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:EEng reported by User:Bloom6132 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:05, November 25, 2014
2. 04:38, November 26, 2014
3. 05:31, November 26, 2014
4. 05:49, November 26, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:43, November 26, 2014

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

Comments:

Four reverts within 24 hours, the last one made after I had warned him to stop edit warring. BlueMoonset, who was reverted the first two times, offered to discuss this on WT:DYK with EEng, but to no avail. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note @Bloom6132: regarding your latest revert here, I must point out that 3RR exemption does not apply in this case. Quoting FPaS at [2] "The exemption only applies to edits that were made during the block, i.e. through a sock. Edits made before the block don't count, just like edits made before a ban don't count." You are just continuing the pointless edit warring. - NQ (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  Indeed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  My apologies. I did not know about the specifics of the exception until now. Would you like me to undo my revert? —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually reading the exception might have helped. No need for you to do anything, since the discussion at Talk:DYK shows that sanity is prevailing and you will be reverted in due course. EEng (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you didn't read (or can't read; not sure which one), it's pretty obvious I read the exception given that I cited it in the ES. I was referring to how I didn't read FPaS' elaboration of the rule from 2 years ago. If you're expecting me to search through archives for comments made years before in order to correct a blatant 3RR violation, you'd be a moron. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The exception you cited, in making the reversion for which NQ quite rightly scolded you, allows "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users". I was neither a banned user, nor a sockpuuppet of a banned or blocked user, and no archived explication should be needed to understand that the exception didn't apply.

For many months you've been expressing anger toward random people at Talk:Did You Know, beginning (to my recollection) after a shift in rules designed to raise the minimum quality of contributions there. This seems to have inconvenienced you, and since then you've felt free to call people morons, accuse them of intentionally fudging project statistics, muse that they "can't read" or "can't do math" even as you misinterpret moderately complex logical constructs (such as above) and much more. Personally I'm not distressed by such nonsense, but I know others are, and for their sake everyone would like you to cut it out.

The pattern seems to be that if you're allowed to get the last word in, you go away and stop bothering people, at least for a while. So please be my guest. You have my permission to vent by calling me any names you like, if that helps.

EEng (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny thing, karma [3] EEng (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:XavierGreen reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Warned)

Page: Template:WW2InfoBox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XavierGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Consensus version is [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5] (23 Nov)
2. [6] (24 Nov)
3. [7] (25 Nov)
4. [8] (26 Nov - reinstating a disruptive POV tag which had been removed in the previous edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9], [10], [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at Talk:World War II#Anti-Finnish bias

