Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any user you report.

You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • WP:1RR violations may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work鈥攚hether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time鈥攃ounts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

User:Roscelese reported by User:Padresfan94 (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Care Net (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roscelese (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese made 3 reverts on the Care Net page in 1 afternoon. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to improve the article by discussing the issue on the talk page with the user I was initially in disagreement with, and the second edit here is the result of our discussion and compromise. Padresfan is a SPA stalking me (check out that lack of participation in the discussion) and I expect this report to be the WP:BOOMERANG this user deserves. 鈥Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
So you don't deny that you made 3 reverts on an article under community sanctions? Padresfan94 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A couple of thoughts: first of all, while this article arguably falls under the abortion general sanctions, the article did not bear a talk-page notice nor an edit notice notifying editors of those restrictions (I've since added them). I'm loathe to block someone without warning on a page which displayed no visible indication that it was subject to 1RR, and would be inclined to instead warn Roscelese and insist she adhere to the 1RR on the article now that notice has been given.

    Separately, we generally make allowances for reverting sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors and other inappropriate alternate accounts. Padresfan94 (talk  contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet, and a combative agenda-driven single-purpose account on top of that (e.g. [5]). As such, I'm inclined to block the account indefinitely, but first would like additional administrator input. MastCell Talk 22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not seem appropriate. If Padersfan94 is a SPA or suspected sock puppet (and looking over his/her edits, I'm not actually convinced that's the case) but if that is actually the concern, then the issue should be brought to the appropriate board. It doesn't justify edit warring or violating community sanction. Also, I recall Roscelese was very recently brought to this board by another user: Juno [6] regarding violation of the 1RR on abortion related articles, for an article I was editing, and I purposely did not comment because although there was a 1RR violation, the issue was resolved and I don't believe blocks should be punitive. It was closed with reminders of the 1RR restriction on abortion related articles to all participants. A violation of 1RR shortly after reminder seems to warrant some type of action--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Of the 3 reverts that Roscelese fired off that afternoon, only 1 on them was directed at material that I wrote. Even of you want to entertain that "I had to break 1RR because this guy who already passed a chekuser is totally a sockpuppet" nonsense, that still wouldn't explain the other 2 reverts. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You "already passed a checkuser", Padresfan94? What do you mean? Please name the checkuser who checked you. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
Roscelese already filed a sockpuppet investigation against me when I was editing as an ip. Give me a moment to go find it. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This I can now see that it was actually Contaldo80 that filed the report. As he and Rosclese edit the same articles at the same time from the same POV you will understand if I occasionally get them confused. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The comment that you linked to was a direct response to this, and no, I'm not a sock.
Per the idea the Roscelese didn't know because the talk page didn't bear a notice: the talk page has a header for Wikipeoject:Abortion, the word Abortion is mentioned twice in the 3 sentence lead and the contested material involved abortion. Do you honestly not think that she knew the article pertained to abortion? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you were one of the two IPs named in the report, there was no CU done, so your contention that you have been checked by a CU is not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry then, I though that that had happened. In any case, I'm still not a sockpuppet and Roscelese still violated 1RR twice in one afternoon after being warned repeatedly against doing so. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I've dug some more and have struck my comment. I can't disclose the details, but, again, assuming you were one of the IPs in the report, it is highly unlikely there was a technical connection between the IPs and User:Esoglou. As a consequence, Esoglou, who had been blocked for a week, was unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I don't really buy the "wasn't notified about 1RR" argument. However, I am very much swayed by the "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument. I don't know this subject area well, so I don't know the particulars of the various sock masters, and I don't have any time to do research to get some kind of indisputable proof, so I won't stick my neck out to far and block them now. But I recommend that whatever admin decides to close this consider reminding/warning Roscelese about this, rather than blocking. Anyone mind if I issue Padresfan94 and the other editor (can't recall the name, they have all of like 5 edits) a warning, along the lines of "do not revert Roscelese again", under the General Sanctions? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I object to this. If there is evidence to bring a sockpuppet investigation against anyone (and I've yet to see anything to convince me there is, but I haven't followed it closely enough to say for sure) then that investigation should be brought to the proper board. Absent that, giving anyone a warning to "not revert Roscelese again" seems inappropriate considering this user appears to have a history of edit warring on the topic area of abortion. I see no reason that Roscelese should be given free reign to revert (especially in violation of community sanctions) while others are warned they cannot revert her.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a sockpuppet. But even if you didn't like that the " "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument" would only explain 1 of the 2 differednt 1RR violations that Roscelese made on the same page in 4 hours. After being warned repeatedly and having had been previously blocked for the same issue. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is like the hundredth complaint about Roscelese related to edit wars on pages connected to women's rights. Many of those complaints involved retaliatory allegations by Roscelese or those who share her POV, that the other editor was "stalking" her, "harassing" her, "hounding" her, etc. She's also had several warnings about abusive use of accusation templates. I know because I'm currently a victim of related conduct -- I made a request for page protection and dispute resolution to stop an edit war, and the response was a torrent of personal attacks and then a ban request by people with whom she tag-team edits. She has a remarkable ability to respond to complaints about her behavior by making distracting allegations against her accuser -- here, that s/he's a sockpuppet. She's been involved in at least 4 different edit wars with multiple people over women's rights articles in just the last week. As I understand it (I am not a master of the admin tools), there have been several blocks, and quite a few block violations in the past. I respectfully request that a warning be given as to the entire subject matter of gender issues, and as to abusive use of personal allegations against other editors. Since this has come up so often, I also respectfully request that it be the final warning before a subject-matter ban is contemplated. Djcheburashka (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone mentioned me here so I'll chime in: Roscelese is a valuable editor but this a problem area for her and she stepped over the line, again. There can be no claims of ignorance: if you look at her talk page 3 different editors (myself included) warned her for violating or nearly violating 1RR on 3 different abortion pages since mid-October alone. This is her second time here for violating abortion 1RR in a month, and her block log shows that this has been a long-running problem. She was left off with a stern warning earlier this month, it didn't do any good.
