Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: Salvatore Cordileone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff Contaldo80 removes a large amount of sourced information without an edit summary
  2. diff Contaldo80 is reverted by an IP
  3. diff Contaldo 80 reverts IP (1st revert)
  4. diff I revert Contaldo 80, explaining that first revert was because he "deleted a massibve amount of sourced and seemingly reliable content without explaining why."
  5. diff Contaldo80 undoes my revert, no edit summary (2nd revert)
  6. diff I revert Contaldo80, telling him to go to the talk page to explain why the information doesn't belong, and warning him not to revert again
  7. diff Contaldo80 undoes my revert and, citing previously unmentioned POV, tells me to go the talk page


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

Comments:

  • User:Contaldo80 is not guilty of violating 3R, of course, but this is clearly edit warring, and one would except an explanation of some sort--but nothing in edit summaries, nothing on the talk page. So, in the meantime, I think Contaldo is certainly guilty of edit warring, and I will revert them (we do not tend to give the right of way to edit warriors); whether they should be blocked for this, I'll leave to someone else to decide. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, thank you for your help. I thought I had typed up a comment above, but it seems to have disappeared somehow. In it I said that, in his most recent revert, Contaldo80 told me to discuss the issue on the talk page, as I had previously warned him to do. However, this ignores the fact that the burden false on the person making the revisions to, after having his reverts undone, initiate discussion to explain why his edits were justified. As you mentioned, no attempt was made to do this, and every one of Contaldo's reverts contained either no edit summary at all or an edit summary which failed to truly explain why the material shouldn't be in the article.
Thank you once again for your assistance. I'll ping you if another problem arises relating to this issue. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Display name, I saw there was a second "title" to this request and I removed it (it was the title of the article): I don't think I removed anything else, but I'm wondering if we might not have had an edit conflict. Ha, what you said, about them saying use the talk page, I did read that or something like it.

The more important question, and that's why you're here, is whether we should block; personally, I hope that that editor got the message and that a block won't be necessary, but I see that NeilN was around and perhaps he has a different opinion. If they continue this slow edit war, a block will be likely. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, at this time I do not think a block is necessary. I will request one though if Contaldo80 reverts again. Based on the timing of this edit war (and an interaction that we had on a separate article), it definitely seems as though he prefers to do things in slow motion, so I'll monitor the article to be sure that nothing like that happens in the future. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No block at this time. Contaldo80 should be using edit summaries and explaining POV issues on the talk page. Roscelese's edit should cool down the reverts. --NeilN talk to me 20:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Zythe reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Duet (The Flash) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zythe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Dude, I know that. Hence why my edits are context for non-readers that describe out of universe status, as in the shows of origins of those characters; yours treats them as real people. Read WP:WAF"
  2. 15:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "My edit made the piece LESS in-universe; I added OUT OF UNIVERSE information to make the article accessible to people who aren't superfans."
  3. 13:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

He keeps mentioning in the plot that Malcolm Merlyn is an Arrow villain, and Winn Schott is a Supergirl character. I think such out-of-universe plot details must not be in the plot section and tried to explain him using MOS:INUNIVERSE but he won't seem to stop. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts the violate 3RR. Suggest you try using the talk page (I noticed you left that field blank). El_C 00:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I literally made only two reverts, which kept me well within the rules. But I see someone's got a bad case of WP:OWN aggression. As relates to the substance of my edits, the point is that plot sections shouldn't be in-universe. It is a principle of how we write on Wikipedia.Zythe (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Vsmith reported by User:NicholasNotabene (Result: No violation)[edit]

Requesting some kind of help or adjudication on Palo Duro Canyon article, in which my edits are being repeatedly reverted for no other apparent reason than fighting a turf war.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasNotabene (talkcontribs) 19:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Seems this dude insults me on my talk page and now this nonsense ... fun. Vsmith (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps making wholesale reversions deleting fully documented edits, on the slightest of pretexts, was deliberately provoking "this dude." Naw, people don't ever do things like that on Wikipedia, do they.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. No attempt made to show 3RR violation or edit warring of any kind. El_C 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:96.54.184.11 reported by User:Hydrox (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
List of Prime Ministers of Finland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
96.54.184.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

