Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive296

Page: History of the Jews in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

149.62.200.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

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

149.62.200.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

212.5.158.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

[1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10]
10. [11]
11. [12]
12. [13]
13. [14]
14. [15]
15. [16]
16. [17]
17. [18]
18. [19]

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

[20] This is a link to the diff in which I requested others to reach a consensus on the talk page

Comments:
How do I communicate with unregistered users who don't respond to my comments or follow WP:BRD? how do I know whether the first three users are really a single user with a dynamic IP, or multiple IPs?

There may be more than one dispute at issue here, regarding the ethic background of multiple people and the legitimacy of multiple sources. Some illegitimate sources will claim a notable person is Jewish as a matter of pride, while others will make the same claim as part of an attempt at character assassination. When I have translated a cited source web-page from Bulgarian, (shalompr.org) using Google translate, the source had no relation whatsoever to to what it was being used for.

On top of the reverts of content, the reverters have been messing up citations and references, so on the current version of the page, the page generates two cite errors. I have fixed these in the past, but its getting old to repeat the same formatting fixing in the middle of an edit-war or edit-pre-war.

I would also like to note another user in the midst of all this, User:Amusecuiop. He is the only other registered user taking part in this series of events. I have contacted him a number of times on his talk page, but as you can see, while he doesn't seem to be a bad actor, he's not responsive.

I don't mind if the administrator dealing with this also contacts me on my own talk page, even if for only giving me general advice, or general discussion.

—Boruch Baum (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months. Edit warring by IP-hopper. Some users have been breaking the references. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Jennifer Tilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.210.33.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]
6. [27]
7. [28]
8. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

For some unknown reason, this IP insists on blanking that Jennifer Tilly has starred in over 40 episodes of Family Guy from the lead. The IP refuses to discuss it and is instead slowly edit warring. Another user tried to reword it, in case it was the wording that the IP took issue with, but the IP just keeps removing it anyway. Nymf (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected six months. There is a long-term edit war by a single, stable IP but there's also an existing problem of normal IP vandalism by a variety of people. So semi appears justified. It is simpler to do this than try to justify a long-term block of the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Croatian parliamentary election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thewanderer (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. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:

This editor has broken the 3RR rule, engaged himself in a edit-war just and ignored the talk page. He has for last two days repeatedly edited the article and has disrupted the article. Adding his speculation, and without explanation, ignored the pleads to stop edit warring and has broken the 3RR rule. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. User:Thewanderer reverted the article twice more after being notified of this edit-warring complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Howard Hughes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.208.249.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]
6. [44]
7. [45]
8. [46]
9. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user has ignored numerous user talk warnings, all directing them to the article talk page. I feel opening a thread in article talk would be a waste of time. Apparently, the other three or four experienced editors who have been involved with this issue agree.

Comments:
This is a slow-burn edit war. Beginning in July, this user has tried nine (9) times to change Hughes's birthplace without sourcing. They have been reverted by multiple experienced editors, and they have ignored numerous user talk warnings about behavior not only in this article but others as well. I see no end in sight until the user dies, and it would make no sense to continue this edit war indefinitely. Therefore it's either semi-protection or a fairly long-term block, and I think the latter is the more sensible choice as the user is not otherwise a significant contributor to the project. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 6 months Probably more suited to WP:ANI given their posts to Talk:Barack Obama NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Social Democratic Party of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tzowu (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. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

The user shows no intention to stop edit warring. Also before he was engaged in edit wars for a multiple times, also ignoring Wikipedia rules. Now he is introducing not sourced material and ignores the talk page. What els should I have done but report him? He shows no will to end this "conflict". He has done the same thing also on this page Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --Tuvixer (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User Tuvixer is a disruptive editor that is involved in yet another edit war (he's been reported many times), in which he provides no reasonable explanations for his continuous reverts. Every attempt of a discussion with him ends in the same way, he does not accept what others say and keeps acting like he owns an article. Yesterday for example he was involved in one on Croatian parliamentary election, 2015: Tzowu (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

He also has a long history of personal attacks on others, like this one about my parents, for which he got no block.[59] Tzowu (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I was not reported many times. Also by framing me you will not hide your own behavior. You have made no explanations for your continuous reverts on both pages that are liked here. All yo have said about me, actually you have said about yourself. And there is a perfect example, anyone that looks at the article about Social Democratic Party of Croatia can see that you have engaged in a edit war, and have ignored the talk page, like you always do. I have asked a administrator what to do with users like you who behave like they own an article, and I have been instructed, if they do not stop reverting, to report them, as I did with you and that other user. I have not broken the 3RR, and I have been told if it goes to that extent, that I have to break it, then it is better to report a user who obviously will break that rule, rather then to break the 3RR myself. I have always begged users to stop edit-warring and to discuss the matter on the talk page, but I was always ignored. That is very frustrating, and that is Tzowus modus operandi. He always does that, probably hoping that the other user will back up and go away. He is a bully and he needs to be sanctioned. He has used the fact that I am, or was, a new user to the Wikipedia, and exploited that fact. Please stop him. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You were involved in edit wars and was reported way more times than I was, and those in which I was involved are almost all because of your behaviour. Right now you are involved in two of them, and just because your revert was done a few hours after the deadline of 3RR doesn't mean it is fine. Read WP:3RR. I always went to the talk page when you started your unreasonable reverts just because they were done by me and they all ended in the same way, you act like some sort of protector of a page and block any edits to it. This is what those discussions look like, you insult my parents [60], call me a liar [61] [62]... In the last few days you reverted changing of official coalition names (Croatian parliamentary election, 2015) and adding of County prefects numbers to party infoboxes (while for example the Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK) even have the London Assembly in their infoboxes), you are just deliberately disrupting other users edits to get them reported. You should have been topic banned long ago, at least when the incident with Timbouctou happened and you for some reason got out of that without any block. Tzowu (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the history of that page can see that I am not the only user who edits that page, so your argument is invalid. But when you come to a page and edit something, you immediately begin to edit war just because you think that you OWN the article, or maybe have the right to edit whatever you like. Still anything you said does not explain your behavior, and will not exonerate you in any way. I am not forcing anyone to start a edit-war, but I will never back up to bullies like you. You think that you can edit whatever you want and when someone reverts your disruptive edits, you always start a edit war. Well attack is the best defense, and all you are left is with personal attacks on me. I never wanted to report you, but what choice have you left me? Have you shown any good faith and reverted yourself ant tried to resolve the issue on the talk page of the article? You have not. This is about your edits on two articles mentioned in the report. You have not explained your behavior. It would be great if you could explain how I am "deliberately disrupting other users edits to get them reported", wow that is really something. Anyone can see what you are doing. You are all hat and no cattle. Now when you are reported, now you are trying to explain your edits. Well sir, the talk page is for that very reason there, to explain, and not to edit-war, you have ignored that. If you have gone to the talk page, and shown any good faith and reverted yourself, this all could have been avoided. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm not the one going on reverting in a rampage style everything someone adds that I don't like. How many edit wars you had just in the last few months? You started reverting Thewanderer because he added the correct names of party coalitions and me because I added the County prefects/Župans in the infobox of other parties. If you took a look at other parties, like the ones from UK I already mentioned, or the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, you could have seen that others have even more information and more numbers in the infobox, just like I said in the edit summary. But no, you just had to do what you always do, revert and annoy. Just as a note, on every issue we had you were the one that started reverting and edit warring first. On the Economy of Croatia, LGBT Rights in Croatia, Franjo Tuđman, SDP and HNS parties, in all of them you started the rampage for nothing. I had more reasonable discussions even with single purpose IP's on articles that are by itself very controversial. As for this issue, I have nothing more to say. I broke the 3RR rule, but you broke like a dozen of them. And talking about personal attacks... [63] [64] [65] Tzowu (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place for you to explain your edits, you should have done that long before on the talk page of the article in question. You have broken the rule. There is nothing more to say. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. It looks like both sides reached three reverts. If either party continues this dispute without making a serious effort to get support from others on Talk, they may be blocked. There is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia and there is WP:DRN. It can't be hard to find names of people who edit Croatian politics. You could find a neutral way to invite them to join the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Agoda.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

# 11:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70]
6. [71]
7. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]

Comments

• The article has been subjected to ongoing disruptive edits and edit warring by user boonchong_chua, whose history of Wikipedia contributions have focused solely on this article [[80]].

• Edits were inappropriate and unfit for an encyclopedia. Attempts to engage have been made on the article talk page as well as the user's talk page.

• Disruptive editing and edit warring with this particular user has been going on since 2014 [[81]]. History clearly shows edit warring between boonchong_chua and several other users.

• The user also appears to be biased with no intention of improving the Wikipedia article. This diff [[82]] includes what appears to be an exchange between boonchong_chua and Agoda.com customer service. A user bearing the same username - boonchong chua - has been leaving negative reviews on the Agoda.com app page on the Google Play Store claiming that it is a scam.

• The above suggests suggest that boonchong_chua is not contributing to Wikipedia objectively, while violating Wikipedia's content policies, namely neutral point of view and no original research, as well as Wikipedia conduct policies such as consensus.

• Full disclosure: I am the creator of the article. I am also an employee of Agoda Malaysia International (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. I would like to be transparent and abide by Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and paid contributions. Any contributions made on matters related to Agoda.com will remain factual and reliably sourced. My aim is to work with impartial editors on any issues that may arise. As the article creator, I have complied with Wikipedia's paid contribution disclosure guidelines. Disclosures have been made on my talk page and edit summaries.

Asheshong (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Asheshong, an inexperienced editor needs to be warned about edit warring and keep on edit warring before being reported here. This was not done. However I have blocked boonchong_chua for disruptive editing. He is clearly editing in a non-neutral way despite several warnings to desist. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Johann Sebastian Bach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Initial RFC

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Comments out my RFC to avoid outside comments
2. Restores his removal of my RFC
3. Restores his removal of my RFC, despite links to WP:TPO & WP:3RR; removes RFCid number added by bot
4. Nowiki's the RFC
5. Restores Nowiki, despite notice of having passed 3RR and a my previously requested 3rd opinion editor coming by to point out that the RFC itself has no obvious issue & editor has no explained any

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd, notice re: this page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See links and discussion given above.

Comments:
I would say his initial protectionism over the page could fall under good stewardship. It's very hard for me to view repeated attempts to shut down discussion—let alone editing my talk page comments in violation of linked policy well past 3rr—as a positive thing. Also, since we're going to have eyeballs on the page now, kindly add some thoughts on the original issue regarding the formatting of the page's References section. — LlywelynII 14:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC should be worded neutrally before the RfC is launched. Why it is not neutral is explained by another editor who replied to a 3O request, and confirmed by me as the what for me was the reason to consider it lacking in neutrality.

Please LlywelynII consider rewording the RfC more neutrally, then we're all set to launch it properly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, at this point, "over-protective" is a profoundly neutral phrasing of your behavior. I did follow the 3O's advice and removed even that minimal venting from the discussion below the RFC. All the same, your behavior at this point has been such that someone other than me should explain why you should never act like this again. (And then probably yell at me, too.) — LlywelynII 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewording. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I can strike that last comment, the RfC has been reworded neutrally it is launched, and I'm fully OK with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Need to strike my comment as someone had posted something in between so that my comment could have been misconstrued.