She clearly violated 1RR, twice on the same page in one day. (something she admits to) She clearly knew it was wrong. She is not sorry. This is far from the first time. Juno (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Since this has somehow not been closed yet, I'll point out, again, that the second "revert" here is an edit that the user I was in disagreement with asked me to make and endorsed on the talk page after I'd made it - is anyone really suggesting that it's a good idea to let 3RR be gamed in this way? "Ha ha, you made the edit I suggested you make, now you're an edit warrior!" - and that the third is an obvious sockpuppet and single-purpose account who exists to follow me around and edit war. 鈥Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What about the other two RR's on a 1RR limit that she's violated on similar pages three times already in the past? What about the other simultaneous edit wars? And what about the groundless accusation that her accuser is a sockpuppet who's been "stalking" and "harassing" her? If someone with a view opposed to hers had made this number of reversions, Roscelese would be shrieking for his head --- she's done so consistently on far, far weaker grounds. With the number of violations here, over this long a period of time, not taking action would send the message that a different set of rules apply to her than to everyone else. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So does this editor just get to break 1RR at will? Padresfan94 (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems we just need an admin to wield the mop. Perhaps poke admins who put the 1RR in place? I don't know which side of the abortion debate which editors are (I've followed no links) but I think we should follow policy. No one seems to be disputing that a bright line was crossed. It's been reported in the proper place. We shouldn't lie to our users. If it's a bright line, it must be treated as such. (I'm posting this even though I have the feeling I'm supporting action against someone I'd agree with.) Wait, We generally make allowances for reverting puppets... so it would be helpful if an admin indicated which of the edits they think were reverts of sockpuppets. --Elvey(tc) 03:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It is unfortunate because sanctions are intended to be preventative, not punitive, and that Roscelese has taken advantage of her unblocked status to continue her months-long edit war on another article, Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism鈥庘. While this article is not under the same Abortion-related sanctions, and WP:3RR is not broken, she has nonetheless exhibited extremely disruptive and tendentious behavior here and elsewhere, which would be handily remedied by making another notch in her ever-lengthening belt of edit-war-related blocks. Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Stale. No-one is ever going to be blocked for something that happened a week ago, especially given the non-obvious violation that apparently occurred. I have prevented anything further occurring on the second article by fully protecting it for 3 days. Those involved - use the talkpage. You know the drill. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Common sense should apply here. The edit warring policy that governs 1RR makes clear, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring. If there is no edit war then 1RR doesn't apply. What I notice here is it seems very important here to bludgeon Roscelese with the policy, but KatieHepPal first violated 1RR. No one felt the need to inform them of the 1RR policy on carenet. The need here is to punish Roscelese. This is what is being asked. These rules were not made to punish. They were made to stop disruption.If we are to stop disruption shouldn't we instead block Padresfan94 for gaming the system? Padresfan94 has every opportunity to drop the stick yet they continue here. Since their revert [7] they haven't taken further part in carenet. They haven't went to the take page to take part in the discussion about this change. They haven't made any further edits to the article. Since Padresfan94 has this months long content dispute with Roscelese at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism I wonder if that's the reason they are trying to manipulate the edit warring noticeboard.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding KatieHepPal, she's a new user who it could be argued was unaware of the sanctions before MastCell added the community sanctions warning to the article talk page. Anyway, the suggestion that Padersfan94 should be blocked for reporting a clear violation of 1RR is disturbing. To me, this seems to send the message that the rules don't apply to Roscelese, and if you attempt to get the rules to apply to Roscelese, you will be punished/blocked. I've edited with Padersfan94 on a few articles, and have so far seen no evidence she's a sock, but if someone has evidence, it should be taken to the appropriate board, not used as an excuse to violate 1RR community sanctions. Honestly, I'd probably feel differently about all this if it were an isolated incident with Roscelese, but as Juno and I have pointed out above, there's been a repeat occurrence of Roscelese violating 1RR on abortion related articles. [8]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
An astounding assumption of bad faith on the part of Serialjoepsycho (talk  contribs). If Padresfan is acting in bad faith, if Padresfan is a sock, then prove it, instead of making unsubstantiated allegations against her good name. If Roscelese can be prevented from disruption by a block, then it should be considered on the merits of her pattern of behavior, and I see a lot of foot-dragging and excuse-making here over the week since this report was filed, not a good basis for declaring it "stale". It is OVERDUE because further disruption has already occurred. It is OVERDUE because we will be back here before too long in another report, because Roscelese has exhibited a remarkable lack of remorse for this disruptive behavior and it is becoming clear that the slaps-on-wrist, and even the lack thereof, are not getting through. Elizium23 (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact. It's not an astounding assumption of badfaith but a reasonable assumption of bad faith. A week ago Padresfan94 made this edit[9]. This was the first and final edit by them. They didn't take the concern they had to the talk page. They didn't later revert the article to get rid of the change that had seemingly concerned them. There no suggestion that Padresfan 94 should be blocked for reporting a 1RR, they should be blocked for manufacturing a 1RR. And BoboMeowCat you are right KatieHepPal is a new user and was likely unaware of the sanctions. However that doesn't mean that she shouldn't receive a friendly and helpful notice about these sanctions so she is made aware. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Glancing at KatieHepPal's talk page shows she was made aware of the sanctions a few hours after her second revert on care net page, the same day this edit warring report against Roscelese was filed [10]. Regarding Padersfan, I wouldn't call it a "manufacturing of a 1RR" when a 1RR violation actually occurred (two of 'em actually)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Guys, Black Kite has already taken an administrative action and closed this report as stale. If there is any further disruption, file a new report. Please discuss on relevant talk pages from hereon. I'm closing this report. Thanks. Wifione Message 02:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Gregkaye (Result:Warned Blocked)[edit]

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11] (See first sentence of Lead)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18 nov 1.25 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij) 鈫 1RR broken
  2. 17 nov 13.59 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij)
  3. 14 nov 13.46 (sentence about Khawarij added to end of Lead, against consensus) 鈫 1RR broken
  4. 13 Nov 22.53 (whole para added to end of Lead, against consensus)
  5. 4 Nov 1.17 (last Lead para wording changed against consensus)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12], [13], [14], additional indirect notification, pinged