List of Prime Ministers:

  1. 20:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* List of Prime Ministers */"Your actions contradict each other, you are imposing the single number system here, but giving the Prime ministers all their numbers, for example Kalevi Sorsa".
  2. Consecutive edits made from 19:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC) to 19:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 19:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* List of Prime Ministers */Yes, but that's because Grover Cleveland was the ONLY president in US HISTORY to win TWO non-consecutive terms in office. No other president since then has served two non-consecutive terms in office"
    2. 19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* List of Prime Ministers */"
    3. 19:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* List of Prime Ministers */Just remember, Ólafur Thors served as the 8th PM of Iceland 6 times."
    4. 19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* List of Prime Ministers */"
    5. 19:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* List of Prime Ministers */William Lyon Mackenzie King served as the 10th Prime Minister of Canada three times, yet he wasn't given more than one number. He wasn't named the 10th, 12th and 14th PM, just the 10th PM."
  3. 18:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* List of Prime Ministers */There should be no debate on this matter. One PM should not hold 3 numbers at once. It's ridiculous and unnecessary. If one PM held the office 10 times, should he have 10 different numbers beside "Prime Minister of Finland"..."
  4. 17:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* List of Prime Ministers */Marbe166, I redid the numbering so it is less confusing. one PM should not hold multiple numbers at once. They should only hold one number."
  5. 03:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* List of Prime Ministers */"

Juha Sipilä

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juha_Sipil%C3%A4&diff=772413064
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juha_Sipil%C3%A4&diff=772427439
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juha_Sipil%C3%A4&diff=772494970
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juha_Sipil%C3%A4&diff=772526942
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Whole of User talk:96.54.184.11
  2. 17:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Juha Sipilä. (TW)"
  3. 18:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Please check the discussion at Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Finland (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Order of cabinets / prime ministers */ new section"
Comments:

User wants to change the way Finnish Prime Ministers are counted. He is perhaps making a valid point, but has serious issues with engaging other editors: making mass-changes without any edit summary, breaking 3-revert rule on multiple articles, calling other editor "fucking idiot". As the last straw, the user seems to have ignored invitation to discuss the proposal, and carried on edit-warring on the matter after multiple final warnings. hydrox (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 36 hours. Edit warring as well as personal attacks. See this edit summary, calling the other party a 'fucking idiot'. He seems very attached to his own numbering system for prime ministers. I don't know who is right about the numbers, but this is not the right way to go about finding agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Olsen24 reported by User:Train2104 (Result: Warnings)[edit]

Page
Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Olsen24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC) to 22:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772547675 by Mtattrain (talk)"
    2. 22:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772547796 by Mtattrain (talk)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 22:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC) to 22:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 22:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772547368 by Mtattrain (talk)"
    2. 22:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772547421 by Mtattrain (talk)"
  3. 22:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772547310 by Mtattrain (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 22:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC) to 22:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 22:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772501323 by Mtattrain (talk)"
    2. 22:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 770568366 by Mtattrain (talk)"
    3. 22:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 770568347 by Mtattrain (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Reporting here as third party - edit warring with Mtattrain (talk · contribs). — Train2104 (t • c) 23:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: Yes, 3RR was violated, but even as a third party, you left too many fields blank. El_C 00:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Article talk page remains empty. Anyone reverting again without trying to put it to use risks being sanctioned. El_C 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:62.23.77.163 reported by User:190.105.239.98 (Result: Incomplete report—Page protected)[edit]

Page: Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The Climb (Miley Cyrus song
User being reported: User:62.23.77.163


Previous version reverted to: [1]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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


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

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. This report is too incomplete. The page has been protected, so I suggest you resolve your dispute on the talk page. El_C 00:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:GAV80 reported by User:Opdire657 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GAV80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff][6]