Comments:
A lengthy RfC on which countries, if any, to include in the World War II article's infobox (which exists as a separate template) was recently concluded at Talk:World War II#Request for comment: WWII infobox, with the consensus being to list only 'Allies' and 'Axis', and not identify any specific countries in the inbox. I implemented this consensus after the discussion was closed by admin Number 57 (talk · contribs). XavierGreen did not agree with this position during the RfC, and shortly after I implemented the consensus started adding separate listings for Finland, Iraq and Thailand, claiming that the omission of Finland specifically represents "anti-Finnish bias". This position has attracted no support in the discussion in the discussion at Talk:World War II#Anti-Finnish bias, and Xavier has been asked there to not slap a POV tag on the template as it adds this to the World War II article (one of the most-viewed Wikipedia articles) and is over the top given that the RfC recently reached a consensus on this issue. Despite this, he's continuing to edit war. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In the "incident" reported above I acted in good faith and i am quite surprised to see my name listed here. The position i took was NOT MENTIONED in the RFC, i asked Nick-D to show me where it was you failed to do so. I have exposed a legitimate problem regarding neutrality, i have not edit warred and after my second edit was reverted i placed a comment about my concerns on the appropriate talk page and a POV hat on the page to notify readers that there was a dispute regarding neutrality, which as i understand it is the correct procedure for such issues. I feel that user:Nick-D has acted in bad faith in placing me here in an attempt to quash any potential neutrality issues regarding the implementation of the RFC result which he supported actively.XavierGreen (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Its a bit concering that you reverted again (for the 6th time) and this time with no effort to join the ongoing conversation that your aware of. -- Moxy (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How have i not joined the ongoing conversation? I participated in the RFC and i started the relevant thread on the talk page. Those 6 edits you show were not all reversions, and as i stated above after i was reverted in placing finland as a co-belligerent, i tried to place a pov-hatnote on the page which you yourself reverted in bad faith!XavierGreen (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that i will be going away for the next few days for the thanksgiving holiday, so i may not be able to respond to any further comments for the next couple of days.XavierGreen (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me that User:XavierGreen is refusing to accept the result of a valid RfC. There may still be time for him to respond here and agree to accept consensus. If not, it appears that a block may be necessary to stop the edit war. Adding a POV hatnote is just another way to continue the war. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the RFC discussion and my comments on the relevant talk page? I am not disputing the result of the RFC, from what i read the scope of the RFC was to merge all the members of the Allies and Axis into those respective monikers on the page's infobox. There was no mention in the RFC as to the status of co-belligerents which were not members of the Axis and Allies. Finland was not a member of the Axis Alliance as it did not sign the Tripartite Pact which was the legal document establishing the alliance. Finland specifically did not sign the pact so as to avoid being considered an Axis power during the conflict. It is both un-historical and non-neutral to list Finland as a member of the Axis which is why in the previous version of the infobox it was listed as a co-belligerent (along with Thailand and Iraq) apart from the Axis powers. I have asked both on the WWII talk page and here for editors opposing me to show me where exactly in the RFC co-belligerent powers are discussed and where it is stated that such states should be lumped together with the Axis states. As of yet no one has shown me.XavierGreen (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In my view, it is up to you to find explicit talk page support for the change you want to make. Please link to where you received support. If you do not fully understand what the RfC decided, why not ask User:Number 57 for clarification, since he was the closer. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a bit of a red herring: the opening questions in the RfC made it very clear that it covered all possible countries to be included in the infobox or not (with option 1, which ended up being the consensus, being "Should World War II's infobox only have links to Allies of World War II and Axis powers?"). It's concerning that you're trying to Wikilawyer what was a pretty clear cut RfC. Nick-D (talk)

Now Xavier is trying to re-open the RfC by appealing for input from Wikiproject Finland and Wikiproject Military History [12] [13], with neither post noting that there's recently been a RfC on this topic. This is clear-cut WP:POINT behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As i already indicated above, I am not trying to reopen the RFC! I am trying to get input on the neutrality issue i raised at the talk page! The discussion on the issue has not even run 12 hours. You criticize me for edit-warring, yet when i bring up a legitimate concern and try to follow the rules you attack me for following them. I don't know why you seem to have it out for me, and i'm rather taken aback by your remarks. Is being objective and trying to implement neutrality not one of the most important principals to follow when editing wikipeida Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? XavierGreen (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:XavierGreen is warned he may be blocked the next time he reverts at Template:WW2InfoBox or adds a POV tag. If you believe Finland deserves special mention in the template you must get a talk page consensus for the change before you make the edit. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:186.69.107.211 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Warned)

Page: List of sovereign states in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 186.69.107.211 (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. [14] - June 26 - first case I found of adding ISIL + two in Ukraine + Libya junk
2. [15] July 16 - added Ukraine pair again
3. [16] Nov 16 reverting User:Gregkaye and readding ISIL
4. [17] Nov 25 reverted User:Legacypac to reinsert ISIL
5. [18] Nov 25 Inserts a long list of non-states including ISIL again, reverting User:Kahastok
6. ADDED after the initial report [19] reverted my reversion again after this was filed and (as can be seen at the link) I noted the 1RR restriction in my edit summary.

Low editor traffic article because new States rarely form. This IP has engaged in a long term project to add Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (as well as the separatist portions of Ukraine and other non-states) into Wikipedia as new countries. This is against consensus and can not be supported by RS. On November 25 they reverted two different editors to reinsert ISIL, therefore breaching the 1RR Active Community Sanctions. This article is not tagged with the sanctions because it should not contain any ISIL content. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] Right after the IP reverted my deletion of the ISIL I went to their talk page and requested they revert themselves at 19:34, 25 November 2014. After Kahastok reverted the IPs revert they added the material again, braking 1RR.

