Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive311

User:Zoupan reported by User:Opdire657 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Partition of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zoupan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1]

This article touch a case that emerged recently in the midst of the civil war taking place in Syria and is part of the consequences of the war not part of the war itself. The user reverted my edits with an edit summary "have you read any of the references?". In his first revert, he removed the title and the date of a source I had filled in. Secondly, he added to he last sentence "which was dismissed by the Syrian government" and readded the title of the source but not the date. Instead he replaced it with year without any explanation. Thirdly he used a edit summary as "No. Unecessary is tagging a sentence and removing another. The war is ongoing, and the partition is not a factual consequence", however I didn't delete any sentence and the partition exists in Syria since at least 2013. He also moved the first source to the external links section without any explanation. It is clear that this user have been engaged in many edit wars in the last period.--Opdire657 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zoupan: Many of your claims above is untrue, I improved the article with providing at least two new references. Maybe I did a fault with marking the first sentence with (citation needed) but you could have cooperated instead of reverting everything. I started a discussion to resolve the conflict, however you did not continue in the talk and filed a complaint against me. This was not good faith at all. The replacement of date and title with year is pointless. Where did I remove any sentence as you are falsely claiming?--Opdire657 (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned for 1RR violation on an article under WP:GS/SCW per an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:FilmandTVFan28 reported by User:Dcasey98 (Result: OP blocked one week)

Page: List_of_children's_films#2000s 
User being reported: FilmandTVFan28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]
6. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments:

Throughout the past week, I've made some simple edits to the page and been repeatedly shut down, edit-warred with, blocked, and ignored. This particular page has a set criteria of rules that the films on the list need to meet in order for them to be put on the children's film list (found at the top of the page,) and FilmandTVFan28 and user Betty Logan consistently violate them. They utilize a third party source, Allmovies, and consistently put the Harry Potter franchise on the list, which don't meet the criteria established by earlier users and administrators of the page, that all films must be G or PG rated and marketed exclusively to children. Harry Potter meets none of those. After being blocked for deleting them from the list (they've been rightfully deleted from the list by a previous user since last summer,) I was blocked. I tried to play by Betty's game when I was un-blocked, and utilized citations for my additions to the page and they've been repeatedly deleted, not to mention I've been mildly harassed over user talk pages, even when trying to negotiate peacefully Dcasey98 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Dcasey98Dcasey98 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC).

• Note to admin: Before taking action on this report please read mine first at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dcasey98_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Dcasey98: First off, read WP:OWN. And if multiple editors are reverting you, you are probably editing against consensus (if all the traffic is heading toward you, you are probably in the wrong lane). Also, blocks don't happen without a reason...

Your reverts include 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. FilmandTVFan28's reverts include 1, 2, and 3.

He is not edit warring, you are. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

They were all recruited by Betty Logan, who loved unprofessional sources, to block me, for no other reason are they involved in this disputed. FilmandTVFan28 has edit warred 7 times in total.

The films don't belong on that list. READ THE CRITERIA! They're the only PG-13, YA-adapted films on there! It makes no sense, regardless of the sources they use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcasey98 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Those also are not revisions. They're editions, and no one but FilmandTVFan28 has been reverting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcasey98 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week If he's "reverted" seven times, you've "reverted" somewhere between 20 to 30 times. You can't pretend that manually re-adding the same material is not a revert while simultaneously accusing every single edit by FilmandTVFan28 of being a revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dcasey98 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Indefinite block)

Page: List of children's films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcasey98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am not sure if this is the correct place for this report since the disruption at the article goes far beyond edit-warring. I will go through the problem chronologically since it is porbbaly simpler to start at the beginning.

Previous case

• Case 1: The problem originally started with Dcasey98 repeatedly removing sourced content from the article (namely the Harry Potter films) on the basis that he personally disagrees with the sources. The specifics are outlined at the article talk page. He was subsequently blocked from the article for edit-warring. It would be best if the admin who takes up this case acquaints themselves with the oirginal case at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive310#User:Dcasey98_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_Blocked_31_hours.29.

• Sockpuppetry: This block was subsequently extended after he started edit-warring at the article using a sockpuppet (Bellatrix2017).

This case

• Case 2: After his block expired he has resumed edit-warring and disrupting the article by making a sequence of WP:POINTy edits, that are either unsourced, poorly sourced, or well sourced but not strictly corroborated by the source: [11]

Subsequent reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]

• Resumption of original edit-war. In addition to the POINTy edits, Dcasey has resumed the original edit-war by removing the Harry Potter films once again (note one of the sources which he doesn't regard as credible is an academic source by a professor who did his PhD on children's films):[17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

• First discussion about "Harry Potter" on article talk page: [19]
• Second discussion about pointy edits: [20]

Comments:

In addition to the edit-warring, there has been other disruptive behavior. Dcasey98 filed a false vandalism report against FilmandTVFan28 (see [21]) and has indicated his intent to ignore Wikipedia policies with the comment "SOURCES DO NOT MATTER IF THE FILMS DO NOT REACH THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS" (see ([22]). By my count, over the last four days he has reverted three editors (myself, FilmandTVFan28, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and a cluebot) a total of fifteen times. Betty Logan (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Left a note instead of a template on his page explaining why in detail. I've also restored what appears to be the pre-disruption version and am watching the page. If he resumes edit warring after the block or tries sockpuppetry again and someone else doesn't get to him first, I will probably indef him. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks ok now. Thanks for restoring a "good" version, I didn't really want to do it myself in case it was seen as perpetuating an edit-war. Betty Logan (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Scratch that, indef block now for this attempt at sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:VQuakr (Result: )

Page

Oath Keepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710959074 by MrX (talk) Add more sources for wording in question, fix one word - "discredited" is more neutral than "scam.""
2. 02:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710823375 by VQuakr (talk) It's a valid news source."
3. 03:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "undo well meaning but inappropriate removal of sourced material to a WP:NPOV source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Warned here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ ?"
2. 03:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Scare quotes */ re"

Comments:

After breaking 3RR on March 16/17, they are back at it again. No technical violation of 3RR this time, but pretty clear pattern of edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

FIRST: the claim of "breaking 3RR" is false. SECOND, this appears to be just harassment tactics by VQuakr. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Notified here. VQuakr (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple users reported by User:Cnbrb (Result: Malformed)

Page: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Multiple users

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]
7. [30]
8. [31]
9. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: too many users involved to realistically do this.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:
Someone inserted a table of information into the Accolades section. Some editors want it removed, some want to retain it. An invitation to discuss on the Talk page resulted in some argument and the edit war is continuing regardless. I myself am not involved in the edit war, but attempted to encourage discussion. A bit of a storm in a teapot really, but it would be nice if someone could put a stop to it. Thanks.

Cnbrb (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Malformed. Not in the usual form for an edit warring report, and you have not notified anyone that you made a report. Consider refiling if you think one or more specific people ought to be sanctioned. You could help by improving the talk page discussion. For instance, you could post a summary of the views at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#Accolades table. It is hard for an outsider to tell who is favoring what option, and thus if there is any consensus. You could also open a formal WP:RFC which will bring in more opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• It is also hard for an insider to tell who is favouring what opinion too - which makes it difficult to single out any user as an antagonist and report them. I don't know what you mean by malformed - I filled in all the required links, so what is the usual form for an edit warring report? As for alerting users, this policy page quite clearly states "A warning is not required" - has the policy now changed? Cnbrb (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Policy remains the same. You have misinterpreted it. It says in big red letters at the top of this page that you must inform those you are reporting to this board. The not required phrase you note above refers to warnings placed on the alleged edit warrer's talk pages. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite get this. The bit in big red letters at the top - does that mean I must place a warning on the article talk page? But I am not required to post a warning on the users' talk pages? I've not used this system before and it's a bit confusing. Thanks.Cnbrb (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

An edit warring report has to be about one or more specific people who you consider to be edit warring. Then you notify them and give them a chance to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:AnonymousUsernamexoxo reported by User:SPACKlick (Result: No action)

Page: Rebecca Jane Brown (vlogger) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AnonymousUsernamexoxo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
I freely admit, this is such an obviously bad inclusion on the page that I broke 3rr before attempting to engage in discussion. This account has only ever made edits to add this one link to this page. It seems pretty clearly disruptive editing on a BLP. Wasn't sure where best to take it. SPACKlick (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action. This brand new user broke WP:3RR but may be trying to cooperate now, per what they wrote on the article Talk. Let us know If the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710985013 by Ghatus (talk)Giving links is "not required" as per wikipedia policy."
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 06:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710978646 by MBlaze Lightning (talk) then simply remove the image. Here I'll show u how"
   2. 06:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Ceasefire */ removing extra image due to concerns. I do not share the said concerns but am simply not ready to engage in dispute."
3. 05:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 710584091 by TripWire (talk): Just when did Guardian become an unacceptable source? (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent Edit Warring and disrupting editing across multiple Articles from past few days. Recent Violation of 3RR by the User on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and refusing to discuss at talk page, despite been warned enough times (can be seen on his TP here)! Please see this. Non-Civil behavior while dealing with other users. The user deserve a long period ban. The user has been blocked by the administrators previously at least 3 times for the same reason (can be seen here) i.e., Edit warring, Content blanking, POV-Pushing, and Non-Civil behavior. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: User is currently under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TripWire- MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Knee Jerk Reaction

@MBlaze Lightning feel free to open up as many reports as you wish. With your upcoming block we will have some fresh air and perhaps you too will return as a better editor. Removing sourced content/blanking and then claiming that "it is not available to me online, so it must be false" is an age old vandal trick used by disruptive users since the inception of wikipedia and it is undone with prejudice. Wikipedia allows reliable sources that are offline. And an news article written in the Guardian newspaper is mighty reliable. So feel free to read up on WP:RS and please stop your disruption. As for the claim that I am being "investigated" as a sock, well one of two things is going on. Either Mblaze is lying, yes I mean he is just making up stuff and thinking, "What the heck, let me just lie about this stuff too, these guys will fall for it", OR there is an invisible SPI going on which I have not been invited to and only Mblaze known about it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Both editors involved are as bad as one another. I've seen FLCC on numerous administrator noticeboards and I'd like to think I'm not the only one who thinks that this needs drawing to a close. This immature edit warring, violating the 3RR and counter-filing reports simply goes to show how awfully pathetic this is. It is unbelievable that these editors think the community should be wasting any of its time on them. I am therefore proposing blocks on both sides per WP:BOOMERANG, perhaps an indef for FLCC as their name has come up one too many times on these noticeboards for my liking (and I'm sure most editors on here are in agreement with me). Absolutely unbelievable. --Ches (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: my humble request to you, to please investigate the entire case carefully, I have never violated any Wikipedia policy nor my name has ever came on the noticeboard (Except this one-today even tho I didn't violated 3RR). Thank You MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning - the part about somebody's name constantly appearing on AN was directed at FLCC. Furthermore, you have violated Wikipedia's policy on edit warring - one need not violate 3RR to be blocked for edit warring. --Ches (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555 FLCC? Sorry, didn't get you!? And I am innocent here in this case, I had always discussed the matter at talk page with other editors whenever I have found myself in dispute and had never went beyond 2RR (2RR- that too just 2 times, I guess) to date, please do have a look at my contributions, I had always contributed in a good faith to wiki to date and will continue to do so and that is why I have been granted the reviewer rights! So I believe, I should be exempt from the apparent upcoming block and should be given a last and only chance even if I had violated Edit Warring? Please!? Thank You. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning - for the record, FLCC = FreeatlastChitchat. Neither of you are innocent, you are both edit-warring. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555 My contributions are decent enough to prove my Innocency. I had always contributed in a good-faith manner and had been never accused of vandalism/Edit-Warring/Sock-Puppetry/etc to date (Edit Warring- Except this one). Contrary to FreeatlastChitchat, I had never been block, nor had been accused of disrupting editing to date. The report filled by FreeatlastChitchat is also based on 2RR as I had not violated 3RR, furthermore, you are requested to visit talk pages of the respected articles, FreeatlastChitchat mentioned, I had always discussed the dispute on almost all of those article's talk pages. This should be seen as WP:BRD. So, yes I'm innocent in this case! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning - sorry, no such thing as a "correct" or "innocent" party in edit-warring. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, you are both in the wrong. I am now going to defer this to an administrator, and I therefore kindly ask that you refrain from pinging me. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. There is no 3RR violation here but there is a multi-party edit war. Hopefully a 1RR restriction won't be required once protection expires. Katie^talk 17:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ahunt reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Article protected)

Page

Metrojet Flight 9268 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted, the consensus at Talk:Metrojet_Flight_9268#Why_does_this_still_say_cause_uncertain.3F is to not change this now. You need a consensus there first"
2. 16:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "reverted, see the talk page"

(This is a 1RR SCW&ISIL DS article.)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Metrojet Flight 9268. (TW)"
2. 17:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* March 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Discussion over - it was a terrorist attack */ new section"
2. 17:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Discussion over - it was a terrorist attack */"
3. 17:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Discussion over - it was a terrorist attack */"

Comments:

Ahunt has already reverted [42] [43] [44] [45] 4 different editors by inserting the same "under investigation" text, breaching 1RR with the last revert. I've tried to discuss on his talk page but he refuses to relent and accused me of edit warring instead. I'm fine with a warning, since this appears to be an otherwise productive editor. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected I have protected the article for the moment, Ahunt is just one of many editors applying the current consensus on the term to be used in the infobox, clearly Legacypac doesnt agree so continues to be disruptive against the consensus, not sure "Discussion over" use my version is a constructive disccussion method. That said it is better if discussion continues on the talk page throwing warnings around will not help. But all editors should note the 1RR restrictions on this article MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jwebbs913 reported by User:Amortias (Result: Both warned)

