Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive295

Page: Jackie Collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.98.142.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring/3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments: Edit warring -- despite warnings about violating 3RR and the editing block that could incur, this newbie editor chose to violate 3RR and I am requesting that he/she be blocked in consequence. Blatant, willful, brazen disregard.

Quis separabit? 13:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As per the talk page on Jackie Collins, I reverted edits back to the original description on the article (which I additionally provide a reference for - and have now also added that she became a US citizen with a reference). The user reporting me for edit warring, has chosen to not wait for consensus. My edits are not vandalism - I merely believe that it is incorrect for someone to change a description, and for them to then repeatedly revert back to their version without consensus. I began dialogue on the talk page to try and seek consensus. I believe the original description should stay in place until there is such consensus.

Please bare in mind that she because a US citizen in 1960, yet in 2005 still described herself as being English (as referenced), not American or British-American. If this user's rational for changing to British-American is correct, how does one explain why people from the UK are more often than not described as English, Scottish, Welsh or N Irish instead of British, or how there are examples of people born in England being described as being Scottish (which may be correct - but not based on this user's rational is not)? They even state on the talk page that "Collins was English, of course"!

2.98.142.247 (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

While each case has the potential to be unique, someone who goes through the trouble of naturalizing (or denaturalizing, for that matter) has made a legal claim about his or her nationality, which is binding unless otherwise legally amended. That belies those who are born to a country with which they may not identify, and will therefore usually not call or consider themselves by adjectives which indicate that particularly unwelcome jus soli nationality or citizenship (like Sir James Galway who doesn't consider himself British or Northern Irish, yet accepted a substantive knighthood, or, likewise, Liam Neeson who nonetheless accepted a substantive OBE). Someone who becomes a naturalized citizen of another country -- as Collins is reported to have done, although I don't think 1960 is the correct year, based on a television appearance decades after 1960 in which she mentioned her English passport; just as Christopher Hitchens expressly stated in a televised interview that he had not become a US citizen, but by the time of his untimely tragic death from cancer years later had in fact become one -- has made the conscious choice of accepting that other country's citizenship, with all the rights and responsibilities thereto, which can and should be an identifier. This no longer for the most part, and certainly with regard to the UK, means that original nationality is lost. Having chosen to take US citizenship (if that is true; I was surprised as I assumed she made clear she didn't choose to in that television interview), she did not cease being English but adopted dual nationality. For example, Rachel Weisz and Emily Blunt and Saffron Burrows didn't cease being English or British even though they have taken US citizenship but all the identifiers should be there -- that's why this is an encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 15:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin --slakr^\ talk / 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pbfreespace3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20/09/2015[11]
2. 20/09/2015[12]
3. 20/09/2015[13]
4. 20/09/2015[14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Under topic ISIS map manipulation [16]

Comments: This user is constantly breaking the 1 revert per 24 hour rule, also I provide sources accepted by the page ( Al Masdar) but the user Pbfreespace3 continues revert my edits and constantly warring me. I do everything by the book. User also makes multiple edits with twitter sources (or none at all) even though it is not allowed. I am frustrated by this users constantly questioning my edits when I do them with accepted sources, and saying I am breaking the rules when in fact it is he. SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

− I would like to inform the admin that SyrianObserver2015 is engaged in edit wars and threats and trying to delete articles. evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&diff=next&oldid=681560010 + − .Alhanuty (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

− plus this editor is making edits without sources.Alhanuty (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am Pbfreespace3. Edits 2, 3, and 4 are not me at all. I have no idea who that is, but it is not me. Just for the record. I provide sources for all of my edits that change the status of towns, whereas SyrianObserver2015 does not. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=681932278&oldid=681830368

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=678186013&oldid=678179025 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=677378428&oldid=677371425 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=next&oldid=677378428 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=677350368&oldid=677344109 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=677001878&oldid=676937951

So these accusations of edit warring make no sense. Edit warring typically involves multiple reverts that are within a few hours of each other. This is not the case. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ༆ also blocked for violating WP:1RR. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Luciana Maria Dionizio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Målfarlig! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681997395 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
2. 21:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681948063 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
3. 13:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681842157 by MbahGondrong (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Ignores WP:INFOBOXREF. Constant replies with personal attacks which fails WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Shows a high tendency of WP:OWN. Have failed 3RR also in Raquel Fernandes, Rosana dos Santos Augusto, Rafaelle Souza and several more. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Er, you have to be over three reverts. Anyway, the editor making this vexatious report is actively engaged in long-term edit-warring and harassment across dozens of women's football articles. It appears to have been sparked by legitimate comment made by User:Qed237 and I, with the user admitting that their subsequent campaign has been waged in misguided 'retaliation'. The editor suddenly developed their WP:INFOBOXREF obsession, but apparently only applies it to articles recently edited by one editor (me) and not, for some reason, to any others. Clearly these stupid edits are being made to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Whilst I have tried to WP:AGF on the basis that this editor's command of English is tenuous (and they are either very young or have some sort of developmental disorder), my patience has regretfully snapped. I would be grateful for any assistance in bringing this immature editor's infatuation with me to a dignified end. On a practical level the few minutes it takes to revert his nonsense is eating in to my constructive editing time, and I'm also having to do most of my stuff by IP to evade his increasingly creepy stalking. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Breached another 3RR just recently at Portia Boakye. Again revert containing personal attack, and blind revert without even checking the sources available. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean at the BLP where you are edit-warring in unsourced and patently false content? No I'm not over three reverts there either. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Despite this live report, MbahGondrong is still edit warring at Portia Boakye: WP:BOOMERANG? Målfarlig! (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - To be fair, you both deserve to be blocked when i check the given history of that article, but that is not my area to decide. Discuss first and leave the article alone and don't revert WHILE discussing... Kante4 (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Wow, this has to be one of the most extreme cases I've ever seen. The statements by both parties are absurd to the point of surreality. This is not a singular edit war, but a personal feud that has spilled over onto dozens of articles and each party has reverted the other hundreds of times this month alone! It is absolutely shocking to me that it has gotten this out of control with no apparent attempts at dispute resolution. There are no apparent mitigating factors on behalf of either editor, although I will note for in the log that personal attacks factored into Målfarlig!'s longer block length. Both editors blocked Swarm ♠ 06:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: The Holocaust in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 186.9.135.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Block evasion: 200.83.84.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by his own admission

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:

An IP from South America used exclusively to cause damage to the article and to abuse editors verbally. – If you can, please remove his highly offensive personal attacks made in edit summaries,[24] from the article edit history. Thank you in advance. Note: This user is a reincarnation of a banned User:200.83.84.155, to which he admits on the article talk page, apparently unaware of the consequences. Poeticbent talk 03:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I edit exclusively to improve articles, as anyone can see by looking at the article history. This user edits exclusively to harm articles by reverting obvious improvements without explaining why. Sure, remove the edit summary. And kindly also remove this grotesque slur made against me by this user. 186.9.135.1 (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a sock puppet of a ban evading user Best_known_for_IP. Volunteer Marek  04:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Chillum. Swarm ♠ 07:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Self-arrest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "undefined"
2. 06:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "For fuck's sake. What the fuck are you doing? Do you have ANY fucking clue what an encyclopaedia article is supposed to look like?"
3. 06:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "undefined"
4. 06:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682049375 by Denisarona (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Self-arrest. (TW)"
2. 05:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries. (TW)"
3. 06:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Left a message on My very best wishes' talk page regarding the IP's behaviour, but the edits and rants are coming thick and fast own my own talk page, etc. This editor is not going to wait for any form of discussion on the article's talk page. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to justify your reverts on the talk page, go ahead. But you're reverting just purely for the fun of it. I doubt you've even looked at the unencyclopaedic nonsense you're restoring. 186.9.130.34 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

5 pointless reverts now by this user, none with any kind of explanation, all done with the intent purely to provoke and harass.[25],[26],[27],[28],[29] They are now stalking and pointlessly reverting all my edits and repeatedly posting templates to my talk page. 186.9.132.124 (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this user has at least two sock puppets which they are now using to stalk my edits. See Dixie for more utterly pointless unexplained reverts being made purely to harass. 186.9.134.92 (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Gilliam. Swarm ♠ 07:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Anon by Karl Dickman for harassment. Karl Dickman ^talk 09:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  This is likely Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best_known_for_IP

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Iryna Harpy, Clpo13 by Karl Dickman for WP:3RR. Karl Dickman ^talk 09:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Karl Dickman: Iryna's fourth revert is exempt under WP:3RRNO point #3. By 06:30 the IP had been blocked and so the fourth edit was reverting a sock of a blocked editor. Stickee (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, in light of Burninthruthesky, all of Iryna's and Clpo13 reverts are exempt as it's a LTA sock case. Stickee (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 24 hours – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. By Karl Dickman to prevent edit warring. Karl Dickman ^talk 09:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best_known_for_IP, who I first ran across a few days ago. Are you seriously suggesting dispute resolution with a blocked user? Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Dalal Mughrabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC) to 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681888059 by AKS.9955 (talk)"
   2. 20:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 20:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "she was by d-e-f-i-n-i-t-i-o-n terrorist !"
   4. 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 01:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681822791 by AKS.9955 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dalal Mughrabi. (TW)"
2. 07:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Talkback (User talk:AKS.9955#pleas stop span the artical "Dalal Mughrabi") (TW)"
3. 14:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Dalal Mughrabi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is consistently trying to term Dalal Mughrabi as a "terrorist". Extensive discussion has taken place on the article Talkpage and user has been made aware about the same but user does not seem to slow down. Page has been semi-protected and now I will request (separately) for full protection. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

AKS.9955 Where is the 3RR warning you gave to the new editor before reporting them? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, This is an article related to Arab–Israeli conflict. An Arbitration remedy exists for such cases. Please refer here. Hope this clarifies. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Declined AKS.9955, the talk page states the article is under WP:1RR which you have also broken. In the future, please warn new editors about WP:3RR and discretionary sanctions before coming here. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Physical Address Extension (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: user:Jeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_Address_Extension&oldid=682044603

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_Address_Extension&diff=prev&oldid=682044603
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:"your poor, mistaken head", well, I have no words more to add!

119.53.109.190 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make comments about the IP's head. Can we close this and move on? Chillum 05:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not an "edit war" by any definition. My remarks about the IP's head were meant solely in sympathy. However, it seems that the IP objects to that. Why the IP did not address me with this concern directly I do not know, but whatever. I certainly agree to not make any more such remarks. Jeh (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious socking by IP-hopping block evader. IP 119.53.109.190 blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682099117 by Qed237 (talk) That' s lie, you didn't restore pre-war. You restored to your own old revert. Last pre-war version is from user GAV80, made 04:49, 19 September 2015‎ (oldid="
2. 14:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682096993 by Qed237 (talk) I think we should take this to talk page. You broke the three-revert rule so please stop reverting until we solve this, thanks in advance."
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC) to 14:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682085432 by Qed237 (talk) There is nothing that says it WILL apply here or anywhere else except basic table. Burden of proof is on YOU."
   2. 14:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 10:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681998827 by Qed237 (talk) Beacuse point is deducted only in regular table. Would a team lose a point in H2H table in case of equal points, you ignorant imbecile?"
5. 21:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681770673 by Qed237 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Croatia Points Deduction */"
2. 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Croatia Points Deduction */"

Comments:

User fails to discuss and has made two reverts even after notification of edit warring. Clear edit warring. Qed237 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a low blow. Why lie here? I don't fail to discuss. I repeat here what I said in talk page and what I said to you in revert comments - provide just 1 shred of evidence and I'll agree with you. I'm asking for just 1 official source that backs up your theory and there will be no need for edit-wars. You are right about my reverts though, altough you forgot to say that I reverted only your reverts and that you made 7 reverts in last 2 days alone. Also I already told you that I agree with reverting page to the state before you started the war with me, that's revision from user GAV80, made 04:49, 19 September 2015‎ (oldid="681734053"). There really is no need for this kind of drama, but if admins really need to to solve this - than so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soilentred (talk • contribs)