The IP made 4 edits to the Syrian Civil War talk page between Oct 18-21 discussing the map and ISIL. They therefore should have seen the large warning about the Sanctions at the top of the page there.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] this was handled through detailed edit summaries by the editors removing the improper additions plus my note to their talk page, which had no response except reinsertig the material. The editor appears to be acting in good faith, is based in Ecuador so may be ESL, and may not understand the need for RS. They are a low activity editor as well. I suggest a warning under the sanctions and encouraging them to stop making changes on a sub article like this that conflicts with the List_of_sovereign_states and ISIL articles.

Comments:

After seeing several instances of this kind and seeing the repeat behaviour of the IP User I find it difficult to assume good faith but would be happy if contrary evidence can be provided. User:186.69.107.211, please be in dialogue. It would be helpful if you give an indication that you understand the problem and add such content as a reassurance that you won't repeat these behaviours. I think that this would be needed to prevent the extensive ban that I believe that the extreme nature of your behaviour currently warrants. Please understand that Wikipedia is a community of collaborative editors. I would advise you to review content onwards from Wikipedia:Five pillars and respond. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

With the latest revert by the IP I am moving toward Gregkaye's view. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that with the recent changes or movements that have shown many conflicts about the new countries or "de facto" countries that were born as a result ot that conflicts, many people are in constant debate wether this countries (like ISIS, Crime, Donetsk, Lugansk, etc.) should be accepted or not as states to include in the wikipedia article "list of sovereign states in 2010s" but as I see that you really included them in the wikipedia article but in a neutral way (as the user Kahastok said in the article history) until further notice wether we find out they become sovereign states or "de facto" sovereign states I see it is a good way for everyone who is still challenging each other about this "sovereign states" debate, with this message I entrust in you wikipedia administrators the content of this page and I won't edit the page anymore. User:186.69.107.211 00:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: The IP user is warned for violating the WP:GS/SCW 1RR rule. If they keep their promise and stop the reverts there will be no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Amrit Ghimire Ranjit reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Blocked)

Page: Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23] 07:37, 25 November 2014‎ Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,196 bytes) (+1,236)‎ . . (Undid revision 635337996 by Aoidh (talk))
2. [24] 08:40, 25 November 2014‎ Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,196 bytes) (+1,236)‎ . . (Undid revision 635354365 by Bladesmulti (talk)|||Removal of cited source)
3. [25] 08:36, 26 November 2014‎ Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,196 bytes) (+1,236)‎ . . (Undid revision 635482334 by Aoidh (talk)||||Reach to a concensus before removing cited information.)
4. [26] 14:49, 26 November 2014‎ Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,196 bytes) (+1,236)‎ . . (Undid revision 635493662 by Bladesmulti (talk)|Why are you removing cited source without agreement or concensus? It existed first and was removed without concensus.Note it.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nepal#Concerning the claim that Siddh.C4.81rtha Gautama was born in Lumbini being represented in the article as fact

Comments:

He was recently blocked for edit warring and he never participated on talk(page), always reverting. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment See User:Amrit Ghimire Ranjit/diffs

He is reverting all ny edits regularly

• Undid for (nonsensical and too against the rest of historicity) [28] when I had provided the source and Gautam Buddha has lived more than 29 yrs in Nepal. I had written the same.
• Undid revision without reason [29] Inclusion of History of India in name of History of Indian subcontinent in History of South Asia South Asia as if whole south asia is contained within India.
• Undid revision (irrevalent category) [30] But the category for english is relavent.
• Undid revision (nonsensial) [31]

Tasks done By Bladesmulti - AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 15:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How would you define the relevance of above nonsense that you have brought here? You want me to describe that 29 years of life doesn't means "most of the life" when the person lived for 80 years.