Page

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jwebbs913 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "give me an official Wikipedia policy on verified, but unaired, spoilers please."
2. 21:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711097362 by Penguin888 (talk)
3. 21:49, 20 march 2016 (UTC) "hmu w/ a link then. Wikipedia:spoiler says that broadcast delay cannot be used as a reason for omitting verifiable information"
4. 21:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "(i'm waiting for you to show in the official Wikipedia policies that spoilers from unaired episodes cannot be added."
5. 21:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "show me the official Wikipedia policy on unaired spoilers. the project on spoilers said that broadcast delays cannot be used as a reason for exclusion of verifiable information. cite your sources please"
6. 21:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "show me the official Wikipedia policy on unaired spoilers. the project on spoilers said that broadcast delays cannot be used as a reason for exclusion of verifiable information. cite your sources please"
7. 21:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)"screencaps of episode events here: http://imgur.com/a/VBnsR; your's is vandalism at this point"
8. 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
9. 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
10. 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711094918 by Penguin888 (talk)"
11. 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "not even gonna try to give a reason? work fish"
12. 21:31, 20 march 2016 (UTC) "show me the official Wikipedia policy on unaired spoilers. what i've read said that as long as it's verifiable (see entire screencapped episode here: http://imgur.com/a/VBnsR), then it's fair game"

After partial discussion:

1. 23:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "we've established that spoilers are a-ok in the talk page."
2. 23:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "formatting i suck at sometime (s) // talk page says that spoilers are ok"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Both User:Jwebbs913 and User:Penguin888 warned at their talks. Both advised to use article talk and not modify article until consensus is reached. Both complying at the moment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Penguin888 reported by User:Amortias (Result: Both warned)

Page

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Penguin888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

List of diffs. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Diffs of the user's reverts 21:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711097960 by Jwebbs913 (talk) I've reported you for your vandalism on the page already." 21:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711097692 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" 21:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711097136 by Jwebbs913 (talk) A leak is not a broadcast delay." 21:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711096651 by Jwebbs913 (talk) They've already been posted." 21:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711096122 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" 21:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711095843 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" 21:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711095429 by Jwebbs913 (talk) No matter leak or not, the rules state you can't spoil an episode before it airs." 21:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711095179 by Jwebbs913 (talk) Vandalism at this point." Consecutive edits made from 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711094958 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711095024 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711094885 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Episode Three: RuCo's Empire */" Consecutive edits made from 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "" 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Contestants */" 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Lip-syncs */" Consecutive edits made from 21:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 21:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 21:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "←Blanked the page" 21:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "" 21:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "You are not allowed to post spoilers before the episode airs, it's listed in the rules why you can't do this." 21:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Contestants */" 21:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Lip-syncs */" 21:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Episode Three: RuCo's Empire */" Consecutive edits made from 20:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 20:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 20:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711079341 by Jwebbs913 (talk) IT HAS NOT AIRED YET. You cannot have spoilers in a Wikipedia for episodes that haven't aired." 20:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711079435 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" Consecutive edits made from 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711078758 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711079200 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711078888 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711079057 by Jwebbs913 (talk)" 20:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Episode Three: RuCo's Empire */ EPISODE THREE HAS NOT AIRED YET" Consecutive edits made from 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 20:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "EPISODE 3 HAS NOT AIRED YET." 20:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Lip-syncs */ EPISODE THREE HAS NOT AIRED YET"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Both User:Jwebbs913 and User:Penguin888 warned at their talks. Both advised to use article talk and not modify article until consensus is reached. Both complying at the moment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:TalhaZubairButt reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: Page protected)

Page

Pakistan Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710916278 by MBlaze Lightning (talk)Come on Talk."
2. 22:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC) "There seems 2 be more sourced info abt Pak army on other pages, hence I have collected here sourced info from other pages abt the military involvement in Bosnia, Palestine and Afghanistan. Info agreed upon in other articles on '71 war has also been added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Long drawn out edit warring on multiple pages. Please see the report given above(that of Mblaze) for other targets. These two seem to be going at it like bulls in a china shop FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: I am simply trying to make good sourced edits and @MBlaze Lightning often changes it back to before because he disagrees, often he wants his own POV pushed.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@TalhaZubairButt Mblaze is going to be blocked soon enough for his disruptions, but that does not mean we should start warring to prevent warring. Admins and others users (like me) routinely patrol these pages and keep an eye out for guys like him, so to be frank there is just no reason to start a war against these guys. They get their comeuppance in the end, no need to get involved in edit warring with them. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Okay, thanks. I felt as if I was being stalked. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Katie^talk 16:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Frankie edgar 32 and User:Platonic Love reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: One user blocked)

Page: Conor McGregor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frankie edgar 32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Platonic Love (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So bad that the last 50 edits on this page contain 1 edit that is not part of this edit war. When I first came across the controversial edit, I reverted it Frankie edgar added sources. I opened a discussion on the talkpage, to which neither party has added anything. Murry1975 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason I was constantly reverting Frankie edgar 32 is because he's a single purpose account vandalizing the page. The only purpose to the creation of his account is to add incorrect info on that article. If he was sincere, he would also edit the MMA record in José Aldo's article and the UFC 194 article as well. But ever since his account creation, all he's done is vandalize Conor McGregor's page with his inaccurate insincere bias. He's been reverted by many editors such as Murry1975, Stephenmusic, Alexander Gustafsson and myself multiple times but still persists in his single-purpose account vandalism. That's the reason I ignored the 3RR but since this has finally been reported, I will cease to make any reverts or edits engaging him on the page while an admin looks into this and hopefully permanently bans Frankie edgar 32. For the record, I also was unaware that Murry1975 had began a discussion on the talkpage as I was focused on preventing Frankie edgar 32's vandalism. I apologize for that. Platonic Love (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I would have expected you to find the article talk page, before making 31 reverts (by my count). --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think anyone started a discussion. And thanks for counting, I was trying to prevent Frankie edgar 32's vandalism. I just perused the talkpage right now and noticed that numerous editors agree with me that he's distorting the article such as Marz8ar, NerdNinja9 and InedibleHulk. I definitely should have checked the talkpage, but I thought Frankie edgar 32's single purpose account was such a clear case of vandalism that I simply opted to revert and hoped he'd get the picture without going through the necessary steps of reporting him and initiating that. But obviously, he won't get the picture unless he's permanently blocked for being a single-purpose vandalising account. Platonic Love (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

FE32 adds a source, but has just after being reported, as Kansas Bear puts it, found the talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This just proves how insincere Frankie edgar 32 (FE32) really is. This so-called source is a smoke-screen excuse to justify his vandalism of Conor McGregor's page. If he had an atom's worth of sincerity, he'd also "correct" José Aldo's page and UFC 194 article, yet the only article he's ever edited since creating his account is Conor McGregor. Several editors have responded to him at length explaining why his source is insufficient yet he's ignored them and continues to vandalise the page. The reason I know this is because I checked his talkpage and elsewhere to see whether anyone has discussed this with him, because if no one did, I would have initiated a discussion with him myself and made the same explanation to him. However after investigating and confirming that numerous editors already discussed and explained to him and asked him to stop, he simply refuses, that coupled with the fact he's a clear single-purpose account, led me to conclude he's simply a troll not worthy of initiating a discussion with beyond what others have already attempted and I didn't consider checking the talkpage of the article in question as I was satisfied and convinced after seeing his talkpage and the editor's talkpages who reverted him that he was absolutely a vandal and decided to constantly revert hoping he'd go away. Next time though, it'd be worthwhile to do what Murry1975 did and just report such cases and have an admin swiftly deal with it. Platonic Love (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I corrected Aldo's page now too. I hope that clears up the inconsistencies and resolved any issues you have. Frankie edgar 32 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: Frankie edgar 32 just reverted the article in question again. As I mentioned earlier, I have committed not to make any further reverts as this has now been reported despite my sincere view that this is blatant and clear vandalism and I anticipate will be soon be resolved with FE32 being indefinitely blocked. Again, the reason I felt justified constantly reverting him earlier was due to him being a clear case of a single-purpose account with malicious intent who refused to heed any warnings/reverts/genuine discussions initiated by multiple editors which I checked beforehand. Further evidence can clearly be seen by his troll-laced response above. However, I recognize it probably would have been better to report him earlier myself then to simply revert and hope he'd disappear. That definitely seems the better remedy and strategy I intend to employ when dealing with similar future cases. Platonic Love (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not mean to upset you, my friend. I am admittedly new to Wikipedia and only am trying to represent the truth! I apologize if my intention was misconstrued. I do not want to see your account compromised. I hope this misunderstanding can be cleared up swiftly and justly for all parties involved. Frankie edgar 32 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Nearly TEN different editors disagree with your version of the "truth" and have posted warnings on your talkpage, reverted you over a period of months and attempted to engage in genuine discussion with you all of which you've ignored as a single-purpose account with malicious intent to vandalize Conor McGregor's page without a single edit elsewhere beyond the one you claim to be true. You haven't upset me, please drop the act my friend and avoid creating another account once this one is indefinitely blocked. Platonic Love (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

My friend, a million people could disagree with me but the only opinion that matters is that of the NSAC. I apologize for saying I upset you when that is not the case. I should have said "I did not mean to come off as attempting to upset you". I don't think either of us should need a new account after all is said and done. I hope in time we can mend this rocky start to a (hopefully) long lasting friendship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie edgar 32 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The NSAC could have reported the win as being via "submission" which doesn't make it true and doesn't conform to reality which is basically what ten different editors have tried explaining to you. The only opinion that matters is reality and the NSAC is not infallible and have made mistakes before requiring correction which editors have also explained to you. If a scientific body/authority incorrectly wrote a typo saying the colour of the sun is purple and you attempted to edit an article concerning the sun saying the sun is purple and the only opinion that matters is that of the scientific authority who made the erroneous claim, do you think your "source" or reasoning would fly? That's exactly and essentially what you've been attempting to do here over a period of months after having it explained to you over and over. The only opinion that matters is fact, whether you like it or not buddy. Platonic Love (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

- Also, I'm not worried about the status of my account which has existed without incident since 2006 as I've pledged not to make any more reverts and maintained that pledge in addition to affirming my intent to deal in the future with similar problematic editors such as yourself by reporting them promptly. The same however can't be said for you as a single-purpose account who for months haven't heeded anyone's advice and even had the audacity to make further reverts after being reported, doubling-down on your inexcusable behaviour. Platonic Love (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a more accurate comparison in this case would be if you were disappointed with a judges decision and brought it upon yourself to change a fighter record to how you personally scored the fight. I don't know what makes you think you have any authority to overrule the atheltic commission. My friend, I'm sorry, but you do not have the authority. Frankie edgar 32 (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears your capacity for thinking is severely compromised my friend as at no time did I insinuate any of the utter non-sense you just mentioned. This reminds me of various well-known quotes about reasoning or debating with an ignorant person. Attempting to alter reality to conform to your false desires is never a successful endeavour and thinking you have such authority is simply a delusion. Either abort your futile endeavour or seek help for your illness. Platonic Love (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Platonic Love is blocked 24 hours for making personal attacks at this noticeboard: "seek help for your illness." EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch reported by User:SiddharthSunny (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Guru Arjan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Islam and Sikhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ms Sarah Welch has continuously edit warred on the above two mentioned articles, and only stopped after she reached the 3rd revert in 24 hours.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]
6. [51]
7. [52]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [53] - I was the one to tell her to talk.
2. [54]
3. [55]

Hello moderators, Ms Sarah Welch had constantly been edit-warring with me on these articles and kept reverting my edits despite them being clearly sourced and doing whatever she wants. In fact now she seems to have started edit-warring again this time with another user here. She had also kept bossing me around because I'm new. I too had edit-warred but she was let go scot-free by User:Ian.thomson. This is my second time making a complaint, so forgive me if something is wrong in the format.

I had earlier made a complaint about her at ANI under the section Ms Sarah Welch edit-warring. However it was closed by User:Ian.thomson without considering it after he blocked me when User:Omni Flames reported me. Ian.Thomson claimed on my talk page that she did not violate 3RR. That too despite WP:3RR clearly stating that "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." And my block shouldn't affect whether the other user should be blocked. Ian.thomson has clearly violated the due process and rules.

Not only that, instead of accepting she has edit-warred, User:Ms Sarah Welch started giving reasons to justify her edit-warring and all of them were frivolious and nothing more than misunderstandings.

The dispute between me and Ms Sarah Welch started when I reverted her changes to the text about Guru Arjan's martyrdom. She continued to revert me [56]. We talked at the Talk:Guru Arjan and I proved her claims wrong there, yet she insists she was right. After proving her wrong I added the original text back again but she added it back again. I even warned her that I'll complain about her if she continued to edit-war. However she refuses to listen. Fed up with the edit-warring I reverted her and warned her the last time. This pattern was also repeated at Islam and Sikhism where I warned her several times not to break the rules. She first completely removed my sourced edits here after User:Sisu55 was blocked saying taht they were edits of blocked editors, even though they were mine. She removed my edits again falsely claiming they were personal opinions when in actual they were sourced content. I proved that my edits were sourced at Talk:Islam and Sikhism, which proves her claims of reading the sources to check my edits are false. I reverted her again but she reverted me again. I reverted her again. She reverted me again. I reverted her again.