ISIL is 1RR and here goes:

I personally sympathise greatly with the editor's position as the actual content of the edits concerned are definitely those that I think would be beneficial to make. Never-the-less, their form constitutes vandalism and deception al-be-it to a typically limited extent and it violates a consensus which may have been achieved at a time when misrepresentations were present on the talk page but it was "consensus" none-the-less. It is also possible that to an extent, Mohammed, may have some difficulty with English. He (presumably he) does not tend to respond to questions on the article talk page and I am not aware that he has ever responded on to initiation on a User talk page. This all smacks of rudeness. It would be hoped that Mohammed can become more of a team player and he should be aware that his lack of response does not contribute to a collegiate atmosphere (which is otherwise notably lacking in many aspects the ISIL related discussion). I hope that some kind of action can be taken but in a way that if Mohammed chooses to remain/return that encouragement is given to be more of a team player and, ironically considering the topic, less of an outsider. I hope that the form of this report is acceptable. Gregkaye 12:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned... Let's hope the user learns. Wifione Message 16:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 1 week. Apparently, he didn't. Wifione Message 01:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:RoyalGurjar (Result: Malformed)[edit]

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

{{subst:AN-You have involved repeatedly reverted the authentic information which was displayed since long time and being provided by many experienced writers -[[3RR warning]] }}

Comments: User continues edit war even after recent release of block. RoyalGurjar (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Malicious report - reporting editor is likely a sockpuppet of User:Gurjeshwar, currently under a block for edit warring. kashmiri TALK 14:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Result: Malformed report. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurjeshwar which is a sock complaint about the submitter User:RoyalGurjar. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

' This is unfortunate that I as a individual user has been mentioned as sock puppet user of Mr. gurjeshwar or else. I strictly oppose it. Mr. Kashmiri is also may not be right every time. If he has adament with some user then he hs not any right to blame other innocent users only because to oppose his nature of work. I hope a honest effort be made to exclude me from this edit war. I shall write on wiki article with proper references and a healthy discussion be always welcomed if it is challenged. thanks RoyalGurjar (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gpcv77 reported by User:George Ho (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: 2014 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gpcv77 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. 19:00, 18 November 2014鈥 (UTC)
  3. 23:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. 16:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. 17:21, 16 November 2014鈥 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:50, 17 November 2014鈥 (UTC) by George Ho / 19:06, 18 November 2014鈥 (UTC) by Favonian

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


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. George Ho, you don't indicate that you attempted to discuss the problem with the user. You also didn't notify the user of this report as you are required to do. The user has not breached WP:3RR, although their behavior, in my view, constitutes edit warring and is blockable. As far as I can tell, even with the limited number of edits by the user, they never talk. I'm not taking any action at this point because of the procedural problems, but if the user persists, I may do so. In the meantime, another administrator may take whatever action they deem appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The user has done it again; I warned him/her about gaming the system by manipulating loopholes of 3RR. Must you take action? --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Would the edit summary here not constitute a 3RR warning? Chronologically, it comes between the edits numbered 2 and 3 above. -- Ohc 隆digame! 01:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The simple answer to your question is no. Edit summaries are not proxies for discussions or for warnings. That said, I don't believe I complained about lack of a 3RR warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Bicycle user reported by User:Atshal (Result:Warned, for now Blocked)[edit]

Page: Matthew Parris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bicycle user (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [17]
  2. [18]
  3. [19]
  4. [20]
  5. [21]
  6. [22]
  7. [23]
  8. [24]
  9. [25]
  10. [26]

Three different editors have posted on the user's page regarding the editing: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

(There were also earlier discussions, but these are the latest additions to the talk. The user has never responded, despite a reminder on his talk page.)


The only edits this user has ever made is about this cycling related Matthew Parris article [29]. This leads me to believe that this account is probably a sock puppet dedicated solely to reinserting this material - two other account or IPs have made similar changes to the Matthew Parris page over this time.

User: [30]

User:Velo venturer [31]

I would also like to add that this is not some kind of personal issue between me and this user. Four other editors have reverted these changes and two other have left messages on the users talk. Atshal (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Because nobody seemed to have warned the user about edit warring. While I've warned the new user, I'm not closing this report. Please add below if the user reverts you or any other editor again without discussing on the talk page. If that happens, I'll block the user. Thanks. Wifione Message 16:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't want the user blocked at all, just for this material not to be repeatedly reinserted. Cheers. Atshal (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Atshal. Everyone out here is a volunteer, including you. We really don't have time to ignore repetitive edit warring after we've left clear warning notes on the user's page. If we don't block the user, it would only result in the disruption continuing and more time being wasted of other volunteers. That's purely my experience. I've given the editor a clear warning. Please write back if the disruption continues. Wifione Message 02:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Wifione. Unfortunately the editor has made exactly the same edit again today, even after the warning and also a polite note from me asking them to contribute to the talk discussion. S/he has also deleted some material about some books that Parris has published [32]. Atshal (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 24 hours. The user also has started some kind of BLP attack. Do please write back or start another report if the user continues this behaviour once the block expires. Thanks for keeping a watch on the article. Wifione Message 16:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Felino123 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19 nov 17:301RR broken (He reverted the correction and disrupted the article again)
  2. 19 nov 17:21 (I reverted the disruption)
  3. 19 nov 17:17 (Disruption)
  4. 19 nov 16:53 (Correct version before the user's disruptions)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34], [35], [36] , [37]


ISIL's article is 1RR.

This user was reported yesterday for violating the one-revert rule. He was warned. Today, he violates the 1RR again disrupting the article against the consensus and pushing his personal POV aggressively. This is clear vandalism. I have also put links to talk pages, in which other editors warn him about reverting rules. Talking to him and warning him for violations of the rules doesn't work, so I think further action should be taken.

PS This is my first report so if I have committed any mistake filling this report, then I am sorry.