It must be very hard for you to rephrase what I had originally written, no wonder you have made errors in spelling the words(e.g. nonsensical, relevant). You maybe thinking that copying my actual words would violate Wikipedia:Copyrights but you are wrong about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I went to add a 3RR warning on User:Amrit Ghimire Ranjit's page and saw a pointer to this. He's still reverting. [32] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am copying the text to include your activity How can it be copyright voilation? AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 04:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. User has barely returned from a previous 3RR block on 23 November. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Famartin reported by User:LiveRail (Result: Blocked)

Page: Incandescent light bulb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Famartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38] These last four are four reverts within one hour let alone twenty four hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39] His talk page betrays that he has been warned before, so he is aware of the rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Incandescent light bulb#incandescent street light. Others are objecting to uncited material in article. No other editor involved has exceed 3RR.

Comments:

–LiveRail < Talk > 14:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lake4455 reported by User:Kirothereaper (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of wars involving Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lake4455 (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. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45] [46] [47] User has been through this before and doing the same thing again.

Comments:

The user is following around and reverting all my recent edits; the article above is only one example, but also does nothing but straight reverts on multiple articles including [48] [49] [50] [51] showing nothing but bad faith and thinks he owns the articles. He has already been blocked for edit warring before, and it seems like the majority of his edits are nothing but edit warring ever since he created his account. Kirothereaper (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ukrainecriziz reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's edits:

1. Revision as of 11:29, 26 November 2014 adding "During the August counteroffensive against the Ukrainian milatary. Sepratist militia managed to push the Ukrainians out of the city and life slowly started to return to normal."
2. Revision as of 12:05, 26 November 2014 adding "During the August counteroffensive against the Ukrainian milatary. Sepratist militia pushed the Ukrainian milatary out of the city to smile and life slowly returned to normal in the city."
3. Revision as of 05:49, 27 November 2014 adding "During late August sepratist militia forced government troops out of the city. And life slowly returned to normal.<ref>"[http://www.dailysabah.com/europe/2014/09/02/prorussian-separatists-push-ukrainian-forces-out-of-luhansk-airport]"<ref>[http://en.itar-tass.com/world/750182]"
4. Latest revision as of 20:45, 27 November 2014 adding "<span data-ve-clipboard-key="0.387875659391284-0"> </span><span>In late August the sepratistss forced the ukrainian milatary out of the city pushing them north. Life slowly returned to normal in the city</span>

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:49, 27 November 2014

Diff of notice of discretionary Arbcom sanctions: 08:29, 27 November 2014

Attempt to discuss the dispute on article talk page: Talk:Luhansk#Removing the fiction of "life returning to normal" while under control of an invading army

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I chose not to sanction Ukrainecriziz pursuant to the discretionary sanctions as only the last revert came after the alert. Nonetheless, one week without a breach of WP:3RR is a significant sanction and deserved based on the biased nature of the content being added to the article. I alerted Taivo to the Eastern European sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:2.177.207.221 reported by User:SantiLak (Result: Blocked; semi-protected)

Page: State Bar of California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.177.207.221 (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. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:
Myself and other users have tried to discuss this issue with this user time and time again but they just revert edits and post walls of text in the talk page. We have told them that they need to acquire consensus but they have only ignored us. I have personally been called a "stalker and habitual vandalized of article who claimed he worked for the public entity the article is about" as you can see here and all of which is not true. I have not reverted any their revisions because I am trying to resolve this through discussion and I am bringing this here despite them copying and pasting a warning onto my talk page accusing me of such as you can see here. - SantiLak (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply: If he is trying to discuss the article, he should discuss the article and refrain from making anti-semitic and homophobic slurs. The article is about a public entity - he has edited his talk page where an administrator told him to stop vandalizing the article by deleting entire sections without discussion. 2.177.207.221 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never made any homophobic or anti-semitic slurs. This is just another example of the behavior of this user with these ridiculous things they say about other users. I also have no ideas what he is talking about when it comes to any admin. - SantiLak (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I blocked the IP for 72 hours for violating 3RR, making personal attacks, and making false claims about other editors. I also semi-protected the article for one month as the same individual has edited before using a different IP address in the same range. I would have only imposed semi-protection if the IP wasn't causing such disruption in other ways.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Uishaki reported by User:Infantom (Result: Stale)