Anyway, I'm fully OK with the reworded RfC and it being launched. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears that the revert war over the RfC has stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Programmatic media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Please refer to my earlier comments on the talk page... Key distinction has been overlooked."
2. 00:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684162930 by JohnInDC (talk) no explanation."
3. 21:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684128172 by RichardOSmith (talk) no response on the items listed on talk page. all edits appear redundant"
4. 19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "See talk page"
5. Still at it today [83]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Programmatic media. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Tightening up wording */ support/objections to stubbing?"
2. 19:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Tightening up wording */ r"
3. 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ r"
4. 21:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ request"
5. 21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ cmt"
6. 22:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ r"
7. 23:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
8. 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ Simple is better. Technical readers have other sources of information that Wikipedia (I hope!)"
9. 23:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ cmt"
10. 23:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ ce and sp"
11. 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ Spelling/grammar correction"
12. 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
13. 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ Question on revert to lead"
14. 00:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ PS -"
15. 00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
16. 01:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"

Comments:

Continuing to edit war immediately after previous EW block expired. [84] Jbh^Talk 01:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that despite ongoing discussion this user seems incapable of understanding he does not own the article and have content approval. I fear short blocks are not getting through to them - I know discussion and explanation has not. Jbh^Talk 19:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Jugdev has reached but not exceeded 3RR. The 19:20 edit was not a revert. On the positive side I see lots of discussion taking place. I'm going to hold off taking any action for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn (demo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

• Note from accused: I didn't start the "war" but it is portrayed here as if I did (primefac just happened to get to the page first) - please look at the ins-and-outs before committing.
• primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - end of note from accused

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn (demo):

1. 18:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 18:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684288581 by Primefac (talk) No edit wars please. Leave in my note about why not to delete."
3. 18:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684289098 by Primefac (talk) Further to IRC convo, I cannot forge your signature to add your comment, Please just re-reg your vote."
4. 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684289636 by Primefac (talk) Seriously, lets not play rabbit season, duck season."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Reverts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nalu (demo):

1. Special:Diff/684282046
2. Special:Diff/684286609

Reverts at Orb-3D

1. Special:diff/684282699
2. Special:Diff/684286508
3. Special:Diff/684287661

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Done on IRC, can provide logs upon request. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

User has been on IRC talking to me and Huon regarding some issues they have with this page, but refuse to simply type their response instead of deleting my comments. They have also done similar at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nalu (demo) and Orb-3D Primefac (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments from accused: please check my contributions log, there are other pages. PrimeFac for removes examples from pages to make redirect pages "make sense" - the rabbit season/duck season - we're discussing on IRC and no harm no fowl, I do not like the over-writing of my not close vote. (I did this, to prove a point, user is now doing it - you'll note that the user is not versed in the issues of the page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• • In good faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dawn_%28demo%29 you'll see that I've just added mine again (with a note about the situation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • Additional info:

[20:22] <AnIPAddress> primefac: I hope there's symmetry in the edit war reports.
[unrelated]
[20:23] <primefac> AnIPAddress, I am not at all concerned with this coming back on me

this was sparked by me coming to his attention, the "war" should be considered symmetrically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • Further info

 [20:27] <primefac> while the statement is still true, I did not give them permission to use the comment

I post this to be accurate, PrimeFac is upset I posted a log snippet here, but he said "can provide logs upon request." have I broken some sort of policy by posting a snippet, how would it be okay for him to in that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that depends, if he sent them to you by E-Mail or something then it may be slightly different, but if they were placed anywhere on Wikipedia then they are released for use by their copyright rules on the content added. Also please sign your comment with four ~ as it will help people know who you are without the bot needing to do it for you, especially since the bot can miss you if someone edits the page before it gets to you.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditto51, the IP just copied the chat log directly without my knowledge or consent. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Same as E-Mail, I just didn't even know that there was a chat log...but I imagine the rules would be the same as E-Mail with everything being stated in private.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a no-brainer. The ip has continually written over another editor's comments during an AfD discussion. And apparently they have done it at more than one AfD discussion. The IP's comments above don't appear to make any sort of sense. If the IP editor finally agrees that they understand what they are doing is completely unacceptable, then let's move on. If not, a short ban might be in order to help them understand. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment this has moved past edit warring and straight onto an agenda. They have (yet again) removed my comment from an AFD. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 683635858

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

The Stone Roses (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC) "no, the editor who weighed in had no issue with the "most overrated" listings being added further down. did that, since NOBODY OWNS THE ARTICLE"
2. 15:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "rv vandalism. user thinks pointing to irrelevant doctrines justifies everything he does to protect his favourite album from any criticism. again restoring my fully cited, uncontroversial edit"
3. 11:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "rv vandalism: removal of citation addition because user just doesn't like it and thinks he owns the article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Stone Roses (album). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussion at Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#Greatest ever vs. overrated and Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Should this revision be retained? clpo13_(talk) 07:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Dan56 (talk · contribs) also appears to have violated WP:3RR: 16:26, October 4, 2015, 07:44, October 5, 2015, and 12:55, October 5, 2015. clpo13_(talk) 07:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of 3RR, but do not feel I have violated it as I was reverting vandalism. A culture has developed on the article, whereby User:Dan56 reverts my cited additions and says I somehow need consensus to edit. It's a nauseating, repeated violation of WP:OWN, as he desperately tries to bend Wikipedia doctrines to keep my additions out. At this stage in the game, it's safe to say he's vandalising by just removing things as he pleases, because he evidently loves the album and can't bear a little criticism of it.

It's interesting how User:Clpo13 acknowledges that Dan56 has also violated 3RR, yet I'm the one reported. Not treating IP users as second-class citizens at all, there. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Think what you want, but you've both been reported and you've both violated WP:3RR. clpo13_(talk) 08:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Uncontroversial vandalism. WP:NOT3RR clpo13_(talk) 08:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 is removing cited material, and has been outed by a senior admin as a problem editor. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to reach a compromise on the article. I've gutted one of the cites I added, which Dan56 feels is not credible, and retained the other since it was penned by an author who has written for the likes of the Guardian, Rolling Stone and ABC. I've also softened the negative tone somewhat. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. As has been pointed out to you several times now, that is not vandalism and not an exception to 3RR. Dan56 seems to have reached but not exceeded 3 reverts so I will continue to monitor their edits. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]
5. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page and through edit summaries

1. [95]

Also see

1. [96] see edit summary
2. [97] see edit summary

Comments: I believe the user is an admin.
DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a boomerang here if this wasn't already part of an ongoing GMO ArbCom case. JzG only had three reverts when you look at continuous edits. DrChrissy however tried to keep edit warring their content back in while not using the talk page at all:

• 11:13, October 5 Added content based on a primary source [98]
• 12:20, October 5 Re-added after it was removed asking for secondary sources. [99]
• 12:29, October 5 Re-added again. [100]
• 12:55, October 5 Later added a separate piece of content based on another primary source after being asked already not to do this. [101]

One can debate whether the last one counts as a "revert" or not, but it seems to indicate a mentality of running up editors to 3RR with one piece of content, then moving to another very similar piece. I had two reverts in the process trying to get DrChrissy to stop and come to the talk page with still no comment there at this time from DrChrissy.[102][103]

I think it would be best to put this page under full page protection until the ArbCom case is over. I'm not sure if AN3 or admins here can do anything with the case open (not sure on when the prelim discretionary sanctions can kick in), so I'll ask Guerillero and L235 what the protocol should be here since they've been active at the case recently. Maybe this has a better place at the case itself, so it's probably best to see what they or other clerks/arbitrators say rather than continue this further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 is anxious to deflect from his own edit warring on the same page here,[104] here[105] and here.[106] It is quite clear that he and JzG are tandem-edit warring to push a mutual POV. I would have brought this to the attention of the admins here, but I was not sure of the procedure and although Kingofaces43 is definitely edit warring, he has technically not broken 3RR. I strongly urge admins to consider this as an isolated, but extremely disruptive, incident by JzG/Guy that should not be pushed over to ArbCom - they are already busy enough. I am confident that admins and the community can deal with this "in-house".DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that [107] and [108] are part of an uninterrupted series of edits in succession on my part. Removing a newly proposed piece of content followed by another revert asking the editor again to stop edit warring and come to the talk page is something I have no problem being open about, contrary to the aspersion that I'm "deflecting". Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This is within the scope of the case at ArbCom, and I have requested page protection: [109], which could also be an appropriate outcome here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The page has been full protected for one week. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• So, DrChrissy is editing an article with biomedical content, despite being topic-banned from biomedical topics (ssomething he tacitly acknowledges here), is being reverted by a couple of other editors, WP:OWNs the article, and, as always with DrChrissy, the problem is everybody else - which is why he was topic-banned from biomedical articles in the first place. I don't know about anyone else, but I can work with Atsme, SageRad and all manner of other people, but not DrChrissy, because DrChrissy consistently assumes bad faith, asserts that only xyr POV is neutral, argues by assertion and can't even spell compromise. A boomerang here would be richly deserved and would give the resto of us a chance to stop that article being list of reasons Glyphosphate is the spawn of Satan and turn it into something resembling a decent article that the reader might get more than halfway through before losing the will to live. As per Talk, in fact. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 21:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

At least I can spell "something"! The reason I was making those entries into Glyphosate was to introduce general information that glyphosate is found in our waterways. Nothing more, nothing less. This is to help the reader understand that the herbicide is out there in our aquatic environments, and the section then leads into toxicity in fish and aquatic mammals. My edits did not include any "scary" terms about the spawn of Satan, they simply provided RS-supported evidence about a fact something many of us already know - glyphosate is in our water systems. Regarding comments about not/working with "all manner of people", please restrict your comments to content and not the editors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I spell really rather well, but type inaccurately due to bone-deep burn scars on the fingers of my left hand. Your statement here was redundant to all the other self-excusing statements you always make every time your behaviour is questioned. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: The Flash (2014 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.135.14.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [110]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]
5. [115]
6. [116]
7. [117]
8. [118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

Comments:

I am well aware that I myself accidentally went over the three-reverts limit by one, and will accept the consequences of this. My reverts were in good faith to restore the article to status quo against a troublesome IP editor. Alex|The|Whovian 12:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I was already in the process of looking at the edit situation when you made the report. Tabercil (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: May I kindly ask any Administrator to please notice that the reporting editor did not even mention with one word the actual issue at hand. Kindly take some time and read through the discussion on AlextheWovian's talk page - you will notice that the reporting editor failed to provide any Wikipedia Policy or Guideline when he was asked to provide a policy or guideline to support his removal of the Episode headline from a TV series. Even worse, this editor thought he could bypass Wikipedia's rules by proving a user-generated essay and a Wikipedia Information page as an explanation of his edits. This proves that this editor has no policy or guideline support for his edits.
  I went to the The Flash article in order to see when the latest Flash episode would air. To my surprise I didn't find the Episode link in the TOC. Some editor in June 2015 removed the Episode headline from the main article without establishing any consensus, and without providing any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and hid the Episode link underneath the Premise headline. The Premise headline has nothing to do with Episodes. As a result of this, readers of this article have their time wasted by scrolling down the entire article searching for the Episode link. Sure, the editors who hid the Episode link know that it is right there at the top underneath the Premise headline. But the casual reader of the article doesn't know this. Mostly all other TV series article have the Episode headline in the TOC. Those TV article who don't have the Episodes in the TOC have been tampered with by the reporting editor or his buddies.
  Also notice this short discussion here from one other reverting editor who appeared on the article after Editor AlextheWovian exhausted his 3 reverts. Coincidence? If any Editor wants to lower the quality of the article by hiding the Episode link from the TOC, they should please provide a Wikipedia Policy or Guideline to support their edit. Blocking me is not the solution to this issue. Thank you. 77.4.168.182 (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This user is now a self-admitted sock puppet, using different IPs to get around their block. Alex|The|Whovian 13:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Tabercil issued a block and I've semiprotected the article. The page seems to have a problem with long-running IP vandalism independent of this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

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

3RR warning: [121]