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 1 week Wifione Message 01:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wifione, As the person who raised the last report, User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Gregkaye..., Please let me comment:
To be fair the edits that have been marked above as "disruptions" are arguably relatively reasonable. In several incarnations of the ISIL article Islamic criticism of the group self designated as "Islamic State.." has understandably been placed first in the sequence of presented criticisms. Furthermore a move similar to the moves made by Mohamed has since been made in the main article by P123ct1 in an, I think, sensible as shown here. The edits can even be argued to have been desirable
  • Not that it matters now, but my edit was very different, even if it used similar words. The positioning of the words was crucial, and in that sense my edit was very different. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Notification issues: Please note that the 18:00, 19 November 2014 time, of the attempt to resolve dispute, was after the 19 nov 16:53 time of the last notified "disruption". As a side point it can also be noted that, the "attempt to resolve" was placed disruptively in a content related discussion but without full explanation as to the content of the aledged disruption. A link would also have sufficed. I think, like me, other editor may have assumed that this was a repeat of the "Khawarij" issue but on a greater scale. In my view, a more straightforward way for Felino123 to have notified Mohammed al-Bukhari of an infringement would have been to place comment on the thread: #Can we add this important information to the Lead? this is arguably of more relevance as a home turf thread started by Mohammed and this context could have easily been used by the simple provision of recognition that the topic at issue had changed. PBS has also since commented that such notification is better made on User talk pages.
In the report that I previously submitted on the "Khawarij" issue I declared this type of infringement "constitutes vandalism and deception". This infringement was not repeated. While in no way condoning the unacceptable infringement of 1RR, all that occurred as mentioned immediately above was in the first case a movement of one content of article criticism in the lead to join another content of article criticism in the lead. The second case there was also duplication as of content as has been mentioned in the notification but, in context, this can be viewed as either being a mistake or as an edit that the editor thought to be reasonable and which the editor suspected would be reverted. I see this as a case of edit warring but in relation to moves that otherwise needed to be made.
I personally doubt that Mohammed is fully clued up on Wikipedia rulings or etiquettes. He has failed repeatedly to communicate despite repeated attempts to establish dialogue. More recently I think that he (assuming male gender) has taken to use an alternate Wikipedia ID Swaywoof as per familiarly yet arguably sensibly themed but questionably worded edits here. I have since placed messages on both User pages and, despite the so far characteristic lack of reply to my messages, the suspect login has not, to this point, been used again.
I am sorry for the length of the above text but I thought it important to present the reported edits in wide context. Thank-you. Gregkaye 08:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dalandau reported by User:AnonMoos (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Flag of Mandatory Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dalandau (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: Not exactly sure what this means, but baseline version of article before recent nonsense is [38] 00:25, 21 July 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[39] 01:29, 18 November 2014

[40] 01:57, 18 November 2014

[41] 02:09, 18 November 2014

[42] 03:09, 18 November 2014

(Plenty more where those came from)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43] 17:27, 17 November 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44] 03:51, 18 November 2014


User does not meaningfully respond when serious problems are pointed out with his edits, but merely cuts-and-pastes in the same source material which many others have found irrelevant, and full steam ahead on the edit warring... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:HCPUNXKID reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked)[edit]

User talk:Mondolkiri1 (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported
HCPUNXKID (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Proposed deletion of Free Donbass */ new section"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


This is a violation of a topic ban that this editor received. He has already broken the terms of the topic ban once, and was explicitly warned not to engage on talk pages. Now he is asking an editor to proxy for him. Please take action, and allow the topic ban to be enforced. RGloucester 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh so interesting, I'm from Set煤bal, close to Lisbon in Portugal... do you need my phone number, so that I me abused the police fore being against?... who? I wonder! And also a fellow that I've met meanwhile, who may be supporter of Pablo Iglesias... So, imagine that supporting Pablo Iglesias, Alexis Tsipras, Beppe Grillo, Nigel Farage so on it's a crime in Wikipedia! OK, come on, of what are you accusing me and the editor from Spain? If it's a matter of concern today I updated all the maps of the ASEAN countries, in accordance with an Indonesian fellow I've... OK, ban me if you wish, then talk with, I don't care. He won't beat you! Hahaha! Mondolkiri1talk 00:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I may have exploded a bit here, but this was so funny!Mondolkiri1talk 00:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1, I respect you as an editor, but it seems like you've recently fallen slightly into the absurd. To be honest, I have no idea what you are saying here. The fellow was topic banned under WP:ARBEE, and it was made explicitly clear that talk pages were included in that topic ban. Therefore, the topic ban must be enforced. I didn't do anything to him, other than note his bad behaviour. Even if he wasn't topic-banned, he engaged in a clear bit of canvasing and bad faith, which is frowned-upon anyway. RGloucester 01:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note RGloucester, why don't you directly contact @EdJohnston: for a faster resolution of this issue? I've pinged him. If he doesn't respond, write directly to me and I'll resolve this. Overall, this is not an edit warring issue. But like I said, directly contact me if Ed doesn't reply. Thanks. Wifione Message 02:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Wifione: As an addendum, HCPUNXKID has posted spurious, paranoid accusations on my talk page for deigning to PROD the article in question which I've nominated per WP:FAILN. It's bad enough that he's trying to enlist proxies, but using his account in order to attempt to bully anyone who doesn't see any merit in articles he's clearly marked as untouchable by merit of WP:OWN is unacceptable behaviour under any circumstances. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Iryna, I can block HCPUNXKID for disregarding the topic ban. Yet, I'll await EdJohnston's views on this. Thanks. Wifione Message 03:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Wifione: I contacted EdJohnston before coming here, but he hasn't edited for a while. I posted this request in line with the principle of WP:NOTBURO. This is a clear violation of the topic ban, and there is no reason why it cannot be dealt with here and now. RGloucester 04:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
EdJohnston edited eight hours ago. So there is a high probability he would be around. The reason this cannot be dealt with here and now is because (a) EdJohnston placed the topic ban and there is good form in allowing him to first take action (b) there is no hurry and there is no fear of immediate disruption to the project. (c) A topic ban is given to avoid blocking an editor. Blocking an editor who is under a topic ban can be done, but only in case the editor repetitively refuses to realise the delimiters of his ban and poses a danger of disrupting the project as of right now. In effect, I am not going to take any action until Ed replies or is absent for a couple of days at least from the project. Do note that that does not stop any other administrator from taking any other action as they may deem fit in the meanwhile. Wifione Message 04:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The editor has been blocked, and all resolved. Thank you for your response. RGloucester 04:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 1 week by EdJohnston. Wifione Message 05:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sageleaf reported by AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 23:17, 17 November 2014
  2. Revision as of 22:22, 19 November 2014
  3. Revision as of 23:01, 19 November 2014
  4. Revision as of 23:50, 19 November 2014
  5. Latest revision as of 00:20, 20 November 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In my Edit Summary and on their Talk Page