Page: Category:Arab-Israeli footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uishaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Comments:

Uishaki violated a topic ban[63]. He's the one that added (unsourced) content and was reverted, so he's the one that need to reach consensus. Please notice his long history of warring, violations and blocks on these topics, including a topic ban. Infantom (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Infantom is forum-shopping. See this discussion between the two users at WP:ANI from a couple of days ago (the edit warring at the category also took place a couple of days ago and is itself Stale). I have no comment on the topic ban allegation. Infantom also neglected to notify the user of this discussion as required; I have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, the other discussion was 2 days ago and didn't get a response, so i thought it would be better to report it myself. the edit warring is stale because i stopped it for now(until the issue will be settled by report), not because there is an agreement. As for notify the user, you are right, i thought the user would get a notification by mentioning him. it's the first time i'm reporting. Infantom (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dcbanners reported by User:TheMeaningOfBlah (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Sonic Boom (TV series) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcbanners (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]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

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

Comments:

Violating the voluntary restriction which prevented him from editing the main page / talk page for one month. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. TheMeaningOfBlah, next time please include a diff to the report in which the user agreed to the restriction. I had to go hunting for it. Also, it would have been helpful if you had reported this when it happened, as opposed to a few days later. That said, I look at it like a temporary article ban, which isn't generally susceptible to stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to remember it next time. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:2.104.112.41 reported by User:Lneal001 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Median household income (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.104.112.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Median_household_income&action=history

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user, who is not registered, has never accepted my invitation (shown in revision history) to talk about why he is reverting without explanation. [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The revision page contains numerous examples of me talking to the user and invited him to engage in the Talk page, to no avail.

Comments: The user is verbally abusive, see the revision he made on Nov 4: "Go fuck yourself." Also, there is no reason for him to get rid of the citation I added, which for some reason he keeps getting rid of. Also, the consensus is to use PPPs when comparing incomes, which he also keeps impeding. In the Talk page we confirmed that PPPs are the consensus.Lneal001 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Blarpkin reported by User:Seahorseruler (Result: Blocked)

Page

Nick Studio 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635814915 by 123.50.114.181 (talk)"
2. 20:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635807212 by Mrschimpf (talk)"
3. 17:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635736922 by 87.254.229.53 (talk)"
4. 05:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635718920 by Mrschimpf (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No warning, but user is a DUCK of 162.254.144.149 who was blocked for similar behavior, see pending Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/162.254.144.149. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 00:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have warned the user here, however I don't see them stopping considering they've ignored and removed every other warning and notice placed on their talk page (including the notification about this 3RR thread). Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 01:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User has reverted again after warning --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:PolenCelestial (Result: )

Page: Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's edits:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments: User is continuing to edit war on the article about the sect he personally belongs to, removing or obscuring information about the sect's requirement that its members mutilate the genitals of their female children so that ignorance of this fact continues. The wording of the information included in the article adheres to international medical standards and the user is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI because he is personally involved with the subject matter and the intent of his edits is to protect the reputation of his sect.

PolenCelestial (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply:

- [72]: This correction is regarding specific information, the term FGM being forced by PolenCelestial, which is clearly written as FGC in the source.

- User:PolenCelestial is a SPA and joined Wiki for aiming partisan activity against particular community, seems to be a part of present controversy going on over Dai. FGM is a social deficiency worldwide, and Wiki cannot be used as platform for the reform targetting particular community. FGM cannot be described in isolation, it has to be described as general circumcision practice "khatna" (Circumcision which further refer to FGM). When sources are restricting themselves to word Female circumssion, we giving stress to word FGM in wiki, seems giving over weightage.

My earlier revision was intended with that motto. As per [73] User:Qwertyus also suggested “e.g., use "female circumcision" in the text like the sources do” with due discussion, and Rukn950 also felt : “I feel that this paragraph of FGM is leaning more towards one side than other. I think we should follow the practice of neutrality discussing and gaining consensus before doing any edit. One line mention is enough. with proper reference. I also feel that the references given are overkill. ( too many references, some are blogs and some internet petition which does not stand as reliable source.)”. Some source removal was done by me considering above ( I did arbitary removal, which I should have checked).

