Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of 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. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Maurice Flesier reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: stale)

Page

Mesut Özil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Özil is Turkish origin German."
2. 12:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Some fixes?? To remove ethnicity, not an satisfactory explanation."
3. 15:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616913338 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Before the back, please discuss on the talk page!"
4. 18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616939465 by 64.251.94.5 (talk)"

• 09:03:25 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617233155 by Malerooster (talk) reason?"

This is three days later, but there is still no consensus here.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mesut Özil. (TW)"
2. 02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "/* July 2014 */ +"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is aware of 3RR, WP:OPENPARA, WP:MOSBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A solution to this problem was "German-Turkish footballer". I agree that the user has breached openpara, mosbio and 3rr. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note. There is an ongoing report here at ANI about Walter's behavior generally. Regarding the 3RR report here, it's a bit hard to evaluate other editors' conduct on the page because there's so much activity on the article, both by named accounts and IPs, and some of it involves content disputes, whereas some of it is just obvious vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a single revert there over the time period so please do not cloud the issue Bbb23. The issue is simple: the editor made four reverts here trying to impose a specific version of the article against four separate editors: two registered and two anon. The editor then singled me out on the talk page as I was the only editor involved. This is a clear-cut case. If the editor is not blocked I would expect a detailed explanation as to why this editor can get away with violating 3RR even after being reported, and "stale" is not detailed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Stale - 2/0 (cont.) 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Panhead2014 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Declined)

Page

Sergio Busquets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Panhead2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616985390 by Chris troutman (talk) Violates WP's policy on neutrality. WP is about facts. See Talk."
2. 00:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616977992 by Flat Out (talk) It wasn't included by a consensus, rather an attempt to slur the individual with ambiguous language. Wholly irrelevant and biased comment."
3. 23:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616976239 by Flat Out (talk) This content has no place in the article other than to present a biased outlook on a solitary incident that is wholly irrelevant."
4. 14:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Biased, negative and defamatory content. Irrelevant and unnecessary. Its inclusion is not in the interest of fairness and suits a certain agenda designed to slur the person."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sergio Busquets. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Sergio Busquets

Comments:

User has been engaged on their talk page as well as on the article's talk page, to no avail. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note. First, the reported user has not breached 3RR as the fourth revert is well outside the 24-hour window. Second, although one of the sources is not available to me because it requires a password, the others do not support much of the material that the reported user is removing. That would be a WP:BLP violation and is exempt from edit warring. Also, the user has participated in a discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment agree there is a source which should be deleted due to login requirement. I am happy reconsider wording of the passage to better reflect reliable sources. There has been a reluctance by Panhead2014 to engage in meaningful discussion on their talk page and the article's talk page but the latest entry is a start. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:WeirdPsycopath reported by User:Damián80 (Result: Blocked)

Page: De que te quiero, te quiero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WeirdPsycopath (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. diff one, my edition
2. diff two It is is the issue that makes the user

I explained 2 times the user about editing in discussion and not seem to mind anything, so I request the intervention of an administrator [1] and [2]. Besides several messages that the user has left on my talk are insults and personal attacks.--Damián (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Account Blocked indefinitely by DangerousPanda as compromised.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:50.157.101.36 reported by User:AlanS (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 06:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617145169 by Thebestofall007 (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC) to 06:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 06:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "added well known facts"
4. 06:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Constantly removing speedy tags for no reason. AlanS (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Probably unnecessary as the article has been deleted and salted. However, I blocked the two named accounts involved in the article for sock puppetry, and the IP is obviously also the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Siggasonswein reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Connections between the Barnsdale area and the Robin Hood legend */"
2. 11:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Connections between the Barnsdale area and the Robin Hood legend */"
3. 18:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Connections between the Barnsdale area and the Robin Hood legend */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kirk Smeaton. (TW)"
2. 18:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Barnsdale. (TW)"
3. 18:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Castleford. (TW)"
4. 11:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kirk Smeaton. (TW)"
5. 11:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
6. 11:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "Talkback (User talk:Loriendrew#Please note, this is not unsourced material. Please read the following for details of why this is so.) (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User adding WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR to a number of articles. User had been blocked yesterday as a warning but continues to add content despite warning. Note that user admits to being the author of the thesis from which content is being added. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 11:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by Acroterion. The user is fortunate that another administrator blocked first as I was prepared to block the user indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm feeling benevolent this morning, but blocked primarily for promotion and retaliatory disruption after many warnings. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's just a clearer and more specific basis than mine, which was shorthand for the same thing. My guess is an indef is inevitable, but I have no objection to a little benevolence.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Sakhal reported by User:Denniss (Result: Indeffed)