And now even this new revert. Also I did not lie you made several reverts without you even started to talk, and refuse to listen what the other editor wrote. So far no editor has agreed with you. Qed237 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm listening, but I still see literally zero sources. And, ironically, that's exactly what that other editor wrote. There are no sources for your claims and I'll revert them until judgment day if you keep posting them unsourced. Soilentred (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected — @Soilentred and Qed237: You've both violated WP:3RR, on a template no less. Seek dispute resolution, or blocks will likely be the next thing to occur. --slakr^\ talk / 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Slakr: I did open discussion at talkpage, currently saying I am right. Could you please restore the article to the version on 18 September? Qed237 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: If there's clear consensus for the edit, use {{editprotected}} on the talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 00:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Muhammad Ali Jinnah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Code16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682111614 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) Discussed on TP, no NEUTRAL editors have supported the removal of this well sourced and important category."
2. 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Discussed on TP - other editor wants to delete category to increase weight of A.R. Dard, at the expense of Iqbal, due to his own biases. Content is well sourced, and justification is present on TP."
3. 11:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682035951 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) -- Undue weight does not apply - Source is a reliable and mainstream scholarly citation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Muhammad Ali Jinnah. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Proposal for new categories */"
2. 16:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Undue weight for A.R. Dard? */"
3. 20:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discussion */"

Comments:

Even though I am reporting him, I have not seen any "maliciousness" on his part, just bad faith and incompetency issues. I'd like to suggest that no "hard handed" action is taken like a week long block etc. He is new and just needs to learn the use of TP and consensus etc. He should also be reminded that 3Revert should not be abused even if he thinks that he is right. A 48 hour cooling off time should do that FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Response:

Please note the discussion on the talk page. No neutral editors have supported FreeatlastChitchat's position. I believe this editor is acting in bad faith, as he wants to reduce the weight of Iqbal's influence on Jinnah in the article, so that it automatically increases the weight of A.R. Dard (which isn't even properly sourced, I've brought this up on the TP as well.) FreeatlastChitchat is promoting a specific POV which favors Ahmadism on wikipedia (evident from his history) so I believe his motivations are less than neutral. Also, I am going to be adding additional 3rd party sources for that category that he keeps deleting (even though if you look at the reasoning I provided on the Talk Page, even that one source is enough as its the most reliable on the subject.) Thank you. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have just added an additional 3rd party reliable source to that category which completely corroborates Akbar S. Ahmed's evidenced conclusions (even though no other editors complained that only Ahmed was used initially.) The content of this category is highly important for a featured encyclopedic article such as this. It needs to appear before the "return to politics" section, as it provides context for it. The content has now been sourced from multiple 3rd party sources, one of which is internationally recognized as an expert on this matter (Ahmed). This author dedicated an entire chapter of his book on this subject and called it "Jinnah's Conversion". cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Update 2: After I added the source from the "The Dialogue – Quarterly Research Journal," this user deleted my edit, stating that a "thesis" was not a reliable source. Apparently, this user even rejects research journals as valid sources, on top of rejecting other expert sources such as Akbar S. Ahmed's scolalrly work, when they dont agree with his own biases. Admins, I think this clearly shows an edit-warring mentality and bad-faith by this editor. I advise that action be taken against this editor who is arbitrarily deleting sourced content. Thank you. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Code16 is Blocked – for a period of 24 hours; I am a few millimetres away from blocking FreeatlastChitchat as well for edit warring, just stopping short of 3RR. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Simon Danczuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Evidence of edit warring

Special:Contributions/Sakino_Akura

Comments:

SPA here only for the purpose of inserting primary-sourced information regarding an MP's expenses. Currently Simon Danczuk is under discussion at the BLP Noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet another revert. — Strongjam (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - immediately before the appearance of this new editor, Binksternet [30] opined the earlier editor was a sock of HarveyCarter. Collect (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The sock Michael O'Finn was confirmed by checkuser and blocked appropriately. Looking at Sakino Akura's style of communication, I don't see any obvious tells which would connect the account to banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

TY - problem was a rapid succession of new editors interested in local sources for claims about a UK political figure, sharing a strong insistence on making their edits stick :(. The view that the page is "not a bio" seems discordant with the position that pages about living persons and mentions thereof are always covered under the BLP policy, if I recall correctly. ("I think you are under the false impression that the Simon Danczuk wiki page is a bio." seems odd) Collect (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 21:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Sheena Bora murder case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682353851 by Ravensfire (talk) Restored last referenced version 3:31 / 23-09-2015 . All subsequent revert be first discussed in talk page"
2. 05:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Then we need to remove all material against all living persons mentioned in this article which are only facts not proved, i.e neither proved nor disproved. Except Sheena, who is alleged to be dead, all are living persons."
3. 04:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "The article is not a Biography of Living person (BLP). Rather it is an article on a criminal case under investigation. Such investigation are based on allegations. Allegations from all sides , with due references, to be quoted for NPOV."
4. 04:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "All the alleged information appearing in the Infobox , however duly referenced, are bracketted (...)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sheena Bora murder case. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Multiple editors have described their edits as BLP violations but the editor persists and ignores all advice and requests for discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked I'd blocked prior to this noticeboard post as I have the article on my watchlist and just got on WP to see this unfolding right at the top of it.—SpacemanSpiff 06:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. Ravensfire (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Yulia Tymoshenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gal777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:57, September 23, 2015 (UTC-7) "Undid revision 682365086 by TaivoLinguist (talk)see page discussion"
2. 06:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "on the talk page all concluded to post information about the European Court"
3. 05:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682356377 by Alex Bakharev (talk)"
4. 05:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682353208 by Alex Bakharev (talk)The decision of the European court confirmed the link.There are also links about Russian aggression in Ukraine.In the judgment of the Europ"
5. 05:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682352558 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
6. 04:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "the decision of the European court confirmed the link.There are also links about Russian aggression in Ukraine"
7. [31] and seven
8. [32] and eight

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Warned by Alex Bakharev

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Yulia_Tymoshenko#Decision_of_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights and Talk:Yulia_Tymoshenko#The_other_questionable_sentence

Comments:

Hello! On page the Yulia Tymoshenko was information about the European Court of Human Rights on 22 January 2015.The decision of the European court confirmed the link.There are also links about Russian aggression in Ukraine.In the judgment of the European Court says that Tymoshenko was a political prisoner.Regarding the Russian aggression, Tymoshenko's even created his battalion, which was fighting in the East of Ukraine.On the discussion I wrote about the decision of the European Court of Human Rights.Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko’s second complaint to the European Court of Human Rights has been discontinued, it has been confirmed.The European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously, on 16 December 2014, to strike the application Tymoshenko v. Ukraine – no. 2 (application no. 65656/12) out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 (friendly settlements) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision is final.The case – the second application brought by the former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko before the ECHR – mainly concerned the criminal proceedings brought against her in April 2011 relating to contracts for the supply of gas.The court took note of the Ukrainian government’s declaration in which it admitted that the criminal prosecution of Tymoshenko had been politically motivated and in which they acknowledged a violation of her convention rights, and of various measures taken by the government as a consequence of those violations. Information on the decision of the European Court permanently removed, users are mostly from Ukraine or Russia.I request your help please I want on the page Yulia Tymoshenko was important about the court decision.--Gal777 (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You have edit warred by making 5 reverts in the last 24 hours. At this point your arguments don't matter. You are in violation of Wikipedia rules. --Taivo (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 08:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • And block extended to indef, as almost certainly another sock of User:Lidaz. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Red Peak flag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "removed false report"
2. 20:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "slanderous and inaccurate reporting does NOT meet wikipedia criteria"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC) to 22:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "slanderous material removed."
   2. 22:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "updated flag description"
4. 13:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC) "The item has been deleted because it is not factual. It is a subjective, biased opinion and does not belong in an encyclopaedic environment. There is a robust legal position to enforce this."
5. 06:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Peak Engineering logo */ removed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[33]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[34]

Comments:

Comments have been left on user's talk page and a discussion on article talk page. User has ignored them. -- haminoon (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Only withholding a NOTHERE indef block per WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Swarm ♠ 08:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking a block for EllenCT. While being careful to avoid violating 3RR, EllenCT has repeatedly edit warred against consensus and several different reverting editors over the past couple of weeks to install the same changes she wants in two sections in the United States article, Government finance and Income, poverty, and wealth.

Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21): [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]

On several occasions she has made these reverts with a misleading edit summary. For example, in this recent edit [46] she states, "revert to restore correct tag link to talk page section, among other things, per talk", and leads off her edit with an unrelated tag deletion and small tweak to a political party segment at the top of the edit. But if you scroll down you see the "other things" she sneaks in are the massive, contentious changes against consensus she has repeatedly tried to impose. In this example [47] she says she's merely replacing the "undisputed portion of the statement", when the change she makes is clearly very much disputed and opposed. She also frequently says "per talk", implying that a talk page discussion resulted in consensus for her change, leaving out the fact that she made an argument and most or all respondents rejected it.

EllenCT has already recently been given a warning by another editor on her talk page involving edit warring on a different article [48], and should be familiar with the rule.

When warned on the US talk page to cease edit warring, she claimed her edits weren't edit warring and indicated she would continue to make such reverts, [49] "I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary." She followed through on that with today's multiple reverts.

This occurs in the context of her serial ideological Soapbox crusade on the issue of economic inequality, and never ending attempts to insert POV material while deleting material she doesn't like, along with misrepresenting sources, RFC results, and other editors. I'll add that she has initiated four overlapping RFCs in recent weeks along these themes ([50] [51] [52] [53]), which went or are going against her. While less egregious than the edit warring, it's still disruptive to flood the page like that and derail discussion on other topics in an attempt to throw as much as one can at the wall and get something to stick or fatigue the opposition. I don't think article sanctions are in order. The page has been relatively civilized lately for being such a high traffic article. The problem is really one enormously disruptive editor. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• The edits being pushed by Ellen in this case (if not the entire United States article) presumably fall under the discretionary sanctions for all topics involving post-1932 American politics established by WP:ARBAP and WP:ARBAP2, which Ellen should be familiar with as a party in the former. Calidum 23:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of VictorD7's diffs are not reverts but constructive attempts at compromise, all of them were interspersed with relatively lengthy talk page discussion, none of them come close to violating 3RR, very few of them breach 1RR, and most if not all of the diffs that are bona fide reverts both correct a broken link from an inline dispute tag to a talk page section which has since been archived, and replace the results of four separate RFCs, the outcome of which Victor disagrees: (1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) here. Victor was the subject of an inconclusive WP:BOOMERANG proposal after another editor complained about me on ANI, and many editors noticed Victor's years-long pattern of trying to replace peer reviewed mainstream economics sources with his favored non-peer reviewed right-wing WP:FRINGE paid advocacy "think tank" sources from e.g. the Heritage and Peter G. Peterson foundations. EllenCT (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Declined take this to AE because this is too convoluted for this forum --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning VictorD7. EllenCT (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• What's convoluted about 11 diffs of reverts of the same material over the past week and a half? That's clear edit warring. VictorD7 (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jonny462 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Comments:

• 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. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Just because he isn't reverting in line with the 3 revert rule, doesn't mean he isn't edit warring.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    @Ditto51: This is true, however, the threshold for longer-term edit warring is typically higher, numerically, than the 3RR's baseline of 4 over the course of one day. Furthermore, there is at least an attempt to resolve the dispute by the editor, and I would strongly suggest using {{Ping}}, {{Re}}, or {{talkback}} when replying to new editors, however, else it's not certain that they will receive your reply (as, especially nowadays, they're not necessarily going to be watching talk pages for a reply—they're probably going to be waiting for a notification to appear). --slakr^\ talk / 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    • Facepalm. This is what "edit warring" comes down to? How many times, not what they're doing? This place is a complete mess. Alex|The|Whovian 02:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Ahmed Mohamed (student) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rsrikanth05 (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 18:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC) to 18:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "oops."
   2. 18:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "You're, not. your. You are the one biased here. Not me. This is my last undo here. I'm off for now. Let others handle it]])"
2. 18:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Harpppyiemojo (talk) to last version by Rsrikanth05"
3. 18:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "nope. not needed."
4. 18:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Winkelvi (talk) to last version by Rsrikanth05"
5. 17:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Harpppyiemojo (talk) to last version by BarrelProof"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ahmed Mohamed (student). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been edit warring all day today at this article. No attempt at BRD. Content disputing for days has culminated in the edit warring reported here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I admit I made a mistake. However, I was not the only party reverting here. Another user reverted the SAME edit that I reverted. I don't understand why this report is coming in hours after my last edit on the article. I have given up all hope of sanity on the article or any form of good faith on the part of Winkelvi. I am also going to refrain from editing that damn article again. Have a nice day. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'm unwatching both the article and the AfD for now. To hell with this. I'm going offline and taking a break. I've had Enough of POV pushingand personal attacks. And for the record, has been edit warring all day is totally made up and false. In case you haven't bothered to check, I was online for hardly 3-4 hours today. I've spent the better part of the travelling and clicking pictures of a new transit system in my city which I uploaded to the Commons. As for the content dispute culminating bit, I hardly edited the article after the first day. Stop trying to make me look like a villain out here for no reason. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Looks like all above users haven't edited the article for several hours. Edits since then appear to be at least reasonably constructive in nature. Suggest strongly advising all parties to engage politely in discussion on the talk page, and if there's disruption in the future, unfortunately because so many parties appear to be involved, might warrant full protection of the article page at that point in time. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:MusicAngels is violating WC:FOC and WC:AGF in his reversions of what seems to be good, well sourced, and substantially valid edits on two minor African American poetry pages. Cordelia Ray and James. D. Corrothers. The editor with whom MusicAngels is feuding seems to be behaving well; he/she is adding sources and expanding the pages thoughtfully and with knowledge. 192.12.13.14 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: and @Drmies: Request your review of this personal attack and matter regarding previous investigation of IP-accounts. MusicAngels (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Both users Warned by Bgwhite and both pages full protected. Swarm ♠ 03:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Also, this report clearly does not constitute a personal attack. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 03:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Charles Taze Russell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.220.243.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

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

Comments:User is insisting on claiming that Russell wrote about a "stake" instead of a cross in his 19th century biblical writings. It has been pointed out many times that this is not the case. Jehovah's Witnesses much later decided Jesus died on a "stake". User has been previously blocked for the same behavior. BlackCab (TALK) 13:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

IP seems to believe persistence in making what appears on its face to be a non-utile edit makes it a better claim. I suggest that this is an argument for making IP edits automatically go into a "pending changes" mode. Collect (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Muhammad in the Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117.20.41.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66] ("Restored the previous version which was removed by the filthy cabal of christian pigs... One of them (paul b) is now dead and cursed... Thanks to God")

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67] ("Go to Hell! I dont discuss with vandals and meat puppets.")
2. [68] ("Go to Hell! ")
3. [69] ("Go to Hell!")
4. [70] ("Go to Hell!")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Muhammad_in_the_Bible#gross_deletions_observed_for_2013_should_be_returned_back_.28edits_by_dananmohammad_removed_by_Barlow and various edit summaries.

Comments:

Perhaps filing for page semi-protection would be better?Cebr1979 (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For completely unacceptable edit summaries NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=682388981&oldid=682383312

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=682388981&oldid=682383312
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=next&oldid=682390185
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=next&oldid=682390641

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:

No additional comments apart from the fact you will note that the person is removing well sourced / referenced information with no justification at all.

• Yes, I have three reverts of the disputed content there, I have also plenty of discussion on the talkpage. Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#Violation_of_WP:BLP.2C_WP:NPOV There is no need at all to force in this disputed grouping when the subject has disputed it and has not confirmed it yet. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• You have yet to explain any reason for the revert. I have sourced it from an official government website and appropriately referenced it. What is the reason you reverted the edit in the first place? What are you disputing here?  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 12:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ow dear , the person that reported me here has now made another revert - Govindaharihari (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why did you revert my edit Govindaharihari. It seems to me like you purposelessly undid my edit and are now disputing it with things that are completely against the written sources. The government source clearly states as is written in the article - what are you disputing?  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 13:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I will refrain from blocking you both because you have both stopped before breaching 3RR and it appears to be a perfectly reasonable content dispute, with some users citing the official government press release as a source and some users making a very understandable case as to why that might not be enough evidence for an article update. I will also refrain from protecting the page because several users are highly actively editing it. I'm trusting you guys to stick to the talk page until a consensus or compromise is reached. It looks like a reasonable compromise has already been proposed. Continuing this dispute via an edit war in the article however will result in a block. For the bot: Warned. Swarm ♠ 03:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, just as a note, both editors have seemingly ignored your warning and have continued reverting each other, including here, here, and here. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

* Continuing this dispute via an edit war in the article - Quote from above statement. I did not ignore him at all in fact rather the opposite. He did not tell us not to revert content on the article... simply to not continue with that issue. Neither of us did so. The later issue is completely unrelated and more importantly - with unrelated content.  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User "IvanScrooge98" is keeping inserting a useless notice (>!-- Before changing this IPA again, see Help:IPA for Italian --<) because an IPA was changed ONCE (or, quoting IvanScrooge98, "too many times") and every time I remove this edit he reverts it.
Please, make him stop, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.5.38 (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 03:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Jeremy Corbyn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Olowe2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682614220 by Gorrrillla5 (talk) The image is a copyright violation see http://www.demotix.com/news/4607056/bianca-jagger-gets-lifetime-achievement-award-lukas-2014#media-460686"
2. 20:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682608208 by Nonsenseferret (talk) Then bring that up on the talk before reverting. The copyright belongs to me."
3. 20:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "This seems like the best we can get now. If you have any issues with it quote me on the talk page or if you like it do the same <3"
4. 16:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Image is definitely not free. See http://www.demotix.com/news/4607056/bianca-jagger-gets-lifetime-achievement-award-lukas-2014#media-4606869 and the disclaimer which is very clear about the status of this image. It is also watermarked."
5. 09:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682531840 by Govindaharihari (talk) Its subject to Crown Copyright see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jeremy_Corbyn_in_2015.jpg. Discuss on Talk to avoid 3RR."
6. 08:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682492913 by Stemoc (talk) It has not yet been deemed UNFREE by an administrator. Wait until is concluded before making arbitrary edits."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

The editor has very recently reported someone else here for edit-warring -- that's sufficient.

Comments:

Olowe's behaviour on the Corbyn article has been outrageously ridiculous, only perpetuating an already extremely tedious string of edit wars about the main image involving a number of other users. JJARichardson (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The image is an outright copyright violation and it says on the page prior to editing that any copyright violations will be edited out of the Article. I have simply followed that. By the way, the 3RR may not apply in circumstances when a user is correcting blatantly violating content. The image as shown here is absolutely without a shadow of a doubt UNFREE and should not be being used on Wikipedia (not for that reason but due to the fact the copyright owner expresses that his work must not be used without his consent on the disclaimer shown on the page.) I am simply ensuring that blatant copyright violations are not existing on Wikipedia in respect for their authors. This is definitely not a violation of the 3RR.  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 23:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

1. • Additionally some of these are not even reverts? 20:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "This seems like the best we can get now. If you have any issues with it quote me on the talk page or if you like it do the same <3" is not a revert. It is me introducing content to the article. That issue is completely separated from the copyright reverts. Editing out blatant copyright infringing material does not contribute to 3RR. I would also like to make the argument that this is becoming tedious and smells like a personal attack. It is blatantly obvious that I have attempted to contribute positively and with effort to the article - which failed. I removed myself from this page and discussion after I realized that some editors on the article do not know the meaning of assume good faith and made personal attacks against me and my work. Here are my final remarks:

2. Blatant copyright violations can be removed from the article or any other place on Wikipedia as stated to users when they edit articles here. I did this in good faith towards both the original author who clearly wishes to sell his work and maintaining a standard here on Wikipedia.
3. The changes to the image had not been reverts from other peoples work. I replaced no image (which I helped conclude on the discussion page) with an image that took me a while to create. If it isn't suitable for Wikipedia then it can be discussed - which it was and the image was reverted back to no image. So, I left it.

Conclusion - Any revert of a blatant copyright violation is not counted towards a violation of 3RR. The other was me adding additional content which I find hard to understand how anyone could consider that to be a revert of someone else's content.  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 23:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Further clarity - 08:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682492913 by Stemoc (talk) It has not yet been deemed UNFREE by an administrator. Wait until is concluded before making arbitrary edits." and 09:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682531840 by Govindaharihari (talk) Its subject to Crown Copyright see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jeremy_Corbyn_in_2015.jpg. Discuss on Talk to avoid 3RR." are both logs that have been previously addressed by another report (which I made earlier.) Furthermore 21:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682614220 by Gorrrillla5 (talk) The image is a copyright violation see http://www.demotix.com/news/4607056/bianca-jagger-gets-lifetime-achievement-award-lukas-2014#media-460686" and 16:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Image is definitely not free. See http://www.demotix.com/news/4607056/bianca-jagger-gets-lifetime-achievement-award-lukas-2014#media-4606869 and the disclaimer which is very clear about the status of this image. It is also watermarked." are reverts of blatantly copyright violating material which was agreed upon by other editors on the discussion page. So I fail to understand which edits are a problem and how the heck they violate the 3RR. Another thing that seems to be interesting is the fact that some of the people reporting know full well that an agreement was struck on the talk-page that the image would be removed as it violated copyright. If these guys want to swarm around Political articles 24-7 (skipping between Cameron and Corbyn) they can do that... If they want to hog their little article to themselves then that is their prerogative. I have abstained from further involvement with the article and I would prefer to be left out of it. All edits have been in good faith and this is clearly demonstrated.  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 23:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note for the administrator:' I ask that you defer a decision on this case (if it requires more information from me) so that I can consult Wikipedia Arbitration Committee case histories and see if there is anything that I can pull up in support of how I conducted myself during this time (especially in regard to copyright violation edit outs.)  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 23:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Solution: Tell Olowe2011 to contest usage of copyright material at Commons rather than by editing on the BLP - presumably the folks there can sort out proper and improper use of "Crown Copyright" material, I hope. In other words - defuse the drama rather than make this a bigger deal than it needs to be. Collect (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected (image changes now 1RR, 30 days) --slakr^\ talk / 04:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Xbox 360 system software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.167.118.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]
4. [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Comments:

This user has neglected to respond on his own Talk page or on Talk:Xbox 360 system software, where there is plenty of discussion of policies like WP:NOTCHANGELOG, and little justification and no consensus for ignoring them. Also, it seems like it may be a WP:single-purpose account. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected --slakr^\ talk / 04:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]
4. [85]

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

User didn't go to talk page he just went on a revert spree without trying to contact me.

Comments:

The user being reported violated the 3RR rule. I even provided proof where other LGBT members identified him as appealing to that community. Also note that Freeza's sexual orientation is never given by the creator of dragonball--76.107.252.227 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected — @76.107.252.227: Your category addition is unsourced. If you continue to add the category without actually sourcing it reliably (ideally by referencing and explaining it in the text), it will be treated as disruptive editing and you will be blocked. @Xfansd: this is the second time in the last month you've been involved in an edit war on that page. Please consider dispute resolution instead, including making an effort to explain your rationales on the talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 04:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Bad Girls Club (season 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cheryl Capers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC) to 16:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Notes */"
   3. 16:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Duration of Cast */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC) to 16:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Notes */"
   2. 16:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Duration of Cast */"
4. 17:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Notes */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC) to 18:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Notes */"
   3. 18:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Duration of Cast */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 14:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC) to 14:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Notes */"
   2. 14:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 14:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Duration of Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

User_talk:Cheryl_Capers#Edit_warring_on_Bad_Girls_Club_.28season_11.29_.E2.80.8E

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 04:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

2015 Hajj stampede (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gire 3pich2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision - If you want remove these official reactions, you must show relevant rules in the talk page, first!"
2. 11:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision - You must show me the rules in the talk page. I am waiting!"
3. 11:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision + Official reactions must mention here. Adding Ban Ki Moon reaction."
4. 11:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision - You can't remove official statements."
5. 11:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision - You can't remove official statements."
6. 11:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682694223 by SheriffIsInTown (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Condolences */"

Comments:

User has already violated the three reverts rule and also been warned here Talk:2015 Hajj stampede#Condolences. Ayub407^talk 13:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Old Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Slovak Old Catholic Church */"
2. 19:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Polish National Catholic Church */"
3. 07:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Polish National Catholic Church */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "edit warring"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "/* oldcatholicchurchuk */ commect"

Comments:

Note — The edit warring by this user has continued after reversion by multiple users. Mww113 (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 20:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Kaidu–Kublai war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lauren68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88] [89]
2. [90] [91] [92]
3. [93] [94] [95]
4. [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments:
User:Lauren68 is doing blind reverts without any discussion on the Kaidu–Kublai war and Kublai Khan articles. He did not try to made any actual explanations for his edits either in edit summary or in talk page. I repeatedly tried to let him discuss his changes instead of edit warring, such as citing the WP:BRD policy in the talk page, but obviously he never listened and continued to revert in both articles. There is no use for me to make any compromise either as he simply reverted to his version blindly. His edit on the Kublai Khan article seems even involve nationalist POV push. Both are seriously against the rules of Wikipedia and the edit war part may already be considered as vandalism. Hope this case to be handled, thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Galerie Gmurzynska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Grammophone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [99],23:39, 11 July 2015, "Undoes insider censoring of documented history" (after returning from second block/warning)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1 [100], 10:08, 17 September 2015, (→‎History)

2 [101], 16:38, 17 September 2015 (→‎History: Needs proper citation - unsupported claim (previous reference is self-referential).)