Hope admin consider the above facts, my intention was not to have edit war but to not to allow miscreant to use Wiki. SPA type editor doing mischief at Wiki may please be discouraged. It is my intention to keep Wiki norms above all.--Md iet (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Admins, I explained on the talk page that female genital mutilation is the only term considered accurate by the international medical profession. It is the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject and the term used throughout that article for this reason. I also defended my account against the WP:SPA accusation due to this not being the intent behind my account but rather I am a new editor, also I made a previous unrelated edit on the Spanish wiki and the ones I've made to Dawoodi Bohra don't violate WP:NPOV which is one of the requirements for dismissing SPA activity.

Furthermore, the user's claim that the sources cited don't use the term female genital mutilation is false, they do use it as do 27400 Google results [74] which upon examination consist of a very large number of reputable news sources which can also be cited if this is the issue.

The user also claims that I'm targeting a particular community, when in fact I added the information to the Dawoodi Bohra article because it's the only FGM group I'm aware of that is distinguishable by religion rather than locality.

The entire article on FGM is written from the perspective of the information I'm trying to include in the Dawoodi Bohra article. There aren't generally considered to be multiple sides to the issue, analogous to how the article on murder isn't considered an NPOV violation due to objections by members of sacrificial cults. PolenCelestial (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The dawoodi bohra article is not the place for discussion regarding FGM issue. PolenCelestial is straying from the main topic. too much weightage is given to this issue. this article has gone through edit war several times before .Earlier we had requested that before any changes made to this article consensus should be gained by fellow editors. PolenCelestial simply ignored this request and acts as the owner of this article. We are here to contribute positively to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and not the platform for imposing partisan views.Rukn950 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: )

Page

53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC) to 05:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "repetition deleted."
   2. 05:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 05:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

this user mdiet is warring with other users also like qwertyus, he has previously being banned too. Even other users like User:PolenCelestial have reported above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)&oldid=635372326

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)&oldid=635494544

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)&oldid=635735930 Summichum (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

All the above revision are done with intention to streamline the topic section wise avoiding repetition of the matter, and none of the information is removed. Everything is placed as it is word by word, with all the references intact, only deleting repeated sentences/ matter. May pl. have check on the individual revert mentioned. User:Summichum has used various means to disrupt Wiki activities for his partisan activity, joining Wiki to fuel the controversy, got banned several times and also succeeded in trapping me also once.--Md iet (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

this mdiet user is a partisan user who is trying to promote Mufaddal as the daee when it is clear that there is a big succession controversy where the deputy of the daee himself was a victim. Moreover when Mufaddal can use the stroke ridden body of his father to stage a farce ceremony which all witnesses accept that nothing concievable was uttered nor could have uttered due to stroke as reported by medical reports from the doctors. Hence I request (talk) to behave in a "wikipedian" manner and dont support the claimant who is following footsteps of the Muawiya\Yazid of the time who is using similar tactics of force to occupy the throne of daee and spreading malicious propaganda. Although I don't support any claimants but it is important to state both sides of the stroy in a non neutral way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 08:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )

Page: 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skookum1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Another now serious issue:

• It seems to me this editor is attempting an WP:OUTING He posted personal details [79] about me including what he says is my city's name, something not found on my user page or publicly disclosed on WP. He claims to have spent hours digging through my edits and appears to be doing research into my real life including Googling me), He suggests I represent an US Political Action Committee in multiple locations, and digging deep into my edit history for personal details, including posting another identity I may use online.

I've taken various steps to descalate, especially encouraging discussion of the article, not other editors, but the bad behavior has gotten worse.

• A quick review of his contribution history edit summaries indicate a person filled with rage. Since he may live in the same general area as I do (he names his own city in a thread I saw), and could easily or has discovered my real world identity, this behavior by a rage filled individual causes considerable concern to my personal safety.