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


Despite being fully aware of how the term is used to describe ethnic Somalis even in his own source (acknowledges it here), he has still chosen to Edit War and violate 3RR. Shockingly, he is also aware of the consequence for doing so (informed here and here). He has also refused to go to the Talk Page to discuss the dispute. AcidSnow (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 24 hours Wifione Message 02:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. AcidSnow (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Aleksig6 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Shabbat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aleksig6 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */ Added external link."
  2. 00:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */ added a link to a stand-alone site instead of a blog."
  3. 01:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634624966 by NeilN (talk) THIS IS NOT A BLOG. STOP REMOVING MY LINKS !!!"
  4. 01:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634626075 by NeilN (talk)"
  5. 01:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634626373 by Discospinster (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Activities prohibited on Shabbat. (TW)"
  2. 01:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shabbat. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Note links are to same blog on different sites. NeilN talk to me 01:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, already blocked by discospinster. --NeilN talk to me 01:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AcidSnow reported by User:Sageleaf (Result: Reporting editor blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred,]

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]

User AcidSnow has engaged in disruptive editing at the article on Murcanyo. The original post written, indeed the creation of the article by myself, was edited without any proper reasoning. Moreover, after having explained four times(!!!) why the change was wrong. The user has also edited another article, Bayla, without providing any reason. The user appears to show a blatant disdain for providing proper reasoning when editing.

There are five things wrong here. One, I have made three reverts (see the Revisoon History here) so I have yet to violate 3RR. Two, even then I was never informed of this report which is a violation. Four, even then I have yet to engage in "disruptive editing" on those articles or anywhere else on Wikipedia which you have accused me of doing. Even then, I did provided a valid reason which is clearly seen on the Talk Page (which you have opted not to go to) and in my Edit Summary (see here). Five. I also proved a reason to editing Bayla as well, once again see the edit summary here. If anyone is engaging in disruptive editing it's you with your baseless accusation. In fact, here are some other examples: Original Research (for Hobyo see here: [45] and [46] for Alula see the whole Revision History here) and edit warring (see here for Alula: [47][48][49] and see here for Muycano:[50][51][52][53] and [54]). Your report is a clear example of WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
He just informed 11 miniutes after reporting me. He is also continued his edit war on Hobyo. AcidSnow (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Pictogram voting keep.svg Nominating editor blocked 鈥 for a period of 24 hours Wifione Message 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you once again Wifione. AcidSnow (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

King v. Burwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Legislative intent */ Added Content About Gruber Remarks...Restoring History...that is being censoredGaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* other gruber quotes */ mastcell"

Slow Edit warring from IP repeatedly readding in info without consensus and without discussion. See Special:Contributions/ for same edits with same edit summary, and User_talk: for warnings & attempts at drawing the IP in from both myself and MastCell Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, you should have warned the IP about edit warring. I've left a warning note now. If the IP again reverts, I'll block the IP. But not right now. Other than that, let's see how it goes. Thanks. Wifione Message 16:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wifione The IP was warned by MastCell in the previous IP (239) the day before yesterday. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. You're right. I missed that. Thanks for the pointer. Wifione Message 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lagoonaville reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: No action, discussion in progress)[edit]

Barelvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lagoonaville (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "tawassul is islamic term Undid revision 634704085 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
  2. 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Do not remove Undid revision 634703855 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
  3. 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Consnsus overrides Undid revision 634669645 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
  4. 08:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "These are the terms associated with the practices. Undid revision 634664878 by MezzoMezzo (talk)"
  5. 08:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Its True. Undid revision 634664006 by MezzoMezzo (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Barelvi. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


User also violating consensus on the page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I take it to the talk page but nobody talking to me.Lagoonaville (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
And another revert. Now 5 reverts in 24 hours. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Lagoonaville: will you please stop reverting immediately? Luke, can you continue discussing on the talk page? Lagoonaville has surprisingly opened up a discussion on the talk page. So I am not blocking the editor unless they revert again. Wifione Message 16:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
ok let us discuss.Lagoonaville (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:M00NLightNinja00 reported by User: (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: List of Killer Instinct characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M00NLightNinja00 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [56]
  2. [57]
  3. [58]
  4. [59]
  5. [60]
  6. [61]
  7. [62]
  8. [63]
  9. [64]
  10. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]


In regards to the third Killer Instinct title, various sources tied to the game's production, including directors Ken Lobb and Adam Isgreen, have stated that they disliked the previous boss characters Eyedol and Gargos and have no intention of bringing them back for this game, something that M00nLightNinja even acknowledges in his edits and in [67] and [68]. However, he also claims that these statements made no longer apply simply because they were made a year ago and "people want them", despite offering no evidence to suggest that Microsoft has reversed their position on the subject in the time since. -- (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Favonian - Should this IP be blocked as well? It was responsible for at least 4 of the reverts, according to the page's history. I was going to let the IP off with a warning, since he hadn't received one, but if the IP knew the edit warring policy enough to issue a warning and file a report, it seem he was knowingly breaking policy... Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Had I seen it when it happened, I would have sent the IP off to the sin bin as well. Question is: do we block people for 3RR a whole day (the length of the sanction) after the fact? Favonian (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Favonian If we were days or weeks late, I wouldn't, but when its (minutes) less than 24 hours, I still would. Especially in this sort of situation, where the IP clearly knew of the policy, and was heavily involved in the same edit war they were reporting. It just doesn't sit well with me that he reported someone for doing the same thing he was doing, when he obviously knew he was in the wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
So let it be written, so let it be done! Favonian (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:MEOGLOBAL reported by User:Gezginrocker (Result: Full protection)[edit]