Then I got fed up of the constant edit-warring, decided enough is enough and as earlier told complained about her at ANI. However, as already told User:Ian.thomson quashed it. Not only that Ms Sarah Welch into over-detail to try to justify her edit-warring at my complaint, even though edit-warring isn't justifiable no matter what reason you have. And it seems to me that she has started it again now.

She cannot be let go scot-free. Based on her behaviour of disruptive edit-warring, I ask her to be blocked for a period of time. Thank you. SiddharthSunny (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is a repeat case, that went through this board after a @Omni Flames request and also through ANI. The ANI case has been closed. See response of admins @Ian.thomson:, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, @MaxSem: to above arguments of @SiddharthSunny while @SiddharthSunny was on 36-hour block. See also the threat to admin @MaxSem by @SiddharthSunny, and insults/disruptive style on Talk:Guru Arjan after the 36-hour block expired. Pinging @Omni Flames:, @JimRenge: as they have intervened and recently reverted edits to the Guru Arjan article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch User:Ian.thomson had closed it simply because I was blocked and you hadn't made more than 3 reverts on a single article in 24 hours even though you had been edit-warring. As I have already told User:Ian.thomson has violated the due process. My actions do not exonerate your actions and even if you do not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours on an article, you are still edit-warring. User:JimRenge engaged with another editor. Only User:Omni Flames engaged me. Also to the admins, please note Ms Sarah Welch is making bad faith comments and falsely accusing me of "insulting" her which I have already rebutted. She is also trying to victimise me by constantly pointing out my block. This is against the rules. SiddharthSunny (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also here's evidence of her past edit-warring and violation of other rules where she has been warned as well:

1. [57] - An experienced editor User:Mohanbhan warned her for being constantly uncivil to others.
2. [58] - Mohanbhan again warning her, this time for canvassing
3. [59] Warning to her to stop edit-warring, an experienced user Kautilya3 even recognised and accepted she did edit-war
4. [60], [61] - Edit-warring over a well-sourced edit and harassing of other users. She even accepted herself that she was wrong.

She should be blocked this instant as her past behaviour shows that she is a disruptive editor. SiddharthSunny (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see also this SPI. JimRenge (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: I checked the SPI. And it seems clear she started the SPI only after my reverts. Seems a clear harrsment attempt to stifle me and other users through false accusations. I think I should file a SPI complaint about her as well. But, this is about her edit-warring over here. What claims she makes about me are not relevant. What do you think of her edit-warring? SiddharthSunny (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean User:Mohanbhan. Funny, that a user with 111 edits knows this template {{Reply|Username}}. I've made over 42,000 edits, and I didn't know this one yet. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Of the diffs you've provided, three are to Islam and Sikhism and four are to Guru Arjan. Ian.thomson already explained to you that 3RR counts per page. Of the four diffs for Guru Arjan, the first is by SiddharthSunny, two are by MSW, and one is by Omni Flames. Apart from WP:DISRUPTIVE, we can also look at WP:COMPETENCE, not to mention the SPI, for which I expect Js82 to be involved again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: But Mohanbhan still has experience, and I wasn't comparing him. The point was Ms Sarah Welch's uncivil behaviour. Also please note that 3RR can be breached even without making more than 3 reverts. SiddharthSunny (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoever you are, isn't it time to let it go? You can't build your wiki-career on hating another editor, can you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

How am I hating? And no I'm not letting it slide, she broke the rules. I'm not complaining about me getting blocked which just recently expired. Also not to mention she has harrased me because I'm new and inexperienced. And she has a past of such behaviour. SiddharthSunny (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• The new list of allegations above, posted at 19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC), using @Mohanbhan as leverage, is strange. This new list is not about current edit warring. It is a collection of distorted allegations compiled by the highly active blocked sock account @Js82 and posted on ANI in January 2016. I addressed the concerns with @Mohanbhan there, and I will not repeat it here. The January ANI/edit-war complaint was dismissed. I will note that @Js82's socks, which @SiddharthSunny is repeating above, have been traced to persistent harassment, one which has required multiple periods of protection of my talk page. It is unusual that @SiddharthSunny, a new account, knows all this @Js82/@Mohanbhan stuff, lectures on what the due process of wikipedia is, lists the same identical allegations from a blocked account, so quickly and with diffs. Looks like an obvious case of new accounts driven WP:MEAT to me, one that has adversely affected the quality of Sikhism-related wiki articles, and one which has been persistently disruptive and such a time sink for all the veteran editors like @Joshua Jonathan and others, as well as admins. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your past is related to the current edit-warring. Because it shows that you often do this, this isn't the first time. What I said about you is the complete truth Ms Sarh Welch. That you responded to someone warning you not to be uncivil, or whether an earlier complaint was dismissed isn't going to help you exonerate yourselves. In actual the ealier ANI complaint made by Mohanbhan just proves it more that you indeed violate the rules often. You have been warned many times for uncivility, [62], edit-warring here and here. And a npte to everyone, please note that she now seems to be claiming that I'm Tocic45 and/or Js42's sock both here and at the SPI. I added all of the things Tocic45 told me after reading through them and I found that you have been warned several times for auch behaviour. Claims of "copy-and-paste" or "sock" are not going to help. You have repeatedly violated the rules and you should be blocked to prevent repetition of such behaviour. SiddharthSunny (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:SiddharthSunny and User:AkhtarHussain83 are both blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, based on the history of their changes at Guru Arjan and the talk page. It is unusual that a new account (25 February) such as SiddharthSunny is so well-informed about an existing dispute. Akhar's account was created on 14 March. New accounts that are this aggressive are often found to be socks. My favorite edit of AkhtarHussain83 is from 19 March, "Restore some legit edits of blocked editors". That's a good way to start out a new account on the right foot, and to encourage the belief you might be one of the blocked editors. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KahnJohn27. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:86.139.178.202 reported by User:IJBall (Result: Semi)

Page: List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.139.178.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this (and earlier this)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this (sort of - but see most recent Talk page topic)

Comments:

Not technically "3RR" but persistently edit warring over the last month to replace scrupulously sourced content with earlier version that was almost entirely unsourced (and contained many list entries that were out-of-scope). Attempts at warning this IP have come to naught. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Have notified IP of this entry on the noticeboard, as that is one of the requirements of filing the report. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Was meaning to do that last, but got distracted... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

• Result: Page semiprotected six months. This article has been a target for unsourced changes for a long time. See protection log. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kasif the great reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: No violation)

Page: Battle of Mu'tah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kasif the great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69],[70],[71],[72],[73]

Comments:
User:Kasif has been edit warring to change the sourced result of the battle to "Tactical Muslim victory". I directed Kasif to the article talk pageand started explaining and listing sources(12 stating Byzantine victory) with quotes concerning this battle(12 March 2016). Seeing how Kasif has not seen fit to use the article talk page, I waited over a week for a response on the article talk page, then restored the referenced information to the article[74], Kasif then starts posting nonsense on my talk page about how, "Well the primary sources from medieval Europe cant be trusted". Yet Kasif chosen NOT to engage in discussion on the article talk page! Today Kasif restarts edit warring,[75] removing referenced information(Byzantine victory) and replacing it with his opinion(Tactical Muslim victory)

This editor has also tried to write their opinion into the Battle of Cannae[76], despite what the referenced quote states. Clearly this editor has chosen to be disruptive, not sure what their issue is. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• No violation Ten days between changes does not an edit war make. Katie^talk 01:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Viggen reported by User:Ушкуйник (Result: Both warned)

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

• Dear collegues, I would be glad to hear your opinion about the situation in the article about Soviet military aviator Ivan Kozhedub. According to the rules of Wikiperia I tried to explain User:Viggen that Kozhedub's birthplace is Ukrainian SSR, which existed from 1919 till 1991. According to Viggen's logic there is no any matter that Kozhedub's place of birth de facto was Ukrainian SSR because it was not recognized at this period by major of countries. From that reason Viggen tried to describe Ukrainian People's Republic (existed from 1918 till 1921) as Kozhedub's place of birth, although already in 1920 this political creation didn't controled the territory of Kozhedub's place of birth.

• User:HOBOPOCC (see: [here]) and I tried to explain Viggen the fact that Kozhedub's place of birth is Ukrainian SSR. User:Alex Bakharev has also written: "The legitimacy of UkSSR is hardly less than the legitimacy of the Ukraine People Republic (well, UkSSR had lately a seat in UN). Thus, no reason to change UkSSR to UPR." (See here: [77]). But even after that Viggen disregards historical facts and systematically tries to proclame Ukrainian People's Republic as Kozhedub's place of birth, which it couldn't be.

• At least six times or even more times he reverted the information about Kozhedub's place of birth on the page about Ivan Kozhedub. See diffs of the user's reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. According to WP:3RR and arguments on the talk page about Kozhedub I suggest, that Viggen should be blocked from editing of the article about Kozhedub. Ушкуйник (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that the issue should be decided by Administrators ASAP as Ушкуйник totally ignored the basic rules of wikipedia regarding to the place of birth. Please check the arguments on the Talk page. I think that WP:3RR is directly applicable to Ушкуйник's actions, but not to me as I reverted the actions which could be regarded as vandalism. Furthermore, please check the input of Ушкуйник and you will see that all his activities are dedicated to convert Ukrainian people (even most prominent) into Russians. Please also check his talk page - it was discussed many times + he has 2 bans. I think it could be reasonable to impose topic-ban on Ukrainian topics for Ушкуйник.--Viggen (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Dear Viggen, thank you very much for your opinion, but it has nothing to do with constructive critic of my contributions. I have a good grasp of history and make contributions only in the articles about topics, which I realy know. It's true, I had 2 bans long time ago in the past, but it is absolutely irrelevalt for our actual discussion about Kozhedub and your tring to make an original research in the article about him. Could you show me any reliable sources to protect your thesis about Ukrainian People's Republic as the place of Kozhedub's birth? Ушкуйник (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Result: Both User:Viggen and User:Ушкуйник are warned. If this war continues blocks will be issued. For the future, please consider the new comment at Talk:Ivan Kozhedub by User:iryna Harpy who has a suggestion of what to do. Warring about the ethnicity of people and place names is a traditional activity of nationalist edit warriors, and the sanctions of WP:ARBEE are available to deal with it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear User talk:EdJohnston, thanks you for your advice, I just want to say that I actually tried to ask Iryna Harpy to help in our situation. See: here. Ушкуйник (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:171.36.16.33 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: withdrawn by reporter as page protected)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page

The Mermaid (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Wrong ! Chinese release poster no cast : https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Mermaid_2016_poster.jpg"
2. 01:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Wrong ! Chinese release poster no cast : https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Mermaid_2016_poster.jpg"
3. 01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Are you blind? Fuck the de chao fan !"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Mermaid (2016 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Multiple edits have also been reverted as vandalism, probably due to the IP's poor English. Marianna251TALK 01:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Having checked the page's edit history, User:171.36.16.25, User:171.37.44.187, User:171.37.46.224 and User:171.37.44.217 appear to be the same editor with a pattern of disruptive editing on this page. They are continuing to edit war, with a further four reverts since I made this report (and eight made prior in the 24 hours prior to this report). A range block may be appropriate. Marianna251TALK 10:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And User:171.37.45.212. Marianna251TALK 11:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dr. ShapiroWormser reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

Page: International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. ShapiroWormser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version

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:
Brand new user, aggressively changing article about advocacy group for alternative theory about Lyme Disease (see Lyme disease controversy) to make organization seem way more mainstream than it is. Will not talk. I pulled up short of breaking 3RR myself but the editor has not talked and the article is now fringey. Please block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Now blocked indef by User:MastCell per {{uw-uhblock}}. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ragomego reported by User:77.99.249.77 (Result: Protected )

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

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]
5. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [85]

Comments:
77.99.249.77 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days. Take the dispute to the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Scott Illini reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: No action)

Page

Number of guns per capita by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Scott Illini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on [[ Number of guns per capita by country‎‎]]. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User ScottIllini deleted a very well sourced statement for the third time despite my request to discuss it on the talk page. ZH8000 (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The reported user has made no edits in the last 48 hours. If this continues, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Sedej reported by User:Opdire657 (Result: )

Page: 2010 Hakkâri bus attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sedej (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2010 Hakkâri bus attack
2. 2010 Hakkâri bus attack
3. 2010 Hakkâri bus attack
4. 2010 Hakkâri bus attack
5. 2012 Gaziantep bombing
6. 2012 Gaziantep bombing
7. 2016 Gaziantep bombing
8. 2016 Gaziantep bombing

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:

A user with only one purpose.--Opdire657 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2605:E000:364F:4000:C4A8:F108:65C2:367F reported by User:Winterysteppe (Result: Semi)

Page

Frank Sinatra, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2605:E000:364F:4000:C4A8:F108:65C2:367F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711479261 by 75.23.225.120 (talk)"
2. 03:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711478707 by 75.23.225.120 (talk)"
3. 03:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711477422 by 75.23.225.120 (talk)"
4. 02:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711475084 by 75.23.225.120 (talk)"
5. 02:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711475008 by 75.23.225.120 (talk)"
6. 02:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711474603 by 75.23.225.120 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This person is edit warring with this other person. Although, im not 100% sure since the other person is from the same city, even the same provider, according to http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip-lookup Winterysteppe (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two days by User:Mr. Stradivarius. There could be a WP:BLP issue here. We don't generally use raw court records for a contested biographical fact, like whether Frank Sinatra Jr. has another son. We would expect the fact to be stated in a newspaper, magazine or book. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:LittleMarkR reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )

Page

Heidi Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "This has been reported"
2. 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "This is offensive and there is no permission to use this photo"
3. 01:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "The photo is offensive"
4. 22:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Heidi is an Adventist. Read the article."
5. 18:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 18:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Heidi Cruz */ not blocked"
2. 01:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Heidi Cruz. (TW)"
3. 01:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "/* March 2016 */ +"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Brand new user not getting that edit warring isn't appropriate or acceptable behavior. Perhaps a 24-hour block will convince them? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I was honestly just about to report LittleMarkR to this noticeboard right before you did. I would support a 24-hour block for them, because they have been warned enough times about the changes they have made, as well as being warned about the edit warring itself. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Vormeph reported by User:Evrik (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:34, 19 March 2016
2. 19:23, 21 March 2016‎
3. 12:57, 22 March 2016‎

plus

1. [89] the general mess made of the talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:

General incivility:

• (Reverted to revision 711388182 by Evrik (talk): This article is for literature reasons. Do not post images which are not related to literature. If you undo I will report you. [92]
• There's a chance I might put up a picture of an ass on your page because I think it may be relevant; but that doesn't mean there's a correlation between the two ... [93]
• Nominating a talk page for deletion [94][95]
• Other nasty comments "his contributions are simply null and void" [96]

--evrik ^(talk) 02:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Full-protected for 24 hours. I'm just going to drop a note on the talk page now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Neve-selbert reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of state leaders in 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Neve-selbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Spirit Ethanol: The consensus was Palestine being included separate to Israel. Per WP:BRD, "feel free" to discuss your discontent on the talk page rationally, please. (TW)"
2. 12:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Indeed, easily fixable"
3. 11:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "There cannot be anything wrong with stating that Palestine is an occupied UN observer state. Besides, Israel remains unmentioned, and this elucidated rendition contains zero bias nor personal POV"
4. 09:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Asia */My edit was reverted without any proper justification. The result below is a breach of NPOV and a serious deprivation of important information; using AWB"
5. 09:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711316947 by Neve-selbert: Palestine isn't a full member at the UN and remains blockaded and barricaded. For the sake of unity, this is the perfect compromise available; no "personal opinions" are even included & Israel isn't even..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "/* We need a new footnote for Palestine */"
2. 12:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "/* We need a new footnote for Palestine */ respond"

Comments:

Added footnote already reverted by two other users (OpenFuture, Zero0000). Also discussion still ongoing on talk page to work out a footnote. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This report is nonsensical and ridiculous. I adhered to WP:3RR. The reporter is deliberately causing unnecessary and uncalled for disruption.--Neve–selbert 12:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Much more than three reverts, close to six.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: The 3RR does not mean that you have a right to revert three times per 24H, it's just a hard limit where the admins can block you without any other reason. What you are doing is still edit warring. You have been told to discuss this by several different people, but you refuse, and this comes directly after your other disruptions with regards to the RfC not going your way. You WP:BATTLED your way through that RfC, despite everyone else (at least 15 people) disagreeing with you, and then WP:FORUMSHOPPED when battling didn't work. You have promised to step back and take a break to cool down multiple times, but you never do. Taking this to administrators is the right thing to do. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I would like to open a new Rfc on my proposed rendition (while keeping the current one intact per WP:STATUSQUO). I apologise and I am determined to remain constructive.

@Spirit Ethanol: The edit has since been reverted and I will seek a consensus for the new edits.--Neve–selbert 13:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you pledge to wait for discussion results and stop edit warring (same pledge you made to OpenFuture), purpose of this report is already fulfilled. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User still edit warring, now Kosovo entry against talk page agreement direction. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The reporter is attempting a red herring, there was never any consensus for the Kosovo entry. This "talk page agreement direction" jargon that he is referring to is dubious and has not been concretely agreed upon. If there had been a consensus for Kosovo? It would have been moved from the Serbia entry.--Neve–selbert 14:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Remain constructive? Throughout this whole discussion you have never been constructive. You are persistently battling and disrupting. Now with a new and utterly pointless RfC. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rfc has been shut down temporarily (moved to here) and I permanently accept the result of the Rfc—that is: listing Palestine separate from Israel.--Neve–selbert 14:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Also, related thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Spirit_Ethanol about reported user. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment An Rfc, opened by the reported user, has started at the talk page of the article-in-question. Discretion: as the user reported myself, I shall abide to the result of the Rfc and will duly refrain from editing the article-in-question until consensus is found.--Neve–selbert 13:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• DS sanctions incl. 1RR apply to those edits and the OP was made aware of this repeatedly starting back in Feb. by EdJohnston, still visible on their own talk page.--TMCk (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  The article-in-question is not subject to sanctions. There is no banner.--Neve–selbert 14:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  See User talk:Neve-selbert#WP:ARBPIA block, User talk:Neve-selbert#Edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA and again User talk:Neve-selbert#WP:I hope that this is not necessary, all in relation to the Palestine entry in those articles.--TMCk (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  If that is fully the case, then I shouldn't be the only one reprimanded (if the situation so calls for). Spirit Ethanol has reverted just as many times as I have.--Neve–selbert 14:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  So? Doesn't justify your ongoing disruption on this and related articles going on for at least several weeks.--TMCk (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  If someone takes the time to file an ARB enforcement request on you such lame excuses won't help at all.--TMCk (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days. User is not getting the message. If this kind of behavior continues, a topic ban from WP:ARBPIA should be considered. See also a recent ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Hh892 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

Page: Michael Marder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hh892 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff adding NYT article
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:
Please note that this user is a WP:SPA for all things Marder, as are several IP addresses (please see the list in the header of Talk:Michael Marder and this old COIN case which first drew my attention to this article. This account came out of dormancy after one of the IP addresses that did the same thing edit warred and I got the page protected. This account has never used a Talk page per its contribs]. They are here for one thing, and that is to promote Marder. Please block this user for edit warring and consider an indef for abusing WP for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note - another editor got involved and reverted the last dif by Hh892 and they started right up again:

1. diff
2. diff

- Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Truth should trump reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result:Blocked 60 hours)

Page

Goud Saraswat Brahmin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Truth should trump (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 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC) to 19:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Perceptions of mythology and history */Reference is there go through it"
   2. 19:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Perceptions of mythology and history */Reference for trihotrapura"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC) to 06:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Perceptions of mythology and history */2 statements dont have ref.moved to talk no need to revert blindly"
   2. 06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Perceptions of mythology and history */Trihotrapura not trihot(referenced)"
   3. 06:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Perceptions of mythology and history */Referenced"
3. 19:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Perceptions of mythology and history */Kalhana script mention with reference"
4. 19:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Perceptions of mythology and history */Content moved to talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned yesterday. Continues regardless today. Inserting unsourced ethnocentric POV. Shocking edit warring. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. About time, I think. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mtherwjs reported by User:Giorgi Balakhadze (Result: Globally locked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]
4. [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments:

We have discussed issue about the collage in the infobox but this user doesn't respect other users decisions.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose account locked. 66.147.242.188 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: The Mtherwjs account has been globally locked by User:Ajraddatz on 18 March. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:85.229.164.17 reported by User:Nyuszika7H (Result: Semi)

Page

• Violetta (telenovela) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Violetta characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Main cast */"
2. 08:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP won't give up, continuing to add unnecessary nicknames to both Violetta (telenovela) and List of Violetta characters, and cleverly trying to avoid sanctions by waiting a month or more between the edits. Before you say they haven't been warned recently, I'm not even sure what warning to give anymore but it seems clearly the same user based on WP:DUCK and they've had a lot of chances to discuss it already but refuse to cooperate. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both articles semiprotected for one year. If a single IP has the patience to wait out a 3-month semiprotection then we can protect for longer. See all the warnings about the same thing on the IP's talk page, starting last September. EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:MBlaze Lightning reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: multiple editors sanctioned; pages protected)

Page

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

User being reported

MBlaze Lightning (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 09:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC) to 09:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 09:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Reasons behind the dispute */ added back info and URL"
   2. 09:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Indian administered Kashmir */correction."
2. 09:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "It's not about the Pakistan stance and page number! Junagadh ruler wanted an independent status, beside I'm unable to find your source in Google, provide an URL atleast"
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC) to 08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 07:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 1999 Conflict in Kargil */ sourced content added"
   2. 08:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Indian administered Kashmir */Reverted edits by TalhaZubairButt. Case of source mispresentation. Where is the URL? And, Kashmir Media Service is no Human Right organisation. It has its roots in the neighbouring country"
   3. 08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "reverted edits by TalhaZubairButt (talk) Apparent case of source mispresentation. please provide URL and discuss on talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has been reminded of 3PR, Discretionary Sanctions etc on his TP and still continues to engage in this long drawn out edit war. He is targeting multiple pages with his disruptive warring, this is the first of them. Other pages under attack include

1. Indian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Pakistan Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I never violated 3RR. And FreeatlastChitchat should stop labelling other's contributions as disruption, while it's he itself who is reverting other users across multiple articles and simply labelling them disrupton and refusing to discuss at talk! I never went beyond 2RR, let me show some evidence.

• Kashmir Conflict; In my first edit, i only added sourced content can be seen here

Second edit; Because of the absence of URL in the refrence provided by the other user, it seem to me an apparent case of source mispresentation. Third edit; Reason i provided in my edit summary. I discussed the matter at talk page can be seen here While, in my next edit, i only added the info back per talk page discussion can be seen here.

I request the administrator to please look out the Edit History of the pages (Indian Army, Pakistan Army, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965) FreeatlastChitchat mentioned and their respective talk pages! I never violated 3RR nor went even close to it, I was involve in the discussion of talk pages of almost all of the articles FreeatlastChitchat mentioned. Here on my talk page, FreeatlastChitchat accused me of violating 3RR (Can be seen here) on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War While i never went beyond 2RR and i think, he is pretty much confused b/w 2RR and 3RR. While his own talk page is filled with 3RR warning and he has been blocked by the administrator atleast 3 times to date for Edit Warring, Non-Civil behaviour while dealing with other editors and POV pushing across multiple articles. Admins are requested to see the edit history of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 here. FreeatlastChitchat refused to discuss at talk page while he blatantly reverted other editors twice continously + 1 non-revert edit. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning you seem to be warring for like a week now. Your attempts to say that you did not violate 3PR should have been made if you were reported on day one. However you have been given a long, long length of rope and have hung yourself. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest administrative action against nominator: FreeatlastChitchat is probably one of the most disruptive editors I've ever seen. Checking his block log , talk page and a quick search will show what I mean. Recently, he was verified to be guilty of violating WP:3RR. On several occasions he has shown zero tendency to participate in talk pages. In this case, I see that he's committed another edit war by reverting three times ([104], [105] and [106]) with zero participation in the talk page. Admins please note that he had been warned many times by admins and other users and also note that he had been unblocked by Slakr provided that he keeps self adhere to 1RR. I think he have been given a long, long length of rope and have hung himself. Mhhossein (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein Don't fret my friends I will be online on wiki to remove your POV edits no matter how much you try to get me blocked. I think you have this text in a notepad file and just copy paste it everywhere right? Btw how did you arrive at this page if you are not following my edits? :P Just asking, not blaming you for following my edits of course, I think it is kinda flattering that you take time out to see my contributions list, ty for that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I want you Online on wiki but when you are polite and constructive enough. How I arrived here is not important at all and don't twist the subject please. In fact, you are expected to explain why you think you had not edit warred. Mhhossein (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment

For me also, FreeatlastChitchat is probably one of the most disruptive editor I've ever seen to date. He follow other users edit in order to demoralise them and repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. His apparent aim is just to create irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. He is following my edits since for many days, his behaviour is non-civil when dealing with other editors. For no reason, he repeatedly reverts my contributions just to get me involve in an edit war (I've always avoid an edit war) so that he can appeal here to get me block. I am a pending changes reviewer and thus i frequently patrol pages! FLCC follows my every edit and often reverts it. For example: this, this and this also. In the name of removing POV sentences, he blanks out sections of articles just to suit his own POV. Let me show few examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He follow my edits and not only revert me but also, he blanks entire sections this, and yet again in the name of POV, he blanked out entire section, full history can be seen here and when he saw himself near 3RR, he simply removed most of the sources and relevant info just to suit his own point of view (can be seen here). He also, violated 3RR yesterday on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 can be seen (here) First, Second and third, he also refused to discuss on talk page and kept reverting other editors. From past many days, he is persistently blanking out contents and reverting other users across multiple articles and refusing to discuss on talk. For ex: this a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Again, in the name of removing irrelevant and POV sentences, he blanked out most of the relevant info and sources, can be seen here. This user deserves a long period or an indefinite block from Wikipedia. Admins please note that He had been warned many times by different users/and admins. His talk page is filled with such 3RR warnings and blocks. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 19:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he has hounded me on multiple pages. He has almost zero tendency to participate talk page discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected multiple pages by other admins; discretionary sanctions issued to several editors. --slakr^\ talk / 02:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User: 2602:306:381E:4CF0:E460:FA77:596B:60E2 reported by User:Xpion (Result: )

Page: List of Star Wars cast members
User being reported: 2602:306:381E:4CF0:E460:FA77:596B:60E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent, nonconstructive reverting of the page, back to what the user considered the 'concrete' version. This page had multiple major issues, that I attempted to discuss on the talk page. I attempted to fix these problems, but the user persisted on reverting the edits. To justify my concerns, I have outlined all of the issues that this page faced, and the changes I attempted to make;