• There are many very hostile comments here and here and here he tells Inthefastlane to "Go shove it and stop posting your bitching on my page". This behavior is exhibited on talk pages and in edit summaries.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80] and [81] and [82] and also [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84] and [85]

Comments: This round of edit warring is over a minor issue, but he did trip 3RR in 24 hours giving a clear cut opportunity to take steps to change his warring ways. I would not care much except he refuses to recognize what edit warring is, or what constitutes a revert. Worse this edit warring is part of a pattern of inappropriate uncivil behavior across edit summaries, article and personal talk pages and on the notice boards. To his credit, my cursory glance at the edit summaries on geography related topics suggest an otherwise good editor. It is when he edits terrorism related content that the problems get going.

May I suggest A) a temporary ban from editing terrorism articles and B) an WP:IBAN due to the OUTING behavior. This is for my own safety and peace of mind, and because he has said more inappropriate things about me to last a lifetime already and I fear potential real world repercussions at this point.

• Reply What a load of crock, this is just another "harassment procedure" like the previous one; @Resolute: has advised me as has @Veriditas: to back off, and Resolute explained to me the technical 3RR....while pointing out and cautioning LP and the other edit-warrior who is afflicting the article in question with ongoing disruptive behaviour that they, between them, were in the 4RR range themselves. A topic ban on terrorism articles is what I've been recommending for Legacypac. He's also lying that I OUTed him; it says straight on his user page that he's a "real estate developer in British Columbia" and somewhere else had mentioned Vancouver...he may nor may not be in Vancouver, he could be in Kelowna or 100 Mile House for all I know; the nonsense above re "I fear potential real world repercussions at this point." is rank AGF and also imputes I will do something violent against him, which is offensive and paranoiacally so in the extreme (I'm on another continent right now, and have been for a while now, which makes that even more ridiculous a thing to say). I've been WP:BAITed before as Veriditas cautioned me was what was going on; this is just more of the ongoing attempt to harass me for disputing his ongoing disruptiveness, which I am not alone in observing (cf DocumentError's ANI against him). He has edit-warred on the Ottawa article talkpage, refactoring/deleting comments by others as well myself; and while bitching about my criticisms of his conduct, which @GBFan: pointed out were NOT personal attacks (comments which he refactored with his deletion of an entire section - his first abuse of NPA/RPA was reverted by GB Fan and then, after disputing GB Fan a few times, deleted the entire section without proper cause, though in his own mind it's justified; self-justification being what it is.

He complained about his own name in a section heading, then added mine to it in the same breath (I took out both later; his own addition to the sect header in question was a rank NPA), and while he rants about "personal attacks" he has no problem at all with the other edit-warrior's direct slags of me on the same section on my talkpage he links above. This is a pot-kettle-black ANI and one in a long series of procedural hassles/kerfuffles very visible in his usercontributions. Rather than be a responsible wikipedian as he wraps himself in the flag of repeatedly, he is being the opposite in spades, here launching a second ANI against me while the other one is still open, as is the one against him by DocumentError.

A prime example of his ongoing habit of abusing and conflating sources is here - none of what he's added is in the cited article, no mention of ISIS, no mention of the Governor-General, and nothing like the analysis/account he gives at all. I reverted it immediately as the same government position (that the shooting was a "terrorist attack") was already in the article and because of the fake/conflated content he claims to have cited. Another good example is this on the 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu article, with the POV/OR edit comment "it was a terrorist attack by a terrorist trying to leave to join the terrorists in Syria." (even the RCMP say he was headed to Libya, his mother says he wanted to go to Saudi Arabia, not Syria); I reverted it with the very true edit comment "none of the links cited by Legacypac said "it was a terrorist attack", eg NP says "the government linked to terrorist ideology". Conflation and distortion of sources is SYNTH; the 3rd link is a blog so questionable)".