3 [102], 17 September 2015‎ (→‎History)

1 [103], 18:32, 18 September 2015, (Undid revision 681637334 by Jabba1212 (talk)

2 [104], 19:17, 18 September 2015 (→‎Controversies: Clarifies persons involved)

3 [105], 23:14, 18 September 2015, (→‎Controversies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandyxyz (talk • contribs)

1 [106], 14:55, 22 September 2015, (Removes promotional reference to self-published commercial catalogues)

2 [107], 14:56, 22 September 2015, "→‎Controversies: Norman does not "allege", she states.).

3 [108], 14:57, 22 September 2015, (→‎Controversies)

4 [109], 14:57, 22 September 2015, (→‎Controversies: Irrelevant / ungrammatical)

5 [110], 14:59, 22 September 2015, "(→‎Controversies)

6 [111], 15:00, 22 September 2015, (→‎Controversies)

7 [112], 15:02, 22 September 2015, (→‎Controversies)

8 [113],15:03, 22 September 2015, (→‎Controversies)

(Note - Series of edits and reverts by User:Grammophone have been ongoing since 11 July 2015)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:

User:Grammophone has earlier been warned/reported by User:NatGertler and blocked two times for edit warring on Galerie Gmurzynska here [116] and here [117]

He opened the account only to edit the page Galerie Gmurzynska. 95% of his edits are on the same page. He focuses more on sabotaging the page and adding negative/controversial issues. He keeps coming back after getting warned and blocked. He keeps reverting edits made by other editors. He needs to be blocked indefinitely since he has continued to come back after the warnings and 2 blocks. The page can also be revered to any of the previous neutral state.Xandyxyz (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. Putting aside how stale this report is, the listed diffs for September 22 are consecutive edits and count as one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe so, Bbb23, but I'm blocking Gramophone anyway, for continued edit warring and NPOV editing. You'll note I made a tiny, cosmetic edit, and their revert prompted me to look at the other reverts they made--this disruption has gone on long enough. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

MickeyMillerNYC

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bryan_MacDonald User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help). 66.36.142.118

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bryan_MacDonald&oldid=675662594

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

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:

• Note the article has been deleted by DGG. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

BBC Southern Counties Radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BBC London 94.9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Added DanielRigal (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC))

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Stop this.They are not linked to any Wiki page so this is fine! Don't change again or I will request for this page to be protected."
2. 20:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Grow up. This has been referred to someone who knows what they're talking about. Someone who KNOWS rules."
3. 21:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682614496 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Protection Required */ cmt"

Comments:

There also appears to be some IP sockpuppettry involved between edits by this IP.Charles (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I spotted similar behaviour on BBC London 94.9 (diff - Edit summary: "Leave this or go through EVERY local radio station and delete names. You are unprofessional.") which is how I discovered this. That, in itself, is not a full on edit war, with aggressive talk page comments threatening to report people for imaginary misdeeds, like on Talk:BBC Southern Counties Radio but it is not constructive and supports the impression that this user will not work cooperatively with others. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This behaviour is continuing. They have stopped participating in talk pages or giving aggressive edit summaries. Now they just revert back to their preferred bad version: diff and diff.

Also, a possible sockpuppet edit here: diff. I'd say that this was very likely to be the same person, doing exactly the same thing, but maybe they were just using a different device/ISP and hence getting a different IP addresses incidentally, rather than as intentional sockpuppetry. I can just about assume good faith on that part of the story but for the overall pattern of behaviour, not so much. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Jewish insurgency in Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:ZScarpia

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [119]
2. [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122]

Comments:

The SS Exodus is widely described, both commonly as well as in (essentially limitless) reliable sources as a refugee ship, ship full of refugees, etc. In the article Jewish Insurgency in Palestine, the ship's passengers are referred to as refugees, however in one section relating to the incident's use in propaganda against the British, they are described simply as passengers. I made an edit correcting this which was swiftly reverted, with a strange edit summary claiming that though there were refugees on the ship, there were also "displaced persons and infiltrees" which is curious as displaced persons are considered refugees. ZScarpia did create a talk page discussion, however rather than being an invitation to discussion it was written dismissively and did not leave room for compromise. I later re- added the word refugees, however now with four extremely reliable sources, Yad Vashem, The US Holocaust Museum, The New York Times and Yahoo News. However this was again unceremoniously reverted with the claim that all sources must describe the passengers as refugees (I assume he means other, not provided sources, as all sources provided by me described them as refugees) and that his sources were "better" (untrue, and his single source is not easily accessible).

It's worth noting that there is another involved editor as well (please let me know if I should notify him) who describes the entire ship as a "publicity stunt" writing "even though some of the passengers selected from DP camps might have been reasonably called refugees in other circumstances, calling them refugees in these circumstances just plays into the publicity game." which I interpret as essentially admitting they were refugees, but refusing to call them that anyway.

To summarize, it's commonly expressed in reliable sources as well as on Wikipedia that the SS Exodus' passengers were refugees, however in this particular instance, ZScarpia has taken an uncompromising approach and decided he will not permit the word refugees to be used, regardless of reliable sources, while another editor concedes that they were refugees but refuses to allow them to be called that due to "the circumstances". As ZScarpia phrases it: "You can provide umpteen sources saying that they were refugees, but I've already provided (better quality) sources which say otherwise." He later referred to the refugee description as "the standard Zionist line" which gives an indication of the biases at work. Drsmoo (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by ZScarpia:

• Drsmoo lists only two edits and they were performed more than two days apart.
• At the time I made my first edit, I wrote this talkpage section to explain my reasoning. Another editor, Zero, concurred with my position, which means that, when Drsmoo made his reversion, he was doing it against the position of three other editors (if the original editor who created the text is included).
• Just to make sure it is clear, my edits reverted the wording of the article back to its original version.
• In my explanation, I listed a couple of good, detailed sources which contradict the notion that all the passengers carried on the ships being used to smuggle people illegally to Palestine in the postwar period were refugees. Note that the disagreement here is about how to describe the passengers on one particular ship, the Exodus 1947. At the time the ship sailed in 1947, Jews were relatively safe in most areas of Europe (there were several different camppaigns of insurgency going on in Palestine though). In order to gather the 1000s of passengers carried by the Exodus, the smuggling arm of the Jewish Agency, the Mossad Le’aliyah Bet, had to gather people from all over Europe and smuggle them out of the Soviet Union (with the cognisance of the Soviet authorities).
• Drsmoo's contention that there is an equivalence between displaced persons and refugees is incorrect.
• The dispute is about how to neutrally describe the passengers on the Exodus. To state in the Wikipedia voice that all the passengers were refugees would require sources to concur that that was so. However, they do not. Drsmoo seems to think that if he can produce lots of Google results which call the passengers refugees, that proves his case. Detailed, neutral sources condtradict Drsmoo's position. Of course, contemporaneous sources, particularly British ones, would contradict his position too.
• Drsmoo refers to how the passengers on the Exodus are described on Wikipedia. I don't know if it's of much significance, but the Introduction to the Exodus article, in any case, refers to them as emigrants and passengers.
• A minor point probably, but you'll see that what Drsmoo seems to be claiming is a 3RR warning above is not a 3RR warning.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Drsmoo:

1. The other editor, Zero, in fact, concurred that they were refugees, but that because of the "circumstances" he didn't want to call them that lest he "play into the publicity game". Which is precisely what I'm pointing out with regard to non-cooperative editing.
2. ZScarpia's assertion that Jews were safe in Europe in 1947 is factually incorrect. The refugees on board the ship were fleeing persecution, violence and antisemitism in Europe. (Ignoring the non sequiturs about "Soviet authorities")
3. Refugees are people who have fled their country, internally displaced persons are in danger but have not fled their countries. Those on board the Exodus had fled their country and were refugees by definition. https://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/protected-persons/refugees-displaced-persons/overview-displaced-protected.htm
4. ZScarpia's reduction of Yad Vashem, The US Holocaust Memorial Museum, The New York Times, and Yahoo News (as well as presumably any other reliable source) to "Google results" is indicative of the dismissive and non-cooperative attitude that lead to this. They are all clearly detailed and neutral as well. His remark denigrating museums as "google results" as a reason for non-inclusion speaks for itself. And as is evident, there is no shortage of "detailed, neutral sources" correctly describe the passengers as refugees. The assertion ZScarpia appears to be making is that due to the reliable sources being from scholarly institutions and newspapers that are easily accessible, his are "superior" (he has yet to quantify this) and mine can be derided as "google results". This is not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia, or of common sense.
5. The passengers on the SS Exodus are referred to as refugees throughout the SS Exodus article, along with being referred to as refugees in the Jewish insurgency in Palestine article. (Along with the myriad of reliable sources that refer to them as refugees, in accordance with the definition of the term.)
6. The notion that if a source refers to the refugees as "passengers" (for example) it is somehow stating that they were not refugees is false and illogical. The only other source in that section of the article describes them as passengers, but at no point does it claim they were not refugees.
7. The book ZScarpia mentioned on the talk page by Idith Zertal also refers to the people on board the Exodus as refugees. On page 45: "The British indeed deserved the denunciation uttered by the French-Jewish statesman, Leon Blum, himself a Buchenwald survivor, in his daily Le Populaire, when the Exodus refugees were deported back to Germany aboard British vessels from the small port in southern France where they had been anchored for nearly a month." Also on page 46: "The clash between the two dramas, which indeed undermined the enormous impact of the Exodus affair, exposed, among other things, Ben-Gurion's functional and expedient attitude toward the Exodus refugees." and "Ben-Gurion elevated the Exodus refugees even higher than the ghetto rebels, "because they [the rebels] had no choise, but these Jews [aboard the Exodus] had a choice." As well as on page 47: "When Haim Weizmann in London, aided by Leon Blum in Paris, attempted to prevent the deportation of the Exodus refugees to Germany, and tried, against the odds, to find an agreed, provisional, and more humane solution for them on French soil or in some other European country, so as to spare them the nightmare of returning to Germany, Ben-Gurion intervened to prevent him." and then thrice more on page 47 as well.
8. At no point was a 3RR violation reported, nor was a warning issued.