Page

German submarine U-995 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sakhal (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:

Also operates as User:62.42.27.232 - use Wikipedia to promote own website. Despite multiple warnings to stop adding spamlinks he doesn't stop. Similar behaviour in 2008 and 2013. Denniss (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There are also grounds for suspecting that the website in question frequently contains material uploaded in breach of copyright: this example (linked in our Me 262 article) certainly does. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Denniss I would suggest that you move this to WP:AN/I. First, you have filed an incomplete report. Next the user has only edited the article twice that I can see - the IP is most likely the same person so you might also file a WP:RFPP. Both of these can lead to this being closed with no action taken. OTOH yours and AndyTheGrump's concerns merit the attention of an admin. This is just a suggestion so please feel free to proceed as you wish and thanks to you both for your vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - this probably isn't the best place to deal with this issue. An RFPP isn't going to help much though - multiple articles are being spammed with links, and we can't protect them all indefinitely. I suspect blacklisting the website may be the only effective solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. The IP is currently blocked but not for very long. If there is a problem, please let me know, and I will block the IP for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity (Result: Both warned)

Page: Ramadan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Hajj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please speak with User:Inayity about his edits on Ramadan and Hajj. He is edit warring on both. The main discussion is at the talkpage of Ramadan, where he has been active in the last 4 posts. So far only 2 editors have posted in them, disagreeing. He is aggressive and unpleasant, and simply misunderstands WP:WEIGHT. Please see his userpage that I suspect him to be less than neutral on the subject, as in WP:LIKE. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The cheek, so If I am edit warring what exactly are you doing. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG Here is your history history of reverting it is strange that you come and say they should talk to me. I did my fair share but my friend you are hiding behind 3rr to WP:WAR reverting on the line you have not used the talk page to settle anything, only to edit how you want, and then hold a discussion (reminds me of a certain country) See Your own user page, talk about Pot calling kettle black LOL. --Inayity (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am active replying to you on the talkpages of those 2 articles, with over 20 edits today. Is that how you proof all your arguments?

I know WP:BOOMERANG, but I also know that I edit according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which you are misunderstanding and misusing, supposedly to make a point connected with your personal opinions. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure your point, Are you not engaged in the edit war you are reporting? Or am I edit warring with your twin? Do you know what this space is for? So why are you discussing WP:LIKE here? there is a dispute or request for comments for that kind of stuff. And I also have "suspect" about you per your colorful userpage. Anyone can make accusations, making mature points is another thing. So per your contributions you have done more edit warring than me, and on two articles got your version inserted, yet you tell me about Edit warring.? --Inayity (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You can not remove sourced information without good reason, and your reasons are challenged by 2 editors. They actually have been proven wrong already. That leaves us with you edit warring for the sake of edit warring. So why shouldn't I tell you about edit warring? Debresser (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If my reasons were so wrong why then did you have to go and change this edit? So you were reverting me and never check out my objections. Clearly I was not wrong. Now Two editors means nothing, what counts is the ability to make a case using Policy. We do not WP:VOTE and the talk page shows clearly who started the off key remarks, imagine lecturing me about what I know. I never did that, I simply copy and pasted policy for you to see. This nonsense of "You do not know what you are talking about" is for teenagers, it is only you saying so, argue by rationale not "You are wrong", that is just below me. Now the question for bonus prizes, Since you know about Wikipedia, What does wikipedia say about handling Disputes? Did you follow that? What is Wiki policy for avoiding Edit war show the people here the steps you took to avoid it.If I am guilty you are equally so. --Inayity (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record this is the remark that started the whole thing going South: Up until this point no issue No idea why this remark was made? Who is this guy to talk for so many other editors?--Inayity (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Debresser and Inayity, you are both warned that if you continue this battle in the article, you may be blocked without any further notice or warning, regardless of whether you breached WP:3RR. The only reason you're not being blocked now is because you both skirted 3RR by the skin of your collective teeth. Debresser, if you want to report disruptive conduct, take it to another noticeboard. If you want to report edit warring, then file an appropriate report with a proper header and diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 (or other willing editors) I posted this way because I wanted somebody to explain to Inayity what he is doing, not to have him punished. He should be stopped from removing information he doesn't like. He continues with this edit, which is so wrong because 1. it was discussed 2. the info is well sourced 3. he is censoring Wikipedia. Can you explain this to him? If not, where should I take this? Debresser (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to raise Inayity's conduct but not have him sanctioned for edit warring, then take it to WP:ANI. Make sure you're clear what you're asking for. I make no prediction as to whether such a report will be received favorably.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mario252 reported by User:Damián80 (Result: )