First of all, it seemed to be forgotten that this is a list of cast members not a character list. As a result there where multiple characters that had been listed, that did not even have a performer attributed to them. There where tonnes of 'unidentified actors' listed on there, which is just not necessary for a page listing cast members. Characters with unknown performers can be listed on the separate character list. Secondly this page had massive inconsistencies. Some characters that were listed were so minor, no actors were known to have played them. Though, on the other hand several key characters, such as Lobot, Lando's Aide (played by John Hollis) and Captain Needa (played by Michael Culver), where missing. All of these actors were significantly featured and received credits, in the film (unlike many of the characters on the page). Dermot Crowley (who played Crix Madine), for instance, actually received billing in the end credits of A New Hope, yet was not listed on this article. This article was not at all consistent with which characters were listed. Almost every single patron of the Mos Eisley Cantina (all of which were uncredited) was listed in this article along with some of the most obscure members of the Max Rebo Band. Yet not a single member of Jabba's palace gang (most of whom did receive credit, as either a puppeteer or mime artist), nor any of the original bounty hunters in ESB were mentioned. I understand that since Star Wars is vast franchise, with vast extended universe, so it is understandable that more minor characters have more relevance than usual. I do not have a problem with more obscure characters being listed, but it should be consistent. I am not a against characters like the Mos Eisley Cantina patrons, being listed, as they have become rather iconic and revived expanded character arc but so is Jabba's palace, why do they not warrant recognition? (of particular note, none of Cantina patrons received on screen credit, yet most of Jabba's palace did.). In addition to these issues, there were several other issues. A list should be straight to the point and concise. This is difficult when tackling the complex casting of the Star Wars films, and the Special Edition changes. But they were not dealt with well. There was over use of parenthesis, with some reading, long wordy sentences like; '1997 Special Edition and Subsequent Editions' (some were even longer). There is no need to use this many words in a list. I changed this to a much shorter sentences like; '1997 onward' or 'Special edition onward'. In addition to this, I removed any characters that had no actors associated with them, and included significant missing characters (especially those who were credited). There was also an issue with attributing multiple portrayals for single characters. Some columns where getting so cluttered up with names (body doubles, stunt performers and voice dubs were all included), that it became almost impossible to read. One such example was Darth Vader. I attempted to alleviate the confusion by separating out different 'roles' in to their own columns. Darth Vader had 4 columns. The top listed the principal physical performer, i.e. Dave Prowse. The second listed the voice, James Earl Jones. The third and fourth mentioned any additional performers. One listed Bob Anderson (who played Vader in light-saber stunts) and the other listed actors who filmed additional scenes for the special editions. This appeared to be the most concise and clear way of presenting the information, showing the significance and tenure of each performer. Also, Kenny Baker is credited as only appearing in archive footage for Episode 3. This is not strictly true. Kenny Baker actually said that most of his work was on Episodes 1 & 2, but that he did do some work on Episode 3, even if it was very little. The only person who denies that Baker, filmed scenes for Episode 3, is Antony Daniels. While it may be possible, Baker is still listed in the credits as playing the role (unlike Episode 7, where he is credited as a 'consultant'), and there is no concrete evidence to prove he was not involved, so Baker should be mentioned as playing the role as normal.

As you can see, alleviating all of these issues, to what I believe to be a much clearer article, took much time and thinking. Yet this same address, continually reverted these edits every time they were made. Not only was this user reverting without discussion, but they were reverting back to a version that had so many problems. In this case I believe that my revised version of the article is actually far more useful and within the guidelines for this type of article than the original version. This makes this constant reverting, not only unhelpful but also quite damaging and destructive to the quality of the article.

Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [111]

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

I attempted to discuss all of the issues raise on the talk page, (see here; Talk:List of Star Wars cast members) yet I had little response. The user in question did not discuss any of this on the talk page. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Comments:

Xpion (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man reported by User:Firebrace (Result: )

Page: 2016 Brussels bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts before 1RR notification:

1. 18:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711411891 by Coltsfan (talk) Already linked in the Aftermath section"
2. 20:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711421574 by John (talk)"
3. 20:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711424022 by Cmeignj (talk) We do have this info"
4. 21:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711431535 by De la Marck (talk) Because that's the updated number?"
5. 21:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711432020 by De la Marck (talk) Every other article does it this way."

Diffs of the user's reverts after 1RR notification:

1. 21:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711433340 by VC19 (talk) Very insightful about the motives of the perps."
2. 23:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711448341 by Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk)"
3. 23:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711449314 by Redzemp (talk) Daily Mail was judged to be an unreliable source."
4. 20:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711600391 by Mike Peel (talk) Per WP:CITELEAD."

Comments:
This user made 5 reverts yesterday in clear violation of the 3RR and has made 4 reverts in total since he was notified of the 1RR being in place on the article, despite warnings on the talk page. Firebrace (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Not going to talk my way out of this one. Do whatever you guys need to do. Parsley Man (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a clear violation of the WP:GS/ISIL 1RR, despite the explanations provided to this editor at the article talk page and the standard DS notification I provided on his talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 00:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rtfyguhijk reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: )

Page

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711761285 by Red Jay (talk)"
2. 18:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711760296 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC) to 18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "/* User:Deli nk reported by User:Rtfyguhijk (Result: ) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• (Non-administrator comment) Blocked – for a period of Indef.-- As sock of User:Nsmutte: see here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jerry121 reported by User:P199 (Result: )

Page: L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jerry121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119]

Comments:
Attempts to resolve this I did first through the edit summary, then I tried to talk to this user, either on the article talk page or user talk page, but so far completely ignored. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:198.232.211.130 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: )

Page

Supremacy Clause (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711745500 by North Shoreman (talk) restoring revert"
2. 15:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "returning text regarding the "generality" of the scope of the Supremacy Clause"
3. 14:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711731419 by Drdpw (talk), undoing second non-conforming revert, no basis given for the revert in violation of Wikipedia revert rules"
4. 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711729914 by Drdpw (talk), non-conforming Wikipedia revert"
5. 13:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Undoing revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:198.232.211.130&diff=prev&oldid=711235859

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussion appears to have been limited to competing edit summaries. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor is also edit warring on the United States dollar article history. SQGibbon (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Since this report was filed, the IP has made four more reverts of three different editors. Two editors attempted to engage the IP on his/her talk page during these additional reverts. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:50.29.205.231 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

Page

Journal of Scientific Exploration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "You may disagree with the content they research, but it is nearly slander to characterize the journal as pseudoscience just because it deviates from the mainstream inquiry. i think my last edit is reasonable"
2. 01:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711629983 by LuckyLouie (talk)"
3. 22:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Do not revert my edit again. If you want to source certain assertions, include proper citations and note that claims made of "promoting fringe science" are opinions are from proponents of the skeptical community"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Journal of Scientific Exploration. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Loads of warnings on talk page, 2 blocks the last one for a month Doug Weller talk 06:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 months. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:BlueSalix reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page

Media coverage of the Ted Cruz extramarital affairs allegation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711947377 by Winkelvi (talk) if Heavy is only objection I'm GF undoing this and putting in USNews&WorldReport"
2. 21:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711943751 by Jonathunder (talk) Salon is RS"
3. 21:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC) "unnecessary detail - NYT and WaPo are cornerstone outlets"
4. 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711940749 by Anythingyouwant (talk) Salon is RS and so is Heavy - if you dispute Salon is RS go to the RS noticeboard, don't vandalize"
5. 22:41, March 25, 2016 (UTC) [120] "Undid revision 711955673 by MaverickLittle (talk) this is not a reason to destroy content on WP - particularly by a Cruz SPA)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor created the article - now nom'd for deletion - and has been editing aggressively as well as edit warring there. Even after being warned twice about discretionary sanctions applying to the article. Once here by Anythingyouwant and by an administrator (Bishonen) here. Editor being reported has dismissed the warnings about DS as well as what looked to others like a fast track toward violating 3RR (reminder here.)

Minus violating 3RR, editor being reported has violated discretionary sanctions for this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously these are not 1RR violations as these were not simple reverts. In one case, Winkelvi deleted content claiming the source was not-RS, I reverted the deletion by replacing the source, noting it as a GF revision to address his specific concern. Another of the reverts he cites ("cornerstone outlets") is me deleting content I added. And so on and so forth.

Nonetheless, noting that Winkelevi has been blocked 8 times in the preceding 16 months, I have no doubt he has become an expert at WP policies and guidelines and, in deference to this expertise, fully commit myself to a more careful and attentive editing pattern on this article to ensure he, or anyone else, does not misinterpret my efforts in the future.

I've previously had content disputes with WL and he has followed a predictable pattern of filing nuisance reports while, simultaneously, savaging me with name-calling on other editors talk pages as he did immediately after filing this report here [121]. Winkelevi has already recently been warned about name-calling during his participation in other Cruz-related articles [[122]].

At this time I recommend a 30-day BOOMERANG block against Winkelevi for nuisance reporting, disruption, and grossly non-WP:CIVIL behavior. BlueSalix (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE Incredibly, another revert has taken place just a few minutes ago. Clearly, this editor doesn't care about this report, about violating 3RR, about the Discretionary Sanctions for this article. He's going to edit war regardless. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. I fail to see the relevance of Winkelvi's block log to this report or to this conflict, BlueSalix. Your sarcasm about his "expertise" simply makes you look trollish. And the 3RR rule, which you broke by making 4 reverts in the space of one hour, is a bright-line rule. I was going to give you 31 hours, but considering your fifth revert just now, I'm upping it to 60. Bishonen | talk 23:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

User:Keith-264 reported by User:Clivel 0 (Result: Protected)

Page: Stephen Sizer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keith-264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Sizer&oldid=711597635

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Sizer&type=revision&diff=711599601&oldid=711597635
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Sizer&type=revision&diff=711605497&oldid=711605156

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKeith-264&type=revision&diff=711612085&oldid=710996266

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStephen_Sizer&type=revision&diff=711249260&oldid=711023067 Also on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Stephen_Sizer Comments:
User:Keith-264 deleted most of the body of the lead paragraph of this article. He then left a comment on the talk page claiming that it was deleted because it ws not factual. After ad nauseam discussions on both the talk page and on WP:BLPN, no consensus has been reached, User:Keith-264 has not offered any alternative text, nor has he attempted to update the lead paragraph. As a result three days later I added a new lead. My additions are factual and cite reliable sources. User:Keith-264 immediately reverted my changes twice, this is not productive. If he disagrees with the facts, then he should be prepared to offer a constructive alternative, instead his edits are solely destructive deletions. Clivel 0 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to reach consensus on the BLPn page for several days and sketched a consensus edit but Clivel has not responded to it. I have read the BLP page several times to make sure I'm following it and welcome external scrutiny with a view to achieving consensus, despite the contentious behaviour of Clivel.Keith-264 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. When protection expires I hope people will wait for consensus. Otherwise blocks are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: Warned)

Page: Chrysler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HughD (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. Revision as of 11:27, 18 March 2016
2. Revision as of 11:39, 18 March 2016
3. Revision as of 17:27, 18 March 2016
4. Revision as of 18:11, 18 March 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 18:27, 18 March 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Revision as of 16:18, 18 March 2016 - "Just because it is in The New York Times, does not make it newsworthy for an encyclopedia article"
2. Revision as of 18:05, 18 March 2016 - "do not keep adding material under discussion into the article until the issue of your contributions is fully resolved here

Comments:

Note: this contributor claims that "repairing vandalism is exempt from 3rr." CZmarlin (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree this is a clear case of edit warring. HughD has been involved in two cases of 3RR since March 2nd relating to the Ford Pinto article. [123], [124]. The Pinto article was locked due to HughD's edit warring. This is part of a pattern of problematic behavior that has resulted in both HughD's previous blocks as well as his current topic ban. Greglocock expressed frustration that locking the Pinto article would not solve the issue, "Nice try, but in 24 hours recently (1000 13 march-1000 14 march) HughD made 28 edits in article space and 29 in talk space, on this article about a 40 year old car. I see no sign that he is even attempting to modify his behavior"[[125]]. It certainly appears that he was correct. I would ask for an automotive article topic ban. Springee (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• HughD's edit warring has continued. Despite an active discussion regarding the validity of the material HughD wishes to add to the article the editor has continued adding the material to the article rather than engaging in talk page discussions [126]. The editor has also added the material to the article lead [127]. I think any reasonable editor would see that material who's notability in the body of an article is questioned by several editors certainly does not belong in the lead.

