dr. K. 00:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:John Dick 78's purpose on Wikipedia seems to be edit warring about the status of certain Greek islands. He declares these islands to be in Asia not Europe. After six months and two prior blocks he seems unlikely to change. I propose an indefinite block. (Anybody who looks at a map will see the Greek islands stretching most of the way to Turkey. Someone needs to make an arbitrary decision whether these islands are in Europe or Asia. A new editor who arrives with a personal mission to change that assignment is not exactly helpful). EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This account seems fixated on this particular edit and has waged epic edit-wars to enforce it. To gain a perspective on the magnitude of disruption this has caused, please see the 31 March 2018 report featuring 8 reverts and the 2 April 2018 report featuring 5 reverts. Including today's report, this single edit has been enforced by edit-warring a total of 18 times. Dr. K. 01:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Lourdes 07:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Fieryflames reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Indeffed, pending copyvio acknowledgement)

Page: Paul Abrahamian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fieryflames (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. 04:25, 10 October 2018 - Paul Abrahamian
2. 01:24, 16 October 2018 - Paul Abrahamian

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

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

Comments:
First off apologies in advance if this report is messed up - Twinkle isn't working so had to do this manually,
This editor is slowly edit warring at Paul Abrahamian, Burt Reynolds and at Danielle Bregoli inserting copyvio images, I've twice asked them to pack it in[3][4] but they've simply continued,
Like I said it's a slow edit war however either way this editor doesn't seem to want to cooperate despite myself giving them a chance to do just that,
Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• I hadn't realised but over at Burt Reynolds they'd gone well over 3 reverts and the article ended up protected so really this report should be for that page but like I said they've pretty much slowly-edit warred on all 3 pages give or take, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely The editor had been warned earlier of copyvio infringements. Once they acknowledge that they recognize their mistake, they may be immediately unblocked. Lourdes 06:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:LandRussia reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result:Blocked 24 hours )

Page

United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:13, 16 October 2018‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 864285545 by Ghmyrtle (talk) where is your consensus? Only cancel last change and think that it's ok. It's not ok"
2. 08:58, 16 October 2018‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 864284254 by Ghmyrtle (talk) census is not. But all information about population giving at 2017. Either it's estimate or something else, doesn't mater if it's working here a lot of time"
3. 08:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864283409 by PaleCloudedWhite (talk) What? "plus the key had Russian text" so what? Are you rasist? Where wrote that all maps should key name on english?"
4. 08:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864282622 by Dorsetonian (talk) go to discussion"
5. 08:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864278547 by Roger 8 Roger (talk) take YOU talk, if you want. On this link this art using twice, it's awesome! My art is actual, there is nothing to talk about"
6. 07:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864226472 by IdreamofJeanie (talk) return the actual version. Version from 2011 using twice on the link"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on United Kingdom ‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is also edit warring in the same way on Demographics of Poland, though hasn't exceeded three reverts there yet.

Conversation is not correct. Please, show the all history of change. Where is the history like "Remove meaningless chart" and like"just it incorrect" . I was getting only messages like that. If i wasn't getting something else, what i should do? I ust return change, because the arguments are not convincingLandRussia (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

LandRussia, you added a map of the "UK as of 2017". There was no 2017 census. Admins, note that they continued to revert even after they were reported here. Vermont (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to note this particularly concerning diff: [5]. Vermont (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Mattximus reported by User:Dilidor (Result: )

Page: List of municipalities in Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mattximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=863693415

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=863300286&oldid=863217433
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=863471269&oldid=863392092
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=863690694&oldid=863688052
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=864222022&oldid=863693415

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island#Report_of_Edit_Warring

Comments:

Mattximus and I were warned to cease editing until consensus had been reached. We continued discussion on Talk but did not reach consensus—so Mattximus simply reverted and claimed that we had. —Dilidor (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have left a warning to Mattximus to self-revert to avoid a block, but they have not edited Wikipedia since that warning was given. The prior edit warring complaint can be seen here. I think we should wait to see if Mattximus will respond before taking action on a block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Krishendrix78 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: )