Comments: I realize I've provided no diffs above, but it's fairly easy to see just by looking at the history of the article. RedBoyLI and BlueboyLI, both SPAs (RedBoy more so), have been having their own little private edit war on this article (this is not a report of a 3RR breach) since about September 28, which is when RedBoy created an account (the BlueBoy account is much older), clearly in an effort to mock the other account. Whether the red and blue in the usernames signify the two main American political parties, I'm not sure, but my guess is they do. I've been watching this little battle for some time in frustration because, unfortunately, due to a few past edits, I am WP:INVOLVED. So, finally on October 2, I warned both users about edit-warring. For a few days it was quiet, whether in response to my warning or not, don't know. I'm bringing this report because RedBoy reverted again. As you can see from his response to my warning, he thinks he's right and the other party is wrong. He also mysteriously thinks he's not reverting ("I have rarely ever reverted of edited any of BlueBoyLI's edits. He has edited every single one of my edits without fail. I understand this is an edit war however I am not the one at fault in this matter, BlueBoyLI has never allowed me to make an edit to this page."). There's nothing new under the sun.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you suggest what uninvolved admins should do? Except for occasional copyvio (text may be taken verbatim from press releases) I don't see any flagrantly bad edits. But both parties are risking sanction for long-term edit warring. Since 28 September they continue to revert one another without any use of the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Although there may be more, two possibilities come to mind. The first is to extract an agreement that they won't edit the article. The problem with that is the duration. In their case, one week simply wouldn't be long enough. If you make it too long, which seems to be warranted, you are effectively topic banning them. The other is to block them and to escalate the blocks if they resume the battle after block expiration. BTW, although I officially reported only RedBoy, I knew that one of the possible results would be blocking them both. For that reason, I notified BlueBoy of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm also curious about the similarity of the usernames. It seems unlikely these two would be created independently and be interacting with each other ... Redboy has now responded with a promise not to edit war. I suggest we wait and see. I'll watch list the article now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Wait and see, per User:MSGJ. I've warned both User:RedBoyLI and User:BlueboyLI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: File:08klemperer.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stefan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:08klemperer.jpg&oldid=684143704

Diffs of the user's reverts: [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [127]

Resolution is available in edits on talk page and in edit summaries. With each revert a new additional explanation was given as well as discussion that adding the template was incorrect. See User talk:Stefan2. CFCF 💌 📧 22:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Seeking discussion at WP:FFD is not edit warring. Are you honestly suggesting that I should list a file for deletion without tagging the file as such? Enforcing WP:NFCC is not edit warring per WP:3RRNO §5. Also, you are not to delete file deletion tags from file information pages. That is to be done by an admin when the tag is evaluated after the timeframe specified in the template has expired, see {{uw-idt1}}. That's why we have templates such as {{hangon}} and {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the {{non-free reduce}} template is unrelated to the first two edits as it is about a different part of WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You should simply not be listing the file for deletion when you have no rationale and it is disputed, and should especially not reintroduce those templates. Your edits amount to edit-warring despite my efforts to introduce clarifying text you simply reinserted the template without so much as specifying any reason why it should belong. Deletion tags can be deleted as per WP:SNOW and do not need to be closed by admins as on commons. Neither does edit-warring require the exact same reverts, it specifies reverts in general. This is clear disruptive behavior and amounts to WP:POINTY, and the fact that the first three diffs are rotations of the same template makes no difference.

Each of my edits added content or specific rationale despite being clearly infer-able from the description text. I tried to improve the text and add information on why this page would be inapplicable for deletion. This is despite policy dictating that it isn't to use the specific template for rationale. Neither is it needed to specifically state that a new image of a dead author can not be taken, that can be inferred and was included in the description and clarified with each subsequent edit. CFCF 💌 📧 22:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The addition of {{non-free reduce}} has nothing to do with the other edits as it has nothing to do with the points at WP:NFCC which were addressed in the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template. WP:SNOW only applies in the event of obviously erroneous deletion tags. The snowball clause is normally only to be used if a lot of users disagree with the nominator and few agree with the nominator, but there were only two editors who made any statements about the file's compliance with WP:NFCC – you and me. Hardly the kind of 'mass agreement' that you'd expect in snowball cases. In this case, you just need to check WP:FUR#Necessary components and WP:NFCC#10c and you will immediately spot the errors in the original revision:

1. WP:NFCC#10c states 'The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item' but the page says 'his article' without specifying any article title. The page does not even specify who 'he' is (although the person's last name appears in the file name).
2. WP:NFCC#10c states that there should be 'a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item' but the page states that the file is to be used 'to illustrate his article' without telling why the image is supposed to illustrate the article or on what rationale it should illustrate the article.
3. WP:FUR#Necessary components states 'What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage?' i.e. the FUR should explain why the image is thought to comply with WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3 but there is no information whatsoever about this. See for example WP:NFC#UUI §7 which addresses some images which do not satisfy WP:NFCC#2. The image is sourced to a newspaper, and newspapers contain many images of the kind which are deemed unacceptable per WP:NFC#UUI §7. How can I tell if this is one of those kinds of images when there is no information about this on the file information page?
4. Next bullet point at WP:FUR#Necessary components: 'If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original?' but there is no statement about WP:NFCC#3b anywhere on the page. The article uses a significantly smaller thumbnail, so why do we need this larger image on the file information page?
5. Next bullet point at WP:FUR#Necessary components: 'What purpose does the image serve in the article?' The file information page only says 'to illustrate his article' but the purpose of an image is always to 'illustrate' an article. It is obvious that you need to be more specific, as you see from reading the four indented bullet points below this bullet point.
6. Next non-indented bullet point at WP:FUR#Necessary components: 'Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media.' The file information page states 'Dead in 2012'. WP:NFCC#1 states 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created'. That he is dead shows that no content can be created, but is there any free content which already exists? It seems that he worked for several years in the United States, and United States copyright law is a bit 'special' in that photos first published in the United States may be in the public domain in the United States because it was published without a copyright notice before 1989 or without a copyright renewal before 1964. Why are there for example thought not to be any such photos? The copyright notice & renewal rules can't be applied to photographs first published outside the United States, though – such photos normally remain copyrighted for 95 years from publication in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

{{non-free reduce}} was added twice and in addition to being WP:POINTY it does not fall under

Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Also 3RR-violation is unrelated to reason for the reverts, specifically:

An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.

There key here is unquestionable, and with rationale specified in the exact manner allowed by you even you concede the image is allowed-that doesn't sound like a unquestionable violation.

What we are getting at is that in each edit I made it full clear how and that I was trying to answer your specific concerns and you ignored and chose not to engage-simply readding the templates.CFCF 💌 📧 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, I have only added {{non-free reduce}} once to the page. After this, another user added the template to the page, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is a TROUT to both. To CFCF, you should not remove FFD tags; they should only be removed by SNOW if it is clear at FFD that the discussion is in favor of keeping the image. Additionally, Stefan is right about the non-free reduce aspect - that image is larger than it needs to be here. To Stefan2, a quick check shows that this seems like a valid image to be used (the infobox image for a deceased person) and while the NFCC rationale criteria needed to be fixed up, tagging for deletion is absolutely not the right way to go about it; it is a fixable problem that did need to be fixed to meet policy, but not with a heavy hand and edit warring to make it. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is that CFCF insisted that the WP:NFCC violations mustn't be corrected. Per WP:NFCC, files which do not satisfy WP:NFCC are to be deleted – and since CFCF goes against any attempt to fix the file, the only other outcome is deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No that is not the problem, each and every edit I made opted to clarify. Also instead of tagging the file as being needed to improve or actually filling out the rationale as per your liking yourself you started out with deletion. The text included the entire rational, it does not need to be spelt out in your preferred machine-readable format, that is policy (WP:NFCC). The problem is that readding frivolous deletion tags when the rationale is clearly specified in text is WP:POINTY in addition to here a violation of WP:3RR. CFCF 💌 📧 00:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, the so-called 'rationale' didn't contain any of the elements needed in a rationale, and without knowing anything about the origin of the image, it is not possible to write a fair use rationale which properly addresses WP:NFCC#2 or WP:NFCC#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

2. & 4. The rationale linked those from the start ([128])! It specifies the NYTIMES obituary where the image was from and it specified that it was to be used in the article on Klemens von Klemperer only - so that proposition is patently false.
Also that is not the issue at hand here. The fact is that you violated 3RR despite my best attempts to in each edit to clarify, discuss, explain and to comply to your preferred format for showing the rationale (despite not needing to). CFCF 💌 📧 00:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

For 2, you need to know if it is an image of the kind mentioned in WP:NFC#UUI §7 or not. I am not able to tell whether this is the case from that source alone. The fact that the image comes from a newspaper could suggest this. About 4, sorry, I must have mixed this up with another image. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Stefan2 has reached but not exceeded 3RR (two of the diffs provided were not reverts). He/she should avoid this in future by seeking outside assistance instead of warring with the tag. CFCF has 5 reverts within 24 hours, and I suggest a 24 hour block for a first offence. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That is entirely incorrect, and without any supportive evidence. Both has Stefan2 violated 3RR, and I have not. Each edit I made opted to answer Stefan2's concerns and did so. Despite my attempts to discuss and improve the rationale to exact spefication requested by a single user (and not supported by policy) templates were simply reintroduced. The fact that the templates differed in minor extent does not exempt from 3RR, they are all the same type of revert and calling it anything else is WP:Gaming the system. They are either simple redirects or very close alternatives.CFCF 💌 📧 10:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I admit that this was in error, [129]. I don't know how it happened and it must have been a miss-click from the watchlist page on my phone. Being one of the lasts edits of the night I was unable to see that it was accidental before this morning (I have since reverted it and will make sure to disable the rollback option on my phone (those links are less than 0,5mm high). CFCF 💌 📧 10:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I accept your explanation, but that was your fifth revert in 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, seeking outside assistance was precisely the intention of listing the file at WP:FFD – that's one of the places where you can find outside assistance about files. It might have been better to list the file at WP:NFCR instead, but it was late and I guess I was tired and that I didn't think as clearly as I should have. Sorry about that. Still, inserting the {{ffd}} template was not a reversion, nor was inserting the {{non-free reduce}} template a reversion. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Inserting {{Ffd}} is a very clear example of a revert, even though it was not the exact same template merely an alternative with ever so slightly different wording and formatting. As for {{Non-free reduce}} it is at least considered WP:POINTY to add it just after the prolonged issues with adhering to exact specifications of an arbitrary non-required template. CFCF 💌 📧 11:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Inserting FFd was not a revert. That is a different template with a different purpose (deletion discussion rather than speedy deletion). I'm not interested in analysing this further and presenting the diffs - the history of the page is sufficient evidence to any administrator of your violation of 3RR. I would also prefer not to sully your clean block log. What I am looking for at this stage is some kind of acceptance of your actions and reassurance that it will not reoccur. Your combative attitude is not really helping. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I will agree I have acted rashly in this case and have potentially overstepped my bounds. I did not consider removing the template once rationale had been filled out as a revert, but take it to heart. That said I am gladdened and hopeful that in the future we can use WP:NFCR in lieu of deletion nominations. As was clear there was a rationale for this image and if it were that the original uploader was not able to comment upon a deletion nomination within the specified time-period there is risk it may occur in error without sufficient review. CFCF 💌 📧 11:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case I second Masem's suggestion above. Consider yourselves trouted and let's move on. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Aziz Sancar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684559249 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684559564 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684560203 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684561138

Blocked 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Logom's actions need looking at too, but don't have time now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Logom was reported by User:Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb at AIV. While not vandalism, it's clear they were also edit warring. Blocked 24 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Scottish Parliament election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.98.38.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

1. 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

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

Comments:

I am disappointed that User:Jmorrison230582 has reported me for this. I am mewrely trying to defend a consensus that was previously established by a large number of wikipedia editors. On a number of occassions I have tried to point User:Jmorrison230582 and others in the direction of where this consensus was established. I have also engaged on the Talk page and User:Jmorrison230582 has not. Instead the argum,ent has been misrepressented (I suspect because no one has bothered to go and check what consensus was established). I have been trying to engage in dialogue on various talk pages, the same can't be said for others. When I revert an edit, I give good reason why, others have just done so. I am disappointed that User:Jmorrison230582 has reported me for this and has also started going through my edit history to start unding other constructive edits I have made, again User:Jmorrison230582 fails to say why or engage properly on the talk page. I am trying to act in good faith. It is ashame I am not met with the sameapproach. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been warned about your edit warring, yet you continue to do it! You have not pointed out where this supposed consensus was reached. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

GB fan beat me to it. Blocked for 31 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Book of Isaiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ofthepeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [131]
2. [132]
3. [133]
4. [134]
5. [135]
6. [136]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have informed the user of basic requirements for editing Wikipedia at [138].