Drsmoo (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Mike Pompeo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682866107 by NottNott (talk) "TENURE" MATERIAL IS DEFAMATORY INPUT ENTERED MALICIOUSLY BY MR. MARK VAKKUR, ALIAS, MIKE VICTOR. I AM A USMA '86 CLASSMATE OF MR. POMPEO."
2. 16:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682864469 by NottNott (talk)"
3. 16:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Tenure */ This defamatory content was entered maliciously by Mr. Mark Vakkur and it should be removed."
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC) to 23:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Tenure */"
   2. 23:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Tenure */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC) to 23:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Tenure */"
   2. 23:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Tenure */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [123]

Comments:

Not responding to message sent to talk page. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 16:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Homo naledi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Here to sway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An RfC was opened, but this did not stop one editor resuming as soon as the protection expired. Samsara 12:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article. The article will only be unprotected at the end of the RFC or when consensus is reached between the warring parties on the article talk page. --Jayron32 12:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Samsara recently put a notice about that on my user page, and you did not put any note on anyone else's user page. I am assuming that you have not made any mistake by singling me out. Does that mean that I am in "a war" where there are no other parties? You are making edits to an article, then I make an edit, and minutes later you put a note on my page - and only my page, and then you open this thread. I find that approach somewhat questionable. Here to sway (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Message from HTJ, paleoanthropologist-no-wikipedian-yes, himself (perhaps I am mocking the terminology that I have removed from the various wiki-tributes to a senior expedition member):

I have been the one side, so to speak, in an edit-war. While undoing edits (which even Kim Il-sung might have considered unpaid advocacy, before starting to blush) I have broken rules in a message which was posted 12:33, 25 September: "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period".

I hope my punishment gets some discount for various good work and effort [124]. Here to sway (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I've named one person in the header of this report because that must be the "one editor resuming as soon as the protection expired". I'm doing this for the sake of completeness in the report, and in case the dispute resumes in the future. The edit which User:Samsara is criticizing must be this one. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.40.31.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]
4. [129]
5. [130]
6. [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#Quiet

Comments:

IP editor has started demanding that his preferred edits be recognised. There have been multiple attempts at protecting the page, but administrators have referred editors to dispute resolution. Whatever attempts there have been at dispute resolution have failed, or have at least been disrupted by the IP editor's behaviour. Other editors believe that his edits are an attempt to remove criticism of the game from the article, violating NPOV. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Update—I have since been informed that because this issue relates to the representation of women in video games, discretionary sanctions are in place (though I don't know implications this has for the article). Several more editors have joined in to try and come to a consensus, and I have tried to introduce additional content to the article to address the IP editor's concerns, but the editor has been reverting anything and everything that is not consistent with his preferred edits, and his reasoning has been questionable at best, claiming that an explanation within the story negates the controversy, that including story details amounts to spoilers and should be removed, and that the controversy is invalid because there is no opposing point of view on the subject.

I agree with @Prisonermonkeys:. I've pointed out to WP:BRD, to no avail. IP feels that a paragraph that mentions criticsm should go. IP has not been willing to change their stance one bit; keeping to a "all-or-nothing" attitude. We've been pointing to Wikipedia's guidelines, saying that another point of view is more than welcome, but since IP couldn't find a decent one (IP mentioned one website, not a reliable source), IP still said it should go. I've given warnings for their attitude, especially ignoring our advice. --Soetermans. T / C 12:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Angelica Pickles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683042214 by NottNott (talk) WP:NN trumps your opinion."
2. 19:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683041241 by NottNott (talk) per the Tommy article"
3. 19:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "WP:NN"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not willing to show consensus: uncivil behaviour ~ NottNott talk|contrib 19:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Getting your friends to troll me is uncivil... 90.214.96.143 (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Volkswagen emissions violations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Calidum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [133] Skyring
2. [134] Dennis Bratland that's me
3. [135] Skyring
4. [136] Calidum
5. [137] Guy Macon
6. [138] Calidum
7. [139] John -- an Admin edit warring instead of enforcing 3RR!

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140][141][142][143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144][145] + many other discussions

Comments:

• There's an RfC that's making progress in resolving this, but nonetheless we have several veteran editors who ought to know better than to revert the same thing 9 7 times in a span of a scant 10 hours. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at my three supposed reveverts, I find that

• the first listed is a rewording of the lead sentence, not a revert to any previous version,
• the second time yes I did revert Dennis's revert, because discussion was ongoing and Dennis's preferred version did not reflect consensus about use of the word "illegal"
• the third listing is exactly the same diff as the second!!! Listing one diff two times is a novel tactic, or a genuine mistake made in the heat of the moment, but either way should be corrected.

Perhaps Dennis could slow down, check his facts, await the outcome of the current RfC, and think about correcting his listing above? --Pete (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC) (later) The same error applies to Calidum's contributions. Perhaps his second entry could also be excised? --Pete (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Tag team edit warring is still edit warring. You guys blew right past 3 reverts and kept on going, that's for sure. There is every reason to expect you will resume edit warring at the first opportunity, because you're convinced your cause is righteous. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, you are required to notify each editor you report here. Where are these notifications? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, then nothing to see here. I assumed we were dealing with editors who don't need the 3RR explained to them for the upmteenth time by the likes of me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could all review the three revert rule at this point. It is a useful part of Wikipolicy, but sometimes misunderstood. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, the editors in question don't need a 3RR warning but do need to be notified they have been reported. Same rules as ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, everybody has a notice of this thread now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Seriously? I am being reported for edit warring for a single 1RR revert that was only my second edit to the page ever? The only reason I edited the page at all was because of a call for more eyes on it posted here on ANI. You cannot accuse VW of illegal activity in Wikipedia's voice when they have not had a chance to defend themselves in court. You can only say they were accused and who is accusing them. Also the reference used to support the "illegal: claim iv an EPA Notice of violation (NOV). "NOVs are not a final EPA determination that a violation has occurred."[146] BTW, I was not notified that I had been reported or edid warring. I noticed this being discussed on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• No violation This is a content dispute, and no one broke 3RR. Parties are reminded to keep language neutral point of view. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Alex Ferguson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "what are you doing? The edit was long-standing and a deliberation between editors. do not continue to revert it."
2. 01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "edit was long-standing and a result of collaboration between editors. Please do not revert."
3. 16:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "no right to change long-standing edit. This was a result of deliberation with other editors and not solely done by me."
4. 04:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "tidied up intro."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on PFC Levski Sofia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am tired of this editor now. After the creation of this account he or she has been blocked 3 times, twice for edit warring and one for sockpuppeting and there is many and many different warnings for edit warring. Just look at Alex Ferguson history and see the reverts from this editor. All of the attempts of discussion has been very hostile, calling others for "troll" in edit summaries and so on. It seems to me like this editor has problem with collaboration and just gets agressive when others dont share their point of view. This ging around to remove sourced content just because the editor thinks they are not honours has to stop. The editor could possibly be right in some cases, but there is no way of discussing with the aggression. Qed237 (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a fair accusation considering the fact that I have not ever been properly consulted on any edits. on the Sir Alex article, a long-standing edit that was agreed on with another editor was suddenly reverted yesterday for no reason. Likewise with the Levski article where all i asked was for a reliable source to confirm the trophy haul yet nobody provided one, so I edited it based off an establish credible source only to constantly be reverted to an unsourced statement. When I tried to talk to the editor above regarding the Arsenal page, this was his response:

"@Davefelmer: I dont have the time for this now, but this belongs to the article talkpage or possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Qed237 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)"

If anyone would be willing to discuss changes on articles, I would be happy to oblige. Davefelmer (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a few responses, then I will leave this to admin. I have no interest in arguing back and forth here and such arguing rarely comes with a good result. What I am concerned about is the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. You brought up Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Arsenal honours so how do you think that is going? Your case has not been supported and what I see now is you, still arguing with an other editor, trying to push your case after a wall of text that is to long for most users to care about getting in to. About Alex Ferguson I fail to see any long term consensus (we probably have different interpretations of "long"). On European association football club records Linfield should be listed as they are a well known team that has been representing their country in qualification to Champions League and Europa League and they belong on that list. But as I said I am concerned about the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Qed237 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

where is this argueing with another editor? And as for a wall of text, if a paragraph to explain my view isnt worth getting into for you, you have to question yourself and nobody else because the point of a discussion is to get your view across in however many words it takes. As for Alex Ferguson, 30 days is a long-enough period to establish a consensus that was agreed upon by myself and another editor. These are just becoming your views now. Linfield might be well known (are they actually though?!) but they are SEMI-profesional and shouldnt be included amongst profesional sides. otherwise the table would be full of local teams who have won a ton of awards as opposed to top profesional outfits. Davefelmer (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit warring continues (diff). Time for action now. Qed237 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: You've reverted 4 times, which is in violation of WP:3RR. Edit warring is unproductive and will lead to a block, regardless of intent. clpo13_(talk) 16:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Look at the history and you will see the editor had deleted my comments on his talk page to resolve the issue and was only comunicating through edits on the main page. He has now addressed the issue in the talk page so there is no need to continue to revert. It should also be noted that another editor made the initial revert and I was changing back to the established edit since the editor would not explain his changes. Davefelmer (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That is simply not true. My changes were explained in the edit summaries (1, 2). It's you who made repeated misleading edit summaries "tidied up intro", "no right to change long-standing edit. This was a result of deliberation with other editors and not solely done by me". Davefelmer has been recently blocked for edit warring yet has done nothing to improve its behaviour. It continues to treat wikipedia as some sort of battleground to make Manchester United FC look better (as if that were needed) and other clubs look worse. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In my admin opinion User:Davefelmer should be indefinitely blocked. He is an all-purpose edit warrior across a wide range of football articles. He's even continuing to use the IP for whose use he was sanctioned in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Davefelmer. He has already blocked three times since 1 September for as long as a week, and it does not appear that he is ever going to get the message about waiting for consensus. Rather than being diplomatic in the current thread, he is just arguing back against everyone he is in a dispute with. Since this complaint was opened he has been making additional reverts at Alex Ferguson. This suggests he has no plans to listen to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Left door open for unblock if editor agrees to abide by WP:1RR. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Charlie Chaplin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mediatech492 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [147]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [148]
2. [149]
3. [150]
4. [151]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153]

Comments: Disruptive user ignoring comments and attempts to engage in discussions by warring. At 4 reverts currently. Cassianto^Talk 18:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Also looks to be going at it on Sinking of the RMS Lusitania. --slakr^\ talk / 21:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 19999o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [154]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [155] (21 September 2015‎)
2. [156] (25 September 2015‎)
3. [157] (26 September 2015)
4. [158] (26 September 2015‎)
5. [159] (26 September 2015‎)
6. [160] (27 September 2015)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161] (at user talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [162]

Comments:
The user is constantly removing sourced information, along with the sources, which is being stable for a lot of time. Few users are returning the changes to the stable version, but user continues to remove the information. I've warned the user at the user talk page, and the edit-warring warning was added User:SilentResident, but the user does not responds. I've not opened a discussion on the article talk page, because the user does not responds even on his talk page. --StanProg (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours by User:Callanecc. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 165.112.97.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]
5. [168]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [169]

Comments:
IP editor making disruptive plot summary edits on multiple articles despite multiple warnings. DonIago (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor has also notably engaged in edit warring on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, more information on which can be found here. —zziccardi (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  @NeilN: coming off the 24h the IP is continuing to edit war on multiple articles in the same fashion. Can you help again? --Izno (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  One week this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  @NeilN: Thanks. --Izno (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elduderino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 21:22, 28 September 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:22, 28 September 2015
2. 21:27, 28 September 2015
3. 21:42, 28 September 2015
4. 21:45, 28 September 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: DIFF

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: BLPN Noticeboard discussion thread

Comments:

Please see also WP:BLPN thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Weasel_Zippers_source_and_others.2C_at_page_with_controversial_claims_about_14-year-old-boy.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE also applies here. — Cirt (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell from the timestamps, there has been no edit warring by Elduderino after being given his first warning about edit warring, so I'm not inclined to block. But this is independent confirmation that you (@Elduderino:) were edit warring, contrary to WP:BLP, and if it happens again you will be blocked. Gain consensus on the article talk page before making that change again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked 24 hours by NuclearWarfare. — Cirt (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's what happens when I type slowly I guess. We generally require a warning before blocking, but maybe I missed one on some other page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • User has multiple warnings on their talk page. But the block log shows for violations of WP:BLP, not just the edit warring. — Cirt (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I blocked for the BLP violation, not for the 3RR. There was a BLP discretionary sanctions notification on the talk page, as well as Cwobeel's edit warring notification given after their last edit to the article. I took this post as an indication that the user intended to continue implementing their BLP-violating at some point in the future, even if it wasn't in the next 3RR period. If another administrator wants to unblock that is fine, but I would rather force a discussion at this stage. NW (Talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
        • That's fine; unlike the edit warring warning, the BLP warning did come a few minutes before their final edit to the page. I certainly don't feel strongly enough about it to contest it on their behalf. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Thank you both for the attention to this matter. More eyes are needed at WP:BLPN thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Weasel_Zippers_source_and_others.2C_at_page_with_controversial_claims_about_14-year-old-boy. The entire article needs its sources looked over one-by-one and make sure that any that fail WP:RS be removed. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Guatemalan Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "adding npov, ref, fixing grammar, etc"
2. 20:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "changed a word, added a synonym, removed a needless replacement term, added a reference. That's it....what exactly is wrong here?"
3. 00:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "You seem to imply that changing one half of a sentence was worth a multiple-day discussion for an entire NPOV label. You should start the discussion the next time, I'm standing by my changes. This violates nothing!"
4. 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "added back in democratic, I see the issue; I don't count this as a revert, pls correct me tho if wrong"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "/* September 2015 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Possible bias/lack of WP:NPOV */ will you please discuss this?"