Comments:

This user's behavior is totally unacceptable, as he could have simply fixed my error if I committed any such error. He undid my edits 4 times without going to talk.--Opdire657 (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello to all administrators. @Opdire657:, I did not expect that you write here. I thought you're a man, and we all have decided already. But you ran to snitch here.
About this conflict: all Opdire657's edits was wrong and incomplete 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I undid all this wrong info to normal version. What is problem? Is it right to leave inaccurate information? I wrote to Opdire657 that he add wrong info, but he undid my edits again and again. Here's what I wrote him:
GAV80: "Sorry but better update this info only after all matches in AFC." (because was consensus that update information in this table only after all matches will be finish, but he decided update only after 2 matches)
Opdire657: (Undid without summary text)
GAV80: "Please, see: you added wrong info." (because he update only AFC without update Total, and deleted info about 1 OFC match finished)
Opdire657: "what's wrong?" (He answered from 2 time)
GAV80: "Wrong: total and phrase "Updated as 2 matches in AFC played on 28 March 2017"." (I clearly described errors)
Opdire657: "I did not write this" (but if you see 2...)
GAV80: "Again: wrong total. And where info about OFC match?" (I again described his errors)
Then he wrote to Talk page
Opdire657: "Why are you edit warring with me? I did not write the wrong sentence." (Again the same question)
GAV80: "Hello, @Opdire657:. Your edit about sentence. And you edit only AFC, without Total." (Again answer)
Opdire657: "What do you mean with total? Today there have only been played 2 matches in AFC region."
GAV80: "Total is bottom line of the table. and also played 1 OFC match that you deleted."
That's all. There are my mistakes?
And about his "as he could have simply fixed my error if I committed any such error". In my opinion, I decide myself: undid wrong information or fix all errors. GAV80 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So, according to your logic I and all other editors must wait until all today's matches are played to update the group tables and matches?!! You could have simply corrected "the wrong info" you are talking about without starting an edit war.--Opdire657 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that I decided to update that table since Thailand was eliminated today. This was important info to provide to readers or do you think it is suitable to let the article be outdated and others not.--Opdire657 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dougal83 reported by User:Drchriswilliams (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: Civic nationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dougal83 (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] "Have your discussion, you'll need to cite references to counter"
  2. [9] "reverting vandalism. join discussion on UK_Independence_Party"
  3. [10] "removal of vandalism"
  4. [11] "reverting vandalism"
  5. [12] "Removal of vandalism"
  6. [13] "reverted vandalism, there is no consensus to remove. See talk."
  7. [14] "removing vandalism. They clearly are civic nationalist parties."
  8. [15] "removing vandalism, there is no consensus to remove sourced material(see talk)"
  9. [16] "removing vandalism, no consensus to remove (see talk)"
  10. [17] "reverting vandalism of sourced material, no consensus to remove"


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18], [19], [20], [21]


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

Comments:
Vice regent initially opened a discussion on the talk page on 13 March. Both of us have tried to encourage some engagement via edit summaries and on the editor's talk page. The responses haven't been constructive. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The aforementioned content contained UKIP and was subsequently removed numerous times by Drchriswilliams & Vice regent giving spurious reasons that elevated as they were met. Simply removing inconvenient truths is unfair. Why are the SNP's aspirations accepted as sources and not UKIP? I'm simply reverting changes made by biased editors. Let's face it UKIP will melt away and this is extremely childish vandalism. Dougal83 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:92.29.120.215 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result:blocked 24h)[edit]

Page
Tzatziki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
92.29.120.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "Do not undo the edits I have made it easier for people to read it on google search I have all the sources stop giving out your opinions it's just making situations worse"
  2. 20:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "Swapped arrow day the etymology"
  3. 19:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "It said on the etymology the word tzatziki originated from Turkish Cacik"
  4. 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "Added Turkish"
  5. 18:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "Added Turkish"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tzatziki."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
[23] (on the IP's talk page)