Page: Media of Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MEOGLOBAL (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [70]
  2. [71]
  3. [72]
  4. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74] (User keeps on deleting the notice from his talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]


User:MEOGLOBAL has removed a large and well referenced section from the Media of Turkey article. I have warned him about not to edit war, and to leave comments at the talk section. However, he removed that section again. When I warned him again, he wrote "I will write this article from bonnet to heels" and he put an "under construction" template to the article. He appears to have a problem with the added section because of his political views. I gave him a 3RR warning, but he deletes it from his talk page as you can see at diff history above. Because he insists on edit warring and attemp to "re-write" the article, I request a ban for the user. I also require protection for the article, because he is constantly making changes on the article, most of them without any references. For example, this section he just added has no references, there are format errors and is written in poor English. Gezginrocker (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I will talk very clear. He added 3RR warning on my userpage which shows that what is his relationship with Wikipedia. I deleted to Pool Media section because of significant information, but he thinks because of my political view. If my political view would support goverment, I would remove all article here. I don't understand that how one guy can talk about someone's political view here. MEOGLOBAL (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
At his second edit, he gave the reason as "He wants to put this section because of his political view." Yet, he accuses me of "talking about someone's political view." That's really absurd. Gezginrocker (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • you will get nothing by bring some specific sentences to here. I don't know what makes you think that people will support you by you taking people's specific sentence for support yourself. This is Wikipedia, not a simple forum web site. MEOGLOBAL (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.Gezginrocker (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You won't say anything about problem of trustworthy source? Is that it? MEOGLOBAL (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Yankees10 reported by User:Meunger11 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Le'Veon Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Yankees10 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft. As of week 12 of the 2014 Season, he was the #2 overall running back (behind #1 DeMarco Murray) in the league[2] with an average 4.9 YPC, up significantly from his 2013 YPC of 3.5[3].

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11/20/2014: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft.
  2. 11/20/2014: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft.
  3. 11/20/2014: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


Meunger11 (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Eightball reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Not blocked, page protected)[edit]

2015 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Eightball (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634842210 by Tvx1 (talk) RV vandalism"
  2. 15:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634839965 by Tvx1 (talk) Germany continues to be Germany"
  3. 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)卤 "Undid revision 634826490 by Prisonermonkeys (talk) RV vandalism, Germany is Germany"
  4. 12:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634825064 by Prisonermonkeys (talk) The flag of Germany is the flag of Germany"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC) "/* German Flag for German GP */ reply"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 13:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC) "/* German Flag for German GP */
  2. 15:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC) "/* German Flag for German GP */ reply"