Page: Lo que la vida me robó (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: La malquerida (telenovela) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mario252 (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. diff La malquerida, Editing Mario252
2. diff La malquerida, my edition
3. diff Lo que la vida me robó, Editing Mario252
4. diff Lo que la vida me robó, my edition

Comments:
Hello, sought to punish this person, because I'm tired of explaining about their issues, all it does is ignore my messages and delete them, which seems to me a lack of respect by the user, the same user if read messages but ignores them. On the issues generated wars and explain my reasons, but he did not seem to care nothing and continue with the same, nor cares to reach consensus. I have placed a complaint here, but I see that so far no decision was taken, and as time passes the user continues to fall in edit wars with me and as I have tried to explain in his discussion but is useless.--Damián (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Techy-rat reported by User:AlanS (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

Schapelle Corby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Techy-rat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "/* See also */"
2. 11:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "/* See also */"
3. 11:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "/* See also */"
4. 11:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "/* See also */ added a link ..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Single purpose account. Has only edited one page in its lifetime. AlanS (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for one month by Nick.

User:Al-Andalusi reported by User:Shrike (Result: )

Page

Operation Protective Edge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Casualties and losses */ remove opinion and OR" this revert of this edit [4]
2. 17:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ partial revert of Irondome's change" revert of this edit [5]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Operation Protective Edge. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and under 1RR. I have asked the user to revert himself. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

An edit war? Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to revert yourself?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And which edit is that? I'm asking because myself and the rest of the involved editors have not been part of a dispute let alone an "edit war". Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You made two reverts of two different users.You may undo your last revert [14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC) and then I will retract this report--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The last one is in agreement with BRD. I fail to see the issue here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is you made two reverts to WP:ARBPIA article .--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Shrike, could you do me the courtesy of examining the 4 cases I cited here? I'm still not certain I understand this rule, but since you do, tell me why (a) those are not examples of what you consider to be edit-warring on the same page (b) if they are, why did you ignore them? Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD.If you think that someone else broke 1RR please report him.Don't ask any one to do you your job for you--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no. I don't want to stain my excellent record as someone who refuses to take people to arbitration. I didn't ask people to do my job. I did the work, and asked for a judgement. 3 major breaking news articles were written because editors from different POV, once on my suggestion, agreed not to use the IR as an instrument to gain editorial advantages. All the article builders broke it on those three pages, and no one was reported because we peons committed to the composition of articles, and not I/P warring games, know you just cannot write those articles and not break the rule, because it means that after an alteration, everything else all editors can do for 24 hours is just pile in more information regardless of the dissonance and unreadability this would cause. I don't chase 1R infractions or aste time combing someone's contribs to find if I can get him off the page, and make life comfortable for one of two POVs: I look to the merit of each edit, and if it is good or sound, I approve. If it is lousy, I mark it for correction, hoping someone else sights it if I can't revert it. The rule exists to enable article creation, not to create obstacles and enmity among collegues.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note. This is getting tiresome. On a narrow technical level, if Al-Andalusi had not stated in the edit sumary that the first edit was a partial revert, other than the change of the word "claimed" to "announced", I wouldn't even notice it. Plus, I don't even know which edit of Irondome's, Al-Andalusi is partly reverting. The second diff is clearly a revert. So, thee may not even be a 1RR violation here, not sure. There is no exemption from 1RR because an article is a current event that is being heavily edited by many, many users with an eye to improving the information and the sources. For one thing, it's hard for an administrator to sort out that kind of content analysis. God knows I'm relatively aggressive when it comes to blocking editors for violating 3RR or for violating 1RR in contravention of ArbCom sanctions, but even I am not favorably impressed by these reports. I strongly urge anyone who wants to file such a report about this particular article to go to WP:ARE. Again, I'm not taking any action here (I officially alerted Al-Andalusi of the sanctions), although another administrator is free to do whatever he or she deems appropriate as I'm not closing the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the report.