Comments:

Continued and pointed refusal to discuss these edits, despite multiple invitations to do so, and multiple warnings about edit-warring. Despite this, I invited the editor to self-revert, which they have declined to do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You know the only reason I didn't report you first for your insistence on red tape and refusal o cooperate or WP:COMPROMISE was out of the Christian kindness in my heart. Why can't you be more like that Australian guy? Chill out.--Sιgε |д･) 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: User has self-reverted; as of now no action is necessary. It was late in coming, but WP:ROPE might be appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice how you're the only one who cares and is riding off bureaucratic red tape abuse, whilst the nice Australian fellow actually cared about improving the community. You're the one hanging yourself.--Sιgε |д･) 20:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No action taken for now. Was also considering a block for the personal attack in the edit summary. Sigehelmus is to treat this as a warning. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Sur Baher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Debresser (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. 17:27, 28 September 2015: Change heading from "1967-present: Israeli occupation" to "1967-present: Israeli control"
2. 20:59, 28 September 2015: Change heading from "1967-present: Israeli occupation" to "1967-present: Israeli control"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see: User_talk:Debresser#1RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: endlessly

Comments:

Article is under 1RR, Huldra (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have know Huldra for a while already. He makes very good edits in general, but he also has a clear POV, and that is fine with me, as long as he doesn't disturb this project with his POV. The problem is, that he is also a belligerent editor, who has taken to pick on me, and because a few other editors with the same POV regarding the PI conflict work together, he thinks he can get away with it. I would like a clear message to be sent to Huldra, that the community will not stand for ignoring talkpage consensus and disruptive behavior, and will not allow him to "take over" a whole bunch of article.

My second edit was at best a very partial revert, which came to restore a consensus version. I would like to point out to the admins here that the question whether that header should say "occupation" or "control" was discussed at considerable length at Talk:Sur Baher#Occupied, and that Huldra himself took an active part in that discussion. Coming back after half a year and disturb that consensus is a blatant disruptive edit, and per the clean hands doctrine Huldra should not even be able to report me here. The least I propose is a WP:BOOMERANG warning to Huldra to this effect.

Please also see User_talk:Debresser#1RR where Huldra posted an a friendly (unknown to me) talkpage stalker replied to him that I do have a point, and that Huldra should continue discussing this.[170] To which Huldra's only reply was that he doesn't believe in discussion with me,[171] with the explicitly stated reason that he is been unable in the past to convince me!! The fact is that Huldra has on many occasions been able to convince me, but not always, i.e. when he is wrong. It is not me who refuses to discuss with him, but he with me (see first line in this edit, for example).

I ask to view my edit in light of the above, that Huldra knowingly ignored a consensus, and displays blatant disruptive behavior, including a refusal to discuss with me, and warn Huldra accordingly. Debresser (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a 1RR in place across the topic area. All of us have to abide by it, including you. You could still self-revert and there would be no problem. And you are misrepresenting a consensus on the issue. nableezy - 15:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your point of view is as usual, and your support for Huldra as well. Which per Huldra's argument at WP:ANI means your opinion doesn;t count. :)

The consensus on the issue is clear, see my latest post on the article talkpage: Talk:Sur Baher#Occupied again.

An editor who willfully ignores consensus is a disruptive editor, and not much better than a vandal. Why would Huldra be allowed to do this, and I am not allowed to revert one word of a whole edit? If I am to be punished for changing one word (and I do find it hard to call that a "revert"), then I insist Huldra be punished for willfully making a disruptive edit in blatant disregard of consensus that she herself (I remembered the gender just in time, after I already started to write "he himself") was part of establishing. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I am the "friendly talk page stalker" (unknown to you because we have never extensively interacted) referred to above. I have been on the sidelines for years, and am known to a few well-respected editors in I/P, on either POV. Dovid, please self-revert. Let us get back to doing real substantive work and get off this wretched board. I think you made some interesting comments, some quite persuasive and should be discussed further away from here. This is not a game of tennis, no one is winning "points". Please show some grace here. It would go a long way. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks to be a 1RR violation, based on the two diffs submitted above. I propose a 48-hour block if the editor won't self-revert. If Debresser considers changing 'occupation' to 'control' to not be a revert then he is an optimist. For him to perceive a consensus on Talk for the word 'control' in that heading then he is even more optimistic. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO, this

• A) is a clear 1 RR-violation
• B) Debresser has made it absolutely that they have no intention to self-revert, even when asked to do so by multiple editors (Irondome, Nishidani (on my talk-page), myself and Nableezy)
• C) If he is not blocked for this, then that means that the 1 RR rule is not valid for Debresser, and that he can "impose" a consensus", by breaking the rules and edit-warring.
• (Besides the above, I also note that Debresser also here insists on calling me "male", even after being told not to do so here,) --Huldra (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the fact is that "control" was the word that stuck after that long discussion. Huldra was part of that discussion. If so, his change of that word after half a year is a deliberate disruption. Why do you ignore that?

EdJohnston, I undid one word [172] from a whole edit [173]. Is that worth all the talk about a 1RR violation?

I think that all this talk about a block is out of proportion in view of the deliberate disruptiveness of Huldra's edit, and that my revert to the previous consensus version regarding this heading, was the best call. In addition, it is already after 24 hours, so if you want, please consider as though I undid my edit and then re-did it after 24 hours. If anybody wants me to waste Wikimedia resources and do that, I am willing to do so. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dovid. This is becoming a cognitive/behavior problem. This is the 4th time I can remember you breaking 1R with impunity, because editors like myself you regard as part of a 'cabal' (see above) have refrained from reporting you

My last notice was here concerning this blatant violation of 1R a week earlier. I waited a full week because of Rosh HaShanah, then the Sabbath. You refused in the end to budge. Here again, the prelude to this report was advice away from admin eyes, on personal pages, quietly telling you just to revert. No threats. Again, for the second time this month, you just ignored this collegial informal courtesy.

I told Simon I wouldn't comment here, but given this stubbornness in the face of advice from all sides, done in a quiet collegial spirit of nudging, for a practice of violating 1R repeatedly, I'm breaking my undertaking because you appear to think this is about bluffing, and not a matter of simply sticking to rules the rest of us stick to. You might have not noticed but, in part due to Simon's good offices, editors here have been trying recently to lower the temperature and rid this area of the WP:Battleground repute it has long, unfortunately, had.

I'd remind you that being right is no excuse. in an identical case, at AE, most admins were minded to hand out a week sanction to me. I stubbornly refused to revert. I considered it a matter of honour since, unlike this case, I would have been obliged to restore a falsehood. Correctly Seraphimblade imposed a 1 month sanction. Truth is not the issue, but rule-adherence.

You may think Ed's mulling of a 48 hour sanction neither here nor there, and 'wearable' on a point of honour. But you are making even that more complicated. --Floquenbeam told you yesterday re your persistence in calling Huldra a man, that I'll take a whack at the low hanging fruit. Yes, you'll be blocked for this "minor WP:CIVIL violation" if it continues. What's your answer this morning? To write defiantly:'Huldra was part of that discussion. If so, his change of that word. . .' In refusing to revert, and persisting in an uncompromising defiance of friendly warnings, you give all the appearance of wanting to call someone's bluff. This piddling matter could have been buried quietly, and you insist on drama. So, for tetragrammaton's sake, either wake up, and do the proper thing as you have been advised to do unanimously, or bullheadedly declare that you don't give a stuff for collegial practice.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours. Debresser has plenty of opportunity to revert per the suggestions here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for *finally* blocking. User:Nishidani: I understand yours, and User:Irondome wish to make the I/P area less contentious/posonous. Just let me say this: giving in to the bullies, is not a good way to start. Please report every 1RR from Debresser (or anyone else!) from now on, (after they are given a chance to revert, of course.] But if he continues to edit like normal, after being told to self-revert: please don´t hesitate a minute to report him ...and block him. Seriously, haven´t we wasted far too much time on this? Huldra (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Muhammad in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "ok. we add good source already."
2. 12:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "we add good source."
3. 09:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "i already messaged you. you are making mistake already."
4. 09:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "the source and information is clean. kindly do not make it complicated."
5. 08:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "kindly check the source Quran 3:19. it states Islam is the only religion in the sight of ALLAH. Quran 2:285, ALLAH is make no distinction to any of His messengers."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user as notified by User:Materialscientist about his unconstructive edit and was asked by User:AstroLynx to discuss his controversial changes on talk first [here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_in_Islam&diff=683124732&oldid=683124224]. Instead, he keeps edit warring. -AsceticRosé 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the history of article, he is continuously changing the sourced information. -AsceticRosé 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Edit warring on multiple article with multiple editors. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: EA Sports UFC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [174]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [175]
2. [176]
3. [177]
4. [178]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180]

Comments:

• I have tried to communicate with all the involved editors twice and I heard no response from them. Adding WP:GAMECRUFT is definitely not acceptable. What I did is to simply revert them, as adding GAMECRUFT can be considered as vandalism. I did not break the 3RR Rule. I revert you within a 48-hour period. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT it is not a valid reason to remove content. Removing valid content is vandalism. --131.123.122.231 (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that you were reverted by at least three editors for adding content that adds nothing to the article and which can be considered WP:GAMECRUFT so you are the one going against policy. And anyone who looks at the article history can see that you are the one edit warring.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not valid content. It's inappropriate per guidelines that are already established. If you want to re-add it then you need to open a discussion about why this case is exempt from the guidelines. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected There's a few IP's that sound the same at the article... NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: The Naked Communist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hawljo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [181]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [182]
2. [183]
3. [184]
4. [185]
5. [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187] Also this warning, for a separate article: [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [189] - not article Talk page, but mine, where I recommended taking this persistent edit to the article Talk page

Comments:
Newly created account, edit warring on at least two articles, no engagement on any Talk page, persisting beyond warnings. JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Also at or beyond 3RR at Sexual orientation and Miscarriage. JohnInDC (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note. I've indefinitely blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Demographics of Tunisia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tounsimentounes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [190]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [191]
2. [192]
3. [193]
4. [194] (This last one is rather dubious for reasons discussed below)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196] and on the user's talk page under [197]

Comments:

I am not sure this is a 3RR violation, because the 41.x IP seems likely to be the same person who recently necessitated page semi-protection on Moroccan genetics - the edit summaries and nature of the edits are suggestive to me that that is the case. If so, perhaps the 4th revert is justified as reverting a persistently disruptive editor - indeed, one I also reverted.

If it _is_ a 3RR violation, of course, that also means I'm up to 3 reverts from 15:07 GMT on the 28th September onwards, so if that necessitates action, so be it.

Like last time I was here, for all I know Tounsimentounes is _right_, but I'm not getting anywhere on having them produce sources to demonstrate it. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. User:Tounsimentounes and User:Pinkbeast are both at three reverts and are warned not to continue. Tounsimentounes stated on Talk: "We had already approved of that on the "Religion en Tunisie" French page, so we started cleaning the errors on the other language's pages" This doesn't excuse you from persuading editors here that your changes are an improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Uniformitarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hal2k1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: "Uniformitarianism is the assumption that ..."