Comments:

Turkish edit warrior repeatedly adding a claim that the dish is Turkish, at first with no source at all and then with only a non-RS source about the etymology of the name (which originally isn't a Turkish word, BTW, but Armenian...), and thus can't possibly support the claim made. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:98.230.196.215 reported by User:ExplodingPoPUps (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
User talk:98.230.196.215 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
98.230.196.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

He did remove our messages without explaning why. PoPups 03:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I did explain why, read WP:BLANKING. 98.230.196.215 (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Signature[edit]

Sure why not but I have too many conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplodingPoPUps (talkcontribs) 03:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SKJ96 reported by User:Ms Sarah Welch (Result: )[edit]

Page: Shani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SKJ96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts (4 insertions of the same "God of Justice" text):

  1. 03:09, 29 March 2017
  2. 01:48, 29 March 2017
  3. 01:27, 29 March 2017
  4. 01:42, 29 March 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Already cautioned about edit warring and disruption

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes, the new user is non-responsive to the request on the article talk page, and continues to re-insert and edit war with the same unsourced text, along with additional disruptive OR.

Comments:
Ian.thomson has already cautioned and reverted the new editor's @SKJ96 too. The disruption is persistent. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SeederOfTheDugudup reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: )[edit]

Page
Male privilege (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SeederOfTheDugudup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC) "Revert after false and unsubstantiated accusations of trolling, which violates Wikipedia's No Personal attacks policy. No consensus for revert."
  2. 11:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772619133 by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) Changed "claimed" to "said", so no longer violates WP:CLAIM"
  3. 05:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772590354 by Grayfell (talk) Common sense state sthat I dod not overstate any movement"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 05:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC) to 05:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 05:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772590107 by Grayfell (talk) What policy states that?"
    2. 05:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772590203 by Grayfell (talk) Says what policy?"
  5. 05:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772590042 by Grayfell (talk) If I did overstate it, then I should discuss it of course sir. But not overstating at all, just added references."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See user talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Male_privilege#Neutrality_2017. See user talk page as well

Comments:

Main diffs selected. See page history for more EvergreenFir (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

After commenting here, user reverted again ([24]). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
User reverted again and says they deserve to be blocked for edit warring. See [25] Seems like NOTHERE now. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I revert an edit made without consensus, and somehow that counts as 'edit-warring"? Wikipedia sure is sloppy.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC) I revert an edit made without consensus, and somehow that counts as 'edit-warring"? Wikipedia sure is sloppy.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll prove I'm not trolling, right here and now. Conditions surrounding nature favour certain mutations more than others, right? Just as Ultra-cold, snowy environments favour white furs over black ones, right? and that is becuase of the laws of physics, are they not? If so, how is anything I said in the talk page wrong or even remorely close to trolling? SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)\
And it is true that intersex people are abnormal, are they not? SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Greyfell accuses me of dehumanizing and trolling, and somehow that give shim the right to undo my edits as "vandalism". I don't get it.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Here are all the sources that support my position that intersex people are abnormal
[[26]][[27]][[28]][[29]][[30]][[31]][[32]][[33]]SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I may deserve to be blocked, but my edits do not deserve to be reverted without consensus.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
When everyone is reverting you, and no one is restoring the material that was removed, you can take that as consensus. InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • He made 10-ish reverts on the page in the last day and a half, I warned and he continued reverting. This user's behavior is belligerent, troll like, and with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, and with no effort get the point despite painstaking explanation of policy and multiple warnings, the only solution in my mind is a block. While they may be editing in good faith, I suspect not, and even if they are then they display a fundamental lack of competence that is required of wikipedia editors. InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