Clear violation of WP:3RR within the space of just over five hours, despite multiple request to source the edit. Tvx1 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 appears to not realize that Germany is Germany. I fail to see how I can provide a source proving that. Furthermore, I believe he should be blocked for vandalism, as his continued edits are quite literally lies. Eightball (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
As stated on the talk page. The flag denotes the venue, not the country named in the race title. See 2012 European Grand Prix, 2006 San Marino Grand Prix, 1998 Luxembourg Grand Prix, 1982 Swiss Grand Prix,... Tvx1 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't care where other races are hosted. The German Grand Prix is always in Germany, always has been in Germany, and will be in Germany in 2015. This is objective fact, and again, suggesting anything else is a rather malicious lie. Also, Hockenheim and Nurburgring are under contract until 2018 to alternate the race. That said, I'm rather gutted that I had to resort to finding a "source" for what is, again, absolutely a truth that cannot be disagreed with. Eightball (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
How can you keep arguing that it will be 100% certainly in Germany when the venue is UNKNOWN. That is an indisputable contradiction. And a 5 year old source doesn't change that. It's clearly trumped by newer ones. Again, we are not suggesting that it will take place outside of Germany, we are correctly claiming that the venue and naturally its location as well are unknown. But none of this changes the fact that you indisputably violated WP:3RR Tvx1 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The venue is "unknown" in that it can be either Hockenheim or the Nurburgring, but we don't know specifically which. Both are in Germany. Eightball (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: @Eightball:, do you understand that you cannot break 3RR because of a content dispute? Please confirm, else I would be constrained to block you. Wifione Message 16:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that and I comply with that. I do not believe this is a content dispute, no more than it would be if someone suggested that clouds do not exist. Eightball (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply @Eightball:. Please undo your final revert immediately. Take the content dispute to the talk page of the article. Perhaps dispute resolution might assist you. Do please note that what for you might seem a factuality may not be perceived similarly by other editors, including me. If a claim is challenged, then you do need to support the same with sources. And irrespective of which side is wrong or right, you simply cannot break 3RR. I'll take your statement above to mean that you've understood 3RR and have agreed to not break it ever again. Please do not revert even once again until discussions have reached a consensus on the talk page. Please do read up on edit warring for understanding why blocks can be placed to protect the article from disruption even if 3RR is not broken. I repeat, please undo your final revert immediately to provide evidence of your understanding the issue of 3RR. Take care and be careful. Thanks. Wifione Message 17:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Addendum - Eightball, there's no need to revert the final edit as intermediate edits have already occurred. I'll keep a watch on the article from hereon. Thanks. Wifione Message 18:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, does Eightball have to undo their last edit on this content, Yes or no? I know the user doesn't have to undo the last revision of the article because that was not regarding to this content. But does Eightball have to revert their last edit that the article or not?Tvx1 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Eightball is not required to undo his last edit. Would only lead to further confusion. Continue discussions on the talk page of the article and consider the sources provided by other editors that provide the venue details of the German Grand Prix. Thanks. Wifione Message 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This is my concern, though: we haven't solved anything. I know this isn't the place for this discussion, but the question of whether or not the German Grand Prix will be held in Germany is not up for debate. It WILL be in Germany, and a source is not required to prove that. If there were a source suggesting that, I don't know, due to some conflict with the promoter they may move the race to Luxembourg, THEN a "TBA" flag would be appropriate. But Tvx1 et al have not proven that as a possibility so the German flag should remain by default. Eightball (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It has always being our practice that when a venue is unknown we do not put a flag. Just look at this [76], which is how we handled the exact same situation two years ago. You do not get to ignore consensus just because you want it the other way. You collaborate with other users, you don't call them liars just because you disagree with them. Tvx1 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. Editor has agreed to be mindful of 3RR. Wifione Message 17:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Wifione, please re-open this or start a new investigation. Tvx1 and The359 continue to vandalize the article. As I said before, this is not a content debate. The change they are making is blatantly a lie and thus I will continue to revert it as 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Eightball (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to the promise, Eightball has again reverted [77], again labelling it as vandalism, on the article and have signaled their intention to keep doing so on the talk page [78] as well as their intention not to accept the consensus [79]. This is user is not up for reasoning and will accept no other version of the article than theirs. There are now as much as 4 disagreeing with them and still they keep objecting and keep edit-warring. Tvx1 (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Wifione, Eightball has continued with his edit-war despite the warning, continuing to insist that any edits which disagree with him are vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Wifione 鈥 I suspect a little more than meets the eye here. It takes more than one person to edit war, and I suggest page protection to avoid blocks. This kind of argument on F1 articles has history. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wifione, it is now getting to the point where Eightball is sitting on the article and reverting any edits, as shown here where he reverts an edit on sight without bothering to check what he is reverting.
Bretonbanquet, there are three or four editors who have removed material they disagree with. Eightball has reverted all of them. He is the only one who is really edit-warring, since the rest of us have simply done it once and left it alone when it became obvious that he won't accept any community consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
First off, I apologized for reverting your edit. My dad alway told me what happens when you assume but I believe I've only made an ass out of myself. Secondly, if the community can form consensus to publish a lie, then frankly, I don't see the point of contributing to Wikipedia. The matter at hand, again, is not up for debate. Eightball (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, I know you have done it once, but Tvx1 has done it three times, and there's an hint of ganging up on Eightball here that I'm not keen on. I don't often agree with him, but I think he's right in this case. That said, I don't condone his edit warring. Sometimes, editors just have to leave an article at a version they don't agree with, while a consensus is thrashed out. Stand back and look big, and win the argument by discussion, not constant reverting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no ganging up on Eightball whatsoever. You might not have noticed, but there is another discussion on that article's talk page just above the one on this matter where Eightball and I agree. My position in discussions is solely based on the presented arguments and not on the contributors. FYI my last edit was NOT a revert. I just completed an edit by The359. Do your homework correctly before you throw out accusations. I have focused the vast majority of my efforts on the talk page, and not on the article, while Eightball has now declared their intention on solely concentrating on reverting and not on discussing by any means [80]. I don't see how you can see such behavior as even remotely acceptable, let alone constructive. I will guarantee you I will not revert until a clear consensus has been formed (and I will not revert at all if such a consensus is in the opposite direction). I prefer to have a constructive discussion with my fellow editors instead of calling each other liars. Tvx1 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I said you made three reverts: [81], [82], [83]. 1, 2, 3. There's my homework. I have not said anywhere that Eightball's reverting was acceptable or constructive, in fact I've said the opposite here and in that very discussion [84] so you're wrong there as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, you were right. Weirdly enough, I had completely forgotten about that first revert. Sorry for that. Needless to say I will not revert any more. I have already reverted way to much as it is. Tvx1 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Accepted. As you see, Eightball has laid off the article anyway so hopefully no more edit warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Bretonbanquet, the problem is not that I don't agree. The problem is that disagreement is impossible. The version of the article they wish to maintain is objectively untrue, and I'm having a continually hard time wrapping my head around why editors want to make such malicious edits. Eightball (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
And I've provided sources, and I've provided facts, and they've continually ignored them for reasons I also don't understand. I've proven repeatedly that only two tracks, both in Germany, have contracts to host the race, and Prisonermonkeys acts like I have to fly to both tracks and establish photographic evidence that they're in Germany. I'm honestly falling apart as a person in real life. I can't understand them at all. Eightball (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹 It doesn't help when you constantly accuse other editors of lying or pushing for malicious edits. That's not WP:AGF. Nor does it help when you announce your intentions to ignore the talk page discussion and sit on the article, reverting edits on sight. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What other conclusion do you expect me to reach? Honestly, of the two options - that you are a malicious editor, or that you genuinely believe the race may take place outside of Germany - I'd rather believe the former! I'd much rather believe you were intentionally trying to make the page worse. How can I ever work with the latter type of person? How can we work together to improve this article if I have to stop and write a thesis every time I want to state objective fact? How can I write these words without proving that you can read them? How can I write "write" without defining it? Where does it stop, honestly? And why would I want to waste my time participating in such a pointless discussion when I could devote all of my attention in efforts on maintain the article in its correct form? Eightball (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This has been explained to you鈥攆lagicons correspond to the physical location of the circuit, not to the title of the race. The race may well be called the "German Grand Prix", but right now, there is no venue for it. Therefore, how can we say for certain the the race will be in Germany if we don't know where it us actually going to be held?
That policy was introduced with the European Grand Prix moving to Valencia as people were using the flag of Europe to represent it, when Europe is not recognised as a national body; since Valencia is no longer on the calendar, maybe that policy needs to be revisited. But that's a discussion for the WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to say this one more time, and only one time, because you need to understand that participating this discussion is making me extremely angry. There are two possible race tracks that will host the German Grand Prix in 2015. The physical location of both circuits is in Germany. It is an undeniable fact, then, that the physical location of the race will be in Germany. The German flag will be used on the schedule. I will not explain this to you again. It is not up for debate. This is over and I hope, but I don't expect, that you are enough of a man to admit that you are wrong and help me to keep the article in its correct form. Eightball (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
And all we ask is that arguable assertions are supported by evidence. You claim that the race will be held at Hockenheim or the Nurburgring, and that there is no third option. Where is your evidence of this? The last source you offered said that the Nurburgring would host the race in 2015, which is immediately contradicted by the FIA listing it as "TBA". The FIA is the final authority on the subject since they are the sport's governing body, but they have not yet settled the venue ... so how do you know that it will be in Germany when they don't? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think the FIA don't know it'll be in Germany? I strongly suspect they didn't imagine in their wildest dreams that anyone might think the German GP would be held outside Germany. For the first time in history. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Continue the discussions on the talk page. I've protected the article for ten days. Alternatively, I could have blocked you Eightball, Tvx1, Prisonermonkeys for 3RR and edit warring. I'm not doing that to allow you Eightball a chance to provide better sources and discuss on the talk page. If, once the protection expires, there is continued edit warring and disregard for 3RR. I would block all the parties that are indulging in the edit warring, starting with you Eightball, without waiting for page protection. Please take heed of that and kindly discuss and reach consensus. As I've mentioned earlier, use the dispute resolution way as that can assist you all in case talk page discussions fail. Wifione Message 02:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I, for one, would like to apologize for my actions. The worst part is that I hadn't even realized I had made three reverts in 24 hours. If I had I would not have posted this report myself. But I should not have got that point in the first place. Needless to say I will not do whatever I can to reach a constructive conclusion to this discussion. Tvx1 (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
And I, for one, will not apologise. At no point did I edit war. In fact, I actively attempted to resolve the situation in three different places - here, on the article talk page, and on my own talk page. I find it disappointing that someone can edit-war so aggressively, disregard a warning from an admin to stop, express a refusal to try and engage with discussion, express a desire to sit on the article and revert edits on sight, refuse to acknowledge any consensus that he disagrees with, repeatedly accuse editors of knowingly lying and making "malicious" edits, and escape with little more than a slap on the wrist. I have been blocked in the past, and I have been blocked for considerably less.
At no point did I edit-war. I made one change to the article that was consistent with an emerging consensus on the talk page; my subsequent edit to that article was to remove a reference that I had demonstrated to be outdated and unusable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys:, nobody is asking you to apologise. I'm advising you to not edit war. Your 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert can be considered edit warring given the situation on the page. Your efforts to discuss are appreciated; to revert continuously, not. So do go ahead and discuss as you are discussing. And I've closed this report. If any further issue arises, kindly open a new report. Thanks. Wifione Message 12:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:DOwenWilliams reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Differential (mechanical device) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DOwenWilliams (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [86] DOwenWilliams
  2. [87]
  3. [88]