Comments:

The reported user is a fundamentalist POV-pusher who does not recognize WP:RNPOV, WP:VER and WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Bongbong Marcos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Adon12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684597428 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism per WP:BLPSOURCES"
2. 15:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684583988 by Non-dropframe (talk) Suggest discussing this on talk page WP:BLP"
3. 15:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "source is not reliable"
4. 15:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bongbong Marcos. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User reverted three different editors. These are this user's only contributions, subsequent to two identical reverts by IP 180.191.158.132 Scr★pIron^IV 20:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: User talk:MarkDennehy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOverview_of_gun_laws_by_nation&type=revision&diff=684428707&oldid=684407207

Comments:

This user is constantly adding passive-aggressive text naming me as an individual on both the talk page of the subject and on my user talk page, to the point where they are in effect harassing me. This is not an edit war over a data point or an article any longer for them; it's now personalised trolling of some sort. Compromise isn't even possible to approach because the edit is just a personal attack. MarkDennehy (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation#To the knowledge of User:MarkDennehy.E2.80.8E: ammunition aquisition of Swiss militia guns. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I recommend a WP:BOOMERANG here. MarkDennehy had little cause to remove ZH8000's article talk page post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ZH8000's reply illustrates the problem here - "To the knowledge of User:MarkDennehy" was the title of his edit. Not "Ammunition acquisition for Swiss militia guns", but specifically naming an individual; the actual topic was not the main concern for this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDennehy (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note I'm not taking any action against either party. Neither acquitted themselves well. MarkDennehy should not have removed ZH8000's post at the article Talk page. ZH8000 could have made his post in a different way. His choice was at best odd. Neither party had any basis for edit-warring. Someone should have stopped earlier and reported it. Finally, ZH8000 posted three warnings to MarkDennehy's Talk page. The first one (refactoring) was fine. The second (refactoring) was not, as the first had already been removed by MarkDennehy. ZH8000 had no basis for insisting. The third (edit-warring) was fine because it was a new warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I added yesterday the Italian pronounciation of the word "Mafia" in the same page, as it was already been done for similar pages (Pizza). But a registered user, who was already blocked twice for edit warring, has started an edit war reverting all I do, even when I wrote clearly "Italian pronunciation:" and when I added also British and American pronounciations too. I tried talking to him, asking why my edits were incorrect and had made the article worse. He answered just that theye were useless because everyone know how it is pronounced and most people cannot read IPA. I wonder why he does not says the same for "Pizza" and similar words. Now I am asking you administrators: am I wrong or is he? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.11.124 (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Both blocked. IP, you need to respect the WP:BRD principle. If you are reverted, don't try to reapply the same edit again but take it to talk. Kurzon has violated 3RR on the article and has been blocked accordingly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Far Cry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.161.234.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP editor in violation of 3RR and refusing to follow BOLD... Two dissenting editors who have provided multiple reliable secondary sources that refer to a new game in the Far Cry series as a "spin off", as opposed to a part of the main sequence.

IP's original edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_Cry&diff=684521743&oldid=684521116 This was reverted by AdrianGamer with source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_Cry&diff=684567707&oldid=684566599

IP editor reverted AdrianGamer again and further sources were provided in article and on the IP's talk page. A total of 7 reverts from the IP now.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_Cry&diff=684724932&oldid=684712001
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_Cry&diff=684726954&oldid=684726410
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_Cry&diff=684729168&oldid=684728582
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_Cry&diff=684730241&oldid=684729948
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_Cry&diff=684730670&oldid=684730418
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_Cry&diff=684731509&oldid=684731218

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_Cry&curid=12311762&diff=684730418&oldid=684730241
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A207.161.234.95&type=revision&diff=684730522&oldid=684729805

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Far_Cry&diff=684730272&oldid=637431743

Comments:

-- ferret (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This may be a moot report. I didn't think ARV would handle this IP because it's not clear vandalism just edit warring, but the user is now vandalizing user pages of involved editors and attempting to revert this report. -- ferret (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked on the basis of this report, as the edit warring is clear. While they were not primary reasons for the block, the IP's vandalism of others' user pages and disruption of this noticeboard were also unacceptable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:87.6.116.237 here is keeping making an uncorrect edit (the IPA is corrupted because of uncorrect syntax) and here is keeping reverting my text where I had already explained what he wants to say but he wants to be the one who says it (moreover, the problem which we were talking about in the talk page had already been solved in the article, and the source he now is keeping adding has already been added in the article by another user, which makes this edit-war totally needless).
Obviously, I won't edit anything until an administrator decides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.81.64 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page: List of wars involving Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• User being reported: Courtier1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps edit warring List of wars involving Cyprus with obvious nationalist motives (making claims that openly contradict information in main articles, removing academic sources without any explanation while doing so), and is impossible to communicate with. Approaches have been either met with personal attacks or ignored. Given there was a similar case in March, I strongly suspect this is another sock puppet of User:GiorgosY. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No edit war rules were violated, since no more than three reverts were made in 24 hours. You can see from the history who is edit warring in the article, and who has being blocked for it and that is not me, but User:Mikrobølgeovn. User:Mikrobølgeovn has being engaged in edit warring, in the same article, and is keep deleting the victories of the one side, for months now, which is a sign of POV and disruptive editing. In addition it has engaged in team work in pushing POV with other users, which is a sign of a meat puppet.Ron1978 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

Reverting three times or less on a regular basis, while throwing in the same one-liners and personal attacks whilst refusing to discuss, is also edit warring. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion from my part in the talk page of the article, while there is none from User talk:Mikrobølgeovn who also keeps deleting all the victories of the one side, with out previous discussions on what so ever. The non-reliability of User talk:Mikrobølgeovn in what he is saying, including the false personal attacks, is obvious here, in each case. He is the one that calls nationalists the ones that are adding the NPOV, including me, while he is keep deleting it and comes with false accusations and reports them each time. A look in the talk page, and in the history of the article proves what I am sayingRon1978 (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

So how come you conveniently ignore the main articles? If you want to make changes, that's the place to start. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Brandon & Leah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [edited]

User being reported

Checkingfax (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 04:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 04:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 04:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Winkelvi: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caitlyn_Jenner&oldid=681428873#Wikipedia:Village_pump_.28policy.29.2FArchive_121.23MOS:IDENTITY_clarification_close. (TW)"
   2. 04:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Brandon Jenner */ retired"
      1. Comment - This is a bonifide edit not a revert Checkingfax (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
2. 03:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Winkelvi (talk): See [MOS:IDENTITY]] (gender) and Village Pump (archive). (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation, however, article is connected to Caitlyn Jenner, which has discretionary sanctions attached to it. DS warning placed on editor's talk page here -- editor chose to revert again in spite of warning. Page protection requested here prior to reversion by editor being reported. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I have placed a dialogue request at Usertalk:Winkelvi to work this out like Wikipedians but there has been no response. Winkelvi has reverted Brandon & Leah 4-times in less than 24-hours. I have done 2 reversions in good faith to uphold the MOS:IDENTITY policy. The Caitlyn Jenner article is 1RR AFAIK. Brandon & Leah is 3RR AFAIK. I rely on my interpretion of MOS:IDENTITY coupled with the discussion here at the Village Pump. Please advise. IMHO, Winkelvi is illinformed, and therefore his/her good faith reverts are in fact the only disruption to the page, and he/she should be slapped with a trout before things escalate. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, see also WP:ANI#User:Winkelvi and silent removal[139] by Winkelvi of encouragement to engage and reply to Checkingfax's queries. —Sladen (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Page protected 48 hours protection while you work it out. I saw the RFPP first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: RPG-29 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LeuCeaMia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:LeuCeaMia is unwilling to take part on a civil dialogue and keep making false accusation and personal attacks; on mine and the article's talk page. Also, User:LeuCeaMia is running an edit war with disruptive edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RPG-29&diff=684531415&oldid=681606039
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RPG-29&diff=684716088&oldid=684558323
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RPG-29&diff=684723153&oldid=684722161
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RPG-29&diff=684733355&oldid=684724525

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RPG-29&diff=684733355&oldid=684724525

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RPG-29&diff=684726405&oldid=684723008

Comments:

After my response on the article talk page, another revert was immediately done. Nenzza (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You've both reached 3 reverts within 24 hours. I strongly suggest it stops now otherwise blocks will be issued to both of you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made two reverts, the first, was in good faith with the renew of the url and to expand the references for further clarification, see diff: 1. User:LeuCeaMia on the contrary, vandalized my user and talk page with some awkward accusation after I left him/her a message. Furthermore, even at the article's talk page, User:LeuCeaMia keep arguing with an abusive language, and after I proposed a solution, the User went straight to revert the article once more, see diff: 2. The aforementioned User have reached four reverts in 24 hours not only three. Thanks Nenzza (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Swarm ♠ 04:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Reporter is probable sock-pocket with no edits aside from the adding back of false outdated information, which was originally added by another probable sock-puppet. The source is not only self published but has already been said as unverified and a likely hoax by its author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeuCeaMia (talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You keep making weak and false accusation against me. That mean behavior is unsuitable for any civil dialog. I've proposed a solution how we could get over it, but you are refusing stubbornly any constructive discussion. If you continue to behave that way, I may consider a report at the ANI. Nenzza (talk) 14:46, 9 October 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)

Previous version reverted to: [140]

Diffs of the user's reverts today:

1. [141]
2. [142]
3. [143]
4. [144]
5. [145]
6. [146]
7. [147]
8. [148]
9. [149]
10. [150]
11. [151]
12. [152]
13. [153]
14. [154]
15. [155]

Persistant introduction of his creationist "references":

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158]
4. [159]

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

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

Comments:

The user:Here to sway, as single-purpose user (WP:SPU), has been a chronic disruption to this article since its creation in mid-September, when he created his account. He has shown absolutely no willingness to collaborate and never acknowledges the consensus in the Talk:Homo naledi page. Some of his most disruptive behaviors besides persistent reverts include WP:ICANTHEARTHAT, WP:EDITWAR, WP:OWN, refuses ALL Wikipedia:Consensus on ALL issues discussed, and indulges in massive amounts of ill-conceived WP:Wikilawyering. The article Homo naledi was locked or protected twice because of his edit warring, but to no avail.