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:14, 26 September 2015‎ [198] "Uniformitarianism is claimed to be an assumption[1] that ..."
2. 23:36, 26 September 2015 [199] "Uniformitarianism is the principle, claimed by some to be an assumption, that ..."
3. 10:23, 27 September 2015‎ [200] "Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that ..."
4. 11:06, 27 September 2015‎ [201] "Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that ..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hal2k1#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uniformitarianism#HELP.21.21.21.21_Page_has_been_sabotaged_-_Once_again.2C_.22Uniformitarianism.22_is_not_an_assumption

Comments:

Please be advised that this account was created with the sole purpose of using the 3RR noticeboard and hopefully settling this dispute. I have been posting as the IP in the attempt at dispute resolution linked above. I'm unsure whether or not this would count as a 3RR violation (the warning was issued after the final edit, and I am also at the third revert, meaning that I am also at least due a warning, if not more) but there is quite a lengthy dispute surrounding it for which I have asked administrator intervention.

Since around March of this year, Hal2k1, first under an IP, then with a registered account, began attempting to add original research (stating conclusions from sources that are not stated by the sources themselves) to the article that directly contradict the reliable sources. Though corrected several times by other editors since then, he continuously re-introduces his edits, insisting that the reliable sources are "wrong" and refuses to acknowledge that his edits constitute original research despite explanations and warnings from at least two other editors.

The diffs listed above have been part of an attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the opening sentence, which describes uniformitarianism as an "assumption" in accordance with the reliable source underpinning it. Hal2k1 believes that this contradicts his original research and should be removed from the article. Cartesian5712 (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note. I've semi-protected the article for one month to at a minimum reduce the disruption from accounts who are not logging in. Another administrator is free to take more focused action against a particular editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Re. Your semi-protected notice, I think it should be clarified that I have been posting and editing under the 217.x IP. It is a dynamic public IP which I have no control over, so not an attempt at sockpuppetry.Cartesian5712 (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Stale The report was stale even at the time of posting. I see the editor has now taken to writing huge walls of text so hopefully the edit warring is now over. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Heimdallr of Æsir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "(I used to consider myself a Hellenophile (listening to Dalaras, etc.) but thanks to Greeks like Dr.K and Athenean, I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece.)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) to 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Adding the original link, which is given as the source of this map in Wikimedia Commons: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kurdish_lands_92.jpg"
   2. 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "I checked out the Talk page and there is obviously no consensus at all. Unlike the situation in Iraq and Iran, there is no regional district or subdivision named "Kurdistan" in Turkey. Also, the map is from 1992 and therefore obsolete."
3. 06:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Those are two different, separate sources. The precise definition in the original CIA map is "Kurdish-inhabited area". Changing this definition amounts to "POV", while combining separate sources to reach a new result amounts to "original research"."
4. 13:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "This is what the original CIA source says. Stop POV pushing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg"
5. 11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "The CIA map says "Kurdish-inhabited areas", not "Kurdish-majority areas": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Obvious sock of Lord of Rivendell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Will not stop relentless edit-warring. Edit-warring MO identical to other socks. Has been blocked for edit-warring recently. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that there's actually a two-week-old SPI on this user still active at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Was blocked then unblocked by Black Kite. This is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring and personal attacks at Turkey by a_ user who was recently blocked for it. Suggest we close this discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683508500 by Calidum (talk)"it's an issue of undue weight to include only negative reviews". this version contains the same reviews - explain"
2. 18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683507906 by Calidum (talk)dont be ridiculous. you made 1 cmt so far, that the reviews are all negative, which you yourself dont even believe"
3. 18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683507133 by Calidum (talk)no consensus - or discussion - for your change"
4. 18:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Reception */ per talk"
5. 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683213820 by Antinate (talk)justify your edit on talk"
6. 21:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683212909 by Antinate (talk)no, re-adding the source of the contradiction, and splitting RT section in 2 is clearly not an improvement. please justify this on talk"
7. 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683211591 by Antinate (talk)youve replaced the "positive reviews" self contradiction, moved RT because it's not "positive" enough, not an improvement"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Narcos. (TW)"
2. 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Narcos. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Ongoing discussion at talk:Narcos.

Comments:

Signedzzz has been edit warring with myself and another user for the last couple days (there are likely more than the seven reverts provided above, but four in 20 minutes should be enough to prove the edit warring exists). There is a discussion on the talk page but I'm not honestly sure what his objection is, other than there being "no consenus" for said changes (despite the fact that two other users find the changes to be improvements). The user in question has also been blocked thrice since last November for edit warring. Calidum 19:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has made 2 comments on talk:

• one in which he agrees with the other user that the reviews are all negative (and therefore the section needs rewriting) - which he doesn't believe, since his preferred version contains precisely the same reviews
• and today, he claims to have added a positive review, which is simply untrue

Reverting his reverts seems to be the only way to get him to engage on article talk. Unfortunately his 2 comments there indicate that, so far at least, he is unwilling or unable to make any honest or useful comments. zzz (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've explained why I feel the version you keep reverting from is better [202]. You haven't explained why you keep reverting to that version. Calidum 19:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• You say you've explained. Which of your two comments contained the explanation, the first one or the second one?
• My comment explained very clearly why I prefer the old, stable version. zzz (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Did you read it? What is "The reviews selected by Rotten Tomatoes clearly make more sense in the RT section" if it's not an explanation? Why do you claim that a) the reviews were all negative and b) that you have added a positive review? These are both completely false claims. zzz (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Now you are using a comment you only just added after filing this report, to cover up for the fact that you never attempted to explain your reverts before. zzz (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but it's hard to take seriously any comment that opens by dismissing concerns raised by two users with the phrase "which no one believes." You should also see how other articles handle critical reception: it's not the way you think it should be. Finally, your little comment does not justify reverting four times in 20 minutes. That's the issue here and I'm done responding to your pointless queries. If you'd like to consider improving the article, great; that discussion goes on the talk page. Calidum 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• And by the way, I already mentioned, and answered, your only explanation "putting the negative review separately is better", before your belated comment just now confirming that. I shouldn't have to guess what your argument actually is, you should just state it to begin with. zzz (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week. Calidum: it takes two to edit war and you are not blameless here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Poppy straw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Opium Poppy straw can be one of several different things: ## What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for tr"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) to 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
   2. 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
   3. 18:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
   4. 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
3. 19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Decorative Dried Flower producer/growers and wholesalers ( such as UK FLOWER POWER) based in Europe, hand pick the decorative mature seeded pods/heads with or without the stalks for use as floral decorations for visual gratification in arrangements, these"
4. 19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Poppy straw (also poppy chaff or husk) is a by-product of the poppy seed harvest, used as seeds in food such as bread. To get poppy straw from opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum.L) the crop is harvested when fully mature and dry in the field, minus the ripe"
5. 20:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Poppy straw (also poppy chaff or husk) is a by-product of the poppy seed harvest, used as seeds in food such as bread. To get poppy straw from opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum.L) the crop is harvested when fully mature and dry in the field, minus the ripe"
6. 20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Editing requested"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Well past 3RR Amortias (T)(C) 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've just given the user advice to discuss desired changes on the article talk page and to go in smaller chunks, requesting specific changes. We'll see what the user does based on that advice. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Not blocked. This is clearly a brand new editor who is trying to improve an article in good faith. WP:BITE. Furthermore, this user has not breached 3RR at all, and is unlikely to be aware of the concept to begin with. Swarm ♠ 02:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Hell in a Cell (2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lord Laitinen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683523276&oldid=683523111 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683525106&oldid=683524649 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683525934&oldid=683525476 User has clearly broken the 3RR, he's claiming that the content can't be added because it hasn't been officially announced but WP:Spoiler says otherwise. Also claiming that the source isn't reliable by his standards. I could easily get 5 more references that say the same exact thing, but the problem is when he undoes these edits he's also re-adding unreferenced material I removed from the page.

Additionally, this was left on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFunkatastic&type=revision&diff=683526014&oldid=683524744 Claiming I've been adding unsourced material, even though as you clearly can see from the sources above that I was adding sourced content and removing unsourced and inaccurate content. And he was reverting said edits meaning he was doing otherwise.Funkatastic (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Would also like to refer to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=681980048 where roughly two weeks ago I reported countless users/IP's as the page Night of Champions (2015) was under intense vandalism on the day of the event. I think it's possible one of the users that owned one/multiple of these IP's/usernames could possibly be attempting some sort of "revenge/retribution" as I reported a large amount of users. Normally I wouldn't assume this but seeing as this user is edit warring on another wrestling page I felt necessary to point it out. I've discontinued editing this page until this report is reviewed as the user showed no signs of stopping.Funkatastic (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment My main complaint against this user was their clear violations of Wikipedia:Crystal, though their source, which contained naught but speculation and events expected, but not assured to happen, was a secondary concern of mine. In summary, I am simply trying to make sure that this user does not pass off speculated events and announcements which have not yet happened as facts. I also wish to note that this edit war started with a blatant insult by User:Funkatastic against my editing skills in the comment section of his first revert of my correction. Thank you. Lord Laitinen (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User keeps claiming WP:Crystal was violated, despite^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} sources all over the internet saying the same exact thing. This is clearly a spoiler and not speculation (Show is taped Tuesday and airs Thursday) WP:Spoiler clearly overrides WP:Crystal. As for the user in question as you can see by the three edits I linked above, he reverted three of my edits (technically four because the first edit reverted two edits I made) based on his own interpretation of the guidelines and not the actual guidelines in place. Funkatastic (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. While this page has been justifiably full protected in response to a request by Laitinen, it seems to be more or less obvious that he was in the wrong here. He falsely issued a warning for addition of unsourced content when a source was provided...and ironically restored a different bit of unsourced content in the process. He claimed the source was purely speculating, when the source quite clearly and unequivocally reported events that happened. He also claimed that the source was unreliable, but dubious reliability does not mandate reversion, and as Funkatastic has demonstrated here, it was far from the only source. Laitinen's defense of his actions just doesn't add up. Even if he had good faith concerns about the verifiability of the content, he made no effort to resolve these concerns collaboratively and in good faith, and seemed more preoccupied with suppressing a spoiler from the article and inappropriately sending threatening and condescending warning templates to a regular. That sort of thing doesn't fly. Swarm ♠ 02:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Claremont Graduate University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Simonsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [203]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [204]
2. [205]
3. [206]
4. [207]
5. [208]
6. [209]
7. [210]
8. [211]
9. [212]
10. [213]
11. [214]
12. [215]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [217]

Comments:
This editor is repeatedly inserting unsourced controversial (and POV) material into this article. He or she is using multiple unregistered accounts to make the edits and participate in the Talk discussion. The discussion is going absolutely nowhere as the editor clearly doesn't understand or agree with our core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV.

(Yeah, you can accuse me of breaking 3RR, too. Given how this has evolved - apparent sockpuppeting, disdain for core policies, ridiculous arguments in Talk, unsuccessful resolution by temporarily semi-protecting the article, etc. - I'm comfortable leaning on "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring" or even invoking WP:IAR.) ElKevbo (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• A few comments here:
  • It is clear that you have both been edit warring.
  • The editor Simonsmith has not been warned about the 3RR rule and may not even know about it. Although they registered in 2006, since last month they had only made 5 edits, so I am treating them as a newbie.
  • Do you have any evidence that the IPs are the same person as the Simonsmith account? (Whether this is relevant I am unsure.)
  • I am considering letting Simonsmith off with a strong warning.
  • If we block Simonsmith then we should block Elkevbo as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair point about the lack of 3RR warning for Simonsmith; mea culpa. I'm not insistent that he or she be blocked, only that that he or she cease adding unsourced material to this article especially when that material is contentious and other editors have not only objected to the material but have also opened a discussion in Talk. Another administrator previously semi-protected the article to try to address this behavior but that didn't work so we need to do something else.