User:108.4.147.159 reported by User:Wtwilson3 (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of countries and dependencies by area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

108.4.147.159 (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 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC) to 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"
   2. 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Countries and dependencies by area (including Costal and Territorial waters) */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC) to 20:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"
   2. 20:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

It appears that all this IP's edits have been reverted as unexplained, against consensus, and/or vandalism. Also is just 12 days out from being blocked for 3 months for the same thing. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 19:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the list of edits this IP has made, they don't seem interested in being a constructive contributor to the project. It seems like basically the user is making changes that don't appear to be vandalism but basically amount to it. I have written on the IP's talk page, here, and indicated in the edit summaries to go to the article talk page but nothing has been done by the editor. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of six months. I didn't block the IP for edit warring or for breach of 3RR as they reverted only twice in a 24-hour window. Rather, the block is for a resumption of their disruptive editing after the last block, which was for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ccpb101 , User:66.87.131.105, and User:66.87.131.82 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Semi)

Page: Morgellons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

1. Ccpb101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 66.87.131.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 66.87.131.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:35, July 16, 2014 (type 1 only)

All edits remove

1. ", but in reality no such things are present." from the lead, or
2. "indicating that there were no disease organisms present in Morgellons patients" in a later paragraph.

Unless otherwise specified, the diffs in question do both 1 and 2.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:57, July 16, 2014 (type 2 only)
2. 19:12, July 16, 2014
3. 21:39, July 16, 2014 (as 1st IP)
4. 23:08, July 16, 2014
5. 15:06, July 17, 2014 (as 2nd IP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: To named editor:

• 23:07, July 16, 2014 (nw-3rr template)
• 18:39, July 16, 2014 (nw-ewsoft template)

2nd IP warned

• 15:18, July 17, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't, but there is consensus on archived article talk pages that this should not be done, and the user was informed of this consensus.

Comments:
If either

1. the ewsoft warning is considered adequate, IP1 is the same as the user, or
2. IP2 is the same as the user,

then the 4th revert was after the warning. Otherwise, technically, not.

If edit#1 is not considered a revert, then both IPs must the same person to get a count of 4 reverts. However, I'm pretty sure the new text in the second section has been in the article previously, but perhaps only before 2011, when the new reference came out. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I will note in passing that while Arthur Rubin didn't start a thread on the article's talk page, he did make a point of reaching out Ccpb101 on Ccpb101's user talk page here, noting the existence of prior discussions in the article talk page's archives, and briefly explaining some of the problems with the sources that Ccpb101 was using. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. An IP who claims to be from the CIA has removed the contents of the article, stating "This article has been deleted due to controversial and sensitive matters". EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:FactStraight reported by User:Remus Octavian Mocanu (Result: No violation)

Page: Ferdinand I of Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FactStraight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Talk:Ferdinand I of Romania
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

The "editing war" turns grotesque in my opinion. I think it is due time that you put an end to such destructive attitudes which scare away in disgust any decent editor: already 10x time spent waging editing wars than usefully editing...
Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked the page (nor does it appear that I will have time to), but I don't see any diffs. (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

FactStraight has only made one edit to the article since it was created. DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Therock9998 reported by User:Falcadore (Result: )

Page: 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
also
1980 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1981 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1982 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1983 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1984 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1985 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1986 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1987 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1988 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1989 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1990 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1991 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1992 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1993 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2014 International V8 Supercars Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therock9998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts (just on 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship the others are much the same):

1. [8] 01:45, July 17, 2014
2. [9] 00:01, July 18, 2014
3. [10] 01:13, July 18, 2014
4. [11] 02:56, July 18, 2014
5. [12] 07:31, July 18, 2014
6. [13] 08:19, July 18, 2014

and now

1. [14] 09:02, July 18, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Therock9998#Edit war warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Therock9998

Comments:

On going attempts to get involved user to cease damaging table coding. Evaded a block when applied as an IP editor by establishing this User ID. I hesitate to say Sock Puppetting as this is plainly a new user and would not understanding either the terminology or that it is considered poor etiquette. Refuses to communicate with other editors. Am at a complete loss, and I have probably overstepped the line myself attempting and tender my apologies. Falcadore (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No he or she is just being disruptive and a vandal. On going vandalistic edits across a couple of dozen Australian motorsport articles. --Falcadore (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jhakeyborras reported by User:AlanS (Result: )

Page

Jake Borras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 12:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 12:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 12:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Jake Borras"
2. 12:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Jake Borras"
3. 12:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Jake Borras. (TW)"
4. 12:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Jake Borras"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Constant removal of templates when user is creator of page that is being templates. AlanS (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

* Page protected Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC) A user tryimnig  to  persistently  create an autobio. The article has been deleted three times in  rapid succession  and now salted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)