Other editors involved in trying to contain him are:

• Drbogdan
• CuriousMind01
• Samsara
• Animalparty
• Nthep
• Clpo13
• Khajidha

Thank you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm BatteryIncluded's findings, and would add that Here to sway had a previous 3RR warning (from me). Samsara 16:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There has been a meeting of minds, including one edit today by administrator Samsara which I answered with a clarification[160]. The problems of the article are mentioned at the talk page, including one of the editors in particular focusing on one of the 47+3 main players of the Homo naledi topic. Some of the named editors have an affinity to cherrypicking one of Berger's theories and featuring it in the article's lede. Here to sway (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Tich (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 15:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   2. 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 15:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 15:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Changed false info."
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 15:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 15:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 15:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "The main entry. previously it was false."
   2. 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "previously was false"
6. Consecutive edits made from 15:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 15:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 15:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Tich (singer). (TW)"
2. 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Tich */ new section"
3. 15:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "comment"
4. 15:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Tich (singer). (TW)"
5. 15:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Tich. (TW)"
6. 15:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Tich. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

--Karst (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for WP:BLP violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Timi Yuro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bandstandmike (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 05:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 05:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"
   2. 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC) to 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"
   2. 22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"
   3. 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"
4. 06:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 05:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Timi Yuro. (TW)"
3. 05:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Timi Yuro. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There appears to be a conflict of interest here. Editor claims to control the subject's estate but is adding in information which is entirely unsourced which reads like an advert while boosting their own part in the subject's career. Egghead06 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest...I'm curious as to what egghead06 interest is, since this info has been on the page for quite sometime. I legally control her estate, and included links in the ref section to the CD releases which I speak of. I do run her official fan page, and it's letting fans know where they can come for information. I also control her music, and am just posting about current releases, and included links for the official press releases of both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandstandmike (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User:24.140.70.95 here appears to be the same user making the same unsourced and self promoting edits.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – by User:Yunshui for advertising or promotion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Emma Swan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jaklin213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684938173 by Ingise (talk)"
2. 18:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684938104 by Ingise (talk)"
3. 18:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937874 by Ingise (talk)"
4. 18:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937529 by Ingise (talk) Significant Other: a person with whom someone has an established romantic or sexual relationship."
5. 18:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937402 by Ingise (talk)"
6. 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937365 by Ingise (talk)"
7. 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937249 by Ingise (talk)"
8. 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937169 by Ingise (talk)"
9. 18:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937111 by Ingise (talk)"
10. 18:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684936933 by Ingise (talk)"
11. 18:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684936849 by Ingise (talk)"
12. 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684936689 by Ingise (talk)"
13. 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684936646 by Ingise (talk)"
14. Consecutive edits made from 18:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 18:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    1. 18:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684935866 by Ingise (talk)"
    2. 18:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684936054 by Ingise (talk)"
15. 18:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684935764 by Ingise (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Emma Swan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 18:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 18:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "significant others include people who care about her, she sacrifice for Regina, they are friends and they share a son. Stop with your ship war. by Jaklin213 (talk)"
4. 18:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937470 by Jaklin213 (talk)"
5. 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937388 by Jaklin213 (talk)"
6. 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937193 by Jaklin213 (talk)"
7. 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684937127 by Jaklin213 (talk)"
8. 18:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684936958 by Jaklin213 (talk)"
9. 18:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684936866 by Jaklin213 (talk)"
10. 18:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684936723 by Jaklin213 (talk)"
11. 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684936110 by Jaklin213 (talk)"
12. 18:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684936083 by Jaklin213 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Book of Isaiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bereandave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [161]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [162]
2. [163]
3. [164]
4. [165]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not needed, these are original research based upon a primary religious source, i.e. policy violations.

Comments:

Probably a sockpuppet of Ofthepeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(previously blocked for edit warring), SPI pending. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Islam in Scandinavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [167]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]
5. [172]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [173]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see discussion

Comments: Sam Sailor and I have tried to explain to this editor that they need to cite reliable sources and stop edit warring, but to no avail. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is the first day the reported user has been editing. Judging by the discussion on his or her talk page, s/he appears to have a misunderstanding of the referencing policies. Blocking him or her now will not help, as ultimately s/he has to understand the relevant policies. Perhaps higher levels of user warnings can be given, but blocking isn't going to solve any issue. I think we should assume good faith for the moment, since the user has been editing for five hours only, which would make it a bit bitey for an admin to block him/her. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, The Average Wikipedian. Am I OK to go ahead and revert their unsourced additions to Islam in Scandinavia, though? I don't want to edit war myself, but the population estimates are in no way supported by the (in any case likely unreliable) sources that the editor is pointing to. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I believe you overlooked my use of the non-administrator observation template. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, The Average Wikipedian, so I did (not that an admin would necessarily be able to give better advice, and I suppose it's dangerous to act on the advice of one editor in any case, so perhaps I shouldn't have asked). Anyway, Sam Sailor has tagged the article as unreliable, which deals with the issue for the time being. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. In addition to violating 3RR on the article, the user is on a disruptive crusade. They revert bots. They "change" article titles. I don't care how new they may be. The whole package is very disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: List of French Open women's singles champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fyunck(click) (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. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Comments:I have tried to put the correct names for players in the tables citing the guideline from MOS:BIO Section 2.1.2 Changed names. Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is ignoring guideline keeps reverting back to previous version with the wrong names and has done so 3 times in the last 24 hours.
Tennisvine (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• You know something, I tried to be nice and not report this new user. You always have to assume good intent I feel. We have tried to explain to this newbie how things work at wikipedia and it doesn't seem to be working. He is being reverted by not just me by the way, so I'm not sure why he's singling me out, but ok, I can be the one that deals with it. There has been discussion lately at Tennis Project Guidelines on how to handle maiden names in charts so that readers can follow that it is the same player. New user User:Tennisvine knows this since he started the conversation there. So there's no mystery that he was informed. In tennis history, official draws use things like miss Jane Doe, mrs Jane Book, Mrs Jane Doe Book, Mrs Fred Book, Mrs Fred Doe Book. In tables we often number victories from a single player. It makes it very difficult for new readers to follow in a chart like "List of French Open women's singles champions" if a player is the same person. We had a person not know that Billie Jean Moffitt was Really Billie Jean King. Other have removed victories because they didn't know it was the same player. So we are discussing the best way to handle this at the Project Guidelines page. Whether we use footnotes, maiden name with the married name, etc... It has been rough sledding, and it takes time. But User:Tennisvine can't wait. he is changing this article along with Helen Wills and multiple editors are reverting him. We posted this at the French Open page (and in summaries), at the Tennis project page and at the Helen Wills page. I've done the best I can to let him/her know our protocol without calling in an administrator. Not sure what else we at the project can do at this point. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• By the way notice the multiple reverts of Tennisvine by other editors (not just me) here and here. If this guy wasn't brand new he might have been reported by others, but you have to give a long leash and try to make new editors understand the way things work. It obviously isn't working this time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by an uninvolved editor: Technically, Fyunck hasn't violated the letter of 3RR but it still isn't acceptable for either party to edit war (there is no exception to 3RR for what is esentially a content dispute (WP:3RRNO)). Tennisvine is wrong to keep reverting to his/her preferred version while active discussions are on-going and may end up seeing this WP:BOOMERANG.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 23:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that I am new to Wikipedia has no bearing on this matter, and it's this cavalier attitude that User:Fyunck(click) has shown here, that has led to this dispute. I started the conversation at Tennis Project Guidelines to try and resolve an issue I had found. When a female player has played under her maiden name (prior to being married) and then , once married, plays under her married name, how do we as editors help the reader connect the dots between these two names (I made clear I was talking about instances - charts, tables, tournament edition pages, etc. - outside of the players bio article)? I cited examples ( I will use the example of Sylvia Lance here as I did there) and began the discussion proposing that for players that had achieved success under their maiden name - Sylvia Lance -, if they married and changed to using only their married name - Sylvia Harper - we could list them in this format - First name (maiden name) married name - so it would be Sylvia (Lance) Harper. This way it would indicate to the reader that Sylvia Lance also played as Sylvia Harper. This format for a married woman's name is not without precedent and is used here MOS:BIO Section 2.1.1 Maiden names - Specifically this line - An alternative form, Lucy (Payne) Washington, is also widely accepted. I fully realize this section is addressing Biographies, but feel that it still shows there is precedence for this format. Unfortunately, my proposal was mostly ignored and the conversation devolved into a discussion about just applying a commonly used name to all instances where a player's name appears. For example Sylvia Lance would be changed to Sylvia Harper for events that occurred prior to her marriage. Even as a "newbie" as User:Fyunck(click) so disdainfully refers to me, I knew that listing a woman by her married name for events that occurred before she was married was historically inaccurate and only doing the reader a disservice by providing misinformation. Another editor that was participating in the discussion pointed out that " we should use the name of the player as she was known at the time; anything else would be anachronistic." citing MOS:BIO 2.1.2 Changed names - specifically the line "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." I tried to bring the conversation back around to - How do we solves this problem of connecting these players maiden names and married names while still following the aforementioned guidelines? But, User:Fyunck(click) kept insisting that we use a commonly used name and apply it in all instances even if it's historically inaccurate. The conversation kept getting dragged in this circle and was clearly getting nowhere. I gave up and went back to doing a variety of edits that included fixing instances where incorrect names were listed in tables Helen Wills(maiden name) listed as Helen Wills Moody(married name) in events prior to her marriage, Kitty McKane(maiden name) listed as Kitty Godfree(married name) in events prior to her marriage. I did not attempt use the format for names I had been suggesting in the Project Guidelines discussion since no consensus had been formed on that topic. User:Fyunck(click) began reverting my edits even though I was continually pointing to MOS:BIO 2.1.2 Changed names as evidence that using the historically correct name is preferred - and that brought us to here. I'm really not sure what else to do when another editor is ignoring these guidelines and just aggressively reverting edits because they think it's "easier" even if inaccurate. I particularly didn't like being threatened by User talk:Fyunck(click). This was posted on his talk page in response to the edit warning I was required to put there - Boy this one is truly laughable... beware of a boomerang on this one. It's a threat like this combined with the cavalier attitude - "We have tried to explain to this newbie how things work at wikipedia" that make me think - Do I really want to spend my time helping here if this is how it's going to be? I simply want to volunteer my time and contribute to making these pages easy to use by making them consistent , clear, and most importantly, accurate. What I don't want, is to be bullied by editors who seem to think they can stake out some pages as their own little fiefdom. Thank You Tennisvine (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Page protected (full) for one week. Both editors are edit-warring. I was tempted to block both, but hopefully this will give everyone a chance to hash out a consensus, although after looking at the discussion to date, it doesn't look promising. Both Tennisvine and Fyunck(click) are Warned that if after expiration of the protection they resume the battle - even one revert - they risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

IP Special:Contributions/80.111.220.238 has reverted three times, removing sourced content from several sections, without offering any explanation. The ip refused to discuss or offer any justification. See the report for the ip at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_80.111.220.238_.28repeated_reverts_at_Gender_equality.29. I think a little help is needed here. 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B738 (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected - WP:3RR says that they have to revert more than three times in 24 hours. It's pretty clear that you were the editor who added the material being removed, so you're at three reverts as well: [179] [180], [181]. This is not exactly the beginning of a content discussion, either. Both of you are edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Caste system in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Neel.arunabh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685221131 by Sitush (talk) No, we have to fix the cite errors. Please do not revert."
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC) to 16:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685219777 by VictoriaGrayson (talk) o, we have to fix the cite errors."
   2. 16:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685220754 by Neel.arunabh (talk)"
   3. 16:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685219777 by VictoriaGrayson (talk) No, we have to fix the cite errors."
3. 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685082000 by Kautilya3 (talk) But we need to fix the cite errors."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Caste system in India. (TW)"
2. 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Caste system in India. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

It seems that this editor is confused about something or other, but he/she is not getting the message that he can't continue doing this. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —SpacemanSpiff 16:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Piggate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.153.75.49 (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. [182]
2. [183]
3. [184]
4. [185]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

Diff Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [187] (note: not involving myself)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Parental alienation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Children&Parents (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Reverting to updated, peer-reviewed definition."
2. 00:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Grammatical changes to prior revision."
3. 23:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) "Minor edits."
4. 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) "Definition of Parental Alienation, Causes and Remedies."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Parental alienation. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is repeatedly vandalizing the introduction paragraph of the parental alienation page. It appears to be a copyvio issue as well. Two other warnings were also given after each edit to Children&Parents by other editors, who also reverted the changes. mikeman67 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I've left an actual {{uw-3rr}} on their talk page, plus they seem to have stopped for the moment. --slakr^\ talk / 02:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User has violated 3RR on article Boyhood (film) despite continued warnings not to do so and many insistence of asking them to consult talk page. May they please be banned from editing the article?