He has complained that my pointing out such egregious and dishonest behaviour is a "personal attack" but WP:DUCK is what it is, and calling a spade a spade is NOT a personal attack when it's dishonest edits and abuse of sources is involved. As for wanting a topic ban against me for all terrorism articles, I'm sure he's aware of this edit of mine today, removing SYNTH/OR/POV as provided by a SPA and putting the balance he so very much doesn't like on the Ottawa article there, rather than the overwritten semiarticle the SPA had created, out of thin air, with a clear agenda behind it and a false logic on distorted citations. He's not the only "terror editor" to behave like he does, cf. the origin of that SPA-entry or the ongoing edit war on the Ottaw article, which he has taken part in and has abetted, and now presumes to come here to seek not just a block on me, but a topic ban to get me out of "their" way entirely.

As for the IBAN for alleging I have OUTed him, I was viciously and slanderously OUTed by User:Sunciviclee re the infamous Vancouver Sun article linked on Talk:Adrian Dix and nothing was done to ban the editor/reporter who still "stands by his article" despite its incredible lies and distortions, and he never reported that responsible wikipedians, including some who don't like me much, restored what I had done. My actual personal name was OUTed, and nothing was done. Alluding to what city he's probably from is not OUTing, when he indicates as much on his talkpage (1/2 or more of British Columbians live in Greater Vancouver, which is about 27 municipalities in total). Really he's just looking for as much ammo as he can conflate/confabulate to get me out of the way of the "terror hobby" that his usercontributions give a very clear indication of. Presumptive launching of rankly hypocritical ANIs is a habit of his, and in one of the others he whined that there were two open ANIs already, well now he's made it three. That's abuse of process, pure and simple, as well as yet more hypocrisy.Skookum1 (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Skookum1, I've blocked the other editor you refer to above. Just wanted a clarification to understand your writing style. What did you mean when you wrote, "Yes sir, no sir, FU sir" and "Harassment by troll"? Also, after Resolute's warning to you, where have you mentioned that you're backing off from the article or from reverting? One amongst many comments that I see of yours talks about you deciding to revert as many times as the other editor places the contentious information? And why were you blocked the last time? I'm asking you to clarify the last block's information because I'm not quite clear of what personal attack did you do the last time that led to a block on you. I'll await your reply before taking further action on this report. Wifione ^Message 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Article protection would've been the better route, in this situation. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: )

Page: Gojoseon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cydevil38 (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. [86]
2. [87]
3. [88]
4. [89]
5. [90]
6. [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:

• Cydevil38 is a long-term disruptive user whose main activity is POV-pushing and edit-warring. In addition to the current complaint filed by Cold Season, Cydevil38 has been brought to ANI or other forums at least five times by four different users, an astonishing record for someone with only about 1000 mainspace edits:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive46#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Komdori (Result:), reported by Komdori, May 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252#User:Cydevil38 disruption, reported by Assault11, May 2007
• WP:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) (creating a POV fork), reported by Jiejunkong, August 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD, reported by Benlisquare, October 2011, with evidence of disturbing off-wiki racist comments
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time, reported by Benlisquare, December 2012

In addition, there are many other incidents that have not been previously reported, including:

• Long term edit-warring against multiple users on Template:History of Korea, pushing the fringe ultra-nationalist theory that Dangun is historical and Gojoseon was founded in 2333 BC. [94] [95] [96] [97]
• Removal of sourced content on Mid-Autumn Festival [98], [99], [100], the last revert by an obvious IP sock
• Canvassing [101].

I believe Cydevil38 deserves a topic-ban in Korea-related articles. -Zanhe (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:SunshineAwake reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

Page

Wi-Fi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */Added content"
2. 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */"
3. 16:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */"
4. 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */Added content"
5. 16:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wi-Fi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also warned for copyright violation[102], username[103] and promotion[104]. NebY (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by User:Barek. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:173.238.79.44 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.238.79.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

[105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109] [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[111] [112] [113] [114]

Comments:

The IP has repeatedly violated WP:OR and WP:VER, changing the verifiable meaning of two reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu has actually violated WP:3RR, and has also refused to give any consideration to other opinions than his own. He has misrepresented the source in question by using a statement to suit his own opinion, rather than entering the wording also used in the source. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack at [115] accusing me of atheist and anti-theist agenda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)