Page: Royal Air Force Museum London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krishendrix78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:46, 16 October 2018‎ (have merged the sections of description and aircraft on display. I hope this is better?)
2. 18:19, 16 October 2018‎ (Two sections which were there before - and had been there for several years - were removed, which does not seem to make sense as other aviation museums do have lists of aircraft on display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_aviation_museums_in_England)
3. 18:57, 15 October 2018‎ (I have added independent references to the article, which back up all information in this article)
4. 15:52, 15 October 2018‎ (Undid revision 864151123 by Mean as custard Hello, I am reverting this, because last time I did remove the promotional aspect. If you still feel it is incorrect or biased, please let me know which parts and I will gladly change them.)
5. 11:10, 15 October 2018 (Undid revision 864137257 by Mean as custard (talk) I have reverted this edit and I will tone down any soapboxing. However, make sure you communicate about which parts you are unhappy. Dismissing and deleting my hard day's work is not really constructive !)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Comments: WP:PAID editor repeatedly inserting massive amount of unsourced, promotional cruft in the face of advice/warnings from myself, Mean as custard, David Biddulph and Cullen328. See my edit summary for details. Incidentally, Twinkle wouldn't load the report for me (3X!), so apologies if this is more malformed than usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)

• Krishendrix78, this is the final discussion before blocking you. When your edits have been challenged, and if you continuously attempt to reinstate your version, this is considered disruptive. Moving forward, and IMP: Do you agree to only add that material which you have first discussed on the talk page and and have gained consensus for the same? Lourdes 14:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:AssociateAffiliate reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Declined)

Page

James Jones (cricketer, born 1870) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "AssociateAffiliate moved page James Jones (cricketer, born 1878) to James Jones (cricketer, born 1870) over redirect: Perhaps you ought to check this... http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/30/30663/30663.html"
2. 21:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864381346 by Zackmann08 (talk) Yeah coz I pulled those dates out my arse, you know."
3. 20:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has reverted multiple edits despite the fact that their edits broke the template and directly contradict the source on the page. The user did provide a link that supposedly supports their claim but it links to a page that requires paid access. When attempting to discuss the issue, user immediately resorted to accusing me of being on a power trip. I'm removing myself from any further edits to the page in question but would like an admin to look into this. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Lol. The fearful admin police. How do I plead your honour? Guilty! StickyWicket (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is being discussed here. Hopefully this is now resolved. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Declined, and discussions, as mentioned by Lugnuts, are continuing. Lourdes 14:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Pleckaitis reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: )

Page

2018 Kerch Polytechnic attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 12:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 12:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
   1. 12:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 12:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on 2018 Kerch bombing. (TW)"
2. 12:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Help 2018 Kerch bombing. (TW)"
3. 12:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Kerch explosion 2018. (TW)"
4. 12:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Fyderast. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps pushing the same unreferenced POV stuff (e.g. added a line about Russian government's involvement into the massacre 30 minutes after the article was created without citing a single source and kep adding it for a while after my reversions). Was trying to add unrelated categories (e.g. linking the article to the category about Russian apartment bombings of 1999). Has a history of the same POV pushing (which I highlighted among the warnings given above) and multiple warnings apparently didn't help. I reported him for vandalism but apparently that doesn't classify as vandalism according to User:Ferret so I am reporting him for edit warring instead since he's still engaged on the article Openlydialectic (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• For whoever evaluates this case, the relevant declined AIV report: here. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: AR-15 style rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72bikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: In the edit summary

Comments:

72bikers has been one party to a particularly bitter content dispute on this page. I had proposed that two of the key editors in the dispute take the discussion to WP:DR/N as I thought they both made very good points and hoped to see a compromise solution. Another editor discussed whether the involvement of third parties might make that untenable and I argued that a lot of the editors involved would hopefully fall behind a compromise between these two key individuals. I also mentioned as an aside that there was one editor who I didn't expect would support any compromise but that I didn't think their position was relevant to the dispute. I did not name that editor.

72bikers then claimed I was casting aspersions on them. So I replied with a diff to where they'd made the precise statement that I'd previously referenced in my comment. They moved their accusation that I was casting aspersions and hatted my comment. I unhatted my comment and replied that it was hardly fair for them to accuse me of casting aspersions and then to hide the proof I had not done so when it was furnished. And they reverted it back out again. I should note that this page is covered under WP:1RR. Other editors restored my comment as I'd objected to its removal. and 72bikers continued edit warring to keep my statement hidden. As I understand it WP:1RR applies to article talk as well as the article. As they are well aware. This is not the first time they've been up here for edit warring on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: they just self-reverted after receiving a second warning. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Warned 72bikers self-reverted at my suggestion, and I restored the comment to follow the comment Simonm223 originally replied to, where 72bikers had subsequently moved it. I think we can call this resolved unless anyone else wants to weigh in. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've not looked into this particular edit war, but when this popped up on my watchlist I recalled that 72bikers has edit warred on this topic before. They should really try to be more relaxed and neutral about guns as a topic. Save everyone a lot of stress. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah several there should really just step back and take a break. Though I am not seeing the neutral issue you mention. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It is strange that Legacypac would come here stating "more relaxed and neutral". Because I do not see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation of WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [13] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [14] by editor Legacypac. -72bikers (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the diff[15] of editor Simon223 used to cast aspersions. It was one edit to this paragraph.