User wants this posted to the critical response section despite unclear verdict on talk page:

Mike Stoklasa and Jay Bauman of Red Letter Media gave a scathing review of the film. While they praised Arquette's performance, they cited it as an incredibly poor movie with little plot, bland, dull cinematography, amateurish screenwriting and lack of any meaningful growth or sympathy for Mason Jr, who becomes increasingly unlikeable as the film wears on. They concluded that the reason why the film has garnered so much praise, was based on the gimmick that it was filmed over twelve years, not on the actual substance of the film. Bauman concludes that the film is a parallel on real life: "By the end of it, you just want to die."

They have undid the edit three times, at at this point I believe a block is the only thing that will prevent this from happening further.

After further evidence, I believe that user 70.44.146.177 is harassing people that disagreed with his edits, and I believe a full banning is in order.

• Warned slakr^\ talk / 02:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Indo-Aryan peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pebble101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685031110 by Kautilya3 (talk) Previous version is accurate expect for the information about Hg3 variation and covers all major information about South Asian genetics frm 50,000 ybp"
2. 14:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685053552 by Kautilya3 (talk) See talk page"
3. 16:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685070194 by Doug Weller (talk) How is historic migrations into sub-continent through genetic studies irrelevant?! it's not hard to understand"
4. 19:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685249991 by RegentsPark (talk) YBP = years before the present. And, yes it is mentioned in the source. YBP is used in both genealogy and geology studies."
5. 20:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685252233 by Human3015 (talk) fixed WP:ERA from YBP to BP. Yes, it does but on previous edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Indo-Aryan peoples. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Talk:Indo-Aryan_peoples#Early_migrations_edits_by_Pebble101 and Talk:Indo-Aryan_peoples#Pebble101_contested for two talk page discussions. Editor has also been warned of discretionary sanctions on WP:ARBIPA. This is also not the first time this is happening, as a similar edit war happened on the same article in September. I'm not involved in this dispute, but I've had to revert the editor elsewhere in the past couple of months, so I'm bringing it here. —SpacemanSpiff 20:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 02:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

user Redsky89 and user Fyrael are adding untrue rumors to my WIKI site. I am the porn star "Blade Thompson" this untrue rumor about beating my girlfriend and stalking and prison is taken from chat rooms and sources that are hearsay ( Blue Blakes book on porn stories). these edits are being made on my wiki site only to harrass me and to be hurtful, and malicious. this is NOT fact and the sources are bogus. i would like to freeze my WIKI page ( as was done in 2007) due to this same type of vandalizm.

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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:

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Also, I fail to see any evidence of edit warring, but do see questionable edits and a failure to discuss matters in both directions. Discuss the matter on the article's talk page, comparing the sources cited to our standards on WP:Identifying reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Johnny Test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vioricamarin (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 07:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC) to 11:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 07:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 03:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685200774 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
3. 08:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685310450 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
4. 08:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685336540 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Johnny Test. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I will note that one of the reverts is just outside the 24-hour period, but it still constitutes edit warring (as gaming the system is no excuse for continuing it). User provides no explanation for the changes made. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User made at least one revert after I filed this report: [188]. Definitely in violation of WP:3RR if it wasn't at the time I filed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. For future reference, MPFitz1968, please note that the two consecutive edits you have listed as the first revert weren't as far as I can see a revert. They were a change — an unexplained change, which is bad in itself, but still. They were in fact "the version reverted to", the field you left blank above. But by persisting, they have now in any case violated 3RR. Thanks for reporting. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Category:Wikipedia edit warring

Page: Avijit Roy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]
4. [193]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#help in edit

Comments:

As can be seen several editors have tried to explain to Mahfuzur what the problems are with their editing on this article. With the exception of not changing the section header in the last edit they did not change their edits to the items listed in the works section. A look at the posts on ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#face:b00c block collateral and here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#possible personal attack detected show WP:COMPETENCE problems in regard to language but that is not a reason to edit war. Especially when several editors have explained clearly what the problems are. OTOH, due to said language problems, if Mahfuzur can agree to stop making the edits in question then this can be resolved without a block. MarnetteD|Talk 17:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

M-r-s chose to make the same rvt for a fifth time here. MarnetteD|Talk 15:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I not remove any ref fifth time, understand problem very clearly, what my fault now?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Felix Manalo (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685304990 by Crossleague (talk) pov commentary fancruftian cast divisions"
2. 02:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Reviews */ just some guys blog we dont care"
3. 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "unaccepta blog review, poiintlesss inappropirate cruftian cast divisions, POV commentary"
4. 03:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685308604 by Crossleague (talk) it is sourced in the body with the negative reviews"
5. 03:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685308964 by Crossleague (talk) blogs are NOT acceptable reviews, supporting cast is supporting cast. period"
6. 03:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685309579 by Crossleague (talk) its a noted blog of a professional reviewer"
7. 03:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685310185 by Crossleague (talk) I have read NPOV a lot - it says we dont create WP:FALSEBALANCE by giving random bloggers POV WP:UNDUE weight"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

An edit war has been going on between TRPoD and Crossleague for about an hour now. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 04:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I could block both of them, but It'd just be easier to lock the page for a day. And an IP has hopped into the reverting as well, so it's not just those two anymore (at least, the IP better be a third party). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Is there any of Red Pen's editing that doesn't consist of an edit war? I had to warn him for this yesterday and if I hadn't had a Vulcan to spot I'd have raised it here: Kilmarnock and Troon Railway [195] [196] [197] [198].

Continually trawling random articles where he has no background or subject familiarity and just angling for anything that might be a bureaucratic policy infringement for him to latch onto, without the slightest research or following of the clear sources, is not constructive editing and is a disruption to better editors with better things to be doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going off of what's in front of me. Digging into Crossleague's history doesn't look great either (not that that excuses TRPoD's behavior, just explaining that I'd block both if I was going to block anyone). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I free to re-report if edit warring resumes? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocking both would probably have been the best solution, although as a newbie admin I completely understand that you are reluctant to come in guns blazing and block established editors. The advantages of blocking over protection are two-fold: it keeps the article open for other editors, and it shows that edit warring has consequences and may help to avoid a repeat next time round. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Citation does not come from a neutral source. Citing CNN is a joke."
2. 17:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "SOURCE IS NOT NEUTRAL ! CNN IS NOT A NEUTRAL MEDIA PLATFORM!"
3. 17:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685398824 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
4. 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Citing from CNN ,the guardian and other anti-Russian media stations is absolutely absurd. This represents a non impartial and biased viewpoint, which cannot be allowed in a Wikipedia article."
5. 14:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "This article is clearly written in such a way as to undermine this news network and dismiss it as "propaganda", due to the introductory statement. Such dismissive language near the beginning cannot be tolerated. Other articles have no such statements."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on RT (TV network). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 02:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Hinduism in Scandinavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [199]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [200]
2. [201]
3. [202]

See also Semitic Germanic Heritage, Islam in Scandinavia and Judaism in Scandinavia.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See multiple discussions at User talk:Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation.

Comments:Following a recent block for edit warring, Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation has returned and continues to add unsourced material to multiple articles, edit warring when it is removed. When sources are requested, they will provide one (often unreliable) that clearly does not support the material being added. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A further revert:

1. [204]

Cordless Larry (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685632118 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Please stop edit warring"
2. 00:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685631431 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
3. 00:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC) "Talk page doesn't indicate consensus. Non-neutral heading. Your history on this section shows edit warring, which is not simply violation of 3RR."
4. 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685461945 by NorthBySouthBaranof We can't have a section on the lawsuit without explaining its relevance to Abedin"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Huma Abedin. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I repeatedly invited the user to discuss the issue on the article talk page, but they declined to do so.

Comments:

Pretty straightforward 3RR violation after being asked to discuss the issue on the article talk page and directly warned on their user talk page. The revert war is removing a longstanding consensus (since 2013) and impeccably-sourced statement which described highly-negative fringe claims about a living person as a "conspiracy theory", based on an indisputable consensus of reliable journalistic sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

4th example is unrelated to the other three. Frivolous report. Article history shows long-term edit warring from this editor and on this change specifically. 119.81.31.4 (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As the policy makes clear, the edits don't have to be related — four reverts of any edit by any editor is a violation. I suggest you self-revert your violation and initiate a discussion on the talk page, as I have previously and repeatedly requested you do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no issue with describing this theory as a conspiracy theory - but it's inappropriate as a heading. Disingenuous to claim "consensus" on this heading has existed since 2013. Here's a list of the editor's reverts of this specific change, against a number of editors (not just myself), all within the last 12 days:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=685632118&oldid=685631861
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=685631431&oldid=685628186
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=685622572&oldid=685568561
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=684365517&oldid=684363631
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=683884367&oldid=683882612
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=683639372&oldid=683638985
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=683631252&oldid=683409361

You'll note in some of these diffs the same claim to a "consensus" which doesn't exist on the talk page or in the archives. 119.81.31.4 (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I could create a similar list of reverts by other editors, but that would be beside the point, because this is about your clear violation of the 3-revert rule. I suggest again that you self-revert your violation and discuss the issue on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Did some other stuff to give them a chance to self-revert, changed my mind when I saw the WP:NOTTHEM going on. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hanam190552 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)I am trying to delete and redirect the article National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army, the User:Mztourist has destructive actions to my efforts

Hanam190552 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Sorry MZtourist, we cannot merge the NLF army to Viet Cong. Viet Cong is not a army, it is a political organisation with its' owned army, the PLAFHanam190552 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Beside that, the Viet Cong's army-People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) and National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army are one entity, creation of National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army is my mistake. Now I am wanting to delete National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army. Thank youHanam190552 (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank youHanam190552 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Philip Baker (obstetrician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_Baker_%28obstetrician%29&type=revision&diff=685570626&oldid=685507224

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_Baker_(obstetrician)&action=history

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhilip_Baker_%28obstetrician%29&type=revision&diff=685538976&oldid=685516654

Comments:
Nomoskedasticity seems to have used an "anonymous" IP address 64.222.64.38 to revert for the third time to an incorrect version of an article despite this being pointed out, perhaps to get around the three-revert rule. Please see and decide on this violation. Part (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm -- I suppose I'm also 70.192.210.119?? Anyway: a quick look at the history of the article will indeed show who has violated WP:3RR here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. This would have WP:BOOMERANGed on Part if he had been warned about 3rr before now. As it is, I'd like to remind him to read WP:AGF and WP:NOTVAND. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought filing a report at 3RRN shows sufficient awareness of 3RR. (Part continued reverting even after filing this report.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:EW, yes, but not necessarily WP:3rr specifically. There are a lot of people who file reports assuming that the standard is "other people keep reverting me" without any awareness of 3rr. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours for manually reverting after I left a warning about edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page: Continent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Editor being reported: BilCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here.

And here.

Refusing to discuss here.

When warned here, BilCat responded with:

This.

And this.