alk:SeederOfTheDugudup|talk]]) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I may deserve to be blocked, but my edits do not deserve to be reverted without consensus.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Block me if you want, I deserve it, just leave my edits done in good faith and knowledge alone.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
So what if my attitude is trollish? My intentions, to aid WIkipeida, is done in good faith. What is wrong with a having a battle like attitude for a noble cause like that?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk)
"When everyone is reverting oyu, and no one is restoring, you can take that as consensus>" That goes agianst the poin tof discussion, an dthe policies state that no edit summaries and reverts don't count as discussion, let alone consensus.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Except we are discussing it with you on the talk page. You WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps you should read WP:BRD again, the revert consensus cycle doesn't work the way you think it does. InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I am very competent in my editing, if anything my opponents ar eless competent than I am, not having provided any sources, whilst I have provided many. Their edits are based purely on a desparate and incompetent personal accusation of dehumanising intersex people somehow, even though virtually every medical and scientific institution agrees with me that intersex people are abnormal.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Becuase you can call me a troll, but i can't call anyone here a "dumbass"? Look, a double standard!SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Who is the one who "just doesn't like it', the one reverting without sources, only based on a accusation of trolling, or the one who edits with sources and has made various points?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The user has literally made three four five reverts since this discussion started. diff diff diff diff diff There is literally no case for keeping this user around. InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on discussion, not voting, so the majority vote here does not count as consensus.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes I did. SO what? I'm only defending my edits, for which there is no consensus to remove.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── CIR at this point... Seems like a deliberate attempt to be tendentious and wikilawyer (poorly). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

They are still spamming reverts on the page... any admins around? This has passed into vandalism territory now. InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
"literally no case for keeping this user around" except the fact that you accuse me unjustly of dehumanisin g people with no proof. Maybe you just don't like reality, which dictates the abnormality of intersex people.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
What does CIR mean? Also, I'm a perfectly norma l chap who decided to pick up editing Wikipedia as a hobby, with no agenda what soever (I don't even know what a wikilawyer is) SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
CIR means WP:CIR. InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Look, I'm a very young person. What I agenda am I passing through possibly here? I just report what the sources (which you can all clearly see) say.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to offend people, I just want WIkipedia to be objective. Not once have I dmeonstrated any bias or agenda, just what the sources say. I'm not dehumanising anyone either.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm a young person, that's why it took me a long time to find sources. nevertheless I am competent enough to show many sources, which everyon seems to ignore for their own views an dth emajority vote ( which by th e way is forbidden by WIkipedia policies) So what if everyone disagrees with me/ In Wikipedia, sources are th e be all and end all of to-be-included info. What is this?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06
23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please just block this user. I don't care whether they are a troll or just lack the ability to understand basic concepts such as consensus and verifiability (not to mention 3RR which is a pretty clearly written rule). If they are trolling, engaging with them is just feeding the troll - if they lack the competence to understand, engaging with them is pointless as long as their own agenda is the only thing on their mind. In any case their editing is beyond disruptive (what is it now, 15-20 reverts in a day?) --bonadea contributions talk 06:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No argument has been made against my sources as being unverifiable. Not one. Do you call that a consesnus that results form discussion? Look at my sources, and pleas e tell me if they aren't verifiable. Also, labelling me as stupid and having an agenda doesn't make it nay more true, no more than if you label a banana plant a tree. An yes, I understand 3RRR, which is why I said I deserve to be blocked. And can you please tell me what agenda I am spreading?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess I should say something. This user's comments on talk pages led me to believe that they were either not sincere or not competent in improving the article. The malformed POV tags they added to the article seems disruptive and distracting, so I removed them, and I'm pretty sure I went over 3RR in doing so. I did that knowingly. They compared intersex people to defective guitars and said they weren't "regular parts of humanity", and feigned offense when I described that as dehumanizing. This behavior is too similar to vandalism or blatant trolling, so I felt this was 3RR exempt. I still feel that way, but I can also see that I made the situation worse, not better, which I regret. I'm not sure what I should've done differently, but differently it should've been done. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It has definitely gotten to the point of vandalism now. I thought about reporting them to ANI much earlier, and in hindsight I should have. InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)