Of course, I would strongly object to being blocked for edit warring. This is a single-purpose account that is using multiple (unregistered) accounts to add contentious unsourced material to an article while also making ridiculous claims about it being my job to "disprove" the unsourced allegations. Right now, this person appears to only be interested in ensuring that readers know that this university is bad without any regard for collaborating or adhering to core policies. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The user continues to add a statement to the article about an unsourced student complaint, which they apparently believe is so significant it should form part of our coverage of Claremont Graduate University. Not only does the complaint have no source, we don't know what the complaint is supposed to have said, or who made the complaint! This is about as unsourced as it could possibly get. I had previously semiprotected the article on 10 September to deter the persistent IP who was adding the complaint. User:Simonsmith isn't newly registered, but he took up the banner of adding the unsourced complaint after my action. So far in 2015 he has added the complaint nine times. It would be logical to impose an indefinite block until such time as Simonsmith expresses willingness to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't actually looked at the content being added. I agree it is of course inappropriate, and your proposed course of action seems fine. But ElKevbo should know that this is not a valid exception to edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Result: Blocked indef. After proposing a block I waited to see if Simonsmith would respond. He has now done so by repeating his revert one more time. He also states (on his talk page) yet again that it's the responsibility of ElKevbo to disprove his information, which is the reverse of WP:BURDEN. ElKevbo should be aware that, under our policy, people who break 3RR while right are still considered to be edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "We can talk in the talk page, there is no need to delete my edits."
2. 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683639905 by Dr.K. (talk)"
3. 15:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683622505 by Alexikoua (talk)"
4. 17:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "What is wrong in adding reliable sources??What is wrong in adding the claims of Strabo about the Dardanians?The problem is that you don't like the fact that the Dardanians were Illyrians, that's why you are deleting my edits"
5. 11:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Read the sources, and don't delete my edits"
6. Consecutive edits made from 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) to 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dardani. (TW★TW)"
2. 19:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dardani. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "/* wp:LEDE manipulation */ :It is clearly WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to mention this twice at the lead and from a primary source. You are also edit-warring without consensus. I will file a 3RR report. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)"

Comments:

IP will not stop edit-warring at the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong on having sources and contributing on something??I have sources from Strabo about the Dardanians, why I'm not allowed to share them?It's just nonsense,that you are reporting me for edit war, but it seems like you and some other Wikipedia users are only focused on deleting my edits 46.19.231.255 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Merged second report

User:46.19.231.255 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683672947 by Dr.K. (talk)"
2. 19:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "The sources claims that he was born in a town in dalmatia, and dalmatia was inhabited by the Illyrians.Second, it claism that he spoke the Illyrian language, which means that he was Illyrian."
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC) to 12:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "Stridon was a village between dalmatia and Pannonia.And those areas were inhabited by the Illyrians.So Jerome was clearly of Illyrian origin."
   2. 12:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "/* His origin */ You mean if people speak English they must be English? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)"

Comments:

IP is also edit-waring at Jerome. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually have a ton of sources about Jerome origin.It's Alexikoua and you who are deleting my edits.46.19.231.255 (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Despite multiple warnings, you are still edit-warring and violating the three-revert rule even while this report is still active. I think that you should be blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Who give a f*ck about what you think??I keep adding reliable sources, you keep deleting my edits.They should block you instead46.19.231.255 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. You are good at expletives, personal attacks and edit-warring. These are all hallmarks of someone who should be blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked for 31 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC) to 02:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 02:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. [218] (I forgot to include this edit)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mercury (planet). (TW)" (not the first warning he receives)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Three people disagree with his change yet he continues to add them. It is not the first 3rr warning he receives,so he probably knows what he's doing. Huritisho (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I count one edit and two reverts. That's still one revert short of breaking 3RR (or two, depending on how pedantic you want to be). Primefac (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, there are three reverts. I guess the next one is which would count as breaking the revert rule? Huritisho (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No violation, but User:Thecodingproject would do well to accept this as a warning. Closing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Carly Fiorina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SuperCarnivore591 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 01:14, 1 October 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:05, 1 October 2015
2. 02:36, 1 October 2015
3. 03:06, 1 October 2015
4. 22:07, 1 October 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned multiple times for edit-warring in past several days on various politically-charged topics, e.g. [219], [220]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page thread

Comments:

• I've edited this article recently, so I'm reporting this as an editor and asking an uninvolved admin to review it, as it looks like a clear 3RR violation to me. Fiorina's bio is heavily edited, as one might expect for an active political candidate, but everyone else seems to be more or less adhering to the 3RR rule except for SuperCarnivore, as best I can tell. Ideally we'd crack down a little more on the lower-level edit-warriors as well, especially given the obvious partisan and tendentious nature of much of the edit-warring, but we can at least start by enforcing the "bright line rule" of 3RR. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have not attempted to intentionally break 3RR on Carly Fiorina, and I have discussed my positions on talk. I don't plan on reverting any more material at the article at this time. I do believe that it is worth pointing out that one of the "warnings" I received was in actuality unjustified, and Cwobeel, the editor who left me the warning later admitted it was a mistake (He actually meant to warn another user, not me, as I had only made one revert on that article and hadn't even edited the article at all before that revert). I will be more prudent at keeping heed of 3RR going forward, and will take part in discussions on talk more than I already do. I also think an extenuating factor in one of my reverts was the fact I sincerely believed there was no consensus on the talk for the material. I've also self-reverted one of my reverts because I'm willing to wait for what consensus on talk might show. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments: it may be a technical violation, however the user has now stopped and has also (partially) self-reverted. Given that there were various types of revert mostly involving different material, and also that they are actively discussing on the talk page, I may be able to overlook the 3RR violation. SuperCarnivore591: would you voluntarily adhere to 1RR on that article for the next week? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would be willing to do that. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Then I will close this as no action, and you've been lucky. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Siachen conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[221]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "conflict is ongoing"
2. 07:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683589719 by Human3015 (talk)That article is the parent article of ALL siachen articles, please do not be absurd."
3. 10:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Human3015 (talk) to last revision by Faizan. (TW)"
4. 13:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683745729 by Praveenp (talk)RFC on siachen glacier has already occured"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "/* 3rr */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Disputed?? */ new section"

Comments:

Reverted multiple editors, tendency of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Human3015^TALK  16:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected by NeilN a little while before this request was made. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Euroleague (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.177.119.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [222], [223], [224], [225]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [226]
2. [227]
3. [228]
4. [229]

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

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

Comments:
Please, block this articles for new users or block this user. This user vandalizing a lot of articles and one user and me are trying to stop the vandalism.

• Agree with Vasconia. Absolutely inadequate ip user. He simply tries to revert article FIBA Intercontinental Cup to very old revision without any description of his reasons, and didn't use a talk page. Please block him. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think, it's a user Jaco the 3rd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), compare his edit [230] and the same by ip in question [231]. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• I protected FIBA Intercontinental Cup because several IP addresses were involved, but the remaining articles were just Vasconia versus 46.177.119.122 in situations that weren't clear vandalism or anything else that warrants a blind eye. Blocked both for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a right block for Vasconia. All his edits were correct, but ip 46.77... wrongly tried to change the traditional naming of clubs etc. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hello! user Jaco the 3rd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his revert to old revision again, without discussing on the talk page. Please block him and revert this edit. [232] It's a clear, that 46.177.119.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was his ip (used for 3RR violation). 109.108.251.119 (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've reverted the edit to the version that was settled upon by this discussion. However, I do believe that Jaco should be blocked for edit warring and possibly have a check user run against him to see if the IP is his.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thak you, Ditto51! 109.108.251.119 (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Waltzing Matilda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Removed unnecessary comma."
2. 09:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Incorrect comma removed."
3. 09:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683910952 by Mark Marathon (talk) Irrelevant argument. It's not a serial comma (which is non-Australian English anyway)."
4. 09:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) ""Cited source" no longer exists. Corrected grammar."
5. 09:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683912750 by Mark Marathon (talk) There is NO source for this. Bizarre behaviour is not mine."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Waltzing Matilda. (TW)"
2. 07:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "/* "Australian English style" */"

Comments:

General aggressive edit warring on this article. Diffs highlight a particular micro-disagreement over whether the lede sentence should contain a comma. User:Mark Marathon also somewhat at fault for repeatedly reverting it back, but the talk page discussion is rather one-sided has a lot of undropped stick from Afterwriting. McGeddon (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I dislike edit warring as much as any other editor. I have, however, attempted to make various straightforward style and phrasing improvements to the article (with only one mistake on my part). User:Mark Marathon, however, has chosen to mass revert my edits based on a questionable claim of "Australian English" (something I have professional knowledge of). In doing so he restored a number of previous style and phrasing problems and then bizarrely blamed me for adding them to the article. All of this can be checked in the article edit history. Even when I pointed this out to him on the article discussion page he just repeated his false accusation instead of checking his own editing. He has refused to admit to this or to apologise for doing so. He appears to have ownership problems and to delight in accusing others of edit warring when he is doing so himself. The accusations of edit warring by him and User:McGeddon are highly hypocritical in their one-sidedness. This whole unpleasant matter has been highly frustrating due to what I perceive as the ownership and battleground mentality of Mark Marathon. Afterwriting (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Afterwriting and Mark Maraathan Blocked for 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Template:Han emperors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 171.236.111.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 14.164.134.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [233]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [234]
2. [235]
3. [236]
4. [237]
5. [238]
6. [239]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [240]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "discussion" on edit summaries

Comments:

User with multiple IPs (as named) keeps adding posthumous emperors to the navigational template despite them being only posthumous and not actual emperors, and also they are mostly red links and discouraged on navigational templates. Me and another editor Zanhe (talk · contribs) have reverted the additions but the IPs undid us with only "this is Chinese history" as their reason. When asked to clarify their reasoning[241], they responded that yes, they indeed thought they alone have the say on Chinese history. This is followed by a edit warring warning on their talk page, which is only met with another revert and a personal attack against me (last diff above). This is where my WP:AGF runs out. _dk (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I've also semi-protected the article for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Swiss Standard German (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683274989 by J. 'mach' wust (talk) if we don't know the number of speakers, we should say we don't know. that's a primary reason people come to articles like this."
2. 22:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "no, it's not "obvious". If you have an estimate, provide one. otherwise we have no estimate to provide."
3. 17:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 23:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "tag deleted info rather than fighting violation of BOLD"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Swiss Standard German. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Sources for the claim that there are no estimates about number of native speakers? */"

Comments:

• Remark The following comments list about wrestling are not my comments. They are references of a previous post. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Remark What an escalation for a really tiny dispute. I suggest taking no punitive action towards anyone and instead recommend everyone take a step back immediately and ponder how tiny an issue the addition or removal of a '?' to indicate unknown number of speakers is. LjL (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Indeed, what a trivial issue to edit war over. Blocked for 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • And pointless, because we don't use "?" to indicate problems with data in articles, we state what the problem is, either inline or in a footnote. That said, a block for editwarring that already stopped is wrong, being entirely punitive not preventative.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Remark It hasn't been the first edit war this user has been involved in. Savvyjack23 (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  I'm starting to see it, I remember having disputes with him on the articles about the letters of the Latin alphabet, and now right after unblocking, I see POV-smelling edits like this ("or more accurately"? it's just an alternative analysis, and the article is being made awkward just to push its superiority), and right before being blocked, after my comment asking for no punitive action, he went as far as putting "deleted" as the information about the number of speakers of Swiss Standard German, just because others would revert his '?'. I am honestly unimpressed. LjL (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, this wasn't about adding "?", which the reader never saw. The question mark triggers the consensus wording in the template coding. Mach was edit-warring against consensus rather than addressing the consensus. — kwami (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Natural number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.87.64.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: see comments

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [242] 18:37
2. [243] 20:15
3. [244] 20:46
4. [245] 20:52
5. [246] 21:23

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247] 20:55

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An IP user has repeatedly edited the article to remove a claim (well sourced, actually) in the first line. I don't think this is vandalism, per se - we can AGF about the intentions. But the issue has been thoroughly discussed in the talk page, most recently last year [248] and [249]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one year. Long term warring about the definition of a 'whole number' by a variety of IPs, possibly all operated by the same person. The various IPs don't wait for agreement to be reached on the talk page. If you want 'whole number' to be defined differently, open an WP:RFC or use some other method of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)