In a related ANI admin Ricky81682 also noted HughD's recent disruptive editing.[128] Springee (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Would an admin please review this case. HughD revenge tagged the Chrysler article. A talk page consensus did not support the claim of NPOV so the tag was removed.[129] HughD quickly restored the tag even though he is the only editor who claims there is a NPOV issue with the article. [130] HughD is continuing his edit warring on both the Chrysler page and the Ford Pinto article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 19:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Section blanking of "Recalls" subsection at article Chrysler

During article improvement, the section was vandalized repeatedly by persistent section blanking, resulting in edit conflicts. Summary:

• 13 November 2014 A humble yet serviceable first draft of a "Recalls" subsection was added by STJMLCC and a few days later adequately if not artfully sourced by collaborator Thundermaker.
• 14 March 2016 First section blanking Springee; undiscussed.
• 10:13, 18 March 2016 Improve sourcing. Added multiple, well-formatted, additional mainstream media reliable source references.
• 10:15, 18 March 2016 Second section blanking Springee, 2 minutes later; again undiscussed. References deleted included The Washington Post, USA Today, and Bloomberg Businessweek; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed.
• 10:27, 18 March 2016 Undo section blanking. 1RR.
• 10:31, 18 March 2016 Third section blanking Springee, 4 minutes later; again undiscussed. Again references deleted included The Washington Post, USA Today, and Bloomberg Businessweek; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed; section blanking while colleague is actively editing results in an edit conflict
• 10:37, 18 March 2016 After section blanking 3 times in 4 days, Springee posts at article talk claiming content is "non-notable"
• 10:39, 18 March 2016 Further improve sourcing; add well-formatted citation to the The New York Times
• 15:32, 18 March 2016 Having section blanked 3 times in 4 days, and having an open behavioral report at WP:ANI, Springee solicits the complainant CZmarlin to continue at Talk:Chrysler: "If you would like to remove the brake booster per talk page consensus I would appreciate it (I've removed it twice today which is once too many)"
• 15:46, 18 March 2016 Fourth section blanking complainant CZmarlin; References deleted included The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Bloomberg Businessweek, and the International Business Times; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed; section blanking while colleague is actively editing results in an edit conflict
• 17:08, 18 March 2016 Fifth section blanking complainant CZmarlin; References deleted included The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Bloomberg Businessweek, the International Business Times, and Fortune magazine; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed; section blanking included an {{in use|section}} section hat template; section blanking while colleague is actively editing results in an another edit conflict
• 19 March 2016 Sixth and seventh section blankings Springee; section blanking includes the "Recall" and "Reception" sections; 4th and 5th section blankings in 5 days by Springee; Noteworthy reliable source references deleted included The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Bloomberg Businessweek, and the International Business Times, Reuters, the Associated Press, the Detroit Free Press, CBS News, BBC News, and CNN; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed.

Respectfully request consideration of this tendentious tag team section blanking behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

All of my edits were good faith improvements to the article; all my edits involved collaborative improvements, including broadened sourcing to address expressed concerns of noteworthiness (except for the second section blanking, when collaborative improvement was immediately precluded by the rapidity of the third section blanking).

1. restore section after second section blanking; third section blanking came so quickly incremental improvement was not possible;
2. add references to The Washington Post, USA Today, and Bloomberg Businessweek to address expressed concerns regarding noteworthiness
3. edit conflict; add references to The New York Times, the International Business Times, the Detroit Free Press, Fortune (magazine), CNN, the Associated Press to address concerns of noteworthiness
4. edit conflict; add relevant excerpt from noteworthy source to citation

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than your usual shotgun posts you need to explain why each of the edits CZMarlin diffed were acceptable. Random examples where you may have been right are not the issue. Not that i'm saying you were right. Greglocock (talk)

HughD's claims of section blanking are just more edit warring. Most of the above revolves around which automotive recalls are significant enough for inclusion on the main article of a car company. I think we all agree that something like the Toyota unintended acceleration recall is notable but a recall to fix something relatively minor, even if it affects many cars, is not. This was discussed on the automotive project page [131] with strong consensus that only the most significant recalls would be included. HughD, likely as a form of edit warring with me[132], followed me to this page and reverted an edit of mine (his first "blanking" claim). My edit on the 14th was removing a 2 sentence paragraph discussing an recall that was not significant enough for inclusion. Since the two sentences were the contents of the entire section I removed the section as well. When the Pinto page was locked HughD looked at another one of my recent edits and decided to revert it. Adding more sources that reported it doesn't make it notable given the article covers a nearly 100 year old company. Per typical HughD pattern (see his block long) discussion and consensus building were bypassed in favor of rapid fire edits. I did not specifically solicit CZmarlin. HughD questioned my reading of the Recall Notability talk page discussion (linked above). I pinged all the involved editors for their opinions. CZmarlin was one of those editors. Two of the involved editors have replied thus far. If HughD feels he is in the right and the material should be included then use non-edit warring means. Certainly ignoring the concerns of now three editors and continuing to add questionable material is not the correct solution. Springee (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:HughD is disingenuous in describing the issue with the edits in question. The major problem is that the material HughD is contributing to the Chrysler article consists of a collection of referenced material that violates the WP:NOTNEWS guideline. As other editors have discussed on the Chrysler talk page, these recalls are not notable for inclusion in an article outlining the history, operations, and products of this almost 100 year-old firm. In short, there is WP:UNDUE emphasis for these recalls by Chrysler, and the entire "recall" as well as "reception" sections are presented in a way that violates WP:IMPARTIAL guidelines. Moreover, there is no basis of HughD claiming that other contributors had violated the 3RR rule, with the exception of HughD's own reverts on March 18. It is also noteworthy that HughD has redacted the numerous notices regarding their disruptive editing from the talk page (see here) on March 19. Thank you CZmarlin (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Second the above. It's telling that HughD doesn't have supporters on the various automotive pages he has edited recently. Springee (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment So is an admin actually going to look at this or are we just whistling in the wind? Greglocock (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:HughD is warned that he may be blocked if he continues to add large amounts of new article text at Chrysler that does not enjoy support from other editors. On the talk page, you seem to believe you are the only virtuous person and that others are being wilfully perverse. Virtue or not, if others aren't persuaded you should let the point go. Consider opening an WP:RFC the next time you want to add such a block of text. HughD should also be aware that a 'POV' tag needs editor consensus to remain in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ed please confirm that you are referring to HughD as 'you' and 'he' in this warning. thanks Greglocock (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

Page

Oath Keepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:48, 23 March 2016
2. 03:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710959074 by MrX (talk) Add more sources for wording in question, fix one word - "discredited" is more neutral than "scam.""
3. 02:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710823375 by VQuakr (talk) It's a valid news source."
4. 03:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "undo well meaning but inappropriate removal of sourced material to a WP:NPOV source."
5. 01:49, 17 March 2016
6. 20:11, 16 March 2016
7. 15:36, 16 March 2016

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Warned here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ ?"
2. 03:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Scare quotes */ re"

Comments:

Editor went quiet while the previous EWN post was up, but went back to reverting as soon as it was archived. He is now reverting my edits on sight regardless of content: the most recent revert removed such uncontroversial information as filling in cite web templates, despite my breaking those into separate edits to avoid collateral damage. As before, no 3RR violation, but the ongoing pattern of disruption is clear. VQuakr (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Notified. VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment This is another round of VQuakr's dishonest and bad faith harassment tactics, nothing more. It has no basis in facts. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is blocked 48 hours for personal attacks, such as the above charge of 'dishonest and bad faith harassment tactics.' On his talk page, he manages to get the word 'harassment' into almost every edit summary. There are people who disagree with him, but there is little evidence he is being harassed. Notice that accusations of harassment carry a burden of proof. On 25 January he stated he was leaving 'because a group of bullies is determined to make life hell for me here'. On 23 January he was advised by an administrator, User:HighInBC, that "..personal attacks(insults) can and will result in blocking of your account." EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: One week)

Page

List of WWE personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711981212 by Vjmlhds (talk): STOP NOW! (TW)"
2. 03:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711975760 by Vjmlhds (talk): If you want to commit Wiki suicide with your continuous disruptive eidting, fell free - my consicous is clear. (TW)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC) to 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "replacing unintended deletions."
4. 01:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711918106 by Keith Okamoto (talk): ?Enough. (TW)"
5. 15:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711837448 by Originalchampion: Just stop...you are deliberately just trying to pick a fight...besides, I have references CLEARLY pointing out both Stephanie and Lana are considered as wrestlers...the truth is the truth. (TW)"
6. 21:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711733783 by Dw122339 (talk): Just can't leave well enough alone. (TW)"
7. 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711606104 by Vjmlhds (talk): Sourced reference says otherwise...some people just never learn. (TW)"
8. 21:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711449925 by ClassicOnAStick (talk): Sigh. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of WWE personnel. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

5 further reverts beyond those reported above. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Note: Vjmlhds has been blocked for one week for edit warring. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ragomego reported by User:77.99.249.77 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [133]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]
4. [137]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]

Comments:

Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive311#User:Ragomego reported by User:77.99.249.77 .28Result: Protected .29 and I have tried to contact this user to resolve the issue with no success. 77.99.249.77 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. Ragomego is warring to insert language that doesn't sound encyclopedic and appears factually wrong ('his mother was Irish'). At least one of the sources says Greb had no Irish ancestors. The user never responds on talk pages and we can't keep on protecting the article if he is the only one who won't discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Trackteur reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked for 6 weeks)

Page: W. H. Auden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trackteur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sustained and consistent behavioural issues across a number of articles. The issue here is about page-move warring to move a long-stable article at W. H. Auden to Wystan Hugh Auden against WP:COMMONNAME.

As for a number of similar poets (T. S. Eliot, W. B. Yeats), Auden is known predominantly as W. H. Auden (Who even knows "Wystan Hugh"?). This is a clear case for WP:COMMONNAME to keep it where it has been, with the initials.

Addendum: He has now done this to TS Eliot and CP Snow too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [140]
2. [141]

There was no prior discussion of this which, for such a prominent biography GA, would have been essential. Discussion afterwards rejected it: Talk:Wystan Hugh Auden#Move.

This is typical behaviour for Tracteur. See their history and talk page for many more examples. There is no discussion, they either dismiss it with "Done" or "lol", or else "clean" it [142] [143] from their talk: page.

I believe this editor to be yet another returned sock of the prolifically hosieried Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) and opened an SPI recently: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tobias_Conradi, however this was not technically proven. Whether Conradi or not, the behaviour is now getting to the point where it's unacceptable whatever their identity.

In other articles we see simple rapid-revert behaviour such as at Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize, where he is adamant that some pointless <nowiki></nowiki> must be added.

1. [144]
2. [145]
3. [146] (Added after the ANEW report was opened)

More instant edit pushing at Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment:

1. [147]
2. [148]

Water turbine

1. [149] - adding a link to rotary engine that has nothing to do with water power
2. [150]
3. [151]
4. [152]
5. [153]
6. [154]

Two clear themes are evident here, all initialisations are WRONG, regardless of context. This applies to personal names, or to organisations. Secondly consistency in naming overrides everything, even sources, COMMONNAME or a body's own choice of name.

Finite element method in structural mechanics, where academic author names are to be expanded at all cost:

1. [155]
2. [156]
3. [157]

On Olgierd Zienkiewicz we seen the name initials issue and also the removal of all initials. International Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering or Centre Internacional de Mètodes Numèrics a l'Enginyeria (CIMNE) is a Spanish academic body. As is usual in Spain, it's best known by its initials - and the initials follow the Spanish form of the name, not the English. Keeping CIMNE is important here, especially in English.

1. [158]
2. [159]
3. [160]
4. [161]

This is a track record, and a past month's block, of disruptive editing against a number of other editors. See Talk:Chapelcross nuclear power station#Rename? It is prolonged, disruptive and shows no sign of diminishing or of any willingness for discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

His only response to the ANEW post so far has been to repeat the <nowiki> on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest edit warring, since this ANEW was posted, was to stalk my edits to Kyshtym disaster

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

This is introducing a serious technical error, changing a Mega- prefix to a milli- prefix (a factor of 10^9 smaller) and then edit-warring to re-impose it. Any comment at User talk: was blanked before I'd even finished posting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Wow, that's a big report. Instead of seeking just an EW-block, why not post at ANI and seek some sanctions as well? - ^theWOLFchild 18:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping that ANEW would be able to cope regardless.

Here's T. S. Eliot (since the ANEW posting). Removing the initials (two renames as well):

1. [166]
2. [167]

Then after much reversion, removing the full name instead:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]

This isn't an editor who cares about accuracy, it's one merely seeking a mindless and unimportant lexical consistency regardless. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking a ban on page-moves would be a good start, (after a long block). Are you sure you don't want to bring all this to ANI? - ^theWOLFchild 19:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to cross post it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Dismayed. I feel Andy is right here. But maybe some kind of discussion/ explanation, initiated at their own Talk Page, would be a more cautious first step? I'd like to see the rationale here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 6 weeks DES ^(talk) 23:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • or yeah, what he said... just block for six weeks. That's quite a small tractor for such a big sock? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: No action)

Page: John Wilson Bengough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eric Corbett (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:

• Changing "though" to "although":

1. [171]
2. [172]
3. [173]
4. [174]
5. and then after being shown what Cambridge and Fowler's have to say, he does it again with the comment "then you're both wrong"

• Changing colons to semicolons:

1. [175]
2. [176]
3. [177]
4. "so have you checked on the correct use of colons and semicolons yet? Or do we need an RfC?"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [178]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a content dispute—Corbett's intent is to fight and avoid discussion.