WP:ENGVAR reversions over replacing the original spelling of nett (in the sense of an overall difference) with net.

The justification for this was given that "nett" only applies to animal catching, "according to dictionaries". This is simply untrue - maybe the (uncited) dictionary used doesn't use "nett", but plenty do. I linked wiktionary, which does give "nett", but this too was reverted. Since this a "discussion" was started at talk: but it mostly seems to be about threats of banning anyone who disagrees.

Nett is perhaps archaic in the US, but it's still in widespread use in the UK, especially in the financial sense. It also (for something that could go "either way") gives a straightforward disambiguation from stringy things for catching fish.

Please check the talk page of the article in question, and also my own user talk page. I've written some explanations there, civilly. I haven't suggested banning anybody.
In the 30-odd years when I lived in the UK, I don't recall seeing "nett'. Maybe it's regional, within the country.
I get the impression that other people are doing edits, such as the reversion of your edit to Wiktionary, with which I may agree, but for which I am not in any way responsible. I have no idea who did that.
This is a storm in a teacup, and other people are stirring it up for their own amusement. I think we should just let it die away. I hope the administrators will reach the same conclusion.
DOwenWilliams (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. There is a dispute but so far neither party has violated WP:3RR. Try to get agreement on the talk page. So far, more people are in favor of 'net' than 'nett'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:DHeyward reported by User:Aprock (Result: Locked)[edit]

Page: Christina Hoff Sommers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DHeyward (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 17:59, November 21, 2014鈥: cite that she is who she says
  2. 15:53, November 21, 2014鈥: referred multiple times in a scholarly journal on feminism. Same as the other feminist scholar
  3. 15:43, November 21, 2014: Undid revision 634886857 by (talk)It's not duplicated. Sorry
  4. 03:56, November 21, 2014鈥: stanford piece is reflecting camps as noted in the citation index. Mentions Sommers by name as well as others. No consensus to remove this.
  5. 19:55, November 20, 2014: Undid revision 634786155 by Aprock (talk) That's been there for a while. Pleas ediscuss before reverting. I found it well sourced and accurate.
  6. 18:28, November 20, 2014: no reason to delete this. Restoring

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91], [92]


DEHeyward does not appear to be using sources properly, and is serially reverting against consensus.

I've added sources and none of those are reverts as far as I can tell. I will disengage but for the most part I have been the one engaging in talk page discussion. The removal of feminist is disruption as it's clear from numerous sources that it is the case both from third party sources and self-identification. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you've been engaging on the talk pages, and simultaneously edit warring. aprock (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected (full) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Light2Shadow (Result: )[edit]

Page: DC Cinematic Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [94]
  2. [95]
  3. [96]
  4. [97]
  5. [98]
  6. [99]
  7. [100]

I've explained to the IP user according to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, we must use the most common and recognizable name. I gave him a few examples the page provides such as Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) and Caffeine (not: 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione) but he has continued to revert. Light2Shadow (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I fully support the IP user for more than one reason: because the fictional universe is not yet officially titled, and we do not use fan-given nicknames here. Moreover, Light2Shadow has failed to realise that "DC Comics' shared film universe" is neither a nickname nor an official name, but a formal identity of something yet to be named; before Dawn of Justice was officially titled, it was formally referred to here as "Untitled Man of Steel sequel", not the fan-given "Batman vs. Superman". And the yet-to-be titled sequel to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes will not be called Planet of the Apes 3 here. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears you, reverted a number of times yourself. After the IPs first revert you should have began a discussion per WP:BRD, not re-reverted. Template:Uw-ew states, "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)