Extended content

This source I feel could also be used in contrast of this. "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" This statement is only supported by the media and in the article it does not state this definitive. All of the compiled data and expert analysis say handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 62% of the time and more recent 70%. Being the facts clearly say this media claim is grossly incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. (I am not saying it needs to be removed, but just that it should be put into perspective.) I feel that Dr. Fox's comment on the medias sensationalized speculation's could be that perspective. At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly. It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. ("Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018") I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings".-72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018

As you can see It in no way inferred what editor Simonm22 has falsely claimed "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," As shown I was trying to include mass shooting content to the article from a expert in criminology James Alan Fox.

I fail to see why I should have to suffer this abuse. His comment were completely off topic and a violation of the restriction on the article.

• Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

Should I open a complaint or deal with this here? I collapsed his comment because it was off topic and uncivil as to policy support. please advise. -72bikers (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also point out editor Simon223 is trying to mislead with his comment about I am alone in my views, when in fact numerous editor agree with me, so I am no standout. The discussion going on is based on just one editor trying to make a claim that is not supported by any RS's, but simply trying to twist words and promote his own views that would just be OR. -72bikers (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Take it to ANi 72bikers. 3RR is not designed to deal with this kind of dispute. There we can vote on a "guns" topic ban for 72bikers. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've pointed out to 72bikers twice now that 1) the diff they've linked of Simonm223 casting aspersions is 72bikers' own edit, and 2) nobody can make a comment "at 30:21". In response they copy-pasted another response with the same two errors back on my talk page, and I see they've made those same two mistakes here. If the user is this difficult to deal with on the discussion page they should be banned from it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Just some clarification on the 30:21, I think they are refering to a time stamp on a video used for a source.[16] Not for a user comment here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

thank you Pac I have addressed this on Ivanvector's talk page.

This is Dr. Fox a professor of criminology on C-SPAN[17]. The specific time was in relation to his comments. My whole edit at NPOV noticeboard you can read from the link editor 223 used, he said (incorrectly) supported his aspersions[18]. What I am providing here is the whole paragraph editor 223 claimed I was trying to remove all content about mass shootings from the AR-15 article. When in fact I was trying to include mass shooting content to the article. I will collapse to avoid looking like a wall of text.

Extended content

This source I feel could also be used in contrast of this. "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" This statement is only supported by the media and in the article it does not state this definitive. All of the compiled data and expert analysis say handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 62% of the time and more recent 70%. Being the facts clearly say this media claim is grossly incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. (I am not saying it needs to be removed, but just that it should be put into perspective.) I feel that Dr. Fox's comment on the medias sensationalized speculation's could be that perspective. At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly. It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. ("Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018") I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings".-72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018

As you can see I in no way inferred what editor Simonm22 aspersions have falsely claimed [19],[20],[21]"I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten,". By not showing support of the aspersions, it is clear his actions are just violations of the civility restriction of uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. -72bikers (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As I now see this when I brought up this behavior before with admin Drmies. I should probly look elsewhere for assistance. [22]-72bikers (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Glory2Suriname reported by User:Ifnord and User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked )

Page

Khas people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Glory2Suriname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864502198 by Ifnord (talk) unexplained inclusion of unsourced content, please use talk page"
2. 17:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864501979 by Ifnord (talk) I have adepquately ex"
3. 17:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864501117 by D4iNa4 (talk)okay but the photos and unsourced content cannot just be included"
4. 16:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864494334 by 27.34.20.161 (talk) Khas ethnicity of the people in the photos not mentioned"
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ reincluding source"
   2. 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ dubious tag added"
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 16:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ unsourced and grammatically incorrect"
   2. 16:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ source is not in English, cannot verify what exactly it says"
   3. 16:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ source links to wikipedia, full citation needed"
7. 16:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ random IP is making assertions about my ethnicity and including unsourced photos"
8. Consecutive edits made from 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ File says Nepali, not has"
   2. 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ All these files describe Nepalis and not Khas"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Editor refuses to follow WP:BRD. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor refuses to engage in discussion and is reverting all edits and has therefore breached the 3 revert rule. Glory2Suriname (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You are correct in your self-assessment. Ifnord (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: Glory2Suriname (talk · contribs) blocked by Favonian. for 24 hours. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)