Comments:

This is not a difference of opinions—this is sheer trolling on Corbett's part after he badly lost a dispute between himself and a large number of other editors at Talk:Nuckelavee‎‎ and Talk:Sea Mither, which is what "Or do we need an RfC?" refers to—he immediately headed to Talk:Sea Mither to trumpet what a "bad writer" I am (neglecting to mention I had to revert almost the whole botched "copyedit"). He targeted John Wilson Bengough because I had had it promted to GA that very day. Corbett's motivation is not to improve the article (which he hasn't—he's actually introduced errors in punctuation and semantics), it's to fight, fight, fight to the very end. You can expect him to show up here with some line about "not understanding basic punctuation", but don't be fooled—this is not about punctuation. It's a vendetta. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits, but I've blocked the filer for 72 hours for WP:NPA. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Block lifted, under the assumption that irritation drove a reasonable editor to sub-optimal edits. I believe the above could be resolved amicably if the parties talked to each other rather than at each other. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: (I was drawn here by a request left on my user talk page by an uninvolved administrator)

• Commenting on the merits: I copy edited the article prior to this. I would be happy to learn something new about grammar and punctuation, however the diffs above clearly show incorrect usage of both. Filer is correct in their assessment: The edits do not improve the article. Having said that ...
• Commenting on the behavior: This is likely a display of old animosity shared by both parties against each other that probably goes back a while, a result of repeated attempts of each to humiliate the other with no regard for the maturity required to discuss the situation like adults. Regarding the behavior of the filer: Administrators here rightfully blocked him for wasting administrator's time by taking the issue here prior to taking it to the article talk page. Regarding the behavior of the filer's opponent: Suspect that his motivation was to retaliate against the filer for an older, unresolved dispute without regard for the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia article. Suggested behavior: Unless both parties are happy to go on for years like this, I suggest that they 1) judiciously avoid each other for a period of at least six months, then 2) talk to each other on the article talk page of whatever article where they find themselves unavoidably working together. When that day occurs, they should start by finding common ground, areas where they happen to agree, then move on to amicably and respectfully discuss any areas where they do not agree. Do not resort to old behavior on that day. I am confident that both parties can find peace if this advice is followed. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it's difficult for me to read this comment and not see "She shouldn't have worn that skirt" in it. I used strong language, and the discussion was personal on both sides, but that can't seriously be used to excuse persistent disruption of article space. The suggestion that a talk page discussion would have solved it is ludicrous (b) I've opened one, and Eric hasn't bothered to show up; (b) Eric's motivation was to disrupt, no tot improve the article; (b) Eric's contributions to the discussion at Talk:Sea Mither consisted virtually entirely of trying to keep the discussion off topic. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll have to correct Prhartcom's assumption - the block was issued following an escalation in tone far beyond the boundaries of vigorous debate. It cannot in any way be read as comment on the merits of filing this report. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank-you, MLauba, it was the correct decision for both reasons. A block of both would have been even more appropriate, as I believe the filer is correct in their assessment of the situation immediately above: The filer's opponent's motivation was to disrupt the encyclopedia to retaliate for the tone of this and likely many previous encounters. That tone is the core issue and is what actually needs to be resolved by the filer and his opponent. My suggested solution to do so that was requested by the uninvolved administrator still stands. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

      I see you're a dab hand at making assumptions. What's wrong with examining the facts instead? Eric Corbett 13:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

      Well if we are to stick to the facts then the fact is that there was edit warring. HighInBC 15:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

      How can one person "edit war"? But do whatever you feel you have to do, although I can guess what that is. Eric Corbett 17:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

      If we were closing this edit warring complaint 'by the book' we would most likely block both of the participants. Consideration would be given to any assurance that they would stop warring, though I'm not aware of such. The thread at Eric's talk page isn't very encouraging. Eric is hardly diplomatic and I don't see any promise to stop warring by either person. A closure now would still be timely, since it is a long-running dispute. User:MLauba appears more familiar with the overall issue, so maybe he or she wants to close this report one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

      EdJohnston: I don't see any promise to stop warring by either person: I'd stopped already and have already made the promise on my talk page to take it to the talk page. What must be kept in mind is the bad-faith intent of the edits in the first place—they were not aimed at improving the article, but in causing disruption—and he was obviously trying to goad me into going 3RR when I stopped. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

      At this stage, as both have disengaged, I suggest closing with no action, a reminder not to use copy editing summaries as a means to get back at each other, and a recommendation to stay out of each other's way. And on a more personal note, I would definitely learn something if those edit summaries hinted at why something is being corrected instead of the perceived lack of expertise of the person being corrected. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action, as recommended by User:MLauba. See his advice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Saundra4you reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

Page

Diamond and Silk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Saundra4you (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 16:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC) to 16:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712353654 by 2.30.129.120 (talk)"
   2. 16:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) to 16:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712351165 by FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk)"
   2. 16:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "HATEFUL AND RACIST PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SABOTAGE THE IMAGE OF THIS PAGE."
   3. 16:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
3. 16:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712273218 by FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC) to 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712089436 by Cabazap (talk)"
   2. 00:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712206849 by LittleWink (talk)"
   3. 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Updating and Correcting to reflect the truth"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Diamond and Silk. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I thought it was just a couple of instances of blanking which the editor has been advised against: I now see it has been going on all day and, more importantly, involves the reversion of sourced' material. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. I suspect this user is risking an indef block. They put this in the text of the article, in Wikipedia's voice: "A female reporter from the Huffington Post felt very intimidated by these two strong black conservative women that her aim was to do a character assignation. If you know Diamond and Silk, you know that they were not going to allow this foolishness." EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:احمد الليبي reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked )

Page: Gagauz people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: احمد الليبي (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User page)

Previous version reverted to: [179]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [180]
2. [181]
3. [182]
4. [183]

• Still at it today; (28 March)

1. [184]
2. [185]
3. [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [188]

Also at 3RR on: Page: Fayez al-Sarraj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [189]
2. [190]
3. [191]
4. [192]

• And still at it today here as well; (28 March)

1. [193]
2. [194]
3. [195]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [196]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [197]

• Along with each and every edit summary, I again tried to discuss these issues with this user, but they refuse to respond;
  Diff: [198] - ^theWOLFchild 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User notified: [199]

Comments:
New, WP:NOTHERE user with a bad attitude and possible COI. When I first added a "welcome" template, along with a pov notification, to their talk page, I was told to "mind my own business" and accused of "patronizing", "spamming" and "trying to increase my edit count". User is also repeatedly changing sourced content. Despite numerous requests to add additional sources and/or discuss on article talk pages, or the user's talk page, this user has refused to engage, and just continues edit warring. - ^theWOLFchild 12:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This user (wolfchild) doesn't have a clue both in terms of good information about the subjects of the articles in question and in terms of the style/language that should best be used for writing the articles. And it was actually him who started the edit war deleting my corrections by reverting to older versions and everytime leaving needless comment in my talk page. I'm confident that any admin here will easily see which expression is better "the Balkan country of Bulgaria" or simply "Bulgaria" and which info is correct regarding the existence of two parallel governments in Libya, whether this started in 2011 or 2014. احمد الليبي (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

For someone who claims to "know Wikipedia very well" (after 22 edits total), your explanation is lacking. The first issue is a content dispute. In such cases, admins don't decide content, neither do you, or I. Content is decided by consensus, hence the reason you need to propose your change on the talk page and seek support for it. The second issue is about sourcing. Your change was not supported by the attached source, meaning it was original research. You need to add a new source to support your change. You also need to discuss these issues on the article talk pages, but you absolutely refused. In both cases, the one thing you don't do is edit war, but you did. - ^theWOLFchild 04:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

March 28

This user is still edit-warring over these changes. One while is a minor content issue, the other is a sourcing issue. I have repeatedly requested that they discuss these issues on the article talk pages or on their user talk page, by way of edit summaries and another post to their talk page. They repeatedly blank their user page without replying and won't even leave an edit summary. For a user who's only been here a few weeks and only has about 40 edits, most of which are reverts, there are serious issues of WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Could an admin please review this report? It's been here for 3 days and clearly this issue, nor this disruptive user, are going away anytime soon. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 17:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Comment if I can speak my mind here, I should say that you both deserve to have been brought here by yesterday at the latest. WP:BRD was broken almost immediately! But I would also suggest that, combined with his mutual edit-warring, I am inclined to view [[User:]]احمد الليبي as displaying all the symptoms of WP:BATTLEGROUND. The message on his TP reads "Please mind your own business en don't be patronizing nor to try to increase the # of your contribution by editing this page using spam-like templates," and his comment above about other editors' not "hav[ing] a clue" corroborates his lack of collegiality. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I should be reported for "breaking BRD"? I didn't breach 3RR, whereas he did. And while I have repeatedly tried to engage this editor in discussion or at least solicit an explanation, this user has so far refused to respond. But if you feel I should be reported, then remove your comments from here and file a new report against me below. Right now, all your doing is creating a distraction that'll probably lead to a free pass. - ^theWOLFchild 17:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jambajew reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

List of Islamic terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Kaduna bombings on Easter of a Church is clearly an Islamic Terrorist attack. It has the signature of Boko Haram. Terrorist groups don't always take responsibility. No one took responsibility for 9/11."
2. 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Certain Users are attempting to remove attack occurring around Easter, in light to recent terrorist attacks."
3. 17:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "User "MShabazz" or "Malik Shabazz" is a Muslim Troll trying to rewrite history by editing Wikipedia."
4. 15:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "User "Malik Shabazz" is trying to white wash history, by removing terrorist attacks from his list. This is list of Islamic terrorist attacks, not a list of Boko Haram attacks. This (April 8, 2012) is clearly an ISLAMIC attack."
5. 01:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Added Easter Sunday bombing in 2012 Kaduna bombings Nigeria, and added Easter relevance to 2015 Garissa al-Shabab attack, Kenya"
6. 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "It is both Islamic and Terrorist"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Adding diff from 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• This editor is continually (re-)adding events that have no reliable sources to state that an attack is both terrorist and Islamist, in contravention of the article's guidelines and WP policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Pro-life feminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [201] 14:32, March 28, 2016. Add Mother Teresa. (Not a revert.)
2. [202] 16:18, March 28, 2016. Revert, restore Mother Teresa.
3. [203] 16:59, March 28, 2016. Revert, restore Mother Teresa.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [204]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [205]

Comments:

All topics related to abortion are subject to 1RR sanctions. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd was warned of this but did not self-revert after being requested to do so. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Binksternet,

Just to be clear, the second revert you are referring to was reverting the removal of Rona Ambrose, not Mother Teresa. So, it was only 1 revert after all. Also, I added to the article talk page and to your talk page in order to discuss the issue. You have so far refused to discuss the issue on either talk page. I, therefore, believe this complaint is both unwarranted and premature. Please attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page first, prior to unnecessarily escalating matters and involving third parties. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This revert of yours, the second one in a space of 41 minuntes, certainly restored Mother Teresa to the article. If you had intended to restore only Rona Ambrose, it still would have been your second revert in one day, which is not allowed. The burden is on you to discuss how your challenged additions are worthy of the article. In my article talk page post I explained my position. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for violating 1RR restriction and ignoring warning about it. User has been previously blocked for 3RR vio. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:FD07:E900:5553:91C0:E6F:D3A reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page

 

User being reported

2606:6000:FD07:E900:5553:91C0:E6F:D3A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Across multiple articles, please see Special:Contributions/2606:6000:FD07:E900:5553:91C0:E6F:D3A. Use of inappropriate language in edit summary. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment The user should be banned and all the edit summaries hidden by an admin, but this is not edit warring. Already reported at ANI. Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Asilah1981 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: )

Page

White Puerto Ricans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712396298 by JesseRafe (talk)Canary Islanders are of mixed N African and European descent. Caucasian is the correct term."
2. 21:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712391947 by JesseRafe (talk)Canary Islanders are not from Europe. Caucasian correct term. Dont use excuse of a typo to revert an edit"
3. 20:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 20:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Canary Islands are not in Europe but off coast of north africa so caucasian is better term"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Violation of 3RR with 4 reverts in 61 minutes. No intention to collaborate or look at the data. User has reverted and made many edits without any edit summary, ignoring pleas to take their issue to talk, and moreover, ignoring that their position is groundless as the Canary Islands article itself is about the population being European, and that "Caucasian" does not apply, especially not as the definition of "Europe + Africa". JesseRafe (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafe so far I have been the only person who has written anything on the talk page. Isn't it ironic that it is you who are reporting me for edit warring.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafe Are we meant to continue discussing here, since you refuse to engage on the Talk Page? It seems to me that before you continue this discussion you should read up on the Canary Islands, look for them on the map, read about their history, culture and ancestry, and also PLEASE look up the definition of caucasian and what parts of Africa (and the world generally) are considered to be inhabited by caucasian peoples. I think once you are properly informed we can quickly resolve this issue.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I was ignoring your sanctimonious replies here, and your misleading statements as any simple time stamp prove I already responded on the Talk page. Also, all of my edit summaries implored you to take it the Talk Page. I didn't start a thread there because I have no idea what your issue is, but you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of that the term Caucasian means. Perhaps you should try to look it up on Wikipedia? Caucasian. As you can see, unless you are discussing something related to Georgia or the languages of Armenia, the term you probably looking for is further down the page, under the heading "White people". But you are not here because you have the arrogance to suggest I look up information about the Canary Islands which you yourself evidently haven't because that article itself explains that their population is European, but because of your Edit warring. And no, that is not even close to what the definition of "irony" is. JesseRafe (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafeOk look we are discussing rationally on talk page now (even though we both seem a bit confused about the other one's argument. Just cancel this, its pointless and a waste of other people's time.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Firebrace reported by User:Johnbod (Result: No action, self-revert)

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

Previous version reverted to: [206]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [207] "(Undid revision 712354510 by Johnbod (talk) Will keep reverting until you stop or I get blocked, whichever happens first.)"
2. [208] after my reversion, "(Removed unencyclopedic lists. No tedious discussion required.)"
3. [209] " (Converting lists to prose per guidelines (show/hide only works on the desktop version, which rather defeats the purpose)", which was deceitful, as the lists were not converted to anything. Removal of 19 out of 29 kbytes without discussion