Regards. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

These are not extraordinary claims, and should not have been removed without prior discussion. I've added NINE references for the use of Indian subcontinent copied from that article, which clearly demonstrate that this is a term so common as to be common knowledge. Please note that subcontinent redirects to that article, indicating it's the primary topic, and that for other uses, users are directed by hatnote to Subcontinent section of the Continent article. Removing it without prior discussion is thus unacceptable and disruptive. - BilCat (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• You are single-handedly trying to deny the existence of the term "subcontinent". I'm with Bill on this one. Even the edit summaries. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the inappropriate edit summaries, which are never warranted. I am also confused as to why this section was removed while an Rfd to retarget a redirect TO that section is underway here. This almost seems a pointy way to keep Indian subcontinent as the target for Subcontinent, given that Aditya Kabir was the user who performed the merge in December 2014. This is very odd. - BilCat (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Someone needs to do something about Talk:Subcontinent though. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm gonna count that "Resolved" comment as a withdrawal. Especially since there's only two reverts listed. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Fall of Saigon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hanam190552 (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. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]
4. [208]
5. [209]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Request to discuss on Talk Page added with reverts, User:Wtmitchell attempted a dummy edit to open a conversation with Hanam190552 [210]

Comments:

User:Hanam190552 has been edit warring on Fall of Saigon, making substantive, unreferenced changes all of which are marked as minor. His edits seem to be mainly intended to claim that the National Liberation Front (NLF or Vietcong) defeated South Vietnam with support from North Vietnam. He has made similar edits to: Hue–Da Nang Campaign, Battle of Ban Me Thuot, 1975 Spring Offensive, Battle of Xuân Lộc and Paris Peace Accords. Hanam190552 has not discussed any of these changes to try to establish consensus and I request that he is blocked. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Hanam190552 has also created a page National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army which I tagged for merger with Viet Cong, he then created a new page Viet Cong's army-People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) using the same information but without copying over my merger tag. I reinstated the merger tag on the new page and put in a xref to the merger proposal on the talk page, User:Hanam190552 then removed my comments from the talk page per this diff [211] which I regard as a serious breach of policy. Mztourist (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hanam190552 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Sorry MZtourist, we cannot merge the NLF army to Viet Cong. Viet Cong is not a army, it is a political organisation with its' owned army, the PLAFHanam190552 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Beside that, the Viet Cong's army-People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) and National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army are one entity, creation of National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army is my mistake. Now I am wanting to delete National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army. Thank youHanam190552 (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hanam190552 you are trying to make large, non-consensual changes without even having mastered the basics of Wikipedia. Your opposition to the merger should be discussed on the Viet Cong talk page to see if there is consensus for its retention. Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for two days and placed this message on his talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Padmasambhava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cpt.a.haddock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4

There may be other edits that are considered reverts.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Warning diff

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Link

Comments:
Editor is still edit warring despite the wishes of @Joshua Jonathan and Montanabw: and myself.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's been a while since I was at two notice-boards at one time... May I ask not to block, but to threat this as a last and final warning? I will look into it. Best regards, and keep cool, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As far as I can tell, this editor will not engage with the other editors but seems primarily to resort to templating Victoria and communicating via edit summaries. Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

For those looking into this issue, please consider the ongoing discussion on the talk page as well. Consensus has yet to be reached and the before and after diff of the article shows that my reverts try to ensure that large swathes of referenced text that are under question are not deleted by VictoriaGrayson to suit their POV. My edits also ensure that the tags at the top of the page are intact until this issue is resolved.

To address the four reverts cited as evidence of edit warring:

1. diff1: There is some weird tag-teaming going on between VG and Montanabw. The latter's involvement in this issue appears to have been precipitated by a ping by VG which was subsequently deleted (although the ping would have still gone through). MontanaBW promptly arrives and reverts my edits citing WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN (presumably without even reading through history). They also do not revert back to the revision that triggered this entire issue (as per BRD) but to a revision preferred by VG which (as mentioned before) casually nukes two entire referenced sections from the article. My edit reverted MontanaBW's edit with a explanatory message.
2. diff2: My next edit reverted back to the "status quo" (as MontanaBW requested).
3. diff3: VG promptly reverts my revert to her preferred version (with the undiscussed section deletions). This is after I had noted on the talk page that I wanted to go in for some form of mediation. I revert her revert stating the same.
4. diff4: VG reverts again. Meanwhile, Joshua offers to mediate. I revert again asking VG to wait for mediation pointing to his message. This revert also includes the tag that Joshua requested on the tag page.

Also worth pointing out are the repeated ad hominems by VG one of which can be seen in their ping to MontanaBW (which was at least the third one). The other two I can remember are on their talk page here and early on in our discussion here. There were a few barbed comments thrown in as well. Such a lack of civility hamstrings any collaborative endeavour and does not encourage communication. Cheers.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This individual always tries to justify his edit warring, and therefore will continue to edit war.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Indian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pebble101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [212] (11:57UTC, logged in) (all times given are today)
2. [213] (11:22UTC, logged in)
3. [214] (10:13UTC, as an IP, see below)
4. [215] (09:51UTC, as an IP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216] (11:46UTC)

Comments:

• Pebble101 admits on SpacemanSpiff's talkpage that he's the IP-hopper that has been repeatedly removing content from the article (with a false reason, he has not been removing copyrighted material...), not editing logged in until a semi-protection flushed him out. Thomas.W ^talk 12:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have addressed this issue on my talk page, it was edited in good faith due to copyright violation and source content which User:Doug_Weller has pointed out on my page a few times. The issue is still under discussion, the conent was sourced and created by me, If i wanted things my way i wouldn't be discussing with him on copyright-violations regarding my sources.Pebble101 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Issue regarding iP hopping, I have addressed it here and it was not intentional. I din't know it would voilate wiki rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pebble101 Pebble101 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• This user has been repeatedly referred to WP:BRD for at least two months, the latest this morning [217]. At this point, he is wasting a lot of time for a lot of people and has become extremely disruptive. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I only made edits in good faith. If i really wanted things my way then i would have added the source content that User:Doug_Weller removed as copyright violation everywhere.Pebble101 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the page history, your deliberately misleading edit-summaries and talk-page posts and the fact that you didn't start editing logged in until right after the article was semi-protected, and you were forced to log in, clearly show that your edits were not made in good faith. Thomas.W ^talk 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

And he can't claim he didn't know about the rules against edit-warring since he was blocked for 31h for edit-warring on another article as recently as two days ago... Thomas.W ^talk 13:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

My block was for a day, It was lifted on 13th and Kautilya3 also confronted me about it and i was not editing while i was blocked, from what i remember since it was night for me here.Pebble101 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You were blocked for 31h at 02:40UTC on 12 October, meaning that the block expired at 09:40UTC on 13 October, but started editing as an IP at 06:21UTC on the 13th. So it's a clear case of block evasion... Thomas.W ^talk 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours for 3RR violation and block evasion. Pebble101, you are not allowed to violate WP:3RR even if you think you're right, and even if the issue is being discussed. Indeed, that it's being discussed is all the more reason for not edit warring. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Bihari Rajputs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685235563 by Mahensingha (talk)"
2. Repeted even after warning

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Invited_to_talk_page

Comments:

The user is habitual of reverting any of the maintenance tag placed for article improvement. In the past also, all the maintenance tags were removed hence the article remains unnoticed by the experts.

The user indulged in personal attack on me.See the language he use See MahenSingha (Talk) 19:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• 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. but I'm going to look at it for the other behavior separately. —SpacemanSpiff 18:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Constantine the Great (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: [218]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [219]
2. [220]
3. [221]
4. [222]
5. [223]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP has chosen not to use the talk page

Comments:
IP 46.19.231.255 started this by removing sourced information from Constantine the Great[225], where upon the IP proceeded to depict Constantine's ethnicity as nothing but "Illyrian". Athenean and Tataryn both have reverted the IP. The IP has responded to said revertions not with a discussion on the talk page, but accusations of vandalism.[226][227]. This IP has been previously blocked over the same ethnicity issue concerning Dardani and Jerome articles. [228] Juding from the IPs lack of discussion(s), their deletion of referenced information they don't like, and their battleground mentality(ie. "Reverted vandalism"), I am not convinced the IP is here to build an encylopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeat of edit warring by IP Diff file:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constantine_the_Great&type=revision&diff=685709385&oldid=685666964

User Warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:46.19.231.255#October_2015_2

--CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week – Previously blocked for a similar reason on October 2 for 31 hours. This IP seems to be a promoter of connections to Illyria. Illyria is an ancient nation which features in some national origin disputes in the Balkans. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Bilderling#Bilderling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bilderling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Amortias (T)(C) 19:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Edward the Confessor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Catholicdood‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [229]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [230]
2. [231]
3. [232]
4. [233]
5. [234]
6. [235]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [236]

Comments:

The user is also editing under User:Catholicdood1 and still at it as User:Catholicdood2 Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours (All three participating accounts.) Not completely clear yet that he's using the alternate accounts abusively or intending to do so, but I'll note he's been quite relentless so far. Samsara 19:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Clayton Kershaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Baseballfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 108.27.63.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 97.47.66.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 97.47.65.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [237]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [238]
2. [239]
3. [240]
4. [241]
5. [242]
6. [243]
7. [244]
8. [245]
9. [246]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Clayton Kershaw#Saturday, and User talk:Muboshgu#Days of the week and Birthdays

Comments:
This user was editing as 108.27.63.106, and more recently as 97.47.66.68 and 97.47.65.251. On Talk:Clayton Kershaw#Saturday, the IP acknowledged that they use a smart phone to edit, generating different IP addresses. On my talk page, the editor associated their edits with baseballfan, though they're logged out while editing. The editor is edit warring against consensus, and numerous editors have warned the individual to stop edit warring on the talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

we've tried many ways to resolve this content dispute peacefully. However the above editors seem to be stubborn to a point where they tend to treat this site more like a video game than an encyclopedia. If you wanna play games, we're ready for that. We would prefer to settle this peacefully before the real fighting starts Anonymous 19:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

All that threats of game playing are likely to get is a page protected to prevent anonymous editors from editing it at all. You might want to rethink your strategy. Amortias (T)(C) 19:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Semiprotected. The IP's behavior is absurd. Leaving this open in case another admin thinks blocking would also be helpful (I'm not sure given the jumping IPs). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

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: [page section]

Comments:

Page is under WP:1RR. User insists that they are right, so it is ok to edit-war. There is also edit-warring by IP, who is inserting identical edits. It is probably a meat or sock. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week For edit warring and socking. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this was under ARBPIA, since it was a definition of a word in Arabic on a page that listed its use over many different countries. Therefore, when I identified Evenro as a kind of throw-away sock (see contribs for the usual signs: early registration, a sleeper account, that is suddenly activated on just one or two articles) I just thought in terms of 3R. The fellow was a nuisance editor IP editor with absolutely no regard for talk page discussion. Now that Kingsindian, who knows more than I do about these rules, has identified it as under ARBPIA, where 1R applies, not 3R, I appear to have broken the same rule, and ignorance is no excuse. So if any admin is minded to review this, and sanction me, I will have no problems with that. Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the history when I blocked and decided the socking was causing the most disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [248]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [249]
2. [250]
3. [251]
4. [252]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [253]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Various sections - Talk:Cecil (lion)

Comments:

• He simultaneously warred over another separate change to the same article, with partly overlapping diffs. I don't know if they will separately exceed 3RR. Should I add these here or in a separate report, or will they not be needed? Thanks. Samsara 19:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I fear that insisting on the "they will file extradition proceedings" where it is now clear they were not filed against a living person, and will not be filed, does raise valid issues of WP:BLP. Until it became clear that no charges would be filed, there was a reasonable excuse to keep that in the WP:BLP here (all articles concerning living persons fall into the policy category). With it now being clear that the claim of extradition being filed is inapt, it should be removed, Wikipedia is not here to state material which is not apparently true. [254] seems dispositive here, and so DHeyward's use of policy is reasonable here, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think edit warring is acceptable when the interpretation of the policy is in reasonable dispute. The intention to have Palmer extradited was reported and is part of the timeline of relevant events. It seems at least equally reasonable to continue to state that Zimbabwe had intended to seek extradition, which is the simple truth. A strong case of BLP violation would be where the claims cannot be substantiated. However, in this case, the facts can be substantiated and the question is over what weight to give them. Samsara 19:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Whether the edit was "correct" is not what matters here. There's a claim of (exemption via) "BLP violation" -- but that claim is pretty far-fetched. It is indeed worth looking at the recent edit history to see the extent of DHeyward's reverts on this article -- as noted above, it does go beyond the reverts indicated in this report. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• The issue is that the facts of the case have changed...the government of Zimbabwe no longer wants to extradite the hunter for the purposes of prosecution yet those opposed to DHeywards removal of old outdated information is being suppressed. This old outdated information is now a BLP violation as it states that the government of Zimbabwe wants to extradite the hunter...that information is now four months old and the new information which states the hunter is welcome to return on his own for visits but may not return of he plans on hunting. Edit warring is bad but old information that is now inaccurate and is defamation should be removed.--MONGO 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You are reaching the wrong conclusions on an incomplete reading of the edit history. There was this edit, which is among the rest of the set he reverted [255]. Samsara 20:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I posted the issue to BLP:N yesterday. So far, there is no substantial disagreement that these aren't BLP violations. I am not the only one reverting Samsara. Close this or boomerang it back as Samsara continues to add BLP violating material. Palmer is not a notable figure. His past behavior has no bearing on Cecil and he has been cleared of wrongdoing. I have only removed the material where, in WP's voice, we say Zimbabwe initiated extradition procedures. They did not. In the place where we properly attributed it to the minister that made claims that it was illegal, I left it. That minister was obviously wrong. I left that, though, as it was an opinion. Any place where we assert that it was "illegal" or that they were "seeking extradiction" is not factual and is therefore poorly sourced. We don't repeat falsehoods about living people in Wikipedia's voice simply because the press got it wrong. I also removed COATRACK material about previous hunts that Palmer was a part of as being immaterial to thee topic and negative BLP information. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm smiling at the thought that you might be committing a BLP violation by accusing me of one. Any reliable sources? Now, the intention to seek extradition was reported in reliable sources. That historical intention was not changed by the fact they were subsequently not able to act on that intention. You continue to make false claims in these discussions about what is and isn't documented in RS, which I find extremely disruptive. Same with the claim that we had made an original connection between the bear permit violation and the Cecil case, when in fact the source discusses it in that exact context. Deliberate disruption is what I see. Samsara 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Zimbabwe officials said they had initiated legal proceedings to extradite Palmer from the United States to face a charge is the first diff you highlight as being "edit warring." It is a false statement. Zimbabwe did not have any charges for Palmer to face. They did not initiate proceedings to extradite. Those are falsehood that have BLP implications and you are edit warring to add them in. In fact, you changed the assertion that instead of "starting extradition proceedings" to face charges already brought, to your own made up version that they "intended to seek extradition." The fact is that Zimbabwe officials said they had initiated legal proceedings to extradite Palmer from the United States to face a charge is false. It is known to be false because there are no charges and there are no proceedings. That became known in the last week. Stop readding BLP violating material that seeks to portray a living person as someone that was accused of a crime. He was not and is not facing criminal charges. We cannot state it in Wikipedia's voice but we can attribute it to the minister that made their opinion known (an opinion that was not shared by the Zimbabwean authorities) --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • (ec) There is no such contradiction. The prosecutor general was contacted, which is all the minister can do in terms of legal proceedings. So yes, legal proceedings had been initiated. Do I need to direct you to the definition of "initiate"? Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox where you get to reinterpret what RS actually say. Samsara 21:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I see you revised your comment to be slightly more reasonable. Technically, the minister is part of the executive, which qualifies as "authorities", but okay, if you want to propose a wording that includes what the minister said, then please do so and we'll take it from there. I still maintain that you should not have been reverting at the high frequency you did without allowing time for discussion, and it's sad that we had to come all this way to apparently (I might be foolishly hopeful here) have a meaningful discussion. Samsara 21:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
        • No, I didn't revise anything. This statement is already in the article with proper attribution so I didn't remove it: At a press conference on 31 July 2015, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Opa Muchinguri, said the hunter broke Zimbabwean law and needs to be held accountable. “We are appealing to the responsible authorities for his extradition to Zimbabwe" that's an accurate quote of a single person but they are obviously wrong about Palmer breaking the law. Putting it in Wikipedia's voice that the Zimbabwe had charged him with a crime for which they were seeking extradition is false as they had not charged him with a crime nor had they initiated extradition proceedings. Properly attributed, I left it. Not properly attributed is a BLP violation. We don't need it more than once either. --DHeyward (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Show me that the article ever said what you claim it said. I think you're just making stuff up again on the fly. Samsara 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Gee wwhiz. It's your first diff![256] that makes the claim that Zimbabwe said he was facing a charge. I removed it. The second one is still in this section [257]. It's the paragraph that starts At a press conference on 31 July 2015, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Opa Muchinguri, said the hunter broke Zimbabwean law and needs to be held accountable. “We are appealing to the responsible authorities for his extradition to Zimbabwe". It's still there and attributed. That minister was obviously wrong and is the basis for your edit war to keep in BLP violating material. --DHeyward (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Stale DHeyward's reverts could be construed as being exempt from 3RR due to removing arguable BLP violations, but in any case there has been no repeated back and forth since Green Cardamom's revert here yesterday, so any admin action right now would not be appropriate. That said, I would advise DHeyward to keep the issue of whether or not to mention extradition charges to the talk page, or escalate to WP:DRN if disagreement becomes stronger. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Duke of Manchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Puto servos fugitivos esse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [258]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [259]
2. [260]
3. [261]
4. [262]
5. [263]
6. [264]
7. [265]
8. [266]

This has been going on for a few weeks now. A block of sourced content relating to the 13th Duke of Manchester is repeatedly removed from the Duke of Manchester article. No explanation, no discussion, no BLP issues highlighted, no response to warnings. This has been restored by three different editors, then removed again.

Oddly though, they seem to like restoring content about the son of the 13th duke [267], if that is removed.

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. I see plenty of discussion from the other participants but not him, so he'll have to sit back and wait for consensus to form. PS: My Latin is rusty but I believe his username translates as "I judge the slaves to be fugitives" - is that a barbed comment to the financial collapse of the 12th duke? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Now socking, same blanking, as Fabulas fictas servi narrant (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sock blocked by Elockid, page semi-protected for two weeks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page: Renato Vallanzasca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User 1 being reported: 95.252.92.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User 2 being reported: 87.6.116.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:95.252.92.54 here is keeping making an uncorrect edit (the IPA is corrupted because of uncorrect syntax). I had already reported him last week (he had a totally different IP User:87.6.116.237 but it was him), but no administrator has ever intervened, so yesterday he did again the same uncorrect edit. I hope someone of you will make him stop, I am tired of his disruptive edits and I do not want to start another edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.75.83 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that you are the same editor who has previously edited that article under at least two other IP addresses in the 151.20.xxx series, there would have been more chance of other editors being able to consider the validity of your edits if you had provided edit summaries in English rather than Italian; this is, after all, the English Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello 151.20. You are more likely to get a favorable response if you will specify which article or articles you think are subject to the edit war. If admins can't figure out who is doing what, but they see a lot of IPs reverting one another, they may just semiprotect the whole lot. If you yourself are hopping IPs during this commotion you can't expect to be taken very seriously. Feel free to list the other IPs you have used recently. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph:
You are right about English, those messages were for my. 87/95, I am sorry; however, the fact is that if you watch his edits (such as this) you will see that the IPA results uncorrect, I think he knows it but he just does not want to "lose" one more time against me.
@EdJohnston:
The article is "Renato Vallanzasca" as I wrote before, maybe I just did not specify it explicitly, it is my fault but I thought it was clear enough; about my IP it is dynamic and often changes, but it is always recognizable as it starts with 151.20 (unlike his). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.88.2 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected Renato Vallanzasca one month. The editor who is using 151.20.* is welcome to welcome to explain their reasoning on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much EdJohnston! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.94.5 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Sylvester Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bog5576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [268]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [269]
2. [270]
3. [271]
4. [272]
5. [273]
6. [274]
7. [275]
8. [276]
9. [277]
10. [278]
11. [279]
12. [280]
13. [281]
14. [282]
15. [283]
16. [284]
17. [285]
18. [286]
19. [287]
20. [288]
21. [289]
22. And dozens of others found here [290]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [291]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in the edit war, however there appears to be no discussion on the article's talk page to try and mitigate the differences between the two editors.

Comments:

I am not involved in this, but have noticed it going on. Dozens of reverts. It seems the user was recently blocked for edit warring as well. Usterday (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

My unban request was upheld because it was deemed that I was not at fault for the edit war taking place. Please note context. Bog5576 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This user is especially troubling due to his use of edit summaries like this one, showing a clear disregard for Wikipedia's rules: you can read it here Usterday (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You can also see from the user's edit history that they have done very, very little except edit-war on this page in their Wikipedian career: seen here almost all their edits have been edit warring. Usterday (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line. I'm adding unflattering (yet cited and notable) information into some candidates' pages. People that work on their campaigns have repeatedly failed to remove the content because I was following Wikipedia's guidelines. Sometimes you have to revert a user's edits to protect important information. Unfortunately, that happened more than 3 times. The fact of the matter is that as election day approaches, more and more attempts will be made to undo these edits and erase important information. Bog5576 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There have been four more reverts since I first posted this report less than an hour ago. It is apparent that Bog5576 has responded to this report by continuing on as they were, and argue that it isn't a big deal. Usterday (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. User:Bog5576 appears to be intent on slanting our article against this BLP subject, who is a candidate for office. During a political campaign, not every source or press release deserves to be quoted verbatim. Turner was at one point accused of being part of an insurance scam, but a court reversed the decision and awarded him damages. Bog5576 interprets any removal of his changes as being done by people campaigning for Turner. I'm placing an indef because I don't detect any interest in following our policy. When I tried engaging him on his talk page I made no progress. Someone with the username Bog5576 is the subject of an article about Wikipedia in the Houston Chronicle that draws attention to the negative material he has been adding. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That court decision was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bog5576 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, not blocked yet? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Now done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685918055 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Contacted Robert Clark at wiki to report this."
2. 20:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685916686 by Tayste (talk)Here are more references that substantiate the deletion was improper. BIOPLASTICIT"
3. 20:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685915459 by Tayste (talk)Submitted dozens of references to wiki just now to show there is disruptive editing and vandalism on this page. Also put them on talk page for Huon."
4. 19:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685912526 by Huon (talk)Referenced material restored."
5. 19:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685907928 by Huon (talk)You have been warned before about disruptive editing and will again be blocked."
6. 18:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685871038 by 86.13.152.159 (talk)valdalism, deleted well referenced content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Diff of 3RR Warning
2. 20:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Firewalking. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Discussion on talk page]

Comments:

Discussion on the article talk page with multiple editors, but suffers from WP:IDHT. IP has reverted four different editors, and is now making threats of... I'm not sure what. Scr★pIron^IV 20:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Union Square, Manhattan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [292]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert
3. 3rd revert
4. 4th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [293]

I first contacted the user here when the user didn't give any explanation to why he reverted me. [294] I tried to compromise [295], substantiating my edits with more sources [296] but this editor seems clearly intent on reverting any further additions about the Union Square chess scene.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [297]

Comments:

Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)