See Royal Collection: Revision history "(Undid revision 712354510 by Johnbod (talk) Will keep reverting until you stop or I get blocked, whichever happens first.)" after his removal of 19 out of 29 kbytes without discussion. Please don't disappoint this regular here. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Why don't you fill out the reporting template? - ^theWOLFchild 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I looked but couldn't find it. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There's link near the top of the page that says; "Click here to create a new report". Click on it and it lays out the template for you, just fill in the blanks. - ^theWOLFchild 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

ok, found it. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

So I see. - ^theWOLFchild 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Firebrace: what is going on with you? You haven't breached 3RR yet, but you really can't plainly threaten to edit war until you have it your way. Intuitively, I can see merit to having that stuff in prose, and I can see merit to having a list (which gets automatically folded on screen). You weren't reverting vandalism or a completely obvious bad edit; it's a content dispute like many, so, edit warring is bad even if you're right. Are you trying to get yourself "retired" forcefully since you had half a mind of becoming so out of your own will? Between the two, I assure you the latter is a better choice, if you just find yourself in some kind of circumstances that don't let you stay calm enough to edit. LjL (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have self-reverted to the last version before any of my changes. Firebrace (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since the user self-reverted. User:LjL provides a good summary. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:MBlaze Lightning reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: blocked)

Page

Research and Analysis Wing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711998891 by MBlaze Lightning: Please avoid WP:UNDUE. this section is about major operations not about what Pakistan claims day another day! (TW)"
2. 07:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "rm. It seems to me POV and WP:UNDUE And it is really not relevant in this section when it is just a claim by Pakistan which have no evidence whatsoever to back their claim."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is already under 1PR restriction. He is now warring against three editors. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• COMMENT

Admins can see, I did only one revert on an article that is not covered by ARBIPA. In my first edit, I didn't reverted any user rather I only removed the UNDUE content. FLCC will you please stop creating irritation, annoyance and distress to me? It won't take more then a minute to check your Contributions and see who actually warring across multiple articles covered by ARBIPA (this, and this. And Again,this is covered under ARBIPA sanctions and FreeatlastChitchat violated 1RR that was imposed on him yesterday. This user also hounded me on multiples articles. This user (FreeatlastChitchat) is probably one of the most disruptive editors I've ever seen to date. Checking his block log , talk page and a quick search will show what I mean. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 10:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Bear in mind that the majority of the AN/I filings were by User:Trinacrialucente who is now subject to an indefinite block. Can't see any wrongdoings on FLCC's behalf here, only that MBL has violated his 1RR restriction. I highly recommend a short block for the user being reported here. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, the policy pages do not make clear what counts as a "revert." Under 1RR, the definition becomes critical. I agree that reinstating an edit counts as a second "revert." But, without this being written down anywhere, we can't fault the editors for not knowing. I think it is best to let off the editor with a warning. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment MBlaze Lightning should have read the warning properly. And we are not given any complete list of articles which comes under India-Pakistan-Afghanistan related articles. He assumed that Research and Analysis Wing is not under Arbitration. Me myself don't know which articles come under this arbitration, and why we have arbitration when we have administrators?

Having said that the accusation of Wikihounding is justified. This user:FreeatlastChitchat had editing disputes with MBlazeLightning and he followed MBlaze in Rakhi Sawant, a page which Freeatlastchitchat never edited before MBlaze . He edited just after MBlaze's edit. And this is not alone even AFD discussion for Umar Khalid, freeatlastChitchat edited just after MBlaze's edit. This guy is Wikihounding a user.Greek Legend (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@ just following another edits is not hounding. As per policy "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, incidents, and arbitration cases.". You see from Rakhi Sawant page that MBL just removed a piece of information instead of tagging it or trying to find a source. I sourced the fact. Just how did it cause MBL's edits to be disrupted? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: MBlaze's edit history shows that he has been wikihounding and harassing a new editor User:TalhaZubairButt, if someone doesn't know how to properly defend themselves that doesn't mean that you have a liberty to wikihound and harass them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Note Arbitration enforcement remedies should usually be brought up at WP:AE. @MBlaze Lightning: To be perfectly clear, you absolutely violated your 1RR restriction. A user made a change, and you reverted it twice within a 24 hour period ([210] [211]). --slakr^\ talk / 04:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Constructionworkerz reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: blocked)

Page

Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:00, March 27, 2016 (UTC) "Love how you said you probably should've ignored me the other day when you edit-warred over ten times, and now look who's edit-warring again? You still are the same person, but you expect me to change. You haven't learned a thing."
2. 17:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "For fuck's sake, it says she worked with them in the article. People need to stop having sticks up their ass."
3. 16:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "It says that she worked with them. Do not remove it again, please."
4. 16:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "First of all, do not remove Rock City, as they are confirmed. Second, which source states that Ricky Reed is a producer? I checked them all. It doesn't mention him anywhere on the page, or in the sources."
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) to 14:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 14:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "I don't see any information saying he's a producer, but I do see some saying that they are."
   2. 14:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Thank You (Meghan Trainor album). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Definite edit warring, no brainer. Also, a current SPI is in place for this account here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Good God, Wikipedia's edit-warring policy is shit. Basically, if you have a good reason to edit-war, you can edit-war as many times as you like. Otherwise, you get banned. Do you know, another user, Carbrera, edit-warred over 10 times the other day, and guess what happened? Nothing! He got off Scot-free! So, what I love is that, I edit-war three times, and I get reported for it. HOWEVER, Carbrera edit-wars over 10 fucking times, and Wikipedia says, "No Problem! No problem whatsoever!" Wikipedia, go fuck yourself. Constructionworkerz (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's because reverting edits from a sock are not against policy. Take time to read the policy rather than remaining non-knowledgable about it. Carbrera (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect, Carbrera. Definite vandalism reverts are allowed, reverting a sock or suspected sock is not, unless it is blatant, obvious, and definite vandalism. While the user being reported here has been annoying with their edits at the current article in question, and those edits are unsourced, they are not vandalism, therefore, edit warring yourself over those edits is not appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Am I a confirmed sock yet? ;) Constructionworkerz (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You say that, but I'm the only person here being reported, when Carbrera has now violated the 3RR rule. This is why this policy is shit. Constructionworkerz (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 04:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:24.183.29.4 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: blocked)

Page

Bad Girls Club (season 12) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
2. 23:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
3. 23:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
4. 23:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) to 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
   2. 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
6. 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
7. Consecutive edits made from 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) to 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
   2. 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
8. 21:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
9. Consecutive edits made from 20:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC) to 20:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
   2. 20:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warning given at User_talk:24.183.29.4#March 2016. Issue here is MOS compliance. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This editor has been consistently problematic. He was blocked while using another IP and then blocked for evading the block by using this IP (AIV report). I've reported him to AIV for block evasion, as the other IP is still blocked, and he has now been blocked for another two weeks. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:82.61.34.110 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: blocked)

Page: Go Away Little Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.61.34.110 (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. [212] 4 March. 79.27.106.92 replaces Goffin and King with Taylor and Simon, which is utterly wrong.
2. [213] 15 March. 79.56.98.36 restores Taylor and Simon.
3. [214] 17 March. 79.30.91.134 restores Taylor and Simon.
4. [215] 18 March. 79.53.4.206 restores Taylor and Simon.
5. [216] 18 March. 82.61.34.110 restores Taylor and Simon.
6. [217] 18 March. 82.61.34.110 restores Taylor and Simon.
7. [218] 28 March. 82.61.34.110 restores Taylor and Simon.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [219]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, because this is vandalism.

Comments:

This is a case of long-term edit warring, to replace correct information with falsehood. Five IPs from Sicily have been involved, including 79.53.4.206, 79.30.91.134, 79.56.98.36 and 79.27.106.92. The song article was protected for 7 days on 18 March. The much larger scope of the problem was described at ANI on 19 March, but there was no discussion. 82.61.34.110 was blocked for 31 hours on 20 March, but he's back. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 04:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Boghog reported by User:Fred Gandt (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [220]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [221]
2. [222]
3. [223]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Template talk:Multiple issues#Request to add talksection parameter

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion not on article talk page (as above)

Comments: The war began on Template talk:Multiple issues where User:Boghog made an edit request. In the request they noted that a live article was to be seen as a demonstration of a sandboxed alteration of the template in question. I returned the article to its correct condition, and asked the user to not do tests/demonstrations in live articles. They have since reverted my own attempts to correct the issue, and another user's. There appears to be a content dispute in the same article which is mixed up in the diffs. After the second revert, User:Boghog created Template:Multiple issues 2 with creation summary "created temporary template that is needed to resolve edit dispute". I have tagged it for deletion per {{Db-t3}}. User:Boghog contacted me repeatedly (whilst I was dealing with other concerns) after my second attempt to correct the article, which was a compromise, and found my compromise undone soon after. The conversation on my talk page about this issue is continuing as I compose this report; I am in two minds about continuing, but an article with two simultaneous content disputes involving the same editor, and what feels like an unreasonable bent to get their own way by any means, should be examined.

P.S. Sorry if I've done the diffs wrong. fredgandt 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Additionally: I should note that the content dispute which appeared to be ongoing at the article, turns out to be no more than an RfC. fredgandt 13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This was part of longer term, multi article dispute concerning what in my humble opinion was excessive and inappropriate use of attention banners by a third party (see for example this discussion). I hope you now understand where I was coming from. Boghog (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You should have the common decency to ping me, if referencing something involving me, esp. at this level, in a venue you know I cannot possible frequent. That said, (1) other readers, I have longstanding issues, not over the quality of his expertise in chemistry and biochemistry, but for his heavy-handedness in promoting his views, especially in two-editor situations, and, since this began, in his following me to express it. (Note Villa Baviera of late, which I went to on being contacted as to outrageous claims, and non-encyclopedic content—to which I was then followed.) (2) This said, Boghog is an esteemed opponent, and a tremendously valued contributor at Wikiproject Medicine and Pharmacology articles, as well as to Chemistry articles. I would not in any way want him being sidelined from editing. (3) I understand both sides of the template issue, understand why Boghog did what he did, but have to agree that if a reasonable consensus against it exists, he should submit. (4) Otherwise, I ask that this be laid to rest, so Bog can be freed to resume his expert contributions and his following (latter, kidding), and would encourage this consensus of editors to allow the matter to settle with him acknowledging his bull-in-a-china-shop approach (even if just here), and the need to let others be right, on some rare occasions. Holding up the mirror of how his choices and imperiousness can impact others, I would guess, might be enough. Please, no sanctions. Cheers. Le Prof [of the long tag messages]. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but this is not an edit war, but a misunderstanding. I respectfully tried to engage in a discussion here, but with limited success. Boghog (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Point of order: At most, I have reverted three times and hence I have not violated WP:3RR. The fourth edit was a modification to my own edit. Boghog (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding 3RR: I must admit to making a mistake there; more than 3 not 3 is something I missed. However, I didn't miss that not breaking this rule isn't an excuse, or that a report isn't valid without this rule being broken. I prefer to allow admin to review this report as it was made, and therefore will not be defending my position repeatedly. I of course will answer any questions to the best of my ability to assist. fredgandt 23:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog: It's still revert warring. If you find yourself making basically the same change several times over and over again in the manner you did there, it's safe to assume you're edit warring—misunderstanding or not. If someone undoes your change, take it to the talk page or seek dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 04:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As pointed out above, I did take the issue to the editor's talk page. Boghog (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

See comment added with additional indents, at point of greatest relevance above. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Simbagraphix reported by User:James Allison (Result: No violation)

Page

Template:Seventh-day Adventism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "Already in articles, take it to the talk page"
2. 00:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "Duplicate"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Template:Seventh-day Adventism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Service and ADRA */ new section"

Comments:

After user reverted my reverts, I warned the user and opened a discussion on the talk page. User has ignored my discussion and continues to edit war. User displays long-term pattern of reverting reverts rather than following BRD (example 1 and 2) as well as performing unexplained reverts rather than discussion (3). User has also previously been involved in edit warring on articles in the same topic (see here, here, and the edit war preceding this page protection of the same page now being reported). Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Another example of the user's over-reliance on edit-warring rather than discussion: The editor is beginning a slow-burn edit war on Seventh-day Adventism. In this edit they revert the addition of multiple wikilinks and other minor improvements, including a link that the editor themself added earlier, to object to a small rephrasing. In this edit, the edit summary claims "restoring original wording", where the editor actually removes a word after I wikilinked it. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. Not enough reverts to break 3RR. It is still possible that a long-term edit war is going on. To be sure this doesn't head in the wrong direction, I suggest usage of WP:DR. User:Simbagraphix should be aware they haven't used an article talk page since January, but they still find it necessary to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been a editor in Wikipedia for many years working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church with many articles created or expanded or improved in Wikipedia. The new editor as he just seems to have started last month, James, has not try to reach a consensus and seems to have a ax to grind on Seventh-day Adventist articles. If the new editor would just take the time to discuss his changes especially in those articles involving templates shown across the spectrum of Seventh-day Adventist articles and church doctrine as that cannot be entered in without a deeper understanding than just a surface glance and total disregard for well established editors. I have asked the new editor to take it to the talk page before trying to edit Seventh-day Adventist articles as it would allow for discussion, but he is trying to delete articles, or make unilateral changes on templates with no warning or discussion, or intimidate and accuse (nominating editors article for deletions and accusations of vandalism) rather than talk as you see on this fellow editors page..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MindyWaters. Thank you for your review and your response on the new editors issues and concerns....Simbagraphix (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)